Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Joke or no joke...that's actually true...😎 But it kind of limits the options...
  3. thought about that one too, but I don´t like a wimpy player scout team make a good defensive position get abandoned that easily. So again, some particular "If" trigger would be needed to make it work in more reasonable ways. But there´s other good uses for "retreat", either offensively due to deliberate smoke usage, or to bait a player into a trap or something. But maybe a terrain trigger works in reverse. In case an AIP unit gets to retreat through normal enemy fire & morale effects, one can possibly place a friendly terrain trigger to the rear of that unit (formation/group). In case the retreating (or evading) unit hits the friendly map zone trigger, then either that single unit or all of its formation can be forced to "retreat" to a position as selected by the mission designer. Needs lots of testing, the more if considering the TacAI´s irrational retreat & evade behaviors. But I believe there´s some possibilities. Since I very much dislike map zones to be used as "victory objectives"(occupy), they´d be all free for triggering AIP movements or combat order changes (i.e from hide to active etc). Think there´s lots of yet unexplored possibilities with all the trigger options, both for defensive and offensive AIP plays.
  4. I saw it first time around, and it was well worth seeing again. Just a shame that Aunty didn't re-show the brilliant 3-hour docudrama they made some years back as well.
  5. This was short-time episode in mid of 1944, when Germans were leaving territory of Western Ukraine and UPA High Command at last allowed to commanders to negotiate with Axis units and make agreements "weapon in exchange on neutrality and safe pass without confrontations and on recon information about Red Army". Before this decision the same High Command restricted any contacts with Germans and several local commanders were executed for betrayal, when they tried to make contact with German units by they own. Most good relations was between UPA and Slovakian units, they often supplied Ukrainians with weapon and ammunition and as a rule sabotaged any orders of Germans, directed against UPA. Most bad relations were with Hungarians and Russian Cossacs in German service, so weapon from them Ukrainians got only in battles. UPA was established in the end of 1942, so most of weapon until this unofficial pact in 1944 were got from old stores, partially from OUN members in Ukrainian Shutzmanschaft, which by the order deserted from German service and went off to the forests. Further the weapon mostly captured in different actions against Red Partisan, Axis occupation forces and Armia Krayowa. After 1945 most of weapon already was captured Soviet. Лента за лентою - this also could be Maxim %) Though, most of weapon in 1943-45 was German/Hungarian with some number of Soviet, taken in in 1941. Unlike Red Partisans, UPA as well as their enemy Polish Armia Krayowa, operated in Ukraine territory, hadn't centralized supply and solved a problem with weapon and ammunition and as they could.
  6. An easy solution to the problem of too few AI groups is to make smaller scenarios. Okay, that was a joke. I had filled all the AI slots in the last three scenarios I made, myself - and I'm not known for making particularly big scenarios. Still, there's a 'sweet spot' where force size, AI capabilities and map dimensions all fit to produce a scenario that works. If you insist on testing the boundaries of scenario design you will butt up against the outer fringe of AI capabilities. There's nowhere near enough AI slots to manage two battalions on a map but two battalions is an awfully unwieldy force size to manage at the best of times.
  7. This is my position, too. What I would personally love to see is the task of the designer being made simpler. My impression is that the AI already has a lot of power that is not currently being fully exploited. Some of the ideas above are excellent, such as 'if..then' routines, but I don't really want to micromanage AI plans.
  8. Great to see that vid. Thanks for sharing it. It's good to see this community getting some professional consideration. Congrats to BFC and Slitherine.
  9. Today
  10. Weren't they armed by Germans? No politics, just curious. That west Ukrainians folk songs: "Машингивери", "лента за лентой" - they are about Mg-34/42, I guess. DP was magazine fed.
  11. OK. We got 3 turns in this morning. I may hold off a tad in posting them to give him a chance to catch up. If I posted them now I'd be 5 turns ahead and that's probably too far.
  12. I think you may be about 2 turns ahead of his posts - I think. So far that's not an issue really because there is limited contact.
  13. I recall CMSF I being used just to show US Army logistics officers just how easy it is to expend literally tons of ammunition in a typical mechanized company engagement. I think that was just an individual initiative by the training school who had purchased several copies of the standard commercial game .
  14. Even the Beta testers were kept out of the loop on this project. BFC played its cards very close to the vest on this project. You're hearing about this now because Slitherine posted something, and what they discussed publicly is about as much as BFC can discuss publicly. Talk too much and we may wind up camping out in the Ecuadorian embassy trying to avoid arrest.
  15. So I did a little test because when I switched to an AMD GPU recently I discovered that the time it takes to load a game significantly worsened (with CM titles). I have discovered that of the game options texture quality has an effect on that. And only that. Model quality, shader, multisampling etc. does not have an effect on this. All times are given as m:ss, from a cold start (I have quit completely CM before starting the next test). Test hardware: Ryzen 3600X + 5700XT + 32GB DDR4 RAM + Kingston HyperX Savage SSD CMFI: Beyond the Belice scenario (tiny) loading times in accordance with the 3D texture qualities: Fastest: 0:14 Faster: 0:19 Fast: 0:29 Balanced: 0:46 Improved: 2:16 Better: 2:17 Best: 2:18 CMFI: Hot Mustard scenario (huge) Fastest: 0:46 Faster: 0:50 Fast: 1:01 Balanced: 1:12 Improved: 2:28 Better: 2:31 Best: 2:31 You may wonder whats the difference in picture quality. Test shots for each setting are here in QHD resolution: Fastest, Faster, Fast, Balanced, Improved, Better, Best
  16. I hope in the agreement you signed you specified that those improvements will be available commercially as well afterwards.?
  17. How are Ithikail_AU and I doing with the timing of our updates? Are we pretty close to posting about the same part of the battle as the other? I played 3 turns this morning that I haven't posted about but at the end of the day yesterday my posts were "up to the minute" and I'd like ot avoid getting too far ahead of him...if I am.
  18. It was an eye testing event he will be fine!!!
  19. Interesting - are there likely any spin-offs from the MOD simulator that could end up in consumer game? Funnily enough in Colchester most of the paras in barracks are on lockdown, or sent home - though their dep. commander is in doo doo after hosting an impromtu officers party.
  20. Well, from what I can see in the video, in this particular scenario the Brits are getting their ass handed to them, with several Warriors destroyed and AT weapons beeing defeated by Russian APS😬
  21. These are decent tricks but they are no substitute for more AI groups... More testing and tweaking is not what the scenariodesigners need... They need LESS tweaking and testing
  22. British taxpayer dollars being used wisely IMO. And best of all British taxpayer dollars being used to make BF more viable and able to make more stuff for us so we can play w our little toy soldiers and tanks. Win win. Modern Brits vs Russia does sound rather fun....
  23. If the AI is forced back while it is not in a prepared defensive posdition (expected by the designer)...things no doubt becomes trickier... One solution for the future might be to be able to 'lock' a terrainobjective to a certain AI group...the terrainobjective moves forward stuck to the AI group...sort of a circular cover arc...extending a set number of actionsquares around the AI groups as it moves...set by the designer. This would make what you desire possible even if the AI is forced back unexpectedly...That is... If any planer troops move into that arc...new orders could be given to the AI group...including a withdraw order.. But this is something for the future maybe...
  24. In a prepared AI defence... This is actually quite possible already if i'm not misstaking... Use a terrain objective infront of the AI possition covering the max-advance line of the players troops...as desired... When any player troops moves past (on to) that line (terrain objective)...use the AI withdraw command...it works perfectly well for infantry also... The troops will withdraw in bounding fashion and even use smoke to cover their withdraw... Covering groups will have their guns facing the advancing enemy...
  25. @Malaspina I read most of the book when R2V was released and started work on a 4*4 km master map to make some battles. But concluded that the slopes were too steep in many places to make the German positions close to the historic ones. So I stopped and might do some "what if" battles later on. It will be interesting to see what you come up with. Did you use a editor map overlay? I have some resources that might be of interest, drop me a line if interested.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...