Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/14/2018 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    OK This one is the best one so far. I've been fascinated by the idea of modern constructions as 'urban fortresses' (of the sort that so often seem to feature in news stories of war zones) - this one is based around a football stadium, but includes some rather robust apartment blocks and shopping centres (featuring multiple modular buildings to give them interesting interiors and make them difficult to destroy), as well as suburban shops and houses and some wide open spaces (such as car parks). I took quite a long time clearing out interior walls in the larger structures, making doors match up and so on. There are few structures where you have to blow your way through interior walls, and some of them (the stadium in particular) feature large amounts of open space, long corridors etc. which I think is realistic. I also spent several hours adding street lights and one or two other flavour objects (streetlights in particular make maps feel really immersive IMO). There are aspects I'm not quite sure about (I haven't play tested all the interiors, so I don't know how much fun they'll be). The zip file contains the master map and some of the slices - not all of which are equally useful (just playing around at the moment). Maps download: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7fk4g2xz9v43mi6/Stadium_Map.zip?dl=0 Apologies for rough edges - I hope you enjoy it Here are some images:
  2. 2 points
    From the Horses Mouth. All QB Maps have multiple AI plans for both sides... typically 3 Plans minimum. Master Maps are not made by me. They are beautiful and historically accurate. They Do Not have AI plans
  3. 2 points
    Bulletpoint

    Combat Mission AI

    I think it's a bit beside the point to keep asking for more AI groups to fix the AI. It's a bit like saying WE NEED MORE HORSES... when what you really need is a truck maybe. As I see it (after some experience building scenarios) is that we need the game to interpret AI orders orders in a better way. When given an advance order, the units will just run towards the designated destination. If each team made a short (30 sec) stop each time they reached a place of cover (hedge, low wall, etc.), the order would be massively more useful. It wouldn't mean the AI would suddenly start acting like a world class player, but it would make it much easier for a designer to make the AI attack in a reasonably believable way. As it is, we can use an assault AI order (not the same as the assault command in the game), which makes the units of the group move in bounds, but the individual legs of the bounds are way too long, so units can't suppoirt each other, and no attention is given to cover along the way, which means units will happily run straight past a place of cover and then hunker down in the open field 30 metres ahead. Currently, the only way to do a sort of workable AI attack is to very carefully use a lot of individual move orders to micromanage exactly where each AI unit will end up and for how long, and then sculpt the landscape of the map to make sure the odds are stacked against the player.
  4. 2 points
    LukeFF

    Combat Mission: Pacific Storm

    Soviet fighter aircraft were designed for low- and medium-altitude tactical combat, and thus would have literally been gasping for air at the altitudes where the B-29s roamed. It's a similar problem the Japanese ran into and why the Germans looked for a replacement for the radial-engined Fw 190.
  5. 2 points
    Thing is though guys, it WILL feel like a completely new game once people start messing with it.....You better hunt down & kill those ISIS/Taliban etc. fast or they WILL be gone, through a new Exit Zone. Messing around in that zone may now Trigger an IED Triggerman to move into line of sight of an unrevealed IED. There are so many new things that can be done with this engine and the old game's massive TOE list. With a few tweaks to the old TOE (that's all that are needed) and the potential could be increased yet again. So while I'd love to see the game expanded, I'm more than excited at what's already on offer (and what just might realistically be on the cards).
  6. 2 points
    Pete Wenman

    Requests for AI

    As at Engine 4 this is now in game Page 103-104 of the engine manual details  Each AI Order can designate a Fire Zone for area fire. This is done by painting on the 2D map just like a Movement Zone, but by CTRL-left-clicking instead. The tiles designated as targets will be colored red instead of yellow. While that AI Order is being carried out, the AI Group will attack the Fire Zone with suppressive area fire if it doesn't have any spotted enemy units to engage or other important tasks to do. It is important to note that the Fire Zone is the lowest priority task for the AI Group. Other tasks, such as moving, unloading, attacking a spotted enemy unit, etc will take priority over shooting randomly at the Fire Zone.  Each AI Order can be given a location for it to Face towards. After painting the Movement Zone, Alt-left-click on a single tile that you wish the AI to face towards. When the AI Group reaches its destination, it will pivot or rotate towards the designated point.  By shift-left-clicking on the map, AI Groups can be ordered to Withdraw while moving towards their movement destination. Vehicles will move in Reverse to the destination, while infantry will leapfrog back while turning around to face behind them. Like the Facing Zone, Withdraw Zones are a single tile that the AI Group will face towards. For example, a vehicle given a Withdraw Zone will reverse towards the Movement Zone, while keeping its front pointed towards the Withdraw Zone. P
  7. 2 points
    Thanks both for digging out these references. One of the matters discussed in that thread is how match-up between the spotter and the firing unit affects response times. I did a bunch of tests with on-map organic 60 mm mortars and off-map 155 mm howitzers, with the following spotters: Battalion HQ Mortar Section HQ (the lowliest HQ but in direct command of the 60mm mortars) FO, assigned to the Battalion FO, assigned to the 60mm mortar section (tested for mortars only). All were regular, no leadership or motivation modifiers, and the missions were point-target medium duration/medium intensity approximately to the same spot on the map, with perfect LOS. I measured: "Receiving" phase duration - until the fire mission request is confirmed by the firing unit "Preparing" phase duration - until the first spotting round falls on the map (not applicable for on-map mortars, where I've included this phase in "Spotting" "Spotting" phase duration - until "fire for effect" order is given "Delivery" phase duration - until the first for effect round hits the map (for on-map mortars, until the round is fired) Below are the averages of (only) 3 tests for each case. It appears that Mortar Section HQ can reach its own mortars by about 1 minute faster than Battalion HQ, but in the three tests I did, it needed more spotting rounds (4-5) than Battalion HQ (3 in all three cases), so the delivery time was 6-7 minutes. Declared delivery times were 6 minutes for Battalion HQ and 5 minutes for Mortar Section HQ. Matchup with respect to force structure matters for on-map mortars, but not much. The FOs had a short receiving phase and needed between 2-4 spotting rounds. I can't say if it matters where in the Battalion the FO is attached. Force structure matters but not much. For the 155 mm Howitzers, there doesn't seem to be a big difference between Battalion HQ or low-level Mortar Section HQ in response times. Both have declared 13 minutes and achieved between 11:20 and 14:32. Battalion HQ needed 2, 7 and 4 spotting rounds, Mortar Section HQ needed 5, 5 and 3. The FO cut both communication time and spotting time by about a half, his performance matching the declared 8 minute delivery time. 2, 3 and 3 spotting rounds were needed.
  8. 2 points
    Bulletpoint, Not that it's a good look, certainly not from today's perspectives, these were two small cartridge boxes made from thin cardboard, not today's monstrosities with individual plastic cartridge wells, etc. That was all: no pop bottles, cans, or anything else. All we were thinking of at the time was having moving targets. This said, I was still suppressed and traumatized from nearly getting my head blown off, Indeed, it was so overwhelming at the time, the real import registered a bit later, after I'd had some time to process it. At the time, I was afraid Dad was going to die of a heart attack because he was so shattered and full of anguish over nearly killing his firstborn. A bunch of us learned some hard lessons that day, and I'm sure no one present ever forgot how close we came to my brains being blown apart. People have been turned off firearms forever by far far less. I came out of it with, shall we say, a unique perspective on the dangers of accidental shooting and the need for unceasing SA while in a situation with firearms in use. Regards, John Kettler
  9. 2 points
    Anyone up for Waterloo with minis at the individual soldier level? This guy's got the troops ready to go! Regards, John Kettler
  10. 1 point
    MOS:96B2P

    4.0 AI Withdraw Orders

    I can't get the new (4.0 Engine) withdraw or Facing orders to work properly. Most of the time vehicles will stop at their destination order map zone and turn their back on the OpFor. Then when it is time to withdraw they spin the front hull towards the OpFor, as they are suppose to, and back away. They seem to want to face their next destination order which means turning their back to the OpFor when the next order is withdraw. Also the infantry never seem to face the OpFor as they withdraw. I have tried about everything I can think of. Facing and withdraw cancel each other out so that didn't work. Any adult supervision would be appreciated.
  11. 1 point
    Freyberg

    Black Sea/Modern Map and Terrain Wishlist

    I'm having a lot of fun making urban/suburban maps for CMBS (as an old Sim City 2000 addict), and enjoying playing on them (although the AI is proving difficult) - the tall buildings and modern flavour objects make some very immersive modern city environments. As someone who prefers WWII, a good map, where I can really feel like I'm really playing in a modern environment, makes all the difference to enjoying CMBS. The maps that seem too much like CMRT are not immersive for me. I enjoyed the CMBS urban maps much more when I went in to the editor and added streetlights and traffic lights. -- So this is not a criticism - I've grown to enjoy CMBS (it took time) - but an ability to make more modern-looking maps would be a big advantage. My wishlist would include the following: TERRAIN landscaped and suburban flower tiles (visibility like wheatfields) Enable stepped terrain more easily - to create 1+m drops from one elevation to another (at the moment this only works with large gaps in elevation) FENCES Tall chainlink fences* modern lightweight fences (e.g. lightweight wood or sheetmetal) - a total visibility obstacle but not very protective, with tall fences passable with difficulty by infantry, but easily passable by light armour road barriers ROADS/PATHS steps Improved paved/highway tiles (I haven't been able to produce a good highway with the highway tiles - there seem to be some missing) ramps BUILDINGS all glass frontages garages (I've been using barns, but they look odd) A wall type for modular buildings that is open but with a parapet, such as you would have in multi-level car-park. Open-sided metal towers and stairs such as you see in heavy-industrial sites (the simplest form of which could be placed alongside other buildings to form climbable external fire-escapes) More modern houses and small shops The ability to remove floors in buildings (the way you can currently remove walls) to make large interior spaces) To be able to shift-click on interior floors to make them cement (instead of wood) FLAVOUR OBJECTS Billboards Highway overhead signs -- [ *this very good suggestion was made by Ithikial_AU ] in the thread happy-new-years-day-2018-look-ahead
  12. 1 point
    Rinaldi

    Combat Mission: Pacific Storm

    People consistently forget these points; and it bears re-iterating. Especially the war-weariness and manpower crises of everyone who wasn't the US. The RKKA probably had the most robust (re: the only) coherent operational doctrine, and had showed it in practice several times, but they made relative botches of the East Prussia and Berlin campaigns and gutted otherwise hardy veteran formations. The Ground forces remain the single greatest unknown, but I'd narrowly give it to the Soviets. The problem are force multipliers; the Red Banner navy and the VVS were lightweights compared to their Western counterparts, both in capability, training and doctrine. You read about non-stop carousels of IL-2s attacking and not really blunting or interdicting movement satisfactorily as late as Mius. The fact that the Germans had a light cruiser firing in close defense of its forces in 1945; despite the Red Banner army being only kilometers away, in strength and ready to pounce, is I think illustrative enough of their deficiencies. It's all academic of course, but the reality is the US and UK were forced by geography and circumstance to fight a strategic war that saw all branches truly fighting in concert, the USSR not so much - and that matters when a belligerent is half a world away.
  13. 1 point
    ASL Veteran

    Combat Mission: Pacific Storm

    Saying the Soviet Union defended 'us' is a bit of a stretch I think. They defended themselves and just happened to be fighting against the same opponent, but the Soviet Union wasn't too concerned about 'us' when the Germans were overrunning Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, France, Greece, and Yugoslavia. Good thing the Soviets sent the UK all that Lend Lease equipment during 'The Blitz'. Oh wait. Nobody knows how a conflict between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union would have gone, but the Western Allied Air Forces would have been difficult for the Soviets to deal with. I don't know how many fighter aircraft each side had available, but I don't think that the Soviet Union had anything close to the type of heavy bomber force that the Western Allies had. The Soviet air forces were probably not as tactically adept either. The Western Allied ground forces were smaller, no doubt, but the manpower reserves of the US had barely even been tapped yet and there were still several new divisions ready to ship by the time the war ended. There were also millions of US troops fighting in the Pacific who, once the Japanese surrendered, could have easily gone into the Soviet's Pacific coastal areas and the Soviets weren't going to be able to leave those areas undefended. US Air Force and Naval Air Force assets in the Pacific were substantial. The Western Allied ground forces were also much more mobile and mechanized than even the Soviet forces were by the time all those lend lease trucks made it to their motorized forces. It is difficult to imagine how mobile the Soviet forces would have remained once the Lend Lease faucet was turned off. Certainly after a few months of fighting the reduction in mobility would have become more and more noticeable. I don't think it would have been a cake walk for either side.
  14. 1 point
    danfrodo

    How CMBN made me enjoy WW2 era

    Speaking of Normandy battles, here's a book I recently read about 1st day action at the Orne river bridge by Brit airborne troops. What I liked was how it focused on the tactical combat situation. Just like in CM, it's hard with small arms to silence someone w sniper rifle or MG42 a couple hundred yards away in a stout stone building. Also it was interesting just how precarious the situation was until the beach-landed troops linked up. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ONZQ6RY/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title It's $9.99 US now, I got it on one of those amazon one day sales for $1.33. was a steal.
  15. 1 point
    c3k

    How CMBN made me enjoy WW2 era

    The Italian Army of WWII never really interested me. In so many games, they are just a 1 point army in North Africa, a parenthetical 1 or 2 pointer in the boot of Italy, and are removed from play on a surrender die roll in '43. Then I played them in CMFI. The strength of this game system is that is shows how having outdated tactical organization and equipment results in poor battlefield performance. There was no lack of skill or bravery among the Italians. There was a lack of proper planning for a modern war. The large, WWI optimized, platoon has its place: in the trenches against infantry. But not in open order against armor and/or modern equipment. CMFI is one of my favorite modules.
  16. 1 point
    MOS:96B2P

    Naughty or nice... here's some bones!

    Yes, CMSF2 is going to be a great game adoptable to many real world and fictional conflicts. So much potential with the imagination of scenario designers. I believe it will have more content than any other CM game. And at least for now it is the only game with IEDs, VBIEDs, civilian density setting, spies and unconventional forces. Really looking forward to this.
  17. 1 point
    Ridaz

    How CMBN made me enjoy WW2 era

    You're right! I knew I missed something. CMFI was the theatre I was most interested in until I read about the rest. XD
  18. 1 point
    Freyberg

    Simple AI Wishlist

    I've been trying to learn the AI (using Black Sea, because I enjoy creating modern maps) I want to create a fairly simple AI that does more than simply sit passively or attack aggressively - in particular I want to have tanks relocate from time to time to create more of a challenge, doing 'shoot and scoot' in effect, rather than just wait for the player to hunt them down (which commonly happens in QBs) - and I'm trying to do this with QB maps, because they are more reusable. At the moment, the AI allows you to do one of the following: a single action based on a terrain trigger an action or series of actions that happen immediately in sequence, with a pause of only a few seconds* an action or series of actions that happen according to a strict timetable (based on the game clock) (* using a Russian tank crew: regular , -1) I would love to have a series of timed orders, each triggered by the enemy reaching a certain phase line, but this is not possible - terrain objectives can only usefully trigger one order. -- My wishlist, most of which doesn't seem extremely complicated, would be as follows: SIMPLE THINGS Basic changes Armour should not turn around and face the rear unless given a dash order - but should remain facing the enemy's friendly edge or the last known location of enemy Orders: to be able to include pauses, instead of timing only by the game clock (this is huge - it would make the AI much easier to use for a non-expert.) a withdraw action that doesn't make a tank automatically pop smoke a hunt order (the advance order for a tank, even in 'careful' mode moves forward quite quickly) Triggers: a casualty trigger, so infantry can withdraw after a certain % of casualties - this could be unit-based or as a % of the whole force Other Let the designer of a QB map specify in the AI, which types of units will belong to each AI group (e.g. Infantry, weapons teams (e.g. grenade launchers & HMGs), AT teams, observers, light armour, heavy armour) - this would allow much better QB AI LESS SIMPLE THINGS allow an order to be skipped (i.e. 'can skip' option in order screen), to enable simple conditional branching triggers on enemy behaviour (e.g. on enemy fallback or enemy tank/s destroyed) triggers on intangibles/morale (e.g. trigger when 'overmatched') -- Personally I've found it hard to get a reasonably 'active' defence from the AI. If there were pauses and a 'skip order', it would be relatively easy to get some moderately realistic behaviour from the AI without being such an expert as can predict what the player will do. This experience has made me respect the map and scenario designers all the more, having seen how difficult it is - but if the AI were a little more flexible and intuitive it would help long-term noobs like myself contribute useful content to the community
  19. 1 point
    C'mon then.....Share those maps! I love mucking about with AI scripts on urban terrain.....Bring it on!
  20. 1 point
    Sgt.Squarehead

    Simple AI Wishlist

    Some of the things on your list can be achieved by workarounds, for instance pauses can be created by simply scripting more orders, tedious but it does the job.....However I can't argue with the general gist of your thread. I'd like to see 'Reinforcement by Trigger' (activate the trigger, get the reinforcement, or the other guy does) and a 'Hold For' objective (hold the objective for a certain duration or until a certain time on the game clock).
  21. 1 point
    Ha love that movie!
  22. 1 point
    Freyberg

    Requests for AI

    Thanks for that - apologies for being lazy and posting my question before reading the Engine manual (I'm reading that section now). I have to admit, there are a number of things - some small, some possibly a little less small - that BF could do to make the AI more responsive and to make the interface more usable. Some more things I would add to the (short and fairly modest) wishlist above would be timed pauses (not based on absolute clock time) simple conditional branching - this would only have to be very simple to add a lot to the game, such as a checkbox that would allow an order to occur even if the previous order/s had not been completed.
  23. 1 point
    Pete Wenman

    AI: triggers and pauses

    You might be misunderstanding the trigger mechanism just a little. The two times set the period for which the trigger is live (on the game clock). So a trigger will not work if activated before the first time, and the trigger will automatically activate by the end time if not previously triggered. However once live the trigger orders will activate as soon as the trigger is activated (the following turn). Keep in mind that triggers are not conditional and so will always trigger based on either being tripped while active, or at the end of the active period. (Although this can be set for after the game end, but doing so means the unit can be given no subsequent orders) HTH, but to be honest the best way to get your head around the concepts is to set up simple movements in the editor and replay them in scenario author mode until you can see the connection between the orders you have issued and AI movement you want to see. P
  24. 1 point
    Appreciate the clarification Luke, trust your feelings 😉 Sarge, the death star effect is my name for the unfortunate combo of game mechanics that allows direct fire weapons even of light caliber to rapidly spot, zero and shoot 'fortified' defenders all dead in their holes and even bunkers at range, again and again, consistently, even when they are hidden or cowering. RL firepower (at least in pre-PGM days) simply doesn't have that kind of prompt total lethality against dug-in defenders or else WWI would have taken a very different course. The 4.0 "run away! run away!" bailout bug compounds the problem.
  25. 1 point
    Off topic, but I'm so glad to find I'm not the only one with a book addiction.
  26. 1 point
    I wouldn't even promise that much, I'm just experimenting with things.....What I was attempting to do is point out the massive flexibility of the current CM:SF array, without any of the improvements that version 2 will bring. If, as I fervently hope, Steve & Co. are generous in their allocations of SIngle Vehicles & Specialist Teams, this will be an immensely flexible game. At present I'm having to muck about with my TOE in Mosul because current Syrian Special Forces don't have the SPG-9 in their default TOE, whereas the Iraqi CTS that I'm using them to model do have that weapon.....With the new engine and a bit of luck this may not be a problem in the future. Same may apply to things like ZPU technicals, if we can get 'Syrian Army' crews in 'em we're half way to modelling half of the world's small wars!
  27. 1 point
    Aragorn2002

    Happy New Year's Day! 2018 look ahead

    Besides and as I said before, there's hardly any real news from the side of BF in this thread, so yes, by all means share ideas for future projects. Why not.
  28. 1 point
  29. 1 point
    I'm sorry...but i really don't see the problem here... After all...the tread title is "2018 look ahead"...It seems to be a fairly OK place to share ideas for future Projects...even if they are not done by BFC... Many members are looking forward to some Irak/ Afghanistan...and anti Taliban/ISIS kind of scenarios using CMSFII...Good to know some are in the making It's not like he is going to charge money for his work...Simply mentioning that this is something we can expexct to see the comming year... As for this i think it simply was an answer to a forum member that found his initial annoncement intresting...
  30. 1 point
    I can only speak to Afghanistan, but much more time was spent hunkered down because of mortar fire or pot shots disrupting a patrol than pitched battles with the Taliban. In my own experience it was less pinned-down hugging the earth for dear life (most of the time!) and more that, okay we now have to deploy, find cover, form into a section attack and so on. That kind of suppression is modeled pretty well in CM, as you can't carry out a routine move under fire. e: Quick question since a dev has responded - in CM1, how did Human Wave, Assault and Advance work? Did units move differently under fire before?
  31. 1 point
    Am a bit behind on my reading and viewing here, but wanted to post this remarkable item on what's going on Monaco. Be sure to note land price comparison to New York City. This is apparently the first eco-friendly land extension project ever, and all sorts of actions have been taken to make it so. http://www.cnn.com/style/article/monaco-extension-sea/?iid=ob_lockedrail_bottomlarge Regards, John Kettler
  32. 1 point
    Sequoia

    Jäger Division

    C'mon guys, the Pink Panzers of course.
  33. 1 point
    Sgt.Squarehead

    4.0 AI Withdraw Orders

    Just had a quick look and it's much as you describe.....In my test the tanks moved forward to a sighting position (advance with face) correctly although one did a glamorous little pirouette before settling down, they then rolled forward to open fire (advance with fire), but as in your experience at this point they turned their hulls around to face their next order spots (advance with retreat). Clearly some more experimentation is required, perhaps adding a face order on the same tile before the retreat order?
×
×
  • Create New...