Jump to content

ASL Veteran

Members
  • Content Count

    4,808
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

ASL Veteran last won the day on September 3 2018

ASL Veteran had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About ASL Veteran

  • Rank
    CM Scenario Designer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Pittsburgh

Converted

  • Location
    Northern New Jersey
  • Interests
    Military History
  • Occupation
    Financial Services Industry

Recent Profile Visitors

1,518 profile views
  1. You can also find content created by the community at … I think it's still called the scenario depot over at 'The Few Good Men'.
  2. 🙂 well just so you know, when you set the headcount to 50% the game cuts the overall force by that amount and not necessarily each individual unit. The end result is that the headcount will vary from unit to unit - it might even be varied each time the scenario is loaded, although I'm not absolutely certain.
  3. I can't say that I've ever experienced this situation, however, some buildings do not entirely fill action spots when set up diagonally and some of the independent buildings don't fill action spots entirely both ways they could be set up. I can certainly see a situation where a building does not fill an action spot completely and a squad who is deployed in such a building might, on some occasions, end up with a man or two left outside within the portion of the action spot that the building doesn't fill completely depending upon where in the building you click when you have them enter it. In other words, if you select a portion of the building that completely fills an action spot then everyone should make it inside, but if you select a portion of the building that has half an action spot outside then your chances of someone being left outside are probably increased. I'm just guessing that's what might be going on in your example, but I don't know for certain. This might simply be an artifact of the action spot and a game limitation that can't be overcome with the current action spot system.
  4. The scenario comes with the Market Garden module IIRC - when the Fallschirmjager were added to the game.
  5. If there are problems with the patch then we do need to know about them, but in order for something to be fixed it usually needs to be happening on a consistent basis and / or reproduceable by Charles because if he can't find the part of the code that's causing the problem then he can't fix it. That's assuming there even is a problem with the code to begin with. Sometimes game behavior can simply seem odd because we, as players, assign our own logic to what the pixeltruppen should be doing at any particular point in time but the game has its own logic and sometimes those two things come into conflict in unusual situations.
  6. AI behavior could mean anything depending upon the context. He could be talking about the Tac AI for his own troops and if that's what he is talking about what is shown in the video could be unusual, although, once again, depending upon the context the 'friendly map edge' could be a determining factor here since troops will run back towards the friendly edge. However, he just asks about AI behavior and since the American force is the attacker in 'Sacrifice for a New Religion' it seemed probable that he was playing as the American against the German AI and that he was questioning the 'AI behavior' of his enemy. It's possible that he was playing as the German defender, but if that's the case he would probably have plenty of examples of American AI controlled troops performing the same illogical tactical maneuvers since the troops actions are timed. Only he can say which side he was playing and what difficulty level he was playing at.
  7. It's hard to tell from the video above from the MG42 perspective because we have to see through the building transparency, but there appears to be an infantry contact that seems to positioned such that the Panther is directly in between the firer and the target. It is a contact only, but the Tac AI will sometimes fire on contact targets that you, the player, can't directly target if you leave the Tac AI to choose its own targets. The hard contact does seem too far over to the left to put the Panther between the firer and the target though - but the AI can take some inaccurate shots on occasion. As far as the Panther commander is concerned, the AI does tend to button up a bit too slowly for my tastes, but in this instance I'm pretty sure that he isn't buttoning up because he is in the line of fire of friendly troops and doubtless nothing is registering on the suppression meter. If you place an MG on a map and set an Area target some distance from the MG, and then put enemy troops between the target and the firer I don't think the enemy troops will be hit since the game does not simulate Grazing Fire. It has been a while since I've tried it so I'm not going to say I'm 100 percent certain, but I'm around 95% certain. Well, my earlier testing and the fact that Steve has acknowledged that Grazing Fire is not in the game and that he has bounced ideas that he had off the Beta Team in order to get Grazing Fire into the game. IIRC the problem was the number of calculations that the game would have to make because the game isn't only calculating stuff at the end point or target, but rather calculating all points in between - which apparently the game doesn't do other than armored vehicles. Whoa, sorry for the late posting - I just clicked on the thread from the Beta board because someone was asking about the first page and I didn't realize that was three pages ago.
  8. I can't tell from the video where you are on the map, but the AI plan for the Germans has the forward units withdraw back towards the town at specific time intervals. The AI in the game is completely unaware of it's surroundings and has no clue what you are doing. The soldiers are simply moving to their next assigned waypoint at the designated time. This plan was also created with no triggers which makes it even less aware than newer plans.
  9. Not to disappoint you, but if it isn't enabled by now it probably will never be enabled since it's, no doubt, intentionally that way.
  10. When they appear on the map depends upon who can see them. You can set terrain objectives for one side to see or the other side to see, or you can set them for both sides to see or neither side to see. They don't show up when you are looking at the map in 3D preview mode and when you are playing they will only show up when the appropriate side is being played and the objective is visible to that particular side. When you are in the editor to deploy troops all terrain objectives set up within that side's victory section should show up regardless as to who can see them while playing IIRC. So yeah, the terrain objectives will appear and disappear depending upon how you are trying to view them and what part of the game you happen to be in at the time. Example: I can set a terrain touch objective for a house while in the Blue forces section of the mission objectives. I can then set that objective so that it can only be seen by the Red Force. Thus, when I play the game as the blue force the objective will not be visible. When I play the game as the Red force the objective will be visible as an objective for the blue force. When I go into the editor to deploy Red Forces the objective will not appear and when I go into the editor to deploy Blue forces the objective will appear. If I go into the map 3D editor I will also not see the objective.
  11. If you wanted to I suppose you could alter the briefings and upload the modified scenarios to The Scenario Depot. It's pretty easy to modify the briefings - just go into the scenario editor, locate and load the scenario you want to modify, go to the missions tab, select the side's 'mission' that you want to modify, select the 'Text' file and click the export button and the briefing text file will be taken from out of the game so you can alter it. You could even write something completely new if you wanted to and then just clear out the old one and load your new one.
  12. There were a lot of scenarios that got adjusted between CMSF1 and CMSF2 and every briefing probably wasn't gone over as completely as possible. In most cases I would guess that any briefing discrepancies between what is in a scenario and what is in the briefing comes down to the briefing being unmodified or not completely updated between CMSF1 and 2. I will personally confess to Baker 1-1. I think I detailed a lot of the changes in the designer's notes if I recall correctly, but I don't remember how much I altered the actual side briefings from the original since my objective was to modify the original. The issue with the briefings is that most of the scenario material that we were working with were from designers who no longer produce stuff for Battlefront and in many cases there were either incomplete briefings to begin with or in some cases no briefing at all. Going in and picking up what the original designer's intent was without any context can be difficult to do, more difficult in some cases than modifying some AI plans or Victory conditions. For example, for the briefing maps in many cases we wouldn't have a clue as to where the battle took place in 'Syria' so how can one create an operation map when you don't know where the battle took place? I didn't modify many of the CMSF original scenarios, although I tried to retain as much of the original as possible for the ones I did since ultimately it wasn't my original work. I didn't want to create something that was entirely new or that would erase the original designer's intent completely.
  13. I don't know how far along you are, but the only victory points each side earns are the victory points that you assign to each side. You should also assign each side an equal number of victory points in order to balance out the victory conditions. Sometimes that can be hard to do, but MikeyD's suggestion of the bonus points can work in those instances, but typically that is only going to work in a very unbalanced scenario where the side gaining them will probably have a difficult time achieving anything else. So if the only unit objectives that you have assigned are for 'German' forces destruction then only the Americans will be able to earn any points. You can offset that by giving the Germans a terrain victory location that they need to hold or you can give the German's unit destruction VPs for destroying American forces. There are also Parameter VPs as well as different variety of Terrain VPs to choose from. I have to admit that I've never tried to assign unit destruction points to non units, but I suppose it would be possible to assign VPs to something like a trench for example. The problem is that a trench is indestructible so I'm thinking those points would never be earned. Wire and mines I guess are theoretically possible to destroy I guess, but I'm thinking it would be more logical to leave those VPs out and just give the Germans a terrain objective to 'Hold'. So unit objectives for the Americans totaling 200 points and hold terrain objective for the Germans for 200 points. That gives each side 200 points possible so each side's available points are equal.
  14. Map fire, from what I can tell, was typically used mostly during periods of positional warfare and for the purpose of harassing rear areas when rations or supplies were being delivered or brought up. Perhaps a few missions might be fired at enemy HQ units located with radio intercepts and the like. The maps they would be using would be artillery maps that are created by units in the area and would probably include some ranging fire to confirm coordinates. I'm not sure there are many examples of a unit just showing up in a location and an hour or two later calling for a map fire mission on a crossroads that nobody had ever seen using a map where the coordinates and locations weren't confirmed by aerial recon or some other means. Even in a situation where you have the correct coordinates such things as barrel wear for individual artillery pieces will cause the rounds to land in unpredictable locations and with nobody spotting where the rounds fall the firing unit would never know. There are accounts where British artillery were firing missions thousands of yards short because barrel wear was unaccounted for. If that happens during a map fire you could have the correct coordinates dialed in but your FFE will still be way off target.
  15. Well, that and 'map fire' was notoriously inaccurate during WW2. For one thing, especially on the Eastern Front, the maps that a unit might be using could date from surveys done in the previous century (assuming a unit could obtain a map at all). I have even read accounts where units were using tourist maps with no grid instead of actual survey maps in order to figure out where they were. German units frequently complained that their maps had almost no bearing to what they were actually seeing with their own eyes either because the surveying wasn't done as well as it could have been done or because the area in question had changed over the course of the fifty or one hundred years that the map was originally made. You combine bad maps for the calling unit with bad maps for the artillery unit and your map fire mission could be falling almost anywhere.
×
×
  • Create New...