Jump to content

ASL Veteran

Members
  • Content Count

    4,935
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

ASL Veteran last won the day on October 17 2019

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

1,889 profile views
  1. Apparently the vision ports and 'spotting ability' from the earlier Soviet tanks are very poor. No cupola? Two man turret as well IIRC for the T34. No radio either. I can already hear the complaints about 'why can't my T34 see that Pz III sitting out in the open right in front of me?'
  2. The only way you would get points for destruction of the enemy without actually destroying them is if they have to exit. So apparently the scenario was designed for the Americans to exit the map somewhere - perhaps you are pursuing them while they are retreating? That's the only thing I can think of - if you start the scenario and the Americans begin retreating then your objective is to destroy the Americans before they can exit the map - presumably the opposite map edge. With exit conditions you gain the destruction victory points for every enemy unit that remains on the map (and no points for the ones that exit) and at the time you cease fired nobody had exited yet thus they are all counted as being destroyed. The game is working as intended - the designer might be able to have accounted for the possibility of an immediate cease fire by using some sort of parameters condition to offset it. At the same time though - who would load a battle up to cease fire immediately afterwards rather than playing it out? Not something most designers would think of or perhaps account for. Maybe in a campaign that is always a possibility, but I generally create standalones and so the possibility that someone would load up a standalone and just ceasefire seems remote. I don't know who made it (wasn't me) but I'm sure they just didn't think of the immediate cease fire option when they came up with the victory conditions or they either would have come up with something different or they would have accounted for it somehow.
  3. On the victory screen shot only one check mark shows so only one victory condition was completed. I assume that was one of the attacker's victory conditions - so obviously not terrain or a unit objective. What was the objective that you were able to achieve, was it just a parameter objective? Theoretically if you had a parameter objective of keeping say, fifty percent of your force alive and you get half the total points for that, then that could cause the cease fire situation becoming a victory for you. Especially if the defender has no terrain objectives and perhaps has a parameter objective that is the opposite of yours. It also appears from the in game shot that the Americans are all sitting on terrain objectives (probably yours) but from the victory screen it would appear that the Americans don't get any points for sitting on those objectives, so they must only be objectives for you (attacker) otherwise the Americans would have gained points for them - and yet they gain no points for anything.
  4. If the scenario is a defensive scenario then you would naturally start on the objectives and get points for them while the AI attacker would have to try and take the objectives. That's going to happen if you immediately ceasefire with any scenario that you are defending in. I'm assuming that you are the defender in that scenario, although I'm not familiar with that battle in specific. If you are attacking and you get a major victory when you ceasefire immediately then yeah, something is wrong. Not so much if you are the defender though since, by selecting ceasefire you never give the AI an opportunity to capture the objectives.
  5. Maybe an ROTC instructor required it for something. Many US colleges and universities (maybe high school too, although I don't remember for sure) have ROTC programs and there are a few military academies outside of west point (what's that one in Virginia - VMI or something?). Texas A&M began as a military academy as I recall and still has a large military presence.
  6. MikeyD might be overstating it a bit, but I have watched videos of players playing a scenario who say nothing when they get the drop on the enemy but complain bitterly whenever the enemy gets the drop on them - sometimes within the same minute of action. It's just the nature of the beast - selective memory.
  7. It just serves as a testament to that weapon's firepower.
  8. It would be more enlightening if you had the team selected during the video so we could see what they could see. If the team was selected then the tank wouldn't appear if they couldn't see it and it would appear if they could see it. As it is, the tank is buttoned up so … not sure what they are supposed to do to it. They could potentially have tossed a grenade after they stopped but it appears that the tank was knocked out already. They aren't being fired upon so no reason to stop moving to take cover. I don't remember if the hunt command stops movement upon spotting an enemy or if they have to be fired upon though so maybe the 'problem' is a valid one depending upon how the command works. Even so, it would have been better to have the team selected so there would be no doubt. Just the act of moving in front of an enemy unit until the team reaches it's destination doesn't really reveal anything one way or the other.
  9. A lot of things are put in training manuals and leaflets, but the actual fact of what happens in the heat of battle seldom matches the ideal of what a leaflet might expect. We have had discussions about what happens when a tank is hit by fire and I've collected as many first hand accounts as I was able to. Here is just one example of what happens when your AFV is destroyed in battle. As you hopefully can surmise reaching around and packing your belongings are one of the last things a crewman is thinking about and in most cases a bailing crewmember would likely be completely unarmed. There are many aspects of the game that is more forgiving than in real life - like the fact that in the game every crewmember who survives the killing hit on the tank gets out. In many cases that isn't true. The only instance in which the number of submachine guns being carried in the vehicle would be relevant would be in situations where the crew voluntarily dismounts and does some recon or something while dismounted.
  10. When CMFI was released it was not possible to close assault tanks with infantry in buildings - the only exception was open topped vehicles from the second floor or higher IIRC. However, a great debate ensued within the beta halls, arguments and sacrifices were made, blood was spilt, and eventually Charles relented and allowed infantry to close assault from buildings. If they aren't assaulting from buildings anymore then Charles changed it back while nobody was looking. So anyway, if someone says that they can't then they either aren't updated past whatever version was released post CMFI base game, or it was changed back for some reason without anyone noticing. Vehicles will usually need to be sitting near the building in question for a period of time before the infantry will assault it - it's not an immediate thing. Vehicles spot so well though that infantry don't usually get to remain for very long in such close proximity.
  11. The Blitz website and The Few Good Men website are good for finding opponents.
  12. I think you actually understand the situation completely, but because 'you don't have much of a problem with elevation restriction' you can't identify it as a problem. However, the fact is that you don't actually know if you have a problem with elevation restriction because it isn't in the game. Sure, you can eyeball your tanks and assume that they would always fire when you want them to, but inevitably there would be situations in the game where you might assume that a vehicle could fire and it wouldn't. It would just sit there doing nothing and in some instances where you exposed your vehicle to enemy fire by carefully positioning it in a location where you assumed that it would fire I'm sure your response to that would be - well I won't assume, but most players would immediately post to the forum that the game was broken. However, let's just assume for the sake of argument that Bulletpoint is always going to be 100 percent accurate in his assumptions about when a tank will be able to fire and when it won't. How many other players will make a mistake at least one time when positioning their vehicles? 80 percent? 50 percent? 20 percent? How many posts do we already have on the forum about 'my tank won't fire' and elevation restrictions aren't even a factor? I don't know how many scenarios you have made … perhaps you have made a few, but the idea that a designer can just spend hours upon hours micro positioning tanks at every point that they will occupy or potentially occupy just to check for elevation restrictions is pretty comical. It already takes many hours of work to create an AI plan (many aspiring designers don't even try and make their scenarios H2H) and in some of the bigger scenarios you will probably not be able to position tanks individually since an AI group will contain several tanks in it. It's already difficult enough to get all the tanks in one AI group to point in the right direction when you want them to let alone individually checking for elevation restrictions. That's not even considering the fact that any given vehicle might choose a different action spot to stop at when arriving at any given waypoint. That's also ignoring the fact that tanks in AI groups can be given orders where they individually stop in spots between waypoints designated by the designer - for example I can give a tank platoon an Advance order from one location to another and half the tanks will move and then stop somewhere in between waypoints - where? Don't know and I have no control over where they stop. How about the AI in Quick Battles? The guys who do all that work creating Quick Battle maps have no idea what the player is purchasing. It is simply impossible for an AI plan for a Quick Battle to account for elevation restrictions. So, don't get me wrong, I would love to have elevation restrictions in the game as much as the next guy. I would also love to have elevation restrictions in terms of where vehicles can move since all tanks can negotiate any terrain grade no matter how steep - short of cliffs of course. They also don't lose any speed while driving over said elevations. However, I also recognize and accept the reasons BFC has given as to why they haven't included these things. We were actually able to convince them to put some sort of penalty into the game for some of the extreme examples which crop up during city fighting so at least they added that in, but to have historically accurate elevation gun restrictions is probably never going to be in the game.
  13. Cut off at Koevering and Eerde Dunes were both included stock in the Market Garden module and were created by 'Jaws'. I found the original scenario threads in the beta forum and for Koevering he said "Thank you Broadsword! I never intented to make this a huge battle but it was like this in 1944 Only the forces of KG Walther are extra in this what if." I don't think he ever made a non what if version and I didn't see the bit about Eerde Dunes that made it a what if, but I think he added some additional forces to that one as well. I don't know if Jaws is still hanging around here, but he's the one to ask about it.
  14. The problem is that the game has no mechanism to identify cut off / hopeless situation so that's basically a non starter. For a lack of ammunition, I'm not sure you would want units to surrender automatically if they are low on ammunition or even out of ammunition because they may be in a position where they aren't threatened by enemy troops. Ideally there would be a way to code some level of awareness into the AI such that units could identify such circumstances, but we can't even make our pixeltruppen's suppression levels a trigger for specified activity in an AI plan so we are a very long way from having troops who are aware that their situation is hopeless. Just file this in the 'nice to have in some distant future' version of CM but not going to happen any time soon.
  15. There is no way to render an opinion on what you are describing without a screen shot or a video. Generally speaking, if you can see something you can shoot at it so my assumption would be that your vehicle was partially obstructed in some odd or unusual way or perhaps there was something going on with the state of your crew. For the 88s you don't need to acquire the ammo from the bearers. When the bearers are close enough to the weapon the ammo will automatically be added to what shows as available for the gun. You can easily test this by setting up an 88 in one spot with the ammo bearers somewhere else. Look at the available ammo. Then move the bearer close to the gun and look at the ammo again - you should see the gun's available ammo increase by the amount the bearers are carrying. If you don't want to be seen I think your best bet is to hide, although they don't spot as well that way either so - not sure what to tell you there. Spotting is as it is.
×
×
  • Create New...