Jump to content

Macisle

Members
  • Content Count

    1,589
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Macisle last won the day on March 7

Macisle had the most liked content!

About Macisle

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think you guys are right about the TacAI logic used here. I finished up the battle and...the team survived! Only the leader bought it when they first displaced. I managed to get enough bodies on the line to prevent the GIs from concentrating their fire on the gully team. One of my reinforcement teams was an HMG and over a few turns fire superiority went my way on that flank and I held it. I had to work it though! The 3-man rifle team ended up being vital, as they were properly falling back to the foxholes when things got too hot. I kept sending them up the the low bocage line to draw fire to take the heat off the other units. That appeared to be just enough to let the HMG team get set up.There was a movie moment when a US command team out of LOS suddenly crested the hill while the rifleman trio was back in their foxholes. They traded fire and the trio lobbed a grenade at the HQ team before German medium range LMG fire finished off the rest of the charging Amis. Which reminds me, the gully team did fall back to the foxholes at least once earlier. I can definitely see the TacAI logic here in terms of the elevations. However, from a realism standpoint, I can't see a team charging out in the open like that, unless they were being flanked and their rear was compromised. I think in real life they would almost certainly go for the foxholes. That's actually precisely why I put them there in setup. So, it seems like we have a situation where the TacAI is performing nearly perfectly most of the time, but then suddenly brainfarts and falls on its sword over a technicality. In this situation, falling back to the foxholes was the "perfect" behavior, which the 3-man rifle team did at least 3 times and the gully team did at least once early on. Then, the gully team brainfarted on best choice of cover -- choosing the depression for "relief" from the most pressing enemy team, and in so doing, losing the much better general protection of the foxholes. For my part, I'd really like to see if BF can somehow cut that brainfarting. As we see, the TacAI is getting it right most of the time, which means the code is getting it right most of the time. However, when it gets it wrong, it blows the immersion because it seems so out of place in terms of realism. Is there not a way to tweak the code so that the TacAI will put more weight on things like friendly side and foxhole/cover locations? As people have pointed out, this seems to have been a case of the TacAI overvaluing the gully at the expense of better cover. Is there any way to tweak it so it doesn't? Other than the saga of the gully team, TacAI movement seemed very good for both infantry and vehicles. There were a number of epic moments (I wish I had time to do a viddy!). The battle ended with the last Ami tank charging in on the other flank just at the moment when my Stug freaked out over approaching infantry and suddenly backed away from its overwatch position. The Sherman was pointed right at my remaining LMG teams on that side and was about to shoot them up when...one of my alamo PF teams hiding behind a building saved the day. It was beautiful.🙂 It was an excellent little battle. In hindsight, I may have overdone it with the mines, TRPs and 105mm. They wreaked havoc. However, I certainly had the chance of being overrun and wiped out and really had to work it with my micro-play at a number of points. The US started with a company of infantry, plus the battalion pioneer platoon. Dispersed among the platoons, they had 5 Shermans, 2 Stuarts, and 2 gun carriages. They also had a beefy amount of arty. I had one grenadier platoon with an attached Pak40, one regular Stug, the company HMG squad, an FO and one battery of medium howitzers. The US had two approaches, (my) far left and far right. On the left, I put most of my AP mines (4, IIRC) at the river crossing, along with my single AT mine. To cover that side, I had the ATG, my best infantry squad, and the platoon HQ team. On the right flank, I had two infantry squads, my single PS, and the Stug. The 2 HMGs and their HQ team were in the center with keyhole fire positions to keep them safe from enemy AFV overwatch. Their initial job was to deal with any infiltrators and serve as the infantry fire brigade. The FO was forward center in a building with the best view. The battle started out with the US pioneers and gun carriages pushing on my left flank. My FO and the ATG dealt with that handily. The AI then backed it up with the Stuarts and more infantry. The Pak40 knocked out the Stuarts, but then the US landed a howitzer round right in the pickle-barrel and knocked out the ATG. US arty kept my boys heads down there and some US infantry infiltrated along the riverside woods and fed into my center (good job, AI Plan!). My center HMGs then relocated to deal with them, but things devolved into a close range standoff with remaining US strength there unknown and any movement looking risky. The US units that made it to the center appeared to be the weapons teams (light mortars were off map). The right flank was quiet. Shermans then showed up in the center and finished locking down my HMGs and the FO (more kudos to the AI Plan!). I didn't know if they would go left or right. My left was down to PFs AT-wise , so I decided to relocate the Stug to center to make it better available to deal with the enemy's advance when it decided to make a move. My PS was in the building on the right, serving as a ranged AT screen for any tanks attempting to cross there. During the mid-battle period, the Stug stayed out of LOS in the center while new Shermans showed up on the left and moved to overwatch positions there. The center Shermans stayed put and some US infantry started filtering towards my right. For awhile, it went like this: On the left flank, US infantry filtered in with Sherman overwatch. My two LMG teams there (one was the ATG ammo team) played cat and mouse to disrupt the advancing GIs while avoiding Sherman response. Meanwhile, the squad command team and platoon HQ stayed in ambush positions using buildings and foxholes. Both sides exchanged arty fire on that flank. A Sherman got one shot in that took out two men in the infantry LMG team, but the US arty was largely ineffective due to my proactive micro-work. On the right flank, my two squads exchanged fire with the Amis and US arty occasionally forced everyone to take cover. The Stug stayed out of sight at center while I called in arty on the overwatching center Shermans. I was tempted to try to take them out with the Stug, but judged that the risk was too high of a Sherman landing the first shot from the available angles (nearly frontal). I decided to peel off a PF anti-tank team from a squad on the right flank and send it center. Initially, it would team with the Stug for better eyes and then move left, if needed, for AT coverage on that flank. After the first couple of harrassing rounds landed near the center Shermans, one started to shift to my right flank, as if to support a crossing effort there. That gave me the chance I was looking for. I was able to move the Stug at center unbuttoned into a keyhole overwatch position, along with the adjacent PF team for extra eyes. I had just enough time to get the Stug into position before the Sherman entered the keyhole. Spotting was a bit iffier than I hoped, but the Stug eventually got LOS and smoked him. Then, the next Sherman followed and met the same fate. Meanwhile, on the left flank, a Sherman pushed forward across the river and ate a mine. I judged that it was safe to relocate the Stug to the left flank now, so I sent him there via the safest back route, with the PF team following along later. It was around this point that the right flank infantry battle heated up, leading to the gully team incident. On the left, the Stug got into position. The end-game period went like this: On the right, I moved one of the now unlocked HMG teams to provide support. The other HMG team and its HQ stayed center, but I eventually moved the center HMG a bit left to provide fire support against US infantry infiltrating on that flank. The HQ stayed to monitor unknown infiltration center. The right flank battle was touch and go for awhile after the gully team did its thing. But, by carefully micro-managing a depleted LMG team in an overwatch building (no LOS to the Amis that shot the gully team leader), the PS team, and the newly arrived HMG team, I was able to hold the flank. On the left, things got dicey with two Shermans making it across past the mines and US infantry putting pressure on my infantry there. Oh, and I forgot... Earlier, an amazing long range rifle shot from the US infantry at center took out my platoon leader as his team was displacing across the road. Grrr! Anyway, my guys were in alamo keyhole positions there with the Stug obliquely covering the road up from the river from semi-hull down, offering a good chance of first shot. Eventually, a Sherman charged forward and the Stug took it out, right before it was about to slaughter my LMG teams. Then, just as the final Sherman was making its push, US infantry spooked the Stug and it backed out of LOS. The Sherman charged right into my alamo and one round would have been enough to wreak havoc, as all the available PFs were just out of range. All, but one that is. the last two men of the platoon HQ had one PF and they were hiding behind a building beside the Sherman. They made the shot. My LMG teams, now safe, joined the HQ men in taking out the bailing tank crew. The Americans then surrendered. I know the story is a bit off-topic, but hearing AARs from battles played on a designer's map is chicken soup for the designing soul, so I thought I'd post it. It was a fun battle and though I got a TV, it could have gone very differently. Oh, and the center threat turned out to be a ghost threat. The Amis there were all dead!
  2. Thanks, Mark. I'm the defending Germans in this one. The AI is controlling the attacking Americans. I just sent you a copy of the turn replay. I did a quick check in the Editor and didn't see any problems with the unit formations. -Will report if I find any.
  3. I haven't had much time to play with the new patch, but I think I just encountered the problem folks are talking about. I'm kicking the tires on one of Mark Ezra's excellently crafted "2019" series QB maps (thanks, Mark --beautiful work!) as the defending Germans. My guys have been hit with arty a number of times and they handled it very well. However, a burst of enemy small arms fire just triggered a suicidal move by one of my teams that can't be rationalized and looks like the potential issue being discussed. As you can see, the team is regular, with a +1 leader and high motivation. They are on high ground behind a line of low bocage with the friendly map direction and foxholes right behind them and the enemy fire coming from the enemy map direction in front of them and from some advancing Americans to their right that have crossed the river. The small arms fire causes them to panic, leave their cover, and run out into the open down the slope toward the enemy. This, despite the safety offered by foxholes and a building right behind them -- both in the friendly map direction. As you can see, they are now in quite a pickle and the Americans waste no time in shooting them up. The leader being taken out first. There is no gap in the bocage/hedge line at this point and it looks like they exited into the open via the point where the low bocage touches the adjacent, passable hedge. The suicide of this team is likely going to cause a ripple panic among nearby units and crumble what was a firm flank -- until this happened.🙁
  4. Muh boys finally getting to go weapons-free after the none-too-soon death of "Fury Panther."
  5. Congrats on the patch release. Thanks to all who worked on it. I had no issues installing it across my titles.
  6. Of course, you can do that. But then you have two ugly empty frames at the top staring at the player, creating a distinct impression that something is missing. And thus, your scenario starts with an unmet expectation and the player likely feeling that the scenario designer's work is sub-par. Why force designers to eat that if they don't want to add graphics? A no-graphics option would be very simple way of eliminating the problem. All BF would have to do is extend the briefing text frame to cover the entire area of the current three frames. Everything else could stay the same.
  7. I'd agree that giving the designer more flexibility in how to approach the breifing graphics would be a good thing. The current system is a bit awkward, especially with regards to fitting a tactical map in the space provided (one of the dimensions always seems to be fighting the space). However, I'd still highly recommend adding a visually acceptable no graphics briefing option, as I genuinely think that adds an unnecessary time hurdle for designers. People who want to do graphics could still pour out their creativity, but those who want to limit their application to the scenario crafting itself would be free to do so without taking an automatic negative hit on presentation.
  8. Lots of good points in this thread. Two more things to add: Having two briefing presentation options, one with and one without graphics, might help. The with option would be like it is now. The without option could be a layout that looks complete with only briefing text, like say, the text on top of a stock wallpaper graphic with all the other graphic frames removed. Taking away the workload of having to provide graphics (with ever-increasing expectations) might help more designers opt to go the extra mile to make their work public. A big part of the reason that there are not more public scenarios is that the workload increase from private to public scenarios is HUGE, while the payoff for making a scenario public may be minimal, or basically nothing. So, unless you really enjoy the whole process of producing a public scenario and don't require any real feedback or acknowledgment, you are likely not to opt to go public with your work once the novelty of doing it wears off. It's really a question of time investment vs. reward. Once you know your way around the Editor, you can create very enjoyable content in a very small amount of time using house rules to cover any rough edges. So, say, 30 minutes in the Editor might give you between 1 and 3 days of entertainment. And, if you go big and do like 60-120 minutes of setup, you might get weeks or even months of fun with a private monster battle. But, if you decide to go public with it, instead of 30-120 minutes of setup and days or weeks of fun play, you are looking at days and weeks of setup and personal testing, producing graphics, finding testers, getting feedback, tweaking, testing. In other words, you've just added a job to your life, the payoff for which might be little to no feedback and no money. So again, unless you get adequate personal satisfaction from the whole process and don't require much or any reward beyond that, it's not a hard call. I would REALLY encourage players to learn the Editor and get into making personal scenarios, though. Once you know your way around well, you've got unlimited play value in your CM title and it's not hard to produce very enjoyable, scenario-like content. Working in the Editor can become an enjoyable hobby in itself that even rivals the fun you get from playing the game. As for things that might facilitate more public scenarios, basically, anything that reduces the designer workload/time requirement would help. Being able to copy-paste map sections and copy-rotate buildings in the 3D view would be an epic time saver. However, that seems like a mighty amount of work on the coding side. For now, I'd say the no-graphics briefing layout option could be a good, very low-cost way for BF to take some of the workload off both would-be and veteran designers. That could yield some fruit in the way of more public scenarios.
  9. I've no idea. Definitely after the CMRT module is released. I've got a ton of work left to do, and also want to integrate goodies from the module. Right now, I'm on yet another forced break for work. Currently, I'm planning to divide the master into 4 slices. Of those, slices 1 and 2 are finished except for final tweaks and flavor objects. Slice 3 is about half finished and slice 4 has not been started yet. Originally, I was planning to have folks playtesting the areas that were at the final polishing stage while I worked on others, but I ran into a graphics glitch that I couldn't solve. Long story short, I can't get more than 8 modular building textures to work in a texture pack and I need 16+. Current status is that if a person has my exact mod folder setup installed, they see the correct textures. Anything else yields mismatched textures on muliti-section modular buildings. Stock textures as a control for testing don't help and neither does a fresh reinstall. I'm burnt out on troubleshooting and will tackle it again after the CMRT module comes out. Hopefully, the stock textures in that will serve as a better control and allow me to solve the problem. In the meantime, here are a few more screenies I had on my hard drive, taken from a little testing I did as Soviets on defense: Tiger on the advance (I forgot to add a dismount command, but it yielded some crazy cool firefights, as the Germans were high-quality and put up a bit of a fight, despite being riders). Alley ambush. There are lots of these little alleys on the map. -Should be quite useful for both sides, especially for the Soviets when up against local counterattacks. Armor ambush. A deadly corner. However, a shoot and scoot flanking shot by an additional T-34 actually saved the moment for the ambushing Soviet tank covering the street.
  10. I just found some screenies I forgot I took. I may as well post them, as they show some cool close quarters fighting and don't give away any secrets. Here they are: A scout team discovers a full squad of Germans and is taken out. Several teams are then sent in to attack from different sides. Bodies start dropping and some Germans begin moving outside. The schreck man makes a run for it. He doesn't make it. More men drop as the Germans continue to filter outside. One German surrenders. However, a winner is unclear and both sides are sweating the encounter. Until... My final team in lets go with its last jet of fuel. That does it for the Germans and the few remaining men start to bug out across the street. But...only to discover that the Soviets now have it well covered.
  11. Oh, wow. That's gonna' be a major upgrade! I just went from a GTX 550 Ti 2GB to a 1060 6GB and that made a massive difference in map size usage. Once I upgrade my MB, I should get even more juice out of the card, as right now, it's having to slum it in a PCIe2 slot instead of the 3 it wants. Yeah, I'm also more interested in the 41/42 period. I would LOVE to have units from that period to play on my map. I've done some fun playtesting using Sicherung troops to simulate earlier German units by adding an LMG34 team for each squad. That gives the right weapon mix, except for the occasional PF. Soviets are harder as all the formations and teams in CMRT are pretty light on the number of Mosin Nagants. I sure wish we could fully customize -- or had access to earlier formations and teams. One playtest I did was trying to dig fanatic green Soviets out of a factory area using simulated early period German veterans supported by PIIs (used the Stalingrad mod textures for the PIIs). Big fun.
  12. Thanks! CMRT has a certain magic for me. I was always a Western Front guy, but somehow, CMRT got me in a way that CMBB didn't and it hasn't let me go yet. Since the title came out, my WWII interest area has shifted a lot more to the EF as well. I'll probably be upgrading my CPU, MB and RAM before the map gets finished. That will determine if I think the whole map can be used at once. Probably not. However, even if it can, the 4-hour limit might be too prohibitive to make it across the map without having to resort to suicidal advance speeds. Either that, or I go way light on unit density -- which I don't want to do. So, 4 very long battles will likely still be the format. I sure would like to be able to do a CMx1 style operation with this. From what I remember, that would allow for permanent damage (and wrecks? It's been so long...I think they stayed, didn't they?).
  13. Thanks! I was sorely tempted to show more, but I don't want to give too much away. There were lots of image and video-worthy moments in the fight. After two separate medium howitzer attacks on the factory, a heavy howitzer attack very near, and the collapse of multiple sections, there were still defenders putting out strong fire when I tried to advance. So, I brought up a tank, took out the defenders I could see and dropped the last section in the south-facing row of sections. Then, exactly what I thought might happen did. As the section collapsed, a schreck man in the section still standing behind it appeared out of the smoke and burned my tank. Classic, and exactly what I'm trying to do with these constructions. At the end of the fight, the remnants of quite a few defending units had all piled into the two-story building extension on the north-facing side (you can see it in the picture of the real building). That was the last part of the building that was totally safe from fire. Honesty, I'm pretty impressed with how the TacAI is handling this kind of terrain. It seems to use it significantly better than it does stock urban maps -- both in setup location choice and routing paths. I'm very pleased with the combat and building path bugs/oopsies are no worse than on a stock map.
  14. Okay, last picture post before I go into my cave for a few months. I've made some good progress over the last few weeks and just finished kicking the tires on a fresh-out-of-the-oven block section near the NE bridge. Screenies: Soviet MG team moving forward (the wall on the right has no windows in real life either). German defenders engaging while they still have fire parity. They lose it once the MG team gets into place. Aftermath on the south side of large factory overlooking the NE bridge. This building will be the scene of epic contests and/or frequent flattening, as it provides superb overwatch of the NE bridge for infantry. Not much will get across as long as the defender has at least one form of MG and a panzerschreck in there. The factory in real life from the north side facing south. The on map building has the same view of the bridge. You can also just make out the apartment building at the far right. That will need to be neutralized for safe bridge crossings, too. Of course, the attacker will have to think about what he wants to keep for his own future overwatch positions as well. Spend the resources to take, or flatten? That's it for now. Over-n'out!
×
×
  • Create New...