Jump to content

RockinHarry

Members
  • Content Count

    2,720
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

RockinHarry last won the day on June 18 2019

RockinHarry had the most liked content!

5 Followers

About RockinHarry

  • Rank
    Senile Member
  • Birthday 04/07/1966

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Germany, Frankfurt wider area
  • Interests
    Wargaming, Military History, Relic Hunting and Music (actively)

Converted

  • Location
    germany
  • Interests
    Wargaming, music, treasure hunting

Recent Profile Visitors

4,538 profile views
  1. likely mentioned before. A 3D map editor would help making maps more intuitively and much faster. All that terrain placing and height mapping sort of stuff. Same time adding variations of certain terrain tiles independent from terrain attribute. I.e more visual variations from grass, or making a swampy (mud) terrain type look like grass and such.
  2. trenches in my games (pic from a CMBN mission). -1 m ditches and no sandbag mod applied. (Note: sandbag geometry is still there though invisible). Ingame they´re offering usual (lack of) protection with bits of the terrain mesh added as extra. They´re also level with the ground, at least visually. Added to this my animation mod that keeps pixeltroopers low in majority of cases when not moving. Concerns with FOW. If player cam remains at ground level (house rule), none. The AIP doesn´t care on "suspicious" terrain anyway, unless helped or made aware by use of terrain triggers etc. Player tactics (also applicable for AIP setup). Foxholes and trenches are usually spotted (automatically) around the ~400m mark. Keep enemy at a distance as long as possible and/or place entrenchments on any sort of backslope terrain (behind terrain mesh or objects). All measures combined at least provide me with an enjoyable and fairly realistic game experience.
  3. like MikeyD said. Could well have to do with last given (or self applied) face command. LOS/LOF obviously is given priority to "cover" in most cases in the game. Some my animation mod content deals with that and reverses that situation quite a bit (cover before LOS/LOF).
  4. what I figured during my own scenario testing is that the AIP maintains a security distance to his own nearby troops when calling for Arty support. That would be variable for the big stuff (105, 155cm and up) of about 2-300m at least and considerably smaller for mortars. Still I´ve seen oftenly that the AIP plasters its own troops with mortars, quite particularly when the AIP also is somewhat enforced to apply to a given movement plan. Most secure method for an AIP is to have or get a FO to a vantange point with good view to a potential bombardment area. Having an AIP TRP in any such enemy area yet is another option to get the AIP react timely and responsively to any enemy units in LOS. Whether the AIP prefers on- or offboard assets I think mainly relies on C2 (between spotter and Arty) and whether a sighted enemy is more mobile or rather static. Range to target and mentioned security range, plays a role as well, as is amount of available ammo and some soft factors maybe.
  5. So far I´d fairly good results with sunken trenches (-1m blue ditch locked). Usually the terrain mesh is the best cover vs. direct fire, but sunken trenches don´t give that much further protection vs. indirect fire. Though I haven´t experienced one yet, that sinking down of fortification objects into the ground might reveal some bug, like the one for pillboxes when sunken ones get vulnerable to any sort of Arty. Big problem in V4 currently. FOV could be bits of an issue vs human players, but not when playing vs the AIP. Some clever map edits still could make a human player guess about sunken trenches, but placing unoccupied dummy positions would be a further option. QB map makers can take this into consideration by adding a good number of ditch locked terrain just for that purpose.
  6. since the AI is higly dependent upon properly created plans, I´d take advantage of disturbing them as early as possible. Identifying HQ units (which is fairly easy for infantry type units) and then bothering them by use of snipers (preferably from at least 300m away) or some guesswork mortar barrage can turn a planned mass attack into a piecemeal one. Otherwise the already mentioned methods of keyholed defense positions and planned to retreat outpost defenses work best in most cases. A scenario creator as well needs to take measures to counter any that clever human defense tactics by putting HQ units (down to Plt level at least) in attacking AI forces into their own groups. Then there´s great opportunity to make good use of any triggered by unit or area movement schemes to avoid most of the messy and uncoordinated AI movements. Same pays off for an AI defense although it all involves lots of work an testing.
  7. like also to remind of the pillbox issues when mortars and artillery can easily penetrate and kill any occupants within single game turn. This holds up some my scenario creations from getting further since 2-3 years now.
  8. lol Just observing and watching for logical patterns. So don´t count on anything going beyond that.
  9. think I nailed it here: other than that it´s the rather simplified modelling of fortified structures (immobile vehicles) in the game, as is the AI obsession on dealing with bunkers in LOS. which likely won´t change til another game engine version I fear.
  10. keyword search usually lets pop up more of them, though not all under Frontschau label. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=german+training+films+ww2
  11. Yes, I´d assume the TacAI gets the correct timing (path clearing for next team) stored for assault move. Otherwise quick and fast moving a squad (or team) just means get everybody into the building as fast as possible and same time. "Assault" would be logical choice, even if there´s nothing to assault at all. Whether it solves some the various "move through wrong door" issues got to be tested. Maybe implementing assault move logic to "evade" (again a quick and fast move mode) would help on that problem too. But I fear the whole matter is more complicated than that (buggy buildings, TacAI cover evaluation, enemy/friendly map edge etc.) Would be nice if assault move also provides a sub move mode like "normal" move and "hunt", just for the better squad components timings. Same for AIP´s scripted "Advance" and "Assault" modes. So while the basic mode provides the leapfrogging for the squads components, the sub mode provides the speed and associated behaviors (for move and hunt). Also maybe adding "slow" like occasionally used for the AIP´s "max assault". Even if not empty there could be anybody hiding behind or in LOF. At point blank range no building provides reliable cover. In any case I´ll resort to assault move more, in MOUT environments quite in particular.
  12. it was rather a low res quick hack than real mod, but did the purpose well enough. Your combo looks really nice though.
  13. I haven´t seen move modes mentioned here yet (or I overlooked). I´d guess when it´s talked about "move" into or out of a building with a full squad, the "quick" and "fast" modes are meant? I´m as well used to use "quick" and "fast" for getting a full squad into a place but think the more appropiate mode would be "assault" actually, even at very short distance. In this mode the TacAI actually should sort out itself coordinating a squads individual components in timed and coordinated manner, thus avoiding the worst bottleneck situations. If first assault team reached its place then movement paths are cleared for the next team movement to the same location. That´s from my understanding and the same way a scripted AIP does (advance, assault and max assault modes). Manually splitting teams needs the same coordination, meaning don´t move another team in until the first (or 2nd) is already at its destined place. Otherwise the TacAI might think not all 1m movement nodes for path finding are yet available and thus reroutes remaining squad component through a currently available free path (or nodes). This then could be the dreaded door at the wrong (enemy) side of a building. The interesting part would be when the TacAI considers a path beeing cleared/free for subsequent movements. In case of buildings, it is when team members finally gathered at assigned windows/doors, or already when all moved through the door bottleneck? Think from now on I´ll use "assault" in urban environments more, even If I don´t actually want to assault anything. Just to see if it helps on the bottleneck situations. A related problem (already mentioned elsewhere) I found is german squads with a certain guy in 2nd team firmly assigned as assistant gunner to a lMG (squad with just 1 lMG). I oftenly see happen this particular single guy staying outside a building when he (the TacAI) couldn´t sort out his place beside his lMG gunner already positioned inside the house. The same situation can get worse if a squad has 2x lMG´s. This is a case where BFC definitely needs a deeper look at path finding, particularly inside buildings.
  14. lol Although that stuff is not the worst when I move into local woods with my metal detector. I like the idea though. For some my mission I made a high grass substitute looking like fern and placed in certain woods looks fairly convincing. My vote in any case for more biodiversity.
  15. you have a point. Mentally exhausting.. maybe yes. But physically? Hm... Like many the other more abstracted stuff in the game there might be more under the hood not mentioned in the game manual....
×
×
  • Create New...