Jump to content

RockinHarry

Members
  • Content Count

    1,928
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

RockinHarry last won the day on September 28 2015

RockinHarry had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About RockinHarry

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 04/07/1966

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Germany
  • Interests
    Wargaming, Military History and Music

Converted

  • Location
    germany
  • Interests
    Wargaming, music, treasure hunting

Recent Profile Visitors

2,553 profile views
  1. RockinHarry

    Scenario designing with AI

    I meant shellholes & cover t errain generally at the leapfroggin range (if distance between 2 zones is larger than mentioned 60-80m) or within the destination zones. It´s the zones the Pixeltroopers stop anyway, either for beeing in wait mode to let the leapfroggers catch up and overtake, or final zone as said. Other factors left aside (getting pinned from fire ect.) Doesn´t work always off course, but I found this gives me a much more reliable and "safer" AI movement scheme. So when in doubt, I do not necessarily adapt AI order types and zones, I also give adapting the map some heavy consideration. As you mention the AI move orders otherwise also look pretty random to me, but to some extend I could overcome parts of that by using specially shaped zones at intervals, as described on page one of the thread (intermediate T-Zone scheme).
  2. RockinHarry

    Scenario designing with AI

    Thanks, I can compare the situatioon well with my scenario over at TSD3 as I have an AI US (mostly infantry) force set up to attack a fortified german player. http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cm-battles-for-normandy/cmbn-v4-mg-vp-you-enter-germany-introduction/ IIRC I as well split up the US Plt HQ, since it´s actually part of full size squad A (using the disembarked mech Inf. Coy). I also put the small Coy support units (HMG and Mortars) away and attached them to the the Coy HQ in a seperate AI group. This also speeds up the Plt´s infantry squads beeing freed from their organic support for easier and faster movement between zones. Reforming of squads only occurs randomly (if HS´s/sections end in the same action spot coincidally). The AI isn´t capable of that and most likely rips formations apart more and more, the larger the AI group and zones. For Plt size zones, check page 1 of this thread where I elaborate on the "T" scheme idea. Generally the AI only tries to move - fill the forward edge of a zone and if broad enough, all AI groups units are placed forward. Otherwise if the zone also provides some depth, the excess units will be placed in 2nd row so to say. Personally I haven´t seen intelligent AI choices for filling and moving to the zones, so I try to limit size and width of zone as much as possible. I at least do that for Plt size AI groups if the overall force is not too big and with sufficient AI order groups. I´d likely give more freedom for an AI force in roughly Bn size, since there´s not enough AI groups to split it all up to Plt size groups. Moving a Coy size AI Inf. group from zone to zone at least requires as many painted AS in the destinations zone as there is single units in the group. No matter the final size and shape of zones, the AI will rip formations apart during movements and thus makes units most vulnerable when not in cover terrain, or with wrong movement orders. Beside painting of zones also important is distance between zones and cover terrain in the area. IIRC leapfrogging starts if zones are apart 60-80m or so. To some degree you can steer AI unit movements by placing some shellholes (the smallest ones suffice), if a zone is not in actual cover terrain, or in the middle ground between zones. This is due to the unit magnet nature of shellholes. Walls and road ditches in destination zones need also beeing considered, as is small dips or rises in the terrain mesh (ditch locked AS, + or -) for beeing unit magnets. So if the zones don´t quite work during testing, also consider tweaking the map and not necessarily the zones alone. MOUT is quite a different beast and usually leads to disaster for an attacking AI, but while limited, there´s some solutions as well.
  3. RockinHarry

    Scenario designing with AI

    what GeorgeMC said above. It´s been some time since I meddled with AI plans, but generally I do not really see a rule of thumb for when using terrain or unit triggered orders. IIRC I mainly used terrain triggers to deal with enemy unit movements/actions (reaction to) and kept unit order triggers mainly for coordination within larger formations that are to move sooner or later. IE. to make sure that support units (triggered) don´t move forward (to new supporting positions), before the to be supported units ALL have reached a particular position and start (trigger) their next movements. Really depends on particular situation and intent. Can´t remember that I noticed Plt HQ units (infantry or tank btw.?) leading in front of the actual Plt during advance in V4. Can you elaborate? Is the Plt. HQ and Plt units in their own/seperate AI orders group, or part of a larger Coy AI group? With regard to AI recon techniques I usually set these up the same as human players normally do. Have small units (Bn, Coy and certain Plt.HQ or FO) with binoculars (having more than 1 Binoc prefered) overwatch from strategic locations (hills, high buildings with very good field of view) and keep them in the communications net. Counts for a an attacking and defending AI alike. Make sure they don´t shoot & fight unless in an emergency, so they only watch and report. For this to work well, I usually put them in their own orders group und move them only, when necessary. That could either be when threatened by the enemy coming too close (terrain trigger), or when during an attack a more forward overwatch position is secured by friendlies (unit order trigger). For more active recon techniques there´s use for the new area fire AI order (hoping a nearby yet non discovered enemy starts shooting) and everything that you would do as human player. If terrain allows, have small moving recon detachments (2-4 men) overwatched by both Binoc equipped and support units (MG, Mortars, FO), so they can help if the recon guys are engaged by newly discovered enemies. How to set all this up in an AI plan is a matter of repeated testing and very time consuming. Though keeping it simple isn´t much of an option here anymore and it all works best if you´re not having too large a force and have enough orders groups left, to deal with more detailed coordination stuff.
  4. RockinHarry

    Pixeltruppen Planning Problem

    my best guess would be the TacAI can´t handle the particular situation and figure out pathing out off that newly created gap in the fence, right after disembarkment. Was that a forced disembarkment (vehicle damaged & passengers highly suppressed)?
  5. Sadly still a known and yet unfixed issue. The more that unbuttoned crews are treated with the games tacAI cheat, making them a bullet magnet, like pillboxes are. Best to avoid some the badly constructed assets in the game, or just use them sparingly in certain opponent configurations.
  6. RockinHarry

    Iron mode

    never compared and I solely play in iron since the beginning. From the game manual, difference to elite is requirement to spot frindlies for unit selection purposes...? If that feature really eats lots of FPS then I´d likely reconsider switching to elite instead, since I´m still running a crap machine and OS.
  7. RockinHarry

    Mine flails

    In action with AI forces. http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cm-battles-for-normandy/cmbn-v4-mg-vp-you-enter-germany-introduction/
  8. RockinHarry

    History accuracy

    I usually get rid of the observer from the sniper team with the 50% casualty option.
  9. RockinHarry

    German scout teams too big?

    I think there wasn´t an actual sort of scout team doctrine for germans late war. They had something like that early war, called "Sicherer" (2-4 guys advancing before the main troops to provide some forward security during advances). Personally I prefer making or using non dedicated scout teams as I see fit and a prime requirement would be them having Binocs! Small yet unused HQ teams are well suited and are of the desired small size (2-4 max) if their duties can be taken over by other HQ nearby. I´d assume it´s due to the engineer/pionier class for the SS team taking that much heavy ordnance. So it´s not unusual. Like above, I´d rather not split and assign the odd "scout" teams from a squad and take something more useful, like the mentioned small HQ teams. If they´re just to draw enemy fire, they´re good though. Generally I find the splitting squad options less realistic and useful than could be in the game. I´d prefer to have them configurable and IE have the squad leader stay withg the lMG and such. Maybe something to discuss for the next game engine version...
  10. RockinHarry

    History accuracy

    True. Would like to know as well. If my memory serves me right the german sets composition was 10 HE and 5 HEAT, but it definitely was more than the games 2-3 in general. Probably same for US and others that used rifle grenades. Another common mistake in wargames (not in this one thus far) is distribution of german cup launchers and grenades before april/may 1942 when they in fact were distributed first time in masses to frontline troops. Maybe the AI would be not so good at handling rifle grenades and uses them sort of pocket artillery, thus causing some imbalance at circumstances. Can´t tell. Personally I find them ideally suited for MOUT, as a single rifle grenade can take out several enemy guys in buildings at once, when hitting at or near a window (with usually several guys bunching up behind). Thus I´d wish for more than the usual two or three.
  11. Early War (Poland, France and Balkans campaigns). Mainly for the reason I find desert terrain & maps quite boring and giving too little variation.
  12. RockinHarry

    Fury Movie Discussion.

    it´s not bad. I just hate the usual approach that certain terms from US sources are taken literally. Also counts for SPR. That would be every german tank is a "Tiger", every gun an "88" and so forth. Also if I see "sandbag positions" to present "typical" WW2 infantry combat positiions, I usually start to get mad.
  13. I tend to get rid of the extra guy in sniper and FT teams by cutting size to 50% in editor. Solved some issues for me, particularly when these 2 man teams are in AI hands and in own scenario designs.
  14. I have Doublers book, but I don´t know of anything similar from german perspective as well. Combining Schneider´s Panzer Tactic and USMHI Special Series (particularly 8 + 9, german tactical doctrine, german squad in combat) though gives quite a good overview with regard to CM scale. There´s other free stuff in the net (small unit tactics series), but unfortunately nothing in a single book AND english language.
  15. RockinHarry

    Combat in woods - clip from TV series

    Mainly general behaviors, tactics and "story telling". Gear is mostly in order (though I wonder what this Luger wielding german offiver guy is meant to present), since actors appear to be hired from local german reenactor group I think. Though I´ve seen some way more professional UK and US groups who at least mastered the basic drills of the time. These films look simply like some youngsters playing war in the park. I lack time (and interest) to go deeper into detail with these short films, but considering this young group of filming students is not specialised in making WW2 films (they do various other topics as well), one does not need to take it all that serious. https://www.paralightworx.de/
×