Jump to content

RockinHarry

Members
  • Content Count

    2,716
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Everything posted by RockinHarry

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. lol Just observing and watching for logical patterns. So don´t count on anything going beyond that.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. it was rather a low res quick hack than real mod, but did the purpose well enough. Your combo looks really nice though.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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....
  12. Like these ideas generally but have my doubts whether the current AI and game system can deal with any of that properly. Don´t think that bits of modding suffices but I´d be interested seeing what can be made of it.
  13. thanks for you efforts Bootie! Re TPG III... hard to tell if it´ll ever work like the original TPG which was a great place for testing and discussion with fellow members. Maybe put up a poll here whether there´s any need for it at all? Think most scenario makers recruit their testers through BFC (or FGM maybe) forum or private means, so it might possibly save you time better spent on huge task you already have? Just an idea.
  14. you quite obviously discovered the fine point in my posting. Yep. The wrotten structure didn´t came down and Speer couldn´t help on it either. Basically I think buidling sturdiness didn´t really change when CMSF was ported over to CMBN and following. Bits more diversity couldn´t hurt IMO. Wooden, brick (various layer/thickness), natural stone, concrete... all should make a difference no matter a buildings size. That also tied to a buildings outlooks turning all of the current mess to more something like WYSIWYG.
  15. *waving frantically* .....wait wait! I´ve it still on my list (at top of it actually).
  16. Personally I´ve no idea what a blocked/closed door means to military personnel. It surely wasn´t "dudes, lets check the back door in full view of the enemy". Occasionally it might be like this though:
  17. some intersecting billboard types might suffice (can´t remember where I´ve seen this, CMX1 maybe...?... could´ve been Panzer Elite..) as replacement and can´t recall ATM if it must be 2 or 256 color Alpha´s for foliage. (IIRC it must be 2 color for flavors) Main reason is these won´t behave like common tall grass objects regarding LOS blocking (or concealment) and don´t always turn toward the camera like the grass billboards do. Thus fixed intersecting geometry at least providing bits of a 3D effect. Also no weaving in wind FX, but think one can live with that. But just an idea and for those that really need it. Yep, was Panzer Elite using mentioned, fixed billboard types. https://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_11_2014/post-66801-0-58833400-1416439176.jpg
  18. I won´t be buyer for this (don´t own CMRT), but when do you get rid of the highly inappropriate timber framework from modular building roof side walls? Bugged me in CMFB already, particularly when building city blocks and that. Without further modding one can´t build something that looks "german" in the game. Suggestion: Make another wall texture set (the facade things) looking like timber framed and tie that exclusively to the timber framed roof. Or better yet, completely untie roof (wall) texture selection from rest of the modular building so one can choose and mix individually. Should also help modders adding additional options. So while the new flavor stuff looks "nice" I´d rather prefer more substance for the more basic things (like just mentioned i.e) you´re kidding? Unlike I missed some upcoming patch notes, buildings in the game don´t need a hammer, no matter red or blue. A kick in the door usually suffices. .Or a quick burst of MG fire making them swiss cheese. Thanks for listening and sorry for bugging (again).
  19. Hm... maybe enlarging the bitmap plane by means of @Aquila-CM methods gives us tall corn? Unfortunately there´s no mdr file to be found for doodads, at least I haven´t discovered any yet (just like that misterious wall thing). In case of adding as flavor object, poster*.mdr might serve as a base (simple 4x4 plane). Though it wouldn´t weave in the wind, nor giving proper LOS/concealment. Just an idea. Other than that, BFC might think about adding taller generic doodad sets and allow texture modding to ones desires (tall corn, reed, ...). Could be put in the yet very empty "Brush" category maybe.
  20. always funny seeing bits of irony triggering lengthy responses. But since I´d changed my jumping over walls & fences animation to something different, my BFC fantasy world is fine now. Next.
  21. Russia (WW2 until today)? http://i.imgur.com/ezNsSrt.jpg
  22. agree, though I don´t expect this to happen unless BFC introduces kind of SOP´s generally. As is now the TacAI takes little regard to cover and cohesion. Getting x number of guys to a target AS in fastest possible ways is all that counts currently. If there´s a bottleneck.... well, bad luck then. If BFC would be consequential they´d also allow troopers jumping through windows and all that. That would also pour more guys into a building without everybody stepping on their feet. I mean they can jump over walls and fences like hurdlers, so doing the same on windows shouldn´t actually be a problem from BFC´s point of view.
  23. has huge potential yes. Making maps with say... SPWAW quality or somewhat better though is doable by use of different, customizable terrain sets (Maddox set from POA2 i.e). If one prefers one can also create maps that look like satellite images or WW2 topographical maps. One thing I miss is a campain system though. Could well be that it´s added at later time maybe.
  24. although it´s just an expedient one can drop down multi story building into -3m ditch locked AS. With some the leveling terrain types around (pavement i.e) the buildings then shows leveled/even with surounding terrain more or less. With the buildings basement level then below ground the second story then serves as new ground level. Editing window/door layouts for modular buildings one also achieves halfway convincing looks and functionality. Adding balconies (with or without railing) also allows exiting the building via that balcony, but not entering unfortunately. Entering is still at the now below ground level which holds true for any other building placed like this. If BFC finds ways to mold such structures into the ground mesh and same time adapting the pathing nodes I don´t see major difficultiies to at least allow certain below ground structures like this beeing implemented. Maybe easier said than done but mentioned method proofed working in my games.
×
×
  • Create New...