Gen Von Television

That is a nice trick Wombie, but as wrote above since we have three setup zones for each side sacrificing one just for the AI may be not a viable choice. I vote for having less restrictions on the setup AI zones: let them be free of the constrictions of red/blue zones that after all should be significant only for the humans...

Oh boys, I must be wired up for good! I was expecting to find the file in the same dir with the script and the battles, and had not checked the Campaign dir, where the compiled file was actually saved! ...oh boys!

Compiling? I'm far too optimistic! I prepared the Campaign TXT and placed all the single battle files in the same directory; I enter the Editor and load the Core Unit btt; select Make Campaign and after the instruction popup I select the script. No Errors are given, but nothing at all happens! Is there any way to detect if the Campaign is actually compiling? No file appears in the battles/script dir... I'm baffled! PS: is there any limit to the number of words that are allowed for VICTORY/DEFEAT texts?

I believe that about the unit facing for the AI should be set by the direction of the next order, so in the case you propose there are good chances that the tank would turn exposing its weaker points, unless the TacAI can handle it. Actually I also thought there should be some Reverse movement order for the AI, or something similar, to prevent the AI doing some silly moves... As for the TRPs I agree that the preset support zones may be deadly and are restricted to the first turns. Still I have a scenario with very well positioned observers that can really smash some good strikes, but they are not always working as they should: for example it seems that just one of them out of four is really active during the battle, while the others do nothing; in this instance I have about eight heavy mortars available to the observers, but seldom all are assigned a firing mission, maybe just a couple of them...

I also made some tests with this object's texture, but I found it very gross: what I don't really like is its 3D appearances, and I tried to mask it using the Alpha channel, but there are some parts that will not disappear. In CMX1 the modded TRPs where much nicer than this pancake! Juju have you tried to render it as a flat aiming grid instead of this cookie? That I would like...

As Jon pointed out, iirc the AI cannot cheat in deploying any unit out of the red/blue setup zones, so you actually need to paint those zone accordingly to your AI options, while it would be for the player to chose where in the SUZ position his units. Alternatively I've also tested AI deployment without any SUZ (after I deployed the units), and again no matter where you paint the AI setup zones, no unit will move from the Deploy Allied / Deploy Axis setup. Lanzfeld, what do you mean about giving the AI 100 TRPs? Are you talking about the painted Support Objectives in the AI Editor or the actual TRPs that a human player may move around? Can you please elaborate in detail your technique?

I'm now trying to find unsuccessfully useful information on the Campaign Script: first of all is it possible to have a selectable side (blue/red) option enabled or you can only have a separate Campaign for each one? I've read that someone had a problem in playing a Campaign H2H pbemail/IPdirect: are there any lines one has to write in the script to have them enabled and operative once you set the HUMAN_OPPONENT_ALLOWED to yes? Any other clue I should be aware of before trying compile the script? TIA

I suggest you enter the Editor and buy some trenches (one set or two) and then deploy them on the empty field, moving them around so you will see how they connect eventually. In any case I think they are just a visual representation for an entrenched tile, and do not necessarily depict the exact way they face or are turned: in fact after I positioned them the way I liked (with some toiling) I discovered that if they are in a setup area, they will turn again this way or that and won't all stay fixed where I did place them, but a few will turn slightly and so change the overall original design. Is that so?

Shells exploding above the ground? I only saw them after I'd hidden the trees and one shell hits one of the tree exploding there (kind of tree burst, but without the tree). I never noticed a true air burst...

The Moaning Minnie were anyway notorious for not being very precise, as all the WWII rockets for that matter: more kind of a 'Terror Weapon' kind, but of course they had tremendous destroying potentials...

I'm just working on a battle I wrote about in other threads too: it's a simple one where one side has to move fast across the map (infantry) and gain an exit, while the other whose only Objective is the enemy moving unit has plenty of heavy mortars and about ten TRPs. The exiting unit has a very specific crossing point on the map that cannot be avoided with plenty of TRPs around it, and I placed the two Observer Teams in good positions to strike exactly them. Another group of heavy mortars and their two observers are positioned to strike further up the road where the enemy may or may not pass. I'm still trying to check and modify different AI Plans for both sides: the moving unit is an AI nightmare, since they often end bunched up on the turning points, and have to go Quick on quite exposed terrain: their only chance would be never to stop. The AI mortars sometime are very effective and timed, but more often than not they do absolutely nothing. By playing against the AI I can easily win on either sides, but as you very well know, as a designer you quite expect any possible move; in any case for me it's a safe test this battle has a good enough balance so can be played H2H, but I doubt it may be really enjoyable against the AI. I have the idea that in a like scenario to have the triggers' options would be very handy.

Thanks Pete: I would have presumed that a dismounted HT with just the driver (none is manning the mounted MG) would be part of the Tac AI; if that is not possible, at least it should have a two men crew, so that even if following the dismounted infantry, at least can give supporting fire with the MG, or defend itself... I vote for this to be fixed!

While the Breach Team was written off since I do not have one spare AI Group, I've found another puzzle to try solving: I have a Mech Company moving on their HTs to an assigned position where they should dismount and start to move on assaulting the enemy, but the HT keep on following the group, while also a few units failed to dismount and keep on staying inside the HTs. I've tried also with the Max Assault order, but it makes no difference; the subsequent orders to the Group is Passengers Dismount but this would not stop the machines to keep following their passengers, just to be blown to pieces. Don't tell me I need to assign the HTs to another AI Group, since I don't have any free for them. Is there any way to solve this problem?

Seemingly, no helmet cover tho'!

I was reflecting on the idea above, of having a panel open up instead of the popup menu for the AI, and I borrowed the idea from Photoshop Layers: I don't know if this is feasible at all, but would be great to have the possibility to visualize the whole (or any chosen) AI Plans and Orders simultaneously on the map, or rather a quick depiction of it, eventually selecting directly one order by clicking on it; the time code should also be readable for each order, with the possibility of typing directly the values... Am I dreaming!?

It's certainly requiring long hours of testing and toiling! One more thing is to check you have blanked all previous AI plans you did set up, when using the same map and starting a new battle loading it from an old scenario: I was wondering if the AI suddenly found a deep hidden routine to baffle all my careful timings and plans and started to move of its own accord! when I realized there was a previous set up small spot for a group that was way out of the current positions, and many orders to move from there... It would be really super if someone may come up with a tool/utility to have an overview for all the AI orders/groups, making them instantly accessible and visualized, without having to use the popup menus: imo it would be more clear and evident to have a 'table of contents' fully displayed for the AI orders/plans/groups; did I mention I would need at least four more Groups?

eheheh There is always someone doing crazy things on a battlefield, I presume...

I see what you meant now: actually I can use just two Breach teams, since two hedgerows are quite close, but when I have the third following the movement assigned, I'm afraid the previous squads will move in hazardous ways... Let's see this, if I can make it work: thanks Jon.

Admittedly I have not checked the CMSF forums: as I wrote I'm an old WWII buff and I'm stuck to those weaponry and tactics... Well, talking about tacs, indeed the fix & flank has not changed much except that a base of fire can be built by a single platoon with their modern firepower! and it was the idea about breaching the hedgerows of above, even if I can always devise a different flanking movement, or a different approach altogether, developing a more substantial flanking movement, instead of using just a couple of heavy tanks. Thanks for the suggestions about the AI movements, and will surely dig that sticky thread on CMSF forum.

I'd like to go back to the Mortars' problem: as I presumed I made an AI plan for the moving troops and took charge of the Mortars, and indeed it was a massacre! Of course I have the advantage of the All Knowing Being, so I was able to plan an efficacious fire plan... So, the conclusion is this battle may become an H2H challenge on either sides, but against AI it seems to be an easy grasp for the player playing Allied or Axis. What strikes me is that the AI while playing either sides has shown a very poor behavior, not up to the task: basically as I wrote this is not a much interesting battle anyway, except for showing a clever management of movements on one side, and a timed use of fire plans by the mortars on the other. I'm not so sure if these subjects may appeal some players...

Well, these assumptions you make are not quite to the point again. First of all the Reinforce you're talking about would need its own AI slot or they will sit there in their reinforcement spot on the map picking up daisies, i'n'it? And still they would require two separate AI groups, since they are supposed to be on far places and at different times making their job. The plan is not relaying on the breach teams: it may be a useful trick and a good surprise for the player if the AI can make it happen. I've opened this thread not to just talk about the campaign I'm working on, but eventually to collect good advices, hints and solutions to problems cropping up in using the Editor to create Scenarios that may end up in a Campaign or just a battle. I can see why many of the Campaigns are just H2H since to build up one (or more!) effective AI plans takes a lot of time and testing, and having the AI for both sides even more so, with the adding complication to find a balance that should be always effective, even in a H2H game. I'm not saying you're completely wrong here: I just like to check this option out before I discard it. As I wrote I'm not easily impressed by unfavorable outcomes and responses when the things are not working out as expected or desired. I just adopt the scientific method of trial and error, and see if I can finally get an hypothesis becoming a theory...

I've just finished checking a battle I intend to include in the Pegasus Bridge ASL conversion (6 battles ready to be tested) that will become a Campaign, and I encountered quite an odd problem with the AI doing almost nothing! I have set up two 80 mm mortar batteries in two different covered areas (kind of reverse slope positions); both batteries are in direct sight of their commanding officers and both have a couple of Observer Teams each positioned to cover the player movements and with radio contact; I also set up some target reference points so to have more probability of hitting their targets. The only Victory Points the AI can get are from the assigned units the player have to quickly move, while his other units have to stay put in Hide. What happens is that just a couple of mortars start firing in the beginning towards a far reference point where nothing is actually happening, or try to target other hidden units in foxholes and trenches, while the whole infantry moving in the open, and passing by several other reference target points is left undisturbed! I believe H2H will decimate the moving soldiers with the mortars quite easily, so it's very difficult to find a balance for such a scenario played vs the AI. Maybe I'm missing something about the mortars' deployment in relation to the observers? Still I noticed that those useless targets where the shells were falling had been actually called by one of the Observer Teams... Eventually I shall drop the idea, since it would be a waste of time to play such kind of battle.

Yes, that would be an option too if not for compromising the player ability to find his own way when playing on that same map... About the Cullen Device it became available only on US Sherman, M5 and M10 (known as Rhinos) and on British Cromwell and Sherman (known as Prongs) iirc in July. So the problem is: the British never ever had mixed tanks' formations anyway, so a Churchill unit cannot have a Cromwell Prong, or a Sherman one, for that matter; they can have the Honeys, but these seemingly were not used with the 'Prong'. Worst, the Germans never had this kind of devices. So we are left with the only available solution to use a breach team blasting the hedgerows: I still have to consider if I can sacrifice two AI Groups for this purpose only, using them on just three different spots. Or again devise a different plan from the one I tested using myself the units on the attack, and see if the AI can cope with it.

Nope: I'm dealing with heavy tanks only, not Americans. BTW, where are the Rhinos nested in the OoB?

It's coming out great! I believe the King Tiger would also need a fair treatment from you...