Jump to content

RepsolCBR

Members
  • Content Count

    1,112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by RepsolCBR

  1. The HUNT command might be kind of a victim of the limitations with the WEGO system. Having the AI run the show for an entire minute in these situations where we use the hunt command is tricky to get right i belive. Sometimes we might want the hunt command to aqctually halt any advance and hit the dirt as soon as the unit spots an enemy or is somewhat close to incomming fire. Other times we might want the hunt command to act more as a 'carefull advance' and not having the troops stop and hit the ground as soon as a few builits start flying in the vicinity but still using the low/ready stance . Having a to sencetive hunt command might very well lead to something that sburk mentioned here... I have had this issiue several times, atleast pre V4, where my hunting troops halt over and over because of nearby fire. Sort of screwing up the timings for my overall avance somewhat. Many times i have decided NOT to use hunt for this very reason and instead used another movement option to make sure that my intended move did not take something like 5 minutes (halted several times) to complete. Maybe it would be a good thing if we could get two seperate orders for these situations. Keep the old HUNT and have it work pretty much as is (or even more sencetive). Having the troops stop and hugg the ground as soon as they are seeing enemy troops or are noticing incomming fire in the close proximity. A second version of this order could perhaps be something like LOW AND SLOW...The troops will move forward in a crouched mode with weapons at the ready and not stop until they take some serious fire/ casualties (like other movement options). This option should keep the stealthyness of the original HUNT command. Should the LOW AND OWING troops stop to return fire periodically 😎 I don't know
  2. RepsolCBR

    Kharkov Map Sneak Peak

    Macisle, what kind of specs are you running on your machine ? Do you think something like this will be possible...performace-vise ? On atleast 'above average' computers... Or have your testing indicated that using the entire map at once is out of the question...?
  3. RepsolCBR

    Kharkov Map Sneak Peak

    And a good point it is...One that needs considdering.
  4. RepsolCBR

    Kharkov Map Sneak Peak

    Setup zones for the AI might need to be restricted to - the first floor - to avoid the chans of the AI deploying troops on those balconies. I don't know if the AI ever deploys troops on balconies though. The option being to manually place the AI troops at desired locations (whitout setup zones). I usually find that this works better. Might ruin some of the randomness/fog of war but i Think this is a very minor issiue. Better to get the troops deployed where you like them (Place them you self).
  5. RepsolCBR

    Kharkov Map Sneak Peak

    Yepp...might be worth mentioning in the designer notes or in an attached PDF file or maybe in the release annoncement and if possible as a mapdescription at the scenariodepot or wherever you chose to upload it to. It will be no problem to handle this if the players/designers are aware of it...
  6. RepsolCBR

    Kharkov Map Sneak Peak

    Yepp ! best option we currently have imo...
  7. RepsolCBR

    Kharkov Map Sneak Peak

    Judging by the pictures/videos...A worthy contender for the title 'greatest CM map ever' i belive. I'm impressed ! This really gets me longing for persistant map damage though. That would be totally cool. A campaign on this map with such a feature implemented.
  8. RepsolCBR

    Basements?

    Yepp ! I agree...Up them all, i say 😉
  9. RepsolCBR

    Basements?

    AI Groups is what the scenario designers use to...move the AI forces around in a single player scenario. We currently have 16 of those. You can think of them as individually acting/reacting units. You place a number of units from the AIs OOB into these groups and have them act together. For example one Group could perhaps be 1st platoon of an infantry Company with... lets say 2 attached (put into the same Group)sniper team. The second Group is the Hvy weapons platoon and and the third Group is the two remaining platoons with maybe some pioneers. Pretty much Everything the AI troops will do during the battle they will do...as part of these Groups. The designers have the ability to set a number of parameters that to some degree dictate how these Groups will act...if they will attack, assult, area fire or do some other things like or hunker down, ambush, run, move slow etc, etc... Now...let's say you would like to design a singleplayer scenario with the AI acting as the attacker. The player gets a Company sized force to defend with. Then following the 3-1 rule the AI will need something like a battalion for the attack. Perhaps supported by a number of AFVs. Having 16 AI Groups as we do now pretty severely limits how flexible the AI can be in the attack. The Groups will get to big ! The scenario designer sets the general 'rules' for these Groups with his programing...Where to move, when etc but it is the AI that then handles how these groups actually perform given instructions. And the AI is not 'the best' at this. It is not terrible but it leaves a lot to be desired. With MORE AI-Groups the designer will be able to 'help' the AI by giving more precise instructions to smaller teams. Making the AI more FLEXIBLE and able to carry out said instructions in a better way ( hopefully 😉 ). The AI is far better at handeling something like a squad or...two squads in an AI Group compared to handle 2, 3 platoons with sub units/ Group. When you design scenarios you become very familuar with what the AI can 'handle' and what it can not. The limitations are pretty severe. Having more AI Groups would be... AMAZING ! 😀
  10. RepsolCBR

    Basements?

    32 AI-Groups 😎... Adding something like this would significantelly increase the challange of fighting the AI. 32 Orders/ Group where implemented a while back. 32 AI Groups seems like a logical next step and would be much, much apprisiated ! or A complete remake of the AI artillery programing interface... Programing some decent AI artillery support with the current system is a real pain ! to much randon, to limited and VERY frustrating. We have seen no changes to this system in a very long time i belive (maybe since the start of CM2)...It is high time to get this right. As a designer currently you have some decent controll of the pre-bombardments...but thats about it. NOT GOOD.
  11. RepsolCBR

    Scenario designing with AI

    You're welcome...Good luck with the scenario designing !
  12. RepsolCBR

    Scenario designing with AI

    No 😎 Bad choise of word from my part...This is not cheating but i don't think that BFC originally thought of this possibility when they added the area-fire feature with the V4 update. If they had realized this neet trick they ought to have mentioned it in the patch notes or in the V4 manual. Having this possibility when programing the AI plans is a BIG ! improvement and should have been well described imo. This trick have been known on these forums for quite some time though and i'm pretty certain that a fair number of the upcomming 'stock' as well as comunity made scenarios will be taking advantage of it. This is a POSSITIVE sideeffect of the area fire feature i belive it should be taken advantage of ! Cool ! 😀
  13. RepsolCBR

    Scenario designing with AI

    It's kind of a 'cheat' with the areafire function introduced with the V4 update (i belive). In the editor the areafire function allows you to 'paint' an area on the map and assign an AI Group to fire at that location ones they reach a certain waypoint (orderlocation). This is sort of a compliment to the usual paintings of order(locations) that you make for each waypoint you want your AI Groups to take. Place your waypoints (orderlocations) on the map...order(location) one will move the AI-Group to location 1. order(location) two will move them to location two and Three to three and so on. What areafire allows you to do is having your AI-Group start to areafire at the location of your choise ones they reach a certain waypoint. If you for example would like them to start to area fire at a set of buildings as the reach waypoint (order(location)) 2 then in addition to painting the usual orderlocation for the waypoint you may also add this new areafire function to this order (waypoint). Hold down the correct key combination (i don't remember it right now but it is something like CTRL or ALT i belive) and then paint the area around those Buildings you want you would like the AI Group to fire at. Remember to have ORDER 2 selected when you do this so the area fire 'connects' to the right waypoint. Now the AI Group will fire at these Buildings until they start the move towards order(location) 3. Or until they run out of ammo. You may use this function with your on-map mortars also to get a bit of indirect fire support going. But it has to be ON-MAP units. Therefore mortars. Assign your mortars to an AI-Group and place them on the map. The way that ORDERS (orderlocations) work is that if you don't paint any terraintiles for a certain ORDER the your AI Group will remain in Place where they are for that ORDER and not move anywhere. The way you can do this is...Select the AI-Group assigned to your mortars and for ORDER 1 do not paint any tiles (the mortars will show up where you placed them in the deploymentface in the editor and stay there.) Now to get the mortars to start to fire at the desired time either set the EXIT BEFORE/AFTER on ORDER 1 to the desired time or if the bombardment is ment to start as a result of a trigger set it to WAIT FOR TRIGGER. On to ORDER 2 (the shooting part...) Don't paint any tiles for ORDER 2 either. No ORDER-tiles (waypoint) that is. This way the mortarteam will remain in Place for ORDER 2. What you should do however is to paint the location you want your mortars shooting at. Hold down the corract keys for areafire and paint the 'target area'. To time the lenth of the bombardment set the EXIT BEFORE/AFTER for ORDER 2 to the appropoate time. Or if you so desire use WAIT FOR TRIGGER (a triggered event will stop the bombardment.) In order to get the bombardment to stop we need to add a third ORDER. For order 3...paint NOTHING ! No ORDER(location)...that is waypoint...also do not paint any AREAFIRE location for ORDER 3. This way ones the AI Group with the asigned mortars 'move' to their third waypoint (order) they will remain in Place and also stop areafirering. The barrage is over ! I may not have descibed this in a very good way above but if you manage 'understand' and do it like this...It will work ! You will be limited to mortars though and you will need to have atleast one spare AI Group for you mortars. It may not be a perfect solution but i think that for something like a company sized attack 'mid-battle' it will do nicely. The heavy bombardment (caliber) should be finished ones you start to advance unless the map is very large perhaps. Pre bombardments work fine for this... Yepp ! Hope this is somewhat helpful 😎
  14. RepsolCBR

    Scenario designing with AI

    One option you could use is on-map medium mortars unless you find their caliber to be to low. Put the mortars into an AI-group and have them area fire at the desired time and location. This way you can get the AI to support the AI assult. The start of the barrage can be set either by the gameclock or by a triggered event and they will bombard where you tell them to and stop when you want them to (gameclock or trigger)
  15. IIRC it's the FXAA in the Nvidia panel that needs to be TURNED OFF...
  16. RepsolCBR

    New Website status update

    On the 'my orders' screen/ list i still cant see what the actual title of my purchased products are right of the bat. Will this be included or will i need to click the wiew button to find that out as before ?
  17. RepsolCBR

    Operational Layer

    I agree fully...And this is not a small Point 😉
  18. RepsolCBR

    Operational Layer

    As in your example here...There is only two options to choose from. The designer could have added more options if he had wanted to you mean....He was not limited to only these two ?
  19. RepsolCBR

    Operational Layer

    Yes...but can you branch the camapign in more then two directions for each individual battle ? You may set a specific victorylevel (total, minor etc..) to achive a WIN...and have the Campaign move forward because of this WIN...or move in a different direction if you fail to achive this WIN (level of victory required) . That would be a FAIL...WIN or FAIL...that is two options... Can the campaign currently branch in more then two directions dependant on the ACUAL level of victory acived in previous battle...A total victory moves to battle 2.1, a minor victory moves to battle 2.2 and a draw moves to battle 2.3 for example...as opposed to a WIN (according to the set victory level) leading to battle 2.1 and a NO WIN leads to battle 2.2 and not having an option for battle 2.3...
  20. RepsolCBR

    Operational Layer

    I to would like to see some kind of operational-level feature or multi-branching campaigns. By multi-branching campaigns i mean campaigns that gives the player several different options at various parts of the campaign. Currently a campaign can only branch in TWO different directions at a specific time if i understand things correctly (giving the player at best two options for the next battle). Either the player WINS the previous battle and the campaign branch in one direction or he WINS NOT (failes) and the campaigns branch in another. It does not matter if he wins a total-, decisive- or minor victory. A win is a win no matter at what level the victory is achived. The same thing goes for a 'fail'. No matter if its a draw or a total defeat. It is a fail plain and simple. Several campaigns previously have had small 'selection battles' inbetween the actual 'fighting battles' in wich the player usually moves a small team onto a terrain objective to achive a WIN or he may choose not to move a team to that location to score a FAIL and by doing so choosing on of two options. Being limited to the choise of TWO options may not be enough to allow for something resembeling operational level gameplay or 'multi-branching' campaigns... but what if the campaign script would recognize the specific levels of victory or defeat. That is total victory, decisive victory, minor victory, draw, minor defeat, decisive defeat, total defeat (i think those are the different victory-options IIRC). That would give something like 7 different options for the players to chose from in the 'selection battles'... Having 7 differnt options of how to/where to conduct the next battle might to some degree start to resemble something like operational-level flexibility. At the very least it would allow for 'multi-branching' campaigns. A small (not very good perhaps) example of possible selections... 1. (total victory) Attack at ones with full force. 2. (decisive victory) Wait for darkness and then attack. 3. (minor victory) Put the main attack on hold and do a preliminary recon mission first (another scenario) to try and get better info on the enemy. 4. (draw) Attempt to siez a piece of key terrain in limited dawn raid (to allow for better set-up zones in the main battle) prior to the main, mid-day assult. 5. (minor defeat) Request regimental artillery. 6 (decisive defeat) Request armour support. Using 6 terrain objectives in the 'selection battle' set at different scoring values would allow the player to choose the level of victory and thereby wich option he prefers for the next battle. Allowing the campaign script to recognize the different levels of victory seems to me to be the easiest way to improve the flexebility of the campaigns. I actually thought this was already the case but after reading some posts on these forums a while back i belive that it is not so. We currently only have TWO options according to those posts. However... Even if we did get this improved level of flexibility. How often would it be used i wounder ? Given the current complexity (time having to be spent) with scenario design. Making a campaign is a very time consuming process. Even with no branching or the limited branching we have today. Making a 'multi-branching' campaign that covers a decent time period (operation) would require making many, many more scenarios to cover all eventuallities...or atleast variations of other scenarios. ...and playtest them all !! OOOUUCH !!! 😱 This will take a long, long, looooong time i fear. Making such projects less likely of ever being undertaken. Or atleast very rarely. I would most certanly want more flexibility/options in the campaigns...but who would design the bloody things ? 😎 H2H games might not be all that big a deal (comparely 😉) when it comes to operational level fighting but testing/tweaking AI plans in Vs AI gameplay in such a Campaign will be quite something.
  21. RepsolCBR

    History accuracy

    Some really good videos on US small formations (squads, platoons) Hopefully this guy will make some more...😎
  22. RepsolCBR

    Balconies: Tweaks?

    I would prefer if moving ONTO balconies could be made to work the way moving from room to room does now. That is...in order to get the troops to enter the balconies the player would need to place a waypoint on the balcony itself...as if the balconies where treated as seperate rooms. With the 'facing option' you could not set up your defenders to face in the direction of the balconies but still remain inside the building. Unfortunatelly this 'seperate room' version of the balconies is probably not so easy to do either...when it comes to programing...
  23. RepsolCBR

    New features curiosity

    I realize this will probably not be on the top 5 list over at the BFCs development-desk. Neither is it on my top 5 list but it was a little something i thought about while considdering some future scenario ideas ones the next CMRT module have been released. My top 5, or even top 10 list, have been mentioned many times already by me or sombody else. No need to bring those up again 😉 With the next module for CMRT we will get both the weather and the timetable for some early spring-, Winter- and fall maps with SNOW in various degrees. This is primarely where my idea came from. To be able to get some more variability of the ground conditions during these periods would be nice...both visually and functinally. Playing scenarios during a period with melting snow...seing patches of snow still remaining in some areas and other places would be muddy or wet (where the snow have melted away).Maybe having still frozen rivers/water on a non frozen scenario...Having different levels of snow on a 'snowy' map 😋 to simulate the effects of wind, 'man-made' changes to the snowlevel etc... These groundcondition changes would be most notable on Winter/spring/fall maps i belive but could also by of some use on summermaps. Some parts of the terrain dry up faster then others depending on numorous circumstances. On the same map GRASS for example could be both more or less dry, wet or muddy/boggy. Agree...But maybe damp roads on wet/muddy terrain would make more sence or dry roads on damp terrain...but i guess it is correct as mentioned abouve...some of these condition differnces are already in the game when comparing different terrain-tiles. I don't expect (or want 😎) this idea to be implemented any time soon...if ever...Many, many other things needs to be adressed prior...but it would add kind of a nice touch to the mapmaking i belive...
  24. RepsolCBR

    Disappointed

    Hopefully that will change ones the game releases 😎
  25. RepsolCBR

    New features curiosity

    'PAINTABLE' GROUNDCONDITIONS... A feature that could allow for more then one groundcondition/scenario that we are currently limited to. The scenario designer now have the option to set the groundcondition in his scenario to different things like dry, damp, snow, deep snow etc. These are nice options to have but as the designer you are limited to only one option. If you choose DEEP SNOW for example then the entire map will be exactelly that...DEEP SNOW. If you choose MUDDY then the entire map will be...MUDDY. Maybe it would be a good thing if the scenario designer could set a 'basic' ground condition...like we do now and then 'add in' different types of ground conditions at specific areas of the map to add a bit of varaity. What i had in mind would work something like painting setup-zones does now. You have your 'basic' groundcondition that is the default for the entire map and then you could choose from the differrent groundconditions and paint the specific areas of the map that you would like to have a different type of groundcondition. Sort of like a 'groundcondition overlay' of the map. Simular to set-up zones. - On a summermap the day after a rainy night. Set the basic groundcondition to WET. Paint the crest/some slopes of ridges/hills to DRY and perhaps specific areas to BOGGY/MUDDY.. - On a wintermap. Set the basic ground condition to LIGHT SNOW and paint other areas to DEEP SNOW. Along recently plowed roads for example. Specific areas of the map that the wind have blown snow into. - On a spring/fall map with melting snow. Set the basic groundcondition to LIGHT SNOW. Paint some areas WET (no snow) and some areas to MUDDY (no snow) and maybe some to DEEP SNOW Something like this would allow for some more varaity on the maps and not have the entire thing set to a single option.
×