Jump to content

Freyberg

Members
  • Content Count

    752
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Freyberg

  1. The CM licences are not restricted to one operating system these days.
  2. I agree with this passionately! I would much rather see the AI do things automatically, so you map designers could set up a map with simpler orders, than have more and more detailed control.
  3. I played that campaign a long time ago and really enjoyed it. The river crossing was the mission I enjoyed the most and the one that sticks in my memory. It was engaging - there was plenty to do, with mines and interlocking defences to pick apart - but I didn't find it that hard. The Soviets have plenty of troops, plenty of time, and you just keep piling it on (carefully of course) until the German force crumbles. As @Erwin said, you need to choose a flank (I went down the left flank first, but sent a smaller force down the right flank, then reinforced it from the left when I had broken t
  4. It doesn't worry me that the game does this - it's one of those necessary shortcuts and because of FoW and my usual lazy playing style, I seldom notice it happen. But here's the moment when the MG bearer gets killed and the MG instantly appears in the hands of the sole remaining team member. Later on I know I've killed the last member of the team, because the corpse still has the MG.
  5. Not true. It's not explicitly labelled as such, but it's quite possible to get an unbuttoned AFV in a position where it has LOS but not LOF, nor can it have LOF on it - hence it is turret down.
  6. If this is the river crossing scenario of Hammer's Flank, that was basically how I played it. The briefing tells you not to worry overly much about losses. In terms of doctrine, I figure the Soviet forces guide that - they are effective at short range, so I played aggressively to get them within close range, but it was certainly not a human wave attack.
  7. It looks beautiful! I'd like to book a room overlooking the river for a week in July please
  8. I had a tank crew bail with minor damage when they were hit by a 150mm shell (DF), but that seemed fair.
  9. I've never noticed this. I split Soviet squads when I need to and it seems to work fine. Having said that, with all the games I prefer to keep squads together if possible because I don't like having to micromanage...
  10. This is my position, too. What I would personally love to see is the task of the designer being made simpler. My impression is that the AI already has a lot of power that is not currently being fully exploited. Some of the ideas above are excellent, such as 'if..then' routines, but I don't really want to micromanage AI plans.
  11. That was cool and interesting - and beneath all the serious expressions I think they were having fun
  12. Definitely! It's in the zip file I linked to above (of maps in progress - haven't done much since then, too tired from work). Here's the link again https://www.dropbox.com/s/auilzpybhm0w206/FI map pack in prog May20.zip?dl=1 The map is called 'Frey Tiny 07 [RU] - City, ruins - Northwards ATTK.btt', but all the maps with the code [RU] are slices of the same master map - that one is basically the very centre of the map.
  13. Congratulations gentlemen Your wonderful wargame has enriched my life.
  14. Ditto to that - with 2 casualties you got off lightly...
  15. This was another fun battle on an urban ruins map. Here is just a small part of the action, but the whole thing kept me engaged for hours and was actually very very difficult, with a string of mutually supporting enemy positions - every time I dealt with one and went to assault the other, another would reveal itself. In this small slice of action, I was trying to get a good angle on a minor strongpoint... It was fun and infuriating. In the end, I couldn't beat the AI with just infantry tactics, and I had to resort to using on-map 81mm mortars, which I had hoped not to have
  16. I get your point . It may well be that the AI algorithms are not complex, but they are certainly clever. Here is a very typical result from a game I'm playing against the AI now: My scouts easily saw the tank just behind the crossroads (now a burning wreck) - to which there were two good avenues of approach. Expecting a trap, I threw everything at it and took both. I don't know if I've seen everything yet, because the game is still in progress, but each group of tanks had to come over a slight rise, leaving them vulnerable to temporary numerical disadvantage and visibility disad
  17. I tried that at first, but it didn't seem to be necessary. As long as you give the AI plenty of groups with different settings, it really does seem to make excellent choices about where to position units. I think one of the problems with some QB maps is using only a small number of groups - I don't know why, but at least 4 or 5, preferably more (I usually have at least one of each of: active, normal, cautious, ambush 1000m and maybe a hide group or some other ambush groups) even if they are very general, does seem to give a much improved game.
  18. We must be playing a different game... I see these things all the time. It does depend on setting up a QB map the way I described it though. One of the reasons I started playing with AI plans was that I was dissatisfied with some of the QB maps I'd played on.
  19. I've been doing a lot of playing around with the AI recently, and I thought I'd bore you all, and insult the developers, by describing what aspects of the AI I think work well, and what could be done to improve it. A: Static defence Firstly, in certain respects, the AI works extremely well. For example, the simplest way to set up an AI plan in an attack/defend QB situation (Probe, Attack or Assault), which is the type of game I play the most (and therefore the type I am most interested in learning how to produce), is to set up several AI groups, and for each one paint the entire
  20. That's an excellent shortcut - thanks!
  21. Thanks guys Really appreciate it.
×
×
  • Create New...