Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Pericles

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Good to know, thanks for the Intel.
  2. Is it possible to add ammo to supply trucks from supply dumps? Playing the TOC scenario and wanted to add Ukranian ammo to a LMTV supply truck from the supply dumps at the TOC in an effort to re-supply northern Ukranian forces. Unable to "Acquire" from truck. Dismounting driver and passenger to "Acquire" and putting them back in the truck does not allow for ammo sharing with passengers (ammo is not added to truck's inventory, but rather is fixed with the driver and passenger. My guess is that this is not possible.
  3. Why is it that infantry units often spot other infantry units moving through forests before spotting armored vehicles moving through forests? The reason I ask is because I just witnessed a Russian BMP move into a forest about 10 meters from one of my Ukranian infantry units. Russian infantry units dismounted from the BMP - these were promptly spotted by the Ukranian infantry unit (basically right after they dismounted). But the BMP was not spotted even though it is closer. I suppose they'll notice it next turn. I guess I'm supposed to imagine that foliage and brush not graphically modeled in the game is hiding their view of the behemoth 10 m next to them? All I'm saying is that it doesn't seem right to for them to be able spot infantry and not the BMP in this case. I have witnessed this spotting behavior once before.
  4. Estimated release date: Q1, 2020 https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-showcases-javelin-firepower-from-united-states/29243827.html
  5. Can anyone explain why enemy units commonly face away from the front line? I encounter this often in CMBN and CMRT scenarios. For example, I'm currently investing time in the CMRT scenario "Getting Ugly". Enemy tanks moved forward (towards my forces) and then ended up in positions facing away from my forces towards the direction they drove from. My guess is that this is an artifact of the Upgrade 4.
  6. Good question. I added the music in an attempt (futile?) to add a suspenseful-emotional dimension to the movie... not so sure it had its intended effect. You'll notice that it tended to coincide with suspenseful moments (e.g. spontaneous enemy advances, Russian tanks). It was worth a try at least.
  7. I have prepared a video AAR of a mission from The Charge of the Stryker Brigade campaign. I have had some issues with the design of some missions in the campaign, but most missions are masterfully designed, including this one. Enjoy.
  8. Can two instances of bunching within the first 10 minutes of a stock campaign be a sign of poor design? Maybe all the thorough testing before release didn't pick it up? I highly doubt it. If it was tested a lot before release, this would have been noticed and corrected. I believe this because it happened so early on in the scenario, before the "TacAI" could have got rolling so to speak. Like I said, I'm interested in constructive discourse. Throwing an "incompetent" or "kicked to the curb" in here and there makes things more colorful as long as empirically supported claims are being made. And +1 for Scenario of the Month, great initiative. And now for some bunched smoldering wreakage in a large open map:
  9. True. My charge that the scenario was designed "incompetently" was too harsh. It was borne out of frustration. No I have never attempted to design a scenario. Overall, pointing out problems with AI/scenario design is constructive if the problems are real. I provide two examples in this thread of enemy bunching in the first 10 minutes of a scenario in a stock campaign. This is sufficient empirical evidence that there is a problem. It does not matter if I play the scenario over again and find that the AI does not bunch. The fact is, the AI bunched in two separate instances in the first 10 minutes of the scenario. The problem may be with the AI ("TacAI"), it may be with the scenario design tools, or it may be with the scenario designer's decisions. Given the comments so far, it seems I was wrong to conclude that the problem is solely with the decisions made by the scenario designer. It is all of the above. Perhaps the designer could have split the enemy into smaller groups. Overall the designer for this campaign has done well. But bunching like this really takes the wind out of my sails.
  10. So the consensus here is that this bunching behavior is a symptom of incompetent scenario design. Extra disappointing because this is a campaign sanctioned by BF ("The Charge of the Stryker Brigade", part of the $10.00 Battle Pack). Clearly it was rushed. Just played another turn and sure enough, now the enemy tanks are bunching up unrealistically:
  11. The fact that you were able to post those real world pictures so quickly after reading this post is very impressive. But my point stands regarding the AI/scenario behavior in this particular tactical situation. You're right: the first company to make an AI that approaches the challenge of playing against a human being in a tactical combat game will be unspeakably rich. I think Battlefront can do better, maybe even become leaders in AI performance in the video game industry (most developers are resorting to exclusive multiplayer now anyway because AI is so difficult to do properly). Let's hope that they get more sales so that they can devote more resources to the improvement of AI and scenario design tools.
  12. Here is another example of unsatisfactory, immersion-breaking AI (or design) from the "Charge of the Stryker Brigade" campaign. These four enemy BMPs had not yet been engaged and this is only about six turns into the scenario... in less than a single turn (1 minute) they emerged from behind a hill and clustered together as seen in the picture. One of my javelin teams took one of these out later in the turn. This is highly disappointing. Are there plans to improve AI, or at least to release more competently designed products? I've never designed a scenario before, but this seems so amateur to me (to have a bunch of BMPs simultaneously crest a hill in an exposed position). Perhaps the designer is attempting to model how a panicked Russian force might react, but I simply can't imagine a bunch of Russian BMP drivers doing something like this, even when they weren't sure where the enemy was.
  13. Good points. I think your argument about having more AI-groups is strong (as in the Combat Mission AI thread). That would at least enable scenario designers to circumvent unrealistic AI behavior.
  14. The point I am making is that it is unrealistic to have 3 vehicles parked next to one another on a road in an active combat environment. My artillery has been falling, tanks have been exploding. This would never happen in real life. It is utterly stupid. Do you disagree?
  15. Here is an example of unsatisfactory, immersion-breaking AI from the "Charge of the Stryker Brigade" campaign. These three enemy units had not yet been engaged... they are just hanging out in a group in the middle of a road with their flanks to the enemy (me). Two of their tank friends had been destroyed many minutes before this screen capture was taken. Unacceptable? Yes. Will I continue this mission? Yes.