Can anyone explain this to me?

[markshot]

I have blown the entire side off this building.  But no matter what orders I give, my squads want to enter through the doors.  Of course, the doors are covered by German arcs of fire!

 

What's going on here?  Why won't they just go in?

 

Thanks!

 

[c3k]

Rubble.

 

You've dropped a veritable nightmare of shifting bricks, splintered wood, looping wires (sparking?), and treacherous terrain right in front of your men. They are rightfully refusing to allow themselves to be enmeshed in that mess. Far easier to use the door.

 

That's roughly the issue. Breaching charges create "cleaner" holes. Wholesale hole making can create obstacles.

[markshot]

So then, this is not the same thing as a breaching charge?

 

Thanks!

 

Edited September 14, 2015 by markshot

[womble]

Sometimes, buildings don't sit quite right in the terrain to allow entry on all sides. Let us know what map it was so people can investigate; it may be a map-specific wrinkle.

 

First time I saw something analagous, I'd mouseholed through at Level 2, and the troops ran downstairs, out the door, into the other building through its door and up the stairs... Only suppression overkill and the luck of there not being any overlooking enemy on the side the troops chose to go around saved it from being a total disaster.

[markshot]

The stock mission:

 

CW 18 Platoon.btt

 

I have played CMBO/CMBB/CMAK since 2000.  I just got a new PC and picked up the CMBN bundle.  I've done the 6 tutorials and am starting with tiny missions to get up to speed.

 

Thanks!

[markshot]

Rubble.

 

You've dropped a veritable nightmare of shifting bricks, splintered wood, looping wires (sparking?), and treacherous terrain right in front of your men. They are rightfully refusing to allow themselves to be enmeshed in that mess. Far easier to use the door.

 

That's roughly the issue. Breaching charges create "cleaner" holes. Wholesale hole making can create obstacles.

 

I see your point.  It's a touch choice.  Do you want to die of a tetanus infection or German bullets in the back?

[womble]

Slightly OT, markshot, and only a suggestion to consider: I recommend footling with a QB or two before jumping into scenarios, and looking for scenarios that are "best played as [whicheverside] vs AI" so that firstly you don't "waste" the only-first-blind-play by making some move that's not supported by the engine, and secondly so that when you graduate to HvH you'll have a larger pool of scenarios you've not played to pick from. Noodling around in a QB doesn't erode the FoW as much and lets you work out SOPs and how to make the game engine actuate those procedures, reducing the number of "WTF" moments...

[markshot]

An interesting suggestion.  Actually, when I started with CM in 2000; not having any ground combat experience, I did play the intro scenario 20 times.

 

I much better now.  I had a collection of 6000 CMBO/CMBB/CMAK scenarios of which I would cycle through every few years.  At my age, three years totally restores the FOW. 

 

I am actually doing something like you suggested with GTOS to learn the game.

 

So, as you long as you bring it up:

 

(1)  How is this scripted AI?  Can the AI actually play the attacker?

 

(2)  Are the scenarios replayable with up to 5 random plans?

 

(3)  How are QBs are they worth anything beyond set ups for PBEMS?

 

Thanks.

[marklaker]

I much better now.  I had a collection of 6000 CMBO/CMBB/CMAK scenarios of which I would cycle through every few years.  At my age, three years totally restores the FOW. 

 

That made me smile.  More so, because I can relate.

[RockinHarry]

 

(1)  How is this scripted AI?  Can the AI actually play the attacker?

 

(2)  Are the scenarios replayable with up to 5 random plans?

Thanks.

(1) You can make the AI playing an attacker, but it will just do, or not do, what the scenario maker plans ahead, not considering any actions that the (human) opponent might interfer with. The AIP won´t adapt or coordinate to other than very local tactical circumstances by its own, unless in CMX1 where some Operational AI guides the TacAI through the whole battle with regards to map objectives or in meeting engagement games, where the OpAI moves forces towards enemy map edges, or "hunts" enemy units by set point values. There´s no something in CMX2. Actually the AIP is fully unaware of any the given goals within a mission and thus has no brains to attempt "winning" a mission, without guidance of a scenario maker battle plans. Seeing an attacking AIP executing battle plans well, also depends on other factors like terrain, general force superiority and such. Generally, the more difficult an attack would be for a human player, the worse it would be for an AIP likewise. Doesn´t mean that it´s no fun battling an attacking AIP generally, but usually a human player will be superior to anything scripted by the mission designer (brute force, huge numerical superiority excluded maybe).

2. Up to 5 plans yes, if the scenario maker really finds that many variations worth implementing for the AI.

There´s also the possibility to expand replayability by scripting small campaign structures (mini campaign), by offering the player 2 or more of the same mission, by varying mission parameters, that are exluded by default, namely time of day, weather, reinforcements and others. Or just have the same mission, but this time with another completely different 5 battle plans in use. Possibilities are numerous actually if combining variability of battle plans within a single mission and branching variable missions from within a small campaign.

[markshot]

I guess if I was to summarize what you are saying; proper use of plans by the designer results in an incremental improvement in the "appearance" of an attack as opposed to a quantum leap.

 

Yes, I remember CMBO/CMBB/CMAK attacks.  They were typically piecemeal affairs that me feel pity for the poor AI as I shot it up.  A good scenario designer could simulate probes and main thrusts by terrain, objectives, and timely arrival of reinforcements.

 

Another problem I had with attacks is that most maps were too small to be any more than static defenses.  There was little opportunity for truly multi-layered defenses with interior lines of movement.

 

Still I have enjoyed this game series for years.  The CMBO/CMBB/CMAK community was an incredibly prolific group of modders and scenario designers.

 

I ended up with about 6000 scenarios.  Once upon a time there was the Scenario Depot.  The ISP went bust, but I had a friend that had a zip DB of all scenarios/ops and cataloged via an Excel spreadsheet.

[RockinHarry]

I guess if I was to summarize what you are saying; proper use of plans by the designer results in an incremental improvement in the "appearance" of an attack as opposed to a quantum leap.

Basically yes. If no operational AI would be reimplemented into CMX2, then most likely only conditionalized branching triggers could improve the AI noticably further. Triggers as introduced in V3.0 already help to script some more varied AI behavior, but generally they only variably determine "when" a unit is triggered to move and not "where to". That would be more of a quantum leap, when it comes to improved scripted AI behavior (branching triggers).

Yes, I remember CMBO/CMBB/CMAK attacks.  They were typically piecemeal affairs that me feel pity for the poor AI as I shot it up.  A good scenario designer could simulate probes and main thrusts by terrain, objectives, and timely arrival of reinforcements.

 

Another problem I had with attacks is that most maps were too small to be any more than static defenses.  There was little opportunity for truly multi-layered defenses with interior lines of movement.

 

Still I have enjoyed this game series for years.  The CMBO/CMBB/CMAK community was an incredibly prolific group of modders and scenario designers.

 

I ended up with about 6000 scenarios.  Once upon a time there was the Scenario Depot.  The ISP went bust, but I had a friend that had a zip DB of all scenarios/ops and cataloged via an Excel spreadsheet.

There was also lots of potential in the CMX1 operations type games, that I think weren´t as well exploited by mission designers, like normal battles. That´s almost the same (for CMX2) if one considers that putting too much scripted actions into a single battle, that they maybe better distribute and get coordinated from within a campaign structure, which gives at least 2 additional choices (from win or loose battle condition). What we yet need for this, is that subsequent battles can also draw from map data of the previous one, so that destroyed vehicles, damaged/rubbled buildings and craters get preserved (assuming a battle is fought over on the same larger map, as was the case in CMX1 operations). I´d imagine that something like this will be introduced in some the next CMX2 engines sooner or later. At least I hope so.

[Bulletpoint]

I have blown the entire side off this building.  But no matter what orders I give, my squads want to enter through the doors.  Of course, the doors are covered by German arcs of fire!

 

What's going on here?  Why won't they just go in?

 

Thanks!

 

CM Normandy 2015-09-15 01-07-11-82.jpg

 

I'd say that would be a terrain elevation issue of some kind. Probably the game thinks the entry point is a bit below ground, so it won't allow troops to enter.

[womble]

AI plans are greatly improved by the use of triggers to supplement or replace the original time-based progression between steps. However, there are not yet many v3 maps and scenarios for the CMBN family which incorporate the trigger feature; all the original game and CM:CW/MG scenarios lack the feature.

[markshot]

I wonder how many scenario designers are mainly just using the new capabilities only to establish predefined random setup zones?  (already an improvement from computer setup of the previous games)

[markshot]

Well, I must say that the defensive setups did show some variability for the above scenario and make each attack a unique problem.

 

However, I just played as the defender and the AI's attack was totally uninspired.  One of my two man teams accounted for 80% of the enemy causalities.

 

Now, with CMBO/CMBB/CMAK the design notes would have said give the attacker (if AI) a +1/+2 experience bonus and 25% more troops.  Why were these type of adjustments left out of this series?

 

Thanks.

[A Canadian Cat]

 

Now, with CMBO/CMBB/CMAK the design notes would have said give the attacker (if AI) a +1/+2 experience bonus and 25% more troops. 

??? Not sure what you mean.  I admit it has been a long time since I played the CM1x games but I do not recall a way to add more troops or increase the experience for the AI in a *scenario* dynamically at scenario start.  The scenario designer can certainly *create* his scenario from the get go with additional troops and more experience to make it more challenging.  The problem of course is scenarios like that are then often not much fun played H2H.  Striking that balance is tricky for sure.

 

Why were these type of adjustments left out of this series?

Please correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe they were left out because they were not in the original.  In Quick battles you can (in CM2x) handy cap your self against the AI when you set up the game.  Could you be thinking of this feature?

[sburke]

At my age, three years totally restores the FOW. 

 

Ahh youth.  Won't be too long before you get that same effect in 3 months

[grunt_GI]

Ahh youth.  Won't be too long before you get that same effect in 3 months

ha. You got that right. 

[A Canadian Cat]

Got what right?