The unwish list: Difficult to code features on which precious development resources were best spent elsewhere.

[RockinHarry]

2 hours ago, Macisle said:

I believe the Editor AI Plan enhancements above, especially the first two or three, would be well worth the resource investment. I also think you'd see more scenarios coming out, as they would reduce designer workload by reducing the testing time needed for current Editor limit workarounds, while boosting designer satisfaction by facilitating creativity.

tons of great stuff @Macisle  Although I think simplifying things and have much of that integrated to the AIP standard behaviors (SOP) would likely draw more folks to the editor. (deleted the remaining stuff I just wrote here as would´ve been repetition of known AIP shortcomings)

[MikeyD]

'AI plan enhancement' is a slippery slope. Once you cross over into using programming language you'll lose a fair number of prospective editor users.

Many game owners are already intimidated by the current not-particularly-complex AI editor. How many game owners have built their own scenarios where APCs rush to a destination, offload their troops and multiple units then follow coordinated movements in an attack on an objective? Even veteran scenario builders are intimidated by the prospect of constructing assault order sets (that are more than just a shooting gallery). I've got a half-done scenario of my own sitting and waiting for me to add the offensive AI orders. Its not because the game's AI editor is difficult to use, its because planning offensive operations is difficult in general. Adding more options would be cool but it won't make it any less intimidating.

[Macisle]

9 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

tons of great stuff @Macisle  Although I think simplifying things and have much of that integrated to the AIP standard behaviors (SOP) would likely draw more folks to the editor. (deleted the remaining stuff I just wrote here as would´ve been repetition of known AIP shortcomings)

Thanks, Harry. I was trying to hit what I see as the biggies while at the same time avoiding what looked like major coding work. Most of my suggestions are either expansions of current functionality like additional slots for groups/terrain zones or a minor tweak like current exit zone functionality minus any relation to victory points. AI Area Fire Heavy would just tweak the current math to have the AI fire more often. Aside from hidden ramifications that a non-coder outsider like me can't anticipate, the only suggestions that look like heavy endeavors might be the AI Rally and Artillery improvements. I'd take the Rally over the Artillery, as current TacAI artillery action can be pretty good. Oh, but one biggie I forgot:

Off-map artillery Group Assigment and AI Area Fire via Order Zone Painting: allow off-map artillery units to be assigned a Group Number and make use of AI Area Fire feature via Orders. Again, this builds on current functionality and so, in theory, would be light on the resource investment of coding time. It would have a huge impact on scenario design, though. We currently can use the workaround of on-map medium mortars with AI Area Fire, but that's only medium mortars. In combination with an AI Area Fire Heavy command...whoo-boy!

5 hours ago, MikeyD said:

'AI plan enhancement' is a slippery slope. Once you cross over into using programming language you'll lose a fair number of prospective editor users.

Many game owners are already intimidated by the current not-particularly-complex AI editor. How many game owners have built their own scenarios where APCs rush to a destination, offload their troops and multiple units then follow coordinated movements in an attack on an objective? Even veteran scenario builders are intimidated by the prospect of constructing assault order sets (that are more than just a shooting gallery). I've got a half-done scenario of my own sitting and waiting for me to add the offensive AI orders. Its not because the game's AI editor is difficult to use, its because planning offensive operations is difficult in general. Adding more options would be cool but it won't make it any less intimidating.

I'd keep potential Editor users free from touching any code. I agree that, while it might be intimidating at first, the CMx2 Editor is actually very easy to use and much more user-friendly than say, the Red Orchestra SDK (hats off to the Darkest Hour team for being able to make such phenomenal maps in that editor. I quickly gave up on it).

As someone who has put in the 100+ testing hours it took to pull off a large AI attack plan in a public scenario, believe me, my suggestions are aimed at making that easier. I've orchestrated APC troop deliveries + AFV withdrawal and had assault guns come in, area fire and exit (spent a whole day on that before I discovered that you can't do point-neutral exits. It was beautiful...). 32+ Groups and point-neutral exits would greatly facilitate such things.

32+ Groups really greases the wheels for so many things because you have the freedom to tightly control things and preempt AI stupidity. For example, as things stand, you might be forced to have your HMGs in one Group. So, if they need to say, relocate at a certain point, you are at the mercy of the built-in random nature of TacAI movement. Assuming they are spread out around a town, my experience is that they are almost certain to criss-cross the town and get shot up. However, with the extra groups, you can separate them and give them safe paths. Same goes for things like HQs and FOs. Right now, there, they will likely have to be grouped in such a way that they can't be kept safe and/or do their job properly without conflicting with the needs of other grouped units.

My suggestions, while being enhancements that give designers a lot more control and power, don't necessarily make the AI plan more complicated. In fact, they make the work much easier because they eliminate workaround time and need. That's HUGE.

Quickly moving to pie-in-the-sky (as in MAJOR coding work) pontification, shifting as many Editor functions as possible to the 3D view would probably attract a lot more people to scenario design. Stuff like building choice and placement, artillery planning, group movement plotting, etc. But that's a whole bag o' muffins and then some. Just threw it in for conversation. I'd much rather see resource investment in the 2D suggestions above.

Edit: One addition that might attract more people to scenario production would be the option to choose a text-only mission briefing. Basically, the designer could choose the current user-made multi-graphic format or opt for text-only, which would put in a BF-provided stock background graphic that only needs briefing text to look complete. I think having such an option might bring a surprising number of new public scenarios to life.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Macisle

[Macisle]

Another worth-the-cost AI Plan functionality enhancement that I forgot to add:

Group type selection for Quick Battle AI Plans. This would give the ability for the designer to, if desired, select which type of unit goes into a particular Group (ATG, AFV, FO, HMG, etc.). I think this would go a long way to alleviate current SP QB issues. Maybe allow the designer a percentage parameter so that some units could be randomly assigned if desired (like 80% AFVs assigned, 20% unassigned).

[RockinHarry]

Many interesting and potentially useful improvement ideas @Macisle.  Though somewhat the wrong thread! 

I´d vote opening up a new thread and call it "AI plan solution center" sort of, where more or less ambitious mission designers can chime in and tell of their solutions for particular AI plan problems. There´s numerous things that one can pull off in the editor, whether for defending or attacking AI. That might also get more people started when it´s clear what can be done and what rather not. Thus far there´s whole lot of stuff scattered all over the forum and having a single place on this topic appears beneficial for all. General Discussion - CM2 Scenario and Mod Tips seems the right place. Maybe waiting til the V4 patch has been released and possible AI changes/behaviors compared with current mission design experiences.

[RockinHarry]

10 hours ago, Macisle said:

As someone who has put in the 100+ testing hours it took to pull off a large AI attack plan in a public scenario, believe me, my suggestions are aimed at making that easier. I've orchestrated APC troop deliveries + AFV withdrawal and had assault guns come in, area fire and exit (spent a whole day on that before I discovered that you can't do point-neutral exits. It was beautiful...). 32+ Groups and point-neutral exits would greatly facilitate such things.

What´s that mission of yours @Macisle? I´d like having a look (and possibly playthrough). 

Edit: Looks I just found it. "The Radzy Award V1"? Ah.. then I need to wait til I purchased CMRT in the very near future as well.

I think I as well succeeded in setting up an attacking AI quite well in my You Enter Germany CMBN mission, by exploiting V4 editor features to the fullest, including both trigger types, retreat and area fire ect.

http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cm-battles-for-normandy/cmbn-v4-mg-vp-you-enter-germany-introduction/

Edited February 26, 2019 by RockinHarry

[Glubokii Boy]

 

16 hours ago, MikeyD said:

'AI plan enhancement' is a slippery slope. Once you cross over into using programming language you'll lose a fair number of prospective editor users.

No need to go that far imo. A somewhat more flexible AI order plotting, a few more trigger options etc and maybe having things like reinforcements arriving by trigger and stuff like that...

10 hours ago, Macisle said:

 

32+ Groups really greases the wheels for so many things because you have the freedom to tightly control things and preempt AI stupidity. For example, as things stand, you might be forced to have your HMGs in one Group. So, if they need to say, relocate at a certain point, you are at the mercy of the built-in random nature of TacAI movement. Assuming they are spread out around a town, my experience is that they are almost certain to criss-cross the town and get shot up. However, with the extra groups, you can separate them and give them safe paths. Same goes for things like HQs and FOs. Right now, there, they will likely have to be grouped in such a way that they can't be kept safe and/or do their job properly without conflicting with the needs of other grouped units.

My suggestions, while being enhancements that give designers a lot more control and power, don't necessarily make the AI plan more complicated. In fact, they make the work much easier because they eliminate workaround time and need. That's HUGE.

 

This...

37 minutes ago, RockinHarry said:

Many interesting and potentially useful improvement ideas @Macisle.  Though somewhat the wrong thread! 

I´d vote opening up a new thread and call it "AI plan solution center" sort of, where more or less ambitious mission designers can chime in and tell of their solutions for particular AI plan problems. There´s numerous things that one can pull off in the editor, whether for defending or attacking AI. That might also get more people started when it´s clear what can be done and what rather not. Thus far there´s whole lot of stuff scattered all over the forum and having a single place on this topic appears beneficial for all. General Discussion - CM2 Scenario and Mod Tips seems the right place. Maybe waiting til the V4 patch has been released and possible AI changes/behaviors compared with current mission design experiences.

Such a thread should be stickied imo.... There have been a number of those already made through the years but they tend to dissapear amongst  the other threads...

A stickied thread like that would be a good idea for sure..

[Macisle]

3 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

Many interesting and potentially useful improvement ideas @Macisle.  Though somewhat the wrong thread! 

I´d vote opening up a new thread and call it "AI plan solution center" sort of, where more or less ambitious mission designers can chime in and tell of their solutions for particular AI plan problems. There´s numerous things that one can pull off in the editor, whether for defending or attacking AI. That might also get more people started when it´s clear what can be done and what rather not. Thus far there´s whole lot of stuff scattered all over the forum and having a single place on this topic appears beneficial for all. General Discussion - CM2 Scenario and Mod Tips seems the right place. Maybe waiting til the V4 patch has been released and possible AI changes/behaviors compared with current mission design experiences.

Yeah, you're right on the topic relevance. When I started typing, I wasn't intending to get into as much detail as I did in that area.

That's a very good idea on the "AI Plan Solution Center" thread. As you say, let's let the patch hit, kick the tires and then have at it. Another thread topic that might be useful is "QB Map Design: Best Practices" or some such. I haven't taken the time to search yet, but I'd like to gather info on that topic for my big CMRT map project. The master can produce a fair number of slices. I'd like to include some QB maps when I release the scenarios (will be awhile--after the CMRT module is released) and need to study up on QB design techniques. I know a few tricks like using higher floor assignments in setup painting to put infantry in buildings and ATGs outside when they are in a mixed group. However, there may be other good ideas that I'm unaware of. I'd really like to be able to isolate unit types for certain Groups.

3 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

What´s that mission of yours @Macisle? I´d like having a look (and possibly playthrough). 

Edit: Looks I just found it. "The Radzy Award V1"? Ah.. then I need to wait til I purchased CMRT in the very near future as well.

I think I as well succeeded in setting up an attacking AI quite well in my You Enter Germany CMBN mission, by exploiting V4 editor features to the fullest, including both trigger types, retreat and area fire ect.

http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cm-battles-for-normandy/cmbn-v4-mg-vp-you-enter-germany-introduction/

Yeah, that's the one. Of course, lots of time spent doesn't guarantee quality. I did put quite a lot of effort into it though, and learned a lot along the way. Last time I checked, there were still no comments or ratings for it. A fair number of downloads, however. I'd love to get your feedback on it down the line when you are set up for it and have the time. I'll be sure to give yours a run when I have time (wasn't aware of that one -- I'm excited!). Right now, I'm spending pretty much all of my game time working on my Kharkiveskya map for CMRT. It's a huge project for one person. I knew it was big going in, but had no idea what I was really getting myself in for. I didn't with Radzy, either. Quite a lot of the time spent was determining what the AI could do, honing it, and tailoring the player's forces and the timing of everything to add the needed traction for the AI. It's meant to be a meaty endeavor for veteran CM players who will hang in there for the whole battle.

One trick I picked up there for use with T-34/76s: AI Area Fire will cause the TC to keep his head down safe, even though his hatch is open. So, if you want to keep him safe from small arms fire when the AI is too stupid to button up, you can just paint a red tile he has no LOS to and that will do it. I did a lot of testing and frankly, the only Soviet AFV that has decent situational awareness under AI command is the T-34/85. And that is still not as good as the German tanks. In one test, a single Veteran Jgdpz IV took out an entire company of T-34/76s in a frontal on frontal engagement with the German in stationary ambush as the Soviets rolled in. The AI just couldn't see anything. A human player would have done something like area fire the company onto the Jgdpz IVs position, but of course, the AI can't do that. Thus the great number of hours of testing, testing, testing. And, of course, a big chunk of time was spent trying to make what I wanted to do work with only 16 groups. That wasn't easy.

Edited February 26, 2019 by Macisle

[RockinHarry]

1 hour ago, Macisle said:

Yeah, you're right on the topic relevance. When I started typing, I wasn't intending to get into as much detail as I did in that area.

That's a very good idea on the "AI Plan Solution Center" thread. As you say, let's let the patch hit, kick the tires and then have at it. Another thread topic that might be useful is "QB Map Design: Best Practices" or some such. I haven't taken the time to search yet, but I'd like to gather info on that topic for my big CMRT map project. The master can produce a fair number of slices. I'd like to include some QB maps when I release the scenarios (will be awhile--after the CMRT module is released) and need to study up on QB design techniques. I know a few tricks like using higher floor assignments in setup painting to put infantry in buildings and ATGs outside when they are in a mixed group. However, there may be other good ideas that I'm unaware of. I'd really like to be able to isolate unit types for certain Groups.

Yeah, that's the one. Of course, lots of time spent doesn't guarantee quality. I did put quite a lot of effort into it though, and learned a lot along the way. Last time I checked, there were still no comments or ratings for it. A fair number of downloads, however. I'd love to get your feedback on it down the line when you are set up for it and have the time. I'll be sure to give yours a run when I have time (wasn't aware of that one -- I'm excited!). Right now, I'm spending pretty much all of my game time working on my Kharkiveskya map for CMRT. It's a huge project for one person. I knew it was big going in, but had no idea what I was really getting myself in for. I didn't with Radzy, either. Quite a lot of the time spent was determining what the AI could do, honing it, and tailoring the player's forces and the timing of everything to add the needed traction for the AI. It's meant to be a meaty endeavor for veteran CM players who will hang in there for the whole battle.

One trick I picked up there for use with T-34/76s: AI Area Fire will cause the TC to keep his head down safe, even though his hatch is open. So, if you want to keep him safe from small arms fire when the AI is too stupid to button up, you can just paint a red tile he has no LOS to and that will do it. I did a lot of testing and frankly, the only Soviet AFV that has decent situational awareness under AI command is the T-34/85. And that is still not as good as the German tanks. In one test, a single Veteran Jgdpz IV took out an entire company of T-34/76s in a frontal on frontal engagement with the German in stationary ambush as the Soviets rolled in. The AI just couldn't see anything. A human player would have done something like area fire the company onto the Jgdpz IVs position, but of course, the AI can't do that. Thus the great number of hours of testing, testing, testing. And, of course, a big chunk of time was spent trying to make what I wanted to do work with only 16 groups. That wasn't easy.

another great candidates for that solution center thing to come.  With regard to mission design feedback... well, I feel with you. There´s just few people that are really helpful when it comes to the details that one is most interested in, but otherwise people are more interested to play, not write. With regards to feedback at TSD III things are even worse, but I always point to concerning thread at BFC forum which is way easier to use, beside probably way more people registered there.

What I figured just lately is that mission testing the AIP with 100% "early intel" strength on enemy side setting yields different results than with no early intel setting (or anything between), since many the TacAI and orders behavior depend much on enemy/threats present. At least this counts for the starting phase of a mission. Some may know this already, but me did not. 

To expand on it, one can give the opposing AIP very specific clues on his adversary by setting his early intel strength on 100% full, but just have few selected friendly units on the map initially. Remaining friendly units then may enter as reinforcements at earliest reinforcement time (+5) and these then are excluded from the AIP full starting intel. Yet need to retest if this really works, since it´s been some long time ago since I tinkered with that.  Other options might be possible by giving the AIP a selection of initially placed friendly units that he then can use for a 30% intel strength in example...

Edited February 26, 2019 by RockinHarry

[Macisle]

22 minutes ago, RockinHarry said:

another great candidates for that solution center thing to come.  With regard to mission design feedback... well, I feel with you. There´s just few people that are really helpful when it comes to the details that one is most interested in, but otherwise people are more interested to play, not write. With regards to feedback at TSD III things are even worse, but I always point to concerning thread at BFC forum which is way easier to use, beside probably way more people registered there.

What I figured just lately is that mission testing the AIP with "full intel on enemy side" setting yields different results than with no intel setting (or anything between), since many the TacAI and orders behavior depend much on enemy/threats present. At least this counts for the starting phase of a mission. Some may know this already, but me did not. 

To expand on it, one can give the opposing AIP very specific clues on his adversary by setting his intel on full, but just have few selected friendly units on the map initially. Remaining friendly units then may enter as reinforcements at earliest reinforcement time (+5) and these then are excluded from the AIP full starting intel. Yet need to retest if this really works, since it´s been some long time ago since I tinkered with that.  Other options might be possible by giving the AIP a selection of initially placed friendly units that he then can use for a 30% intel in example...

Lack of feedback just seems to be the nature of the beast these days. I think it will only get worse, as people spread their limited free time across ever more entertainment options. I've been guilty of it myself, so perhaps this is my karma.

You've definitely been a hero on the forums with advice, suggestions, and analysis. I've picked up a number of things from your posts over the years. Thanks for taking the time to write them!

That's interesting on intel settings. I've literally never touched them and had no idea. -Always have them on no intel. At some point, I'll have to tinker with them. Thanks!

 

[sburke]

On 2/22/2019 at 12:29 PM, Frenchy56 said:

Does the game have a dynamic light spotting system?

For example, if a unit is close to a burning wreck at night, is it easier to spot? Just having that may make flares easier to do.

It does not which is one major reason you won’t see flares anytime soon.  You can verify this by simply moving troops near a burning wreck and check spotting. It would be majorly cool to have and also skylining units on crests, but doubtful we will see.  

[Bulletpoint]

3 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

What I figured just lately is that mission testing the AIP with 100% "early intel" strength on enemy side setting yields different results than with no early intel setting (or anything between), since many the TacAI and orders behavior depend much on enemy/threats present.

Are you sure about this?

As far as I know, AI movement orders are always completely robotic - 'move group 5 to position 2 starting at mission timer 12:00'. Doesn't seem to take anything else into account, apart from the general movement type.  But I'll happily be proven wrong here.

[RockinHarry]

33 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Are you sure about this?

As far as I know, AI movement orders are always completely robotic - 'move group 5 to position 2 starting at mission timer 12:00'. Doesn't seem to take anything else into account, apart from the general movement type.  But I'll happily be proven wrong here.

Not entirely sure as said, but I should´ve been more specific. I was actually refering to order stances like Cautious, Hide, Active and the like. Also between movement zones far apart, the AIP´s units could potentially chose a slightly different path due to perceived threats. The intel settings only give the unknown (generic silhouette and question mark) type of icons, until enemy units are truly spotted. How much of an influence it really has on the AIP´s actions yet needs to be confirmed.

[DerKommissar]

Some cheap shots:

- Mission time limits

- 3 out of 4 of tracers

- Neutral steering of non-neutral steering vehicles

- Single-core code

- "The Grid"

[Macisle]

4 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

Not entirely sure as said, but I should´ve been more specific. I was actually refering to order stances like Cautious, Hide, Active and the like. Also between movement zones far apart, the AIP´s units could potentially chose a slightly different path due to perceived threats. The intel settings only give the unknown (generic silhouette and question mark) type of icons, until enemy units are truly spotted. How much of an influence it really has on the AIP´s actions yet needs to be confirmed.

Oh, I do make use of order stances. In Radzy, most Soviets are on Active most of the time.

[RockinHarry]

1 hour ago, Macisle said:

Oh, I do make use of order stances. In Radzy, most Soviets are on Active most of the time.

Hm... since the game manual categorizes these all as combat posture, the unknown/unspotted contacts most likely don´t have any influence on the AIP´s tactical movements. But who knows on what else... 

[37mm]

I can see how creating a dynamic lighting model just for night-time flares could be a time sink however perhaps BFC could figure out some kind of "fudge" using the already present UAV mechanics?

The only things flares would really help you see at night is vehicles & moving infantry so using some simple rules like that would bypass the need for dynamic, light-based spotting*.

 

 

Personally, I think the easiest thing that BFC could do to improve the game is to start moving their special effects into a more realistic direction.

The engine four update added all manner of new tracers & I'm not the only one suspicious that they call their explosion "explosion a"... so presumably BFC are planning to move in this direction at some point.

 

 

*The actual glow of the "flare" would just be a visual effect.

Edited February 28, 2019 by 37mm

[Bulletpoint]

It wouldn't be that hard to make a simplified flare lighting system. Because changing light conditions are already in the code. Light levels change as the daylight changes. That means there's a number somewhere in the code that says "how light is it right now?"

Flares could just be setting this number to +X for the next X seconds.

As I said, it would be simplified, because one flare would light up the entire map equally. But it would be quick and easy to do. The harder part would be to design how and when the player and AI would be able to fire flares, how many they would have, which units had them, etc. That could be solved by assuming flares were a kind of off-map artillery with a very short call-time. Again, simplified but workable.

[A Canadian Cat]

56 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

it would be simplified, because one flare would light up the entire map equally.

Yikes, I think that falls into the "that would be very bad" category. Can you imagine the threads on here with titles like "I fired one flare and some guy ended up spotted and dead 1000m away WTF". I'd like to see illumination as much as the next guy but a quick and dirty hack like that would be far worse than not having them.

[Bulletpoint]

33 minutes ago, IanL said:

Yikes, I think that falls into the "that would be very bad" category. Can you imagine the threads on here with titles like "I fired one flare and some guy ended up spotted and dead 1000m away WTF".

Well, call it "flare barrage" or some such... implying it's a lot of artillery delivered flares?

But I'd also prefer to see them implement proper local dynamic lighting, so that burning wrecks could illuminate their local area etc.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Bulletpoint

[37mm]

On 2/28/2019 at 4:19 PM, Bulletpoint said:

Well, call it "flare barrage" or some such... implying it's a lot of artillery delivered flares?

But I'd also prefer to see them implement proper local dynamic lighting, so that burning wrecks could illuminate their local area etc.

Perhaps something as simple as "vehicles & moving infantry get a concealment penalty" when under a "flare"?

Obviously we have no idea how BFC calculate concealment but I'm pretty sure units travelling along roads get a penalty (or lose their "bonus"?).

 

Additionally we know that units which fire lose a lot, & often all, concealment. So we know BFC can change concealment independent of terrain.

Program it such that vehicles & moving infantry under the "flare" give away their position as if they had fired.

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On ‎2‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 1:56 PM, Macisle said:

Thus the great number of hours of testing, testing, testing. And, of course, a big chunk of time was spent trying to make what I wanted to do work with only 16 groups. That wasn't easy.

Sometimes it's a rather counterintuitive process, but it's very satisfying when you find that 'fix' isn't it (& equally irritating when you don't). 

[Macisle]

20 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Sometimes it's a rather counterintuitive process, but it's very satisfying when you find that 'fix' isn't it (& equally irritating when you don't). 

Yeah. Getting Group recycling to work was very satisfying. On the other hand, that made not having point-neutral exits that much more frustrating. I spent a whole day perfecting the orchestration of a platoon of heavy assault guns to come in, burn up their ammo in AI Area Fire, then exit, to be replaced in their Group by fresh troops that would stay on the map. It all worked beautifully. Then, I found out that it was a choice between ditching casualty points or ditching my orchestration. I made the obvious, if painful choice of ditching the orchestration. Aargh.

Originally, I was planning to do a German AI attack version of Radzy, too. After messing around with unloading APC troops and such, I decided that the lack of PN exits and maximum number of groups made it too much work to pull of my vision. So, I gave up on it.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I think, in that instance, I'd have rearranged the VPs instead. 

[Macisle]

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I think, in that instance, I'd have rearranged the VPs instead. 

Would have still had the problem of what to do with the now ammo-depleted AGs when fresh troops would be arriving soon to use their Group number. Also, I think most players would choose getting casualty points for kills over what was essentially neat eye candy for a few minutes early in the scenario.

Oh, well. Maybe one day...

Edited March 2, 2019 by Macisle