Jump to content

George MC

Members
  • Posts

    7,389
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    43

Posts posted by George MC

  1. Cool! Every day is a school day :) Yup modern wheeled vehicles. As I said I hadn’t tested them - as context of my very limited ‘test’ was WWII tanks on a snow covered dirt road. 
    I take the point re speed on corners for wheeled vehicles. I don’t play CMPE and defo don’t really played wheeled vehicles. So I’ll put my hands up here. 
    Just to recap the video was for novices to give them a simple way to create a convoy that did not jam up or at least reduced the possibility. I fully appreciate experienced players  will fully leverage advantages such as speed on various road types in the game accepting additional complexity. 

     

     

  2. 6 hours ago, Erwin said:

    Traffic management for speed on a large map becomes important when playing H2H - esp MEETING ENGAGEMENTS when you want to get to a location as fast as possible - and therefore you don't want vehicles to slow down at bends in the road.  In those situations am often traveling FAST and using 2 waypoints at every bend that is 60 degrees or more.  (Yes, it is a PITA and a clickfest - as is trying to give new covered arcs to tanks at every waypoint.  It was easier in CM1 cos CM1 had a "one-click 180 degree arc" feature.)

    I can't say I've noticed any difference in speed re vehicles turning corners related to how may movement points you've plotted.

    How many movement points you can plot on a bend does really depend on the underlaying action grid. Some corners you can easily places three points - one before the corner, one on the corner and one after the corner. Others less so.

    I've not done any serious testing as my impression over the years is the AI tends to smooth the turn out anyways. The key thing being keeping the vehicle on the actual road surface hence being precise where you place the movement point. If its a really tight turn the AI will automatically slow down as it negotiates the corner just as it does on bridges.

    Out of curiosity I ran a quick and dirty 'test' and I placed three way points on a 45 deg corner as best I could (see my comment above re action grids and placing movement points) and watched the vehicles ( 2 x T-70 on fast) and I noticed no difference in speeds or pathing with both vehicles negotiating a 45 degree bend. I run it a few times (okay not really a formal test just quick and dirty to double check what I thin happens with what happens). Like lighter wheeled vehicles might negotiate corners better (as tanks have to pivot turn).

    If there is any difference and there might be in terms of smoother pathing (maybe...) its really negligible IMO and arguably not worth the additional effort. I mean bends on CM roads come in three flavours - 90 deg, 45 deg and 60 deg. So maybe there is some advantage in 90 degree bends but again the AI will automatically slow down if hurtling along at 'fast' to negotiate the bend.

    I've uploaded my wee test file. Just open the scenario (its a save file) and watch the T-70s (both regular) negotiate the 45 deg corner.

    Like if you feel it makes a difference, then  fair play - marginal gains and all that in competitive play - but for me there is no appreciable advantage as the AI in anycase and regardless of how may movement points placed at the corner will slow down to negotiate the corner, so I'll stick wi ma lazy boy way :)

    Mit Karacho 008.bts

  3. 3 hours ago, AdamPraha said:

     

    Hi.

    I wonder if there is some huge graphics mod. That would have completely improved the graphics and made everything prettier.

    I have a very nice : Initial 'All in One' modpack. However, I am looking to see if there is any "competition. Or even nicer graphically ?

    Nope. 
     

    Not an all in one. You can check stuff out at https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/ and see what you prefer though @37mmdid a grand job of curating an all in one that ticks a lot of boxes off the bat. 

  4. 4 hours ago, Artkin said:

    I never place waypoints directly on road corners, only before and after them. 

    IMO the units drive smoother around corners this way, and dont lose as much speed. 

    For 90 degree bends agreed. For curving corners makes no odds - the TacAI adjusts speed accordingly. If moving a lot of units in a convoy doing this will take forever. My approach enables the player to moves lots of stuff with min. effort. Its also simple (like me!) so IMO works well for thsoe new to CM.

    There are LOTS of ways to achieve the desired endstate of a traffic jam free convoy. Usually for a convoy I'm less concerned re speed and more the unit makes it to where I want em to be without creating a clusterfcuk down the road... At heart I'm a lazy bugger :)

    As I tend to play larger actions I tend to less micromanaging and tend to go with stuff that reduces the overall work load and achieves the desired effect.

    The great thing is the game accommodates lots of different styles and every player evolves their own style to managing the admin associated with making stuff move and fight from point A to point B.

     

  5. 6 minutes ago, Erwin said:

    As mentioned earlier, in addition to pauses one can also give each successive vehicle a different movement speed (until the initial waypoint).  That will enable a more subtle separation than the 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 45 second pauses that are available.  Also, as roads can usually accommodate two vehicles side by side, you can stagger the vehicles along a road, one on each side of the road with maybe a 10 meter separation. This works well when one has a large number of vehicles on the road, not just the 4 in the video.

    For sure. There are many ways to skin a cat! The vid is aimed at those new to CM so I went for simple - as the method I tend to use is less prone to clusterfukcs :) plus keeps the video short! 

     

  6. So just tested in CMRT and you see the same inconsistency. Test btt file attached.

    SPW platoon and associated dismounts with exit points allocated (100) for the units to exit; units all R1 in five minutes.

    If they arrive on the map (after 5 minutes) and exit - German player scores no points, neither does the soviet = as expected as player exiting units denies points for the enemy who have not killed them.

    If they arrive on the map (after 5 minutes) and do not exit  - German player scores no points, enemy scores 100 points = as expected as units that do not exit and set as 'destroy' objectives will count as destroyed for scoring.

    If the German player ceasefire before the units arrive on the map - German player scores no points whilst Soviet player scores 59 points (!)

    Remove the destroy objective from the SPW and keep points the same (100). So now only the dismounts count as a 'destroy' objective.

    If the German player ceasefire before the dismounts arrive on the map - German player scores no points whilst Soviet player scores 100 points - as expected.

    Revive the SPW but remove the dismounts as a destroy objective - so effectively only the SPW count as 'destroy' objectives.

    If the German player ceasefire before the SPW arrive on the map - German player scores no points whilst Soviet player scores 23 points.

    So different numbers but similar effects noticed. Infantry only count as full destroy objective - whether they arrive and fail to exit or game ends before they arrive. But add SPW then the scoring goes a bit out of whack if the game ceasefire before the tracks appear resulting in not full points being awarded. 

    However this only becomes an issue if the game is cease fired before reinforcement units which are also a destroy objective in a exit scenario. In exit scenarios cease firing early if one player has units marked as destroy objectives can really muck up scoring. One reason I tend to make this clear within the briefing. Don't do it kids! 

    FYI I've filed a bug report with BFC re this issue.

    EXIT TEST_V1.btt

  7. On 2/29/2024 at 8:54 PM, Butschi said:

    Look here:

    https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/tp709x3im6alym9ge11us/h?rlkey=w26ftpv2jsox5f01mu095mzt8&dl=0

    exit_points_test.btt is super minimalistic, only blue has units, a single platoon. Remove the M113s and red will get 100 points, leave them in and its only 62 or something similar.

    hohkeppel_osm_v2.btt is a complex scenario where red has to exit. You can observe the same effect there.

    Cheers ta. Ended up stacked wi work but should get a proper look. IIRC there was a similar issue in CMRT with infantry carriers but would have to double check. 
     

    Quick play I’ve had with yours is everything works as intended re exit and destroy objectives once everything is on the map. The weird issue is when tracks are reinforcements and you hit ceasefire before they arrive on the map. 
     

    But as I said I’ll double check and also check in CMRT. 

  8. On 2/27/2024 at 9:18 PM, Commanderski said:

    I'm playing @George MC's Red Thunder Campaign Five Days One Summer and I'm on the 4th mission. I set up an ambush with 3 tanks in the town of Gliniszcze, which has a border of trees on all sides about 20 meters wide. Shortly after I set them up 3 Soviet tanks arrive and I dispatch them pretty quickly. After a little while I see two more approaching. They get within and 30 to 40 meters of the tree line then stop.  They then proceed to rake the entire tree line with their machine guns and main guns. This went on for about a full 10 minutes (10 turns) with them raking the whole line and concentrating on a small area in front of them with their main guns. I didn't have any units in or near the tree line.

    They blasted away an opening for them then they went in through the opening they made and stopped again. They again proceeded to start shooting at the next set of trees and the houses. I didn't have anybody in the houses either. My tanks were between some houses on the main road but I had to wait for them to get in the line of fire as since they were already facing me I couldn't approach them from the front for a shot and couldn't work my way around them as there were over watch tanks that would blast me since I would have been in the open.

    Eventually they worked their way into my tanks line of fire and I was able to get them both. I have never played a scenario where the designer had the tanks proactively started shooting at areas where the opponent might likely be. It's almost as they were thinking on their own. It added a bit more excitement to the game to say the least.

    Ah nice one :) it’s a handy wee AI plan device for sure. I’ve also used it for having the turrets of advancing tanks swing about as though searching. Just plot the area fire point out of their LOF. They’ll swing the turrets to face the plotted area fire point but not fire. 

    But otherwise I tend to use it is mainly for effect as you have to make an educated guess where the player might be defending. Latest etc can make this more educated and less guess though!
     

    So in this case I’m glad it gave the impression of engaging a more sentient enemy! Immersion is what I’m shooting for! :)

  9. 6 hours ago, Butschi said:

    Ah sorry, shouldn't have hastily made post before getting called to dinner.

    I was describing my test setup to understands where the exact VPs come from (why 85 and not 82, for instance). So I did it step by step, I guess that was a little confusing.

    Short version: I have all the units as reinforcements. If it is only infantry, the opposing side gets full points because I didn't exit any unit (although they didn't arrive on the map, yet). If the infantry has their APCs with them, the other side gets less points, although I still haven't exited any unit.

    Yes, made sure that all units are assigned to the same VP group.

    Can you share the btt file please?

  10. 2 hours ago, Probus said:

    Is there any way to tell if a unit is a core unit when playing a campaign?  I haven't noticed any.

    Nope. You might be told at the start what your core units' are but within each mission likely not.

    This might be intentional on the part of the designer to prevent players from misusing the non-core unit.

  11. 11 hours ago, CanuckGamer said:

    One of my friends and I have been playing Cold War by PBEM for a few months now.  Another friend and have the Shock Force 2 Demo and were curious how that compared to Cold War since I believe it covers a later period than Cold War.  We are playing a scenario called Wilcox.  We're both surprised at how easy it is to knock out Bradley's with AT weapons employed by infantry.  I read somewhere that Bradley's had some type of reactive armor but in this scenario it has been one hit and done.  So far about 6 Bradley's have been knocked out.  It seems they are not any better than WW2 APC's except they have more firepower.

    In Wilcox Syrians have RPG29s which will easily pen a BIFV. Look up RPG29 in the manual if not familiar. They're deadly...

    "The tandem warhead, classified as the PG-29V, can effectively counter ERA by detonating the explosive blocks with its first charge and penetrating the base armor with the second."

  12. I thought the lack of 'fog' in CMX2 was to do with something re fog tables in OpenGL not being implemented? But could be I'm mixing issues with CMX1 up with CMX2.

    But in CMX2 there is a visual of 'fog' also the LOS tool indicates how far you can spot to - note spotting does mean seeing! But does give an indication of how far out units can 'see'.

     

     

  13. On 1/16/2024 at 12:37 PM, Bulletpoint said:

    Ok, I haven't played the scenario. Just thinking about how it could be made into an interesting H2H game. I guess the Soviet player could agree to schedule all artillery as soon as it becomes available then, to represent rigid artillery doctrine and planning and to give the opponent a fighting chance.

    I mentioned up above I don't think this is playable H2H not due to the scenario but the PBEM file sizes are pretty hefty - when trying to play it we ran into OOM issues.

    If anyone does manage to play I'd be keen to hear how they managed it. 

    FYI in our PBEM (I was Soviets) we'd no house rules but I did have to plan my artillery to support my attacks - so even with TRPs I was still using rolling barrages or at least what I could approximate to given game engine constraints etc.

  14. There can be problems when unpacking scenarios from campaigns. As this is part of the Battlepack campaign I suspect there might be issues as all the content in the Battlepack is - as far as I understand - protected.

    I'm assuming your opponent has the Battlepack? Why not just use the relevant 'master' map - that should avoid issues.

×
×
  • Create New...