benpark

That type of expectation should indeed be disrupted, expectations should be thwarted if it makes sense to the overall schema Mike describes. Part of the issue is that the designer has to guess where the player may head. Testing guides that, and triggers now can help with reactivity to player moves. There are two main tools in the shed (found next to the Map Axe for Deforestation) to partially help replayability- - Alternate AI plans (the obvious one). The AI plans can be up to 5 different plans the AI will be assigned at the start, randomly. Most are familiar with how that plays out in playing the game, or from designing things. This is the overall plan for various actions/reactions. Where one plans for putting something nasty in that house no-one was in on the first play. -Alternate AI set-up. I divide this out from the AI plan mentally, although it is part of the overall AI plan. The AI set-up can be used to keep things repayable without seeing all of the enemy in the same location in AI defensive situations. I have AI plan 1 include the hand-placed set-up of units like AT guns, MGs, crucial squads, and important vehicles (when they are the defensive side). The other AI plans all contain alternate set-up locations for those specific units, done in the set-up toggle of the AI plans with specific locations based upon terrain and LoS (where someone would want them, realistically). With the 4.0 Facing additions to ensure guns aren't pointed to the rear, this makes for a far better control of fields of fire. The limits on this are somewhat limited number of available AI slots, and a variable enemy force at start (both on my long request list). Both can be creatively dealt with to certain extents. Variable AI forces could be something like adding a few alternate units that would be placed out of the way in other plans. Getting burned out on playing one thing that has so much randomness baked in (by a decent designer) probably also comes down to playing on the same map, and having only a set number of obviously different approaches to attack (if AI is on the defense). The partial solution to this would be using somewhat larger maps- generally based on real-world terrain. If there feels like there is only one route of attack as a solution, that gets repetitive. The AI on attack can also use the above tools to provide randomness. That requires more work by the designer to get all of the components working over 3 or more AI plans, but it can make things a bit less expected. The issue is that once the obvious attack is underway, the AI is largely committed to that vector. Feints can be used, and other trigger-based choices.

I think you are probably right, but I mainly glean an understanding of Steve and Charles in disassembling their creation, as you do. There may be something worth trying in resizing things here and there for those stubborn billboards- maybe a trick combo of two+ graphics on one file (sized-up, to take the doubling of the graphics)? That would yield double the plant-graphics, but they would repeat. The possibilities are endless to experiment, but time is always short.

There are a number of games inside the game. QB's, The Editor, Scenarios, Campaigns. A few things that keep QB's interesting for me, with the inherent randomness of these in mind- I most often use the "Suggestions" button (top left of the UI) to keep the FoW aspect, but this also allows some control over what the selection is. Click it multiple times until a sensible parent formation appears. The game engine will also assign attachments, so individual tanks, etc. will be added without the player seeing that. I'll sometimes do a hybrid- peeking just enough to strip out hefty amounts of arty/air support, etc. The player should also be aware of the map sizes of a QB, and choose forces/transport for each side accordingly. Making an infantry formation run 2k to contact isn't likely to yield useful results, regardless of AI plan. A 4k by 4k QB map is possible, but only really useful for wheeled and tracked forces, lots of ammo, and an extended time-period. I'd also point out that the QB designer can't dictate which plan is used by which force- there are some variables to this that can be planned around, but the entire endeavor is based in randomness. The randomized forces get assigned to an AI plan, but which forces/AI plan is random (attack, meeting, or defense). Add 3+ randomized AI plans (if designed), and that's a lot of randomness to play within. I tend to pick maps that are based on actual terrain, or close to it. I prefer something random on a historically-derived battlefield, with nearly accurate forces, that extends the game beyond the scenarios and campaigns in an interesting way. Matching map sizes and forces isn't a bad initial idea, if one wants somewhat expected results. Not necessary, but it helps. People can put Huge forces on Tiny maps, but it's going to get varying degrees of weird. That's CM, though- it does things based in real world data, but it can also get strange, if that's the plan. Not my plan for the game (my stats- realism/experience expected, play at level 1-3 mainly, icons "off" as much as possible, Iron Man when icons "on", embrace chaos as part of the experience side, observe from ground level as much as possible). Huge sized, all-flamethrower forces on tiny maps aren't my thing- but I don't begrudge that method of experimentation a bit. QB's serve all types of play, on the fly- you just need to set some parameters to get the right mix to suit.

I'd guess (having done the same tests)- the difference is that the doodads are billboards, and the other textures do not rotate on-the-fly to match the camera angle. Why that category is limited is probably due to the large amount of doodads on-screen at once (there are lots of leafy-type textures as well, but they are static, with LoDs for camera pull-back)- some would be great with a dozen different doodad textures, but someone running on an older machine may not be. This is one of the only cases where the numbers can't be amplified to produce more on-screen textures, so the hedges seem like a good way to progress. Tree leaves may be as well. The mod looks great- I was able to fire up CMBN for a few minutes last night, and it holds up well, and well together.

Excellent advice. I use the small hedge, or a path (that I partially delete to simulate some foot-traffic) to do the same trick. Cemeteries can get a bit clicky, so organization helps. Another cemetery in winter trick- use the garden flavor objects for the covered plots, with a headstone at the top. They could also be modded for summer use as well by alpha knock-out of the crops. Small sheds as tombs work decently as well.

Very nice work. The textures are distinct and detailed, which can be tough where the areas align.

Probably good timing by Mark in the plan as well if CMSF2, and lots of testing. Watching the flow of the QB play out in testing over and over helps. Scenario Author, Turn-Based. Repeat until the plan is working (adjusting timings and AI locations to suit). The 4.0 AI additions are a big help with doing the AI, regardless of other controls. "Withdraw" alone keeps behaviors looking like something humans might do, which ranks well in my estimation for a "must have". Add in some "area fire", and it can be (somewhat- it's a QB, thus completely open) controlled chaos. And "Facing"- that is a huge one without having to do the odd work-rounds we once did. Hopefully all of this work translates to effective plans in such an open system.

I think we are just getting better at remotely understanding Charles' and Steve's brains. The 4.0 AI additions help. "Withdraw" and "Area Fire" are very useful. Just remember the plan is somewhat general, so it may not be beneficial to overdue any behavior, and I expect you will do well. It helps to do as much AI testing as possible. It's always an unknown as to the forces, so consider that a given plan may be foot/wheeled/tracked. Lots of forest movement might get complicated for tanks, etc. I don't fight the engine, I try to adapt to it and see if you can come at your idea from another angle if stuck. The AI testing covers the understanding of the likely behavior patterns vs. objective zone (even down to what shapes seem to work best) and on the testing of the QB under a variety of circumstances. QB's do not use Triggers- They only use one objective type- "Occupy", if I am recalling correctly. Triggers don't work with those. A lot is based around the map itself, which I grab from the larger maps I make. I'll look for an area that seems suited to any of the various types of QB- "meeting engagement" maps have different concerns than an "attack" one, and so on. I defer to the terrain to set the agenda, unless there is a reason to set the map in a specific area (historical area of fighting). There are a bunch of boxes to check for creating these (friendly side, etc)- make sure you get all the settings right for each side. It's easy to miss a setting for Blue after spending a day from the Red plan vantage- it's best to be methodical, and do the steps in an order that suits, but is consistent. They take a lot of time to do by the dozens, but making a few initial ones can set you on the right track.

He was a good example to all of us that make things for these kinds of games/simulations- he kept it interesting and fun. A person that understood how to create a like-minded community of tinkerers. I was lucky enough to correspond with him, like others here- ages ago by now. But I recalled him when working on things, even just last week. His help has grown into many like-minded makers of things. That's a gift. Thanks again, WBW. With gratitude, "Recon" (he assigned nicknames, that was mine- I think I was researching something!).

Don't see the file- is the new UI here doing something different with attachments?

This is a good test. I can submit this specifically if I can get a save. The thing to look for is unintended consequences from fixing something- does removing that seeming randomness (also applied to the AI here) suddenly make the AI units move in a suddenly unconvincing way? Then a new system needs to be created to make that look "right". I'd wager- More AI slots makes more of the what we have from an existing system, rather than taking apart some existing system for reconfiguring. The only consequence for us would be keeping track of all these plans (I have a Photoshop tool for tracking AI plans for post release of the RT module, and an idea for something better submitted). Probably less easy from BFC's perspective. There's a lot once can do with the existing tools, but this is one area I think we all bump our heads on.

There is a standing request in for an alternate, Right-Click for the door/window/facade cycle to go backwards in the click pattern. I refresh that suggestion from time to time, when my claw really has had it from the clicking.

Oh yeah! So many maps!

It's hard to know without all of the specifics, but it sounds like the point ratio could be adjusted to get the intended result. The last scenario would need to be weighted accordingly. Testing obviously necessary- mainly to see where the average weighting would be to get the above all working together. Maybe also look at how the points are achieved ("Spot"/"Touch" etc)- some variation can help with the point allocations in interesting ways. This will also be a big help in keeping track of the point ratios: https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/uncategorized/ithikials-combat-mission-victory-calculator-version-2/

Indeed. In the 2D view as well!

Independent buildings have that additional damage state over the modular ones. If I'm remembering correctly.

Here is a useful link for hunting down which line your syntax error is in! https://www.browserling.com/tools/number-lines

Norbert Számvéber's books are really good sources for a lot of what's happening in 1945. In Hungary, for the most part. Well researched, well formatted, and informative at the scale needed for this work. There's another Hamilton book- out of print, but good for this level of information.

The game engine will randomly assign the AI Groups, as it must be adaptable to all available forces. In order for the QB system to allow for all possibilities, it must use some generic solutions- such as the assigning of units randomly among the AI slots. Programming it with this in mind is tougher than scenarios, but pretty decent if done more with a "big picture" view than down in the weeds of a single tank. There isn't currently a toggle for foot/wheel/track in the AI plans, and adding one now would impact the existing QB maps and plans with the current system. I've thought about possible solutions to this- dedicating 3 or so slots to being vehicular, but that's getting into substantial engine work with possible unintended consequences. So "dismount" will only impact the mounted units, and be ignored by those units that it doesn't apply to. Better to have it work this way than not for either.

Perception, environmental factors, and visual acuity- requiring a distance blur on the background isn't really useful across all situations (that the game must depict)- it depends on combinations of these factors. Plane of focus adjustment on-the-fly is something that you wouldn't want in a video game. It is involuntary in life, so it would be unsettling in a game. I mess around with these things with the shader injectors, but nausea is to be expected once the camera starts moving with a limited plane of focus. The tilt/shift effect, and people's fascination with it is instructional- the plane of visual focus is close in this effect, which limits the available focal range. Sharp where focused, blurry in front and back. The visual cue to the viewer (due to the visual replication of being close) is things as miniature. Conversely, much of what we view is in the 3-20 foot range (depending on surroundings). The range of "sharpness" is extended far versus near, but the distance will have some aspects of the same lack of sharpness that we see in the closer objects- just less pronounced. It is easy enough to look at something about 20 feet away, and compare the focused area to the background (without readjusting the focus)- the perception is as much at play as the the pure optics. The background doesn't look "blurry"- more of a mis-matched stereo view, attempting to correct itself, under instruction of the brain- if anything, a slightly blurred, doubling of the image would be more realistic. And vomit-inducing. Making the background blurry might work for certain times when the camera is in certain place, but not in others (in terms of perception). It also depends on the weather simulated, and so on. One fix does not cure all here, so sharper is better than a visually frustrating, un-sharp image. People have persistent, insistent visual associations. Look closely at how different video games use those. Lots of interesting strategies.

There are quite a few areas that have damage to that level, but the entire master map will have varying degrees- otherwise they wouldn't be feasible (loading times, fps). The QB maps all have an extra detail pass on them, as well as scenarios (where most people will see them). For those looking for very destroyed portions for chopping up for QB, etc., they are there. As far as using your own building mods, those could work still. There are a few roof differences, if I recall to make them better for city rows- but the base texture, minus roof should still work.

Here I am thinking you are talking about the scenario load time. Ugh. Yes- the two giant Berlin maps take a while to load- not that long for me, I'm maybe around 15 minutes for the two massive ones- but that is the same for any nearly 3kx4k maps out there with lots of objects populating them. I have endured longer waits than most any cumulatively now, I suspect. So, you will only experience that load time if you want to chop it up in the Editor 3-D view, or simply to see what has caused me early-onset arthritis- in which case, the load times come with the territory(no pun intended). The older screenshot of the maps only shows a portion of one, so there's a good deal of coverage of Sector Z spanned over 2 maps. They are truly best used for chopping up into smaller battles. They are included in game content in part as well, so they are playable- and the load times are what you would expect there for anything comparable in CM size-wise vs. load time. And they are not the only big maps- the battle of Berlin was only part of 1945 in the east.

It’s Berlin in 1945, so not sure what else it could be. From ground level and level 2 It looks good, where I spend most of my time. I expect most of the starting images from high level views will be to orient you, as is the custom. They will also only be seen in Berlin, obviously.

Any large, named structure will have adjoining doors in the Berlin maps. Anything else is considered a warren of apartments that would require at least one breach. There aren’t long corridors in these buildings running through the lengths of them. That self-imposed rule holds for the master maps. Any map made from the big ones may be adapted, of course- that’s part of the point of including them. They will also be available in portions in quick battles, scenarios, and campaigns for those that want to avoid the Editor completely.

Those Start books have been a great resource. There's also the updated version of "Bloody Streets" that has started shipping (I think it just arrived). The first edition sold out very quickly (lucky to get one way back when, it was a primary source for the FR module), so order now! I'm happy they re-released it, as it is by far the best source of the military operations in Berlin during the battle.