Jump to content

Lt Bull

Members
  • Posts

    896
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Lt Bull last won the day on April 30 2020

Lt Bull had the most liked content!

Converted

  • Location
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Lt Bull's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

68

Reputation

  1. Upon further testing, after even flattening the terrain to the same elevation, it still seems that same SECTION of bocage is STILL preventing the Panthers from getting a blue targeting line through to the other side. This whole situation is getting more bizarre however. I incrementally repositioned the Panthers along the offending length of hedgerow to see if the entire length of hedgerow affects the LOS the same way. IT DOESNT! There apparently is a 70-75m length of that hedgerow that only allows grey targeting line through it. The the left of it, the LOS seems as you would expect. However to the right of it the blue targeting line DOES project through the hedgerow but ONLY at angle left of straight ahead! Something seems to be affecting the LOS/LOF through a particular segments of bocage on that map for some reason. WTF is going on here? Something very ODD seems to be f-ing with the LOS mechanics. Who knows how and where else this issue may have also manifested itself in the countless number of CM maps out there that feature bocage like this. Check out the save file here! Scenario file here! Pick each tank and you will see the LOS through the bocage as per the diagram above. reposition them to verify what is observed. BFC, please explain...
  2. More like "such is CM" Not sure if you actually played around with the save file...but I definitely know something is not right here. Something wrong will be discovered. I went in to the Scenario Editor and deleted all features that could be complicating things ie. made all terrain standard grass, deleted some hedgerows, the fence...as plain as possible. I have left the elevation as it is for now. I then placed four unbuttoned Panthers up against the offending hedgerow. All four Panthers can not trace a blue targeting line even directly perpendicular out through the hedgerow for some reason. They can only trace a grey targeting line. I experimented with the location of the Sherman and even made it move back and forth in front of the Panthers at a range of just 50m and the Panthers still can not target the Sherman. Save file here to see for yourself! I am not ruling out that something is peculiar about the Panther tank for some reason: Possibly the crew not properly seeing out of the tank when adjacent to the hedgerow? My next step is to replace the Panthers with other tanks and see what happens (I had earlier did a hasty check by placing a Sherman where the Panthers are and it seemed to have had no issue spotting/firing through the hedgerow where the Panthers are, though I will confirm). I will also totally "flatten' the terrain to be all the same elevation. Even though there is some minimal variation as seen in this screenshot of elevations, it may be affecting the LOS/LOF mechanics in some odd unexpected way.
  3. Hi, Been playing in the Matrix CMBN tourney. One scenario is Barkmann's Corner...I initially played it SP to get a feel for it, and tried a few things out as far as firing positions through hedgerows go...even then I noticed some odd things....like Barkmann's Panther tank spotting tank targets when pressed up against the hedgerow but the main gun doesn't seem to be able to see/aim/fire at the enemy tanks, however the hull MG can....I thought it was something random....anyway I started playing the tourney game, and have encountered exactly the same thing. Barkmann can spot tank targets through a hedgerow, the hull MGer can fire (sometimes) but the main gun can not target/fire. I was able to recreate the situation in a SP game and experimented a bit and it is even worse! Even when the enemy tank moves to be perpendicular to the hedgerow Barkmann still cant fire, yet the enemy Sherman can (if it spots). Barkmann only seems to be able to get a grey target line to the enemy tank only 150m away. Image here of view from Barkmann's firing position. Link to saved file ....just press the GO button and watch replay (try giving the Shermans SLOW orders to move across Barkmann'n FOV...Barkmann wont target/wont fire. I should probably have killed 2 Shermans in my tourney battle when I moved Barkman to that flanking firing position...instead Barkman just sat there, only the hull MGer firing...letting one of the Sherman 76s get off two rounds without fear of retribution. Barkmann survived the turn and I am here really just to see if I should just give up expecting him to be able to fire at anything through the hedgerow in that position. Regardless, my whole plan for this tourney battle has been totally trashed by this situation. Regards Bull
  4. Hello JM, I have previously looked at this thread and the amazing stuff you have been able to do. Although screenshots of some of your work no longer work (unless it's something from my end?), I have a good idea of what you have been able to achieve. However, what I haven't understood is if any of it is actually available to download/use? I checked out the links in your signature but they don't seem to link to anything that resembles CM related content. Cheers Bull
  5. I was poking around the Combat Mission Discord Server and happened across a very curious link to a CM Professional related website that lists "Combat Mission: Professional Edition Ukraine Academic Campaign". Near Peer Simulations Anyone know what this is all about? Bull
  6. Hello Darknight, The link given contains all the mod tagged files/documentation for the two campaigns (First to Antwerp and Operation Undergo) but is missing the actual campaign files (*.cam). Any chance you can make them available? Regards Bull
  7. Hello Darknight, I tried sending you a PM but seems your message box is full and not accepting any more messages. Any chance you can clear some out so I can PM you? Cheers Bull
  8. So I did go trawling through the "How Hot Is Ukraine Gonna Get" thread (for the first time) and (not too surprisingly) I can confirm it has indeed already been noted, and by none other than Steve himself, though it is buried deep within the 272 page (at last count) thread. Still, was surprised it didn't have it's own thread as I think it deserves it, as it is quite a remarkably accurate "prediction" from at least 8 years ago of how things might play out if Russian forces invaded Ukraine on their way to Kyiv. Kudos to the scenario designer!
  9. Apparently from the first mission of a Russia/Ukraine CMBS campaign. I don't own CMBS so can't give any further details, but would like to know what the scenario/map/campaign designer might have to say about it. I know many CM scenarios are based on historical events, but this one seems to be a case of history based on a CM scenario.
  10. Hey @Combatintman, I played this scenario (actual name "To Verdenne and Victory!") H2H PBEM as Germans and got a Tactical Victory. I really enjoyed the map and the battle. I think it was well designed. Germans were able to hold the isolated NE Crossroads while completely occupying the Verdenne objective. Happy to provide any other feedback you might be looking for.
  11. I will add the following.... I often consider the SP experience as simply a substitute for not having a real human opponent to play against when and where you would otherwise want them to be available at your beckon call to play against when you want to play your game. In this respect the opponent you get in SP is typically a very poor version of the opponent you would otherwise get in MP. The opponent you have when you cant have a "real" opponent. If you were to consider what exactly it is that a game designer (or in the case of a CM SP scenario designer) is IDEALISTICALLY trying to achieve or emulate when they work on creating a CPU opponent for a CM like wargame (or scenario), I would say that it is a bunch of code that can somehow behaves, reacts and responds to a wide variety of input in much the same way (even indistinguishably) from how a real human would behave, react and respond behind the wheels of the same controls presented with the same wide variety of inputs throughout the course of a game/scenario that has specific victory objectives. Another way of describing what they "ideally wish they could do", the Holy Grail of "AI coding" if you will, is if they could somehow take the workings of a real human brain (or brains), ideally one that is "wargame savvy", and somehow express all that collective intelligence and humanness in computer code such that when a game or scenario is played in SP by a real human, this cognitive virtual digital intelligence "comes to life", understanding all the intricacies of the rules and objectives of the game (no different to what the actual player understands) as it takes control of one side of the battlefield against the actual human opponent. In theory the challenge and experience would be no different to playing a real human, thought without any of the annoying negative things that can sometimes be associated with the MP experience (in the case of PBEM, game progression based on how soon your opponent can post their turn in, delays in your opponent posting his turn in, your opponent abandoning the game for whatever reason). I know that PRACTICALLY most game designers (or scenario designers) working on emulating a CPU opponent for games like CM get no where near anything that resembles this "idealised" concept of what I think is the Holy Grail "gold standard" for a CPU opponent. Most are just happy to create something that can be considered "a respectable CPU opponent" with a few obvious shortcomings that the human player nevertheless still finds challenging and worthy of their time, which definitely is still appreciated by many players like myself, even though I know that what I really wish I was playing against was a real thinking human opponent. Would like to know what others make of all this. PS: It is worth mentioning that this "theoretical" Holy Grail of CPU opponent coding not only has been reached in a CM-like game, but has been exceeded. This CM-like "wargame" is however a very rudimentary yet deep game that pits one force of varied units against another on a battlefield based on a set of rules, originally designed to be only played in MP mode head to head by two humans.....chess. Since 1997, the best human chess player has been no match for the best chess CPU opponent. The current one I believe is called AlphaZero, which has also achieved a similar status for the not so wargame-like game Go.
  12. I really like this line of discussion going on in this thread. Lots of good points have been raised and provoke thought. I would say discussions like this don't happen enough, let alone is something the majority of players even think about. I am sure some scenario designers also might not think too much about it either. I have many thoughts on the concept of what it means to make single player scenarios for games like CM where a "CPU opponent" needs to be emulated....somehow. There are lots of things that have been said that I want to expand on, and there are things that haven't been said that I want to say to invite further discussion. I might be off on some tangents, but in no particular order.... 1) I appreciate the potential value of a "must pass a test" concept that could be used by scenario designers as a "minimum requirement" benchmark to asses whether the scenario and associated AI plans they have coded are "up to scratch". The test as you describe it would have merit but only be relevant to a small set of possible scenarios (let alone SP scenarios). Specifically: single player (SP) scenarios where the human player against defends against an attacking AI human defender is NOT allowed to alter anything about the starting locations of ANY of his units. 2) I want to clearly state a thought I have (and why I think it) on the whole concept of designing CM scenarios by any scenario designer. It actually applies to any other game (typically wargames) like CM that pits "one side against another" where either: a) one side is controlled by a human player and the other by an "AI", referred to as the "single player (SP) experience" OR b) both sides are controlled by human players, referred to as a "multiplayer (MP) experience" NOTE: I actually object to using the term "AI" as I have as it implies an "intelligence" is involved, and all the connotations we as humans associate with the concept of intelligence eg. reasoning, common sense, awareness, memory etc. I think "CPU opponent" is a better all-encompassing phrase to use as it says nothing about the actual "intelligence", and just describes what it really is trying to be, regardless of how it is being achieved. However, I have no issue with using the terms "TacAI" and "StratAI" typically used by Battlefront to distinguish between a) the TacAI: what essentially is the hard coded local situational "survival behaviour" that applies to all units in the game (and where Battlefronts "investment in AI" really exists) and b) the StratAI: the realm of what all scenario designers get involved with when they use the Scenario Editor to develop "AI plans" limited to whatever tools Battlefront have given them in the Scenario Editor. As far as I am concerned, there is a MASSIVE difference between trying to design/create a fun/challenging CM scenario that is: a) designed to be played as MP OR b) designed to be played as SP OR (even more challenging for the designer) c) designed to be played both as MP or SP One of these tasks COMPLETELY ignores and is INDEPENDANT to any knowledge or understanding of an aspect of scenario design that needs to be addressed by the other tasks: that aspect being the utilisation of Scenario Editor tools to create the "AI plans" (essentially "coding the Strat AI" for the scenario) for the SP experience. For example, requests like the following have no bearing/relevance whatsoever on a scenario designers ability to make the best MP CM scenario: Having highlighted this fundamental difference between making SP and MP scenarios, this thread probably would be more accurately titled as "A new test for SP scenario designers?". 3) When you think about it, it certainly is interesting to consider that the ENTIRE evaluation of the "CPU opponent" in any CM "SP experience" is essentially a reflection of how good or bad a scenario designer was at being able to utilise and apply the fixed/limited set of "AI plan" creation tools Battlefront has made available in the Scenario Editor to "emulate" a credible and worthy "CPU opponent" for a particular scenario. You could say that the TacAI also contributes somewhat to the totality of the opposition of what a player playing a SP scenario is up against, but of course this ubiquitous TacAI (common to all units on both sides)functions completely independently to whatever the scenario objectives may be. I kind of think of the very much understated task of "coding the CPU opponent" for SP in any "one side against another" computer game like CM to be tantamount to trying to both understand something as complex as how humans would think, behave and respond to certain situations and then trying to emulate and express that via a digital representation of those situations using a bunch of computer code and algorithms, that creates a kind of believable virtual "ghost in the machine" spirit that somehow "takes control of the SP controls" and "thinks, behaves and responds" sufficiently enough to make it "human like". Broadly speaking, involving oneself in anything that has to do with the actual CODING of the "AI code" component that forms part of the "CPU Opponent" in a SP game (typically involving an in-depth practical understanding of a complex and detailed variety of boolean logic, mathematical algorithms as well as the coding language being used) has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with and is completely divorced from say a CM scenario designer (or for that matter even a game developer) from making a brilliant scenario (or game) that is designed to be played by two human players heat to head. I understand that a scenario (or game like CM) purely designed to be played head-to-head MP would still require aspects of "AI coding" (and all that it entails) to have been done to create the "TacAI". But again, this "TacAI" is fundamentally different to (and serves a different function to) the kind of higher level "StratAI" which is essentially responsible for being the "substitute human player" at the controls of co-ordinating a collection of units to meet a specific scenario (or game) goal/objective, acting as the CPU opponent in a SP scenario (or game). Consider a CM scenario designer who just wants to make a MP scenario based on some historical battle. Most would already possess a strong enough knowledge of the battle, the map and the OOBs to easily know where to access the resources they need before they jump in to the Scenario Editor. This is where their true passion and drive to create the scenario in the first place stems from. Many would feel like they are "in their element" getting in to the research and details of the battle because they are naturally interested in the subject matter and can spend countless hours on map and OOB tweaks to get things just right. This is evident in many scenarios (specifically the maps) I have seen which really is good to see. If they can get some pre-release playtesting and feedback done (which I know many struggle to get) all well and good, but once the map is done, the OOBs settled and other scenario parameters decided upon (objectives, parameters etc), their work is done. All it takes now is for two willing CM players to face off against each other on this virtual battlefield that was created. The scenario designer "threw the party", and the two players "made it happen". Now consider if the CM scenario designer instead wants to make it a SP scenario. They would have to essentially do all the things I have explained above (being comfortable and well within their element to do so), but then reach a point where they would need to start "coding the CPU opponent" (for at least one side, if not both) to make the scenario playable as a SP scenario. This task is not only so different and unrelated to anything they have had to do up till then, but is also a task which is probably the most difficult and challenging to "get right". They literally are now involving themselves in a very specialised task that not even some dedicated wargame game developers can get right...coding the CPU opponent to "take the wheel" of one to react and behave in a worthwhile, logical and challenging way side so a human can play against it in SP. I would hope scenario designers definitely know where their real strengths and interests lie before deciding on whether to make SP scenarios, as opposed MP only scenarios. If they are not interested in learning and dealing with all the shortcomings of what are a very rudimentary and basic set of tools made available to them in the Scenario Editor to create AI plans so that players can have a credible/challenging SP experience against a CPU opponent, there certainly is no shame in just designing the scenario to be played MP, and not SP. For those scenario designers who do take take on the challenge of designing SP scenarios despite the extra work and extra skillset needed, I definitely hope that Battlefront pay attention to the suggestions for enhancements/improvements in the suite AI plan creation tools in the Scenario Editor.
  13. It's probably been like that since the last patch (ages ago) and no one has pointed it out before? Surely there would be QB players who would have noticed. Anyway, if it seems to be a bug (I don't know if this is something deliberate by BFC) I will report it.
  14. Checked QB for all dates, France and Holland. No German Armored Battalion with Support Company. What is up?
  15. Late to the party here...but let me say this.....JM Stuff = LEGEND! Incredible work!
×
×
  • Create New...