Pete Wenman
-
Posts
3,176 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Pete Wenman
-
-
7 hours ago, Combatintman said:
Like I said though - it would be a sh1t tin of work to both create and test.
This is pretty much where I got to, and the reason I went for individual scenarios.
The campaign option allows for easy use of the core force file, which automatically deals with casualties and re-suppy between missions, but in order to provide any kind of natural feel to the subsequent missions also requires a high number of possible missions, most of which won't actually be used. Given that campaigns can only be against the AI this is a lot of work for not much return.
Going down the route of using scenarios does require a 3rd party umpire, who will control the map damage, and hopefully be able to match that from previous battles to the current. He will also need to impose the casualty reductions on both sides forces. This can be done either by using the % reduction options in the editor and/or deleting sub units. (3rd platoon is deleted, reflecting the losses and that the remaining troops have been re-organised etc).
I always thought this option for H2H would not involve too much work once the map is created, with the main work being the addition of the compounding map damage and determining the available troops for both side and setting set up zones. Playing against the AI would require a lot more work to craft AI plans and so I discarded that option.
Looking at my notes I made the following observations. KIV this is based on Op Jupiter with the operation lasting about 16 hours in total - 05.00 - 21.00 hrs
- Overall operation timescale either imposed by the ref or agreed by both players, but must also account for the time compression seen within the game.
- To assist with the above each pause between battles to be at least 30 minutes of game time or longer at attackers request, but with the defender being able to utilise additional defences if a longer pause taken. (Foxholes, Trenches, Wire, MG Bunkers ?). Arty support and re-supply would increase with the length of pause. An element of RP perhaps being required here by the players and ref.
- Defender has the ability to withdraw some or all forces from any given location unless surrounded (subjective and down to the ref for border line case)
- This could result in a battle where the attacker has a walk over against a very light defence, but this is the nature of this style of play.
I felt that the overall mission time and objectives should be set for each battle by the attacker, but the ref could overrule and amend these if not deemed appropriate. Likewise each player could determine the force level to be used for each mission, but again with concessions given to how close reserve forces are deemed to be to the frontline. Given the operational nature of this style of play I did not see the need for any VP to be allocated, and in my case no real concession to balance other than the determination of each sides core force and ability to resupply.
My notes suggest I was then going to reduce experience, motivation and fitness to varying degrees for units where losses of 10%+ were seen for each battle.
I'll carry this on a little later
P
-
It's in CMSF2 at the moment for Red forces only
P -
6 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:
Keen for any input and ideas you may have had though both now and at the time in this space.
Happy to add what I can.
The premise was that part of Operation Jupiter carried out by 130 Brigade to the NW of Hill 112.4th and 5th Dorsets and 7th Hampshires together with elements of 9 RTR being the main teeth arms. It was the relatively small map area required, plus the specific taskings for the units that made me think the operational concept could work together with the fact the battle took about a day.
In Simple terms
1st battle was to be the advance of two companies of 5th Dorset plus two Sqdn 9 RTR to secure the German outpost line at Les Duanes, which should be relatively easy.
The second battle was for the same two companies to continue forward and secure the Chateau de Fontaine .
The securing of the Chateau was then the signal for two companies from 4th Dorsets (again with tank support) to start their advance to capture Eterville which was approx 1k to the east of the Chateau with this being the third battle.
Further battles were to follow
I've detailed the narrative here as it's the precision of the objectives that made me think it would be cool to see this within an operational type context.
If the British did not succeed with the initial battles, it would be cool for them to have to undertake further attempts to secure their initial objectives. Also if they suffered higher losses than otherwise might be expected this would effect the later battles. So the snowballing effect of either being behind schedule and/or suffering high casualties would impact the subsequent actions. This leads to the heart of what you are trying to replicate - force preservation and the need to balance short term objectives against longer term.
In the same way the German decisions (whether player or AI) would impact on how battles played out. As an example if the Germans decided to abandon the outpost line at Les Duanes then the British would have an easy victory, but those forces not committed by the Germans would then be available for later actions.
The size of the map also was designed to allow flanking fire from the defenders should the British not be able to prevent a salient being created on one flank or the other.
In operational game terms core forces are needed for both sides, which are then reduced back to those in action for any given battle, but with all loses carrying forward. A local reserve could be available for each side, but does not have to be committed.
I'll have a dig around for the notes I made at the time and see if I can add any detail to the operational aspects I considered.
P -
@Ithikial_AU I always meant to try something like this with my Shadow of the Hill missions.
The concept behind them was for a finite British force to attack across the full map, against a finite German defender, but broken into a number of scenarios to create the sense that the attackers could only advance by securing the necessary objectives. Fail a mission and it would need to be attempted again, but with both sides having a reduced pool of units. This would hopefully then cause questions as to when to commit reserves and if the attacker pushed too hard too early on would he still have sufficient "good order" forces for the latter battles.As it was I've never had the time to link things together and create the various branches necessary but in simple term it was going to be that a win would allow the British to move on to the next mission, but a loss would require it to be fought again (perhaps only in part) with fresh troops possible being committed to complete the objective.
I always though the concept would probably work best for HTH and so require a 3rd party to administer but I feel it could be done.
P
-
11 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:
mission to be to locate Separatist ammo dumps.
Just to add I'm not sure Blue forces can see Red ammo dumps and vice versa
-
@MOS:96B2Pcheck the engine manual but I'm pretty sure ammo dumps don't show at the lower difficulty settings with the ammo being distributed between units.
Play the game at elite as the Red player and you should see Red ammo dumps
P
-
27 minutes ago, 3j2m7 said:
50% off Belgian hooker with epilepsy.
Ah the memories !
Happy B day
P
-
5 hours ago, Sequoia said:
my apologies for the bonehead redundancy in the thread title.
You can never have enough integrated integration imo !!!
-
7 minutes ago, semmes said:
And then you need 3 trenches to change the facing, correct?
Yep, that is correct
p
-
Looking at this I do wonder if they may be an error in the briefing info. The three named occupy objectives featured in the previous mission, but do not feature on the scenario AAR screen for this mission..
In addition the points quoted in the briefing schedule do not total 1750 and so I think this is most likely an error with the previous briefing images not being cleared out of info before being reused.
Ignore the three occupy objectives - they don't exist in the scenario
P
-
This is what you should see
Use the arrows at the top to rotate a bridge through 90 degree increments and the diagonal button for bridges on NW-SE axis etc, again using arrows at top to rotate as required
The editor changes to this
P
-
8 minutes ago, joethejet said:
Hi Pete, This is super helpful.
No worries - I learnt something new myself
8 minutes ago, joethejet said:just wish I had the time to know it like you guys do!
Take your time, don't fret the detail and play to enjoy.
P
-
8 minutes ago, General Liederkranz said:
Doesn't that icon in the equipment panel actually mean that they have *one* AT rifle grenade, and the other two are HE grenades? If they had 3 AT grenades there would be a "3" on the AT grenade picture.
QuoteNope, 66mm are HE grenades. The AT grenades are shown separately by icon in the special equipment panel. Your example team has 3x HE-frag rifle grenades and 1x AT grenade (M9A1). I think there is only one 3D model, however, and it is the M9A1
Well there's the correct answer - every day is a learning day
P
-
Just to avoid confusion the 66m rifle grenades carried by the team are noted as AT Grenades, and so most likely are the M9A1. I've edited the previous post to clarify.
As akd mentions there is discussion as from where the 66mm sizing actually comes from, as these things are not 66mm in diameter, but in game, in this context it refers to rifle grenades.
P
-
@joethejet
This is one of the ammo teams from the third mission of the FB training campaign which is where I think you are coming from
At full strength it has 4 men.
75 rounds for each M1 carbine -225 in total
104 rounds for the M7 Garand which in addition has three 66mm rifle AT grenades
Between the four men two hand grenades are also carried
All of the above represent the personal weapons of the 4 man team, and I assume are pretty accurate in terms of real life TOE. (All 4 teams in that scenario are scaled the same)
In addition the team is carrying 40 81mm HE rounds and 4 WP rounds for the mortars.
HTH
P
-
22 minutes ago, sburke said:
damn do I have to pull my mods now
You tease.
Here's one I think I can get away with sharing
Cool eh ?
P
-
-
14 minutes ago, Freyberg said:
What I want is a series of timed orders to proceed from a single trigger event, not at a pre-set time. Like this:
Does the wait for trigger in the AI editor not do this ? This trigger relies on the orders of another unit to be activated rather than a terrain type objective.
-
11 minutes ago, Freyberg said:
Has anyone developed a workaround to allow a series of orders to follow from one trigger event?
You might be misunderstanding the trigger mechanism just a little.
The two times set the period for which the trigger is live (on the game clock). So a trigger will not work if activated before the first time, and the trigger will automatically activate by the end time if not previously triggered.
However once live the trigger orders will activate as soon as the trigger is activated (the following turn).
Keep in mind that triggers are not conditional and so will always trigger based on either being tripped while active, or at the end of the active period. (Although this can be set for after the game end, but doing so means the unit can be given no subsequent orders)
HTH, but to be honest the best way to get your head around the concepts is to set up simple movements in the editor and replay them in scenario author mode until you can see the connection between the orders you have issued and AI movement you want to see.
P
-
The engine manual and JonS's excellent scenario design AAR are probably the best place to start.
Pdf files of both come with the game and are well worth reading
P
-
8 hours ago, Freyberg said:
to 'absolute' timing, i.e. relative to the beginning of the game;
Yep all timings are relative to the game clock and so absolute.
P
-
3 hours ago, Freyberg said:
retire
So that tanks could be made to reverse, instead of turning round and showing their rear armour - it's weird that when retreating they sometimes seem to turn around (I'm just assuming this is what's happening, because I've seen this behaviour quite a lot in QBs - or is this a feature only of the 'quick' and 'dash' commands?).As at Engine 4 this is now in game
Page 103-104 of the engine manual details
Each AI Order can designate a Fire Zone for area fire. This is done by painting on the 2D map just like a Movement Zone, but by CTRL-left-clicking instead. The tiles designated as targets will be colored red instead of yellow. While that AI Order is being carried out, the AI Group will attack the Fire Zone with suppressive area fire if it doesn't have any spotted enemy units to engage or other important tasks to do.
It is important to note that the Fire Zone is the lowest priority task for the AI Group. Other tasks, such as moving, unloading, attacking a spotted enemy unit, etc will take priority over shooting randomly at the Fire Zone.
Each AI Order can be given a location for it to Face towards. After painting the Movement Zone, Alt-left-click on a single tile that you wish the AI to face towards. When the AI Group reaches its destination, it will pivot or rotate towards the designated point.
By shift-left-clicking on the map, AI Groups can be ordered to Withdraw while moving towards their movement destination. Vehicles will move in Reverse to the destination, while infantry will leapfrog back while turning around to face behind them. Like the Facing Zone, Withdraw Zones are a single tile that the AI Group will face towards. For example, a vehicle given a Withdraw Zone will reverse towards the Movement Zone, while keeping its front pointed towards the Withdraw Zone.P
-
CMBN with the track being used
-
12 hours ago, weapon2010 said:
not one leaves ditches on both sides
This is as good as it gets without manually adding ditches using the elevation tool as Combatintman suggested.
A very slight depression can be seen either side of the track, and this is the feature referenced in the manual. Troops will often walk in the "ditch" when given Move or Hunt orders down the road, and I believe they gain a modifier from fire due to the presence of the ditch.
It is subtle and certainly in my opinion it is better to manually add roadside ditches if they are required.
P
FRAPS, win10
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
Yep - use it all the time
P