Jump to content

Pete Wenman

Members
  • Posts

    3,173
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Pete Wenman

  1. Also just to add - keep in mind the size of the AI group vs the size of the AI setup zone. Not sure what happens if you try to put an AI group comprising an entire tank company into a 1 Action Square AI setup zone, but whatever the result I suspect its not good.

    P

    edit

    And the answer to my question is one tank jumps to the AI setup zone, the rest remain where they were put on map, but then move to the AI setup zone.

    That could actually come in handy on occasion.

  2. Yep that should work. Coloured set up zones don't have to be contiguous. But as you only have 16 AI groups and 27 zones (3x 9) there will be an element of random placement for those groups that have more than one AI zone allocated to them.

    This can be good, but it can be bad if you want a certain weapons system in a specific location. For key weapons a degree of control is often better so as to get the keyhole or LOS that is wanted.

    P

  3.  

    You can use all three coloured set up zones for the AI, but each AI group can only be in one zone. So A1,A4,A5 can be light blue for example, A2, A6, A7 in dark blue, and A3, A8 in green/blue, but you can't have A1 split across light blue and dark blue.

    Does that make sense and answer the question - I'm not sure.

    P

  4. Lets try and cover this for you.

    Lets call AI Blue for ease of description. 

    • No initial AI set up zone (yellow square), No Blue setup zone (map editor) will mean the AI unit will start in the location you last placed it in the editor deploy Blue tab. (also should the player chose to play as Blue, he will not be able to alter the position of the unit at game start).
    • No initial AI set up zone (yellow square), but unit is within a Blue setup zone (map editor) will mean the AI unit will start in the location you last placed it in the editor deploy Blue tab. (however should the player chose to play as Blue, he will now be able to alter the position of the unit at game start, but only within the specific Blue set up zone that the unit is already in).
    • One AI set up zone created, no Blue set up zone  will mean the unit will always move to the AI set up zone at game start , but note the move does not occur until the game start button is clicked for the first time. (Blue Human player will still be unable to move the unit at game start.
    • More than one AI set up zone created will mean that the unit will randomly choose which AI  set up zone it moves to. 
    • However if you have units within a Blue setup zone (map editor) despite being able to paint AI set up zones outside of the Blue setup zone the AI unit will not move outside of the Blue setup zone if that is where it starts. So once a unit is in a coloured map editor set up zone the AI placement is also locked to within that zone (the coloured zones show in the AI editor to help with this)

    This stuff is easier to do in the editor than to explain.

    Try creating really small test scenarios with only one or two units and play around with the two types of set up zone so you get a feel for what you can and can't do. What Ben says above is good advice.

    Hope this helps

    P

  5. From Wiki

    Quote

    Construction started in 1888 and was completed in 1891. The bridge saw heavy fighting during the Battle of Berlin in April 1945 at the end of World War II. German defenders, about 5000 members of the SS and Volksturm, barricaded the bridge at both ends and wired it for demolition. On 28 April, units of the Soviet 3rd Shock Army, commanded by Major-General S.N. Perevertkin, fought their way down Alt-Moabit towards the bridge. Their goal was the capture of the German Reichstag, only 600 metres (about 660 yards) from the bridge.[1] At dusk, the Soviets assaulted the bridge. The detonation charges damaged the bridge, with a section falling into the Spree, but enough stood for men and vehicles to cross.[2] By midnight, the Soviet 150th and 171st rifle divisions had secured the bridgehead against any counterattack the Germans could muster.[3] From here they moved on the Reichstag, which they captured on 2 May

    P

     

  6. 15 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

    That's indeed the most distant kill I have heard of in this game.

    Just as a teaser then (given that's what these AAR are all about)

    277583763_TOW3-6.thumb.jpeg.066b2e65f66e191c8eeb5d13be02717b.jpeg

    This is from an in game scenario, so will be available for all to enjoy

    15 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

    Correct me if I am wrong, but Bill is coming down a forward slope with his armour right? That's a precarious battle position.

    Yes he is, and there is not much cover on the slope. His only other option would have been down through the wooded area, with the risks inherent with that.

    Warren was forced through a bottleneck earlier in the game and now it is Bil's turn.

    P

  7. 6 minutes ago, BletchleyGeek said:

    he launched his counterstrike

    Well I guess he had to launch it at some point, and am not sure he could have done so much earlier without it being a rush into the unknown, but this does have the potential to be another charge into a valley of death. I think a lot will depend on how many of those three M60's are still alive in about 2 minutes time. If 2 or 3 can shrug of hits, they can do a lot of killing in quick time, but there are lot of barrels pointing at them.  

    I have to say this game as a whole is throwing up some magic moments in testing. ATGM kills at over 3500m are something to see  - if they can track the target for long enough

    P

  8. 1 hour ago, Holien said:

    I really have no knowledge of the tank specs, is it possible or likely that it will not have killed him?

    The shaped charge is certainly capable of killing the M60, perhaps more so than a kinetic tank round, but is not a guarantee. There is an interesting dynamic in CW that's not really been seen before in the other titles.

    ATGMs have a longer flight time (finger bitingly long sometimes) and can often miss, but they generally kill a target when they hit, whereas tank sabot rounds are fast and accurate, but can be shrugged off by some of the tank armour in game and it can take a good number of hits to destroy a MBT.

    P

  9. I'm intrigued to know whether Bil has yet established quite how large a force Warren has already got across the valley and into cover. I can't recall any comment from him so far that suggests he fully appreciates how large this force is. I wonder what contacts that lead M60 saw before being hit and whether it might change things ?

    And the all important question of whether the hit was kill ? 

    P

  10. 41 minutes ago, slippy said:

    but thought it may have been easier to make one big master map to cut down rather than several small ones.

    that is certainly true, and do not let me put you off.

    If you have any questions on large maps happy to cover off here or via PM

    P

     

     

  11. @slippy The maximum map size was at one stage larger than is currently allowed and post earlier is this thread include Steve's comments on this . The largest maps that are out there were made before the restriction was put in place.

    As you say maps are now capped at 18.1 kilometers squared (4.254k x 4.254k or any combination thereof)

    My advice is don't make a map any bigger than it needs to be. Creating large maps is a time consuming task.

    The maps I have made for the US Cold War campaign by my reckoning total 90.6 square kilometres which if my maths is correct equals 1,415625 x 8m action squares. Given the repeat clicks seen when making maps I reckon these must have taken at least 2 million mouse clicks to create. 

    No doubt some will complain they are not big enough 😉

    P

     

  12. I meant to add in my previous post that this map is one of the eight I completed for the US campaign. It is 2k wide and 2.5k deep, so not large, and  in fact the smallest of the 8 maps. Bil and Warren do have an awful lot of heavy kit in quite a small place on this one. Knife fight could well be an understatement !

    As tease I can confirm for the US campaign that the average map size is over eleven square kilometres and so this one is less than half the average size.

    P

  13. 1 minute ago, Rice said:

    Since you worked on the game, can you provide some insight as the infantry dynamic? When US infantry engage Russian infantry, who usually ends up on top?

    Difficult to say as armour dominates in most of the stuff I've played. This is a real combined arms affair, and so infantry are just part of the puzzle. In simple terms most/all infantry is mechanised  and so this affects how things play out. In addition artillery and air support often features in high volumes (real "air land battle" stuff). I was working on a small scenario that was mainly infantry only but that's on hold as I work on other stuff. I might get it finished in time for release but there is a lot of stuff going down at the moment. 

    One example of how infantry plays out though as a teaser - A US mech plt defending a small hill, can put up good fight against a BMP2 plt attack with tank support if the US player is canny. However if the Soviet player hits the position with cluster munitions as a prelude to the attack its not unusual to see the platoon pretty much destroyed. So good tactics and co-ordination are the real key, perhaps in a way the game has not really seen before due to the peer level tech.

    P

×
×
  • Create New...