Jump to content

LongLeftFlank

Members
  • Content Count

    3,425
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by LongLeftFlank

  1. End of an era, CMSF staybacks? At long last, and with a welcome assist from @BFCElvis, I have come down out of the jungle, upgrading my CMSF and Marines to CMSF2 over the weekend. Ramadi looks and navigates great! especially with Kieme's shabby buildings sprinkled in with the base textures. However, I need to update my Shopfront and Mosque collonades, then figure out mod tags to make it look right again. 1. I may release a new version of my Ramadi master map, but don't look for me to be right angling all those Mulaab compound walls (not sure that's a good idea anyway, fro
  2. Been playing with the AI (CMBN 4.03) a bit as well, and noticed a couple of issues. (In my proposal above to let the player issue simplified AI plans to platoons, these can be addressed by manually repathing waypoints for egregiously 'dumb' moves. Or not.) 1. Units in an AI group pick their Order destination square at random from those painted on the map. So if you paint a linear or oval zone (phase line) perpendicular to the axis of advance, you commonly get units criscrossing or 'fanning out' across their fronts, with potentially lethal consequences. 2. Units may also pick a d
  3. Yes, agreed, there is a good bit of randomness in the AI behaviour that remains a black box, and the behaviours can also be nonsensical (suicidal) at times. Perhaps there's a more experienced scenario programmer out there who can give a more accurate description than me. But at this stage, I think I've pounded this nail through the board and am becoming repetitive. Thanks for listening.
  4. Sorry BP, but this is not quite true. I don't know how much time you've spent in the AI Editor and then playtesting the results, but you will find that the computer doesn't just have the units QUICK or SLOW directly and all at once in a nonstop beeline to their (randomly chosen) destination square. 1. The units in the AI group set off at different times (it seems, although I've never quite confirmed, that rifle sections jump off first with other units - HQs, MGs, etc. - following after a delay of as much as 3 minutes). 2. When there's cover terrain along the way, even if it's n
  5. OK guys, reel it in please; at no point did I say or imply that this would ever amount to a 'take the controls and do what I would do' panacea instruction to the AI. It just isn't, and never will be that way (or else we all have bigger problems because Skynet is self-aware and we're all AA batteries or sumfink). ....But being able to order units (platoons) to path themselves to destinations in a manner akin to the way a scenario designer programs AI maneuvers for the computer OpFor is a *distinct* playability improvement. More important, it seems actionable to introduce, a feature where a
  6. Disagree (respectfully). You seem to be thinking about a fix to vehicle pathing, which has been asked for again and again since CMx1 ancient times. But a 'follow me' order doesn't help infantry behave more 'tactically' than they do today, which is my priority (maybe it isn't yours). 1. Right now, for both infantry and vehicles, you can double click a platoon (or company) leader and then assign every subunit an identical move order along a vector and distance that exactly mimics the leader's. That's what passes for a 'formation order' today, and that hasn't changed since 2007. So then
  7. Well sure, but the convenience of the scenario design subcommunity isn't how BFC expands its gamer base. We oddballs already 'speak the language' anyway, such as it is. Now that CM is on Steam, it's about lowering 'barriers to entry' asap for gamers who want the authenticity but didn't grow up with ASL counter stacks and multi-volume rulebooks.
  8. High praise indeed from our Defender of the Faith!😇 I'm trying to keep my suggestions in the realm of modifying functionality that already seems well established in the CM2 engine. Notice too, this is all *optional*: nobody is obliged to use it if they prefer the way it works today. Or even use spreadsheets 😵 (oof, talk about sounding like work!) 1. The Artillery/Air interface already exists. Add a tab with a command 'flag' on it, accessible by each platoon HQ. When clicked, all subunits in the platoon are lit. You can 'attach' or deselect certain subunits if you wish, via right clic
  9. Building on Freyberg's point, I'd like to see some incremental features that make the game less 'fiddly' and micro intensive. (The below comments focus on infantry, as I don't play the tank shooter scenarios much -- for me, AFVs are taxis and gun platforms). 1. I'd love to be able to assign Formation Orders to platoons. These are point/area objectives or phase lines, set more or less like plotting artillery missions is done now. Once assigned, the sub units will move on those objectives and continue to do so so for as long as they are in good order/ unpinned, or not overridden by me
  10. Warning: Threadjack in progress! Hull breach imminent!
  11. Great read, cheers! https://www.zipcomic.com/willie-joe-the-wwii-years-issue-tpb-part-5
  12. Passing note: had the blackscreen problem with the CMFI demo on my 2017 Powerbook and Bud's hack above worked like a charm!
  13. Well, I am shamefaced to confess that, in violation of my sacred vows to CMBN before God, I have been wantonly flirting of late with the Vassal version of AH 'The Longest Day', which is at a scale where the above kind of strategic question is more relevant.
  14. On this item, I regret I remain unconvinced. Nigel Hamilton being a bit controversial himself, we'd need to consult the primary sources. However, this American historian seems to have done so: https://www.nytimes.com/1984/03/11/books/the-ally-we-loved-to-hate.html Mr. Hamilton's version denies that a large-scale British offensive seeking the rupture of the German lines on the eastern flank was ever contemplated. Unfortunately, the effort to confirm Montgomery's mastery of the battlefield through this argument does not square with the evidence. I have examined planning documents origi
  15. http://history.army.mil/brochures/normandy/nor-pam.htm The Americans would take the western flank closest to Cherbourg while the British operated to the east, on the approaches to Caen. Logistics determined the arrangement. American forces had arrived in Britain via the country's western ports and had positioned depots in those areas. It made sense for them to operate near those bases. In addition, responding to the congestion in Britain's ports brought on by preparations for the invasion, American logisticians planned to load ships in the United States for direct discharge onto the beach
  16. Merci bien for the on the ground perspective! And yes, I too am trying to be fair to Montgomery. To the Lord Protector: I don't own Hastings, but I dipped into Wilmot (I may own the only extant copy in the Philippines, now a bit mildewed). Ch 18: In April 1944, Montgomery wrote that British Second Army's initial role was to "protect the eastern flank of First US Army.... In its subsequent operations, the Second Army will pivot on its left and offer a strong front against enemy movement towards the lodgement area from the east". But its stated objectives were to shield the US opening
  17. Since this thread is already a bag of cats, I'll toss in a 'what if' history question: 1. Was it a foregone conclusion that the British should take the left flank of the Normandy lodgement (the traditional BEF position, next to the Channel), leaving the Americans on the right? Any ideas why? 2. Was there a case to be made for reversing the roles? Let the British and Canadians systematically clear Cherbourg and the Brittany ports* with their heavy guns, naval support and 'Funnies'. Meanwhile, the US First and Third Armies take the 'Colossal Crack' to break Rommel's panzer troops in a
  18. This is brilliant news, if true. I've never liked that you could sit at a distance and shoot men out of hard cover. It may lead me to finally acquire CMSF2, although work hasn't allowed me any gaming time in many months.
  19. Just don't put BFC's IP in the hands of some private equity smartass who promptly decides this community is too old and 'nichey' to be worth investing in and kills the whole thing. I mean, not without a nine figure payout anyway.
  20. Sonny Boy Williamson - Bring Another Half a Pint (there's some kind of foliage back there)
  21. Interesting offroad tires on the ammo carrier (?) there.
  22. Ah ha, just as expected, the Lord Protector is now caught in a subtle schoolmanly dodge! worthy of his august grandsire (who looks strangely like Rumpole of the Bailey, but isn't so nice). THE ARGUMENT 1. You didn't explicitly say the images had to be still photos. And is not a film, by definition, really just a collection of still images? 2. You haven't debarred newsreel stills, nor recoloured photos, nor heavily staged non-combat shots (e.g. the OP photo is clearly some REMFers tough guying over a kid someone else killed). 3. So now we reach the crux of my Clever Kn
  23. OK, totally pushing all boundaries and loopholes here, but desperate times demand desperate measures, and the truth must be attended by a bodyguard of lies! 1. Sing, Sing, Sing by Lou Prima 2. As Time Goes By, by Herman Hupfeld 3. Lili Marlene, by Norbert Schultze
×
×
  • Create New...