Rocky Balboa
-
Posts
783 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rocky Balboa
-
-
The problem with implementing scripts is that it would render the editor pretty hard to assimilate. I have spent countless hours on the scenario editor and if it has some flaws, I prefer this aspect rather than having to check trigger events and test over and over again the same scenario, which is already time-consuming.
No doubt the editor would need to be re-designed to handled triggered events but I don't agree that it would necessarily make scenario design more difficult or time consuming than it is now. Keep in mind, I think what Ranger33 was talking about is some basic trigger events, not full scale scripting.
Depending on how it was implemented and if the editor redesign was made with an eye toward making AI testing quicker and more efficient, then It would be a great improvement for the CMx2 series.
-
Yeah, I've seen the AI do some smart things from time to time but most of the time its decision are not very good ... Such as running straight down a road in an HT loaded with a squad of inf toward 2 waiting Shermans that had already been previously spotted. Of course you can imagine the outcome and the carnage which ensued.
-
Who wears a tie in combat? Most US GI's didn't even change their underwear ....
-
@Crushingleeek
I too am enjoying this campaign very much and I'm currently on the second mission. I like the way you have taken your grandfathers exploits and have brought them to life in this medium.
I look forward to your next campaign and my hats off to your Grandfather and all the Outlaws. We do this for fun but they did it for real and we should never forget their sacrifice.
I was wondering what source you used when creating the maps. Did your Grandfather draw these maps for you during the interview?
-
Boy your a hard man to please. Now you want specific speeds for specific vehicles.
I wonder how hard to implement that would be. But I'm for anything that make unit movements more realistic and characteristic of the way they moved in real life.
You go diesel, l like your style. They may be listening.
Well, if BF's goal with CM:BN is to make an accurate June 44 battlefield simulation then modeling the correct speed of vehicles is not an unreasonable request.
-
So the PC version will remain the flagship then. That suites me well.
Means I will probably get the British expansion for CMBN shortly.
Can you give any detail as to what the ipad version is missing exactly?
CM:Ipad is a game that attempts to capture the look and feel of CM:BN for a mobile device and that's about as far as the comparison goes.
It was developed by a third party and I don't believe was ever intended or will ever match CM:BN feature for feature. So just enjoy it for what it is. A $4.99 tactical level ipad game that in some ways feels like CM:BN but is not the same game.
-
It was already common practice for tanks to keep their distance from infantry due to danger from pshrecks which could kill at 100m+, so I don't think the longer range PF's caused the Allies to change their tactics appreciably.
-
The map looks fantastic, can't wait to play it. Good luck
-
Other than that, I'm completing a 1 hour mission in about 1 hour 10 minutes after pressing START.
Yes, completing a game quickly is definitely a benefit of RT and for small battles CO(-) I do enjoy it but the thing is for a new player that is not familiar with the system I would definitely suggest WEGO to start with.
To play RT effectively you have to be able to let go of that urge to micromanage your troops. To do this you need to have some confidence in how to give orders and expecting what your troops are going to do when they execute those orders. This means you have to have a feel for what the tac AI is going to do in any given situation.
For a new player this can be frustrating because often your expectation doesn't match what actually happens. WEGO for the new player allows you to slow down and learn what your troops will do under certain situations.
Once you develop a comfort level for the game and if your willing to forgo the absolute enjoyment of replay, then RT is a great way to play CMBN.
-
I recall over on the CMSF chat site someone had posted that is was a humvee roof gunner's 'job' to stay topside when the bullets are flying. This was in response to a similar debate of when the unit should be ducking down and taking cover. Similarly, a tank commander's job is to be the eyes and ears of the tank. He can't do his job cowering in the turret. and when the bullets are flying is precisely the time he most needs to be doing his job.
I can promise you that bullets flying around is one thing and rounds striking your vehicle is a totally different thing entirely because those rounds are meant for you. I would say in those circumstances that even most battle hardened vets are going to duck or grab some dirt even if its just for a moment or two.
Also a TC unlike a roof gunner has a way to see and fight back even when he ducks down inside the turret.
Perhaps our pixel TC's need a duck animation similar to the way infantry cower when they are pinned. This would allow them to duck down inside the turret and recover from suppression before popping up again...
-
It's a tricky balance, and while it may need tweaking in the game, but in general I would not assume that TCs should simply button in response to ANY threat; there is probably some threshold that needs to be reached before the TC goes under cover. Exactly what this threshold should be is, of course, open to debate.
I agree that to code the correct AI behavior there must be a threshold or trigger and it would seem to me that it should be the same trigger as used by dismounted infantry. When their suppression level reaches a certain point they cower or hug the ground. I guess the question should be at what level of suppression are TC's buttoning up on their own?
If I were to write an SOP for a unit in my command it would be to button up before entering into any built up area or an area where contact with infantry is expected/likely and not wait until you hear bullets bouncing off the hull. Of course I know how BF feels about coding SOP's and I realize this is a difficult thing to get right to everyone's satisfaction.
-
Problem I've noticed is that when some (British in this case) tank commanders are shot at they just sit there for a while and don't button up immediatly. I'm hearing MG fire rattling off the Sherman's chasis and the commander is just sitting there enjoying a spot of tea. Sure enough the second or third burst takes him out.
I don't mind higher mortality rates for tank commanders but surely even the most poorly or highly trained tank commander buttons up immediatly when he hear's a nearby rifle shot.
I've seen this myself, TC's just seem slow to react to incoming small arms fire.
I'm glad they made the change (if in fact they did), to make open tanks more vulnerable but now they need to tweak the AI to make the TC's button up faster.
Sometimes I remember to button my tanks but many times I forget and my TC's pay the price for it. TC's should really be able to do this on their on unless they are green or inexperienced. BF fix or do somefink!!!
-
Obviously this is what happens when soldiers ignore the proper application of fire and maneuver.
-
LOL - thanks for the laugh... Am stealing your joke immediately.
Go ahead and take it, I have a feeling he took it from someone else
-
Whether you realize it or not, and regardless of the syntax of the exact commands, what you are talking about is an application-specific, high-level programming language.
The details of how you express it can be whatever you like, but logically speaking, it's still IF... THEN conditionals and other logical expressions.
There are languages in place that can handle this quite nicely and they could be integrated into most any application. Python comes to mind and it has flavors that run on most any platform so it would work with both Mac and Windows. It can also be customized by BF to handle a very limited command set.
-
Keep in mind that adding triggers while desirable will make creating AI plans more complex and by default they will take more time to test. So as others have mentioned before, triggers should be simple and used sparingly.
Imo having 2 or more basic AI plans increases re-playability as opposed to 1 single complex plan that once you've seen it, you pretty much know what to expect the next time you play.
-
You might be interested in reading this thread where the game is considered/suggested to be too hard because the time deadlines are too tight.
Its a good discussion :
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=103215&highlight=too+hard
Good point this ... defeating the AI in CMx2 is much more involved than just which side has the most men on the field at the end of the battle. The designer in CMx2 can do things with time limits and victory points for casualties that can make up for the lack of AI creativity.
-
I tell people (jokingingly) that I'm the only anti-trigger nay-sayer out there. Everybody, including the developers, wants triggers. My own fear is that designers will become over-reliant on triggers and won't bother with the finer points of AI construction. As it is, getting people to include carefully coordinated 'Exit After/Exit Before' AI timeing is like pulling teeth.
I'm confused by
carefully coordinated 'Exit After/Exit Before' AI timeingPlease elaborate
-
Triggers didn't make the CMx1 AI easy to beat there were many other factors that contributed to that.
Imo, It would add another tool in the scenario designers toolkit so I would say its defiantly a good idea and worth BF's time coding it.
-
Worth it? I guess you mean is it worth the $35?
Well lets see, Do you enjoy the game? If the answer to that question is yes then its absolutely worth $35. Do the math, $6 a month for 6 months and you've paid for it.
You can't go to a movie or even buy a cup of fru-fru coffee for $6. If you enjoy the game at all then that's a great way to spend your entertainment dollar ... just my .02
-
Mord what can I say, this is totally awesome stuff, thanks for all the hard work ....
btw I really like your voices mod for CMBN and thoughts on doing the same for CMCW?
-
Ben thanks for your efforts on this, they look great ... can't wait to try them out in game ..
-
Guards Arm XX + 50 Inf XX + 49th Inf XX + 44th RTR + 8th Arm X + 20 XXX assets sounds about right ....
-
I think we can all agree that "fun" is a very subjective thing. "Realism" on the other hand is a progressive concept.
CMx1 < CMx2 < "True Reality"
In what bizarre world is this possible
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I think the OP said the tank was firing the whole time so shouldn't the AT team at least get a sound contact?
I have a similar situation in a battle I'm currently playing where a mg keeps firing at my troops from some location but I can't tell where because I'm not even given a sound contact icon. I know he's firing at my troops because they will cower and add suppression but I don't get any indication of even a general location.
Now it isn't unusual for troops to have a hard time pinpointing a well concealed enemy but shouldn't I get a sound contact when he fires giving me at least a general area or location where the fire is coming from?