Jump to content

leakyD

Members
  • Posts

    320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by leakyD

  1. Can't BFC just license the DARPA AI? Uh, on second thought....I'd rather not pay US$1000 per title...that is...if they'd even license to an export product... How about a US-only release? oh, never mind.... I'll go away now...
  2. My suggestion is that re-manning w. separate crews would be conditional on leadership (either the remaining TC, or senior leader that the crews are in command of). Good leaders will take the initiative, and tell the crews to join together and man the vehicle to continue the mission. Men will listen to good leaders and it will happen. Poor leaders will be *quite* content to sit the battle out and pretend they need to stay with the vehicle for whatever reasons. The men *might* want to re-join the battle, but will almost always defer to the poor leader. Trying to model the variable of situations with no leaders and/or one soldier taking the initiative to TC/lead could be modeled, but to make that the case in EVERY instance would be, I feel, unrealistic. Even a 50/50 variable would be pushing it (unless the unit was elite). Regular troops taking that kind of initiative would be closer to 70/30 (ie - 70% of crews NOT joining w. other crews, unless in the presence of GOOD leaders). my $0.02
  3. I would figure that with parallel title paths, the "modern" world will not be forgotten. It will simply have annual (or whatever regular interval) modules. Get tired of M1's & BMP's? Fire up the WWII title. Get tired of the bocage? Go back to the "modern" world. The engine, AI, etc. remain constant. The question I have is: If the AI, or some other major engine component, gets a significant overhaul, say at CMx2 title #3, will there be a way to update CM:SF or CMx2 title #2 (aka CMx2: WWII - Normandy, or whatever it'll be called) with said improvements? An example would be bringing engine improvements from CMAK into CMBB (if the engine allowed this). No need to have to re-write an entire theatre when something gets fixed (like the CMBB bunker bug). I'm sure this has been thought out, but, at some point, we'll need to move on to CMx3, and it'd be a shame to have to waste man-hours rewriting duplicate theatres everytime we get a major engine upgrade (CMx4, CMx5, etc). I'd rather see those man-hours spent on engine/AI improvements. Maybe that kind of flexibility won't be possible until we're at CMx5? *sigh*
  4. Is this all part of the plot to make me buy CM:SF? If so...mission is *almost* accomplished....
  5. If you're going to "fix" this, please keep in mind that stabilization is only worth a crap on *relatively* smooth terrain. Once you're on anything not *relatively* smooth, stabilization goes out the window. This comes from personal experience being a M2A3 gunner during GW1. Maybe they've improved cross-country stabilization since then (and heck, it's been 18yrs, so perhaps so), but.... I'd hate to see vehicles become GODLY in their ability to go FAST over rough terrain and still put rounds on target. It'd be a crying shame to see over-stabilization integrated into the engine. So PLEASE get the research done right before any significant fixing.
  6. OK, I played Demo Scenario #3 as Syrian. I got totally stomped by the AI Cool. I can learn something! So I re-played. I realized US thermal/NVD tech was the issue (why else would 1/2 my units get waxed in total darkness, right?), so I dispersed/hid my units as much as possible until sunup. I also gave my ATGM teams/tanks keyholed covered arcs. This was proved better a solution. I still lost a bunch of armor, but in the end, had 4x T-72, and all my inf/ATGM teams intact. So, a little more hope for the game, but the AI still ran right through my kill zones without so much as even a *slight* altering of tactics. It'd be nice if the AI could at least be aware enough to realize: "Hmmm.. 50+% of unit "A" KIA/WIA. Therefore, do not send more units in that area, say a 100-300m diameter area, of where unit "A" just received fire" ( or something similar..not sure what the algorithm would be). This would *at least* prevent AI tendency to blindly stomp through kill zones, and give a *slightly* greater sense of AI realism. Further, playing US with the objective of 0 casualties doesn't seem interesting either (unless you play Inf-only). All you have to do is overwatch with heavy weapons/armor and as soon as you ID a unit, hose the area down w. overwatch, an mop-up with your Inf. Granted, you'll still have to fire/maneuver to target (and ATGM variables on your overwatch), but the "0 casualty" rule makes for only 1 (one) way of playing, and I think that would get old after a while...at least for me it would (very real, but not very fun). It seems it comes down to how well a scenario can be crafted/tweaked to accommodate for AI shortcomings. I dunno. I'd kinda rather BFC put off WW2 EU theatre in order to beef up the AI (if only a little). That may not be as technically feasible as desired, and certainly does not help w. short term cashflow, so I can understand the situation. I'll say it again: *Wahh!* [ May 30, 2008, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: leakyD ]
  7. Ok here's a roadmap: CMx2.x : dual core support, 1 core for AI, other core for everything else. Game engine is "core-aware" so if 2 CPU cores are present, one is allocated to AI, one to everything else. CMx3 : quad core support. 1 core AI, 1 core graphics, 1 core ballistics, 1 core....whatever else is needed. Is this a technical possibility? If so, will it improve in-game experience enough to be worth the effort? Can an AI *ever* be written/allocated resources to ensure a "near-human opponent" experience (or at least not a "total idiot charging into fire/kill zone" experience)? Or am I just lost in wishful thinking here? Just curious...
  8. So, the demo is a cake-walk for CM vets (if played as US)? That's not fair. How the heck am I supposed to value the merits of the game for purchase? Do I buy it, and simply play "AI only" crafted scenarios, unless I'm PBEM/online? Or perhaps buy, and only play as Syrian w. less quality forces...? Or a combination of the two? That doesn't seem fair either.... *wah!* :-(
  9. Does that mean the 1.07 demo sucks? From a design standpoint? I can't seem to accept that the demo is poorly designed... maybe so, but, then, why have it as the demo? For the newbies to cut their teeth on the CMx2 engine? In CMx1 the AI was "OK" w. defense..that was about it. ...but the 2nd scenario was a total pushover as well.. will it have to wait until separate CPU core(s) can be allocated for AI routines? If so, well, fair enough...I guess it will be worth the wait...
  10. Ok, it's been a while...like, 3+ yrs or something since I've played CM. So I grabbed the demo, and for the most part, well done. Hat's off for a significant step up in the engine. It's only going to get better... BUT, what's up w. the AI? WTF, Chuck? Am I really that good that I've only 4 KIA and 10 WIA on the 3rd scenario @ elite. It can't be true. Sh*t, it's been 3+ yrs.... So, I know you guys are busy. There was a HUGE "to do" list for the new engine, and lots of other stuff to deal with...y'know, w. folks whining about M113's n' crap...but... I guess the question is: Can there *ever* be a decent AI? Y'know...one that doesn't charge right into fire? Is it possible...at all? Please don't tell me to just play online, or PBEM, because that isn't always feasible. I have this fantasy of a *decent* AI...one that will at least put assets in tactically redeemable locations, or simply not rush right into kill zones.... I did a bunch of searches for AI issues, and didn't find much. Either I suck at searches, or, the thread fell off the DB or, heck....maybe I *really* am that good (heh...NOT!) Thanks for listening....
  11. This is kinda old, but may be useful: Wayback Machine for SD this is the 04/04/04 link from here: Wayback Machine results for SD Maybe the backup is more recent, but maybe not. Files are not there, but the text is. One could use a Website DL app (Sitesucker for Mac) and pull the html down, and it could then be worked locally. My .02 of assistance.
  12. Well, if it helps at all, I've killed T-34's with 88mm HE before. I may have been a Muzzle Velocity thing, but hey, you don't know until you try! Oh, and no one mentioned this, but your enemy doesn't know you only have X amount of HC (well, unless he's reading this thread). Use that to your advantage. Good luck. Looking forward to see how this pans out!
  13. I played a ME quick battle once. I was going to be all cool, so I bought 4 vet panthers, and a company of vet fallschirmjages(sp). The battle started, and there was a lot of open ground, with only patches of trees. I thought it was going to be a breeze. I then find out: My opponent bought a battalion of reg brit infantry and a few guns. He rushed me. I had to assume defense ASAP, and slowly ran out of ammo. I was then promptly kicked off the map. :eek: :eek: :eek: NOT fun!!!
  14. I have (or had) an old CMBO arty spreadsheet that I got off some website. It had a bunch of arty data in it. I kinda remember something along the following: Small caliber smoke (under 100mm): 60-90 seconds duration Medium caliber smoke(100-149mm): 90-120 seconds Heavy caliber smoke(150mm+): 120-180 seconds I don't think any single smoke shell of any caliber will last more than 3 minutes. I have no idea where this spreadsheet is. Maybe I'll find it someday. If so, I'll post a link to it here, or start a new thread. Again, this was CMBO data, so I don't know how the current modeling may effect smoke duration now. As a general rule, I try to stick to the above numbers. It usually/kinda/sorta works. Mostly.
  15. Haven't played this one, but as a general rule of thumb: If the scenario was made by Franko, then get ready for some pain. He tends to make scenarios rather desperate for whomever side it is designed for, at least from my experience. In this case, desperate for the Axis. Not saying it is impossible, just, rather "challenging". Franko has a bit of a cult following here. It seems lots of folks like to feel the pain: New MEGA OP If I want to win, I play a QB. If I want to feel what it was really like, I play a scenario made from one of the number of designers and design teams that we are so fortunate to have (Franko is one of them). It really helps to keep things in persepctive. Usual rule, numerical superiority is always preferred,sure. The optimal situation? Of course! Always doable, no. Reality tends to get in the way of ideality more often than not. In this case of this scenario, desperate situations call for desperate measures. What I love about this game is it makes me dig into the history behind why the scenarios take place. The more I learn about WHY the scenario took place in history really adds to the enjoyment for me. Wining or losing at that poing it rather moot. I LEARNED something. Have fun! [ July 02, 2005, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: leakyD ]
  16. No, we all LOVE screenies. The more the better. We also love any excuse to crack a joke. It keeps things fun around here. And on a related note, I like to use FT teams just behind a inf squad or two in attack, or even defense. Keep him hidden w. a SHORT covered arc until you need his firepower. I've found the covering squad(s) usually does a decent job of protecting the FT team.
  17. Different war, different times...and different social (national?) acceptance of the conflict.
  18. Different war, different times...and different social (national?) acceptance of the conflict.
  19. KF - Thanks for the offer. You're a good man! I'm wanting to do all of the training scenarios from CMBO to CMAK. Heck, maybe even CMBB as well. Why not. They're good training. Specifically: "Grafenwohr" "Fire and Maneuver" I don't know the names of any of the other training scenarios, if there are any. I just sent you an email. Thanks again for the assistance!
  20. I'm wanting to convert some CMBO scenarios to CMAK. I found this utility: http://www.pyes-ct.de/mc.html But I need CMBO to export the maps. Well, I don't have CMBO anymore. Go figure. So, I'm wondering if this utility is a worthwhile app. If so, I'll grab another CMBO CD and start playing with it. Thanks,
  21. ...Never mind.... [ January 15, 2005, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: leakyD ]
  22. OK, I found the original at the scenario zone... "Grafenwohr" is the title. Thanks for the info, Philippe!
  23. Or one of these: Mk 19 with a bunch of these: Cannister Any idea of what the firepower rating @ 40m would be? Yikes!
  24. Or one of these: Mk 19 with a bunch of these: Cannister Any idea of what the firepower rating @ 40m would be? Yikes!
  25. Hi Philippe- Maybe it is Grafenwohr...heck, I really don't remember. That's how long it's been since I've played/seen it! I know it was a German training scenario at one of their traditional training areas. Infantry only over a large area vs. British inf & MGs. Thanks for the help....
×
×
  • Create New...