RockinHarry

Rezexplode the "Normandy v100A.brz" file from Data folder, look in animations/unarmed, rename the "unarmed-idle-prone.ani" file to "unarmed-tend to casualty.ani" and drop that renamed file into data/z folder = prone lying medic. He won´t die that often anymore.

Also high on my wishlist. I figured that the game handles teams of 4 soldiers max per action spot the best. Individual soldiers appear to have less pathing problems and stumble less upon their feet and such. Beside formation SOPs, it would be nice to make custom teams and not just the preselected options (AT, assault, scout and split in half). The squad leader with his binocs in german squads was normally tightly associated to the lMG gunner and directed his fire, helping with observation or overtaking the lMG personally. Now splitting a (german) squad, usually divides the squad leader and binocs from the lMG gunner, which puts him at a slight disadvantage, when it comes to engaging the enemy beyond the 300m mark (rifle range). I´d also would like to see an option for the assault command, when splitting squads is not desired, to choose the team that goes first into the assault. I oftenly see the support team with lMG go first, which too oftenly is not what I desire. So here again it would come handy, if the squad leader remains with the lMG gunner and the 2 ammunition guys and let the remaining squad assault move first.

I´d assume "run" would be the "quick" movement ingame, which is sort of jogging, as opposed to "fast", which is run as fast as you can short distances. No idea, if "fit" elite units ingame tire less at longer ranges, as regulars and fit. Weak and unfit goes the other way round.

My preferred UI! Thumbs up!

Status so far: I believe spotting info is maintained to the AIP, despite animation change to a lower profile (kneel or prone). Yet the smaller profile makes them way harder to be hit. So generally it does its purpose for increasing suvivabilty for soldiers doing certain actions (reloading, buddy aid). Beside that, animations are tightly coupled to the TAC AI actions and personally I don´t see more opportunities to increase survivability by changing animations. Some more basic SOP and TAC AI changes would be required instead. Most animations are reused either for idle or transition actions and changing one animation, could break multiple animation sequences. In example the buddy aid animation is 2 part. One is the soldier transitioning to kneel stance and then to actual buddy aid. The same kneel stance animation is used for many other sequences, thus if beeing changed to prone also, would break a number of other sequences in game. So this is already the end of the rope, tinkering with infantry animations IMO. I got reloading, buddy aid and cower now adapted to my personal liking and it doesn´t break anything, at least I can´t observe something of the like. I´ll make a list of file name changes, so everybody can repeat the mentioned edits for himself. Think redistributing the ani files with changed file names, is a no go, due to content copyright.

Not directly on topic, but binocs play an important role (as has been said already). Some time ago I experimented with german HMGs and noticed a considerable increase in spotting abilities between units with one and two binocs. Some HQ´s and HMGs have two binocs and spotting, as well as targeting response is almost double as usual. Would be nice to be able to scrounge more than one binoc from dead units to make a universal surveillance unit! ...or adding scissor scope units that have +10x stuff, instead of the usual 6x30.

From all my latest testing I would confirm. The AI isn´t aware of an enemy unit, or single soldiers status. It sees mainly a target to shoot at (or to get shot from) and not if a unit is prone, cause it´s either on "hide", cowering or simply waiting with weapons at ready. Changing the cowering animation to something less suspicious, also adds to FOW, since you can´t see at a glance whether a unit/soldier is heavily suppressed or not. A human player has other indications about his units status and the AI does not really care. This is alll IMHO and my personal preferences as said. Unless BFC clears that up in some detail, I´ll take this as a base for my assumptions on game mechanics. Buddy Aid animation is actually composed of two sequences. The first is the soldier going down (or up from prone) to kneeling with weapon at ready. The second is the actual buddy aid animation sequence. The latter I have replaced. Now this looks like the soldier is crawling toward the KIA/WIA, then pops up shortly to kneel and down again to start the actual buddy aid action (a now motionless sequence, with weapon put aside). Actual animation does not matter for performing buddy aid. The soldier simply is far less visible to the enemy and either is less shot as directly visible target, or at least less interupted in his buddy aiding attempts. Note: I at least I noticed twice that buddy aid action within a trench does not cut LOS/LOF to a particular enemy unit (200m away on level ground), while the remaining unit was on hide. Once buddy aid was completed successfully, the LOS/LOF contact marker was greyed out immediately. This was with the medic in changed prone stance and scenario author test mode. Same for reloading animation. The soldier breaks with his last action (shooting, observing), is completely focused on reloading, but this time at slightly better cover, dependent upon where the soldier is now located. Behind walls or in trenches he can completely drop out of sight, when going from kneel to prone to reload. In a building and if a soldier is standing, while engaging the enemy through a window, he receives slightly better cover, when going down to kneel stance. With reloading finished, he goes up to last stance, unless receiving suppression in the meantime and restarts his spotting and shooting cycle. The effects are all not dramatic. Reloading takes between 6 - 15 seconds (regular troops) for most rifles and some variations for lMG and Zooks. Some data: BAR - 8 sec M1 Garand - 6/7 sec K98k - 8-10 sec G43 - 8 sec lMG 34 - 15 sec (it´s actually a two part process) lMG 42 - 14 sec (again a two part process) MP 40 - 8 sec Assuming there´s an intense firefight going on at range of 2-300m, most light weapons will be reloaded individually once a minute. Those with large mags or belt fed will last longer and reloading might happen after c.a 1 1/2 to 2 minutes. Shorter range engagements will consume ammo noticably quicker and thus complete reloading will happen also more oftenly (up to 2 times/minute). This is theoretical value only, when also considering times spent in cowering mode, respotting of enemy units, once LOS contact is temporarily lost, individual shifts in positions and such. This theoretically results in maybe 10 - 15% per game minute less unnessecary exposure and beeing hit chance, when a reloading soldier goes one stance level down. Maybe not much, but at least it "looks" better, when a soldier fire fighting in open terrain and standing stance, goes down for reloading, thus "showing" a minimum of self preservance. If my assumptions are all BS and don´t coincide with what really happens in the game, then at least it was fun experimenting and figuring out a couple of things.

Just changed another animation that I found to be overly dramatic. Cowering! Files exchanged (renamed), "kar98k-idle-prone 3.ani" to "kar98k-cower.ani". Looks like this: Btw, majority of CM soldier animations, draw from the K98k animations folder by default.

I´m now fairly sure that no matter what animation is played for a reloading (magazines, not individual rounds for BA rifles) soldier, he looses track of any spotted enemy units and starts the spotting procedure anew, once he´s finished reloading. So during this time he does not contribute anything to his squad/team, except providing a live target and makes the whole unit generally more visible to the enemy. Reloading is a process that only takes few seconds individually, but the net effect for getting soldiers one cover stance down, is greater survivability for the whole unit. Same for buddy aid in prone stance. Now there´s reasonable chance to survive behind low walls, in buildings, foxholes and trenches, where otherwise the kneel stance would provide a great target to the enemy. A static defence position also benefits if, say ...a unit on hide receives some damage through artillery. Since there´s no control on buddy aid, the one going up to kneel stance for it, again makes himself and his unit visible to the enemy and incoming fire. Still, only BFC can tell about any (unwanted) side effects if these exist. So far, overall effect is anything but dramatic. There´s still lots of carnage, but noticably less amongst soldiers doing buddy aid and when changing clips, belts and mags. I didn´t change anything else, nor do I intend so. If anybody wants to create an "exploit" mod, that´s not my bizness. As reminder, the mentioned content is original and unchanged BFC and everybody has it on his computer already. It´s just renaming of about 64 files for the mentioned purposes and throwing these into the data/z folder in order to get used by the game.

No idea about "hacking" or anything. Just interested in the mentioned reloading and buddy aid animation sequences and mainly for my own enjoyment. I have a dropbox link ready for those liking to test the stuff. Since it´s simply renamed original BFC files from the "Normandy v100A.brz", I do not provide a public link here. Just in case.... Animation files changed (renamed) is for both US and german small arms weapons (except HMG) and should work for basic CMBN game and any content that makes use of the original files. The buddy aid ani file (unarmed-tend to casualty.ani) is one for all. It´s simply an unarmed soldier, lying prone (renamed unarmed-idle-prone.ani) I´ve zipped the BRZ file (6 MB) to my dropbox folder and goes to the usual place after download (data/z). I provide the link/file for limited time via PM if you send a request.

Could do that, but I just want to check & change mentioned non combat animations. While doing buddy aid and reloading magazines (not loading individual rounds, i.e Kar98k, which is also shown as "reloading" in actions tab) I assume soldiers not performing any other actions like shooting, or observation. Here´s what can be greatly improved to avoid the most stupid and unnecessary carnage. We need some official statement from BFC about this! I´d changed the animation files (file names) in about 10-15 minutes (basic CMBN germans and US only), so it´s not really much work. CW and remaining stuff shouldn´t take any longer. My assumption about changed animation is, when in the game every bullet and sighting line to actual geometry is tracked, then the method of forcing soldiers to less exposed stances while not combating, or observing, the associated 3D hitbox around geometry shouldn´t be either observable or targetable by the game. Could be that the game AI still has status "observable" and "targetable" registerd, but since it can´t see nor taget the actual geometry, it won´t shoot at it and maybe also looses track. That´s the interesting part. Only "observable" side effect so far is partly non smooth transitions between changed animations. With regard to reloading animations, it´s hardly observable. The buddy aid animation has an odd transition between kneeling and new buddy aid prone animation (now simply "unarmed-idle-prone.ani"), but personally I can live with that, as long as I can get rid of stupid and unnecessary soldier exposure. The actions with changed animations, still work normally. I now have prone lying soldiers performing buddy aid, as well as soldiers, that go down next stance level, to perform weapon magazine reloading. If anybody interested would like to help testing, I´ll pack some dropbox file.

Assuming you change an infantry animation by renaming a particular file, say "mp40-reload-c-kneel.ani" to "mp40-reload-c-stand.ani", which will result in the MP40 reloading magazine standing stance, change to reloading MP40 magazine in kneeling stance ingame(tested and works). Now the question: Is the particular soldier still registered as "standing" for LOS/LOF to the OPFOR? Or in other words, ...is standing, kneeling and prone stance "hard coded", no matter, what animation actually is played? My aim is to get individual soldiers less exposed, when not actually engaging a target, or observing. In the case of weapon (magazine) reload, I want to get soldiers down to next best cover stance. Standing to kneel, kneel to prone. Prone as is. I also get buddy aiding soldiers down to prone, by renaming a halfway suited file to "unarmed-tend to casualty.ani" and put this into the data/z folder. I currently use "unarmed-reload-m240-d-prone.ani" for this purpose. It´s not perfect, but for now it does the purpose animation wise.

Can´t tell if that´s an ingame limitation, or maybe a problem with certain GFX cards, or settings. Turning on/off shaders or shadows ingame, has no effect on the lighting problem. So I think tweaking textures will have not much of an effect either. I already tried "Wolfe reduced shimmer terrain" mod and it does some its purpose (reducing shimmer effect), but does not change excessive lighting on reverse slopes. From my testing it´s limited to from 07:45 - 09:30 to 18:30 - 22:45 (6. september, clear day setting example). In these cases the sun lighting comes at very shallow angle and steep slopes perpendicular to the sun light source, appear to be lit again from the backside, right through the terrain mesh so to say. Base terrain textures....think these are in NormandyV100A/B and/or V210 MarketGarden a/b.

The texture under bocage actually looks like the standard grass texture. It has the same problem like other grass textures when beein put on a steep slope. The berm under the bocage is such a slope. While the texture looks fairly normal on the sunny side, it´s considerably looking brighter on the reverse, not directly sun lit side. No idea, what causes this disturbing effect as it looks like two suns shining from opposite directions. Here´s some example map with bocage and a 2m deep ditch at default 09:00 AM (sun at upper left corner):

I´d like to see some more camouflage modifiers implemented, like something is now for static, unmoved AT guns ( GM V3.00, p.54 ). Could be infantry in camo suits, but also pillboxes which are now considered as visible as barn doors. In the Siegfried line campaign many and most of the pillboxes not only were well emplaced and camoed in suitable terrain, they´re also considerably overgrown during preceding 5 years since initial construction. Unlike the Atlantic Wall forts, which the allies took exhaustive measures in reconnaissance before the D-Day landings, the western allies in late 1944 stumbled into the siegfried line forts more or less unprepared. Generally, with regard to pillboxes and entrenchements, I´d like to see the (unused) experience tab to be used for getting more variations in quality of the constructions. I.e veteran and up quality forts/entrenchements are assumed to be constructed and camoed better and thus receive a spotted bonus. Regular = no modifier, with anything above or below receiving a mod accordingly.

That would be great!

Here´s the view of the particular map part in the editor. The screenies from previous examples (Sheriff of Oosterbeek) have view from north to south (up the screen). 2D Editor is south to north. Allied friendly map edge setting is west, axis is east. Map edge settings do not have any influence in this example. Ok. Cover terrain between plotted movement neither. Almost always the team will take the route across the wooden fence until...waypoints are plotted 1 AS radius of the gap in the bocage OR waypoints directly in the AS with the gap, which in fact requires 2 waypoints within the same AS . In this case the AI will most realiably take the route through the gap. Tested with a 4 man, split off team and Quick move only. It also doesn´t matter to remove the brush from the bocage gap, or remove the road between the movement points. I do not draw conclusions. It´s just observation and how to tackle movements through the terrain types bocage, high walls... with gaps. I´ll also take this into consideration when setting up zones for the AIP, when there´s any such terrain types on map.

Btw, what, if any, influence has the axis/allied friendly map edge setting on pathing near or through bocage, walls and the like? I seem to remember something... Beside that, I agree with Sburke concerning Vanir Ausf B´s plotted movements forth and back, which are not the same. Also things get even more intersting, when moving whole squads at or through bocage. It matters i.e if either the squad leader team or the support teams occupy the AS directly at the gap. Quick move, usually gets the squad leader team move first, while Assault move more oftenly than desired, gets the support team move first by the Tac AI.

Think that infantry taking always the quickest route, is not quite true. From my testing if there´s certain cover AS between the waypoints, then the Tac AI will oftenly take a longer route by using the cover underways. In DasMorbos´s screenshot the road offers more "cover", than going straight over the field, by using the gap through the bocage! As I already mentioned previously, the AI has a very high liking for "road ditches", as well as craters, no matter how small they are (or look on the map). They´re almost like magnets to the AI and this occasionally leads to the same problem with foxholes, when the pixeltroopers don´t all move in and take positions outside the individual foxholes. Have a look at (small, almost invisible) craters around the foxholes, even if in ajacent AS and I bet some the ptroopers select these as better "cover". This can either be used to advantage (if considering this behavior), or avoided, particularly when setting up an AI opponent. If BFC is motivated to look into something, then maybe the "weighting" between certain cover possibilities. Road ditches, craters, but also ditch locked AS (either + or -) would be the candidates. With regard to desired movement route and tactics in the screenshot example (infantry through bocage gap) and when in doubt about possible route chosen by the AI, then it would´ve been better to stop at the gap, split off some scouts and send them off first to see which route would be selected, particularly if some enemy presence toward next movement point is known or suspected. That´s all in the hand of the human player to deal with, but extremely difficult to plan with AI players actions. Also the bunching up happens more oftenly, when the start movement AS already has the ptroopers bunched up, or generally when individual squads are too close to each other. Dependent upon squad size and number of team composition, start and end movement AS need to be considered for each individual team as well. Assigning a face order on the last movement point, gives an indication where a squads teams will end up. If the route is not too long, individual teams will move parallel to the next movement point. If it´s longer, the teams will form a squad column at a certain range and fan out again when reaching the final AS. Otherwise, using too many movement points at too short ranges has the disadvantage, that the squads need time to deploy at each individual movement point, increasing exposure and such. Yet need to find the "green range" for movement lengths, avoiding the most serious troubles, when not moving a squads teams individually.

My main problem with this, is the AI and setting up zones. In example, I can´t get a line of AI infantry move to another line (zone) in a straight way (taking shortest route), even if this next zone is just 4-5 AS away and the map is all just grass. The converging of AI plotted movement paths midways, causes a lot of problems (time loss, several squads bumping into each other at the crossing point, ect...), which makes an attacking AIP particularly difficult. I´d wish for some sort of stand off-, or generally some maintaining formation routine to get more out of the AIP capabilities. So far I need to take this odd pathing behavior into consideration, when painting zones and applying orders, so that cross pathing is kept at a minimum. Think the BFC beta testers are fully aware of that already and take measures as well which are, deploying formations from columns to lines and back to columns, depending also upon particular order types and intervening terrain types and possible enemy opposition. Also of concern is number of teams within a squad and the more teams, the more AS need to be considered for the next zone for a squad to effectively deploy. Range between zones is not that logically considered as one could suspect. In example an infantry platoon dash or quick moving from a line to another zone line over same terrain (all grass, pavement...), will seldomly take shortest and quickest path as one could "expect", but more oftenly will have individual squads paths cross each others, with unpleasant consequences. This can be tested with a plain grass map, no enemy on map and in scenario tester mode. It´s not that much different with more complex terrain and spotted enemy units on map. The illustration gives an example of the general problem with AI moves. Another problem is unit facing, after reaching a zone by extreme diagonal move. If the OP AI decides for another diagonal move to next zone, facing will change accordingly before the next move. This is particularly bad for tanks/vehicles as these could end up opposing side armore toward (possible enemy). A human player can avoid all that by plotting movements AND facing (on end waypoint), but the AIP can´t unfortunately. What off course helps when setting up the AIP (for movements/attacks), is setting movement zones from between columns and line (sort of) and making ranges between zones not too short. For advance - assault - max assault orders, there should be enough cover terrain offered to the AI for its sub moves (split teams). If a map offers little cover between zones, the AI can be helped by adding a number of 3S crater action spots. The AI has a very high liking for craters as cover for its infantry, so this can be used to advantage to excert some control over possible AI moves, over otherwise coverless terrain. This is just a scratch on the surface with regard to setting up an offensive AIP, but I would like to see other scenario makers tips & tricks and share some experiences. (in a seperate thread maybe)

Now THAT is photo realism! If that´s a mod in the works, it´s definitely worth it!

Awesome pics! Looking forward to finally get my stacked october/november scenarios in the right time frame. Operation Queen and the hurtgen will keep me busy for quite some long time! Even if there´s no exiting new game engine features in the Bulge, I keep my 50 (or so) Euros at ready. At last some the latest game improvements like ditch lock, foot paths, AI triggers and greatly improved HMG effectiveness got me back on path. Thanks for that! Btw...Have some moody ingame autumn and winter landscape pics as well? Hope that Aris is still around! Think 70-80% of textures in my game is his works!

Folkie...actually it works as you said! Just made a quick test setup with 3 story modular buildings in 3m deep basement action spot. While it´s not possible to enter on the levelled 2nd floor and that´s new to me, ..you can exit from the balcony if all guys are placed there with the face command while inside the building! Beeing on the balcony already puts them effectively outside the building, but the balcony (flat variation) needs to intersect some with the ground terrain mesh. Also movement plotting needs to be at least 2 action spots. Also tested, a breach team blasting to neighboring cellar where there were no connecting doors (just plain walls). A locked up building (no doors in the sunken basement) can always be entered with the blast command from outside. The blast opens a wall in the basement and any movement works through this entry. That´s nice new mouse holing variations.

If BFC would allow doors (and balcony)on 2nd level to be used as entry when level to the ground, it "could" work maybe. So far it´s a building with locked doors on faked 1st story and entry only via the "basement" door. Need to try that (again), when I get to the Aachen map.

I still use these as substitute bunkers (3 story modular building, rubbled down to just 1 story), with 1 back dor and 1 front window (aperture). These are variably sunken into the ground with sort of berm around. In play vs. the AI, these work better, as the AI is not aware of the treacherous terrain mesh deformations and the "bunker" can be fought over and occupied by both parties. If not raining 10,5cm HE or larger on top of it, it´s a fairly good shelter as well, although near misses by mortar rounds could have a devastating effect through the only window. A human player can deal with these "bunkers" in short order by pouring HE into the front wall. However,...it´s the base of some WIP scenarios of mine which play in the latter half of september 1944 in the Stolberg corridor, where I set up the US AI to attack.