RockinHarry

From my readings, german binocs were more than popular for beeing aquired from willing or less willing germans on the battleground, not just by russians. Does not tell much about further distribution among troops, but a sniper "team" without the spotter having some binocs...erm..does not really makes much sense IMHO. To the contrary, the useless spotter makes the sniper "team" more visible to the enemy and oftenly enough, the bored spotter chooses his own targets and makes survivability a more serious affair. At least it´s oftenly so in CMBN. So while making own missions, I get rid of the lurker by cutting team strength by half. Works for me.

Ok, thanks.

Maybe stupid question and answered elsewehere already (haven´t purchased CMRT yet), but do the decals show for any hit, no matter if it penetrates (any degree) or just ricochets? :confused:

Bunkers, just like buildings level and adapt to the lowest height AS they´re sitting on, particularly when intersecting more than one AS. If one knows, one can work and plan pretty well with this, just as H1nd explains. One obvious difference to buildings is, that bunkers rather rotate around the center of an AS at some distance, instead of beeing fixed right at the center and rotate in place. Must have to do with the mesh setup and interaction with the neighbouring AS meshes. Would be interesting to know, why exactly BFC did choose for this particular setup though. Some PITA with foxholes in particular is when craters are nearby and you can bet, that any one ptrooper will select a crater, instead of foxholes, no matter how tiny it is. Obviously a hardcoded behavior and with regard to "cover" highest priority, even before any foxholes in the same or adjacent AS. However, the "crater magnet" can be used to influence AI (infantry) movements between Zones, as it preferably plots its waypoints on crater AS.

Obviously my testing with pillbox vulnerabilities were pre 2.0. Can´t recreate anything I did encounter with an older test mission now in 2.12, so everything appears to be in order now, at least with regard to mortar and Arty.

I´d a strange blast through building effect once in pre V2.0. A german 30mm rifle grenade hit a window at lowest story of a multi building, killing 2 GI´s inside, right at this window. The same time a crushing sound was heard and I couldn´t locate its origin, although a lots of shooting was all around. Had to replay that turn several times, as I found a tall brick wall collapsing behind the multi building just hit by the RG at the front. Excluding any possible other causes, in fact the RG hits blast, went straight through the building, exiting the back side and make the brick wall collapse 2 AS away! Hm...:confused: The said building was (pre-) damaged in the editor, while the brick wall took some obvious, although non visible damage from 4.2" WP hitting the ground nearby, during some turns before. While seeing those blast through building effects with higher caliber HE, causing damage to other structures beyond more frequently, I have bits of a doubt if a tiny 30mm RG is capable of flattening a wall several AS away, unhindered by a massive building between, even if damaged. No idea if that relates to the building A/B example above, but it seems that colateral damage is sometimes not quite what one would expect. :eek: Need to retest some in 2.12 now...

I´ve seen pillbox crews quite oftenly KO´ed by near miss mortar hits shrapnel and small arms, all through the aperture. Beeing that immobile vehicle type in game and without the ability to "button up", or "hide", pillboxes are a rather ineffective deathtrap, particularly when not just crewed, but also having further teams "loaded". Occupants can´t duck down or shut up the aperture, can´t buddy aid and when leaving, too oftenly run exposed into enemy fire. Can´t tell if the CMSF bunkers worked much better (didn´t play much), but I´d hope for BFC inventing some bunker structures, that more work like normal buildings with better protection and can be occupied by all.

I´ve been at the Overloon site 2 times, 1982 and 94 I think and quite interested in this battle too. Looking forward to give it a try, once finished.

Think I saw them in some the AAR pics. A version anywhere between normal trees and bush ABC in CMBN then, but not mixable in a single tile. So to get true dense forests, one still has to add other things, like low bocage (not in CMRT obviously), extra brush and small tile height variations to break LOS/LOF at the necessary 1m height range then.

IMHO small arms lethality in 2.12 is quite in order now, but the TAC AI driven ptroopers behavior is still less so. Too much bunching up of ptroopers within an action spot, micro path finding issues that constantly keep them stepping on each others boots, so they stay longer exposed to fire than necessary, fully exposed reloading of weapons and suicidal buddy aiding, at least to me is more of a problem in X2 than anything else. With regard to plain infantry, setting up an AI player to advance or even attack is plain frustrating, as there appears to be no logic for movements between zones at all. Units criss cross each others paths for no obvious reasons, completely ignoring any means of maintaining sorts of a "formation" (line, wedge, ect.). Things get worse, the more splittable components an infantry squad has, with having 3 beeing the worst. From my latest experiments, the only thing I see for the AI is randomness and no human like commanding of sub units at all. Well, it´s no news, so I stop here. The addition of triggers for AI plans IMO will improve little, unless the low level issues remain unsolved. Unfortunately.

Is CMRT forests/trees considerably different from CMBN? What would a "typical" russian wilderness forest density be? 1-2-3 trees/Tile? Any new forest ground tiles in there? Well...give me some german mortar support and I´ll make your russian sub machine gunners life in the forest most uncomfortable. ...unless off course CMRT adds some overhead protection for foxholes and trenches at last.

Thumbs up!

As I said earlier, there wasn´t much choice tactically, as both players had to attack/defend exactly the same meaningless map spots (VL), more or less knowing where both players are to move and to stay, in order to "win". If this was a mission design, I´d say homeworks undone, but it was a simple QB setup with its limitations. Though as showcase for oncoming CMRT features, it did its purpose quite well, as was entertaining to follow.

Exactly. Any yet to be processed movement orders paused, locks units in place, also counting for infantry, when a particular in AS deployment and facing needs to be maintained. If a waypoint is reached, the unit will deploy as it sees fit, with maybe unnecessary rotations and micro positioning, in case of infantry. It has oftenly some advantages to not reach a particular waypoint and instead use Pause (or delay), change movement order in mid move, or shift the waypoint (without intent to move there), just in order to influence facing and in AS deployment for infantry. Interesting to use a waypoint just as sort of movement vector and change a units behavior en route, by means of pause, change movement order ect. without deleting the currently active WP or adding new ones.

Try a short range (20-30m), 360° covered arc, while using hunt (or any other), to keep them moving, in spite of spotted non engaging enemy units at range. Also have a hide at each waypoint to at least make them dive to cover at once, when stopped in the currently occupied AS for any reason. If the final waypoint is not finally reached and using hunt, in next orders phase cancel any targets, change the movement order for the waypoint to any other and set the 360° short range CA. This emphasizes covered movement, before any engaging the enemy. Works pretty good for me in dense urban terrain, when moving around house assaulting parties.

No, you can´t split any the HMG teams (at least not in CMBN/CW which I have only). BFC implemented the various nationalities HMG teams in somewhat different ways in the OOB, dependent on overall size maybe. For some reason BFC decided to seperate US ammo bearers from the actual gun team by default. These are independent entieties and can´t be split nor recombined in any way, but belong together from C2 and ammo sharing POV. The RL german HMG team is composed of a gun team and ammo bearer team (3+3), but in the game it´s a non splitable entiety. I´d wish for it as well either have ammo bearers seperated in the OOB, like it is for the US, or lower the treshold for splitting, so that even a unit with 5-6 guys can be split (as long as it´s not already a split off unit). With regard to path finding, I feel with you. Sounds like you tried entering a building, that partly fills have an AS, so the waypoint lies on the wall edge (center of AS). These are tricky as is all the other terrain, that has some wall or other obstacle straight through center of an AS (bocage, fence...). The main problem IMHO, is the "in AS deployment" for each given waypoint as it not just oftenly causes unwanted positioning within an AS, it also causes serious movement delays, when it´s not the final waypoint. So plotting one waypoint just next to a building, is generally not a good idea. Better go straight inside from one out, to the next in (assuming it´s void of the enemy). Figuring final "in AS deployment" also depends on movement direction, as generally the ptruppen do an autoface either towards the last movement direction or a spotted enemy unit, the more if it´s directly "threatening". One can plan ahead a bit, by plotting waypoints according to the final desired facing and in AS deployment. Assuming a unit is coming from south, moving toward a particular desired AS in the north, with final desired facing/deployment toward the east, then usually one would plot the WP directly and apply a facing east on the final waypoint. Oftentimes it´s better to not plot the WP directly and instead use an extra WP just short (1-2 AS) of the final WP, so the last movement already yields to the desired end facing of the unit. Preferably do the last 1 AS movement in slow or hunt mode with a hide on each WP. The samller the unit (team/half squad) and the slower the final movement, the more are risks minimized from unpredictable AI deployments and micro pathing issues, particularly in bottleneck type terrain. In urban terrain that off course is not always applicable (example at top), if the pre final WP is on an AS outside a building. So a good cover AS is always a precondition for any intermediate WP. One should also know TAC AI preferences for ditches along roads, was well as shellholes when any movement path crosses these. When buildings overlap half an AS into a road terrain tile or crater, then there´s a high chance that the ptruppen prefer the road ditches/craters in this AS before the building cover. Good use can also be made with pause command, change movement order between two waypoints in midmove (going from quick to slow i.e), or cancel a waypoint in midmove just before the final WP, in order to nail the unit in place and prevent unwanted redeployment. So one can oftenly catch a unit in column formation if it yields some advantage in the currently occupied AS. A new WP most oftenly let the unit start from the current micro deployment and generally, the slower the final move, the less the Tac AI has problems with micro path finding and induvidual soldiers interfere with each other. For my tactical movements, I always start with a hide at start position and further hide at each WP and final WP.

Did some more experiments with ditches, particularly the 2m deep ones. The main problem with the ptruppen not taking the full cover of ditches, is the final deployment in the AS at the waypoint. As long as they move along a ditch, they mostly form a column, if there´s time enough before they reach the final waypoint/AS, when they usually shake out and partly take positions outside the ditch again. Bit of an awkward and time wasting solution, is to keep them moving in column and enter the ditch from the start towards the end. Set the end waypoint/AS one beyond the end of the ditch (segment), thus outside and prevent the ptruppen from reaching this till the end of the turn. Using pause of 30-45 seconds is mostly enough to keep the ptruppen moving at the bottom of the ditch and not yet reaching the final waypoint. If timing is right, one can push the cancel orders button and order hide. This locks individual soldiers in place near the bottom of the ditch. To get out of full cover and engage the enemy from the current AS, set a covered arc so individual soldiers will reposition themselves to get a LOF near edge of the ditch. To get them back in full cover again, pause 45 seconds, set a "slow" waypoint to just behind the ditch (outside) and the remaining 15 seconds will be enough to let them crawl down the bottom, yet not reaching the waypoint before the turn ends. In next turn, cancel order again to lock them in place. I mostly start from hide and use hunt with another hide at the waypoint, when moving along ditches. Slower movements appear to be better to enable the AI to form the desired column formation. This depends on length of the ditch off course. With hunt, about 3-4 ditch AS can be moved trough in full cover at about 15 seconds, assuming a half squad of 4-5 guys. As said, key is to set the final waypoint 1 outside the ditch and with pause command, stop the troopers in mid move in the next game turn. Tested this without enemy units and interference on map. As said this maneuver is awkward and wastes up to 3/4 of a 1 minute WEGO turn just for this single purpose (maximum cover from ditches), so I as well hope for a true solution from BFC.

Second anecdote: "The plan was to neutralize the German antitank guns, which were placed along the highway, ...", "The tanks rushed at full speed into the antitank gun positions and smashed the guns, the crews of which had scattered. Without lessening speed, the tanks broke into the woods and exterminated a number of Germans there. Most of those Germans were having their dinner when the tanks appeared and so the enemy troops were unable to reach their guns in time to fight a defensive action." The positioning of the "AT guns" was likely not a defensive one or very badly camouflaged. Maybe it was even an artillery column, which was at resting stance, waiting for gas, whatever. Obviously the germans were neither prepared nor conscious about a russian tank force approaching. But if the russian commander was able to learn about german guns by observation, his tank force was likely close enough for germans to get heard. Without knowing distances, weather, TOD and some more details about german force, the anecdote just raises more questions and is of little worth as a tactical lesson.

Looks like ditches, particularly the ones more than 1m deep, are considered as an obstacle to pixeltruppen, due to the slopes getting too steep towards the bottom of the ditch. The individual positioning of the ptruppen anyway seems always random and constantly evaluated. Some individual spacing is always maintained and when the random end position falls on that forbidden slope, it gets shifted til it falls on sufficiently even ground within the AS. That´s from obersvation. Facing does nothing at all obviously. As likely has been recognized broadly, craters are ptruppen magnets and appear to be hard coded for selection as individual covered position within an AS. This can be somewhat exploited, by placing a 7L crater on top of the ditch AS, which at least improves individual positioning and cover, the more if some the randomly placed craters are on the bottom of the ditch. This is even less as an expedient and ugly looking as well, but interesting to toy with. Just an idea: Theoretically one could provide some linear type, fixed row of 3-5 invisible craters for use in ditches, to mark the bottom as covered position. In 1m deep ditches this would provide cover and ability to shoot and in 2m deep ones, just a covered position. That off course helps nothing for moving along those ditches covered, as the pathing AI likely would spread out the ptruppen again, between each AS. Integrating this feature into the overall Tac AI surely is a different matter. The magnet like behavior of craters has its falltrap too. They´re very oftenly prefered even before foxholes and when both a present within an AS, the ptruppen move into craters quite often.

It´s generally on the behalf of the map maker to have adjoining walls and door/window configurations match. On large urban maps, with possibly hundreds of buildings forming continuous blocks, this could mean 4 to 6 or more walls to fix a single building. AFAIK most the QB maps with urban settings do not have matching walls, so lots of pathing problems could be expected. Getting those maps straight, is not for the impatient, but personally I make sure for my own maps, that wall configurations match for every single building/story and are accessible where you expect them to be.

Think I´d stayed out of the forests entirely and attempted to fix and screen the largest mass of russian infantry there instead, then drop Arty. and let the many tree bursts take it´s toll.

I do not have MG, but assume it´s the same in CMBN 2.12 generally. In current test play I have US AI attacking through urban terrain and they hurt me (as human player) most, by employing rifle grenades! So I´d likely suggest buying and using the grenadier versions for infantry forces. Some Demolition teams are good for some mouse holing, as well as any other standoff HE in your inventory, like Zooks/Schrecks ect. As attacker, keep off the streets and make also use of smoke. I do not think the AI has an inherent advantage, but really depends on close examination of the situation, map and forces.

The editor screens look like a total mess I know. Once you know how the textures transit and "sculpting" works by tile locking at right places, it´s not that difficult to create your personal little Stalingrad. Working on building interiors and matching building textures and windows overall, to have a coherent look, is the most time consuming affair. And shifting a number of doodads around off course. Modded textures in use: Ground hard from Aris. Ground Cliff from Aris (not seen in the screenies) Ground Rocky Red (rubble) Ground pavement Ground pavement2 Ground cobblestones The latter 3 are slightly desaturated, with a layer of dirt/dust added. I figured the original textures to be too blueish and "clean". Also in use is some modded version of the skybox, clouds and haze.

And for Pic 4:

And the fourth one: And 2D editor view for pics 1 and 3: Map editor view Pic 2: