KNac

don't start yet monkeys

I do see soldiers do stuff. Other thing is that they always don't do what they should, and we allready know why this happen and that eventually will get better (hopefully soon, I espect 1.05 to be really fun and very playable).

A bit offtopic but I find the manual is lacking anyway (anyway I agree the game should include a printable version, even if I wouldn't print it), that's why we constantlly find ourshelves here in the forum how the game works or is supposed to wiork. A deeper insight on the game mechancis would be nice. Or as someone suggested (the first one was Dorosh I think), some sort of design notes. Well, maybe for WWII title when the engine is more settled and finished we can have somethign along these liens, it won't be very usefull for us who are allready starting to comprenhend how the game works, but it will be usefull for new comers or these who come back.

Are these rune scenarios around? just curious

gmail is no longer by invation i think, at least i got my account w/o invitation hehe. yousendit or similar sites are ok. other option is use www.pando.com, check it out.

Artillery wors in asimilar way so I don't see why it can't be implemented. I'm all about this too, I would like area fire to behave exactly like arty targeting now: line and area (maybe 2 commands?) and the unit would spread fire throught the area randomlly (or following a patern I don't care).

I think having the soldier on point associated with the action spot would solve some issues quite fast indeed. This combined with what dan/california and myself were suggesting of activating adjacents action spots (all the action spots a squad occupes) would make things even better. Steiner suggestions are nice too, but somewhat I see them harder to implement so would take more time. Personally I prefer the second option (involves less user input); when you order a squad to move on the wall to the corner, they would move carefully and then soem sort of special action spot would be activated to trace LOS. Other option combining various of the ideas thrown around, when you order the squad to move to the corner, they stop in cover and the adjacent action spot is activated for check LOS, with the men being on cover (an animation of someone checking moving the head would be nice but we can do it with the abstraction). If there is a positive contact then you can see the enemy squad via interface. Now there is an other 'minor' problem, once we have solved on how corners are checked, is how do you attack the enemy behind the corner. Once there is a positive contact, first it would be for both sides unless a special rule is included, that would be a disadvatage for the enemy. And later would be a matter of squad repositioning so they have positive LOF agaisnt the enemy but seeking major cover using the corner.

Watching my own screenshoots (the gridline i drow was wrong BTW) and reading what I had written soemthing came to mind so I made a quick test... So... editor squares are 8x8 but do not fit with action spots? or are fire does nto snap to the center of an action spot as we though? mmm rare

because as POE said, is a service. It's registered as a service when it's installed and the system runs it on startup.

Yes it's strange... I see the defender ALLWAYS spots before the attacked does. Chek out the '1:1 abstractions workaround' thread the screenshoots I posted an you can see. Even before the advancing us rifle squad had stopped and they got positive conatct report, the enemy was shooting allready. I can almost certainlly say this is niot due to LOS/LOF checking algorithm, as if enemy has LOS to you, you have it to them, but your advancing squad seems to percibe the enemy allways later, a faltal second later or so. What is a bit flawed is troops not checking corners before advancing, for example, but as I've seen squads assault building very nicelly when they want, I'm sure this can be coded somewhat and there are workaround to current LOS system limitations. Also there are soem tricks scenario designers can do, like placing buildings corners in the center of action spots, opposed to the corner of action spots. Haven'ttried your test scenario maybe later.

Ok, I think this is more relevant to discussion on this thread so finally will post it here. Tested in RT elite mode, this is the map. Involves couple of MG teams overwatching on red side, and one rifle squad advacing to a corner from blue side. Ok, so here is the result in upper case: I'll post later the other case result, but some conclussions and advices I can give you: - For scenario designers: whenever is possible, USE THIS, it will give more options to the player on how to check streets w/o exposing full squads/teams. You will see easy WHY when I post the other result. -For developers (easy): add some sort of grid turn on/off option or optional ground textures with grid. This will make life easier for the players regarding to where is the squad positioned and how we can solve this situations. If we know if the corner is in the center of an action spot, or in the corner of an action spot, it can make a big difference and we can minimize casualties. Moders can do this when they can actually mod, ala CMx1 -For developers (hard): porobably you have discussed this allready when designing the engine, and probably it was discraded for various reasons, but in the future would be nice if you refined the LOS checking algorithm. What I'm talking about: as now LOS is checked from action spot to action spot, if LOS is positive, then LOF is checked per each squad member. Adding an intermediate level would be nice: if LOS is positive to the unit, divide the action spot in four quadrants and fine check LOS again. This way we an avoid weird disonances between LOS & LOF most times, as some squad memebrs may have LOS and others don't. Additionally I think is very important, more than what I suggested before, to activate all the action spots a squad is spread and check if LOS is positive while the squad is moving, this way, in this case for example, the squad wouldn't be suddenlly wouldn't have LOS to the enemy, because when the first squad memebr moves to teh final waypoint action spot that would be activated and LOS would be checked to see if the unit has or no LOS to the enemy, if youa dd to this the intermediate steep to fien tune LOS, we could have much better results. Probably I'm talking a lot of **** and mayeb this si not technically possible, but just some suggestions. [ September 29, 2007, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: KNac ]

Just did a quick test... will post on your other thread too, let's continue there the discussion

As I said in other thread, it's justa matter of input more data into the code, and program an answer from the AI to each combination of cirucntances to behave like they should. There is not fundamental flaw in this, is a matter of fine tunning, and we will see odd stuff or low responsiviness dissapeir with time. For the WWII title game engine should be good enough to be times better than CMx1 in all factors including enjoyment. Some future additions in middle term which will favour game mechanics that have been mentioned like activating all the action spots for LOS calcs that a squad occupes (if the squad is spread moving on, over 2 action spots) could help a big deal. I'm very interested to the question Cpl Steined asked, is soemthing I though the other day, maybe if a building corner it's spread between 3 action spots, checking corners etc w/o overexposure would be easier. Some testing requiered, but each square in the editor is 8x8m so is an action spot.

interesting... this + 1.04 may be the finish of all 8800 problems?

Yes but don't miss that something along these lines will be the standard in two years timeframe.

I must add that games (or applications) are allways programmed to be run on old generation hardware. This game engine was started 4 years ago, and don't know to what kind of system Charles was programming it ron run on. But at least a 4 years old one. Indeed, I think 4 years old systems can move the game, at least not extremelly big & unit intensive maps, rather well. So what a could the game do if it was programmed and optimized to run in a quad-core with 4gb of RAm and a *sigh* SLIed double 8800?

CMx1 squares were 20x20m and squads were totally abstracted. Which price have we paid? 1x1m squares are not going to do it, what is going to do it is 1:1 LOS. 1:1 LOS is technically impossible for RT yes, well, FALSE, it's possible but majority of computers wouldn't be able to run it to an acceptable level, at company sized battles at least. And for WeGo... I don't know how long it would take to process it. There are otehr problems, like inner squad behaviour, that's purelly a matter of AI programming, repositioning, individual response against enemy threads, moving or itnereacting with the enviorenment (seeking cover, MOUT operations etc). It's a matter of inputting a lot of info and how the squads must behave in each situation: so it's a mat6ter of developing time and tuning. The other option is a total 1:1 control, ie. you move EACH soldier. Micro hell and not inresting unless you want to play small unit action (squad level). Mmmm, would be interesting in the future if CMSF can scale the engien down, adding more eye candy and better graphic even but smaller maps and unit count, maybe we can have a nice squad level sim. But that's an other point. Darkmath, unfortunatlly games or applications are barelly being programmed to get the most of current systems. They don't use 64-bit architecture as they should (or don't use at all, let's remember most people DOES NOT run 64bit OS, including me), and they are not optimized to use multiple cores. Probably with good programming (and enough time to do it), top home computers could do the trick. [ September 29, 2007, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: KNac ]

While #1 is usefull, for RT and WeGo, #2 it-s usefull most times only in RT. In WeGo we have to rely on TacAI decissions so if squad AI is not tuned to perform better or soem sorts of programmed SOPs are introduced, we still have issues. Again #1 should help with this tho, allready.

you don't own the game: end of the story. points? yeah sure

Yes, and you can have it both ways now But some people seems to not like this, something which is beyond any human comprenhension.

delete this piece of **** please. this may win the award for the most awfull rant since release. If you haven't bought it why you cry?

Which is TOW map size limit & unit count limit?

individual soldier command? micro nightmare, no thanks. or do you wwant to playa single platoon AT MUCH?

come on!

Yes, candidates in the whole world would be in few numbers... The profile you describe will fit very well in some specialized guys which work for militaries around the world writing sims and wargames. Probably their salary is quite high, and probably BF couldn't aford to hire these right now.