cbb
-
Posts
125 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by cbb
-
-
wwb posts: "This is a fundamentally wrongheaded idea in CM. The nature of the game and the AI do not lend itself to making one battle suitable for head to head and solitaire play from both sides. In fact, I suggest one does not even attempt it. When I design battles (and I have done a few here and there) I make them to work one way--H2H, allied, axis, etc. If they happen to work other ways, great. If not, no loss."
I agree with you and my scenarios are usually designed to be played as one particular side against the AI. I'm just pointing out that the inability of scenario designers to assign pre-planned artillery bombardments to the AI means that even if one wanted to attempt to design a scenario playable from both sides, this is (another) major obstacle...
wwb: "Remember that the AI is generally a piss poor attacker, especially when it comes to coordination which is exactly what you are demanding. You will be better off making the battle single player as soviet or head to head."
What I'm talking about is certainly nothing overly sophisticated in terms of "coordination." I'm talking about the AI bombarding a position with smoke and HE and then attacking. That's pretty basic stuff. It's certainly a shame if it's not possible to design a scenario in CMBB as simple as that. Again, the first edition of Steel Panthers (in 1995!) allowed scenario designers to assign targets for the AI. (Later versions, SPWW2 and SPMBT, expanded on this, allowing the designer to designate artillery fire over multiple turns). I would have thought that CMBB, being a much more sophisticated game than SP, would have included this...
wwb: "One other trick to get the AI to prebombard bombard--try padlocking the FOs out of LOS. That has been known to work."
Okay, I'll give that a try. Up till now, I've been doing just the opposite -- trying to put FOs in LOS of enemy units under the assumption that they will call for strikes only on units they can see.
[ February 23, 2003, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: cbb ]
-
No, they're wooden. But the Russian AI has tanks which destroy them very quickly. (I still think bunkers and ATGs are WAY too easy to spot in this game, even with extreme FOW, but that's another issue). Perhaps the bunkers are being destroyed before the AI spotters can call in artillery strikes against them...Originally posted by Mud:cbb --
Those aren't concrete bunkers you were using, were they? If they were, perhaps substituting softer targets would help.
My complaint is this: why does the AI have to have LOS to an enemy unit before firing artillery/smoke? A human player doesn't have the same restriction. If I'm attacking a hill with flags on it that I KNOW has enemy units, I'm quite likely going to do a pre-planned bombardment with artillery and smoke regardless of whether I can see an enemy unit or not. The AI can't do this and the scenario designer has no way of making the AI do it...
About 90% of my playing time with CMBB involves designing my own (historically-based) scenarios for play against the AI. For me, this is by far the biggest flaw in the game.
[ February 23, 2003, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: cbb ]
-
I've experienced the same -- with the result that in many scenarios the AI artillery doesn't fire at all. This means:Originally posted by lucero1148:Getting the AI to lauch a barrage or fire it's rounds during a game depends on target of opportunity from what I've experienced.
Say you want the AI to commence a barrage at a start of a scenario. It has to have LOS of a suitable target (e.g. convoy of trucks) and the % of it firing a barrage is pretty high.
The AI will fire off it's artillery later on in the game if it can pinpoint an enemy force long enough for it to bring its rounds on target. However if your ground forces rout the enemy force before the FO can hit the target the AI will cancel the firing order.
1) Designing a very basic scenario in which the AI side is supposed to assault a hill following a smoke/artillery bombardment simply isn't possible with CMBB's existing scenario editor; and
2) Designing a balanced scenario containing artillery in which either side can play against the AI isn't possible because the human player can utilize smoke/artillery bombardment whereas the AI cannot...
This is disappointing. Allowing scenario designers to designate AI smoke/artillery bombardments has been around in games like Steel Panthers since 1995. I'm really surprised that CMBB omits such a basic feature.
-
So let me ask this:
Has anyone been able to design a scenario in which the Russian AI launches artillery fire prior to commencing an assault on German positions (say, within the first 10 turns)?
If so, how did you do it?
If not, it seems to me that CMBB has a major bug/omission.
-
A good suggestion. I just tried it. Russian spotters have LOS to the bunkers in the orders phase of Turn 1. (They are less than 200 meters away).Originally posted by Björn Eriksson:If you haven't already, I suggest you try playing the scenario from the russian side and verify that the bunkers are visible in the orders phase of turn 1.
I'm not sure this is the problem, I'm only guessing here
-
In the editor I checked the LOS of the spotters and they all had LOS to enemy bunkers. </font>Originally posted by Björn Eriksson:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by cbb:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Björn Eriksson:
In quick battles, the AI will preplan bombardments only on units it can see in the first turn. Perhaps the bunkers you've placed are hidden by FOW?
-
In the editor I checked the LOS of the spotters and they all had LOS to enemy bunkers.Originally posted by Björn Eriksson:In quick battles, the AI will preplan bombardments only on units it can see in the first turn. Perhaps the bunkers you've placed are hidden by FOW?
-
I've tried everything I can think of but I cannot get the Russian AI to fire artillery in the majority of scenarios I design...
Presently I'm working on a scenario in which the Russian AI-side is assaulting. I have given it three artillery spotters, several target reference points, and placed the spotter in LOS of both the target reference points and enemy bunkers. Still no luck. Through 25 turns, the AI has yet to fire a single artillery round...
I've read page 131 of the manual which talks about how long it takes for Russian artillery to fire and that "often their only useful purpose is in a pre-planned bombardment." But I know of no way for a scenario designer to designate a pre-planned bombardment for the AI side. Does that then mean that the game effectively has no artillery for the Russians when the Russians are the AI? ...
Am I overlooking something here?
CBB
-
Thanks! Very much looking forward to reading this!Originally posted by Grisha:Sorry for the long delay in this project, since I know some of you have been eager to see this through. Well, it's done. I have transcribed the entire novel, called Zvezda in Russian, onto the web. You can find it here.
CBB
-
Definitely a good book. As for the T-26s, I suspect they were actually T-70s.Originally posted by Hans:I have just read "In deadly combat" by Gottlob Bidermann who served most of WWII on the Eastern front. An excellent book it had several graphic descriptions of his early days as a 37mm Pak gunner.
Later as a Leutnant in July 1944 he came into a village and was attacked by two T-26s!
I was suprized to see that T-26s were still being used (in the Northern or Central sector).
Recommended book
ISBN 0-7006-1122-3
CBB
-
Has someone done a whitewashed JS-II yet?
CBB
-
Everyone has their own preference but I very much prefer DD's "burned" look. I think it's much more realistic (as opposed to the lush-green-lawn look of the original -- almost like a golf course!)Originally posted by Becket:I don't want to knock anyone's work, and DD put a lot of work into the mod, clearly.
However, I found I did not like this mod -- everything looked sort of burned, like grass in a drought. Thanks to CMMOS (yay!) reinstallation of the BFC textures was painless.
CBB
-
Michael, do you recommend the Spaeter books? They are just about the only Fedorowicz publications that I do not own. I found a site that offers a discount if you buy all three and I was thinking about breaking out the credit card.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:I do have the book by Jung that cbb mentions, as well as all three volumes of Spaeter, the new one by Novotny, the Squadron Signal book, the Vanguard book, the one by Spezzano and McGuirl, the pictorial by Spaeter and the one by Lucas. Unfortunately, no one was too interested in documenting the regimental commanders.
CBB
-
I'm working on scenarios using the book "The History of Panzerregiment 'Grossdeutschland'" by Jung and have noticed the same thing. The author seems to mention the various regimental commanders only in passing, making it difficult to figure out who was in command at what time. Otherwise, the book is great -- lots of good scenario possibilities.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:All the official histories I've found in English don't go into any detail - as I pointed out to JonS in a recent email, German histories tend to be long on heroics, short on details of equipment or command slots...
CBB
-
I'm still pretty much a novice at designing CMBB scenarios but the more I experiment, the more success I have in making the AI attack reasonably well. As suggested by others, flags and cover definitely help. Placing the AI troops closer to the objective will reduce the march time. And giving the attackers a good numerical advantage together with varying attack lanes will prevent the defender from shutting down the whole attack by blocking one sector...
Finally, I try to give my attacking forces some fanaticism. That seems to help them push forward.
CBB
[ January 29, 2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: cbb ]
-
I tried that but with no luck...Originally posted by Aacooper:I don't know how to force the AI to fire artillery, but maybe putting TRP's down would encourage the AI to fire at the TRP's (which have a 1 minute delay).
I've noticed that in the "Hornet's Nest" scenario, the AI always starts with a bombardment. So there must be some way to do it.
-
I am attempting to design a scenario to be played with the human player as the Germans and the AI as the Russians. I would like the AI-Russians to begin the scenario with an artillery bombardment. How do I get them to do it? I've given the Russians spotters (82mm and 76mm) but through fifteen turns of play, I have yet to see any Russian artillery fire. I really need them to fire sooner (and, if possible, lob some smoke rounds as well)...
Thanks.
-
I am attempting to design a scenario to be played with the human player as the Germans and the AI as the Russians. I would like the AI-Russians to begin the scenario with an artillery bombardment. How do I get them to do it? I've given the Russians spotters (82mm and 76mm) but through fifteen turns of play, I have yet to see any Russian artillery fire. I really need them to fire sooner (and, if possible, lob some smoke rounds as well)...
Thanks.
-
Isn't it about time that this thread devolve into a discussion of Paul Carell? Foxbat, where are you?
-
Yes, the same accusations have been made against The Black March but it has long been my understanding that The Black March IS fiction. I was told that the book was first serialized in some sort of "men's magazine" in Germany in the late '50s and that many Waffen SS veterans complained about it at the time. While there may be inaccuracies in Sajer's book, they do not compare to all the wild claims in The Black March (e.g. Panthers in 1942, executing prisoners with flamethrowers etc.)...Originally posted by Pak40:Ironically, the same accusations have been made against The Black March which is another great autobiography about a German soldier's exeriences on the East Front.
I've been collecting books containing personal accounts of the eastern front for over 20 years and I'm pretty firm in my belief that The Black March is one of the weakest.
-
I didn't play much CMBO but based on my understanding of tank vs. ATG combat on the eastern front, ATGs seem way too vulnerable to me. Either they are being spotted too easily or they are being hit too easily.Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:This is my highly subjective opinion. I have done no testing whatsoever, in fact this entire post is based on my experience fighting against AT guns, or depending on AT guns on the defence.
I think it is too easy to spot enemy AT guns.
Situation 1:
3 Veteran or regular AT guns (German) vs 7 veteran or regular T-34s. Situation: T-34s driving around (hunt) without using overwatch, all crew exposed. AT guns hiding in woods or scattered trees. AT guns open fire at 3-400 meters. Each AT gun gets off 2-3 shots before being taken out. Estimated time between 1st shot from AT gun to T-34 turrets targeting Guns ~20 seconds.
Situation 2:
3 Veteran StuGIIIs advancing across open field (1 using hunt command, 2 moving fast), all crew exposed. 1 Regular Soviet AT gun (late 45mm model) open fire from ~1100 meters. StuGs spot AT gun before it gets off its second shot. AT gun was hiding in brush.
Situation 3:
9 Regular T-34s advancing across open field (using hunt command), buttoned due to infantry small arms fire. 3 veteran/regular German AT guns open fire at ~800m. All German AT guns are spotted, engaged and destroyed within 20 seconds.
-
It looks like the English translation is still available. Check out:
http://www.aberdeenbookstore.com/german_weapons.htm
54. TIGERFIBEL, THE ORIGINAL TIGER TANK MANUAL,
S,O,
complete translation of
the original manual issued to WWII German Tiger tank crews in 1943 including
all intelligence charts and original illustrations,
174 pp.
$20.00
-
I bought an English translation of this a couple of years ago. Don't know if it's still in print. Very interesting stuff.Originally posted by Strontium Dog:This might be old news? I just came across this manual for Tiger crews and thought you guys might find it interesting.
Amongst other things there are some armour penetration charts for some of the commonly encountered enemy tanks
-
Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
But then again, the arguments matter not, as was ably pointed out. You
a) violated commonly held conventions established by this community, and,
violated the intent of the Scenario Depot from where you got the scenarios, and, c) violated the trust of members of the community
Oh please drop the melodrama.
Granted I've only been here for half a year, but the "commonly held conventions established by this community" as they are displayed in this thread is definitively nothing you should be proud of, nor should want to hold on to. From where I'm sitting, many of the scenario designers posting in this thread are coming across as the scenario making equivalents of ballerina primadonnas.
Violated the trust of members of the community did he? Who trusted him? And with what? Do you often trust unknown people posting under false (or real) names on a bulletin board?
and despite the rantings of a vocal and talentless few, that kind of makes the arguments irrelevant. The apology might have been accepted, but the continued pleas for sympathy coupled with your inability to see the other side of the issue pretty much cancelled that out.
To be perfectly honest, you are not exactly coming across as the level-headed pillar of rational discussion either. He has said that he understands your point of view, but he disagrees with it. To me at least, that means that he does see your side of the issue, he just doesnt agree with it. The same thing can hardly be said about all the "he should have asked first, now he has betrayed us"-people.
Weird, I think that threads like these do more harm to the community than good. I mean at least my views on a couple of things have changed.</font>I sincerely believe it is for the common good.
violated the intent of the Scenario Depot from where you got the scenarios, and,
Russian AI won't fire artillery
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted