Chelco
-
Posts
363 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Chelco
-
-
Ey George, thanks.
Actually I'm editing this scenario because as Schmoly War pointed out, some uncon ATs need to be re-placed or replaced.
I will look into the time limit too.
Cheers,
-
I think YD nailed it.There's just no away 1-2 guys peeking around a corner are going to win fire ascendancy against 5-6 guys in a building 20m away. Just ain't gonna happen. Cover is approximately equal. Unless one side is vastly superior in training and tech, superior numbers are going to win.Still, it would be nice to have a "peek around corner" order.
-
How would you do it in real life?
-
OK, after struggling for a while I think got it working right.
My map is 1.5 km wide and apparently a single setup zone with a 1.5 km frontage for the red forces messes up the facing :confused: . Anyway, I split the previous big setup zone into 3 different setup zones (1, 2 and 3, each 0.5 km wide) and all is working now.
Thank you guys, I thought I was going nuts.
Cheers,
-
Ey Adam1,
Do you think this is a 1.08 problem? I've made some scenarios before and I don't recall having this problem. This is my first scenario with a medium sized map(1.5x1.5 km), though.
@Webwing,
I made an scenario from scratch. The map was the size of whatever default the editor has (300x300 m?). I followed exactly your steps (setup zones, purchase units, deployed the units in 3D, faced them east). Some units change their facing slightly north, other units change their facing slightly south. I think that this emulates what happens in the scenario that's driving me crazy. Except that the changes in facing are more dramatic, perhaps because my map is bigger than in the small test scenario I made from scratch.
Cheers,
-
Thanks Webwing, I appreciate your help.
Sorry for the confusion, it's complicated to explain.
I did all you posted, but in different order. I'll clean up the units, the setup zones and start over in the order you post.
-
Now I have those odd facings even when I manually deploy and face the units during scenario creation (not painting setup zones and deployments were made inside the red's deploy area). I don't know what's going on here. Maybe something to do with the map itself?
Edit: facing depends on the location of the map where I manually deploy the red units. Odd facings show up for units that are beyond approximately 1/3 of the red's friendly edge of the map. :confused:
[ April 05, 2008, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Chelco ]
-
Hi Webwing,
I'm painting setup zones for each AI group. After painting setup zones I use the deploy in 3D option, but the units face in odd directions.
I guess the only solution for the time being is to just deploy in 3D without painting setup zones. Pity, I wanted 5 different start positions for the 6 red AI groups to add some re-playability.
-
Hello,
I am making an scenario and for some reason the red AI groups 4, 5 and 6 always start the scenario facing in the opposite/wrong direction.
I already set the data parameters to blue's friendly direction (E) and red's friendly direction (W). I have 6 red AI groups, each one with a setup region. Red deployment zones cover all these setup areas. At the scenario start, red's AI groups 1 to 3 face East (correct) but red's AI groups 4 to 6 face in odd directions (for example red's AI group 6 faces west!). In desperation, I tried to give groups 4 to 6 some short dash order to change their facing, but upon completing the order they still face in that odd direction.
Is this a bug? Has anybody had the same problem?
Help please,
-
Can you alleviate that problem by splitting the squads into fire teams?Originally posted by carlR:... and tried to get my squads to line the elevated road and pour concentrated fire into the buildings on the other side.
Cheers,
-
[joke] Jason, according to the guy in your signature nothing is a fact either ...Originally posted by JasonC:Opinions and facts, false dicotomy in this context. Everything that comes out of a human being's mouth (or typing fingers) is an opinion, including how many millimeters in a lab measurement or what temperature on a thermometer. This doesn't make them "un-facts". If a meteor smashes your car you won't confuse it with an opinion and argue with the glowing chunks of rock, but that isn't what is happening here.
[/joke]
I'm not sure if it is using distance fields, but a "precomputed" map is implemented in Point of Attack 2 (HPS). In-game, you can peek at the calculation results and it will show you "points for interest" for each side. Those "points of interest" usually include crests and hills. The nice thing is that the AI in that game prepares a defense or attack based on those points. It even re-arranges the OOB based on those terrain features. Way cool.The formal method is called distance fields ...Cheers,
-
Hi Cpl,
That's a very good point.
As you mention in your post, there is a chance that US troops with lower motivation will cower. I wonder how negative the impact of that could be. For example, if caught in bad cover they could be picked out one by one without firing back or even looking for better cover.
Cheers,
-
Among other things, one issue that came into my mind with the video is how in your right wing you used the buildings as an avenue of approach. You went one block down the street by a combination of wall blasting and roof hoping.
It reminded me of this article: Streetfighting
Take a look at figure 8 (buildings as avenues of approach rather than obstacles).
-
Schmoly, this video is so good in so many ways.
Lots of things I want to mention from it. Will do during the day (gotta go to work now).
Outstanding. Thanks!
I love the part when your troops spot the ATGM in the big open field west of the market, you click on the uncon's icon and your cursor goes directly to the unit's description (8:45). I almost can hear you saying "See? This unit can't fire at this range?" Cheers,
-
Holy Schmoly!Originally posted by Schmoly War:Chelco,
Heres how I went in ...
You wargaming stud, there is likely nothing I could do to challenge ya ...
Maybe some vehicle-borne lasers. LOL. Kudos man.Seriously, I appreciate your feedback.
One thing that you mention is placing infantry on rooftops. I get my troops destroyed in mass when I do so.
As for the AI doing silly things, I will probably remove that order. The TacAI is a bit problematic to deal with.
Cheers,
-
Hi Darkmage,
Thanks for playing and for your feedback.
Let me try to explain what I wanted to portray in this scenario.
The "clear" tactical mission: "remove all enemy forces and eliminate organized resistance within an assigned area". Now this type of mission requires thorough recon, plenty of time for detailed planing and lots of firepower (not the case in this scenario). In certain cases the commander may modify this mission to achieve something less than "clear" and I did put that modifier in the briefing. The commander doesn't want to flush all resistance away (is that even possible with the given firepower?), just take the market (eliminate organized resistance) and attrit the enemy below certain level.
I have been thinking for a while about what order was best for this scenario (clear, reduce, seize?) but given the constrains we have in CMSF (moderate sized forces and urban maps) I settled for a "clear" with modifiers. I could be wrong.
The US player can get a total of 300 points: 100 for preservation of force, 100 for attrition of the enemy and 100 points for occupation of the market.
Maybe I should explain the victory conditions in the briefing.
Thanks,
-
Thanks again Schmoly.
I will modify it on the next few days and re-post a new version.
If you don't mind I would like to ask you a couple of questions:
1) From your post I have the impression that you took the market, held few (if any) losses, and probably blew the whack out of the uncons. It appears like it was a cakewalk for you. Do you think that the scenario lacks balance?
I ask you with humble admiration, because my lack of tactical skills never took me beyond a tactical victory. It would be great if you could comment on your tactics for this or any other MOUT scenario.
2) Balancing issues aside, I also have the impression from your post that my scenario lacks terribly in the entertainment side. I was totally expecting that
. I wonder if at least you found the tactical situation realistic enough.Cheers,
-
Thanks for the feedback Schmoly. Much appreciated.
I will take a look into those ATGMs more closely. While playtesting the scenario I got fired upon by ATGM missiles plenty of times but I couldn't pinpoint by which type. I assumed the minimum range for all the ATGMs wielded by red was 100 meters, 200 meters tops.
Cheers,
-
-
EDIT: wrong thread.
-
JohnO,
Great AAR!
-
-
Great pic, great captions.
RuhrRiver, hope you don't mind I retouched your picture for this (de)motivational poster.
-
Hi Mark,
I don't play WEGO too much, but in RT I notice that a unit can be under fire from non-spotted enemy units for a considerable span of time. Mainly when the unit under fire is moving.
You mean replaying the turn and trying to see the muzzle flashes or smoke puffs (from RPGs)?
Also, sometimes the "Sir, we spotted an enemy unit" comes and no red icon can be seen for a while.
I like not knowing some of the enemy positions for a while as described above. IMHO adds a bit of realism into the game.
Cheers,
I love the part when your troops spot the ATGM in the big open field west of the market, you click on the uncon's icon and your cursor goes directly to the unit's description (8:45). I almost can hear you saying "See? This unit can't fire at this range?" 
Maybe some vehicle-borne lasers. LOL. Kudos man.
) playable as blue against the computer only.
New Scenario: "Al-Uhbula District"
in CMSF Scenario and Mod Design Forum
Posted
Law & Order,
Thanks for the feedback. Glad you liked it.
Cheers,