Jump to content

Chelco

Members
  • Posts

    363
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Chelco

  1. Originally posted by c3k:

    "Sergeant! What the hell just happened here?"

    "Sir, I'm not sure. We had assumed a tactical position here, oriented on the objective, when I noticed Jenkins there get a red circle and over that way Smitty turned a bit yellow."

    LOL smile.gif

    I like the confusion of not knowing what the hell happened during the game, but I would appreciate if there were a better debriefing when the game ends.

    Cheers,

    Edit: c3k, can I use the above quote as my sig?

  2. I read elsewhere that AI triggers MAY come some time in the future. Very good news.

    If so, could it be possible to include in the triggers' conditions something like: "if enemy is detected in this region"? Compare that to something like: "if enemy is present in this region". If the later condition (enemy present here) is the only one available in the editor, it could totally lift the fog of war for the AI plans.

    I don't know if I'm explaining myself.

    Also, I don't know how difficult to code this trigger thing is going to be. :( It is easy to ask for stuff, isn't it? ;) A great deal of inspiration could be found in the trigger system of Steel Beasts ProPE (even in Steel Beasts Legacy IIRC).

    Keep up the good work,

    Thanks,

    EDIT: ESOL!

  3. I read elsewhere that AI triggers MAY come some time in the future. Very good news..

    If so, I would ask you guys to include in triggers' conditions something like: "if enemy is detected here". Compare that to something like: "if enemy is present here". If the later condition (enemy present here) is the only one available in the editor, it could totally lift the fog of war for the AI plans.

    I don't know if I'm explaining myself.

    Keep up the good work,

    Thanks,

  4. Until somebody posts better data, here is some info from "Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army", by David Isby. It is a book published in 1981 and is about the Soviet army, so I don't know how much it applies to the equipment seen in CMSF (maybe not much). But anyway, just to continue the conversation.

    T-55 Main Battle Tank

    Gun: 100mm D-10T2S

    Max rate of fire (theoretical): 7 rpm

    Max rate of fire (actual): 3-4 rpm

    Max range of fire (direct fire): 2800m (APDS), 2200m (HEAT), 2200m (APHE), 2200m (Frag-HE)

    Effective range: 1080 (APHE), 900m (HEAT), 1200-1300 (APDS)

    Today, despite its simplicity, ruggedness and mobility, the T-54/55 series is at a disadvantage compared to more recent designs. They are cramped, often "brew up" if hit, have a springy suspension that creates crew fatigue, are tiring to drive, shed tracks and are prone to engine overheating. They lack air conditioning and are much less effective in desert conditions. The 100mm D-10 series gun lacks long range accuracy and armour penetration. Its rate of fire is low and its optics are inadequate except at close range. Many foreign users of the T-54/55 series are seeking to correct these deficiencies. The Soviets have also modified and retrofitted equipment to their T-54/55s so that, for all their limitations, they are still important and viable weapon systems.

    Main armament

    Developed from a naval gun during WWII, the D-10 series of tank guns is identical to the BS-3 AT and KS-19 AA guns, and all fire the same fixed ammunition. All lack a muzzle brake and have horizontal sliding-wedge breech blocks, hydraulic recoil buffers, and hydropneumatic recuperators. The D-10T on the early T-54 has no stabilisation or bore evacuator and is used with the TSh2-22 sight. The T-54A's D-10TG was stabilised in the vertical plane and had the TSh2A-22 sight. The D-10T2S on all subsequent versions is stabilised in two planes and is used with the TSh2B-22 and TSh2-32 sights.

    The basic WWII vintage 100mm round was the BR-412 APHE (considered an AP-T round by some sources because of its small HE charge and tracer shoe). In the mid 1950s it was replaced by the BR-412B and BR-412D APHE/AP-T rounds with the DBR-2 base detonating fuze. While adequate in comparison with their foreign contemporaries, these rounds lacked penetration against more recent tanks. In 1968 the HVAPDS-T round was introduced, and became the main anti-tank ammunition. HEAT rounds were introduced in the 1950s. Soft targets are engaged with the OF-412 Frag-HE round. The Chinese and the Czechs have developed their own 100mm ammunition, and the Czech shells are reportedly superior to the equivalent Soviet rounds.

    Weapons effectiveness and combat usage

    Altough the 100mm gun has been in service for over 35 years and the US Army has had test examples for years, accuracy data on the D-10 remain sparse and general, and hit probability estimates must be treated as being even more approximate than usual

    500m 1000m 1500m 2000m 2500m

    BR-412 APC-T 0% 50% 33% 8% 4%

    BK-5M 84% 43% 25% 2% -

    Soviet "textbook" estimates of the 100mm gun's accuracy are much higher. Theoretically, a gun using a BR-412B APHE round against a halted enemy tank 2.7m high and 3.6m long should have a 77% chance of hitting its target at 1800m range. Actual accuracy would doubtless be much less in combat conditions.

    Armour penetration data (mm at 0degrees obliquity) are better known:

    Range

    --------------------------------------------------------------

    Ammunition 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m

    BR-412 APC-T 155 135 117 100

    BM-6 HVAPDS - 264 - 237

    BK-5M HEAT 380mm at any range

    BR-412B APC-T - 171 - 146

    BR-412D APC-T - 175 - 156

    I'll post the data for the T-62 later today. And I will fix the tables.
  5. Great.

    One last thing: the "hunt" order will make the unit to stop on its feet and engage if enemy units are spotted. If the unit is to cross a street to get to a building, that street should be considered a danger zone and the last thing in the world you want is them to stop in the middle of it to engage some threat. IMHO, the best of both worlds is a "quick" order that ends right at the doorstep of the building and then a linked "hunt" order that goes into the building. The downside of this approach is that the unit will spend some time regrouping at the doorstep (IIRC, troops are more prone to spread while advancing on "quick" orders) so make sure you have plenty support by fire covering any other suspected enemy position with LOS on that doorstep.

  6. I’m still confused regarding the TacAI sending troops on covered/concealed paths as mentioned by PaperTiger.

    Let’s suppose the TacAI is moving from A to B as in the image below. Let’s suppose a player’s unit is in area B with a good field of fire all the way through A, except in the green patches, which are trees. Yellow areas in the image are like the ones we see in the editor. The red arrows are the paths the TacAI uses to move the units from A to B.

    BOLUDECES.jpg

    In case 1, the TacAI sends all troops across the open into B.

    In case 2, some units are sent through a covered/concealed route.

    In case 3, some units are sent through a covered/concealed route (as in case 2) but just because the B area is wider.

    I’ve seen the TacAI using paths like in case 1 and case 3, but never like in case 2.

    Can the AI do something like case 2?

  7. Hi Mark,

    That's a very good point. There are plenty of scenarios out there which are very well done and I'm going to see into.

    BTW, Paper Tiger posted this very interesting point in the duplicate of this thread:

    However, I have found that the two most important things for a good AI attack plan are stance and the length of time they have to perform an order.

    Stance is obvious, 'cautious', 'normal', 'active' and 'assault' all make a huge difference to how the AI group reacts while following your order. I rarely use 'max assault' as that usually means that after making contact with the enemy the group will never move again. Yeah, it will EVENTUALLY, but assault does it better.

    IMO the length of time the group has to perform it's order is the more important of the two though. Tell group 1 to move from point A to point B with only 5 minutes to 'Exit before' and it will perform the action very differently than if you give them 20 minutes. The units will use any terrain they can find between the two points and won't necessarily approach it in a straight line. The longer you give them to perform the order, the better, and more unpredictable, the results will be.

    It makes sense. I'm looking forward to try this too.
  8. Thanks for the feedback.

    Originally posted by Paper Tiger:

    However, I have found that the two most important things for a good AI attack plan are stance and the length of time they have to perform an order.

    Stance is obvious, 'cautious', 'normal', 'active' and 'assault' all make a huge difference to how the AI group reacts while following your order. I rarely use 'max assault' as that usually means that after making contact with the enemy the group will never move again. Yeah, it will EVENTUALLY, but assault does it better.

    IMO the length of time the group has to perform it's order is the more important of the two though. Tell group 1 to move from point A to point B with only 5 minutes to 'Exit before' and it will perform the action very differently than if you give them 20 minutes. The units will use any terrain they can find between the two points and won't necessarily approach it in a straight line. The longer you give them to perform the order, the better, and more unpredictable, the results will be.

    Paper Tiger,

    That's very interesting! I never thought of that and I'm looking forward to try it.

    Thanks million,

  9. Thanks everybody. Good stuff.

    I have been playing around with both Steel Beasts ProPE and Armed Assault's scenario editors and usually I can pull out decent behaviors for the OPFOR. Truth is, both editors feature triggers. Yet, even if you don't use those triggers, some very nice "built in" routines are there. For example: SBProPE bots will pull out or find cover if there is trouble. Other example: Armed Assault bots use covered/concealed avenues of approach if they detect a threat along their original path. All of these behaviors are dynamic, on the fly and in response to what happens in the game. No scripting necessary.

    I cannot make CMSF's TacAI to do anything remotely similar to the above. CMSF's bots remind me of those electric football figurines, dialed in one direction which they will follow no matter what.

    Anyway, I will keep trying. Your feedback is appreciated.

  10. [Following a suggestion by Phillip Culliton, I'm posting this from the scenario design forum]

    I am having a hard time designing good AI plans for the red forces.

    It's hard enough to make good AI plans without triggers. Without triggers, the AI plans look a bit like orders for a turn in a WEGO game, where the "turn" lasts the whole scenario. The absence of triggers that could provide the designer with some sort of control during the scenario is to be alleviated by the TacAI, because it can make decisions on the fly. That's the theory.

    In reality, I can't get the red TacAI to avoid these behaviors:

    -Sending more and more troops through paths which are obviously dangerous. More and more troops are sent right into paths where piles of dead red troops accumulate.

    -Not pulling out until it is just too late. It looks like the TacAI waits until a team is down to two or three men to order them out of there. This maybe a result of the high lethality and pace of the modern battlefield, but it would be more reasonable to make the TacAI to re-consider the path if just one man was shot (if one man was shot, it is likely very bad things will happen to the whole squad).

    Maybe I am expecting from the TacAI something it can't do. I am not asking for a super smart TacAI. I just want to make an scenario that is believable.

    Maybe I'm missing something here. Your feedback is appreciated.

  11. I am having a hard time designing good AI plans for the red forces.

    It's hard enough to make good AI plans without triggers. Without triggers, the AI plans look a bit like orders for a turn in a WEGO game, where the "turn" lasts the whole scenario. The absence of triggers that could provide the designer with some sort of control during the scenario is to be alleviated by the TacAI, because it can make decisions on the fly. That's the theory.

    In reality, I can't get the red TacAI to avoid these behaviors:

    -Sending more and more troops through paths which are obviously dangerous. More and more troops are sent right into paths where piles of dead red troops accumulate.

    -Not pulling out until it is just too late. It looks like the TacAI waits until a team is down to two or three men to order them out of there. This maybe a result of the high lethality and pace of the modern battlefield, but it would be more reasonable to make the TacAI to re-consider the path if just one man was shot (if one man was shot, it is likely very bad things will happen to the whole squad).

    Maybe I am expecting from the TacAI something it can't do. I am not asking for a super smart TacAI. I just want to make an scenario that is believable.

    Maybe I'm missing something here. Your feedback is appreciated.

  12. @GSX: if it only would work like that!

    The F15 would confuse friendlies for enemies and relay wrong information info to a freakingly overloaded network. The commander wouldn't know about this data until much later, thanks to the genius who gave his net less bandwidth than a RadioShack 1985 telephone modem. The commander wouldn't care less because anyway he would be cramped with information overload. If the T-72s would finally fire at his post and take his attention from the gadgetry, it would be a blessing after all.

×
×
  • Create New...