sburke

man you made a lot of assumptions. Probably dreamt up while MikeyD's Labrador was nuzzling your ear as you were snoring in the dirt on the porch passed out from that bottle of thunderbird you were chugging. You said anyone. You didn't say "how about you send some second rate 70 year old mauser lugging reservists for me to beat up on". You are making us nervous Ken. You did exterminate his guys in a hail of lead right? By the way, I ought to break it to you that the "cigar" was an old dried out dropping from the Labrador. Fortunately we all had iPhones and took video. I think Chris will be airing it all on twitch this weekend. Gotta say the best part of the evening was Steve offering to light your "cigar". You go though all these motions trying to be classy cutting off the end of the cigar (toe nail clippers aren't exactly cigar cutters). How Steve ever kept a straight face as you sucked for all you were worth trying to light that "Stogie" I'll never know. Then passing it off as being too "winded from my exercises with the brunette, wink wink". Oh man good times. Charles bowl looked like a fish tank filter he was laughing so hard. gurgle gurgle, bubble, bubble, splashing all over the table.

You are missing the point. The AI is kicking his ass. Kidding.

whether multi-cores would make up for a massive expansion of computational requirement by going with a smaller increments in AS is extremely doubtful. What it may allow for is better performance with the larger maps we expect may start showing up. I expect that the whole LOS calculation system is going to be something we will have to deal with until BF moves to whatever CM 3.x would be.

Bil was right, man you were drunk. You forgot to mention the "smoking lounge" is a dirt floor porch with holes in the screens the mosquitos enter through and the "brunette" is MikeyD's labrador. Mikey will be a little worried about your interest in her.

JonS put one together. Very through. Only thing it does not include is triggers. They are brand new in CMRT, but will be included in CMBN when the upgrade is available. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=110294&highlight=jons As to editing other scenarios, there are a host of things you can do. Swap out units and keep the AI plans. Keep the units and alter the AI plans, or even alter both. Basically there is little you can't do.

Wonder if in the same vein they will be more restrictive on access to archives. My understanding is that was already occurring, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a total shut down.

I think you will find there are actually quite a few people who would agree with you and I can't say there is really any reason to disagree. The more types of scenarios, the better. Unfortunate as that means this probably won't be one of the more explosive threads. JonS is one who has pushed regularly for smaller scenarios meant to provide a challenge while not making you feel overwhelmed. Kiwi soldiers was a classic though only one of a few he has done. His suggestions are what made me do my first scenario as a platoon size engagement. Would be nice if more people would try their hand at a small scenario and throw them up on the repository. It is a great way to learn the editor and AI without feeling overwhelmed. And you are right, you can have a lot of fun adding a ton of detail to the map.

I'm sorry, that is simply not abrasive enough. Go back and rewrite it using lots more bolded words, vast numbers of exclamations points and repeat over and over "are you f'kin kidding me?!!!". Maybe then we will deign to recognize it as inflammatory enough. You obviously didn't make an impression last time as I don't recall your "meltdown". Actually I think you will start seeing more of these as triggers open up a lot more options of getting the AI to respond to your movements. "Patrol" type scenarios are likely to become more popular and interactive.

Splitting the maps AS as Emrys said is probably not gonna happen (notice I did not exactly say he was right...) That requires geometrically more oomph in computing power. Changing how they align might be something to hope for, along with how they move and align along trenches and other terrain features. I know Steve has said a couple times how he'd like TAC AI to behave better regarding corners so I don't think it is outside the realm of possibility to see this type of behavior change as well in future releases of the engine.

sorry to hear about the health concerns man. Hope to see you well soon. Your buildings in CMBN absolutely rock.

Yeah that one is a bit mmm yeah annoying. You two get out of the truck and see what's over there. Well Sarge, how about we all get out of the truck, you can repeat that command and then get back in the truck if you like. Why would I do that pvt? Apparently Sarge, I can't hear you. Either that or you are in my way, take your pick. Pyle!!!! I don't know what the mechanics are involved, but I am betting that is a tricky one.

that looks like it might be a foot path and intended not to have anything on top. That does become a problem in CM with the way units line up on an AS, but a lot of designers are less interested in trying to get the terrain to be conducive to what players would like to do versus leaving it to them to figure out what they can do. Does make for an easier time generating large maps. There are certain things that are avoided simply because they really do mess with a map and deployment but I think that mostly happens with maps that are in restricted terrain.

LOL I will try to answer a few. I'll avoid the ones that should go to tech support or are subjective play oriented items.

I think the answer is right in front of you yet you seem unable to draw what everyone else thinks is a very very obvious conclusion.

Okay I'll take a shot. The air and sea bombardment was admittedly a major failing and had little effect on the defenses, but let's assume a way over the top figure that 75% of the defenses were destroyed, a figure we know is patently way off. There was no withdrawal order. C'mon really? Hitler- withdrawal, 1st day of attack in Normandy? In fact the 352nd was struggling to push men to the coast and actually did manage a small amount. Their biggest issue was really confusion as to where to send them as there were some conflicting reports that said Omaha had driven the Americans off. So let's take your figure of 500 and assume it is correct. That means 1 mg inflicted say 1/6th of all US casualties. With our very liberal estimate of 75% destruction that leaves some 50 other positions plus mortars, mines, drowning to account for the rest. By your own estimate then this guy is a fairly extreme outlier and yet you feel his performance should be the average. That makes absolutely no logical sense unless you deliberately want to over model the German forces based on the performance of a very few that we have been very liberal at accepting there is any truth at all to their performance. Does that not strike you as a little off?

Which should they add first, the chicken or the egg?

Ahh but that story is still being written.

my understanding is yes it does. The time it takes is dependent on how close they are in the chain of command.

The green is not an indicator of the scout's C2. That is an indicator onf the C2 of those units to the ones above. The indicators for C2 for a unit you have selected are in the UI showing visual, audible, distant audible and radio. If you do not see those the unit has no c2 link. And yes you would want to move a platoon HQ up if you want to have him share info - assuming you have a need. If he is just there to allow you the player to observe he has all the c2 links he needs. It is helpful to look at the UI for c2 this way. Click on a unit. Ask yourself who can he communicate with. Does he see anyone, can he talk to them, yell or perhaps use a radio? If none of the above he is all alone in this world. This is one of the reasons I like Iron mode. It has a much clearer depiction of how isolated a unit is.

It's his CMRT UI mod.

It worked well in the scenario. The Russians blew two holes in the wire before attempting to rush the trenches, nice job.

I tried it once, didn't like it and deleted it.

Well you efforts so far are awesome. I never had the opportunity to try the original Bunkers Burning scenario to compare, but I am 3 turns in on yours and having a glorious trench fight. Sinking them lower definitely gives an interesting feel as your guys are racing along the trench line well protected from enemy fire, then you suddenly run into the enemy at short range at intersections or attempting to come in over the top. Very cool.

LOL hey I would have done what Ken did initially too. I would not repeat that behavior though. What's the joke - Doc it hurts when I do this. Dr: Then don't do that. PM'd as you saw already.

Overall I'd agree. There is one area though where it can be disconcerting. I had an example last night. I close assaulted a tank with an SMG team. They destroyed the tank and the crew bailed. 5 guys with SMGs having just destroyed the tank suffered 3 casualties to the crew as they bailed. The increased ability for infantry to close assault armor leads to more incidents of infantry being in close proximity to crews as they bail. One would think the crew would likely surrender and we aren't talking fanatic elite crews. I'm wary of asking it be tweaked too far as there could likely be other unintended consequences, but bailing crews are still pretty deadly for close assaulting forces.