nonickch

every shot landing on/nearby a target scares it a tad bit. It could be possible to hit the morale of the tank crew, but I wouldn't bet on it. Just go for the kill and keep those rifles on some other target. Unless ofc they have nothing better to do and the tank is busy shooting something else (shooting makes your infantry much more visible and mr tank is happy to bring you HE gifts)

try steaming it, most glues hate that. My box isn't here yet, so I have no idea if it's plastic or cardboard. Cardboard might object to too much steam, if it the plastic one you can go mental with benzine as long as there's the classic film covering it. Nothing more eye candy in a game than it's original cardboard box sititng on the shelf.

How about checking the equipment of the squad? It should suffice for checking if there is a specific unit type (like sniper) in the squad rather than checking for a specific person. Well it is an overkill of resources, but given the nature of the language looping would probably be the only way (registering callbacks would be the proper way for something like this). I'd recon a good way to go about doing this is to code a trigger that OUT's a "visible units" stringlist and give it a low-ish delay time. Then you can quickly draw the visible units off the local var in the parent trigger (work against a copy of the local var because it may get updated while you're iterating through it). You start trigger instances for each unit you want to check visibility on (I bet running something like this for all units would pretty much grind the game to a full halt), and for convenience ID the instance by the ID of the unit. Don't forget to kill the instance once the unit is dead so you can save cpu cycles. [ May 18, 2007, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: nonickch ]

Questions, questions, questions: Delay ( <DelayMin> , <DelayMax> ) Does the min/max provide any loadbalancing for the cpu or is it random when the trigger goes off? Loadbalancing would be very sweet to have otherwise I see the game making hops each time a large chunk of triggers go off together in asynch. Savegames: Does the entire trigger status get saved along with the savegames or are they re-initialized upon loading a game? (something tells me they're saved by looking at the submissions) Soldier/unit stats: Any way of determining a soldiers gunnery skill for example? Can't send just any soldier to steal a hostile tank. Or otherwise, is my tank faster than the tank X?

ah, there is the bugger. thnx

open the mission in the mission editor. You can quickly spot the reenforcements out by looking at it. They will be dots on the map that you haven't seen (reenforcements are always there, they just become visible/non sleeping when their time comes)

someone needs a hand?

Well, that was exactly my point in the original thread. I'm considering of having a go at creating an initial package like this. I just wanted to clear some questions I had with the scripting language. I'm looking to provide some level of abstraction for mission designers that will include the programming side of common tasks in a package. Designer includes the packages (asynch init the triggers he wants from the looks of it) with hopefully some params and voila, problem solved. BUT the tools that can be provided are severely limited by the language. I'm trying to figure ways around them, but it doesn't look pretty. Um, I guess laying hands of any type of code is right out of the question? Even just for the scripting module? EDIT: oooh, where are the russian forums? I guess those guys are light years ahead in the matter. I guess I have to let babelfish burn through their modding pages. 1c page is not that english-friendly.

So ummm, I have just noticed. Instead of functions you can run sync triggers. But uhm... how does one pass variables to called triggers? That's like a showstopper.

Well, you can't compare the sensory input of a human and a computer and assume they can reach similar conclusions. I skimmed through the trigger coding doc and it provides the most basic concepts needed. Not much you can do with just those, but they look like enough to build upon. Building layer over layer of abstraction over those simple commands one can reach a much more advanced "language" in which "flank (Left, target, Army)" makes sense. But still, that is quite an undertaking certainly done at the wrong level. The scripting language such as this should be the end of the buildup, not the beggining. Which brings me to one of my biggest concerns and original questions: Processing power. If I throw at it 1k commands per second, can it take it? EDIT: Well, I got the first one I'll have a go from tommorow on. Simple, yet usefull by all mission designers: Replenishing dead gun crews (possibly stealing?). Possible params: min crew number, min crew skill, min free infantry in area, size of area (edit: nvm, it's supported), move_mode. And in extension replenishing/stealing vehicle crews (I didn't see any commands for empty vehicles) Still a leap in abstraction, but a good testing ground (for example a threat indicator needs to be defined in order not to have infantrymen dashing towards the gun in front of tanks) God I need to stop babbling. [ May 17, 2007, 05:35 AM: Message edited by: nonickch ]

I think a sensible ammotype selection is included in the game. At least that's from my experience and some situations I've read about where the AI selects the optimal ammo for a given target it has chosen (like HEAT for very close-range battles and armor not penentratable by AP). Shooting APCR when plain APHE is equally likely to penentrate is not the brightest of ideas when you have 4 APCR rounds. Also I've seen my tanks switch from APHE to AP capped in some situations. What's that for? Long ranges? Sloped armor?

I was pondering today if I'll have a go at scripting for this game. From a quick overview I had of the tool and the xml files it seems that mission design is quite straightforward but on the other hand somewhat limited. I believe the lack of mission variety and static AI behaviour (move there, do that, always) is indicative of that shortcoming. So it got me thinking the first thing that needs to be done is a series of scripting packages that give some element of "intelligence" for usage from mission designers. For example, incorporating some basic tactics vs the now wave after wave approach the computer is employing. Encirclement, flanking and breakthroughs are statically bound to areas and not to your units from the looks of it. Usage of cover from the AI is almost non-existant again, apart from pre-scripted movements that usually land the hostile forces making a dash and then sitting still at the edge of the map. It would be nice if it was possible to work on a level of abstraction higher than a few pre-designated areas and and checking for num of hostiles units in that block. Since I am lazy and I don't want to spend a week of mine looking into something that most likely will proove not viable, I have to ask the wiser: Is it possible for artificially covering for the AI by extensive scripting? I know that tackling AI issues are suicide in a scripting language, but how far can one reach in the current state of the scripting language? Are there chances of an enhanced ver of the script language? How CPU intensive will it proove if one blows up the script size by say, 10-50 times (and processing time)in order to approximate some functionality that is otherwise unavailable? (for example grid the entire map into 100x100 and perform numerous calculations for flanking ability and possible covered routes)

I just had 5 tanks and 2 trucks spawn 50m in front of 5 panther td's which I was just about to ambush with 5-6 zooka guys coming from the rear. What a splatter, only two of my tanks managed to retreat alive behind the hill and apparently that pissed off the td's which promptly discovered and shelled my ambushing party. Imagine the frustration... properly hiding all the troops behind the hill, cycling around your zookas and WHAM your reenforcements suddenly appear in line formation surrounded by jagdpanthers. Not funneh. I did not even attempt to save them after the 3rd load. Let em die I said. Maps need at least a sensible position from which your troops can show up. Probably behind a hill, but it is quite unlikely to happen since maps are static and the playingfield zooms on a certain portion of each map. Making them march from a distant location (like the AI reenforcements usually do)off the map limits the battle location on mission design and also brings in the subject of the unlikelyness that they will make it into the map given the current missions totally insane hostile firepower. Maybe switching to unit placement mode temporarily to place your reenforcements? It's certainly not realistic, but a tad bit better from unrequested warp-in in the worst of positions or marching from far-far away. Also, have found it quite unnerving when hostile reenforcements march from offmap while having perfect LOF/LOS on most of your forces, with unpenetratable frontal armor and no way of you getting any sideshots.

There are oh-so-many reasons not to have a single source on the values for both the encyclopedia and the actual game. There are quite a few to do have them in a single source too. It's all a design choice OR a lack of cover for a certain feature (i.e. the encyclopedia) at design time. I wouldn't redesign the game just because someone told me to add an encyclopedia. Look at it this way, the encyclopedia is probably something so simplistic as an html page, the game is a monster of modelling and objects flying out of someones arse. Why would you want load the world just to pull off some numbers off for visual representation? Have you seen how long it takes to load a map? Now, it IS quite "embarassing" if the case is that the encyclopedia has different values. Call it an oopsie, I call it the dev team snubbing the the doc/support team (Who most likely run the encyclopedia module) Such small miscommunications are quite frequent, but thankfully in this case it's something simple, and I bet (if it is indeed mistaken) it will be fixed in the first patch. Redwolf: Ah yes, the language barrier. Yes there definitely seems to be one over here, but I am not surprised. I'd say that I've noticed that russian communities have a much larger language barrier than the french ones, but some people would call me racist, so I won't

I think the AI does the first part of panzer breakthough and encirclement when assaulting trenches. They come in sideways and go around the trench, then park a little far behind it while they provide cover fire for the advancing infantry. Not that in this game the infantry is needed at all when assaulting trenches, but it still looks ok. I'm still missing the point infantry in most situations in this game. They are certainly usefull for attacking heavily fortified inverse slope situations where you need some meat to grind, but in general I have only found them usefull facing the infantry waves of the enemy (not that the tanks can't do it with their eyes closed, it just looks prettier). The fact that most infantry is useless against tanks makes this game very tank-oriented. I can march a single light tank in a flood of non-ATR infantry and splatter them all. With the main gun happily shooting the hell out of anything in sight, enough HE rounds for a proper genocide and the quite good infantry spotting ability (even when prone and not moving) it's all a piece of cake. Even with ATR troops around, you can peripherally snipe all the dangerous units and then move in (or slowly retreat if you're defending). If the infantry were a tad bit less vulnerable to tanks and mainly AT's in sub 50m ranges, it would all make much more sense. If I see one more AT shooting AP rounds through all my advanding prone soldiers one more time, I'll freak out. Not even snipers have that kind of accuracy. Ever tried to approach a solo tankdestroyer from the rear with an AT man? Took me about 10 loads before he managed to crawl into range and shoot the zooka in it (and hit @50m). Usually the td would move around and shoot him in the face (literally). The manual does state that enemies approached from the rear are invisible unless they make sound, the point how can a tank crew hear an approaching soldier from the rear when the damn engine is on!

ah yes, thanks for that normal. I've found it quite a nuisance that there is no autotargetting feature if the default target point is outside LOF. Usually no messages either or they're just lost in the hail of information raining down upon you in the heat of the battle. And one other thing, sometimes my entire infantry squads (even on hold fire) will all report a "no line of fire" when there is nothing in their LOS and the closest enemy is seen by a scout about a km away. If I remember correctly I think it has to do with one of the scouts being under fire.

well, technically the amount of kills and in consequence XP gained on each map is the same. What I have seen in the mission xml files is that each objective (be it primary or secondary) has an assigned xp value to it. From my experience later missions in a campaign offer a whole lot more of xp than the earlier ones.

yes, I found that zooming in on the tank and listening for the engine tells you what's going on. There's a problem with the game concerning dead crews and otherwise disabled tanks. Your troops keep shooting that empty panzer for the 1-2 mins it takes for it to show as empty while his panzer friends 20m behind is shooting the crap out of you. It's one of those situations where you have to micromanage everything. On the other hand the AI notices the death of the crewmembers and switches fire (that's how I realize my crew is dead) As for HEAT rounds, wouldn't the lack of an explosive head reduce the damage caused inside the tank in favor of penentration at any range? Although I have seen tigers repeatedly shooting heat into my tanks and obliterating the entire crew, just the crew.

I just finished the mission and it seemed quite easy (compared to the insane ruskies). Since the germans take the initiative on attacking you first, I just made a firing line at the bottom of the hill and killed everything that dared to show his face at the top of the hill. Same with the tanks, one line next to the infantry and shot the incoming tanks as they appeared on the hill one by one. When some serious armor shows up, you get the M10's which are more than enough to kill those heavy hitters at such short ranges. After taking the german attack, I just knew that advancing on the hill would be suicide. It seemed too open to fire from those two villages. So off went my scout/sniper squad to check it out, and voila, loads of AT's and tank destroyers. Oh, 2 guns on the hill too, attacking the hill straight would be total suicide. First thing to do was clear that 41/43, it's death from a long barrel. A bunny I sent made sure it showed it's rear to my sniper and the rest was easy. Then some crawling close-range fighting between the houses from my bazooka guy with the sniper taking out peripheral targets and the two poor tank destroyers were left alone ready to meed their doom from the zooka. And that's it, rabbit makes the two guns on the hill face opposite from my force (one of them has laser skills, spotted my sniper and shot him prone @300m) and I attack them. Eeep, trigger time. Thank god I had a squad closeby to the 41/43. Man it, it solely takes care of the advance from it's direction. Then there's the issue of the panthers coming from the valley, lost 3-4 tanks to em before the 43 was finished with it's job and turned around to completely obliterate them. Then two captured paks on the hill were good too, but not enough to kill panthers. And that's it, I simply put all the mortar/arty on the other village and the only thing left was a tankdestroyer which got sniped by an M10. It all becomes very simple when you have enough scouting. I always have about 5 people all over the map checking out what's going on. Also one thing I've learned from this mission is that infantry and especially bazooka guys are seriously retarded. They decide to switch weapon (and therefore kneel) while 30m from loads of hostiles that can't see you because you're prone behind a wall. And they DO love their bazooka's, I had to click on switch weapons every 30 seconds while clearing the yard with him.

usually the tank will nail my bazooka guy before he manages to put the thing on his shoulder. I even had a tank destroyer rotate 180 degrees and shoot the poor guy before he manages to make the shot. I mean the AI instantly switches fire to any threat, and they NEVER miss at those ranges. It does feel kinda retarded when you get shot by an AT/tank destroyer's main weapon at 10 meters. And I do mean get shot, those things kill you like a bullet and not the HE blast. If we want to run the maths of it, apparently the game takes in mind the speed of a target for it's targetting calculations and not the angular velocity (or prefferably a mix of both). Angular velocity makes it impossible for any heavy turrets to track any small targets moving in close range and plain speed makes it harder to hit the target.

shady services and extra software silently bundled with games is my biggest concern. You don't know what they do, you're not even expressly told about their existance before you make your "non-refunded" purchase and you just have to put up with them lurking around your system in the name of copy protection (which in all intents and purposes is NOT my problem or concern). Saw it with that nightmare of protection "safedisk", heard of it in the SONY copy protection on their music cd's, and heard about that omgwtf spyware bundled with battlefield 2042 (or whatever it's name is). I made the mistake of having safedisk on my computer once, and I did know of it's existance and possible problems. I did it again with elicence and I want to cut my hand off. If this wasn't something I HAD to have right here, right now, I would have never shelled any money for this. Funny thing is that all those pirated copies floating around are way safer than the original insanely protected material.

check the campaign xml file. It clearly shows the chain of missions for success/fail situations. Though I don't remember the fail case to be different from success, It can make for some quite interesting campaigns for us in the future. For example, those insane russian missions might have been planned to be lost (unless otherwise brilliantly fought) and develop the story accordingly. Such provisions even if they're not into historical accuracy, they can help with great what-if scenarios.

Is the player on the offensive or the defensive? In my experience, when the computer is on the offensive it retardedly throws at you all it has in a direct assault no matter what are his chances. I have seen more than once 100 infantry getting slaughtered approaching a trench, and those 20 left behind will also charge without any problems. So I kinda prefer when the player is on the offensive, especially when going against the odds (because usually the AI and scripting will just stay still and get picked off one by one).

If I'm not mistaken, that value is represented as "level" in the xml files. My take is that it represents the overall skill of the soldier (NOT at his current position int he squad. Had one too many times a 100 gunner as driver) Now if someone could tell me why crewmembers in the encyclopedia have those skillboxes filled partially...

Yup, there needs to at least be a distance modifier on the algo that decides where the unit faces. Mebbe a threat modifier too. Ofc, there is dire need of a way to stop the unit from changing facing completely. What's the point of having a scout if he refuses to look at the area he's supposed to be scouting? Who cares if there's a single infantry 1km away on the opposite direction?