Jump to content

kevinkin

Members
  • Posts

    3,208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by kevinkin

  1. Thanks guys. I will give it a try when I have a few minutes to concentrate. It will probably poll related to scenario/QB design. If one has recently been taken let me know so I don't reinvent the wheel. I have issued polls via survey monkey for work and the data collection is a breeze with online tools.

    Kevin

  2. Thanks for trying to quantity. Might need BF to discuss the merits of the three fortifications but I think it may always be

    a mystery based on all the possible variables - or at least a real bear to calculate.

    When I look at fortifications on flat ground they just seem to beg for placement in slightly lower terrain than their

    immediate surroundings. I have been using reverse slope defenses for hills with "dug in" foxholes and sandbags.

    A few troops are sacrificed on the forward slope to spot the enemy. When the enemy crests the hill they find them self in a

    close range firefight that does not go well for the attacker. Without flanking the position with direct fire and FO placement the reverse slope is darn near impossible to crack. I think it's up to the map maker to allow room for a flank attack albeit taking some losses along the away. The hill defense would then involve local counterattacks to relieve the pressure on the

    out flanked reverse slope dug-in position.

    But again it remains a mystery as to what relative protection fortifications provide and the do and don'ts related to

    placement.

    Kevin

  3. Thanks. I had a feeling these would be hard to put a number to. The old board gamer in me say OH, +1 woods plus +2 hull down = +3 die roll modifier. But, that's then and this is now. I have seen where you can lower the elevation on which you place

    sandbags and foxholes (sort of like what we can do with trenches using ditch lock). I think this offers some advantage for

    guns and infantry like being hull down. BTW the question stems from map making for a defensive position on open desert-like

    ground. Not complete field works but say 24 hours of readiness.

    Kevin

  4. Given this issue is brought up often, I wonder if it's worth the development time to deliver a sound CAS/AAA simulation?

    If players want a system, then we need to express what that system would look like. Sure, BF can research the same historical information as we can. I think this might be a good collaboration between players and programmers. Right now CAS is an under used feature of CMx2. Bet we could come up with a list of actionable ideas - if we really want CAS combat.

    Kevin

  5. I have SF so we can use that. If I were to select the OPFOR we would have to play a H2H QB. That is not what you are thinking. So the way to do this is send me or someone else the map you really like and we will develop a couple of crazy AI plans and send it back to you with instructions on how to arrange the OPFOR OOB in the unit selection screen. With a little luck the forces selected will be assigned to AI groups in a predictable way so the AI designer will know where to place and move the OPFOR in a reasonable way. You will know the composition of the OPFOR but not their tactics for a given AI plan. The "creative" use of triggers (not in SF), battle time limit, environment and objective value and placement could very well produce unusual QBs.vAs far as testing, just send the map or map name to me or another with SF and we can give it a whirl.

    Kevin

    kevinkin@comcast.net

  6. One caveat however, is my experience is with CM RT FI & SF not BS. So check the documentation and see if the OOBs are removed from maps when selected for a QB in BS. If the rules for QBs have not changed and you have one of those other games perhaps the two of us can explore your idea a bit. I like trying to get the most out of the editor anyway. A potential name for the QBs ,,, Operation Straight Jacket 1 2 3 etc..

    Kevin

  7. Going real wild with AIs for QBs is a bit tough since (in your case) the red force is not known to the AI designer.

    If the player is willing to build the OPFOR with some constraints the designer might be able to issue a QB map

    with some degree of crazy predictability of how the AI will conduct combat around the map. Map size is not an issue but playability is.

    Interesting challenge that being said.

    Kevin

  8. I divided half of the mortars (81mm)for the support pre-planned strike and the rest (120mmm) using Kohenklau's tactic and it works well in one trial so far. And like was said, depending on the visibility and the map, it's an option to think about when designing. We all like options. Appeared pretty realistictoo.

    Kevin

  9. From Engine manual:

    When Support Targets are specified, all Artillery and Air Support Assets allocated to that side’s force are considered available for the AI to use. The only requirement is that a valid spotter have line of sight (LOS) to the designated target(s) in order to initiate the strike. All normal support rules apply such as C2 links, delay times, etc.

    Is this true? I have not tested, but it appears not true based on game play.

    Kevin

  10. "Any support assets that are not used up for the pre-planned bombardments are available for the AI

    Player to use dynamically during the battle ..."

    How is the pre-planned strike defined? I.e via a time factor or as long as observer lives and ammo is available?

    Also, I have an idea to delay the pre-planned bombardment by positioning the observers out of LOS and then move them up carefully using 1-2 orders. Is this a good technique to expend the artillery in a

    delayed and perhaps more surprising manner?

    Kevin

×
×
  • Create New...