Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

ferpa1967's Achievements


Member (2/3)



  1. Hi, I have downloaded the "Misssion to Maas V2" from the scenario depot but after having placed it in the scenarios folder it doesn't appear in the game list . What 's happened ? Thanks for reading Paolo
  2. The matter is that for the people watching the battle as a puzzle and used to save and reload no battle is too hard, meanwhile for those used to living with their mistakes become very hard finishing a campaign .
  3. It was a normal building, i don't understand why the germans were not able to demolish it with artillery
  4. I have found out that the first mission has 2 different setups for the german AI, that is the german left side can showing the troops in front of the bocage or behind in the buildings . In the last case the battle ibecome very hard for the allied without saving and reloading more times .
  5. I'd like more the option to "light" the pixelltroops, something as in the old close combat . i think It would improve the clarity in the reading the field of combat and at the same time it would save the realism .
  6. I started creating a scenario for the first time in CMFI and i realized that unfortunately the churchs in the editor are not ok as regard as the realism. You know in the editor there are 2 types of that building, the small type is high 2 floors with a very short bell tower and the large type is a massive 4 floors with a strong tower . I said it is not ok as realism because the standard church in Italy (and France too) is high more or less like a 4 floors building and the bell tower rises above the roof at least for further 2-3 floors, also.both the curch and the tower are slims compared to the other buildings It is so because historically the curch was the most important building in the town, it was (partially it is) actually the simbol of the urban center so it had to be together with the tower the highest building . Furtermore both were relatively slims to accentuate the soaring to the sky . Attached 2 rural churchs, the first is near my house (north of Italy) the second from the Sicily contest that i am recreating for the scenario . Resuming the 2 types in the editor, the first type is too small with a too short tower, the second type is too massive and the separated great tower has a cathedral style (a cathedral can be ok in a city not in a town) CMFI imho is the best tactical game but also the best can improving, so read my post as a costructive criticism . :-)
  7. Now understand better why in CM2 you decided to put the battle designer in charge of the AI . In fact more the simulation become realistic more difficult become to create a decent AI as opponent .
  8. Thanks to all for the replay Rune your retreating example is very interesting and surely I will remember it for next battle I will create, anyway I'm only half in agreement with you . Because you implicity are assuming that all your 5 AI plans are likewise good, so in short for you the rule is same troops, different AI planes, same chance of success . According to me usually it's not so. There is ever a better AI plan for the battle maker, and the chance of success for the player in that plan are lesser than for the others plans. So the victory parameter should be different . In this matter there are a lot of other subtle implications that you know better than me, for example programming an AI attack plan the battlemaker can assuming the attacker dont know exactly the defender's force and the position so he can choose to set up a suboptimal but more realistic attack, or can simulate a delay and so on . In short Rune, I think with the same troops it's possible making different and interesting AI plans but usually more are different these plans more different are the chance for the player .
  9. I created a battle with 3 different plans and I found out that the parameters logic is not optimal with the multiple plans option . Example for a battle where Blues attack : AI Red plan A) : the reds make a little or no counterattack AI Red plan : the reds obtain reinforcement so they are able to do a great counterattack It's clear that in case A) the blue friendly casualties will be usually lower than in case , so in case A) the victory parameter for friendly casualties < 10% is right minded, in case not The same victory parameter for more than a AI plan is ok if the new AI plan is very little different, but if there are only little differences why spending time doing it ? So I think It should be better a specific victory parameter for every AI plan, that is in the case A) the victory parameter for friendly casualties < 10%, in the case friendly casualties < 30% Thanks for your time.
  • Create New...