Rokko

Hm, I was also thinking of "Beyond Sword" or "Beyond Juno", but that wouldn't make for good abbreviations.... But enough about not-so-funny name suggestion How 'bout some content talk?

Ok folks, I'm bored right now. I don't have CMBN installed right now either (am doing a complete PC recovery), so I have been thinking a bit. Why not speculate a little on the content of the first module, that is here often called "Commonwealth", although there's been some bitching about that name? So, what formations, vehicles, scenarios, campaigns, whatever do you expect to be in it? From all that has been (semi-)officially announced I believe we are going to see: Waffen-SS formations (Panzer and Panzergrenadier), Fallschirmjäger, British and Canadian army. That would be pretty much, though. NATO for CMSF did feature only 3 new armies, and they all shared some weapons/vehicles. For W-SS and FJ no special extra vehicles would be needed I guess, only the number plates would change. But for both there would be a very distinct difference in the way the infantry looks. W-SS infantry forces mainly wore special camouflaged smocks, NOT camouflaged field blouses, at least not predominantly. For W-SS tankers the Heer model that is already in the game could be pretty much reused I guess. FJ are even more different, long jumpsmocks, baggy pants, special FJ helmets etc. As for vehicles, maybe Kingtigers or Jagdpanthers, very rare, but people like them, just like Tigers. But overall no more German vehicles are desperately needed I believe. Concerning the British/Canadian army, I am by far not an expert, but I believe they look pretty similar, right? At least the helmets do. I guess British Airborne would only be in the 2nd module. But a whole bunch of new vehicles will be needed. Cromwells, Churchills, Shermans, Bren carriers, scout cars, trucks, other M3's etc etc Also, will fire be included by then? I kinda doubt it. Regarding scenarios, I'm pretty damn sure Villers-Bocage will be in. Its just too popular to NOT include it, just like they didn't dare to NOT include any Easy Company scenarios or Barkmann's corner. Btw, why not call it "Battle for Caen". Its not exact either, I think there's already game that goes by that name, but its better than "Commonwealth".

Definately needed! I was working on a Op. Luettich map (St. Barthelemy actually) and had to find out that there is no heavy fog in CMBN

Yeah I do, I find those explaination always very insightful. What I just fail to understand though is, why the Panther, a tank that, at least on paper, was so superior to the "inferior" Sherman, didn't fare better than 1 : 1.2 against the Shermans (at least thats the quota I've found on the subject), despite beeing in overall strategic defensive situation. Was it the Normandy terrain that didn't allow the Panther to utilize it's long-range superiority (the ratio doesn't only count for the hedgerow fighting)? Or was it that too often were thrown away in more or less pointless counter-attacks (I believe the German doctrine demanded a counter-attack each time when ground was lost) on both smaller and bigger scale? Or was it that after Normandy the German tank crews were simply of pretty low quality due to manpower shortages and overall desintegration on all fronts? Although I do not know if German crews really became much worse then. Also, it would be interesting to know how well the Panzer IV fared against the Shermans in the West statistically.

And what do you do when you HAVE to attack? Or when you want to drive someone back into the sea (whether thats possible or not)?

I believe there is a problem with targeting prone soldiers. Way too often you see bullets going far over their heads, but almost never too low. It seems to me the ai doesn't aim correctly on prone soldiers

ach, ze britisch just don't haf any humor at all

huh? I dont understand. A single German soldier with bad teeth qualifies to be called vampire? Then what would you call the British army?

Cool, so we can nag about graphical details now? I've seen that the turret skirt hatches of the Pz IV are not animated!! So when the crew bails the turret hatches open, but not the skirt hatches.

One should remember maybe, that the Germans often called every American tank "Sherman", just like the Allies called everything a Panther or a Tiger. At least that's what I've seen and heard in German newsreel footage.

hm, I asked the same question some time ago, but for me setting enemy/friendly map edge did the job.

But I have definately seen AP shells exploding after bouncing off for example, I even saw casualties occuring that way.

That report reads like the American tanks suprised an German infantry company in the open. Firing small arms at tanks in such a situation seems like a last-ditch desperate move, not something a hidden, dug in and prepared unit would do.

I've tried using continuous strips already, it didn't change much, the AI did just have greater choice where to move its units to (nonetheless in a crazy way). In another test I have also added an HMG team to the platoon and was pleased to see that the AI kept it in the back during the assault order. I didn't try AI scripting and tanks out alot, but it seems that Assault and Max Assault don't work for vehicles. For your problem you might try to add another order right next to the last and in the direction where you want the tank(s) to face, but with the time limit of the order you want them approach next. This way they might face in the wanted direction, wait in their spot as long as you want them, then move a little (one tile further) and immediatly after that to the next order.

Perfectly understandable to me. I guess to model one soldier and his equipment in CMBN takes the same amount of work like creating all the different soldier models in CMBB, which were essentially just reskins of the same model with different helmets. As graphics improve, so does the amount of work and time required to create those graphics.

The next AI order is "Assault", so the the AI will use the assault movement and keep one or two squads back to provide fire support. But again no rational behaviour, as the AI decides to let the two advancing squads cross their paths. The next AI order is "Assault", so the the AI will use the assault movement and keep one or two squads back to provide fire support. But again no rational behaviour, as the AI decides to let the two advancing squads cross their paths. The last squad and the HQ then did something smart, they moved to next wall using the intended line of approach, instead of making a stupid diagonal movement from the outer left to the outer right of the 2nd stage. But again, I'm afraid this is random. My conclusions are from this test that the AI doesn't evaluate how to use short ways to minimize exposure and time. Also, it doesn't seem to "think ahead". It seems to only plan from one AI order to the next, instead of "seeing" its final goal. Some things are desperatly needed, like sub-AI group control or more AI groups instead. In bigger scenarios its not possible to have every platoon be a single AI group. Instead you'd have a whole company running around like this. Also triggers would be really nice, also for timing AI artillery. But pretty basic things could really improve the way the scenario designer can control things, like: "IF group X has suffered Y% casualties THEN move (retreat) to Zone Z". I think, someone mentioned they are going to improve the coordination between AI groups, which would definately great, too. Now with that being said, I wanted to mention, that, while the scenario AI is subject to some criticism, the TacAI in this game is really superb, I really adore, despite some minor issues like firing small arms at tanks which is obviously going to be fixed sooner or later.

Ok, we all know that most Combat Mission scenarios tend to place you into the role of the attacker and that the reason for this is the AI not being very smart when it comes to attacking. The problem is, of course, that this takes away many possible scenario ideas. We are actually reduced essentially to German side scenarios recreating instances where the Germans were counter-attacking in Normandy (like the Mortain counter-offensive). Fun things like flexible and in-depth bocage defense as player can actually only happen in Multiplayer. I've created a small testing map to see, what it is, that makes the AI incapable as attackers. Now I have not the slighest idea about AI programming and I don't know what can be actually be realised and what not. Anyways. In the test scenario a German AI Grenadier platoon minus its Panzerschrecks is tasked with assaulting over open ground towards a bunch of houses, with two lenghty wall sections providing cover. This is the situation. I've used terrain objectives to show where the AI orders for the platoon are placed. The first 4 squares are the setup areas. My intention was for the platoon to advance along the 4 indicated approaches as highlighted. Now, a human player would probably place each squad in one of the squares, with the HQ somewhere in the middle to maintain optimal C2. The AI doen't take this into consideration, though. Sometimes it does place the HQ in the middle, sometimes it doesn't, its totally random. In this case the HQ is on the far left. Sometimes it even clutches two squads into one square, next pic shows one of those instances. To reach the first stage a human player would naturally send each squad to the nearest section of the wall, straight ahead of them, to maximize speed and minimize exposure to the enemy. This is where AI madness starts...

Could someone explain to me how to mark mines right? I made a test with 3 mixed mine tiles, which were spotted by my crack engineers and I set made them mark them until they turned white. Then I drove two tanks through (slow), but both got immobilized, setting off 3 mines. How do I turn the mine sign green?

I know about the elevation. Elevation seems to be handled differently from CMx1 in CMBN. At first I did a plain recreation of the original heightmap, yet it looked extremely flat compared to the original. Now the height differences are actually more extreme than in the CMx1 version, meaning most hills actually higher and the depressions are deeper. Anyway, even if it doesn't exactly look like in the original, I tried to pay attention so there shouldn't be any Lines of Sight that weren't also in the original. You can open the map in the editor and compare it to the elevation in the original. To summarize: Elevation is less pronounced in CMBN, but its still there.

I noticed a little bug with the US AI plans which I've fixed and I've uploaded the new file (1.01) to the repository, don't know if this will have to be checked, too. If you intend to play the Americans, then you'll notice no difference. Edit: Updated version available here http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods/4416/details

Check here for some WIP screenshots if you care http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=96966&highlight=defense

I'd say that speaks more in favor of the Soviet civil population than for the German soldiers there. Seems my comment was rather useless since you appear to be very fond of cherry-picking Neo-Nazi/apologist/revisionist "sources".

I'd be careful about that. The so called "Torch-men order" is for all I know usually cited by Neo-Nazis and revisionists and no credible sources exist for it.

yes there are Panzerfaust 60 in the game, I believe you can see one in the top picture.

Not in campaigns, only in single scenarios.