Crushingleeek

What about a casualty summary in the form of a pop-up text (much like the reports when reinforcements arrive) at the end of each wego turn?

Amen, CMBN turns 1!

Thanks for the mention. Stay tuned for more from the Outlaws, 506th PIR. Part II, "Undying Hell" is in the works!

I like it too!

yea, what he said. Eh?:confused:

Another reason why pre-registered artillery is not sufficient for shelling of areas isn't sufficient. it's poor etiquette!! My undying bias - i'm sure no one wants to hear start up again

and, if effect is exaggerated, (or independently of that result), how accurately is the braking system on the sherman modeled? Because it could be argued that the braking on a the CMBN sherman is more effective than it is in reality, and so the extra time included as "rocking phase" even if not graphically accurate, compensates in part for the exaggerated effectiveness of sherman brakes. just sayin...if we're going to get picky...

+1!!! The time frame (which as I suggest should incorporate delays) should not be a reason to shoot down the idea of scripting triggers! thank you for the re-emphasis. Besides, the use of reinforcements was only just one of a huge # of possibilities that would be opened up by just a few extra simple triggers. I just came up with that one on the spot. Triggers would enhance AI behavior so incredibly much, and to use the flanking example from earlier, while the mechanism would not be the same as a human player (ie, LOS contact), it would make the computer opponent much more, to use the buzz-word, realistic.

Causality established? I often see my stationary tanks pummel the ground horribly short of the target. Can you say with certainty your tank at stand-still wouldn't have done that? sry, i'm a sporadic threadder. i thought it was brought up, just too lazy to search

Is there any way to play a WE-GO game over the internet in real-time. ie, not the real-time set-up; still using the 1 minute intervals, but playing a human opponent live? and maybe giving 1-2 minutes to review and issue orders? has this been brought up?

There is so much focus on what's "realistic," and believe me I am of this camp. But the AI and its behaviors, as some are woefully lamenting, are painfully unrealistic at times. So, triggers actually help the AI think more realistically. Fine, if it has not LOS, add an extra trigger, here: Trigger: "more than x units of player "allies" in area X" AND Trigger: "more than y units of player "axis" in area Y" (where Y is a plausible area of LOS or sound contact of area X) Action: "move units of player "axis" in "group A1" to area Z" where Z is a flanking location of area X endless possibilities... just some scripting that hopefully could be worked in.

the only trigger we have right now is time from start of battle, which results in rigid plans, even if you can choose from up to 5. just imagine how versatile you could simulate AI behavior if other triggers were included. i don't know how its coded though I imagine this could be do-able.

Getting into the gritty details, you could imagine countless scenarios where something makes sense or not, but even if they didn't have LOS, maybe there was sound contact, or there was some intel from PoW's about plans, etc. etc. you could abstract any reason for the trigger. but it doesn't necessarily have to be about a plausible AI reaction to player intentions. these triggers could also just be a way to add variability/immersion to the game. another eg, "more than x units of player 'allied' spotted --> action: player 'axis' fire support artillery on area 'y'" and y could be anywhere on the map, not necessarily where allied units are. maybe simulate inaccurate arty fire. or x units of player spotted, action: axis group A1 dismount vehicles, order to area Y, assault, cautious endless possibilities....

i had this thought too. maybe the algorithm could be "more than x number of enemy within certain radius, and less than y number of friendlies within (larger) radius" = surrender. and the size of the radiuses (radii?) could be dependent on morale status. not sure how the surrender trigger is coded right now

My mistake. Figured out yesterday that, at least as far as parameters go for dolling out victory points, wounded men are not included as casualties. That's great because this way, buddy aid can be important for victory. (Wounded men who are not attended to by the end of the battle have a chance to become KIA's after the last turn.)

sky's the limit for the designer. (well, would be, if we have a good triggering system) another huge area where triggers would be huuge, is with AI tactics. Trigger: player has more than 8 troops in area X. Action: AI group A1 changes order; advance to area Y. (area Y is a perfect flanking position on area X based on terrain objectives) All of a sudden, AI is dynamic.

I would like a free-draw tool for scenario design. So instead of straight horizontal and diagonals only, I could draw a curved bocage.

For scenarios, you could have triggers unknown to players that also have (variably) delayed onset of action. It would simulate word going up the chain of command to division or corps level, and them reacting to the bad news by committing reserves to the sector. Then a parallel trigger (which is already possible with current editor) deducts X amount of points for sustaining the threshold amount of casualties/loss of equipment. that would be awesome.

could tiger123 have been looking at footage of training exercises using blank rounds?

i thought so too. but just enjoy it as a subtle modeling nuance.

in general i'd love to have triggers. you reach a town, or you suffer a certain amount of casualties, you get reinforcement group or it triggers a certain AI behavior. sudden strike was awesome for this

not surprising and makes sense. harder to fire a weapon while on the move, both infantry and tanks (of this period still sucked at firing on the move). the name of the game is to not get caught moving.

yes you can. if you are designing, go to mission, terrain objectives, paint an area, on the panel on the left side of screen, click on the drop down that currently says "occupy" and select "exit."

it should only take into account the troops remaining at the end of the battle.

but then they pause and wait for every individual to reach their endpoint before moving onto the next waypoint, which sucks when you are in sort of a hurry