Jump to content

Crushingleeek

Members
  • Posts

    303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Crushingleeek

  1. 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...

  2. it really comes down to what the designer wants to potray. Not if it would be the common time frame as to what would be the normal situation of a formation of that size.

    +1!!! The time frame (which as I suggest should incorporate delays) should not be a reason to shoot down the idea of scripting triggers!

    Plus , just because the trigger point in the game will bring troops maybe too quickly, it likely will have a option to delay when they arrive so that the timing is a little more realistic.

    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.

  3. On Kanonier Reichmann's point, I do sometimes see a tank fire a shot into the ground because of the rocking forward upon stopping. It happens rarely but it is possible. I might try to replicate it in a file later.

    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

  4. Realistically, nothing should happen, at least not right away. If there are out-of-command units with eyes on Area X and are not badly suppressed, they could theoretically send a runner back to headquarters. But that would likely take a lot of time.

    Michael

    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.

  5. AI does not have any units who have LOS to area X or only units out-of-command.

    What happens?

    Best regards,

    Thomm

    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....

  6. It occurred to me today that wounded troops that have been overrun by the enemy ought to count as prisoners, though how you'd determine that (maybe apply the "surrender" metric to them?) is difficult to say.

    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

  7. I think in past discussions they said wounded, KIA, MIA are casualties. and for scoring purporses casualties are casualties. no difference between any of them.

    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.)

  8. But what if the higher commander is a "reinforce success, not failure" kind of guy? That way, if your attack is going well, you get an extra company or two of whatever is on the board. Not sure how that would apply to the defense though. Maybe if the defense in your sector is being overrun, you get an order to pull back and victory for you is based on how many of your units you manage to save.

    Michael

    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.

  9. I don't like the casualty triggers, at least not the type that Theater of War used. I just remember certain battles where a tank platoon would get wiped out and it would trigger instant reinforcements. It was predictable and unrealistic. Also, it led to bad habits for myself; I would intentionally kill off my last tank in order to trigger the reinforcements.:P

    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.

  10. If you break up their movement by plotting waypoints on the way to their destination they will reform and spread out. Be resourceful!

    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

×
×
  • Create New...