Chris Ferrous
-
Posts
207 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Chris Ferrous
-
-
Ok, back on topic . . . .
Did the offending tank fire at anything at all, even using its MG?
Yesterday I had my first instance of a tank not firing at the designated target. The target line was crystal clear although there were some bushes close to the left of the LOS.
I was playing the AI in we-go mode and some HTs, which were standing quite a way back but were otherwise exposed, were troubling my infantry. So my tank was supposed to be the solution. It duly arrived on station, didn't find the target by itself, and then ignores the target request having located some remnants of an enemy squad nearby. Fair enough, that's realistic self-preservation, but it ignored the request again and fired at 'targets of opportunity', i.e. far off infantry, and studiously ignored the HT.
By now I was getting pretty frustrated and moved him forward about 15m, but due to the 'action spot syndrome' that didn't really remove the bushes from the left of the LOS. The target order set for the final waypoint was ignored again and throughout all of this, despite its rampant destruction of everything EXCEPT the target, the red target line stuck like glue to the HT when the tank was selected during playback.
FINALLY, when seemingly it could find no excuse not to bother with the HT, it calmly put a round straight through it first shot and blew it to bits!
Thank you, Tank Commander, be a bit more responsive next time!
But, we-go allows multiple playbacks, so I set up my viewing angle to watch the HT go kaboom! Nice one, TC, the HT was unoccupied and presumably had been all along so the tank had done the best thing in the circumstances.
Certainly, when only a few seconds later, an enemy tank appeared, my tank immediately targetted and dispatched it with another kaboom, followed by a secondary KABOOM 45 seconds later. Give that man a medal!
-
Not really. At a tactical level the Allies were frequently attacking in directions other than south.
Also, don't forget that to capture Cherbourg the US forces had to attack due north!
But, yes, as regards landings at beaches, the British / Canadian landings at Sword, Gold etc. and the US landings at Omaha were southwards, while Utah, of course was westward.
It' going to be a frequent mapmaking error I would have thought so a rotate map tool would be very useful. Is there one? Not seen it if there is.
-
I asked the same thing about foxholes a couple of weeks back. Haven't done a test so don't know the answer.
-
I'm fairly sure it changes by the minute, well lighting intensity certainly does, as if a light cloud has just passed over the sun, so I'd expect that would affect visible distances to some extent.
-
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
Rokko: don't despair; perhaps after picking the nearest available weather condition you could try a different time of day, e.g. dusk to emulate the required LOS in fog.
-
Are flavour objects indestructible?
I've had a farm complex reduced to rubble by artillery with everyone in it vaporised and yet a haycart stood serenly in theyard through it all!
Tanks can drive straight through telgraph poles without damaging themselves or the pole. Likewise telegraph poles seem to withstand artillery/mortars.
Haystacks can visually hide infantry in that they can be engulfed by them, as can tanks, but of course the icon, if switched on still shows for both friendly and enemy.
Haven't yet noticed if things like barrels, crates and rubbish etc are also indestructible.
-
Thanks to all those who offered to help.
This scenario is nearly complete: the map has been extended and the OOB revised, and there's a full catalogue of German AI defence plans. The US AI also has its first plan under test.
So, if anyone would like to play as defender against the US AI then drop me a line.
The US AI attack behaviours should be coded by next weekend.
Cheers all!
-
Looks nice
BTW can anyone upload to the Repository?
And how is it done?
Thanks in advance.
-
Nice little test, Rokko.
Your assessment fits with what I've seen also in trying to get the AI to move logically although I've not seen it behave in quite suchan extreme way.
Can I suggest that you amend your test map so that each 'phase line' is a continuous strip rather than isolated spots, and then run the test again to see what happens?
I think that would be very helpful.
Also, when you've assessed it for infantry would you do it for tanks? At the moment I have a feeling that under AI control tanks will turn to face their intended next position almost as soon as they arrive at their first spot. I've been placing a 'beyond scenario time limit' location such that the tanks will face forward.
Also I can see no way of getting tanks to retreat without turning their backsides towards the enemy. :confused:
-
As much as 3-4X as long!
That seems a bit extreme. AI plans would need totally re-jigging to extend a scenario that far.
I think I'll work with about a 33% extension for real-time play.
-
His turret was pointing in the right direction, but his hull wasn't.
Could it be that the tree is occluding that action spot, so the tank is reversing around that spot to get to the one beyond which perhaps you just touched when you clicked? Since the tree is in the way it is effectively orbiting it!
Anyway, has he eventually behaved or has he paid the ultimate penalty?
-
So, our viewpoint is approximately south-westerly?
Looking more closely, I can see the Tiger is selected and the enemy armour icon is not a '?' so he must be able to see it. Did he fire at all?
The reversing thing is just down to action spots but the rotation/facing IS odd!
I'm flummoxed. :confused:
-
Great pictures
I'd check the map side/direction friendly to setting in the editor.
I think vehicles that cannot actually see an enemy threat will present their front in the opposite direction to friendly. So, I summise that the enemy are actually coming from a 'friendly' direction according to the editor.
-
Isn't there a slight lag before orders take effect? Especially for heavy weapons?
Would the same situation have occurred if the covered arc had been pre-set, tagged to the bocage waypoint before they got there? As I understand it, the schreck team got to the hedge, and saw the tank before the covered arc command took effect.
My advice, make sure the covered arc is pre-set, and scorch the tank so everyone knows it's dead!
-
Thanks Fredrock.
You weren't so bad yourself. Great variety too. I recall Parroy Forest which was totally enclosed, Something Causeway which was totally restricted in approach, Gates of Hell (?) which was hell on earth, and many others. All had their special features and even the odd ecentricity.
-
So we don't seem to have reached a concensus on this issue.
For the moment I won't make any adjustments in timings until I've experienced both formats. I usually play in we-go and so overall I find I am able to do less in real time.
For what it's worth, I believe CM1 which had we-go mode only probably permited 3-5 times more to get done in an hour than could be done in real life. I suppose it depends whether playing in real time is more like real life than we-go?
-
Seriously, do the leadership, experience and motivation of the foxholes have any effect?
I know it sounds stupid but in the editor these stats are available even for foxholes!
-
The above should work. It did in CM1.
-
I'm applying finishing touches to my 'Beyond Briquebec' scenario and I'm going to try to use the full range of AI behaviours.
So, I need some testers (first 6 replies) to choose alternative deployments for both the German and US forces, and perhaps some plans as to how you might go about winning the scenario. You would also be able to play the scenario but only as US versus the AI or HvH (but balance has not been tested) and it is only a late draft version.
If it works your thought processes may be forever immortalised as part of the game's AI!
All help would be appreciated.
Just drop me a private mail with your email address (because pm doesn't permit attachments) and I'll send it along.
Cheers all.
-
In my opinion, it seems reasonable that scenario designers would need to modify the scenario length depending on whether or not it is played in real time or in we-go mode.
Surely far more can get done in a minute of we-go than I'd expect can be done on the fly in real time.
If so, what time scale ratio would players recommend?
Maybe, 50% more time for real time play?
-
I'm not sure about foxholes either.
1. Placement is difficult if there's any objects nearby, e.g. Bocage hedge.
2. Just how much protection do they confer.
3. They don't look good.
I've just had an incident when my guys advanced to take over some enemy foxholes and they hid behind and around the foxholes not IN them!? In other words they used them more like sandbags. They still got shot.
Now to my headline question:-
I've just noticed in the editor that the usual combat unit stats variables list comes upeven with foxholes etc.. Does changing a 'Green', low motivated and badly led foxhole to Elite, highly motivated, well led foxhole make any difference?
Intuitively, I'd think not, but you have to ask to be sure.
-
Now my friendly marker has gone!
But so has the gun! Nice one Fredrock.
-
Fredrock!!!!
Not got that turn. Sure you'll miss anyways. :eek:
-
Someone mentioned that if you click on a contact, then the bases of the friendly units that can see it light up, but I've yet to notice this.
Tanks not firing at target
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Yes, so I can see how it can be hyper-critical for the tank to ignore everything except the targetting order.
I'll report back if I see anything similar.
Generally speaking, not just with tanks, I find LOS can come and go piecemeal. Just now I had a FO with a good LOS of a MG, but when I brought up a mortar into contact with the FO I found the FO was no longer able to 'see' the MG objective or even the ground around it to lay fire. He hadn't moved or had incoming fire in the meantime. Don't get it sometimes. :confused: