Glubokii Boy
-
Posts
1,984 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Glubokii Boy
-
-
27 minutes ago, Artkin said:
Call me a hater but the Sux tank SUX!!!!
Way too specialized of a vehicle to burn cash on in a fire&manuever environment.
Would probably be fine on the defensive if the russians didnt have airspace
Belive it or not...But i have heard it mentioned many times that back in those days the Swedish airforce was considdered to be the 3rd strongest in the world...Surpast only by the USA and...the sovietunion.
If this is actually true i dont know...but we did have more than 1000 modern combat aircraft back then.
-
44 minutes ago, sburke said:
yeah this one is really going to be a game in itself.
It will be intresting...
-
Would there ever be any benefit in pairing the M150 with a tank section ? or should those be keept as far back as possible at all times and leave the tanks to advance on there own ?
-
12 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Come on, who wouldn't want to play with these guys:
.jpg)
The bridge building engineers, maybe...
-
-
1 hour ago, BornGinger said:
I like that Swedish tank. It was apparently based a bit on the Stug III. And I prefer to play with Stug III tanks in my Final Blitz QBs.
I really hope the BFC guys will be able to get the thing to work in CM...and include it in a module...
Like you i really like to play with the tank destroyers...They are cool !
I think the S-tank looks really mean, like some kind of predator waiting for its pray.
I will be a happy man if i get to play with it in CM....Waiting in ambush on some fairly wooded map...waiting for those russians to come...and then BANG !
In the open fields they may be struggeling...but on more restricted maps...they are right at home
-
38 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
PS - And if we're talking northern front then we just gotta have these:
Yes, sir !
Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: Strv 103C part 1 - YouTube
One of the pros of a northern/scandinavian/swedish module would be more 'swedish' stuff...Things not seen in other theatres...
As for the S-tank...it would be intresting to see how it would hold up aginst the ruskies...
-
I know this has been asked before and the answer has been NO at those times...but as this game is stated to be a...
'sandbox'
Something that other basegames never has been...have you guys considdered to realese simple TOE packs...and maybe terrain/flavour packs...as well as full modules ?
The vast scope of this basegame ought to make this a possibility
...
Releasing full modules will still be a Major undertaking i'm guessing but simple packs like these might...help to spred the conflict somewhat faster
...
-
On 2/17/2021 at 1:33 AM, mjkerner said:
I like that this is basically a sandbox. And what a sandbox! Assuming NATO forces and Warsaw Pact forces eventually are added in modules, the sky is the limit. Stuff I do now in miniatures, like Iran-Iraq War, India-Pakistan, African Bush Wars, Vietnam, the Falklands, Ronnie and Maggie’s joint Invasion of Cuba (hey, it could have happened) are just waiting to be modded. Great times ahead!
To help with these smaler wars and varios conflicts...I wounder if it would be useful to try and squize in the uncons from SF2 in the starting lineup...or are these guys armed with to modern weapons to fit the timeline perhaps ?
-
16 hours ago, Baneman said:
Don't mention the Finns !!
Or "the war"...
-
17 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
Not really surprised, since BFC is an American company, but I would have liked to see both sides being on the attack.
A US attack into East Germany, to liberate the country and bring it democracy of course, could have been an interesting choice for at least one of the campaigns.
If the US campaign indeed includes many player defensive battles....I think this will be a good choise. We don't have many of those and it would be intresting to see whst 'the pros' will be able to come up with when designing defensive scenarios....
It might just be mostly lokal counterattacks and meeting engagments though...
But hopefully we will see some well designed defensive battles...
-
52 minutes ago, Pete Wenman said:
I hope Bil doesn't mind but the evolution of the Dollbach map. Note the map image predates the autobahn and bridge. It also give an overview of the battlefield for those that like that kind of detail
P
The map editor is indeed a powerful tool and the results can be very impressive...
It is somewhat time consuming though...any future updates that will improve this will be most welcome...
-
A clever move to name the game Cold War...and not something like Fulda Gap...
This leaves the door open for ANY location and qiite a broad time frame for any future module (or other content) to be added.
Way to go !
-
3 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:
'kidding' aside...i actually think that this could be a decent module...COMBAT MISSION NOTHERN THUNDER
Central europe will need to come first though offcourse...but hopefully one day...
As i recall it... one off the major threath scenarios as considdered in sweden in the days goes something like this...
The Baltic states strive for independance turns uggly and results in confrontations in those states...The Swedidh airforce and navy gets engaged by russian units while trying to protect baltic refugees fleeing across the sea....this escalates and results in a russian invation of Sweden...NATO forces interveen to try to prevent the russians from getting controll of the Swedish teritory...
If not a full modukle...I hope they will release a vast amount of TOEs from various nations to allow us to 'sandbox' at will....This timeframe/setting offers alot of possibilites if we only have the units avaliable...
God dammit !
I think i need to wear my glasses somewhat more (i don't like them
)...
I hope the above is somewhat readable atlest...uurf, uurf
-
1 minute ago, rocketman said:
that would be nice
-
During 89/90 i was crawling around in the dirt for 12 month (basic training)...I would have been to young to join in this stuggle (timeframe)....
But the forces would be pretty much the same i belive as during my time....it would indeed be cool to play.
-
8 minutes ago, rocketman said:
Yes, "Northern Storm" - Soviet invasion through northern Finland, into Sweden and on to NATO Norway.
We almost named it the same
-
1 hour ago, RepsolCBR said:
First module...
- Swedish forces
'kidding' aside...i actually think that this could be a decent module...COMBAT MISSION NOTHERN THUNDER
Central europe will need to come first though offcourse...but hopefully one day...
As i recall it... one off the major threath scenarios as considdered in sweden in the days goes something like this...
The Baltic states strive for independance turns uggly and results in confrontations in those states...The Swedidh airforce and navy gets engaged by russian units while trying to protect baltic refugees fleeing across the sea....this escalates and results in a russian invation of Sweden...NATO forces interveen to try to prevent the russians from getting controll of the Swedish teritory...
If not a full modukle...I hope they will release a vast amount of TOEs from various nations to allow us to 'sandbox' at will....This timeframe/setting offers alot of possibilites if we only have the units avaliable...
-
First module...
- Swedish forces
(or maybe not...)
-
-
8 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:
Been playing with the AI (CMBN 4.03) a bit as well, and noticed a couple of issues.
(In my proposal above to let the player issue simplified AI plans to platoons, these can be addressed by manually repathing waypoints for egregiously 'dumb' moves. Or not.)
1. Units in an AI group pick their Order destination square at random from those painted on the map. So if you paint a linear or oval zone (phase line) perpendicular to the axis of advance, you commonly get units criscrossing or 'fanning out' across their fronts, with potentially lethal consequences.
2. Units may also pick a destination square with no cover, ignoring good cover in a nearby square. (It would be nice for all AI orders to conclude automatically with a 'seek cover nearby' routine even if the units aren't under fire. But not essential.)
3. Units frequently become Exhausted trying to fulfil AI orders, even when objectives are not hugely distant. This is especially true in Assault/Max Assault mode. The primary causes seem to be that:
a. they QUICK move right through dense terrain (rather than pathing around).
b. they try to cover long stretches in SLOW crawl and ASSAULT mode.
... But I also think it's realistic that troops get worn out quickly by executing stressful orders under fire, then need a break before moving out again. Here again, extreme cases can be dealt with via micro, or not, as desired.Lastly, @Bulletpoint's comment above that an intrusive know-it-all AI can be a drag as well is *very* well taken. Just as BFC kept WeGo there should always be an option to micro forces in good order.
Perhaps not fully related to your suggestion for some sort of in-game group command...but what you mentioned above are god examples of the problems that comes with programing the AI and these are some of the reason for me to be advocating for more AI groups.
Problems like fatigue, choise of locations and getting pined down, like Bulletpoint mentiones, complicates any AI attack and the avaliable orders we currently have have thier limitations and problems when using larger AI groups.
Being able to use smaller AI groups with more precisely designated objectives and coordinated using a combination of terraintriggers and AI group order triggers ought to give better results imo..
instead of having ONE AI group advancing or assulting their way forward....
use two AI groups....A and B
example..
1 befor the assult both A and B spend one turn doing area fire at the intended target location.
2 Group A gets an stationary MAX ASSULT to be ready to suppres any spotted targets.
3 Group B QUICKs forward one 'bound'
4 Ones there group B inturn gets a stationary MAX ASSULT at that location.
5 Using one of the two triggertypes...group A QUICKs to their first bounding location.
6 Ones there they ones again get a stationary MAX ASSULT order...
7 Using one of the two triggertypes...group B QUICKs to their next bounding location.
I belive that something like this will push the attack forward faster and be less tiering compared to using a simple advance or assult order...and stil maintain a base of fire/suppresion element as well as allowing the AI units to 'pick' better locations.
-
45 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
I wish they would just ask their best campaign makers what kinds of new tools or features in the editor would make their work easier, faster, and better.
I would be seriously supprised if they are not doing that already
...
The problem though i'm guessing is that they don't have the manpower to implement those changes as fast as desired.
-
3 hours ago, 37mm said:
Here's an experiment which proves that the CMx2 (v4.0) AI is indeed more advanced than what one might imagine.
I honestly don't think that this shows all that much of what the AI can or can not do in a useful way...
It is a TEST run on a VERY SIMPLE map...with VERY FEW terrain features.
It really does not resemble the well made, detailed and complicated maps that we usually are fighting on at all.
Even on this...VERY SIMPLE map the AI units are zig,zagging their way forward...and choosing their bounding locations somewhat strangely as can be sen in the second to last picture.
-
1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:
but it's done in a "blind" automatic way - they end their movement paths in random positions with or without LOS and cover, and the movement paths are often too long. I don't think it would help me micromanage any less. I'd still need to babysit the formation and make sure to adjust the movement orders all the time to fit the actual terrain.
This is my fear also....In order for this to work the AI will need to be improved...The AIs situational awareness is currently not good enough.
Half decent (at best) might be good enough for some...in singelplayer but I doubt that they will be as forgiving when playing multiplayer.
Engine 5 Wishlist
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
BornGinger...
As for the triggers and movement...you as the designer are already free to set the timings as you please....If you want the AI group to remain in place until the trgger is activated...simply set the exit after time to the last scenario minute.