Glubokii Boy

This is very true... But atleast for me...i don't neccesarely think that it is the design of the setup zones that are to blame but rather the way the AI deploys its forces within these setup zones...to often i see things like HMGs being deployed deep inside wood and SMG/ short range weapons being deployed at the forward edge for example or to many units being clumped closely together at one part of the setup zone and other parts being left completally empty. When designing a scenario the designer can 'help' the AI by deploying its forces in what atleast to the designer seems like a clever way...doing this with a QB map seems to be a far more difficult task... Will the ai forces include any tanks ? Will it include support weapons ? Other AT weapons ? Tricky...

The timing and location of where reinforcements show up can be a bit tricky to get right...even in a 'designed' scenario. I'm not all that familuar with how designing QB maps works but i fear it might even be more complicated to get right on these maps... But other then that i'm all for more options when it comes to reinforcements...both in regular scenarios as well as any future addition to the QB maps. The two primary reasons for me to stop playing QB battles as a single player though are these... 1. The usually completally 'awful' unit selection made by the AI...Picking forces that makes no sence what so ever... 2. The AIs very lacking understanding of how to deploy said forces. Where to place machineguns, where to place AT-guns, where to place short range weapons etc, etc... The AI is not very impresssive when it comes to these things... Granted...I have not played a QB vs the AI for quite some time...things might have improved slightely since i last gave it a go... I think that it was mentioned in some other thread a while back...A suggestion to allow the player to 'design' a number of preset TOEs to be saved and later loaded into the editor or QB-battle selection screens. This is a very good idea imo. As it is now with regards to the QBs the player more or less has to pick the forces for the AI in order to get any sort or realistic/ entertaining battle going. This obviously ruins all sence of FOW. Not good at all !!... If this designing, saving and loading of preset TOEs could be included into the QB selection screen to allow the player to select a number of these saved TOEs (maybe something like 8 or 16 as a maximum) and have the computer pick one of them randomly It would greately increase the uncertanty of the AI force composition imo. Allowing for a way more entertaining battle... My second point. The somewhat lacking deployment of its forces made by the AI is a trickier nut to crack i feel. Hopefully someone will come up with a clever solution one of these days.

The difficulty to program it one would guess...FPS reasons maybe...

Why ?

Nothing NEW in this document really...but maybe other posts will follow until then this is the place to go for newbies imo... http://battledrill.blogspot.com/

No need to go that far imo. A somewhat more flexible AI order plotting, a few more trigger options etc and maybe having things like reinforcements arriving by trigger and stuff like that... This... Such a thread should be stickied imo.... There have been a number of those already made through the years but they tend to dissapear amongst the other threads... A stickied thread like that would be a good idea for sure..

No need to appologize

I see your point...My idea was that you should design the ENTIRE lenth of a movement path kind of 'conected'...orders 1 to 15 would be one path from start to finish of the scenario and orders16 to 25 would be an alternative path etc, etc. There would be no jumping back and forth in the list...only forth But i can see that it might be a bit complicated to figure out excatelly how many orders each movement path would need for the entire scenario. Will path 1 require 15 or 17 orders ? Where should path 2 begin ? order 16, 17 or 18 ?...this could be a bit tricky maybe. I guess that an other problem could be if the paths end up at the same location at some point in the scenario it would indeed require some skipping back and forth to be able to use the same remaining orders for the different paths...or else the same remaining orders would need to be made for each individual path...Not the best solution maybe Oooh well...this was just a small suggestion....Hopefully we will soon se some sort of branching in the AI plans.

IMHO Combat Mission has not reached that point yet. The fact that it is close to impossible to design a GOOD AI attacking scenario is reason enough to keep working on the AI.

One major shortcomming with the current ai plans is that each individual ai group only have one option avaliable for their next 'action' in the ai plan currently used in any specific scenario. Some options exist as to WHEN this 'action' (next ai order) is to be taken via the use of triggers and the gameclock but regardless of WHEN this action is taken it will always be the same. That is...whatever is specified in the next ai order in the list. Ones set free the ai groups will move to the location of that ai order in the mannor specified regardles of how the battlefield is evolving. Each individual ai order may currently use only one trigger. Resulting in only one condition that can become true to release the ai group from the - wait for - and allow it to carry out its next objective. The only other option would be the gameclock. The gameclock takes no account of what is happening on the battlefield though. It is simply a clock... These limitations are far from ideal... The best way to solve this lack of addaptability on the side of the ai would probably be to add multi-option conditional triggers but this is most likely a to big a change to be at all something to considder for CM2. I have been thinking a bit about a somewhat smaller change. One that would allow for atleast some degree of flexebility on the part of the ai and hopefully be somewhat feasable within CM2. My suggestion is that BFC might add a function to the current triggersystem that would allow us to set a - SKIP TO ai order number (XX) - in the list of orders for a specific ai group. This way the designer could place waypoints (ai orders) for several different movement options in the same list of orders for that ai group. An example... The ai is defending. Ai group 1 is a counterattacking force. Ai group 2 is a group of reinforcements. Where will the player be attacking ? Center ? Right flank ? Left flank ? Where should the counterattacking force go ? Where should the reinforcements go ? Currently the designer has ONE option as where to send these troops. If he guess the players intentions right and send them in the right direction then the scenario will probably work ok. But what if the player does not do 'as he should'...then the ai will not be quite as impressive. With what i'm suggesting the designer could plot the first 10 to 15 orders or something like that for ai group 1 to be a respons to a left flank attack by the player. Orderlocations 16 to 25 could be a respons to a right flank attack etc, etc... If a right flank attack is made by the player he will tripp the trigger designed to start the movement of the counterattacking force (ai group 1) in respons to a right flank attack. This trigger includes the new feature of SKIPPING to ai order 16 in this case (the first one in the 'react to a right flank attack' (16 - 25)). Simularely the reinforcement group (ai group 2) could have different movement paths to handle different attacking/penetrationpoints made by the player and 'skipping' to the right one. I understand that this will not be as simple as flipping a switch or something to implement and that some additional changes would need to be made... Atleast these i guess... In the timing section of the ai-order UI there would need to be space to have multiple 'wait for trigger' options as one extra wait for trigger is needed for each movementpath of that ai order. A 'remove trigger' function would also needed to be included in the triggers to make sure that multiple movementpaths for the same ai group is not triggered. Ones ONE of the options is triggered the other triggers would need to be deleted. An increase in the number of ai orders might be needed to allow for multiple movement paths as well as perhaps a higher number of triggers avaliable. What do you guhs think ? Would something like this be to much work (on the part of BFC) for to small of an improvement or could something like this be useful ? It would allow for some degree of flexibility atleast... I hope you guys understand what i'm trying to explain

That's what we like to hear ...A big fight for the entire map...Very cool ! It will be one hell of a battle though. I guess the attacker will need something close to a regiment to attack and hold this place. I think that as far as H2H goes a 4 hour battle on this entire map would work very well if the players like these kind of LARGE battles but i'm affraid that Vs the AI it would require some very clever use of the avaliable AI groups to be able to handle an extended battle over such a large area. A decent Vs AI battle will be doable for sure with a liberal use of static defenders and such...but it will be tricky i fear...Well worth a try though...

Yepp ! Welcome...

Good to know these things are in... Yes...the new editor features included in the V4 update sure improves things... RockinHarry did some test with WITHDRAWING - forward - a while back...He used this at the start of an AI attack to get the AI troops to through smoke grenades infront of themself to get some increased cover. Followed this up by some regular assult/attack orders and got an AI attack that used smoke to cover its advance...I made some simple test with this and it seemed to work quite well but i have not really tried it in a scenario yet. A cool idea though...

I'm i bit supprised that you guys did not know about this trick. It was mentioned for the first time within days of the release of the V4 update. I don't remember by whom right now but it has been discussed in a number of threads ever since. Here's a link to one of them that i remember it having been mentioned in...This one dates almost 18 months ago... This is one of the features i was hoping to see a lot of in the upcomming CMRT and CMFI modules. If that is not the case i will be a bit dissapionted...As this is a 'game changer'

most certainly + 1 And maybe also include a - wait for trigger - option to this (simular to the way AI orders currently work)... Preferably i would like to see a complete remake of the entire AI artillery interface but something like this would indeed be a nice improvement...

I fully agree with this... There are a bunch of reasons why designing GOOD AI attack scenarios is very difficult...close to impossible...I will mention a few here 1. The limited number of AI groups - In an AI defensive scenario large parts of the AI forces can remain static and only fall back (tacAI) ones forced to do so. In these scenarios 16 AI groups will often be enough to be able to add some 'mobile' defenders to the mix. In an AI attacking scenario pretty much the entire AI force will need to move forward. Requiring AI groups ! Very few scenarios sees the player commanding a force of less then a reduced company. If the AI is to attack against a force of that size it will probably mean something like a battalion sized force on the AI side. A force of that size means rather large AI groups. Rather large AI groups is not a good thing...simply because the AI can not handle it... 2. The inability of the AI to readjust its attack plan according to things happening on the battlefield - The AI have ONE way forward...and ONE way forward only. That is...the individual AI groups making up the AI attack have one way forward each. These AI groups will NEVER select a different way forward if they get into 'trouble'...simply because that option does not exist. They will move to their next waypoint regardless of how the battle evolves...or they will not move at all...This limitation is pretty severe ! 3. Lack of supporting indirect fire - The scenario designers have a very limited ability to 'add' supporting fire to an AI attack. The functinality is simply not there. The designers may place a whole bunch of TRPS and forward observers on the AI side to hopefully get something half decently done by the AI itself but this is very random imo and half the time that the AI orders a bombardment they are just as likely to hit their own troops. the V4 update gave the designers some controll over the AI on-map mortars. But this is limited to HE only...no smoke. A small step in the right direction though...

Noo...but if that AI plan get's 'choosen' as the active one...It will be this one that controlls the AI during the battle and not the one you have designed. .To avoid this the previous AI plans will need to be removed completally or set the option for those AI plans to - never use -...if that is an option...i don't recall right now...

Thanks for the link....I enjoyed the documentary...very well made and a good starting point for information for any CM scenario covering that struggle (ones CM CASE BLUE gets released )

I don't really agree with this...that CM is not a casual game. It most certanly can be. In order to play it and enjoy it you don"t have to be a tactical genious or neccesarely know the inns and outs of every piece of eauiment in the game. You don't have to know the ultimate engagementrange of a StuG III when facing of frontally against a T34. You don"t have to have 100 % understanding of the C2 rules etc, etc. It most certanly will help if you do. But it is not neccesary. You can play...and win even without knowing those things. The one thing that you need to apprisiate though is REALISM ! Even a casual gamer can apprisiate this... When it comes to realism Combat Mission is far, far beyond any competition. Atleast when compared to 'casual' games like Company of heros, Men of war, sudden strike or whatever these 'children games' might be called. For a casual gamer looking for a bit more of a realistic experience...combat mission is the way to happiness ... It ought to be sellable to the casual crowdes also imho...

If CMRT did sell atleast half decent i don't think that BFC will need to worry to much about lack of intrest when it comes to the 41, 42, and 43 games... For those that are seriously intrested in history in general and especially those that love the WW2 era i don't think that OPERATION BAGRATION is something new. They know about it already. But if you only have a slight intrest in history/WW2 i seriously doubt that many people have ever heard of OPERATION BAGRATION (CMRT). Still...It did sell (i guess). But when it comes to BARBAROSSA and probably even STALINGRAD and KURSK...Far more people with a more limited WW2 intrest knowes about those events compared to BAGATION. Therefore the intrest 'world wide' ought to be higher for any such release... one would think...

Well...a buddy of mine showed me one of those apps a while ago and we tried a few languages...it actually seemed to work pretty ok. We did not try Japanese though. I could see that the translation into that language will be a bit more difficult because of the reason you mentioned. Many of the apps do however include Japanese in the list of avaliable languages... https://www.k-international.com/blog/translation-apps-2016/ Perhaps not something to use in an important buisness dinner or when meeting other WIPs but in every day life i guess it will work OKish... Oooh well...back to Barbarossa i guess ...

Yepp...the bloody phones will even do the talking for us now adays...type in what you would like to say (in your native language) and the little things will translate and speak it for you in the language of your choise... Handy...no doubt

Well i guess that BFC are to(o) late with the release of Barbarossa then...as it seems some of us have forgotten about it already I'm painfully aware that my english is somewhat rusty...but it's been 30 years since my last confession...uups..or should that be english lesson. As long as my pixel truppen understand me....no worries !

This is a good point obviously ...and yes...i don't KNOW that BFC will skip the release of these products or that it will take them a long time to produce them i they do decide to include them in their line-up. Hopefully everything will pick up pace and run along smothely...resulting in the release of these games in the not to far away future. That would certainly be the best for everybody ...but if the development meets with some setbacks or what not i think that something like i mentioned above could be a workable alternative maybe...

True... CMBB(1) was not a financial success according to BFC and a CMBB2 editor pack will probably not be a huge source of income either if we compare it to likely profits from releasing 3 more regular basegames (43, 42 and 41 timeperiod) accompanied by maybe two additional modules/ title. The question is though...Will they release such products...will they complete the eastern front in CM2...or will they simply finish the currently worked on CMRT module (to the end of the war) and call it quits as far as CM2 eastern front goes ? When BFC have finished the first module for CMFB and brought that front to the end of the war that pretty much only leaves the eastern front left to finish...Maybe with the exception of a CMBS module. As stated previously CMSF2 will recieve no further modules atleast not according to the shared plans for the future. Is it really likely that BFC will spend the next five years or something like that releasing nothing but WW2 eastern front games. Or will they start developing a new series of games for an additional conflict ? The CM2 engine is somewhat starting to show its age. Should BFC commit to an entirely new conflict with a full series of releases in addition to completeing the WW2 eastern front ? That will 'lock' them to CM2 development for many years to come... Or should they try to finish off CM2 by completeing the WW2 series of games (eastern front) and move on to a new game engine ? If they do decide to complete the CM2 WW2 series by releasing seperate full basegames followd by modules it will still take them a long time to get this CM2 thing delt with. The reason for releasing a CMBB2 editor pack (as a single product) would be to allow BFC to 'sort of' complete the CM2 WW2 series in a somewhat shorter timeframe to allow all hands to be devoted to the development of the CM3 engine. The scenarios designers associated with BFC could still assist the community in the development of scenarios and campaigns (battle packs) to generate some more money from the CMBB2 release while the BFC programers are working on CM3. Personally i'm starting to fear that we will not be seeing any early war, eastern front games. And that makes me SAD ! To me a CMBB2 editor pack sounds like a rather good 'solution'... Darn it !!! i really want to play Barbarossa, Typhoon, Case blue, russian 'planet offensives' kind of battles...and i want it now What ever you do BFC...please don't skip the early ww2 eastern front games...thanks !