Jump to content

Glubokii Boy

Members
  • Posts

    1,984
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Glubokii Boy

  1. I'm afraid it might be... Considdering BFCs limited developing resources any new feature added would need to be desired and used by 'many'... Like Erwin mentioned....PBEM co-op games run the risk of becoming to slow to be able to maintain the intrest of the 'many'. It's an intresting idea but i belive it will be difficult to implement it in such a way to make it sufficeiently popular.
  2. I think that multi player RT would be very cool. One problem with this though would be...information sharing ! It would be very difficult to get the 'in-game' information sharing (visable units, contact incons etc) to work together with players voice-com information sharing.
  3. To clarify...The troops did not start to move until the vehicle was stationary on its pause command.
  4. The way i did it in this test was to have the vehicle start a short distant away...I estimated that it would take the vehicle about 5+ seconds to get to the pick-up location. At the pickup location i added a 15 second pause to the vehicle before moving on to its next waypoint. During the same turn I gave the troops an embark order on the vehicle with a 10 second pause.... The vehicle arrived...halted...the troops boarded and the vehicle moved away...tried several times....It works ! But timing will be tricky in a game situation i guess.
  5. I belive i know how to do this now...What the deciding factor is - The pick-up vehicle will...NEED TO BE STATIONARY AT THE PICK-UP LOCATION (pausing point)...When the boarding troops STARTS their embark move... Doing it like this...having the vehicle move to the troops actionsquare and pause there enables me to board a 3man team in as little as a 15 second pause on the part of the vehicle. It then moves off with the troops onboard. Timing will be cruisial when doing this but if you are able to time it so that the vehicle is at the pause location when the troops starts thier boarding move...This works every time it seems... A larger unit will obviously take longer to get onboard compared to this 3 man team...
  6. I may run some more tests but the one i did had the troops start 1 or 2 actionsquares away from the 'pausing' waypoint...This was a 3 man team. The team did not even try to move towards the 'pausing' waypoint. They headed straight for the location of the last waypoint in the transports path.
  7. I did a quick test yesterday with a 30 sec pause at the second to last waypoint...The troops did not mount up...They headed straight for the final waypoint and mounted up at that location ones the vehicle got there. This was only a qiuck simple test though...in some situations it might possibly work...
  8. That is a good point. In most senarios i belive that you can add atleast a few additional minutes of playtime without screwing up the original intent of the designer. Major changes to the time limit will most likely have the result you mentioned though and should probably be avoided.
  9. No mod tools needed. Single scenarios can be edited in the scenario editor i less than a minute. Editing campaign scenarios requires somewhat more work as those campaigns first has to be 'unpacked' into a number of single scenarios. Ones unpacked those scenarios can be edited just as easily as stand alone scenarios...they will be playable as single scenarios but to put them together again into a campaign will require some additional work... I recomend you spend a few minutes glanzing through the manual...especially the editor section and then you will be up and editing scenarios in no time...
  10. No...BFC making fictional games seems like a bad idea... Let's go with... CM Barbarossa for their next project
  11. It's not mentioned in the manual as far as i know but it is one of the things that gets mentioned from time to time on these forums...It is indeed a useful trick.
  12. Unless the scenario designer opts to use the 'reinforcement trick' with an AI reinforcement group arriving after the scenario time ends. Playing through a number of scenarios i'm sure you will see a mix of results...In some scenarios the AI will indeed surrender. In some they will not. Adds some nice uncertanty imo.
  13. Yes...I guess that i have noticed that to some degree but i have always been under the understanding that the individual windows in buildings indeed made a difference. The men seems to align to the windows pretty well though. A german squad on the bottom floor with one window in what i would call 'a bunch'... A germans squad on the second floor with multiple windows Using a full squad on the same floor may not be all that common...Here is one squad split into two...one section on each floor. Bottom floor has 1 window top flooor has several.
  14. If the actuall wall only has ONE window will the troops not bunch up around that one window instead of using several windows as is usual ?
  15. kohlenklau explained this well... To state the obvious ... - STRAT MAP will be shown top left on the briefing screen - OP MAP will be shown top right on the briefing screen - TACMAP will be shown when clicking the tactical map button on the briefingscreen
  16. I agree with this. Unless you personally feel that you neccesarely have to use the stock templates for briefing graphics...Forgett about it ! nobody else cares if you are using your own graphics in the briefing maps, pictures etc... As long as they provide the neccesary information. Personally i have never used anything other then windows paint when designing these map...Never had a complaint so far...
  17. You are completally right I guess that this might be part of the problem for many...finding playtesters If a scenario is to be used as a H2H game it generally needs to be well balanced i belive.
  18. Me too... Designing attacking AI scenarios is unfortunatelly the most difficult thing to do though. It is doable...but certainly difficult. The severe lack of such scenarios is sort of a proof of this. If Commanderski is up for a challange though...Go ahead and give it a try. I would play it...
  19. IIRC it was mentioned in a simular thread a while ago by one of the guys around here that one solution to customize the scenarios to be more of a challange regardless of witch side the player chose to play in a player Vs AI game or a H2H game could be to add a note to the briefing screen or designer notes that states... What units NOT to use when playing the various sides (the AI gets to use all that is avaliable regardless of the side it plays) If playing the attacker the player may be instructed NOT to use 1 of the 3 avaliable tank platoons for example. If playing the defender he might be recomended to not use a pair of tank destroyers for example For H2H games some simular instruction on how to ballance the scenario for H2H might be avaliable in the note. To me this sounds like it could work rather well. The one problem i can see with this would be how the scoring is handled with regards to force conditions and unit objectives. I
  20. I agree completally. Beliving that we will get a fully 'self thinking' strategic AI in CM2 or even CM3 is nothing but wishful thinking imo. As you mentioned the complexity of a battlefield is simply to big for a gaming AI to handle. That is not what i'm suggesting. What i'm suggesting is that the scenario designer should be granted better scripting tools to be able to guide the AI in these complex decisions. Decisions that the AI is painfully incapable of handleling on its own. As i have mentioned many times before one of those scripting tools would be an increased number of AI groups. For anyone who would like to run a small experiment on this try something like this. A company sized AI attack. version 1. Use 3 AI groups when designing this scenario. version 2. Use 16 AI groups when designing the same scenario. Question....In witch of these two scenarios are you able to design an AI attack that makes good use of the terrain, possition and use support weapons in a decent way, coordinate with armour support somewhat effectivly etc, etc... Simply adding more AI groups will obviously not solve every problem that the AI is facing but it is a REALISTIC improvement to CM2 imo. Combine that with some additional scenario editor UI changes like reinforcements by triggers for example as well as a reworked AI artillery programing interface. Smaller changes like this would improve the strategic AI significantelly. Expecting some major changes to the AI performance during the CM2 lifespan is not realistic imo. That will have to wait for CM3 i'm sure. Scenario editor UI changes ought to be doable though even during the CM2 timeframe.
  21. The AI needs work...YES ! But i can see two sides to this problem... 1 As primarely a H2H player then yes the small unit behavior may be the most important to fix. 2. As primarely a single player i would considder the 'overall' AI performance (one or two levels up from single units) to be far more important to improve. Having larger parts of the AI force be able to co-odinate several units and different weapons in a clever way as well as use the terrain better is in huge needs of improvements imo. The fastest and easiest way to achive point 2 imo is to let a human (scenario designer) 'help' the AI when designing the scenario via improved scripting tools.
  22. Yeah...i guess it is. There can be no doubt that H2H gaming is the more intresting way to play but if BFC starts neglecting single players that would be a sad development. Hopefully they will not do that but V.5 sounds like a very H2H oriented update.
  23. A human player may have some limitations on how he can handle artillery but thats nothing compared to the poor AI. AI artillery programing is...ridiculous. AI self controlled bombardments is...suicidal.
×
×
  • Create New...