Glubokii Boy
-
Posts
1,984 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Glubokii Boy
-
-
2 hours ago, Erwin said:
Or are you talking about multiplayer in RT?
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.
-
To clarify...The troops did not start to move until the vehicle was stationary on its pause command.
-
Just now, IanL said:
Do you mean the vehicle has to arrive and stop at the same time the troops are about to sick of their Embark move segment? So, you need to have the vehicle and the troops move to the same place and time it so they arrive together. Or have the vehicle go to the troops and pause the troops to time it so they are ready to start again just after the vehicle arrives and pauses?
I suppose I could see that working. Sounds challenging to time.
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.
-
1 minute ago, BornGinger said:
Was the waypoint for the team the end point, where you wanted them to go, or was it the vehicle?
The vehicle only...
-
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...
-
1 hour ago, BornGinger said:
I think the pause was too short. You need to guess how many seconds it will take the team/squad to move towards the waypoint where the vehicle is pausing, the few seconds it will take the troops to fidget around a bit, like the troops always do with running back and forth of some strange reason before they do what you want them to do, and the few seconds it will take them to finally jump into, or onto, the vehicle.
The larger group of a team you want to embark a vehicle the more time you need to give them.
Do the test again after having guessed how many seconds it will take the team or squad to move to the vehicle's "pause waypoint", fidget around a bit and embark the vehicle and you'll see that it works.
Buf then I haven't tried this for quite a while and Battlefront maybe removed that "embark troips on a pause" ability in the latest patch.
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.
-
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...
-
10 hours ago, womble said:
You should be aware that adjusting time limits does more than give you more time... It gives you more time after the AI has had its last order, so those extra minutes will be "easier" than the minutes of the original scenario, which have an AI plan to cover them.
I suspect that the 40 minute scenario becomes somewhat trivial to unpick if you give yourself the maximum time allocation the editor permits. The time limit is an inherent aspect of scenario design, just as available arty or other forces are.
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.
-
On 3/7/2022 at 5:07 PM, mossy said:
Please tell me we are able to use mod tools or something to edit existing scenarios as .cam and .btt files seem completely un-editable.
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...
-
No...BFC making fictional games seems like a bad idea...
Let's go with...
CM Barbarossa for their next project
-
20 minutes ago, WimO said:
I did not know about the AI reinforcement trick. As a scenario designer myself, that is very helpful to know.
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.
-
15 minutes ago, Combatintman said:
Indeed but the AI throws the towel in once it sustains in the region of 65% casualties regardless of how many objectives it is sat on or how many casualties it has inflicted on the player.
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.
-
1 hour ago, NPye said:
No the game engine has been built like that, if one window on each facing the troops can fire from any where on that facing...haven't you noticed they fire through walls etc when in a building that has all the windows?????
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.
-
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 ?
-
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
-
54 minutes ago, Combatintman said:
I can't find previous similar posts I've made on the various threads of this nature over the years but every time somebody mentions this I say something along the lines of - forget pi$$ing about in Photoshop or anything like that. PowerPoint and Paint do it for me - see below for examples of graphics produced using this method across three CM game titles:
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...
-
22 minutes ago, 6plus1SMC said:
so I migth be completly wrong, in my understanding.
You are completally right
23 minutes ago, 6plus1SMC said:Then playtest and finetune.
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.
-
3 hours ago, Pelican Pal said:
With a game like CM it is possible. Its just a lot more work than most people are willing to give for little feedback and little real activity on anything they make.
The CM2 victory point options give the designer enough options to allow a 1 platoon vs Battalion (to create an absurd example) scenario to be balanced at the end game screen. However, there aren't enough testers and not any sort of data collection to allow designers to move to that goal. FGM is maybe the closest thing the CM community has that would allow that.Very true.
-
32 minutes ago, Vacillator said:
although I really would like to try the excellent Battle of Lisow as the defender vs AI at some point if the Germans had some AI Plans.
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...
-
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
-
44 minutes ago, Larsen said:
1. The strategic AI is very hard to make in a game like CM than the TacAI. There are just too many choices of units that could be used in a different way.
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.
-
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.
-
16 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
Combat mission is moving towards H&H only with a better internet play.
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.
-
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.
Multi multi player news?
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
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.