Glubokii Boy

With regards to blurry text...check your Nvidia settings... Having the FXAA anti-aliasing option turned on have resulted in blurry text for several CM-players in the past. If FXAA is turned on...try disabeling it... It worked for me...and many others

That function is not implemented in the game...

I think that BFCs decision to go for a VERY limited information sharing might actually be one of the reasons these speculations happen... Sure...On the pluss-side...they don't have to answer all that many questions and can concentrate on working...but a negative result of this quietness...is... SPECULATIONS !

Yes...It is kind of wierd ! Since this patch will change the way the Tac AI behaves when troops comes under fire...atleast indirect fire...One would think that it would be a good idea to have it finished Before the playtesting of the upcomming modules starts...I guess it is to late for that now though...surely playtesting for the modules have been ongoing for quite some time now. But still...It ought to be BFC priority nr 1 to get this done...to see if any tweakings needs to be made to the scenarios/Campaigns of the next releases. Maybe they already have it finished ? but will not make it public until they release the first if these modules or something...

From the Nr 1 thread on this topic...A post by sgt Squarehead "It may simply be down to an area being 'block painted' in an AI Setup or Move order.....Setup is always best done manually and I've found that if you paint one tile per vehicle in an AI group, it will often attempt to assign one vehicle per tile when carrying out those orders in game. " I agree with this fully. Both that the cause for the problem also is most likely a 'block-painted' waypoint and the best qure for it within the current game engine is to use multiple seperate tiles painted. The benefit of this is also that you will be able to specify the desired formation (line, vedge etc..) you want the AI Group to deploy in. In this particular situation paint 4 seperate tiles...chose the formation, the spacing and the excact location by painting the desired tiles... Like the sgt mentioned...by doing this the AI will usually asign 1 vehicle/tile...most of the times atleast

Hello... I watched your second video on the Tube. Initially i did not really feel that having to start all over at the beginning of each battle was a very good idea... In a perfect world the player would be allowed to hold on to terrain taken in previous battles. I can see now that this will indeed be hard to do due to scripting limitations. hearing you explain how it might work playing this 'OPERATION' makes me more possitive to this project...It might actually work ! Like you mentioned...Having to move your entire fighting force through the 'already taken' terrain during each battle might become a bit tedious. If you are able to find a 'fix' for this somehow by clever use of the German AI it might not be all that bad though. The lack of persistent map-damage might be the biggest hurdle to overcome...There is no other word for it...Not having it will be a bit of a immersion killer unfortunatelly. However if you get the rest of the 'OPERATION' to work well...Many players might be willing to overlook this 'flaw'...If the gameplay is fun and the force-managment is intresting it might be enough... Taking about force managment...Do you know ? Will the campaign scripting be more flexible then i seem to remember when it comes to rest, refit ? will you be able to single out specific units in the script for certain things ? You have won me over...This OPERATION might work ! Best of luck...

Hello... It's been a fair while (many months) since i had a chans to play this game or mess around in the editor...I have not been able to fix my gaming computer so i will have to buy a new one...It has taken me some time to save up the money (and it will take atleast two more months i guess)...I'm aiming for a high- (very high) end PC so it will cost me quite some money unfortunatelly... Main goal with my new machine will be to be able to play DCS in 4K VR...And offcourse Combat Mission (with the largest of maps and high unit number) CM might not be all that demanding on a new machine but 4K DCS will be i'm afraid... The lack of a gaming computer have ment that it has been a while since i messed around in the editor...From memory when i did some work on a Campaign a while ago this is how i remember it to be.. I'm guessing the former also...But i honestly does not really know how things are handled 'behind the scene'...IIRC the manual does not go into very much detail on this... If i'm not mistaking you can only have one CORE FILE/ Campaign...I don't Think that it will make much of a difference of your CORE units are from the same organic formation (the same battalion) of if you use 4 different battalions and use one Company from each...The CORE unit is the CORE unit regardless...You will not be able to single out a specific part of this CORE to recieve more or less of anything...The computer will 'be in charge of this'....That is my understanding atleast... If i'm wrong about this hopefully some of the more experienced Campaign designers will jump in here and correct me If we can single out specific units in a core for different things i would be very happy to know about this also...

Just a small point regarding rest and refit (i guess you already know this...but just in case...) If you are using the campaign script for R&R i don't think that you will be able to specify any particular unit ( A Company, 3rd plt/ B Company for example ) for any unit specific kind of rest, refit or reinforcement. These things are 'force-wide' i belive...If you set replacements to 20 %...This will be for the entire force...not a specific company. Same thing with resupply etc.. To have a particular Company recieve a higher degree of REST i Think you will need to keep them in the scenario and just have them sit it out...Same thing with resupply...It will need to be done during the scenario using on-map supply dumps if the player wish to single out a specific unit for 'extra' supply... atleast this is how i Think it works..

Hitting a tank-size target (or close enough) with the accuracy of the rockets used back then must have been a real challange...Not excatelly laser-guided weapons Did the west ever use anything resembeling the PTABs that the IL2s where equiped with ? Those things atleast seems like a far superior weapon compared to rockets...

Perhaps one way to help deal with the persistent map damage could be to not let the PLAYER handle the larger arty but rather give him something like 3 or 4 options of different barrage locations that you, the designer, have specified... If you plan on including heavier artillery in every second or third scenario or something you could insert a selection scenario prior to the actual battles...In these selection scenarios you paint a number of terrain objectives at the intended targetlocations for the upcomming barrage and name the terrain objectives something like - barrage option 1, barrage option 2 etc.. .These locations might not neccesarely have to be a solid blobb for each barrage-option but could perhaps be a number of different seperate locations if that would be desired. Down at the player set-up zone you place an equal number of 'selection' terrain objectives named 1, 2, 3 and 4...etc. To select a barrage option for the comming battle the player moves a friendly unti onto one of the 'selection' objectives. For the actual fighting scenario...you create 4 simular battles with the only difference being the target loaction for the barrage...You use german artillery to AI-target the terrain objective locations that the player selected in the previous selection scenario... This way you can controll atleast where the HEAVY ARTILLERY goes...both german (the enemy side german) and friendly (the AI german barrage)...giving you some controll of where the map damage will be...and be abler to maintain this in the following battles... On-map mortars and area-fire on triggered german terrain objectives might give you some controll of the lighter german firesupport... This suggestion will further increase the number of different scenarios needed though to make the operation work...It might not be practically viable to do this...but... A small suggestion to get a bit of controll of the persistant map damage...

That's part of the beauty of this game...You will be faced with many different kind of challanges... Dealing with the - King Tiger - is one of them !

I'm sorry if i'm sounding negative about the project here...i'm not...I really hope you get this to work ..but i thought i might mention a couple of difficulties i can see before you invest to much time into this. The frontlines...are another one... In subsequent battles...How will you know witch units have advanced where when it comes to the set-up for the next battle ? If the player advances 2nd Company well ahead of the main force for example and he has a small part of 3rd company scout up the left flank a short distance...It would look kind of wierd if in the second battle all of a sudden it was the 1st Company that where deployed to the front and parts of the second company hade a recon detachment to the left... One way to solv this i guess could be to NOT deploy any troops at a specific location for the subsequent battles but rather have them at the back of the map and simply extend the set-up zones to the limit of advance in the previous battle and have the player repossition the troops as he sees fit... This would not be a perfect solution though i feel...and a bit of immersionbreaker i'm afraid... Hopefully you will find a nice solution to this 'problem'... /RepsolCBR

Hello... I'm also guilty of having liked the old CM1 operations and if something simular could be done in CM2 it would be great ! I hope you will be able to pull this off but besides not having persistant map damage i can see one more complication. That would be...giving the player full freedom on how to attack this possition. Only allowing a broad front attack up the entire with of the map might be the easiest way to do this operation... But that might feel a bit to restricted. Some might want to try a left flank attack...some might want to try a right flank attack and then swing around into the center at some point perhaps. If the player decide on a flank attack...The germans should perhaps try a counter attack to try and cut of the most forward player units. If that happens the player will need to fix this somehow. Covering all of these eventualities will probably take a hole lot of different battle options and branches. Also objectives, victoryconditions and setup zones in the individual battles might become complicated to figure out. Also if many of the attack attempts will have different timing options (wait for arty support, reinforcements, armour etc)...It will be EVEN MORE batlles needed to cover all the options. I'm not saying this will be impossible...but most likely very tricky...If succesful though...It would be a blast to play i'm sure and offer great replayability !

Are you sure you did not command a penal battalion in a previous Life ? Good old Stalin would have loved this kind entusiasm i'm sure

This is a very clever trick ! In scenarios i have created previously in wich i wanted to include RESERVES i have soloved the problem with not having a reserve-feature in the game as of yet in another way. One that requires both the use of AI-Groups as well as terrain objectives. This sounds like a far superior way of achiving the same result... Me too !

My guess is that it is not included. I can't recall ever reading about it in the manuals...How this messaging should work etc.. It might also be one of those little things that are not so simple to fix as it might first seem... For example...If the designer chooses part of a formation to be the UNIT OBJECTIVE (ONE unit objective) asigned a spotting task...A platoon or a Company maybe... How should spotting this be 'messaged' to the player ? A message everytime the player spots one unit from that platoon/company ? or No message at all until the entire platoon/Company have been spotted... Neither is perfect imo... I would also like to see some kind of confirmation that the task have been completed but it might not be quite so easy as we would like...

I don't think this is V4.0 related... IIRC i had this exact thing happen to me when i was working on a CMRT scenario far prior to V4.0 Damn it !!! I can't remember right now what caused it...or If i ever did find a solution... The problem is not a new one though...i'm pretty sure.

OK...all GOOD !

OK...(and i am relaxed ) Did not mean to be unpolite...

I do not belive that is the way it works. If i understand this correctly (it has atleast been my experience) the TacAI will not overwrite or delete any waypoints (orderlocations) in an AI-groups movement path as set by the scenariodesigner. If the AI-groups comes under fire or detects a significant threath and the TacAI forces the AI-group to temporarely hit the ground or withdraw...the next waypoint in the groups movementpath will not be DELETED. It will be put on hold... There is no need for a new one. As soon as the AI-group rallies (and a movement for this AI group have indeed been triggered) they will continue to the waypoint that is the next one in the que. Nothing will be deleted as far as i know. The way that the AI-groups advances through its waypoints makes your suggestion to put in a redundant (repeated) waypoint at the same location at a much later time...Problematic The AI-groups will NOT jump back and forth amongst its waypoints...It follows them in numerical order...number one then number two, number three, number four and so on. They will not skip waypoint two or three for example to get to waypoint four. If your example with redundant waypoints should have any chans of working...The redundant waypoint would have to be the very next one in the que after the one that got temporarely halted by the TacAI. This would mean no problems if the movementpath only had ONE waypoint (plus the redundant one at the same location)...But what if the movement path consist of an additional 5 waypoints for example.. The scenariodesigners idea with the programing of the AI-group was to have them move to waypoint one and wait there for something like two minutes and then move on to the next one...and the next one. Putting a redundant waypoint in as number two at the same location as WP 1 but with a long delay would ruin this plan...

No...i'm not neccesarely dissagreing. What this might be showing is some of the limitations with the scenario editor currently. As we have no conditional triggers as of yet and no other way either of giving AI-Groups several options of what to do in a certain situation...things like this might happen. Let's say these 3 vehicles are part of an AI-Group. The scenario designer only have 3 options when it comes to deciding when these guys should start moving...and what is worse ! The designer may only specify ONE movement path ( a set of waypoints ) that these guys will follow...Regardless of what you as the player decides to do. 1. The AI-Group may start moving at a specific time in the scenario 2. The designer may specify an area on the map that will trigger the AI-Group to start moving if you move any units into it...The designer only has one chans here to get it right. If you do not move any units into this area the AI-Group will remain stationary...atleast until the game-time that the designer specified in option 1 is reached. 3. The AI-Groups movement start may be linked to another AI-Group (only one) reaching a specific location (waypoint). If that AI-Group does not reach that waypoint the other AI-Group will remain stationary until the game-time that the designer specified in option 1 is reached. And as mentioned previously...regardless of what you as the player does...If and when the AI-Group is allowed to start moving...they will only have one set of waypoints to follow...There is no options to allow the AI-Group to advance to Point A if you as the player decide to advance along the left flank and to point B if you decide to advance along right flank for example... If the AI Group is allowed to move...it will move to ONE location regardless of what you are doing. In ceratin situations the AI-units will move on their own...that is..reacting to known threaths. If they spot an enemy they will usually rotate in that direction. If they spot an enemy that is considderably stronger they may withdraw out of sight...that kind of thing...and offcourse...they will open fire on their own... But even if they do react like this on their own...Their next move will be along the - one and only - movement path designated by the scenario designer if any of the above conditions (1,2, or 3) are met. The AI have no ability to chose Another movement path that might better suit the actual situation on the battlefield. These limitations when it come to programing the AI will sometimes lead to less then ideal results...i agree ! Scenario designers are however getting better and better at designing scenarios so these failures will hopefully happen less often...

It's a bit difficult to see in the Picture... Are those two destroyed tanks anywhere close to these 3 guys ? Are YOUR units anywhere close (within LOS/LOF) to these guys ? Are you about to capture any significant victory point ? How much time is left on the game Clock ? These guys might be triggered to start acting if you are about to secure a high value objective or something...They may be part of 'the other flank' security...Have they spotted any of your units you think ?

YES !! Just kidding... If by "I am just wondering: is it a simple as changing a variable from 16 to 32? " you mean... - Will this ONE TWEAK turn the AI into a truly masterful commander ? - Then the answer is NO, unfortunatelly, but giving us this option is the greatest improvement to the AI we have any chans of getting within CM2 imo. To make the AI truely challeging we would also need something like CONDITIONAL TRIGGERS or atleast a significant increase in avaliable trigger options and not being limited to UNIT IN ZONE and ARMOUR IN ZONE (friendly and enemy a) as it is now. - unit spotted - friendly unit killed - enemy unit killed - unit value in zone higher then (maybe using QB purchase point to determin unit values) - unit out of zone - AI-group casualty level higher then - Specific unit in zone (unit objective nr) - AI group bombard zone - commit reinforcement group Etc, etc.. Will we get this within the current game engine ? Not very likely imo. Atleast not any time soon. An option could be that BFC somehow managed to significantelly increase the situatunal awarness and tactical skills of the AI to a level somewhat resembeling a human player. Will we get this ? NO WAY ! Will we get 32 AI-groups withing CM2 ? We might !! If by "I am just wondering: is it a simple as changing a variable from 16 to 32? " you mean... As far as programing goes...Is it as simple as changing a SIMPLE LINE in the game code ? I highly doubt it. If it was i would be truely amazed that BFC has not done it already... An increase in the number of AI groups is our best bet to improve the AI in CM2 imo...It ought to be doable...

I think that the maps...the way that CM2 handles terrain is one of the best part of these games... Elevation changes (even the smalest ones) have a significant impact on the gameplay (cover, concealment)...The different types of vegitation etc is not just there to - LOOK PRETTY - as is the case in so many other strategy games...many other games might have better Graphics...but thats just what they have...better Graphics...How these Graphics actually influence the gameplay is imo less impressive... When it comes to the maps/terrain and how realistically they impact the game...ones again CM stands in a class of its own ! Sure...Spotting, LOS and LOF are not perfect...there are times that we se very frustrating results when it comes to these things...but the overall experience blows the competition to pieces ! The newbies might have a bit of a learning period to get to know the shortcommings of the system...but ones aware of them they are manageble...

Adding extra time...yes that can be done easily without risking removing the fog of war. But adding extra time is not enough to prevent the AI from - SURRENDERING - i belive. It is the state of their forces and perhaps the level of victory Points that they controll that determins if- and when the AI surrenders. If the game-clock shows 5 or 25 minutes left is less important. To prevent the AI from surrendering you might have to add additional reinforcements to the scenario as described previously in this thread. Reinforcements that arrive after the scenario timelimit. Adding these reinforcements might be a bit more difficult and risk revealing some of the FOG atleast and also screw with the determination of the victory level at the end screen. If the scenario have some victory Points allocated to friendly and enemy casualties and ammo expendiature then addiding extra reinforcements that will not take part in the battle and therefore take no casualties and expend no ammunition might mess with these calculations if you don't balance the tweaking right. The briefing usually only gives a hint, or best estimates, of the enemy (AI) forces. To get a clear picture of what the AI force actually look like you will need to have a look at the unit list in the editor...lowering the FOW.. Most of the time i think that you can pretty accuratelly guess the actual strenth of the AI forces without peaking into the unit-list using the briefing and best guesses and tweak the reinforcements and the force-based victory conditions accordingly. But if you get these tweakings wrong because of missjudgement of the AI force strenth...It might end up giving you the wrong victory level at the end of the game. A game that should have resulted in a minor victory if you had not added the reinforcements might end up in a draw...No victory becaused your tweaks did not re-ballance the victory conditions correctly with regards to AI force strenth left (including refinforcements) at the end of the game... I agree...the risk of this happening might be very small...but it could happen i guess Just adding an additional Company or something as a reinforcement to every scenario you play might not be a perfect solution...It may need to be a bit more precise to not mess with the scoring...risking lowering the FOW.. Not a major problem perhaps...but still