Glubokii Boy

But in Dough Phresh example above._. What if you have an infantry battalion with a single squadron\ platoon of armoured cars from another formation (recon battalion ) in support to provide some mobile recon._. Who would they report to ? They have no higher hq on the map._. They would need to be in voice\los of some member of the main infantry battalion to be able to share their info.._no ? Making their mobility and radios pretty useless\limitid.._

Plotting AI in 3D wiew would have been nice._. ´the second best thing‘._.PLEASE ! give us 32 AI-groups.._ Combined with some increased variaty as to how reinforcements could be activated (triggers)._. And finally.._a complete remake of the dreadful AI artillery programing interface wich is for the lack of a better word.._ plain STUPID! Changes like these would make the editor far easier to work with imo. Many thank for your continous improvments to the game

One reason might be that not all players like all types of scenarios... Some people might not like to play night battles, some may not like to play in limited visibility (fog etc), some may prefer infantry battles, some like big fights, some like small... If you find all the scenarios/campaigns in all the games to be to your liking and intresting then...fine ! You will probably have a decent amount of content to play. But it would be my guess that most people have some particular kind of scenarios they prefer and others that they dislike (lack intrest in)... And never play ! this limits the amounts playable content for those people... Having more to chose from would be better !

josey Wales._.Thumbs up !

Yes ! Big thanks for your testing and explenation._. Two things though._. May the reason for the other squads getting lowered moralstate come from the fact that they are SEEING the suicide squad getting cut down and not neccesarelly from belonging to the same platoon ? If you place an independent LMG-team or something along with the other stationary guys will not that team also suffer from lowered moral ? How about the rallying capabillties of the squads ? Will a high moral HQ do nothing to improve this among its subordinate troops ? I don't have the game up and running currently (computer problems) so i cant test this.

It may not be irrelevant._.But quite subtle._.Obviously a +2 leader will be better then a +1 one but it is not like you will stand up and shout " wow ! Look at these troops go._.They are lead by a plus 2 commander and not a plus 1 one"._. The leadership modifiers have been discussed quite a few times and iirc the general wiew on this have been that these modifiers are._.Subtle._. But they do improve things._.To what degree though few people seems to know exactelly. Sorry for the vague answer._.Hopefully more guys will comment on this and give a more precise answer..I would be intrested to hear more about this also._.

Maybe this also (atleast in part) is due to the new infantry behavior introduced with the V4.0 update._? Infantry being more prone to withdrawing._. I´m pretty sure that the leadership moddifiers will have atleast some impact going down the chain of command. It would be strange otherwise._. The leadership moddifiers are pretty subtle though imo. What is the experience-level, motivation of the troops ?

Download this program. http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=5186& It will allow you to split existing campaigns into seperate scenarios. Place the BTT-files in your QUICK BATTLE MAPS folder (user/documents/battlefront/quick battle maps) and load them into the scenario editor. Remove the force selections and tweak other stuff like objectives, time, weather, set-up zones to what you like and re-save it. I think this ought to work...If your maps are ment for PBEM QBs only then you will not need to add (or remove) any AI-plans IIRC. Instructions how to use the program comes with the download and if you are not familiar with the editor your best bet for learning how to edit things like time, weather and removing units would be to check out the manual i belive. It is very well described there...

Thanks for commenting on this issue IIRC many of the negative comments regarding this does not neccesarely see the 'falling back' as the biggest problem...It's more the direction/location they are falling back to that is the main failure. If this proves to be difficult to 'get right' perhaps the designers could help the AI somewhat by being given a new command in the editor... - Fallback location - or perhaps - fallback direction - Fallback location would allow the designer to designate a specific area that the AI-group would withdraw to if forced out of their possitions. Fallback direction would work simular to the new FACE command...That is...specify a direction for the withdrawl but not a precise location. A small suggestion for the tweak

I will get the basegame and the bundle... It is the newer, user created stuff, that is most appealing to me...I have popped into this forum from time to time and gotten more and more 'hungry' for this game every time. The new stuff looks very, very good ! As for CM:A...I guess i will pass on that one...Not enough time to play every game i'm affraid...Hopefully DCS F18 by Eagle Dynamics will be released soon Shockforce, the WW2 titles and DCS F18 will be more then enough to keep me busy...

I guess i will take your 'advice' There will be no bikeriding this weekend...bloody rain ! That will pretty much save me what i need FRAPS works fine for me...I think that the PrtScn button also works...just paste it in PAINT.

I don't have shock force but i have watched a few videos on youtube showing a playthrough of this campaign... The maps are Amazing ! and the gameplay sounds like good fun... Stuff like this is making it very hard to wait for CMSF2 until i 'head of for the desert'... As soon as i have my gaming computer up and running again after some touble i have a feeling i wount be able to help myself... I will buy the first game (i have owned it before but for some reason it is no longer avaliable for download in my gamelist at my account page). Many thanks for all your work across the various titles...Brilliant ! ------------ SPOILER !!! SPOILER !!! SPOILER !!! -------------------------

In PBEMs...true Not so much vs the AI...I feel that these changes have increased the disadvantages the AI have vs a human player when it comes to being able to react to events taking place on the battlefield... A failed attack, a failed movement, taking neccesary steps during a bombardment etc...A player will be far better suited to make adjustments compared to the AI... This was offcourse true pre V4.0 also...but i think the recent changes have made the difference between a human player and the AI even bigger. Not the direction we should go imo The AI needs to get smarter (a more challeging opponent)...so I'm also happy to hear that this is being looked into... Some tweaking to this behaviour, more AI groups, more trigger- and reinforcement options...That is what the AI needs.... Not being further penalized by a more 'complicated/brittle' moral system...

Creating a good reactive AI is difficult. Taking the terrain objective trigger for example... You could use it to get the AI to shift forces from one possition to another ones the enemy 'tripps' the trigger. The problem with this though is that the size of the enemy unit triggering that move could be anything between the entire enemy force and a lone sniper... No way of controlling this. If the player moves a large part of his force through that terrain objective it would look like a good move by the AI to shift its forces to counter that threat. If it's on the other hand just a lone scouting sniper triggering that objective it will not look quite as nice to se a large part of the AI repossitioning its forces to that location. I guess that one way of dealing with this could be to set-up the terrainobjective in a location behind the forward line of AI troops. If the player manges to reach this terrain objective it will most likely be a sizable force that is doing it...A lone sniper would have been killed by the AI outpost-line. I have not played this particular scenario yet so i don't know how you have it set-up... My suggestion below might be totally wrong here...but looking at the map something like this is something i would give a try... Having two simular forces covering each road and set-up to partially shift possition if the player decide to attack along the opposit road... 0. Outpost line triggered to pull back to reverse slope possitions ones (or slightly after) enemy armour poses a threath. 1. static Part of the MLR that will remain static and defend its part of the front (north road and south road respectevly) 2. first reaction force Part of the MLR on the opposing road and the first force that will shift possitions to the opposit road if that terrain objective is triggered. If the terrain objective is not triggered it will remain in its defensive possition at its original road. 3. counter attacking force Reserves ( behind the MLR). A force that will do a counter attack/ reinforce along the same road the MLR forces are defending ones an that terrain objective (another one asigned to the counter attack) is triggered . 4. second reacting force. Part of the MLR on the opposing road. This force will reposition to the opposite road ones an additional terrrain objective further into your possitions have been triggered. If this does not happen it will remain in its defensive possition at the first road. This way you will have a forward possition along both roads that may be able to deal with a light enemy recon force coming down that road. You will have 3 static 'forces' at the MLR defending the road regardless of wich road the player is advancing along (1, 2 and 4) You will have 3 AI 'forces' from the opposing road reinforcing the one road being attacked . - 2. The first reinforcement from the opposit road - 3. The reserves (from behind the MLR) advancing along the same road. - 4. the second reacting force from the opposit road. You could also have the counter attacking forces (3) set to do its counter attacking using the game clock (at a late time in the scenario if the player is attacking the opposit road) and give it enough movement orders to allow it to swing around and attack the opposing road from the rear if the player does not attack along the AI-groups original asigned road. You could perhaps also have a terrain objective close to the very end of the roads to allow the 'static' (1) AI forces to move forward and attack the road itself (atleast if thoose 'static' forces does not originally have good LOS/LOF to the road itself) if the player reaches those locations. The outpost force could also be given additional move-orders set off by either time or trigger to fall back and attack along the same or opposit roads towards the later part of the scenario if they are still alive at their fallback possitions. The number one problem with a solution like this i think would be if the player indeed decides to attack along both roads. This would result in alot of repossitioning on the part of the AI and might look a bit strange. If possible maybe the AI could be strong enough to prevent the player from being able to attack along both road simultaniously. He would have concentrate his forces along one road or else the player attack will fail... The AI forces along the opposit roads should obviously not be part of the same AI-groups...(AI-group 0-4 possitioned along one road and AI-groups 5-10 along the other set up in a simular situation... Something like this might not be at all what you are considdering but it is atleast a small suggestion of how it could perhaps be done. This way regardless of wich road the player choses the AI will have both a decent static force as well as a sizable reinforcing strenth... / RepsolCBR -

A big 1+ with regardes to all suggestion concerning triggers. Only beaten by gettting 32 AI-Groups... expanding on the trigger system is my most wished for feature. Point 2 and 3 - My suggestion would be to enable the scenario editor to upload a wider varaity of file-types. If we could use BMP, JPEG files instead of being restricted to a simple textfile when it comes to the briefing text. That would allow much cooler/ more informative briefing screens imo...Better maps, areal photographs, scetches etc..The text section of the current briefing screen is the only one allowing multiple pages...Here we could include alot more/varid stuff if only we could upload something like BMP files.

We have our fair share...But for some strange reason they don't seem to spend their free evnings playing tactical wargames...hhmmm I will make a few calls... Maybe that IKEA-guy have some spare change...

I sure hope this will change. It will in no way be a wasted effort to update CMSF to V4.0 (CMSF2)...I'm sure it will be very well recieved and sell plenty (i will buy it day 1)...But having this vey nice 'base game' and not expand on it... Well...that would be...only a 'MINOR' victory...There's plenty of oppertunity for add-ons. Stuff that could swing this around to a TOTAL victory imho... This is sad (but hopefully wrong). Personally i have been looking forward to be able to play 1941-1943 eastern front games for many years now. Given the current progress of things and the latest information that have been shared with regards to personel I have very little hope right now that this will ever happen. Why can't some 'wierd' super-rich guy fall in love with this game ... and donate a ****-load of money to BFC...allowing some serious recruitments... That would make me happy !!!

You're welcome.

Pg 39 Pg 62

I will give the TRP-option another go next time and see if i can get some decent results from it...

OK...thanks for expaining this again. I have experimented a bit with using multiple TRPs in the past but never really got it working in a good way...IIRC the AI did not use its avaliable artillery assets particulary often despite having numorous TRPs to choose from...and pretty obvious targets also. I do however not belive that i tried to set any of the AI artillery assets to come in as reinforcements (they where avaliable from the start)...If i do that will it increase the AIs willingness to use them ? Will they target an enemy force as soon as the arrive in the battle ? Will multiple FOs increase the chans of the AI commiting its artillery aginst those TRPs ?

I think that if the player are given points for destroying the german forces via a number of destroy unit objectives (that covers pretty much the entire german force)... Having a number of seperate detsoy unit objectives...some are worth more then others...but NOT including the mortar teams that are part of the 'mortar area-target trick'And letting these mortars escape through an EXITZONE... I doubt that that will have any MAJOR effect on the scoring...They are only a small part of the AI force i belive. Combined with terrain objective scoring, friendly casualty scoring and other things...Not likely a big problem imo... The scenario editor still has some crippling limitations...and the AI artillery programing is one of them. Doing something like this has a limited 'cost' compared to the bonus of getting some well delivered AI mortar rounds in mid-game i have to say.. And hey...Maybe in this particular scenario the mortars don't even have to exit...having a german mortar possition with something like 4 mortar teams in it will not look all that strange at the end of the game...will it ? Having 4 mortar teams snowballing in will allow for 4 AI mortar targets (using the limited ammo suggestion)...that might be enough

There is this thread in the CMBS forum... It may not be perfectly placed...Newbies that are mostly intrested in WW2 may not look there for example... If it could be possible to make space for a NEWBIE RESOUCE, MUST READ, QUESTION - area (forum) at the top of the main CM forum screen (listing the various games)... That might perhaps be a good idea... This forum section would not necesarely have to have all that many treads...perhaps only some sticky ones...maybe something like... - newbie questions - Resources, guides - AARs I Think that something like this could be a good idea...Maybe some of the newbies hesitate to ask question if they feel they have to start a new thread every single time they have a simple question... Having newbie questions in a single (easy to find ) thread would be good imo... In the resource, guides thread the usual helpful links could be posted... Having they majority of the AARs from the various thread put in a single thread (or linked to) could also be good...Nice Reading for newbies...

That is obviously a good solution...If you are happy with the fact that the mortar team will expend all their ammo on one target. In many situations this will offcourse be perfectly fine ...

One neat feature of the area-target option for on-map mortars is that you can trigger the bombardment to start when an enemy units enters a specific area...or when an enemy units gets 'close' to a specific area...depending on how you place the terrain objective triggering the bombardment... A small problem might be...when to stop the bombardment. There is no option for a 'timed bombardment' set at for example 3 minutes. The AI mortar will continue to fire until they run out of ammunition or recieve a new AI-order. When should they recieve this AI-order to stop firing ? You can not use the ingame timer to set a specific time simply because you do not know when this particular bombardment will start... There are obviously some work arounds to deal with this but i think that most of them will require the use of additional AI-Groups and terrainobjectives...wich is limited in numbers... For example you could have another AI-Group start a movement (that will take 3 minutes to complete (in a hidden location preferably to avoid player intervention) towards a specific terrain objective at the same time as the mortar bombardment starts. The terrainobjective of the 'moving' AI-Group will then trigger a new order to the mortar AI-group...to stop firring. Not a perfect solution by any means but...doable...if you have the AI-Groups and terrain objectives avaliable...