Glubokii Boy

I tried to do it this way...and it works just fine ! Perhaps the manual could be edited somewhat to decribe this a bit better... This is what it is saying now with regard to the withdraw-order: "By shift-clicking on the map, AI Groups can be ordered to Withdraw towards their movement destination. Vehicles will move in Reverse to the destination, while infantry will leapfrog back while turning around to face behind them." Maybe it's just me... but i think it would be a good idea if the manual mentioned that the desiger is to designate both a withdraw direction with the shift-click as well as the final possition of the withdraw-move with regular AI order Squares (simply left-clicking...no shift-key)...

Thanks ! Will give it a try...

hello... Am i missing something or is the WITHDRAW AI-order limited to 1 action Square ? I have tried to paint multiple squares to designate my withdraw location (using shift-click) but i have been unable to to that....One only ? Having a platoon of tanks trying to bunch up in a single square is not very pretty...

Thanks, Heinrich I have the AI-programming pretty much done...Some more 'Winter tweaking' of the map and the briefing left to do...

Hello... A few screenshots from a scenario i'm working on. The setting is Operation Konrad (the German-Hungarian effort to relieve the encircled garrison of Budapest during the Battle of Budapest in January 1945). The player will be commanding a reinforced infantry company tasked with providing flank security to the german spearheads as they are advancing forward. Sure enough...as the german panzers have moved ahead russian reinforcements are launching counterattacks against the flank of german advance. Your task will be to defend your sector of the flank. George MC have very kindely allowed me to use a cut down version of his outstanding 'Carius at Malinava' map. I have also added the WinterMod to the scenario. This results in some pretty nice visuals... The good guys.. and the enemy... My goal is to have the scenario finished before the end of this year and so far eveything is comming along nicely...

During the last few years i have from time to time mentioned that the CM players have a hanful of guys to thank for keeping the Community made stuff comming. You most certanly is one of those 'handful of guys'...Many thanks for your outstanding work. Have a nice break and good luck with that 39 year-old "Never before in the history of human wargaming have so many had...." Cheers/ RepsolCBR

That would no doubt be a very nice thing to have but i think that programing something like that is way more complicated then one might think.Having each individual AI team perform more human-like would require massive calculations i'm sure. Taking into acount the elevations and terrain types both at a distance and in their immidiate vicinity to determin the LOS/LOF situation in all directions.The pixel troops would also need to realice what kind of threat they are facing...long range fire power ? short range firepower ? HE ? and be able to act accordingly. Such a simple thing for example as deciding wich is better... to take cover behind a wall or move forward in a ditch will most likely depend on many, many things. I think that everyone would like to see a smarter AI but i don't think that it will be a very easy thing to get there.IMO the best thing we can do is to help the AI perform better. Very high up on my wishlist for future updates to the game-engine comes Additional AI groups and perhaps also Additional orderslots for each AI group IIRC we now have 16 AI groups each with 16 orderslots. For smaller scenarios this is most often enough but when the scenario-size begins to be something like battalion minus these 16 AI-groups could easily become to few. If these AI-groups could be increased to something like 32 i think this will go a long way in allowing a scenario desiger to 'help' the AI perform way better. With 16 AI-groups and a battalion sized force the AI groups needs to be rather large...more or less platoon-sized. Although it is possible to get things to work quite well even with larger AI-groups they are a bit tricky to handle. For example if you set an AI platoon (with 3 squads + HQ and 1 or two supporting HMGs/LMGs) to advance down a street in a village/town using maybe 2 or 3 waypoints (orders) a few things usually happens (atleast when i try to do this...) - If i want my platoon to advance on both sides of the street they will usually end up doing a very stupid thing. At complete random the squads will change wich side of the street they adcance on and decide to cross the open street in full wiew of enemy fire. This is not what i want. The teams that are set to advance down the left side of the street should advance down the left side of the street and the teams on the right should advance down the right side. - I never really know where the HQ will end up. That team picks one of the avaliable spots at the next order location the same way as the other teams do. At complete random it seems. - My supporting Machineguns acts pretty much like any other team. It does not neccesarily pick the best supporting option of the avaliable orderspots. Neither does it remain behind the advancing squads for any longer period of time to support them. They are treated like a regular squad and moves forward in the same way as the others. With more AI groups i as a designer could split up this platoon sized AI group into smaller sections and thereby significantelly help the AI perform better. example. - two squads are set to only move down the left side of the street. - one squad is set to only move down the right side of the street. No more criss-crossing of the street right infront of enemy firepower... - My HQ team is a seperate unit and could be set to advance where and when i want it. - Same with my machineguns... Many might say that an idea like this will make scenariodesigning even more complicated and time consuming. I don't agree. I think that with more AI-groups avaliable the designer will have a far greater chans of getting the AI to perform the way he wants with his first try. Significantelly cutting down on the tweaking and testing over and over that is usally neede now to get the larger AI-groups to perform as intended. Tweaking the AI, testing, tweaking some more, testing again....more tweaking etc, etc is what is taking the most time. My oppinion atleast. I think that more AI groups is the best way BF can move forward when it comes to improving the AI the next best thing would be more trigger options...

To a certain degree i guess you can tweak this by using the other settings...Changing between DASH and ASSULT for example and also between CAUSIUS and ACTIVE will atleast have some effect on the way the troops move about on the map... Perhaps not exactelly what you are looking for but it should make some difference atleast..

I think this is correct... As long as you do not include a trigger in the order thats the way it works...That have been my experience also atleast. But If you do include a trigger then the AI will indeed wait until the exit after time until the group moves out unless the trigger-conditions have been met earlier.

Thanks for describing how this works guys. The problem with the timing of the AI moves still remains though as far as i can understand.Take this example...You as the scenariodesigner wants to do this: The player will be commanding the allies. The german AI have a pair of StuGs located behind a hill in ambush possition. You make a terrain objective with a trigger function - trigger player armour - that will have the AI group containing the two StuGs advance up the hill to a hull-down possition against the triggerzone. All good and well...The StuGs will do that ones the player moves any armoured unit into the terrain objective (or when the specified exit before time is met) . Now comes the problem though... As the desiger i want those StuGs to remain in place on that hill only for a short period of time (lets say 2 minutes) before backing down again behind cover. I have set the initial AI order to move into the hulldown possition like this: - The move order is activated by the trigger (terrain objective). - The exit between is set to 00.05 and 00.15 (between the fifth and fifteenth minute). This means that the StuGs will advance into possition any time after the fifth minute as soon as the player moves some kind of armour into the terrain objective. If the player decides to not advance any armour into this location the StuGs will still move into possition on the hill and minute 15. What kind of timing do i set for the withdraw order to make sure the StuGs only remain in place at the hull-down possition for my intended 2 minutes. I have to set the exit after to 00.08 minutes i guess if the move into possition takes one minute to allow for the fact that the player may move tanks into the triggerzone at the earliest possible time (5th minute). How about the exit before time ? I can not set this to exit before 00.11 for example. It would work fine if the player in fact did move tanks into the terrain objective at the first possible time (5th minute) but what if he did not do that ? What if the player decides to not move his tanks into that possition until the 12th minute. In this case the AI StuGs will not be in place at the hull-down possition until the 13th minute. Having the timing set for the withdraw order to exit between 00.08 and 00.11 will not work in this case if i want the 2 AI StuGs to remain in possition for 2 minutes before withdrawing since they are not in place until minute 13. This is where i feel a WAIT-option would come in handy. Simply set the withdraw order to WAIT 2 minutes. With such an option the StuGs will remain in place for my desired 2 minutes regardless of when they advance into possition on the hill.

Hello. I'm very much looking forward to the V4.0 update with it's new features but the more i think about some of these features that have been mentioned i get a bit concerned about how to be able to use them effectivly. I'm primarely thinking about the: - AI withdraw order and - AI area target order What i feel will be very much needed to use these new AI options in a good way are an update to the timing options when it comes to the AI programing. What is needed i belive is something like a WAIT-option. The EXIT BETWEEN option that we have now will be difficult to use when combined with triggers. This option will work just fine i guess when the AI movement uses simply a set time table for its orders but when combined with triggered movements it will be impossible to know at what time those orders will be activated. This will make it very difficult to program a nice shoot-and-scoot move for example. If you want a vehichle to move into possition on a crest or come around a building and then remain in place for a set period of time (ex. 2 minutes) before withdrawing again this will be very difficult to do if the move into possition is triggered by a terrain objective. The designer will not know when this will happen. This problem will also exist if the designer would like an AI group to areafire at a specific location for a set number of minutes when combined with triggered movements. No way of knowing when this move will happen. Having a choise to kick off the next order either with the exit between option or a new WAIT order would be a very nice thing to have. I feel that a WAIT option would simplyfy things when it comes to AI-programing not only when trying to do the two examples that i have mentioned above but also in some other circumstances. When using the WAIT option the AI group will remain in place at the order location doing what it is ordered to do until the set number of minutes have expired and then move on to the next one.

Yes ,please ! Upload away... And a bit of good news if you perhaps have not seen it. As for nothing much happening right now when it comes to new modules/packs might have to do with the fact that the V4.0 game engine update is taking priority. It was mentinoed by BF in another thread that this update is very high up on their release Schedule...Hopefully soon !

The improvements to the editor already avaliable in V3 combined with the leaked new features of V4 promises good things for the remake of CMSF... Triggers, map-overlay, AI area-target capability, AI vehicle reverse orders (front forward)... Looking forward to this perhaps even more then the planed eastern front WW2 modules

Yepp ! We did not have the CV90 when i did my basic military training a long time ago but the kids of some of my friends have had exprience with it and they are very happy with it. Besides regular ammunition it comes with all kinds of 'smart' ammunition like airburst-capability and what not...I belive it ranks pretty high among IFVs.

Please also includes the swedes in such a module ! Afghanistan is the biggest commitment Sweden has made since god knows when (pre WW2) when it comes to sending combat troops (with an actual fighting mission) to a hot-spot. For sure not the largest force in that country but we did have a battalion/ battalion + sized force there for something like 10 years. Like said...The OOB/TOE would not need to be big...When it comes to the swedish forces...Mech/ mot infantry and a few vehichles ( CV90 (Swedish) and the 'galten' jeep)...I don't quite remember right now if we did ever have any tanks there... If we did those would have been Leopard 2s. A small group of Swedish special forces also served in Afghanistan... A multination module with 'minors' would be very cool indeed !!

I think that BF is sort of ' on it '... after MOS:96 post ... i also did some quick testing and imo it has been greately improved to how i remembered it to be... I guess IanL is right. They have fixed it to a degree atleast...hopefully more work will be done...

I don't know if i this is the reason for your excact problem but IIRC one of the biggest limitations with the current game-engine is that your targeting unit needs LOS to the ground level of any actionsquare (part of the map) you wish to target with area-fire. It does not matter if you have perfect LOS to the second, third and fourth floor of a building... if you cant se the bottom floor you will not be able to fire at the building at any level. The exception to this is if you are targeting a specific enemy unit in that building then you can do so without having LOS to the bottom floor but simply areafire on the building will not work.

Here it is... http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=1932

I belive this might be the one... http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=3193 OOOPs...link did not work... It's called: Alternate Silhouettes CMRT v1 By Marco Bergman... Might be able to find it at CMMODS also...

If some kind of unit-values are included when calculating the holder of terrain-objectives maybe such a function could also be expanded to include terrain-objectives when used with the trigger function. Right now a single soldier entering a terrain-objective will start a trigger movement attached to that objective. Sometimes a scenario designer might prefer an AI-group to remain in place rather then attacking a lone, scouting sniper. Having an option to delay such a attack until a platoon sized force (an example) have entered the terrain-objective might be a good thing... Something like: - Infantry value in zone > 500 ------ start trigger movement - armour value in zone > 1200 ------- start trigger movement Maybe also... - infantry value in zone > 500 ------ target area with indirect fire support

Another option to seperate the locating from killing could be to use two teams ( two unit objectives) For example... - The battalion HQ reduced to 50 % headcount to simulate the highest ranking officer (primary target) and set this as a unit objective with - destroy all - - Add something like a section HQ or HQ support team from the battalion and place these guys at the same location (more staff officers). Set this unit as a unit-objective with the -spot - option choosen. The 'killing side' will first recieve Points for spotting the supporting HQ and then if they manage to kill the battalion HQ they will recieve full Points...

Hello... If you are planning on doing a scenario like you have described above...LOCATING and KILLING the highest ranking enemy officer there are a few limitations with the editor that makes this a bit tricky. IIRC there are no HQs in the game that have only one member (the highest ranking officer). You can edit the headcount of the HQ teams but only down to 50 %. Unfortunatelly this randomely results in most HQs showing up having 1 or 2 members. The first time you play the scenario the HQ might consist of one guy but the next time you start it up there might be two guys in that same HQ. No way of knowing wich (as far as i know atleast). Because of this i think that the UNIT-objective perhaps should be a - destroy all - If you use the - destroy - unit objective and the HQ team include 2 men you will recieve something like 50 % of the points for killing the HQ-assistant ( i think ) eventhough the actual target...The highest ranking officer might still be alive. Using the - destroy all - objective will require the entire HQ team to be killed to earn any points at all...This might not be a perfect solution either but it will atleast require the primary target to be killed to get any points... If you would like the 'killing side' to get points for both locating and killing the top ranking enemy officer seperatelly (a limited number of points for spotting him and full points for killing him) this could also be a bit tricky i think. Each unit objective can only have one of the 3 options selected ( destroy, derstroy all and spot ). It would be nice if you could set multiple options for eachunit objective and give them different points but as far as i know that is not possible right now. A kind of a workaround if the top ranking officer is supposed to be stationary ( in a building for example ) could perhaps be to use a terrain-objective painted over that building ( and perhaps also extending a limited distance outside of the building ). This way the terrain-objective, set to -touch- , could be used as an "enemy spotted" alternative. When troops from the 'killing side' enters the terrain objective they will get points for LOCATING the enemy officer. Points for killing him will use the Unit-objective. This will not work in Shock Force right now because of the lack of triggers but if you plan on doing a scenario like this for any of the other CM-games a cool thing could perhaps be to use the trigger function to have the HQ make a run for it as the 'killing side' enters the 'LOCATED' terrain-objective. With the trigger function a terrain objective could be used to starts such an escape attempt...

You must have an intresting life...

If you guys where to hire one more programmer...What kind of hit would that have on the pricing of your products ? I know a few people complains about the pricing already but if the cost/product does not increase massivly i think that most peolpe would still buy them. If we where to se a shorter delay between modules or perhaps even more content in each game-engine update i for one would be willing to through some more money your way... Looking forward to V4.0...The improvements sounds great so far...

A new CMSF with V4.0 game engine would be a day one purchase for me too...Lovely ! I have not played that game for quite some time but if it gets brought up to V4 standard i sure would... Intresting setting ....(perhaps we could even get Iraq, Afganistan modlues)...