Glubokii Boy

As we eagerly await the coming of CMFR, here's a quick status update:
I'm picking up the project again after a super-long break and am pecking away at what I can do without the new module materials. The later release date means that I may or may not make release of my project in 2020. My hobby time is much less than it used to be, but I'm still hopeful and dying to get this baby out. Currently, I'm focusing on updating all the building internals to what I have identified over time as the best design for tactical play and user-friendliness. I'm making good progress there. I had forgotten how detailed some of the early pics I posted were, and so have decided to go ahead and post a current shot of the master map from the same angle as that which started this thread. Enjoy. 🙂

Yepp...
This  being a BFC aar i guess they wan't to show the game without any mods and without any modifications to the master map...
But when using a slice of these maps in scenarios i belive some additional moddifications would be preferable...
- more heavely destroyed buildingd
- more rubble (both with and without ditchlock)
- more craters
- perhaps destroyed vehicles 
And to make the infantryfighting somewhat more fun...
'Unlock' most of the buildings for internal movement...either via internal doors...or even better imo...by rubbeling the internal walls between adjajcent buildings...
IIRC if you remove the wall entirely on one building and rubble it on the adjajcent building...
Troops may both fire through the rubble as well as actually move into the next building through the rubble...
Having one of the walls rubbled looks a bit better compared to completally removing it i feel...atleast in rubbled towns..
Doing this at various floors for most of the buildings provides some nice oppertunities for a more intresting infantry battle...
It should be doable for maps simular in size to this aar...it will be a bit of work but i belive it will be worth it...afterall  we will not need to design the map...it's already finished 😁
 
 
 
 

Sahrani has always been a favorite of mine over the years. Recently, I stumbled across a mod made by |||CPTMILLER||| that turned our Syrians into members of the SLA. Feeling inspired, I decided to see how feasible it might be to recreate Sahrani, or a portion of it, in CM.
 
I ultimately decided to go with South Sahrani (and a small part of its northern neighbor). The end result was a fairly accurate recreation of the map itself. Due to map size limitations, the island is roughly 12% smaller than the one featured in ArmA but still comes in at a whopping 4,272m x 3,856m. Some features, like building placement and terrain, had to be modified to fit the smaller scale or changed slightly due to not carrying over in CM's world builder the same. Other features, like the light houses, had to be left out all together because I simply was not happy with the available substitutes. It is not a 1:1 recreation by any means, but it is close enough to where I am happy with it.
 
The map is pretty much completed at this point, with only a few changes left to be made to the terrain, so I would expect a release sooner rather than later.  
 
Some screenshots:

Editor Map (South)

Editor Map (North)

 

Southern Port at Corazol

Paraiso, International Airport & Government District

Ortego & Geraldo

Ortego Street View

East Corazol - part of North Sahrani

Dolores

East & West Corazol

I agree...
Personally though...one of my favorit kind of scenario i like to play...or would like to play is...
Defencive, reinforced company kind of scenarios vs the AI...
There are not a whole lot of them though...
The problem with this is...it kind of requires the AI force to be of atleast battalion...if not reinforced battalion size to have a decent chans for success...
Simply having more AI groups will not make the AI brilliant...i know...but it  will most  certanly help...😁
 

These are decent tricks but they are no substitute for more AI groups...
More testing and tweaking is not what the scenariodesigners need...
They need LESS tweaking and testing 

in case of a mostly immobile defending AIP the amount of AI groups is mostly sufficient. But for an attacking AI one can run out of groups fairly quickly. Anything bigger than Plt sized AI groups doesn´t work, seriously. So counting 16 AI groups x Plt size  leads to 2-3 Coy size AI force at max, also considering that some groups are needed to deal with HQ and support units. 
 

I agree...
Personally though...one of my favorit kind of scenario i like to play...or would like to play is...
Defencive, reinforced company kind of scenarios vs the AI...
There are not a whole lot of them though...
The problem with this is...it kind of requires the AI force to be of atleast battalion...if not reinforced battalion size to have a decent chans for success...
Simply having more AI groups will not make the AI brilliant...i know...but it  will most  certanly help...😁
 

thought about that one too, but I don´t like a wimpy player scout team make a good defensive position get abandoned that easily. So again, some particular "If" trigger would be needed to make it work in more reasonable ways. But there´s other good uses for "retreat", either offensively due to deliberate smoke usage, or to bait a player into a trap or something.
But maybe a terrain trigger works in reverse. In case an AIP unit gets to retreat through normal enemy fire & morale effects, one can possibly place a friendly terrain trigger to the rear of that unit (formation/group). In case the retreating (or evading) unit hits the friendly map zone trigger, then either that single unit or all of its formation can be forced to "retreat" to a position as selected by the mission designer. Needs lots of testing, the more if considering the TacAI´s irrational retreat & evade behaviors. But I believe there´s some possibilities.
Since I very much dislike map zones to be used as "victory objectives"(occupy), they´d be all free for triggering AIP movements or combat order changes (i.e from hide to active etc).  Think there´s lots of yet unexplored possibilities with all the trigger options, both for defensive and offensive AIP plays.

These are decent tricks but they are no substitute for more AI groups...
More testing and tweaking is not what the scenariodesigners need...
They need LESS tweaking and testing 

These are decent tricks but they are no substitute for more AI groups...
More testing and tweaking is not what the scenariodesigners need...
They need LESS tweaking and testing 

These are decent tricks but they are no substitute for more AI groups...
More testing and tweaking is not what the scenariodesigners need...
They need LESS tweaking and testing 

Engineer units, reflected in the CMRT and assault engineers, which had Panzerfausts are differnt units. I don't know either assault engineers will be present in the module or not. You can read about them here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/136836-soviet-assault-engineers-elite-infantry-in-bodyarmor/
Main difference between assault engineers and usual engineers (engineer-sapper) - the first were armed with SMG and had bodyarmor. They were much close to special assault units, than to sappers. But during urban combat Soviet troops formed assault groups, combined from different units. Their constitution can be different due to the task. Usually this was rifle platoon (company), reinforced with assault-engineer squad (platoon) and 2 (4-6) flamethrowers/Panzerfausts + 1-2 (several) guns/SP-guns and tanks. Panzerfausts were on aramament of flamethrower battalion of assault engineer brigade, so they can choose a weapon, appropriate for own task. Also some sort of "pocket MLRS" usually made - the device, which allows simultanous launch of dozen Panzerfausts in the target (in the fortified house, for example)
 

A few things that imo makes designing attacking AI difficult...
Number one ! The inability of the AI to reevaluate the situation. The AI will NEVER change its attackplan...ever. Not on its own atleast. It has one way forward and one way forward only regardless of how the player defences are set-up. A skilled designer may be able to design the AI plans in such a way that it seeems as if the AI is adjusting its original plan when running into strong resistance. To be able to do this the designer will pretty much have to 'guess' right though as to what the players defence set-up will look like. If he guess wrong the outcome will simply look wierd...if the AI abandons a succesful attack !
Number two...The limited number of AI groups. For a reinforced company sized attack 16 AI groups may well be enough but for a reinforced battalion it is a bit on the low side. Unfortunatelly...If the player commands something like a company sized force then the attacking AI will pretty much need atleast a battalion to provide much of a challange...unless the forces are very unballanced. I belive that one of the reasons for the AI attacks currently often looking like suiccidal human wawe attacks are indeed the lack of sufficient AI groups.
Number three...perhaps not so much of a problem...but to a degree atleast...the low tempo of an AI attack...atleast when conducted over somewhat larger distances. imo ones the AI units gets pinned down it can often take quite some time for them to recover and move forward again...Far longer then it would take a human player to get the same units moving again...They sort of 'get stuck' it seems...
number four...The limited ability of the AI to get HE and smoke on the right location at the right time...(has improved somewhat with the on-map mortar trick)
 

With regard to multiple AI plans...
Imo it kind of depends if the goal with the scenario is to be used simply by one self or if it is to be uploaded and made avaliable to the community...
If the goal is for personal use only then a higher number of AI plans would be preferable to maintain some sort of FOW...
But if the scenario is to be shared i actually prefer fewer...well designed ! AI plans to a high number of them...
I rarely play a scenario more then twice...having fewer, better AI plans would be preferable 😎
Even if you have multiple AI plans some of the FOW will be ruined anyways...the unit roster will be the same !
If a scenario has 4 Panther tanks and 2 AT-guns...thats what it has...in every playthrough...
You will know it after having played it the first time...
If the scenariodesigner would like to add some uncertanty into the head of the player...he could use the briefing..🙂
För example mentorn things like...
"Based on previous days fighting we can not rule anything out...despite being heavely outnumberd and low on ammo...don't be supprised to see the enemy counterattacking...
Even in suicidal fashion ! The enemy is very unpredictable..."
Mentioning the unit roster...got me thinking...
To increase the FOW and make multiple AI plans somewhat more interesting..wouldn't it be a good idea to have the option to include multiple unit rosters in a single scenario...?
This way the unit FOW of the AI would not be ruined after the first playthrough...
Maybe not completally different unit rosters offcourse but change a few details...
Kind of in the example above....instead of having 4 Panthers and 2 AT  Guns...one AI plans might have 2 Panters, a StuG and 2 AT-guns 😁
 

And offcourse...
Multi-path/option conditional triggers 😁

That static defence custom QB-trick sounds like a nice idea 🙂...
But as for giving the AI greater freedom to act on its own...i'm  not so sure.
If BFC could make it work...yeah that would be great but i fear that features such as you describe might be a bit more complicated...
Simply having LOS/LOF to an action square might not help the AI enough...what kind of enemy unit is comming ? where are the other enemies/friendlies ? What are they doing ? Where should the AI units regroup to ? Why  ?
There are a lot of things the AI will need to considder...not only for each induvidual unit but also as a force as a whole.
I doubt it would be able to do it...
I would prefer that BFC moved in the opposit direction and gave the scenariodesigner MORE tools to 'help' the AI...providing for better scripting...
- more AI groups 
- more trigger options like AI group casualty level higher then, unit killed (friendly or enemy), unit spotted,  AI group ammo level below...etc,etc
- more options for when reinforcements arrive.
- more objective options
- a new AI artillery programing interface that would allow the designer to specify indirect firesupport for the AI mid game among other things.
 
 

That is one thing that i actually would like to see...a big pile of rubble ! 😁
That is...a rather large city map that is heavely destroyed...detailed with craters, ruined buildings and debree.. 
And by heavely destroyed... i mean heavely destroyed...
Including custom designed ruins using buildings, walls and ditchlock...
I made such a map a few years ago but it went MIA when that computer died 😬
It was really cool to play on...but designing it was truely a nightmare...all those custom ruins...and placing of debree...
Not that i think about it....it was actually indeed designed to simulate a bombed out Caen...
A pity its gone 😢
 

(Budbaker has his comics… but I’m not an artist so expect memes)
Welcome to the Fire and Rubble German DAR as I take on BFCElvis and his pesky Soviets in a very late war May 1945 urban engagement in Berlin… and it’s somehow snowing. The war has effectively ended but my guys didn’t get the memo, so our adhoc combined arms force is going to push forward into no man’s land one last time.
The mission is a simple meeting engagement. Secure Objective Jägermeister and Objective Berliner Weisse, while holding our own starting Objective, codenamed Vodka. The Soviets deploy around Jägermeister.
The map is a very small slice of Benpark’s absolute monster 2x master maps covering the centre of Berlin. Honestly each master map with no units took my PC around 25 mins just to load in 3D preview mode. The part of Berlin we’ll be fighting over is towards the north east corner of the eastern map. If I’ve got my bearings right, I think we’re close to Alexander Platz and a hostel I stayed at back in 2017… I digress.

The map from above. Well... the right way up because I'm from Australia... (I took the picture looking south <facepalm>)

 
The forces…
To show off the variety of new kit I’ve done away with forming a coherent force for a little bit of everything. Command and control is going to suck.
These small forces are organised into small kampfgruppes of between a platoon to a company in strength.
KG @benpark – In honour of the mapmaker himself, he commands the central force which is a company of Waffen SS Pioneers with enough demolition charges to level a few of his meticulously placed buildings. Part of his force will however need to remain behind to cover Obj Vodka if it all falls apart. The bulk of the force will advance. (Benpark's force highlighted in the picture below).
KG @mjkerner – Commands the Fallschirmjager who will be the main infantry force trying to take and hold Obj Berliner Weisse. (Picture of the KG that will take the beer objective).
 

KG @Hapless – Will be working in tandem with KG Mjkerner to secure the beer. This adhoc Panzer Platoon (more on that later) includes a Panther, PzIV’s and a PzIII. Yep a PzIII. For all the grief I gave poor Steve I had to include at least one in the DAR.
KG @DoubleD – The other adhoc Panzer Platoon is kitted out with 2x JzPz IV/70’s (including one of the ugly versions), a Panther and a Panzer IV. They will be initially responsible to heading up my left flank to get into a good position to effectively cut the map in half. Oh and something new...
 

KG @Bootie – The local Volkssturm unit. Initially will be responsible to provide security to KG DoubleD who will be exposed in an urban environment.
KG @Josey Wales – The adhoc Armoured Car unit. Will be holding back for the moment but will be used as a mobile reserve depending on the situation. Oh and some weird ones...

And I’ve just noticed a bug. Every single unit is set to typical/default ‘Green’ experience. The joys of betas.
 
The Enemy
We’ve picked forces in the editor and not the quick battle generator so some variety can be included in the DAR – particularly on this side. Benpark has ensured it’s roughly balanced. I’m expecting a solid Battalion (+) of Soviet infantry coming at me and probably a company or more of tanks. Probably Lend Lease heavy….
We’ve sort of agreed to avoid major spending on off board assets and focus more on the visible units.
 
Da Plan
KG Mjkerner and Hapless have the initial glory as they race to secure Obj Berliner Weisse, (Green and blue). If Hapless can get his tanks into position first it will be a big help as we wait for the foot slogging infantry to catch up.
KG DoubleD probably has the most crucial task of trying to cut the map in two, (Red). That major street running through the centre of the map will be key. It’s closer to BFCElvis’ deployment zone so I’m expecting Soviet tanks to roll past it or already be on that road by the time I arrive. But if I can split up to Soviet armoured force or I’m real lucky and BFCElvis plays cautious and leads with his infantry DoubleD’s JzPzIV’s will have a field day.
KG Bootie (white) and his Volkssturm will cover KG DoubleD, while KG Benpark (orange) will advance with the intent of pressuring Jagermeister. KG Josey Wales will remain behind in the deployment zone ready to move to where he and his armoured cars are required. Either helping Benpark around Obj Jagermeister, or to backup Hapless and Mjkerner around Obj Berliner Weisse.
The map….

That’s about it for now. Feel free to post any queries below but obviously no promises that I’m allowed to answer anything. Also, the usual caveat that all screenshots you see here are taken from a beta so everything you see is subject to change. I’ll try to avoid the placeholder art where I can but who knows, maybe we’ll have purple Panzer IV’s in the final build.

With regard to multiple AI plans...
Imo it kind of depends if the goal with the scenario is to be used simply by one self or if it is to be uploaded and made avaliable to the community...
If the goal is for personal use only then a higher number of AI plans would be preferable to maintain some sort of FOW...
But if the scenario is to be shared i actually prefer fewer...well designed ! AI plans to a high number of them...
I rarely play a scenario more then twice...having fewer, better AI plans would be preferable 😎
Even if you have multiple AI plans some of the FOW will be ruined anyways...the unit roster will be the same !
If a scenario has 4 Panther tanks and 2 AT-guns...thats what it has...in every playthrough...
You will know it after having played it the first time...
If the scenariodesigner would like to add some uncertanty into the head of the player...he could use the briefing..🙂
För example mentorn things like...
"Based on previous days fighting we can not rule anything out...despite being heavely outnumberd and low on ammo...don't be supprised to see the enemy counterattacking...
Even in suicidal fashion ! The enemy is very unpredictable..."
Mentioning the unit roster...got me thinking...
To increase the FOW and make multiple AI plans somewhat more interesting..wouldn't it be a good idea to have the option to include multiple unit rosters in a single scenario...?
This way the unit FOW of the AI would not be ruined after the first playthrough...
Maybe not completally different unit rosters offcourse but change a few details...
Kind of in the example above....instead of having 4 Panthers and 2 AT  Guns...one AI plans might have 2 Panters, a StuG and 2 AT-guns 😁
 

And offcourse...
Multi-path/option conditional triggers 😁

Fundamentally the issue is that the strategic AI does not exist. Only tactical AI and that AI is only reactive never proactive. What we all call the strategic AI is simply the designer creating from scratch a per scenario AI that is going to follow a rote path. The real limiter on scenario design is that the designer is pretty limited on their ability to build scenario specific AI. Cool things can be done with it but its still limited.
Its not abstract thinking - you just consider it abstract thinking because @RepsolCBR described it using human language. You can achieve RepsolCBR's "abstract thinking" via logic gates. The scenario designer is doing this right now its just that the options are limited. Below for example is a series of options that can be done in-game currently. #5 could be construed by some people as abstract thinking but its really just a trigger.

1. The AI is to move at a cautious speed
2. AI is to attack starting from POINT Alfa to Point Bravo with GROUP 1
3. The AI may call artillery on LOCATION November
4. After arriving the AI will delay 20 minutes
5. The AI will attack from Point Bravo to Point Delta if enemy troops detected at LOCATION NOVEMBER


Now if you had more detailed and granular options with the inclusion of SOPs and some free flow from the AI you could get more natural reactions.

1. The AI is to move at a cautious speed
2. AI is to attack starting from POINT Alfa to Point Bravo with GROUP 1
3A: If GROUP 1 sustains 50% casualties reroute GROUP 1 and GROUP 2 TO POINT CHARLIE.
3B: Once POINT CHARLIE is reached proceed to POINT BRAVO
3. The AI may call artillery on LOCATION November
4. After arriving the GROUP 1 will delay 20 minutes
4A: If GROUP 1 casulties > 40% cancel all orders proceed to DEFENSE POSITION
5. GROUP 1 will attack from Point Bravo to Point NOVEMBER if enemy troops detected at LOCATION NOVEMBER

All of the above could again be done within the bounds of the scenario designer system in the game currently. Just a bunch of triggers.


And again if you gave the AI some free hand you might not even need to do all of this.

1. The AI is to move at a cautious speed
2. AI is to attack starting from POINT Alfa to Point Bravo with GROUP 1
AI LOGIC: If GROUP 1 engaged by infantry ClOSER than 200 meters TARGET BRIEFLY 50% of buildings within 200 Meters along route of march. 100% of buildings that contain contact marker
Now you have the AI automatically reacting to a group threat. A single unit in the group has detected an infantry threat at close range and now the entire group is going to react via searching fire. If the AI suspects that a unit is there (a contact marker) it will definitely fire at the position.

AI LOGIC: If GROUP 1 Casualties > 50% reroute remainder 400 meters Left/Right to area of greater cover and attempt to move to AI POINT CHARLIE and then to POINT BRAVO

And the AI will no longer continue a suicidal attack down a single avenue of approach but attempt another route. All it does it say "where is more cover" and then add its own intermediate waypoint between ALFA and BRAVO


-----

All of these examples have something in them that you might consider "abstract thinking" but none of it actually is. Its all just a series of decision points that the AI arrives at. The difference between CM and many other games is that there are no decision points for the AI at all. Any decision is inputed by the scenario designer. You don't necessarily need the AI to make its own decisions and the CM system is fine. But as we;ve seen over the years the more power you give the designer the smarter the AI can appear.

I've done both some Arma scenario design and Combat Mission and the Arma system has no real strategic AI either and is handled by player triggers. The system is far more complex and as a result you can get far more complex results from it if you put in the time.

Edit: I will say I've done some game AI design and none of its simple. But you do not need an AI capable of abstract thinking. You just need to spend enough time working with it so that the maths behind each decision makes sense most of the time. Abstract thinking really only comes into play when you want a universal AI but no one here is talking about that. This is all just bespoke AI that exists solely to play Combat Mission - you can do that and do it quite well with the technology on hand. The issue is that building it is going to eat up time. Which is, I assume, why we have the scenario designer doing AI programming. Which again is fine, but the more options you give the designer the better the resulting AI can be. Any of the recommendations people have made could be done with a designer system there are just insufficient options for it currently.

Reinforcement by trigger.
Timed objectives.
Timed AI artillery fire plans.
And of course the biggy (for campaigners).....Persistent map damage.

All great suggestions, lots in common.
I'd add a few things that occur to me from time to time in the Editor, off the top of my head.
-A toggle to an AI Group to set it for "foot" or "wheel/track". That would only allow binary selection of movement types, so you don't have plans with guys hauling it 4k to the end order.
-See all AI orders at once in the AI Plan UI, on map (color coded by Group, even better). I have a Photoshop tool I use for this that I'll release after the RT module is out, but this would be better.
-Conditional Triggers for presence/time. "If no enemy is present in area 'X', then move/don't move". Group casualty would be another big one, already mentioned above. Omniscient, but incredibly useful for making the AI react in ways that seem human. The AI can't counterattack if it doesn't know it needs to!
-LoS Triggers. Units must be in LoS for Trigger to operate, with the standard Trigger operations offered. Solves any AI omniscient powers, but much harder to program. Mixing LoS Triggers with standard ones could create interesting results. A unit that has LoS to fellow units that have taken heavy casualties could have a Trigger to do a given action, while a larger narrative thing is happening with the other Triggers.
-A "Hold in place for 'X' amount of time" order for the AI. No more counting from the start/end times! Things like Area Fire would be available, and easier to plan for. A "when you are in this location, hang around for 'X' amount of time, and hammer that building with for the duration". rather than the current "Maybe there will be some time for that, but we gotta head for the next location, buddy! No time for fighting!".
-A method to deal with vehicle transports, in particular remounts.
-Ability for the AI to "Move", rather than run everywhere. In fact, the full set of movement abilities would be ideal.
-Ability to save multiple hand-placed AI set-ups.
-Ability to view AI plans in 3D view/ Scenario Editor mode.
 

That static defence custom QB-trick sounds like a nice idea 🙂...
But as for giving the AI greater freedom to act on its own...i'm  not so sure.
If BFC could make it work...yeah that would be great but i fear that features such as you describe might be a bit more complicated...
Simply having LOS/LOF to an action square might not help the AI enough...what kind of enemy unit is comming ? where are the other enemies/friendlies ? What are they doing ? Where should the AI units regroup to ? Why  ?
There are a lot of things the AI will need to considder...not only for each induvidual unit but also as a force as a whole.
I doubt it would be able to do it...
I would prefer that BFC moved in the opposit direction and gave the scenariodesigner MORE tools to 'help' the AI...providing for better scripting...
- more AI groups 
- more trigger options like AI group casualty level higher then, unit killed (friendly or enemy), unit spotted,  AI group ammo level below...etc,etc
- more options for when reinforcements arrive.
- more objective options
- a new AI artillery programing interface that would allow the designer to specify indirect firesupport for the AI mid game among other things.