Glubokii Boy

The areafire with the on-map mortars is a nice new feature with V.4 but unfortunatelly it is limited to HE and rather low calliber HE at that...when 'timed' smoke or larger caliber HE is desired the area fire feature is of no use currently...
Its a nice step in the right direction but not quite there yet..

The areafire with the on-map mortars is a nice new feature with V.4 but unfortunatelly it is limited to HE and rather low calliber HE at that...when 'timed' smoke or larger caliber HE is desired the area fire feature is of no use currently...
Its a nice step in the right direction but not quite there yet..

Yes, yes, yes...give it to me !!!! 😁
This is something i would really like also...some kind of timer...
Do this for XX minutes...wait at this waypoint for XX minutes...the gameclock and triggers that we have now don't allow for this since there is no way of knowing excatelly when each AI order will be carried out as far as the gameclock goes...a certain AI order may be triggered at min 23 or at min 31 for example...the usefullnes of the gameclock as a timer is therefore limited...
I agree with the sgt...please BFC...give us a timer...

Yes, yes, yes...give it to me !!!! 😁
This is something i would really like also...some kind of timer...
Do this for XX minutes...wait at this waypoint for XX minutes...the gameclock and triggers that we have now don't allow for this since there is no way of knowing excatelly when each AI order will be carried out as far as the gameclock goes...a certain AI order may be triggered at min 23 or at min 31 for example...the usefullnes of the gameclock as a timer is therefore limited...
I agree with the sgt...please BFC...give us a timer...

Ahhhh.....Smokescreens! 
If there were one tweak I would bite your arm off for right now it would be the ability to assign a turn number (or even better a start and end time) to the AI Targets list.....God what a difference that would make! 
Please, please @Battlefront.com, if it's possible, make it happen! 

Yepp 😎
 A nice new feature for the QBs could perhaps be to include a function that would allow one player to pick and deploy the forces of the AI side and then 'save' the game...upload it to a special thread/location on these forums ( or elsewhere ) to allow other player to download this save and load it into the QB interface as the AI side...pick his own forces...click go ! And the QB battle would start with the AI commanding the forces picked by the first guy...😁
This way we could help eachother to build up a 'pool' of QB battles picked and deployed by a human but playable as singleplayer vs the AI...
Hopefully a decent pool of such scenarios could soon be avaliable...they would be doable with a very limited effort on the part of the picker i think...

Nothing NEW in this document really...but maybe other posts will follow
until then this is the place to go for newbies imo...
http://battledrill.blogspot.com/
 

Unfortunatelly simply developing the unit rosters ( OOBs, TOEs, artwork etc.) for the various formations and eqiupments is a pretty lenthy process in it self if i understand previous comments by BFC correctly. 
If that was not the case i would suggest that BFC would seriously considder releasing a sort of CMBB 2 'light'...or CMBB 2 'editor pack' or whatever one should call it.
A simular version to CMBB as far as timeframe and avaliable units are conserned (41 - 45 including minor allies)...BUT WITH NO SCENARIOS AND NO CAMPAIGNS included.
Designing the playable content would be up to the community. After the release of the 'editor base-game' BFC could assist in the development of playable content if they are still working on CM 2 at that time...
Even without the help of BFC i'm pretty sure we would se a steady stream of eastern front scenarios being made avaliable by the community for many years to come...
Releasing a product with no playable content might not be a perfect solution but considdering the alternativ i think it is something that varants some serious considderation...
As many have mentioned...given the current releaserate of new products...We ever seeing early eastern front games in CM2 seems very unlikely unfortunatelly...
 
 
 

No need to go that far imo. A somewhat more flexible AI order plotting, a few more trigger options etc and maybe having things like reinforcements arriving by trigger and stuff like that...
This...
Such a thread should be stickied imo.... There have been a number of those already made through the years but they tend to dissapear amongst  the other threads...
A stickied thread like that would be a good idea for sure..

No need to go that far imo. A somewhat more flexible AI order plotting, a few more trigger options etc and maybe having things like reinforcements arriving by trigger and stuff like that...
This...
Such a thread should be stickied imo.... There have been a number of those already made through the years but they tend to dissapear amongst  the other threads...
A stickied thread like that would be a good idea for sure..

No need to go that far imo. A somewhat more flexible AI order plotting, a few more trigger options etc and maybe having things like reinforcements arriving by trigger and stuff like that...
This...
Such a thread should be stickied imo.... There have been a number of those already made through the years but they tend to dissapear amongst  the other threads...
A stickied thread like that would be a good idea for sure..

IMHO Combat Mission has not reached that point yet.
The fact that it is close to impossible to design a GOOD AI attacking scenario is reason enough to keep working on the AI. 

IMHO Combat Mission has not reached that point yet.
The fact that it is close to impossible to design a GOOD AI attacking scenario is reason enough to keep working on the AI. 

Hey, guys. It's been awhile. I thought I'd drop a screenie and let everyone know that the project is alive and well -- if moving along rather slowly due to RL time demands. I had to take a long break or two again, but have knocked out a number of blocks on the map since my last post, along with a sizable chunk of elevation refining. Here is a screenie showing a bit over half the master map:

This is East to West, with the Southern half of the map being largely visible. The SE corner is done, but wouldn't fit in the picture. There is a little more that is finished, but it wouldn't fit without showing skeletal areas, so I kept things to what is complete (well, other than final tweaks, flavor objects and elevation refinement).
Alrighty, that's it for now. Macisle out!

I'd love to see the simple option to add a timing to a painted AI Target (the game's current preliminary bombardment method).....This could make a world of difference IMHO.

I fully agree with this...
There are a bunch of reasons why designing GOOD AI attack scenarios is very difficult...close to impossible...I will mention a few here
1. The limited number of AI groups - In an AI defensive scenario large parts of the AI forces can remain static and only fall back (tacAI) ones forced to do so. In these scenarios 16 AI groups will often be enough to be able to add some 'mobile' defenders to the mix. In an AI attacking scenario pretty much the entire AI force will need to move forward. Requiring AI groups ! Very few scenarios sees the player commanding a force of less then a reduced company. If the AI is to attack against a force of that size it will probably mean something like a battalion sized force on the AI side. A force of that size means rather large AI groups. Rather large AI groups is not a good thing...simply because the AI can not handle it...
2. The inability of the AI to readjust its attack plan according to things happening on the battlefield - The AI have ONE way forward...and ONE way forward only. That is...the individual AI groups making up the AI attack have one way forward each. These AI groups will NEVER select a different way forward if they get into 'trouble'...simply because that option does not exist. They will move to their next waypoint regardless of how the battle evolves...or they will not move at all...This limitation is pretty severe !
3. Lack of supporting indirect fire - The scenario designers have a very limited ability to 'add' supporting fire to an AI attack. The functinality is simply not there. The designers may place a whole bunch of TRPS and forward observers on the AI side to hopefully get something half decently done by the AI itself but this is very random imo and half the time that the AI orders a bombardment they are just as likely to hit their own troops. the V4 update gave the designers some controll over the AI on-map mortars. But this is limited to HE only...no smoke. A small step in the right direction though...
 

I fully agree with this...
There are a bunch of reasons why designing GOOD AI attack scenarios is very difficult...close to impossible...I will mention a few here
1. The limited number of AI groups - In an AI defensive scenario large parts of the AI forces can remain static and only fall back (tacAI) ones forced to do so. In these scenarios 16 AI groups will often be enough to be able to add some 'mobile' defenders to the mix. In an AI attacking scenario pretty much the entire AI force will need to move forward. Requiring AI groups ! Very few scenarios sees the player commanding a force of less then a reduced company. If the AI is to attack against a force of that size it will probably mean something like a battalion sized force on the AI side. A force of that size means rather large AI groups. Rather large AI groups is not a good thing...simply because the AI can not handle it...
2. The inability of the AI to readjust its attack plan according to things happening on the battlefield - The AI have ONE way forward...and ONE way forward only. That is...the individual AI groups making up the AI attack have one way forward each. These AI groups will NEVER select a different way forward if they get into 'trouble'...simply because that option does not exist. They will move to their next waypoint regardless of how the battle evolves...or they will not move at all...This limitation is pretty severe !
3. Lack of supporting indirect fire - The scenario designers have a very limited ability to 'add' supporting fire to an AI attack. The functinality is simply not there. The designers may place a whole bunch of TRPS and forward observers on the AI side to hopefully get something half decently done by the AI itself but this is very random imo and half the time that the AI orders a bombardment they are just as likely to hit their own troops. the V4 update gave the designers some controll over the AI on-map mortars. But this is limited to HE only...no smoke. A small step in the right direction though...
 

me too... THE COLD WAR 
 

Imo the one thing holding 'good' campaign design back is the HUGE amount of playtesting that is required. Even designing a small campaign with no force preservation, ammo concerns and the like is a big, big undertaking when it comes to playtesting. Many of the comunity made campaigns are made by a single guy i belive. If he is lucky he has a small number of volontary playtesters to help out. 
A Small campaign...mayby 4 or 5 'stand alone' scenarios linked together into a campaign with pretty much full replenishments between the battles resulting in pretty much a garanteed set of curcomstances for the next battle still requires testing, testing, testing...
To get a 'good' campaign
Add to this brancing scenrios, force preservation, ammo concerns and stuff...The need for testing increases drastically to be able to try out the different results the previous battle will have on the next one and the next one and the next....
'Good' campaigns is pretty much not doable by a single person...He would go mad 😉 by the need for playtesting...over and over  and over again...
Things like designing the maps takes time...sure...but it's nothing compared to the playtesting needed for a 'good' campaign.
The best improvement to the editor imo to simplyfy scenario/campaign design would be to be able to - load a save-game file into the editor - Tweak it and re-save it to be played again...
For example...You have designed a 60 minutes battle...You have playtested the first part of the fight...lets say up to minute 20 and everything is working fine so far. But as the battles continues somewhere around minute 35 things are not playing out as you have intended. Some stuff will need to be tweaked to get the second half of the battle to work the way you like.
With the current editor features you would need to tweak the second part of the scenario. Save it and start from scratch. that is minute 1 !. having to play through those 20 to 30 minutes again to get to the part that you just tweaked. Maybe it is working this time. Good for you ! but maybe it is not working this time either or you would like to try something else for the second part of the battle regardless. Tweak the scenario ones again. Save it and ones agian you will need to start playtesting from minute 1.....Uuuurghf !!!
What if you could take the save-game file you have from a few minutes before the playtesting showed some undesired results and load that file into the editor....Make your desired tweaks for the second part of the battle and save the file again. Now...when you begin your playtest of the tweaked version of your scenario you will begin playtesting at the same minute the game was on when you saved it...maybe minute 25...and start your playtesting from there. No need to play the first 25 minutes again.
Having something like this would be a feature i would really like...

The AI is limited...true 😉
But i don't think that the main selling point for having friendly AI troops in a scenario would be so that you could rely on them to swing the battle in your favour in a better way then you would be likely to do with the same troops.  If the scenario designer wanted to though he could set it up so that your AI troops ( the friendlies) does a better jobb then the enemy AI troops. The flexebility here is pretty big. How 'good' will the friendly AI be ? It will be up to the scenariodesigner...
The main reason for having friendly AI is however that they could add a bit of flavour and varaity to the scenarios. Things like..
- A small AI controlled force of rebells (friendly) have been attached to your troops. In this mission they will guide you through enemy territory to attack a high value target. Can they be trusted ? will they do as promised ? or will they lead you into an enemy ambush ? 💀
- You unit have been tasked with providing security in a sector of the city while a supply/medevac convoj moves through (friendly AI unit).
Many, many cool things could be made even with very small friendly AI forces...
 
 

Something simular have been discussed a while back...having the possibility to add - friendly - AI groups into the scenarios (troops from the same side or maybe civilians).
It would be more work for the scenario designer but i think it would be a nice feature that could lead to some intresting/different scenarios.
As for the leaders i wouldn't mind to try a few games in wich the leadership traits where more prononced and se how that would work and maybe add a few more ones like stealth, command capacity etc combined with the possibility to assign/reasign troops to different HQs during the actuall battle (this is where command capacity would play a part).
 
 

Imo the one thing holding 'good' campaign design back is the HUGE amount of playtesting that is required. Even designing a small campaign with no force preservation, ammo concerns and the like is a big, big undertaking when it comes to playtesting. Many of the comunity made campaigns are made by a single guy i belive. If he is lucky he has a small number of volontary playtesters to help out. 
A Small campaign...mayby 4 or 5 'stand alone' scenarios linked together into a campaign with pretty much full replenishments between the battles resulting in pretty much a garanteed set of curcomstances for the next battle still requires testing, testing, testing...
To get a 'good' campaign
Add to this brancing scenrios, force preservation, ammo concerns and stuff...The need for testing increases drastically to be able to try out the different results the previous battle will have on the next one and the next one and the next....
'Good' campaigns is pretty much not doable by a single person...He would go mad 😉 by the need for playtesting...over and over  and over again...
Things like designing the maps takes time...sure...but it's nothing compared to the playtesting needed for a 'good' campaign.
The best improvement to the editor imo to simplyfy scenario/campaign design would be to be able to - load a save-game file into the editor - Tweak it and re-save it to be played again...
For example...You have designed a 60 minutes battle...You have playtested the first part of the fight...lets say up to minute 20 and everything is working fine so far. But as the battles continues somewhere around minute 35 things are not playing out as you have intended. Some stuff will need to be tweaked to get the second half of the battle to work the way you like.
With the current editor features you would need to tweak the second part of the scenario. Save it and start from scratch. that is minute 1 !. having to play through those 20 to 30 minutes again to get to the part that you just tweaked. Maybe it is working this time. Good for you ! but maybe it is not working this time either or you would like to try something else for the second part of the battle regardless. Tweak the scenario ones again. Save it and ones agian you will need to start playtesting from minute 1.....Uuuurghf !!!
What if you could take the save-game file you have from a few minutes before the playtesting showed some undesired results and load that file into the editor....Make your desired tweaks for the second part of the battle and save the file again. Now...when you begin your playtest of the tweaked version of your scenario you will begin playtesting at the same minute the game was on when you saved it...maybe minute 25...and start your playtesting from there. No need to play the first 25 minutes again.
Having something like this would be a feature i would really like...

Imo the one thing holding 'good' campaign design back is the HUGE amount of playtesting that is required. Even designing a small campaign with no force preservation, ammo concerns and the like is a big, big undertaking when it comes to playtesting. Many of the comunity made campaigns are made by a single guy i belive. If he is lucky he has a small number of volontary playtesters to help out. 
A Small campaign...mayby 4 or 5 'stand alone' scenarios linked together into a campaign with pretty much full replenishments between the battles resulting in pretty much a garanteed set of curcomstances for the next battle still requires testing, testing, testing...
To get a 'good' campaign
Add to this brancing scenrios, force preservation, ammo concerns and stuff...The need for testing increases drastically to be able to try out the different results the previous battle will have on the next one and the next one and the next....
'Good' campaigns is pretty much not doable by a single person...He would go mad 😉 by the need for playtesting...over and over  and over again...
Things like designing the maps takes time...sure...but it's nothing compared to the playtesting needed for a 'good' campaign.
The best improvement to the editor imo to simplyfy scenario/campaign design would be to be able to - load a save-game file into the editor - Tweak it and re-save it to be played again...
For example...You have designed a 60 minutes battle...You have playtested the first part of the fight...lets say up to minute 20 and everything is working fine so far. But as the battles continues somewhere around minute 35 things are not playing out as you have intended. Some stuff will need to be tweaked to get the second half of the battle to work the way you like.
With the current editor features you would need to tweak the second part of the scenario. Save it and start from scratch. that is minute 1 !. having to play through those 20 to 30 minutes again to get to the part that you just tweaked. Maybe it is working this time. Good for you ! but maybe it is not working this time either or you would like to try something else for the second part of the battle regardless. Tweak the scenario ones again. Save it and ones agian you will need to start playtesting from minute 1.....Uuuurghf !!!
What if you could take the save-game file you have from a few minutes before the playtesting showed some undesired results and load that file into the editor....Make your desired tweaks for the second part of the battle and save the file again. Now...when you begin your playtest of the tweaked version of your scenario you will begin playtesting at the same minute the game was on when you saved it...maybe minute 25...and start your playtesting from there. No need to play the first 25 minutes again.
Having something like this would be a feature i would really like...

CM Operation Barbarossa ❤
 

CM Operation Barbarossa ❤