Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


RepsolCBR last won the day on June 3 2020

RepsolCBR had the most liked content!

About RepsolCBR

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    Kristinehamn, SWEDEN

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. According to the manual... - In QBs all terrainobjectives are changed to OCCUPY. Could this be the reason perhaps ? Preventing triggers from being used... I don't know 🤔...I have never messed with QB maps...only scenarios.
  2. I belive that the terrain objective you are using for the trigger should be... - Friendly in zone Not eneny... Its your troops moving into it...
  3. What has been annonced is not a NEW game engine but rather an updated version of the current one, CM2. We are currently playing version 4 of that engine. The update is not years away. It's scheduled to be released this year. The new game engine that people are talking about is CM3...and that one probably is quite some time away...
  4. It is simple 😎... You don't have to start anything from scratch. Simply load the player attack scenario into the editor and do the neccesary tweaks and save it under a different name.... for example... Battle for the reichtag (A) Battle for the reichtag (D) A = player attack version D = player defence version For example... Player attack version... The player attacks with a fairly depleted battalion supported by 2 StuGs and 5 PzIVs. Player defence version... The AI attacks with a full (atleast almost) battalion supported by 4 StuGs and 8 PzIvs.
  5. No...it is not 😊 The map is done, the research is done, most of the unit rosters are done... And remember... In a two option scenario you need an AI plan for both sides also....No Major increase in work to make one AI plan each for two scenarios rather than two AI plans for one scenario...
  6. Imo the easiest way to improve these scenarios is to release two versions of the same scenario...rather than having both sides playable in the same scenario...with the same units.... These two option scenarios are doomed to failure...it is in no way realistic to expect the AI to be able to conduct an attack with the same forces as a human player gets when playing the same side.... We need two seperate scenarios. Each tailored to significantelly favour the AI regardless if it is playing the attacker or the defender... Give the AI some extra units as opposed to what the player get
  7. Answer or no answer...i will just end by mentioning that any of my replies have not been directed at you personally...but generaly at any player. And while discussing the quality/challange of the AI i don't think that a statement like this... might be a fair description of the AI quality. If a player does that he is not even giving the AI the chans to win. Offering a human player a cease fire is one thing because he can reject it. The AI rarely will...Doing so would be cheaing the scenario and the result can never be considdered a 'major victory'. But you are correct though that i
  8. Prematurely pressning the ceasefire button in a defensive scenario is not a win...it's cheating 😉... Anyway....the point i'm trying to make is not primarely about tactics as the defender....but about the current difficulty in designing an AI attacking scenario... And the fact that you as a player needs to tweak these scenarios into more of a meeting engagemang or even yet another player attack scenario in order to enjoy them seems to me to be yet another indicator to the fact that these player defensive scenarios are not working....
  9. It gives the game some 'personality'... All the WW2 games for example plays fairly simularely... It's nice to have something different...
  10. Thanks for running this test....intresting results. But the simple truth is as I have stated above. Designing good player defensive scenarios is difficult...even if the goal is to design a dedicated player defensive scenario (no option to play as the attacker). The tools to do so are simply to limited right now. To design a player defence version of an initially designed offensiven scenario is...not possible ! Not a good one atleast. The demands on the AI will be far above its capabilities. This fact is known by the stock scenario designers and consequently they don't have the
  11. No it is nothing strange with counterattacking per say...but to have an AI attacking force rely on (wait for) a player counterattack before proceeding would be strange imo... As the attacker you do not voluntarely want to give the initiative to the defender and then having to react to that. It is the defender that is supposed to react to your actions...not the other way around.
  12. No...You do not need to counterattack. The goal of the attacker (AI) is to achive its objective...not to sit an wait for some flipping counterattack. If the attacking AI troops are not moving forward and the reason for this is the lack of a player (defender) counterattack...that would be a very strange scenariodesign.
  13. Wham.... I belive that most of the issiues you are seeing comes from the fact that the majority (if not all) of these scenarios has from the start been designed to be played as the attacker. The reason there is a player defensive option comes from BFCs demands that all scenarios should be playable from both sides....but i'm guessing that most of the designers have added this option simply because they had to...to mest the demands from Battlefront. These player defensive scenarios have not been designed with a full commitment to design good defensive fighting....they are simply a necc
  14. It most certainly is...as it is in scenarios...I always do 😎 But 16 AI groups it not enough. Thats one of the points that we 'more scripting tools'-guys have been saying for years now... It might be enough for a reinforced company on the attack at best or a battalion on the defence...but if the AI attacks with a reinforced company then the player can not be allowed much more then a platoon or maybe two to command (but that would be pushing it)...playing with a single platoon might be a bit on the small side to make for a fun scenario... Increasing the amount of AI groups to atl
  • Create New...