Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Freyberg

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,048

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Freyberg

    North Italy QB maps

    in CM Fortress Italy Maps and Mods

    Posted · Edited by Freyberg

    12 hours ago, Anonymous_Jonze said:

    Just wanted to say Freyberg these QB maps are excellent. I'm loving the infantry battles in the ruins especially. The squad tactics with all the craters really shines.

    Thanks very much :)

    The last few months I've been practising with AI plans, trying to get a bit more variety without having the AI do anything too reckless.

    Incidentally - I'd be thrilled if you had any screenshots :)

    0

    Getting new iMac, concerns?

    in Combat Mission - General Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Ultradave said:

    Geez, the poor guy who asked the question is probably sorry he did about now. He's buying an iMac because of [reasons]. 

    He wants to know if it will run CM titles well. 

    It will.

    Agreed.

    I've been using Macs for decades, installed and played every Combat Mission title since CMBO without a hitch. Their excellent Mac games alone make Battlefront a cut above nearly every other gaming company.

    ...And the whole Mac vs. whatever argument is so very very passé...

    3

    How are M20 Armored Cars Used?

    in Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg

    Posted · Edited by Freyberg

    .50 cal is an amazing weapon, but it is a long-range weapon. Stay at least 500m away, preferably further, and your gunner will be very effective - a wonderful weapon against buildings and light armour.

    It's a very good indirect-fire weapon. The bullets will go straight through buildings, trees and brick walls.

    The only problem is most vehicles don't carry much ammo.

    1

    AI plans and a more responsive AI

    in Combat Mission - General Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Macisle said:

    QBs really need a combination of functioning terrain triggers and the ability of the QB map designer to link certain unit types to certain groups (ATG, armor, infantry, etc.). As things stand, the all-too-familiar time-triggered AI banzai charge to death really hurts the QB format.

    Both of those features would make a big difference - agreed!

    1

    AI plans and a more responsive AI

    in Combat Mission - General Discussion

    Posted

    19 hours ago, Macisle said:

    It's been a number months since I worked with it. My recollection is that I ran, maybe, 5-10 tests and could never get troops to hide and be triggered to unhide using terrain objectives as you would in a scenario. ...

    I just ran a very simple test 5 times. You're right.

    Enemy trigger objectives are ignored, and the touch objective disappeared.

    Such disappointed...

    1

    AI plans and a more responsive AI

    in Combat Mission - General Discussion

    Posted

    On 1/17/2021 at 3:04 PM, Macisle said:

    In working on my CM:RT project, I've been unable to get terrain triggers to work in the QB environment. Testing shows the same setup will function in scenario mode, but not QB ...which really bites. Hope there is a workaround or code fix on the horizon.

    The context I've been testing in is trying to have AI troops hide during setup to protect from arty and have them unhide when the player's forces move in to attack. Again...haven't been able to get it to work in QB mode.

    I'm not calling you a liar, but are you sure about that...?

    I don't use them very often (sheer laziness), but I could swear that the times I have tried they have worked. I wonder if the terrain objectives that get converted to 'occupy' are just the 'touch' objectives (even then, I'm sure these have worked in some of the QB maps that come with the games, but I may be remembering Scenarios - I've never played with touch objectives myself).

    The way I've done it is to set a very wide time range for the event and make use of the trigger, so that both the trigger and the timing are activated. I didn't do a careful test, but it seemed to work. And this was in a QB map.

    Has anyone else tried this and could shed some light on it...?

    0

    Question about Tigers

    in Combat Mission - General Discussion

    Posted

    6 minutes ago, Artkin said:

    Angle of the shot should be unimportant as bazooka rounds are high explosive anti tank (heat) rounds with a shaped charge inside that penetrates any angle. A bazooka surely has enough penetration power to dig through any part of a tiger. Not sure why the troops didnt bail if their engine was fried. Happens all the time to me. 

    Certainly it is less likely to deflect than a high velocity projectile, but the jet still has to penetrate a certain width of steel, which can vary depending on the angle it strikes at.

    Plus, as a general observation, shaped charges are dependent on the energy and dimensions of the explosive - and I think the Tiger I was right at the upper limit against which the 60mm bazooka round could be expected to have any effect.

    1

    Features Requests/Corrections

    in Combat Mission - General Discussion

    Posted

    An extremely minor feature I would love, would be a menu item for supply trucks, to alter the mix of what they have on board.

    For example with Commonwealth, I often don't need 9mm (many nations don't use it); and I would love to able to buy more 2" mortar rounds (I often buy carrier platoons just for the ammo); 3" mortar rounds would be amazing (though obviously, you'd need to make it expensive); in urban maps, the option for extra .45 cal would come in handy; .50 cal wouldn't hurt (although plenty of vehicles store it); and I agree with those who've asked in the past for the option to be able to acquire grenades, rifle grenades and demo charges.

    :)

    1

    Requesting small changes in the AI interface

    in Combat Mission - General Discussion

    Posted

    4 hours ago, BornGinger said:

    I did a little test with a quick battle in author mode, or what it's called, and gave an AI-group the setup order to ambush armor on 600 meters. And then in the quick battle selection window for the AI troops I picked a medium tank battalion from which I removed most of the tanks. And I picked an infantry battalion too.

    When I later on clicked on the red start button the AI-tank group was moved into the setup zone to ambush armor from 600 meters.

    If the setup zone which you set to "ambush armor" is small enough and you pick a company or platoon of something from which you remove what you don't need and add AT-guns instead, maybe that platoon or company will be placed by the AI on that setup zone.

    I didn't try this with AT-guns, but you can always try that yourself to see what result you get.

    I do something similar. I'll set up a single zone, with no orders just 'setup', covering the whole defender setup zone, set to 'ambush 1000m', so the AI can put AT guns wherever it wants (clever placement of AT guns is what it does best).

    Most of the time it works - but sometimes the AT guns (or some of them) end up 'limbered', trundling along slowly like sitting ducks.

     

    0

    Requesting small changes in the AI interface

    in Combat Mission - General Discussion

    Posted

    One thing that annoys me a little with AI plans in QBs is that sometimes (not always) the AI seems to choose inappropriate groups for a weapon type - the most annoying one being a group with movement otrders for AT guns.

    When I set up an AI plan, I usually have one (or two, on a larger map with more groups) completely static AI group for things like AT guns, but the AI doesn't always select it.

    0

    Requesting small changes in the AI interface

    in Combat Mission - General Discussion

    Posted

    I think the editor is a great tool, I'm slowly becoming more skilled at using the AI, which can work very well on defence and in limited counterattacks, and I would also like to see the AI and its interface improved.

    However, while I don't object to the suggestions made, my wishes are completely different. A lot of these suggestions seem to be asking for more micromanaging, when I would like to see less.

    It's probably some time away, and I'm not at all displeased with the AI as it currently works, but I would like to see the day when you could just define one or two broad attacks (like: feint left, attack right), and rely on the AI to use recon, seek cover, use combined arms, respond to observed enemy and pace its attack, defence or fallback based on the actions of the human opponent's forces.

    It actually does not a bad job of this now. I generally get better results with fairly simple AI plans: 3-6 groups, painting broad areas of the map, and long overlapping time periods for each action. Micromanaging requires you to guess what the human player will do, and I just can't get that to work, even against myself!

    1

    Why is the Panzer IV so expensive to buy in Quick Battles?

    in Combat Mission - General Discussion

    Posted

    Another very unscientific test.

    1943, same as before (M4 early v. PzIVG)
    10min shootout. No orders given beyond setup.
    This time with limited cover (CMFI tree-type D (small, low tree), one tree per action square, tanks positioned just inside the treeline, line staggered at 1-2 action squares). Damp ground (last time was 'dry' so there was a lot of dust)

    ~ 200m

    • LIGHT COVER, starting buttoned
      PzIV: 4 kills
      Sherman 1 kill
      (winner: PzIV)
       
    • LIGHT COVER, starting unbuttoned
      PzIVs 2 kills
      Sherman 2 kills + 2 bad crew kills
      (winner: Sherman)

    ~ 500m

    • LIGHT COVER, starting buttoned
      PzIV: 1 kill
      Sherman: nil
      (winner: PzIV)
       
    • LIGHT COVER, starting unbuttoned
      PzIV: 2 kills
      Sherman: 1 kills + 1 dismount
      (draw)

    ~ 750m

    • LIGHT COVER, starting buttoned
      PzIV: nil
      Sherman: 1 kill
      (winner: Sherman - some crew casualties each side)
       
    • LIGHT COVER, starting unbuttoned
      PzIV: 2 kills
      Sherman: 1 kill, 1 dismount
      (draw: some crew casualties each side)
       
    • OPEN TERRAIN, starting unbuttoned
      PzIV: 6 kills (in 3 minutes)
      Shermans: 1 kill, 2 dismounts
      (clear winner: PzIV)

    ~1000m

    • LIGHT COVER, starting buttoned
      PzIV: 0 kills
      Sherman: 1 kill
      (winner: Sherman)
       
    • LIGHT COVER, starting unbuttoned
      PzIV: 4 kills
      Sherman: 1 kill
      (clear winner: PzIV)
       
    • OPEN, unbuttoned
      PzIV: 5 kills
      Shermans 2 kills, 1 mostly killed crew (stil manned), 2 dismounts
      (draw...?
      1 functioning tank each at end - most of the action in the first 2 minutes - then they buttoned up and couldn't spot each other)

    ~1500m

    • LIGHT COVER, starting buttoned
      PzIV: 2 kills
      Sherman 1 kill, 1 dismount
      (draw: a few crew kills each side)
       
    • LIGHT COVER, starting unbuttoned
      PzIV: 3 kills
      Sherman: 1 kill
      (winner: PzIV
      both teams spotted very quickly, Pz got the range sooner, 3 Shermans killed to one PzIV in 2 minutes, no more kills once buttoned up)
       
    • OPEN TERRAIN, unbuttoned
      PzIV: 3 kills, 1 dismount, 1 severe damage
      Shermans 3 kills, 2 dismounts, 1 gun damage (Axis team out of action)
      (winner: Sherman
      Within 2 minutes, each down to one functioning tank each

     

    PzIV: 6 wins (and more decisive wins)
    Sherman: 4 wins
    4 draws

    What did I learn?
    1) Buttoning tanks and using them at close range is a mug's game.
    2) The two tanks are very closely matched, but the PzIV has an edge overall (especially unbuttoned). Is it enough of an edge to account for the point differential? Who knows....
    3) Running little tests is fun, but running statistically significant, large tests would be like work, so this probably proves nothing

     

    0

    Welcome to 2021!

    in Combat Mission - General Discussion

    Posted

    10 hours ago, Anonymous_Jonze said:

    Also this. I don't really play multiplayer because it's so complicated. Really? I have to use dropbox to coordinate turns?

    I used to enjoy PBEM, although I got beaten a lot, but I couldn't maintain a respectable turn rate - always too much going on in RL.

    But the AI is cool too. I would probably enjoy multiplayer in RT if I had the time.

    0

    Welcome to 2021!

    in Combat Mission - General Discussion

    Posted

    36 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said:

    Like finally granting the AI the full bennefit of artillery...

    In QBs, I give the AI an observer and otherwise let it control its own barrages - the result is usually the very efficient use of short, accurate surprise barrages on any troop concentration I am careless enough to leave for more than a few minutes.

    The AI seems very good at using artillery...

    0
×
×
  • Create New...