MOS:96B2P

So you take a shot at two different nations, not your own, and a political party during an election year all in violation of forum rules. Your offer to delete came on the 23rd, the following day. I don't think you could have deleted your rule violating political comment at that point if you wanted to. Did you even try? Why do have a history of bringing politics into this forum in the first place? Is it because you expect the rest of us will probably follow the rules and not reply? This thread is an interesting topic in a generally friendly forum. Why not make an honest attempt to follow the rules and keep it that way?

+1 AIRBORNE!!!

Okay, understood. I spent many, many hours playing Sid Meier PC games. Excellent games, especially for their time.

You can also take a favorite core unit with you to different QBs and scenarios. Almost like fighting a campaign but your force always starts out in its original condition and supply state. Below are the directions. Sorry I couldn't get rid of the large blank space following the directions.

@womble posted the below several years ago which I paraphrased for my notes: One way I think you can, if you're picking AI forces yourself, mitigate the "putting units in inappropriate groups" problem is by making sure there are enough formations in the force to have "some of everything" in each group. Rather than picking one Battalion "head", then chopping out everything but the AT platoon (4 guns) and a company (3 rifle platoons and a heavy platoon) of infantry, pick four Battalion headers and chop out everything but one AT gun, some Rifle squads and an MG or two from the Heavy Platoon for each Battalion. AFAICT, the AI assigns alternating Formations to the default 2 groups, and will leave one group empty if you just pick the one Formation. Or if you pick a Formation for infantry and another for Armor, you'll have all the Infantry in one setup zone, following one set of orders, and all the Armor elsewhere, operating according to a different timetable which probably won't support your infantry's route. I've not played a QB vs AI in a very long time. As far as I know the above still works. I think some players pick the AI forces for several QB maps and then set the maps aside for a few months before playing. When they go back to play they have often forgotten most of what they selected (one of the advantages of getting older ). If you like single player there are many good scenarios (different from QBs) that can be played. Scenarios don't have to be generic like a QB so generally offer a much better experience. Below is a link to the scenario depot where free scenarios can be downloaded. I apologize if you already knew most of this. Lurkers and future searchers may find the information useful. https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/

+1 Interesting stuff. I got CMAK from GOG about a year ago but have not had much time to play it. I kind of like the idea of order delays and Jams. Although I'm sure a friendly Jam would often result in me cursing at the PC monitor. Not sure if this is the same thing as PATH but in one of the updates to CM2 moving waypoints was added.

I prefer to have the human player make his own decisions. Decisions that are interesting because they have both benefits and consequences. Also, in the editor, it's not possible or desirable to tell the human player where to move his tanks. You could tell the player in the briefing but I think it is more fun to let the player make the command decisions. If you read the 4.0 engine manual, ask questions and gain design experience you'll develop a better understanding of what's possible / desirable in the editor. The human player will have as many choices as the designer provides, through terrain, TOE etc. In the above example the human player could attack the AI position with a deliberate assault (and probably trigger the counter attack), suppress the AI position from a distance while his maneuver element takes a different avenue of approach, smoke & by-pass, flank, etc. In one of the posts up above the example of where to place an enemy armor only trigger was given in response to the following general situation; The desire for the AI to counter attack a main attack and not be triggered by a recon probe. In my experience the thoughtful placement of the counter attack trigger will most of the time have the desired result. However, the editor is versatile enough to usually provide more than one solution to a situation. It just takes experimentation and testing. We provide help to each other on the forum by discussing (in a friendly helpful manner) how to use the tools provided. We also often wish for new and improved tools. All the new games were a further, continued improvement on the current game engine (CM2) with additional TOE and environments. CM3 (which BFC has mentioned) I guess would be the "planning for the future". "Stance" orders are just one of the many factors that go into an AI plan. There are also the movement type orders, building orders, vehicle orders, open hatches/closed hatches (3D only & one time only), equipment, experience, morale, leadership, fitness, AI area fire, AI facing, AI withdrawal etc. These combine with order triggers, terrain triggers, timers, terrain, weather, ground conditions, etc. which are tested together then adjusted to obtain the desired results most of the time. Again, the AI is not as good as the average human but can provide an interesting, fun battle. If not careful the AI can provide a very difficult battle, especially on defense (IMO not usually fun). More and better design tools would be welcome. In the above example it seems an AI plan was created that resulted in 9 out of 10 AI tanks burning. This should have been noticed during scenario author test. If it was not the desired result, but occurred most of the time, then some of the above factors maybe need to be adjusted? Also the AI attack is only as good as the designer's plan. Should this AI group attack after an artillery strike, does the AI need infantry, does the AI need a support / overwatch AI group, should the AI group have used area fire orders while approaching / passing a likely human player position? etc. Part of the fun of scenario design is playing / testing the plans. Part of the danger of scenario design is adjusting the AI vs the Beta testers until the AI is very difficult for the player who plays the scenario for the first time (compared to beta testers who played it dozens of times during testing). @Erwin has reminded me of this . An enemy armor trigger cannot be activated by an enemy infantry scout team. Even an enemy jeep, truck (any soft skin vehicle) will not activate that trigger. It will only activate when enemy light armor or armor touches the trigger. It is fair & accurate to say an enemy armor only trigger will activate for both a single enemy T-70 or a platoon of IS-2s. After you learned your misunderstanding of how AI triggers worked (your above quote) did you ever go back and try again? Hopefully you haven't gotten so frustrated that you've given up. There is also a scenario design AAR book in PDF format that is located in the Combat Mission file location. This PDF can be helpful when learning scenario design. And to demonstrate the AI in action. An AI controlled tank broke through the human forward defenses and located the human Battalion Command Post. Cool stuff.

+1

Also, in CMBS, Breach kits carried by-non-engineers, can be used to breach walls & buildings but not used against vehicles or barbwire. Demo charges carried by actual engineers can be used against vehicles, barbwire, walls, buildings etc.

Every stock scenario that ships with the game can be played as Axis vs. AI. Also the scenario Depot has Axis vs AI scenarios. Below is the link for CMFB scenarios. https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/category/cm-final-blitzkrieg/cm-final-blitzkrieg-scenarios/

+1. This would be useful.

Sorry, almost forgot about this one. Yes, the AI controlled unit will continue to follow its order and move to the next orders location. However, if that is not the desired result other design elements can be added. IMO this is part of the fun of designing and testing a scenario. The original AI group (we'll call it [A7]) that is moving forward can be given different types of orders and stances. If it is given Dash it will prioritize moving fast over shooting. If it is given Assault or Max Assault it will move Quick with alternating team/vehicle bounds, one pass the other. The AI prioritizes shooting over moving. There are Stance Orders (Fire discipline) such as Active (shoot often), Normal, Cautious, Hide & 10 different ambush stances. AI controlled vehicles can be ordered (in 3D mode) to open up so they have better situational awareness. Soft factors can be tweaked etc. So if [A7] is given Assault & Active, open hatches, it will bound and shoot during the flank attack. They will basically try to fight their way through the ambush (instead of staying in the kill zone). They won't ignore the ambush. But yes any survivors will ultimately move on to the next assigned orders location. Also many players would give their player controlled moving unit an over-watch unit. Maybe AI controlled [A7] should also have an over-watch unit? That is a designer decision. Below is a screenshot of an AI controlled unit after breaking through a player controlled position. In the background, where the columns of smoke are rising, is the breakthrough location. The AI unit was on Assault, Active, Open up during the breakthrough. In this screenshot it is on Advance so the AI stops bounding and moves to exploit. The AI is not as adaptable as a human player. However it can do surprisingly well.

Maybe I'm not understanding but there are different trigger types. A enemy armor trigger cannot be activated by an enemy infantry scout team. Even an enemy jeep, truck (any soft skin vehicle) will not activate that trigger. It will only activate when enemy light armor or armor touches the trigger. It is fair & accurate to say an enemy armor only trigger will activate for both a single enemy T-70 or a platoon of IS-2s. I think it would be useful if there were more trigger types. One for light armor only , one for armor only, one for soft skin only , one for infantry only. There are currently design ways around this but it is always nice to have more and improved tools. I'd definitely find a way to use an expanded trigger system. More terrain objective / trigger slots is high on my wish list. Working with the tools we have: The example of a single T-70 tripping an enemy armor only trigger when you want to wait for the platoon of IS-2s can generally be handled by the placement of the trigger. Place the trigger very close to the AI defensive position or even in or behind the position. A few player controlled T-70s will probably not survive to reach the trigger. The panzerfausts, shrecks and AT guns will stop them. However the player controlled IS-2 platoon may survive until it hits the trigger. Then the AI controlled Tiger platoon responds etc. Of course if the player has bad luck / skill and the IS-2s never make it far enough to hit the trigger then the Tigers were not needed and do not respond. The Tiger platoon can however still respond on a timer even if the trigger was never tripped. Testing on scenario author test mode will allow adjustments until the desired result is obtained most of the time. I guess we are treating the symptom. As hobby scenario designers / players that is probably the only practical choice we have. I'm getting a lot of fun and enjoyment out of "treating the symptoms" in both the games and editor. In fact working in the editor is kind of addicting. This forum is generally a pretty friendly, helpful group. If you need help, feedback etc. in the editor or in gameplay many would be happy to help. In fact you may get more feedback, advise and opinions than you actually need / want. Also, BFC has talked on the forums about a new game engine. So, not only are they continuing to upgrade, improve and support the current engine but are also planning for the future. That may be something to look forward to. One of my top requests is more terrain objectives since they are used for both terrain objectives AND triggers. More AI groups would also be useful. Also if the AI infantry could use Move so they could be made to walk down a trail or street etc. As it is now they run almost everywhere (unless suppressed or exhausted). Also more reinforcement groups and later reinforcement times. So reinforcements can show up later in the scenario. Now, that's just a scary thought....... Unless of course they reinvest the profits into Combat Mission for more coders, games, modules, newer engine etc. Screenshot of an AI controlled flame tank in the attack against a human player.

how well the Spotter and Support Asset are matched for each other. The better the match the more efficient and effective the results will be. Okay, I think I understand what you are asking. I don't have a definitive answer. My guess is that matchups with a certain call time are assigned a color (in CMBS also a different symbol). Where the manual says more "efficient" and "effective" I suspect this has to do with only the call time and not accuracy. I don't think accuracy is a factor in CMFB since both an Elite platoon HQ and a conscript platoon HQ have a yellow circle for a US 155mm Howitzer. However the call time for the elite match up is 12 minutes & the conscript matchup is 17 minutes. So possibly the color code is a generic estimation of the time? Example: A matchup with 1 - 9 minutes FFE is a light green circle. A matchup with 10 - 12 minutes FFE is a dark green circle. A matchup with 13 - 17 minutes FFE a yellow circle. Etc. Also, FFE times, in the support panel, are rounded to the nearest minute. This can sometimes make elite, crack & vet. appear to fire at the same time which may also result in some overlap in the matchup color code. So due to this rounding a 10 minute FFE will sometimes be light green and other times be dark green. The game play skill level may further change the individual minute's color (Basic vs Iron etc.). To add to the confusion Air support vs artillery support appear to scale differently with the color code of an individual minute. I'm not sure about the above. It's a guess after giving it some thought. Thanks for bringing this up and compelling us to give the topic some thought. Sorry I don't have a better contribution to the answer. Good point. I should read my own notes. In CMFB & CMBN the shape is always a circle. Light green, dark green, yellow, orange & red. CMBS used the shape and triangles as described in the manual. The shape of the symbol must not have anything to do with assisting color blind people. Maybe that only works in CMBS?

The matchup rating is on page 73 on the 4.0 Game Engine manual. Below, in italics, is a copy. At the bottom are my notes. Matchup - in the upper right hand corner is a symbol representing how well the Spotter and Support Asset are matched for each other. There are five states, color coded as follows: Excellent (green circle), Good (green triangle), average (yellow triangle), poor (orange triangle), and bad (red cross) . The better the match the more efficient and effective the results will be. NOTES: The color code seems to be standard for all titles but not the symbol shape. In CMFB & CMBN the shape is always a circle. Light green, dark green, yellow, orange & red. CMBS used the shape and triangles as described in the manual. I just look at the color and ignore the shape of the symbol. The shapes might be included to assist people who are color blind? Much more than the matchup rating I mostly just look at the call time on the support panel.

A task force composed of the Assault Ship USS Wasp adjusts course and picks up speed. The well deck of the USS Wasp is the scene of determined, professionals preparing for a rescue mission. A Stryker unit that had been training in the neighboring country also mounts up. The call for assistance will be answered.

US Marines hold the line as relief efforts are coordinated. It will be a long night in Abbudin........

The country of Abbudin was racked by political and sectarian fighting which quickly degenerated into civil war. Foreign Non-combatants respond to warnings from their home countries to evacuate. Many show up at the US Consulate playing the air guitar. As night falls hostile militia groups attempt to storm the consulate. The non-combatants shelter inside while a small USMC detachment provides security. The call for immediate assistance goes out..............................

Here is another way the AI can be very effective. The scenario Coup de'tat features the “OpFor Room” located in buildings throughout the map. The OpFor room is a ground floor room with no exterior windows or doors where AI teams might be located. The player will get tentative contact icons for some of the AI teams in these OpFor rooms. Some of the AI teams will cause no problems and remain in their OpFor room the entire scenario. Some of the AI teams will only come out if triggered and some are coming out (on a timer) to cause problems no matter what the player does. The player has no way of knowing which one of the three situations a tentative contact represents and some of the OpFor rooms are empty. It is impractical for a player to try and clear all of the OpFor rooms especially since many will never cause a problem (in game intelligence may report something in a specific building). The player is forced to conduct operations while surrounded by this AI population. Just as in RL he is never sure which one of these rooms OpFor teams might emerge from or when. A lot of cool stuff can be done with this setup especially in urban terrain. I originally used this technique in the scenario Tactical Operations Center. However the urban terrain of Coup d’etat allows for much more widespread use. Below are some screenshots. As an example: 1 = AI Group #1. This group will remain stationary (unless routed out by a nearby VBIED blast or airstrike etc.) They will shoot at friendly units that enter the building but will not initiate activity. 2 = AI Group #2. This group will emerge from their OpFor rooms to attack a target if the player hits trigger X. 3 = AI Group #3. This group will emerge from their OpFor rooms and attack a target on a timer. 4 = AI Group #4. This group will emerge to attack a target if the player hits trigger Y or on a timer whichever comes first. Some AI groups will conduct operations, move to an exit zone and leave the map. On a reinforcement turn the AI group will reappear with a fresh unit and conduct additional operations. Above, various AI groups are shown in "OpFor Rooms" waiting on a trigger, timer or combination. Some will never initiate movement from their location. Above, exterior view of an "OpFor Room". Above, a police unit and their Canadian advisers, conduct operations while surrounded by an AI controlled population concealed in OpFor hide rooms. USMC landing force exits the USS Wasp Assault Ship in order to conduct operations in the above mentioned urban area with OpFor rooms.

This is an interesting topic. I enjoy building scenarios and experimenting with the AI in scenarios. The AI can't come close to reacting as a human but with the tools provided in the Editor it can provide a fun, interesting experience. There are a combination of friendly triggers, enemy triggers, friendly armor trigger, enemy armor trigger, orders trigger and timers. These, along with scoring/objectives, TOE, terrain etc. can be used in a combination of different ways to make the AI put up a good, interesting fight. Reinforce an AI unit. IMO the AI is best at defense. In the CMBS scenario Tactical Operations Center I placed a friendly trigger behind an AI defensive position. An AI reinforcement group was assigned to this trigger. A few of the teams in the AI defensive unit were given poor morale. If/when the player attacked the AI defensive position in strength at least one of the poor morale AI teams fled to the rear, hitting the trigger. This triggered caused the reinforcing AI unit to respond. @Sgt.Squarehead helped test this scenario and can speak for the effectiveness of this AI tactic. If the reinforcing unit is not triggered it can still be useful sitting in keyhole positions covering an avenue of approach etc. There are several variations of this AI tactic that can be employed. One is to place an enemy armor trigger in the AI defensive positions. In this case the AI reinforcement groups will wait to respond until the player is starting to overrun the position with armor. Then a platoon of IS2s appear and counter attack etc. An orders trigger can also be used to reinforce the flank. The AI defensive unit starts withdrawing when enemy armor (so enemy armor trigger) is closing with the defensive position. Four orders into the withdrawal sequence is AI Group 11 order 5. AI Group 11 order 5 is assigned as an order trigger for the IS-2 platoon to approach the original defensive position from the flank. If we are building a scenario for single player only (my preferred way) we don't have to worry about Head to Head TOE balance. IMO this makes things significantly easier. A company of T-34 tanks can sit on the AI side of the map, out of LOS, waiting on a trigger. If the trigger is never tripped this company of tanks will keep the AI from a premature surrender but may never fire a shot. The player will only become aware of them during the AAR map review. IMO this is okay in certain circumstances. In contrast that same AI group can be reused. [A3] is a platoon of IS2 tanks on the east side of the map. On a timer they attack across the map (through the player's positions) then hit an AI exit on the west map edge. So most all of the [A3] tanks are destroyed or exited (an occasional one is still on the map immobilized). Then 15 minutes later a platoon of AI controlled T-34 tanks spawn (show up as reinforcements) on the east map edge with the same AI group number [A3]. They again attack west or whatever the designer assigns them to do. There are seven reinforcement slots, in addition to what starts on the map, to reinforce 16 AI groups. I think I have used this in all my scenarios except one. IMO it is easy to make the AI very difficult to defeat. However, I don't care for difficult battles and prefer instead to have interesting battles with interesting command decisions that have both advantages and consequences. As an example: I learned this from @George MC. Do I call on the extra platoon of Tigers from battalion reserve? These Tigers are also a 200 Victory Point (VP) spot objective for the Soviet's. Calling them up to the front should provide useful fire power but will also give the Soviets 200 VPs. Also the ground condition is muddy. How many might bog/immobilize during the fight? Is it worth it? Decisions...... Do I want to hit cease fire at one hour (as the scenario recommends) or do I want to fight on for an extra 30 minutes? If I fight on for an extra 30 minutes the OpFor will earn 150 VPs (shortly after one hour an OpFor reinforcement will spawn on a 150VP touch objective). But with the extra 30 minutes I could probably take the crossroads which is a 300 VP occupy objective. Can I hold the crossroads against the expected OpFor trigger to counter attack until the extra 30 minutes is up? Should I settle for a minor victory or go for the major victory? Decisions... Lots of fun interesting stuff can be done with the scenario Editor and the AI. Below is a link to a new mini-campaign / scenario with the AI attacking. I'm concerned the AI is to strong for the average player. Waiting on partisans to finish it.

+1 Yes, my friend it does. Thank you.

I think I've got it now. Definitely must use Direct Link from Imgur now. Before I always used BB Code for forums. Thanks again everybody!!

Test

YES!!!!!!!!!! IT WORKED!!!! Thanks @rocketman and @Lucky_Strike

Below is a link to a similar thread you might find interesting. Below are some general notes on artillery: To fire indirect on map mortars must be within close visual C2 (12A/S) of their COC or within voice C2 (6A/S) of any authorized HQ, XO, FO team or within 2A/S of a radio equipped vehicle. (Off map mortars always have their COC & C2) A requesting HQ, FO, & some XO teams do not need a radio, COC or C2 to make a request for arty (field telephone abstraction). Rank determines ability (authority) to access arty (that doesn’t require an FO). As long as the CO is alive a HQ can always request and adjust artillery even without a radio or C2. Some XOs can call in artillery and mortars. This includes tank platoon XOs. The tank platoon XO is normally in Tank #1. Only off map artillery/mortars have delay option & have it the entire mission. On map never has it (including during pre-planned setup). When an arty/mortar mission is delayed the UI continues to display the delay time even after fire is adjusted making it seem the adjusted fire will take longer than it actually will. Off map arty/mortar ammo count shows total available rounds & of that total x amount may be fired as smoke or precision. Preplanned fires can be plotted anywhere on the map and do not require TRPs. FFE times, in the support panel, are rounded to the nearest minute. This can make elite, crack & vet. appear to fire at the same time. In WWII titles there is no difference in the artillery call times between a backpack radio, a command vehicle radio, a Bn. and a Plt. HQ. Command vehicles only improve arty support response time in CMBS. (Did not test this for CMSF2) Experience is the only soft factor of arty/mortars (on&off map) that effect FFE times & accuracy. In WWII titles personnel airburst rounds must be requested during preplanned bombardment or in range of a TRP to work. In CMFB a (VT) equipped asset can fire personnel airburst rounds anytime without a TRP. A vehicle radio with a mortar team Section HQ gets quicker FFE times than relaying messages through the Mortar Platoon HQ. If an on map mortar is stuck in spotting (never fires) it probably only has WP rounds left which can only be fired as a Smoke mission. Generally the closer the arty/mortar is to the target the more accurate it is.