HerrTom
-
Posts
759 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by HerrTom
-
-
48 minutes ago, c3k said:
X-raying the entire inventory? Perhaps they'll use airport screening machines during lull periods.
I know X-rays are a common way of inspecting welds for cracks, along with dye penetration. As far as I know, it's sometimes used on castings, too. It has the advantage of high throughput, so I imagine X-ray inspection is probably the fastest way to look through the entire inventory.
With that said, it does seem a little overkill to look over the entire inventory unless there was no pattern in the cracked shells to narrow it down. Even then, perhaps before going crazy, inspect a random sampling of the various lots? Maybe the airports are having slow days!
-
Thanks Machor. I'll be sure to do that. Have to brush up on my video editing to make it more painless!
-
Okay, a quick example: Quick move to the forest, and the team takes fire as they cross the road.
Move priority on. They keep going.
Fire priority on, they move to assault stance and assault to the objective.
Take cover on, they stop moving.
Smoke and take cover on. They stop and pop smoke.
-
1 hour ago, Machor said:
You need to come up with more gaming contexts for these controls - for the time being, I'm only able to see where I could use 'move priority' and 'fire priority.'
For example, you've mentioned 'smoke,' but how much smoke will realistically build in something like 15 seconds? (As I now better understand the context you had in mind.)
What could you do with 'take cover' that you can't currently do with 'hunt?'
Keeping in mind that something like 'column' is now on the way for vehicles, how would you use 'column,' 'line,' and 'covertly?'
Yeah, maybe some of the controls are unnecessary. I'll try to find some time to illustrate them, either in screenshots or video to explain the ones I think are the more critical ones to the idea - Move and fire priority on the top, with take cover and smoke behind, and the other three maybe not as useful as it seems in Combat Mission's context.
-
3 hours ago, Sprint31 said:
However, you are not talking about TacAI. You are talking about extra decisions that can be made by the player. Which is contradictory to your initial post (good natured contradiction on my part, I assure you!)
Ach! Clearly I should have gone to the debate club. You're right, though I still maintain that these decisions themselves are in relation to the TacAI. My line of thinking really goes to perfect AI being impossible to code, so moving some (hopefully reasonable!) flexibility into the Human element fixes the oddities in a more robust fashion.
-
44 minutes ago, Machor said:
I've certainly had my share of 'dead-in-one-minute' moments, and quite a lot of them in WW2 titles as well. I'm just thinking here: Could it be that these controls would be covering bad command decisions? Like in the scenario that you mention, wouldn't the realistic choice be between overwhelming suppressive fire or risking the lives of pixeltruppen?
29 minutes ago, Sprint31 said:Not to sound harsh, but you're asking to be able to make hasty decisions and not be penalized for it.
Perhaps my example was a poor one, though I'm sure it's not the end all and be all of tactical situations that might need nudging.
Sure you can split off a scout team, though if they take fire, what do they do? On most movement options they press forwards until they're wiped out. On hunt, they'll sit down and stay put. It's pretty good, but maybe I want them to pop smoke to cover their retreat when they reach contact? Maybe I want them to start bounding forward? As opposed to covering bad decisions, perhaps it's enhancing the command possibilities?
I don't really see how telling the TacAI that they should use smoke, or that they should return fire f.e. is really rejecting penalization for hasty decisions?
I dunno, I thought it might be an answer to Steve's long-lasting statement that it's impossible to get the TacAI to act how everyone wants. This is really about the TacAI, not really about the overall command system on the top.
-
5 minutes ago, Machor said:
That being said, your 'micromanagement' is innovative in that it would encourage playing real-time as opposed to trying to achieve similar ends in turn-based play with careful 'pause,' 'deploy smoke,' and 'target arc' commands, so it could get better reception.
Haha, my thought was actually for WeGo! I always found in real-time you can pause and make adjustments, though oftentimes you miss what's going on on the other side of the map. For that, I rarely play it except occasionally with smaller scenarios. My thoughts were actually for doing maybe risky maneouvres during the turn. Maybe you're crossing a field, not sure if enemies are there. Instead of hunting across, you dash a team to get in close with cover fire, but if they get shot at, you want them to change to assault, or to pop smoke and hide. Maybe it is a bit of micromanagement, but I'd argue it's also a bit of streamlining, too. Fewer orders to get what you want. Especially with Black Sea's deadly environment, things that happen in a minute are over in a minute.
-
Operation Star holds a special place in my heart. Especially Operation Hooper. I agree, the level level of automation doesn't have its place in Combat Mission as it stands. You have some very good points, though I think I may not have been clear enough in my proposal.
Steve has said multiple times about the TacAI that it's difficult to tune it to what people want, since everyone wants different things in different situations. My proposal is, I guess, to somewhat "open up" the behaviour of the TacAI to give it a level of customisable "SOP" for your commands. Your pixeltruppen already will sometimes stop and return fire, and sometimes run to cover, and sometimes pop smoke and so on, but the trick is getting them to do each one according to the situation. My solution is to add modifiers to movement or the unit such that the probabilities of certain actions get weighted more or less based on the flags that are set. I.e. with fire priority set, your units are more likely to stop and shoot at enemies they see.
Anyway, I hope that's clearer
-
So one of the things that I find particularly cumbersome in Combat Mission is movement - particularly trying to find the right combination and type of orders that get my pixeltruppen to move how I want. Now, this isn't really about über-control over where each soldier's eyes are looking and weather their fingers are on the trigger and so on, more adding more flexibility to the controls system. (@Steve - I don't mean to sound "give me now I need this," I more wanted to discuss how the commands may be improved with the community).
My proposal came to me while playing Graviteam Tactics, which I understand is a pretty different game to Combat Mission, but it does do one thing better (I think), and that is how the commands are built.
Here's a screenshot of the extended command menu in Mius Front. I admit, their UI is opaque at best, but it's their concept I want to point out. Here, you right click on one of the main commands (clockwise: move, move by road, move fast, covert move, take cover, recon, attack, assault). Each has it's own special considerations that are modified by the outer ring. You can specify the formation, formation density, movement route and type, whether to cancel on contact, tanks first, whether to use smoke, and the number of lines to use. Some of this isn't relevant to Combat Mission, so I prepared a little graphic to show what I had in mind.
This certainly isn't the best way to integrate it since it segregates information, but it was the easiest for me to draw up
. I have (yet another) panel that has modifiers that change the default move commands (fast, quick, move, slow, hunt, etc). These essentially tell the TacAI what you want to have priority. Going from the top:
- Take cover orders your units to stop moving upon taking fire (maybe even plots an evade waypoint).
- Covertly tells them to stay low (prone)
- Smoke tells them to throw smoke ahead of movement
- Move priority tells them to keep moving if they take fire
- Fire priority tells them to return fire while moving if they take fire (kinda like turning the waypoint into an assault order, perhaps)
- Column tells them to move in a column
- Line tells them to advance abreast
So, what do you guys think? Dumbest thing you've ever heard? Something worth thinking more detail about?
-
11 minutes ago, Pericles said:
So unless I buy the game, I can never form an opinion of what it will be like relative to CMBS. Wrong. The AI improvements can be gleaned from gameplay videos. They could also be gleaned from anyone here on the forum who is willing to deliberate honestly and provide some solid examples of improvements to AI. The only example that has been listed yet in this thread is the inclusion of "triggers", which apparently increase the situational flexibility of AI. What other examples can you give?
You're in luck mate! There are demos you can try out to make your own conclusions, minus the patches:
CM:BS : http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=340&Itemid=584
CM:SF : http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=42&Itemid=78
I used to have CM:N a number of years ago (before CM:FI came out, I think) but seem to have lost my key so can no longer play it (
). I can definitely say that while I couldn't put a finger on exactly what's changed, the TacAI has improved markedly from then, from decision making to reacting to understandable spotting, especially in vehicles. While I do think infantry decision making and perhaps the types of orders could be worked on or fleshed out a bit (Steve, if you're looking, I'd like controls more like Graviteam Tactics has on its control panel to fine tune what I want them to do during the turn. Maybe I'll make a new thread to discuss it in detail), it too has improved significantly in the same areas.
-
2 hours ago, TheForwardObserver said:
The question you should be asking is whether it's real at all.
I came to this thread for artillery and glorious smack talk, and now I get some philosophy too?
I think things just got real.
-
A teaser of a scenario I'm making to learn how to script AI in this game. As always, click to embiggen! As a side note: Tigr gunners are incredibly vulnerable! I might have to give the Russians more BRDMs...
A Russian scout company dismounts before their objective
An automatic grenade launcher destroys a Ukrainian RPG position
A Russian platoon dashes over open ground. (Makes me think of Generation Kill?)
-
3 hours ago, TheForwardObserver said:
Allow me to sing you the song of my people
Jesus. Do you have the whole division's artillery allotted to your battle? And maybe the neighbouring one's, too?
-
I always go back to Ambush! It's a wonderfully sized puzzle with a beautiful map and an exciting premise. George did a great job on that one.
I also enjoyed Platoon House Aleksandra. Maybe I have a thing for unconventional small-sized scenarios?
Finally: Brutal! I just finished a DAR on it, but have played it a number of times. It's a hard-as-hell scenario that takes some tries to get right!
-
Indeed. Seems you are correct. From Wikipedia:
"Flamethrowers have not been in the U.S. arsenal since 1978, when the Department of Defense unilaterally stopped using them. They have been deemed of questionable effectiveness in modern combat and the use of flame weapons is always a public relations issue due to the horrific death they inflict. Despite some assertions, they are not generally banned, but are banned for use against civilians, or against military targets in a concentration of civilians under some circumstances."
-
Playing around with shaders, trying to get a good NVG effect. I think I'm getting there.
US soldiers engage a Russian patrol somewhere in Ukraine. (Opportunity Knocks)
-
26 minutes ago, Euri said:
What is all this obsession with big fires? Is this is a forum for pyromaniacs?
What? I can't hear you over the sound of this fire! I admit, I'm a bit of a pyro. My job involves things that burn (when they're supposed to, when they're not supposed to, when they shouldn't be able to, and so on).
On a more serious note - it is pretty atmospheric and can shape the battle when a fire gets out of control.
-
With all this talk about fire, I'm reminded of the beautiful huge fires in Wargame: European Escalation. It's a shame the latter entries removed this effect. It's still the best of them all gameplay-wise, I think. I always loved seeing burning wrecks cause huge fires to spread across the fields.
-
Beautiful. I especially dig the top one. Very artistic.
-
3 hours ago, Chudacabra said:
Perhaps this scenario/map can be made available for download? Hint hint.
It will be. I have to do the Ukrainian briefing and fix some errors I made in the Russian images, then decide whether or not I want to even bother with the AI. Once that's all done, I'll release it.
-
I've finished the map and scenario to an acceptable level and sent it off to my buddy. I guess that means a new thread is imminent! I'm going to create a nice Soviet-style map of the new scenario as soon as I can so we can have beautifully clear information from the beginning, and plan on having more video. Hopefully. The map is pretty big and recording may bring my computer to its knees. (Odd, though. Wouldn't expect it with an i7 and 970M)
-
Something occurred to me this morning about the MiG-29K. As far as I'm aware, Russia doesn't have as extensive MIL-STDs as the US does. I know from experience that AS and MIL rated parts are extremely important in aerospace applications. I've seen a few (very expensive) accidents occur when industrial rated parts were used in place of aerospace rated parts, when they failed far below their rating because they slipped through QC. Say you fly 50 of these parts on a vehicle, and you've done it hundreds of times, but if one fails and the vehicle is destroyed it's still an unacceptably high failure rate in aerospace, but not in industrial applications with higher margins.
Also, if traditional Russian stinginess with spare parts exports applies to its own forces, too, it's possible that a part of the aircraft was being used for much longer than intended by the engineers.
-
Well, looks like Ukrainian forces really did surrender! It was a bloody, perhaps even brutal fight! I applaud my opponent in giving me such a hard time in a scenario that wasn't designed for balance or head to head play!
0923-0924
Sheverin's platoon advances to the bridge, under cover from their attached T-72 (seen in the left hand background).
More of Shaverin's platoon moves to the riverbank.
Nechaev's MTLBs destroy a machinegun position that's been taking pot shots at the Razvedka for the past twenty minutes.
Nasonov takes cover in tall bushes along E50 as sporadic fire from the town comes their way.
One of Aushev's APCs engages a machine gun covering 2nd Company's river crossing.
Part of Nasonov's platoon advances along the riverbank, covered from the housing complex by a tall berm.
Upon seeing this awesome display of firepower, the Ukrainian commander gave the order to abandon the city, leaving it to the damaged Russian battalion.
I ended up doing a lot better than I thought I was. I didn't think any of my massed fire managed to hit much, but the opposite appears to be true. My suppression fire, and especially the fire support from the tanks of 4th platoon, managed to cause some severe damage to the enemy.
The situation at the end. It appears the Ukrainians expended most of their antitank weaponry and many of their squads are shorthanded, including many walking wounded. My fear of enemy positions on the western side of the river appears to have been unfounded.
I'm disappointed that my initial bombardment of the central office buildings didn't take out his FO. That probably would have saved me at least ten casualties from his deadly accurate artillery fire that hit me a few times during the game.
Overall, a fun and challenging game. Keep your eyes peeled for our next game, and thank you everyone for the encouragement and kind words during this DAR!
-
40 minutes ago, Machor said:
Well, ostensibly the RAF firebombing of German cities was also not intended to 'kill' German civilians, but to make them flee to the countryside, and thus leave German factories without workers; so yes, there was a military goal at the end. Ditto with the US bombing of Japan. And I think the line blurs mainly because the perpetrators were never forced to defend themselves in court, so we have not had an occasion to work out the ethical dilemmas in practice. Notably, Robert McNamara disclosed in The Fog of War that Curtis LeMay believed he would have been tried as a war criminal had the Japanese won the war.
Indeed, history is written by the victor. I'm not trying to defend what anyone (be it Russia, Syria, the RAF or whomever) is doing, just trying to give some background on perhaps why they're doing what they're doing beyond "they're evil barbarians who eat babies" which we sometimes see.
). I can definitely say that while I couldn't put a finger on exactly what's changed, the TacAI has improved markedly from then, from decision making to reacting to understandable spotting, especially in vehicles. While I do think infantry decision making and perhaps the types of orders could be worked on or fleshed out a bit (Steve, if you're looking, I'd like controls more like Graviteam Tactics has on its control panel to fine tune what I want them to do during the turn. Maybe I'll make a new thread to discuss it in detail), it too has improved significantly in the same areas.
Russian army under equipped?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
John, I do believe that that is the very same RAND study. Not only that, but this article appears to have been written when that study caused a big brouhaha on these forums! It does bring some interesting points, especially regarding air defense, though I think that has also been discussed quite a bit on these forums. One other thing comes to mind at the end of this article about the nuclear threat. "A war with Russia would be fraught with escalatory potential from the moment the first shot was fired; and generations born outside the shadow of nuclear Armageddon would suddenly be reintroduced to fears thought long dead and buried." Maybe I've been reading too much Herman Kahn, but this line of thinking always seems dangerous to me. The nuclear threat is never over, and always paints every international decision, regardless of whether the states are acting friendly to each other or not. Acting like it's suddenly a problem again is like being surprised that the sky is blue.
Finally, another point on cluster munitions. I'm sure we're all hoping to see these show up in Combat Mission sometime!
I really do think they're a game changer from reports out of Ukraine, and hearkening back to the original topic one of the bigger things missing from the Russian arsenal in-game.
(As a side note, I hate that this blog that deals with lots of written numbers uses Georgia of all fonts. MI tanks indeed...
)