Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About semmes

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Thank you. I feel honoured by your kindness. If you know a better hole, go to it. Bruce Bairnsfeather.
  2. And we are back to the beginning of the post: perfect timing /thoughtful placement. No, I don't think that the "Editor is versatile" that's my point and most of what I have seen here is just a friendly "keep working". No, you cannot plan a good attack. The AI is never going to send reinforcements (where needed), is never going to redeploy (to face a threat) and is never going to wait (to neutralize the threat); It is following a script unaffected by the "general situation". It is only going to be "interesting" if he HP is following one of the options the designer prepared for him.
  3. Did we really send men to fight in this? Kiggell, Haigh’s CofS
  4. Impossible... I would say. But I think a trigger tell the AI when and where to move... regardless of the situation.
  5. I agree a 100%. I am always going to have a reserve and to organize a secondary attack even if only as a"fair play" touch -and because it is amusing. Pity most of the time counterattack only means units crisscrossing the battlefield. Trigger and timer are a too blunt instrument.
  6. So you have to tell the HP where to move his tanks, he cannot fire and keep the distance? Maybe some lines to help him park too? You forget the basic one, a counter but you have to tell he HP exactly where to cross so he can be counted. So, you provide help?, really?, by avoiding the elephant in the room? All those new games were "planning for he past" then? Yes, if you read the Editor you read the word "Stance". For example: 9 tanks are burning behind but number 10 is still moving to the next order, all by himself, whatever "Stance" they had.
  7. I haven' seen i , first of all, but "responded", sure? If you attack on the right it is going to counterattack on he right? Two forces?, a patrol activates the left counterattack and your attack the counterattack on the right? Yes, you can plan a slow methodical attack with enough troops to cover both flanks all the time, or just add a 2nd, 3rd and 9h wave to break through... if there is anything to break through. If you need all that effort and playtesting, aren't you saying that the design is flawed?
  8. I am glad. I think the nuance is "a lot worse than" instead of "which weren't as good as" . The game is not taking full advantage of the possibilities it already has, a kind of uncompleted code. I still play at 3 PC games but not that happily. My centre is giving way, my right is falling back. Situation excellent, I 'm attacking.
  9. Great, and great to see more people interested in the actual coding of the AI misbehave. Now... I did mention the trigger, the problem is that it can be activated by a scout or a T-70, instead of by an IS-2 platoon. Also, for some reason, your "trigger behind an AI defensive position" sounds more like a trap -but not an ambush- than a reaction and it can be triggered by an artillery round hitting the "right" squad; just a too elaborated script for my liking. Yes, it is an improvement and you can do a few things with the tools at hand but I wonder if we are treating the symptom a
  10. Sorry. The reference was to a topic in CMFI, I am talking of my scenarios in CMRT. I always use the 5 Plans, the "somewhere", "doing nothing" and "WILL MOVE FORWARD" still applies. In every single Plan. What capability can you add? To reinforce the flank actually under attack? Because of all the men facing us, no one is call Gisco. Hannibal, at Cannae.
  11. I have uploaded 2 versions of one scenario -AI/H2H- and I realised there is no point in planning the AI to attack; it is stupid enough in defence. I was reading and old post in CMFI... and yes, it is really stupid. There was one scenario... maybe if it had 36 tanks... because if it has 40, the AI always win and if it has 30 the AI is always defeated. What's the point of this scenario? a shooting test? Somebody was saying that with the "perfect timing", a "careful planning".. let's see. The first platoon will take a position on the left flank to provide coverin
  12. I guess everybody is using his inner voice to ask why we got a new game, again and again -and again- instead of a better game. Well, I mean, they had time to paint new toy soldiers but never enough time to paint hand-grenade boxes. By the way, any idea how many ammo boxes can you put in a lorry? How difficult is a Sub-Formation tab? Did they have time to "teach" the AI that lorries are not combat units and shouldn't be in the front line? Does the AI know that squads should deploy in its platoon area, even if the company has an one km front? Ammo bearers sho
  13. My apologies. B). I have no idea where that emoji came from.
  14. The company attacks an enemy platoon position. Typically, a few enemy are killed or wounded; the rest surrender or withdraw. The company has fired several thousand rounds, of which a dozen or so have hit the enemy. "The Real Role of Small Arms in Combat" The ranges at which the rifle is used most frequently in battle and the ranges within which the greater fraction of man targets can be seen on the battlefield do not exceed 300 yd. Within these important battle ranges, the marksmanship of even expert riflemen is satisfactory in meeting actual battle requirements only up to 10
  15. I have a squad taking cover in some trees, there is a fire team/group to its left (15m), another group is advancing on its right. Two guys with rifles, what is left of an enemy HMG and who "decided" to stay "there", not in their position, not with the rest of their unit, are further away (35m) to the left. They start shooting, crack!, crack!, crack!, crack!, they hit one guy in the squad. Now, after 4 shots the squad fails its morale and is cowering but with every previous shot they did nothing. The left group, in hand-grenade range, did nothing, 4 shots, no area fire, not shooting i
  • Create New...