semmes

Indeed. I am not quite sure what the v2.11 patch is supposed to be doing with buildings. Troops move even sooner to the lower floor, they leave the building even sooner and they still run towards the firing units. "Hide" is not working in buildings, they get some stray bullets, they mill around and they start shooting. If they are "Pinned" the Hide is not working but Arc-of-fire is, so with a pretty small one they cannot shoot, then they obey the Hide. I also got a frozen dead German, standing, falling backwards and dead. But that's only graphics so it's not important.

Hi. I enjoy a long game, I have uploaded a few at Theblitz if you want to have a look. I usually play Veteran -I don't want to wait too much for artillery support- and I don't mind what side. I would certainly like to play The Bridge -Die Brücke- as Russian -and then as German- I played that one in CMBB version. I do not play QB and I do not play small scenarios -probably not even medium. Regards.

Hi. CMRT/PBEM, I've got v2.11. I am in no hurry when I play, I like big games, I have uploaded a few at Theblitz if you want to have a look. I usually play Veteran -I don't want to wait too much for artillery support- and I don't mind what side. I would certainly like to play The Bridge as Russian -and then as German- I played that one in CMBB version. I do not play QB and I do not play small scenarios -probably not even medium. Regards.

Thank you. I feel honoured by your kindness. If you know a better hole, go to it. Bruce Bairnsfeather.

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. BTW the "example" was not an scenario, only something I have seen in scenarios. Does the AI know what an unit is?, the one tank remaining is not going to go on its own when the rest of the company has been destroyed. Myths & Heroes? As somebody else said: where is your "thoughtful placement" in two hours?, how good is going to be that "good" designer's plan in two hours if no plan ever survives first contact with the enemy? Yes, there has been a misunderstanding. I didn't say the same trigger can be activated by a scout and a T-70. A trigger can be activated by a scout and a trigger can be activated by a T-70; or by one AG moving forwards and backwards while trying to find a good firing position, even with a counter, even a "directional" counter. I like your example. The Hobbit?, or a military operation?, because it looks like: a tank, moving from A through B got to C while paying attention to nothing else in he battlefield. Tank number ten, maybe? From somebody else: "but figuring out ways around them". Is that the job of the designers?... the designers of the game, I mean. I have seen more than a few good ideas around here, but as somebody else was saying: when are we... sorry, are we going to see them implemented, like... ever? Based on the experienced of the last... seven games?, the most reasonable expectation would be: never. C'est magnifique!, mais ce n'est pas la guerre. Pierre Joseph François Bosquet , Balaklava. Great!, but it is not war.

Did we really send men to fight in this? Kiggell, Haigh’s CofS

Impossible... I would say. But I think a trigger tell the AI when and where to move... regardless of the situation.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 and not the disease. "with the tools provided in the Editor it can provide a fun, interesting experience". I'm afraid I cannot agree, fun yes but not joy. Interesting? ... If you move to the flank of the attacking AI it will still move forward, it will not wait and it will not deploy to provide covering fire. I cannot call that interesting. Give me the guillotine and I will give you victory. Joffre.

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.

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 covering fire, 2nd pl will advance to "X", once in its vicinity -trigger- 3rd pl will move through 2nd pl to help clear the objective. Meanwhile the Human Player was moving against the AI left flank, attacking 1st pl and is now in position to fire on the flank of the 2nd pl while it moves forward, because 2nd pl WILL MOVE FORWARD regardless of the situation. What has to do "timing" with the situation? Planning includes telling the HP not to attack the left flank? Whatever the AI has deployed to defend the right flank will sit there, doing nothing, while the HP attacks the left flank; maybe some distant fire. If the AI launches a counterattack, it is going to move troops "somewhere", if, maybe, by chance, that "somewhere" has anything to do with what is actually going on... lucky you. The AI is following a script, is never going to react to whatever is happening. A trigger may be activated by a patrol or by a lonely AG supporting the infantry, while the armoured column is advancing 200m to its left or nowhere. The AI will always do one thing and only that one thing, I think that's why the "counterattacks" I have seen in some scenarios are only there to give the HP something to shoot at. On the other hand... I haver never seen this behaviour or this code but I think you could provide the AI with, at least, some "reinforce position under attack" option. A coy is on the left, around "X" objective, B coy on the right, around "Y"; C coy is in [support orders]. X = 100 points, Y = 50 points, -so, in case of a draw, X is more important- you add casualties, under artillery fire, enemy armour around, number of enemy units identified... After 30' the AI checks the situation, if the threshold of time, casualties... is triggered C coy will reinforced A coy. Meaning: C coy will move to the deployment area of A coy and adopt its orders, C coy could even leave one platoon behind, still under "support", that later on is going to join B coy. Obviously, it is still not working, just a bit less stupid. A HP could see that casualties in A coy are from long range fire, nobody is advancing: A coy take cover!, let's send reinforcements to B coy. After 20' check casualties every 10': in the first minute A coy triggers support, in the next 9' B coy gets one pl wipe out. The AI is NEVER going to react, is not going to stop C coy, wait and decide according to circumstances. Ii is just a limited, one time only, possibility to act based on the situation. Is it possible to write this code? As I read in another post... In PC games there are two levels: easy is playing against the AI.

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 should they be by their weapon? Do you have to pack the HMG and put every single guy in a lorry to get ammo? If the gun/MG is a squad, you can "split (ammo) squad" and send them for ammo, nobody watched that in a film? If the crew suffered casualties they can rejoin to help man the weapon. They corrected the Nagant rifle -graphics- and the "AI Proactively Avoids High-Explosive Fire" -a genius that one- so it is possible. I have a great idea, let's make a new game. Mountain Warfare: Narvik, conquer the Elbrus. You can paint new uniforms, draw beautiful mountain roads, cliffs, big rocks, heavy snow... but please do nothing of the above. Now you can sell a new game, that's the point right? Customers fidelization, right? So that as soon as -if ever- there is a wargame doing that you can merrily burn all the CM games. Or... maybe everybody else is quite happy with how things are. De l’audace, encore de l’audace et toujours de l’audace. Danton. Audacity, still more audacity and always audacity.

My apologies. B). I have no idea where that emoji came from.

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 100 yd; beyond 100 yd, marksmanship declines sharply, reaching a low order at 300 yd. Automatic weapons don't provide hit effectiveness beyond that range. (I guess we could say that aimed fire is not accurate fire). "Operational requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon" At 300m, the attacking infantry unmask, and defenders can commence aimed fire at individual targets. The attackers, with less idea of the whereabouts of the defenders, will still be conducting mostly area fire, with the intention of suppressing the defenders' fire. The accuracy of small-arms fire decreases with proximity (30-50m.) to the target. "Small arms shooting accuracy and the small data problem" My point being... A) We are actually playing Candy Crush. If this had anything to do with a wargame, WWII or a "simulation"... -Your priority is not to kill the enemy, is not to get kill. That should be the AI priority too. -When somebody fires at you -or close enough- you take cover. Then, maybe, you do something else. -Pinned means pinned -like Brexit means Brexit. One guy in a house, under fire from 2 MGs for five minutes, is not going to raise his head, aim, fire and then, suddenly, realize that he is under fire and hide. If it's too hot you move out, and you don't start running like a headless chicken. One guy could panic but that doesn't mean that the whole squad is going to. -In general broad terms: An attack will stop after sustaining 30% casualties. So, the "orders group" will not move forward, no a single one of them; or the squad will "disagree" with your movements orders to advance. Permanent morale, no instant morale test only. The defenders will withdraw -or break- after sustaining 50% casualties. So, as soon as there is a "deployment area" the Engine should "paint" a second, smaller, deployment area 100, 200 or 400m. in the rear, there to redeploy; to fall back, no to start running like headless chicken. Once the unit is there, we -brittle few- start all over again. -The two remaining guys from a squad, three from another an one in the command group are no three units to give orders to, they will join another squad or they will "get lost". They are not going to start a battle all by themselves. Or how many heroes do you want to put in the game?, dysentery too? -Almost every fire -so every fire- is area fire, it doesn't matter if the icon is clearly defined or blurred. The AI should be using it all the time. How good is B. Mauldin aim? -Lorries will follow roads. C)We are playing Candy Crush. What is great, we are sitting comfortably at home, drinking tea. Actually I heard that some people love Candy Crush... it makes sounds and the colours are bright. The three quotations... I found and read them on the web, I do this for fun but the people making games... they do it for a living, right?, it is their business, right? I have seen things... like these in games, a game doing that. So... wondering... we copy & paste Candy Crush's code and change the graphics? Dig a hole in your backyard while it is raining. Sit in there while the water climbs up your ankles. Pour cold mud down your shirt. Sit there for 48 hours, and, so there is no danger of you dozing off, imagine that a guy is sneaking around waiting for a chance to club you on the head or to set your house on fire. Get out of the hole, fill a suitcase of rocks, pick it up, put a shotgun in your other hand and walk on the muddiest road you can find. Fall flat on your face every few minutes, as you imagine big meteors streaking down to sock you. Snoop around until you find a bull. Try to figure out a way to sneak around him without letting him see you. When he does see you, run like hell all the way back to your hole in the backyard, drop your suitcase and gun and get in. If you repeat this performance every three days for several months you may begin to understand why an infantryman gets out of breath. But still you won’t understand how he feels when things get tough. B. Mauldin.

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 in the the direction of the sound contact, you hear the crack and the whizz, nothing. The right group, now 10m in advance, run backwards!, towards the squad!, that is, towards the fire, towards the crack and the whizz. Maybe there were some distant mortar rounds, a MG firing somewhere but I am sure we have all read about experienced soldiers knowing, by the sound, if the artillery was "over" or "on" you. Well. this is a crack and a whizz on you and you do nothing. In some games there is that "action area" around everybody -which is absolutely ridiculous because that's all they have- where if there is something inside that area you attack or shoot, and I have seen two "units" both shooting through a house because... well, they were in "range". One metre further away and you do nothing. Question: Is it so incredibly difficult to combine the "recon cycles" with this "close awareness"? Close, hand-grenade range? 50 m. maybe? If you lower the camera and you get closer, the sounds change, so the Engine knows -I would say- how "close" is close.

I have nothing personal against the coders and as this looks like a movie allow me to use the word "producer", probably the same "producer" who decided that when under fire, you run... You don't, you take cover, you hit the ground... they haven't invented anything else. They never invented anything else. You try to get a certain amount of bullets in a determined space with the expectation of hitting somebody there. One of those 10 guys is going to be an ex-guy, if the code doesn't say that each one of them has a 10% chance... the "producer" took the wrong decision. Anybody has seen the code? ... @IanL ? Silent enim leges inter arma. Cicero. Laws fall silent when weapons talk.

The only aimed fire is with a rifle. The lock is moving forward, so any other fire is area fire. I would say the tons of evidence should come from the programmers, if they made 10.000 test and there was even the slightest hint that out of 100 casualties more than 10 were gunners they were doing it wrong. My friend, any hussar who does not die by thirty is a blackguard . Lasalle.

The preliminary conclusion would be that "crack" troops are, indeed mythical creatures. This time the Germans had some "regular" troops on the front line, the AI was using a different plan but still buildings, cover... After 15' the Russians had 20 casualties, all of them SAF. The Germans 44. One by mortar fire. 28 by Su76 and 15 by small arms fire, including a few "crack" ones. Pero si mañana lo fusilamos nosotros, fusilaremos a un general que ha faltado a su honor y a su palabra. Aranguren a Goded. But if tomorrow we shoot you, we will be shooting a general who betrayed his honour and his word. Gen. Aranguren to Gen. Goded, 1936.

To MikeyD I always -even in 1944- give the Germans better quality than the Russians. Maybe a test with vet v. vet with (+1/+2) better leaders or worse Russians leaders ? Good idea thanks, I never thought of "crack" as mythical creatures. To Freyberg Yes to all. Well... accurate automatic fire is a contradiction, I guess you mean accurate area-fire. "The most lethal, accurate weapon on the WWII battlefield", I never read those statistics but I read that it is pretty hard to convince any GI that the Bren is better than the BAR. You read my post so you read my 2 examples of fire/movement... but I think you're missing the point. Of course at the end some -Russians MG- will kill something but 10' of an "exception" looks beyond "exceptional". My point is that the MG42 -and the MG34 too- is providing suppressive fire and killing and the Maxim -and DT- only suppression. How good sounds bad music and bad reasons when we march against the enemy. Nietzsche.

Again... sorry. I am testing one scenario -good thing because I forgot to setup an unit in the right zone- so, after 15' I used the Cease Fire to see what was going on. Two German coy. defending (AI, crack/normal, some in buildings, some in ditches, 90% in some cover), 14 LMG + 6 HMG in combat. They suffered 40 casualties, 39 by Su76 fire, ONE by small arms fire -not by MG. Four Russians coy. advancing with a lot of covering fire ("human", veteran/normal, not all the time moving, half the time under cover, providing support fire) 27 LMG + 8 HMG actually firing. 30 casualties, ALL by small arms fire. Even if 2/3 were while moving in the open -and they were not- that's a 10-to-1, 10-to-0 regarding MG. Let's say 30 MG firing for 10'... not a single one was able to kill one enemy soldier. For some reason, it seems that every time I take a closer look I find something "funny" (yes, I know... don't look). So my my question is: "Human" infantry... do they shoot blanks? I am still working in this scenario, I will be checking again. On the other hand, I was using distant LMG and close SMG covering fire to get within grenade distance ro eliminate an enemy MG; it worked. I was using mortar fire to get 3 Su76 in position to knock one PzIV out; it worked. Something like the "game" part is working all the time but the "WWII" intermittently... And yes I know -actually there is an Australian study about rounds per hit for LMG compare to SLR- a lot of covering fire, you are likely to get hit while moving... everything else. Still, 30 MG x 10' ... 0 / 30 casualties. I will obey orders. A friend of mine... during a game.

A platoon got an AT round in some trees behind them... around 30 guys: 3 casualties... 1 leader, 1 gunner, 1 rifleman. Bias... obviously. Salut les Gendarmes! Beaucoup de pertes, ¿chez vous?. Verdun. Heil MP! You had many casualties?