BornGinger

We could always have a thread in the General Discussion section where people can give links to their scenarios and then get feedback on those scenarios.

Could it be something that we can watch on youtube?

We hope for a new and better game engine.

We hope for a new and better game engine.

Why does a battle have to be balanced other than in a ladder game? To be something of an underdog and do quite well for oneself even though the end result is a loss is ok as long as it wasn't a total loss.

Why does a battle have to be balanced other than in a ladder game? To be something of an underdog and do quite well for oneself even though the end result is a loss is ok as long as it wasn't a total loss.

I think the reason to this behaviour is that the time frame is too short. Some, or many, large battles which historically took maybe around a whole day often has the limit of two to three hours in the game. This might push the player to send his pixeltruppen into something similar to suicide attacks.

I think the reason to this behaviour is that the time frame is too short. Some, or many, large battles which historically took maybe around a whole day often has the limit of two to three hours in the game. This might push the player to send his pixeltruppen into something similar to suicide attacks.

Give us the dlc, I'd say. I want to watch those Fire and Rubble videos on YouTube.

There have been quite a few people on this forum, me included, requesting more AI-groups than the 16 for each side in the scenario editor to be able to hopefully make the home made scenarios more interesting and more challenging for those who prefer not to play H2H battles.
 
A few days ago when I began doing the AI-movements for the scenario I'm a bit busy with now, I got the idea to see how squads in the platoons are moving around on the battle scenario area when painting the same AI-movements and giving the same AI-orders in the editor for in one case two separate company groups of a battalion and in another case two companies in one battalion group.
 
When I painted the movement orders I didn't paint two or three large yellow areas. Instead of that I decided to paint six different yellow areas and thus try to give each platoon its own area (two companies with three platoons each) just to see how the AI would behave when facing that challenge.
 
In the first test I had a battalion consisting of two companies, where one company was group A1 and the other was group A2 and where each group (company) were given three painted areas each (three platoons). In the second test I had the same battalion with the same two companies where the whole battalion was group A2. The AI-orders were the same with the difference that this time the AI-movements which earlier belonged to group A1 had been copied and added to the larger group A2. So this time the battalion had six separate painted areas to use.
 
When there were two company groups the squads in each platoon were sticking together quite well although they sometimes spread out a bit. When the whole battalion was one group the squads in each platoon spread out even more and didn't really stick together very much.
 
The picture below shows an example of 1 Platoon, 1 Company in these tests. The left column shows 1 Platoon when each company was a separate group and the right column shows 1 Platoon, 1 Company when the two companies belonged to the same group.
 

 
I think it would be great, and hopefully not too much work, if the game engine could keep track on each squad in the platoons so they are staying closer to each other when they are following the movement orders that are given in the editor. That way the platoon leader would stay closer to the squads he's supposed to influence and the whole AI-platoon would maybe fight better.
 
If it was possible for the game engine to keep the squads closer to their leader it would maybe be easier to make an interesting scenario where one can paint more separate movement areas with the trust that a platoon would move there together. 
 
Instead of having a battalion consisting of three companies with three platoons each divided into nine AI-groups in a large or huge scenario, one AI-group for each platoon, it would be possible to for example divide that battalion into three groups. And if we wanted to have eight tanks in that scenario moving separately we could make them into eight different groups and still have five AI-groups left. Those five groups could be used for whatever we'd find would make the scenario more fun to play.

The best way is to test it. Choose bunkers with different experience and use a tank or AT-gun to shoot at each and see which one is destroyed first.

What? You actually mean that? I always though that us here were the ones that should be fit to rule the world.
I heard that someone already is designing our rings of power and that they are heating up the furnace.

I too hope that. And if people begin to down rate Combat Mission games because they find them too complicated, I hope Battlefront doesn't decide to go the way other game companies seem to have done and simplify the games because they see to amount of sales instead of good content.
Many games you find on Steam you can also find on websites for "free" games. How great is the risk of Battlefront games to become "free" if they are being sold on Steam?
The fact that Battlefront still is offering demos to try the games out before purchasing them is of course hopefully a way to prevent them from becoming "free" in the future.
A new updated game engine here we come.

I wish there was an option to withdraw troops a bit to deal with the situation they're suddenly facing if they would get attacked by a stronger enemy force. But that would probably require an if ... then ... kind of AI coding. The way it works now the attacked AI troops will either cower at the spot or maybe even run back a bit to cower further back. But it isn't possible to make the AI troops withdraw to another position and prepare for an attack or code it to try to avoid the situation by going another way.
The option we have is reverse. But as far as I understand that option only works with vehicles and could be used together with a trigger line and would order the vehicles to reverse if the enemy crosses a certain line. But that option doesn't give room for a surprise attack.
The option with if... then... coding could maybe be a little help in trying to make the AI act like someone in a H2H battle.
I also think we need more than 16 AI groups. We need at least 24 groups to be able to split companies into smaller groups on large and huge maps.

Try this one German Field Fortifications on the Eastern Front

It doesn't surprise me that the pixeltruppen get tighered when in hunt mode. If you try to walk the way they do with their legs you'd understand how tiresome it must be to be on the hunt for a long time. They always remind me of a girl on my street when I was a little boy, who whenever she weed or **** herself (having the runs) hurriedly walked home exactly that same way shouting "Mum, I ****/pissed myself!".

In the CM-games, at least in Final Blitzkrieg which I have, the crew in a Sturmgeschütz has only one MP40 submachine gun, for the commander, if the vehicle is a Stug III of the late type while the crew in all other Stug III types doesn't have a submachine gun. The crew in all the different types of a Sturmhaubitze 42 has a submachine gun. Although I trust that Battlefront have made this decision based on what they believe is correct information the video Sturmgeschütz School - Choose the Stug Life shows that there were more than one MP40 for a Stug III crew.
According to a Sturmgeschütz leaflet dated 1943, which explains the responsibilities of all the crew, the loader had also the duty to "always be ready to defend against anti-tank infantry with hand grenades and a submachine gun. Close combat weapons should always be kept at hand" and the leaflet goes on to say about the driver that "For close range defense, he always carries a submachine gun at hand with which he also can shoot out of the observation slit" and "When rolling up trenches and enemy positions he can use his submachine gun to effectively support the commander".
If the crew had to bail out of the tank and destroy it if it couldn't be saved they should carry on as infantry which the leaflet explains with "If you're forced to bail out, don't forget your handguns. Continue as an infantryman".
It is possible that the information Battlefront had when they made the games was different than what is in the leaflet mentioned in the video. Maybe they should look through that information again and if it's possible that not only the crew in a Sturmgeschütz had more than one MP40 they could make changes to the German tank crews in the games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w47yYXLFGM
(Didn't find a way to add the video so the link has to do)
 

It was a German thing in the way that the FO team was German but the tank was a US one.

That comic is really good and well made. This reminds me of the comics about the second world war me and my brothers read when we were kids in which the Allies always were heroes and the Germans always the villains.

It depends on where you live. I lived in the Russian part of Estonia and in a little town outside of Tallinn where there were mostly Russians.
But you're correct about the Estonians and their relationship with the Russians. My aunt told me once that she wasn't happy to talk to me in Russian and wanted me to speak Estonian the next time I came for a visit. But as I had the work to live among the Russians learning the Estonian language wasn't in my plans.
I'm pretty sure the Russians weren't much loved in other part of central and eastern Europe.
But the fact is still that I didn't hear nor read much about WW1 in those two countries. They were maybe too much effected by WW2 so there wasn't much place for WW1. It  might be different nowadays, though.

@Erwin I don't know what the reason was for the last paragraph of your message above. NATO hasn't been on the table in our discussion about Russian  speaking people living in Estonia. But as you mentioned NATO; I knew that USAs promise to Russia (Gorbachev) in the '80s to never have a NATO presence close to Russia's borders wasn't going to last long as the Cold War didn't stop then but merely went into a new phase.
I reckon that it probably is enough with the politics and to allow this thread to be about the film 1917.

I guess that people are ok with the information the media is feeding them. It's ususally the trench war that is discussed when it comes to WW1 and the atrocities commited by the Germans when it comes to WW2. Not many mention all people being killed by the Soviets and how many German POV that died in the Allied prison camps after WW2. When I lived in Estonia and Russia, WW1 was never mentioned but WW2 was mentioned a lot and always with the idea how good the Soviets were.
But it's of course possible that the Eastern front in WW1 is mentioned in Poland, Austria, The former Jugoslavian countries and more in that part of Europe.

I often us an arch when I have units in hiding and want them to get out from hiding only when enemy troops come inside the arch.

You seem to have enough to use some smoke and to send in more artillery on the town. While that is falling upon the town you let the tigers roar in to take a bite. The half tracks and grenadiers could be sent in at the same time and then you just rely on your troops and hope that they will fight well as good Arians should do.

I think it would have been great if foxholes were made in the same way as craters are being done in the editor. Instead of having sandbags, or whatever, protruding from the ground where the troops are hiding they would be hiding in holes in the ground. Trenches could bee made the same way.