chuckdyke
-
Posts
5,133 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by chuckdyke
-
-
3 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:
+1. IMO much easier to make two versions of the same scenario.
Excellent information on your links. Thank you.
-
9 minutes ago, Erwin said:
How do you mean?
I played FB and send out 2 scouts they got out of contact with their HQ. They wandered something like 50 meters apart from each other. You can lose units on Iron. You see your movement plot, but you don't see your troopers. It happened a few times and I don't think it is a bug. It happens in areas with poor visibility. They are well separated from their icons. I united them again by plotting a movement order towards the trooper closest to their icon. Happy gaming give it a go.
-
1 minute ago, BornGinger said:
That's exactly what I did. I suggested that you edit a scenario, or a few, and change the experience of the side you play against the AI and I also suggested that you could play against people. But you didn't like those suggestions.
I decide who I play with and I have two people. I just explained to Wham why the allies didn't do a thing by reading the editor manual. Editing and playing is very similar each time you save a game you edited a new game.
-
Just now, wham said:
I'm not sure what this is trying to prove? Evidently all the built-in scenarios have an AI plan, since most of the units move, and only a small portion of them fail to do so.
No each time you start a game you may have a different battle plan. In the editor there are 5 plans, this means first time you play against plan no1. For example, you lost, and you want to play again you may be confronted with plan no3. You will play a similar game but not the same game. In game no2 for example the editor didn't give the allies a battle plan. The consequence is they don't do anything. There are no more than 1 plan in one game per side. Here is what I read and explains what you experienced.
-
Three ways a player has to take out the T34. Do nothing sometimes the AI takes the initiative. Take an ambush position with cover arc to determine where you want to take out the tank or other tanks. Plot a direct fire order using the LOS tool. Experiment and see which method has the most success. Plot a direct fire order using the LOS tool has more than its fair share of disappointments.
-
There should be a manual on how to edit a game and you can play a game more than once as you may have more battle plans. For each game there may be say 5 different battle plans so each time you start you may face a different battle plan. Here is the reason units don't do anything. Out of the game manual: A scenario can have a Computer Player for either or both Axis and Allied sides. However, if the designer did not specifically create a Computer Player for a side the units for that side will simply sit wherever they start out and do nothing. Therefore, the scenario designer should make sure to mention in the briefing that a scenario is supposed to be played from a specific side only.
-
34 minutes ago, BornGinger said:
It's not a hobby but more like a duty.
Edit a scenario and let other people try your creation. You don't tell people what they should do you make suggestions. The game inside the game is the editor, I know how to dabble with it, but I don't call it fun. Some people do respect and admire their creations. Make a TLP, OPORDS, WARNOS, FRAGOS, RISS, KOCCOA, SOSRA. Six acronyms and you about cover it. RISS to Assault, KOCCOA to approach SOSRA to breach, walls, minefields, cross LDA, ODA's. If you can make each concept into an attack with the triggers good luck. The TLP, OPORDS, WARNO's FRAGOS to write a scenario, lots of times I must make sense of the scenario editing. You would write something to act as a trigger for the game. TLP To set the player up for example the C2 network. Make sure the different HQ's communicate and let the AI work for you. Your sniper will actually eliminate some enemies, your Firefly gets the first shot in etc etc. That is if you set up a TLP it means Troop Leading Procedure. This is not the place to write an instruction book, I am just a player finding some fun and remembering some stuff.
-
4 minutes ago, wham said:
While I see the merit of setting myself extra goals as the defender, I feel this is akin to modding the scenarios myself, which is not what I'm looking for when purchasing a game. I feel this issue could pretty much be remedied by admitting to the shortcomings of the scenarios and engine and AI, and adding a note either in the game description, manual or scenario descriptions that all scenarios are best played as attacker unless the mission is designed and tested to be challenging to play as the defender as well.
Multiplayer is a different matter, and I feel nearly all scenarios are perfectly playable as either side with an opposing human player, but as much as I would love to have one, I remain stuck playing with the AI due to the nature of the game making it difficult to approach or maintain focus in for a lot of people. 120 turns, with each turn taking half an hour to an hour or more to set up, is just too much time to invest for my friends.
Additionally, in some scenarios there are already such objectives in place in the mission design, with several touch objectives set for the defender far outside of their starting area, forcing the defender to push out of a secure position to capture forward positions before the advancing attacker can reach them. At least in non-historical scenarios, I feel this might be a suitable way to force the defender to be active as well, making it so that the defender cannot simply win by sitting still and being passive. Likewise, in many scenarios a key part of the defenders forces arrive later as reinforcements, but even in these scenarios the attacking AI currently loses due to a failure to advance past initial objectives, meaning that even with the defenders reinforcements sitting at the edge of map and never engaging the attacker, the defender ends up winning. If anything can be done in the current engine and level of AI, I think these tools might be key to creating interesting attack/defend scenarios that are playable as either side against the AI. However, this is speculation on my part, as I've never really studied the AI planning tools in any depth.
It is not the only scenario and there are more of them The Bridge at Varaville in Battle for Normandy. I took my objectives set out a defense. And waited for a counterattack. Same story this was an attack scenario. I as the attacker took my objectives and that was it. A platoon of Germans in trucks were waiting on the edge of the board. Nothing was mentioned in the scenario. But you can always experiment in the less entertaining scenarios. See what needs to be done to get a total victory. Defenders are supposed to have a patrol program if you think they are beaten I suggest organizing a sweep through the countryside. You may find a regiment heading your way. FB has 5 AI plans and the AI is limited. After 2 years the AI gets boring.
-
3 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said:
Answer or no answer...i will just end by mentioning that any of my replies have not been directed at you personally...but generaly at any player.
And while discussing the quality/challange of the AI i don't think that a statement like this...
might be a fair description of the AI quality. If a player does that he is not even giving the AI the chans to win. Offering a human player a cease fire is one thing because he can reject it. The AI rarely will...Doing so would be cheaing the scenario and the result can never be considdered a 'major victory'. But you are correct though that i and i guess most others would do the same thing if we get bored. But a victory ? NO...
That is obviously the right way to do it if you want a real challange but H2H may not be an option for every player....for various reasons.
if you press the red button 10 times and there is no reaction I can't see that is cheating. If you want a Total Victory experiment what you can do. You may enjoy yourself.
-
6 minutes ago, BornGinger said:
It seems to me that you should avoid playing the scenarios and quick battles against the AI and spend most of your time on TheFewGoodMen and TheBlitz so you can play against human opponents.
Is it your hobby to tell other people what they should do? I have 2 human players where I live, and we visit each other to play on Hot-Seat. I play only Quick Battles against a human opponent. Scenarios are great to test tactics. A Few Good Men you play by Email and must disable the security of your PC. No thanks not for me. The AI is not hard to beat as attacker or defender. To get your best Intel? learn the editor and you know the way your digital opponent thinks. You can use the Eifel Tower in Paris figuratively speaking as your spotting and communication post. The AI even if it has all the assets, it will leave you alone as long as you stick to spotting and communicating. It doesn't know area fire. Happy gaming and do me a favor, and don't bother me with your advice what I should or should not do.
-
On 1/14/2021 at 12:17 AM, Erwin said:
That is just one example and it sounds like an outlier. My point refers to the majority of scenarios - esp the larger ones. Am playing a campaign (Die Letzte Hoffnung") on Iron, and finding the only difference is that when no unit is selected I see everything juts like playing on Elite. If one selects a unit one only sees what that unit sees. So what...? Unless I wait until the C2 system tells the unit what it can fire at there is no difference in the play experience. The missions are not long enuff to wait for the C2 system to work. So... one simply alternates between no unit selected and then select the desired unit and use Area Fire on where one knows an enemy (or a contact icon) is located.
I get the sense that missions/scenarios have to designed to be played on Iron, or it is not practical and rather silly.
I discovered recently that even two men scout team can split up on iron. You really need to maintain your own C2 network. The contact icons network expansion is a personal thing. It seems to have influence but to provide data takes a lot of work. In Battle of Normandy The Battalion HQ is in proximity of the Panther Company HQ and sure enough he has passed on the Icons. His tanks are on hunt moving with cover arc's and to brew up the Sherman's is child's play. No plotting on my part. The game goes very fluid, I remember earlier games that you target manually using the LOS tool, I lost far more equipment.
-
On 7/30/2020 at 7:10 AM, Flibby said:
I've been playing around with this on some test scenarios in hot-seat mode.
I seem to get relatively similar results whether I approach a SBF position, covered or not, by crawling the last few spots or not. There doesn't seem to be any cover that a 3-4 man MG team can get into unseen from 3-400m away. As such it appears sensible to just make sure that enough firepower is arriving at the same time that the enemy can't shoot at them all, and then establish fire superiority.
What i seem to be getting my head around is that fire superiority isn't about getting the best position for your troops, its just about getting enough troops with LOS to an enemy that you can suppress their units. It doesn't matter if you're in the open if the enemy has their heads down. Of course it's nice to be behind a stone wall giving suppressive fire, but 5 squads in the open with LOS to the enemy will establish fire superiority better than 2 squads behind a wall, or 5 squads without LOS.
Smoke lots of smoke all over the battlefield and just use one spot to position your observer. A sniper is trained to spot for clever tactics of the enemy. Either that or have a night mission to insert your observer. The trouble with hills you can see everything but whatever you can see, can potentially see you. Have the phase that you insert your key people and create lots of area fire, barrages, fighter planes breaking the sound barrier and any other mayhem you can think off.
-
1 hour ago, Freyberg said:
In fairness, close assault on an unsupported tank shouldn't be hard. I don't believe it was in RL.
Yes, the Hungarians didn't have many problems with a little innovation. Here a JS III Chassis with no turret. But they had years and years of experience on the Eastern Front.
-
On 11/28/2020 at 8:47 AM, Falaise said:
Hollow points are not allowed but a hollow charge is. Wonder who came up with that idea?
-
6 minutes ago, John1966 said:
They are magic aren't they?
The British Gammon Bomb was. They carried the ingredients and made their grenades on the fly. From AT grenades to Satchel charges. Having people from mining communities in your forces pays dividends.
-
18 minutes ago, Artkin said:
Yeah tanks really aren't invincible.
I would take a panther over a tiger any day. Better in every aspect. Good armor, less weight, probably less ground pressure, arguably the best tank gun of ww2 (high velocity low caliber), though 88mm kwk43 a close second!
Apparently they made a variant with night vision? or was this just a SPWAW fantasy?
Experiment with infrared. Best allround tank I would have a careful look at the 76 mm Easy Eight. With the HVAP ammo it would have rivalled the penetration of the 17 pounder and 75 mm/ L70 of the Panther. However, they supplied the HVAP round to the TD's like the Hellcat which had the same gun.
-
1 minute ago, RepsolCBR said:
Prematurely pressning the ceasefire button in a defensive scenario is not a win...it's cheating
...
Anyway....the point i'm trying to make is not primarely about tactics as the defender....but about the current difficulty in designing an AI attacking scenario...
And the fact that you as a player needs to tweak these scenarios into more of a meeting engagemang or even yet another player attack scenario in order to enjoy them seems to me to be yet another indicator to the fact that these player defensive scenarios are not working....
If I get bored, I press the cease fire button nothing to do with cheating it takes another player before you can cheat. Defending involves counter attacking if you think you win by defeating the AI you're wrong. You merely have come up with a model which may work against a human player. Win as an attacker challenge another player who is familiar of the scenario and replay it as a quick battle on the same map. Both players switch sides. I never use words like cheating, you may offend people. The AI can't attack anyone who has owned the games for a few years knows it. Defending is a little better but not much better. I am very happy that I play mostly on Hot-Seat against the AI I would have stopped years ago. In this scenario I used the cease fire button because the AI stopped attacking. Same as you would do against a human player, against a human player you can say no I want you to surrender. If you want the AI to surrender you need to counterattack and destroy his forces. At least in this scenario, nothing but respect for the designer he has done nothing wrong. It is meant as to attack only but they are obliged to have the defend option. Future replies won't be answered.
-
23 minutes ago, danfrodo said:
All I know is when my enemy has tigers they are rolling pillboxes of endless death and mayhem. When I have tigers they are fragile little butterflies. Though once I blundered into one in a nice little Norman town w a terribly under-gunned churchill -- but first shot broke the tigers gun. I spent the next 10 minutes chasing the tiger around all of northern France and blasting it w that dreadful Churchill 75 until I finally got them to bail.
First Tiger which was captured in North Africa was probably disabled by a 6 pounder Churchill. The AI is better in direct fire than 99.999% of the players. I disabled a Tiger once with a .303 thanks to the AI. Forgot all about the sniper but the loss of its commander was a devastated loss of morale of the crew. It didn't participate for the remainder of the game. The AI was probably responsible for the Churchill's achievement, plotting direct fires too often result in disappointments, The British 75 mm gun in tanks is a modified 6 pounder they drilled out the bore. The HE was more useful against infantry and AT guns. What I found out, I replaced direct firing plotting with cover arcs, but be careful with them.
-
To specify what you want from a fire team. For example, I want the Marksman to snipe. But upon spotting a target the whole band will blast away to their hearts content.
-
10 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:
No it is nothing strange with counterattacking per say...but to have an AI attacking force rely on (wait for) a player counterattack before proceeding would be strange imo...
As the attacker you do not voluntarely want to give the initiative to the defender and then having to react to that. It is the defender that is supposed to react to your actions...not the other way around.
You play the game as defender to win is easy press the cease fire button and you end up with a 'Major Victory. In the case of an attacker, you end up with a Major Defeat. If you like to end up with a Total Victory you need to look for enemy forces. I played and after 10 turns I pressed the cease fire button. I kept all my objectives so Major Victory. But later I realized as defender you can make it more interesting. Set your parameter to "Total Victory" and you end up with an enjoyable scenario even as defender. The purpose of wargaming in the military is to design a model which can be used in real life. I thank @whamfor making me look deeper into the issue. I know now to play as defender can be enjoyable. You play your game on your computer and giving yourselves different parameters is fine. In this game I saw the M4 Sherman just standing somewhere. Organized a tank hunter party to destroy it. The original attack party doing buddy aid in the forest capture them for their intel. Just a few suggestions you can do as defender which is standard procedure.
-
6 hours ago, John1966 said:
This can be a bit strange. Last night I had a squad who were "tiring" and when I split them they were both "ready".
Can have something to do with combat stress and combat shock. Tired of what? Mentally or physically @Josey Wales made an excellent video about this. If I suffer casualties I split the squad up for that reason. You see very often that 2 fire teams are not as affected as the fire team with the casualty.
-
5 hours ago, Erwin said:
No, you cannot combine teams from different squads. Some people want to consolidate their whittled down squads and that is what the command is for. Personally, I think having three teams even if there is only one or men in each provides much more flexibility.
It depends again which mode you prefer to play. On Iron you lose sights of your squads quickly if you're not careful. I saw a two men scouting team separated by fifty meters in a forest. BY plotting some way points to 'combine' them again. I see the different modes of play as different games in their own right, not different skill levels. On Iron even members of the same firing team can lose sight of each other. By not selecting anything you become aware of it or in the command phase of a new turn. You can't split up fire teams as an order, but they do so at times involuntarily.
-
You can give both sides objectives. Read the Battle of Long Tan an NVA Regiment vs an Australian Company (D Company 6RAR). The defense was concluded with an Australian counterattack. M113 APC's combined with NZ 105 mm Artillery. Waiting in the rain for the next NVA attack was poor tactics. Do something unexpected has surprising results. Nothing strange of having a counterattack in your scenario. It made that game a little bit more playable I just did it for fun. Observed numerous cases of buddy aid and started probing their positions it made it less boring. I don't take one iota notice of the victory conditions and made it a seek and destroy mission. People buy the game to have some fun. If some games lack in design, change the parameters. After all, I bought the games with my own money. The AI can't attack it doesn't give area fire and artillery support is without the input of a forward observer. I can make my bed on top of the church tower and the AI leaves me alone and call strikes all over the place. I am very happy with combat mission when I play it with my mates. The AI is just practice.
-
3 minutes ago, Erwin said:
The tactical AI will make crews duck down if it calculates the crewmember(s) are in danger.
My most enjoyable moment was when a .303 send a Tiger I packing. Much later I discovered the culprit. A sniper with his Lee Enfield. The Tiger Popped smoke and reversed with the red cross symbol. Since that day I let the direct firing over to the AI. The Tiger Commander didn't duck fast enough. It makes sense, it is not Rorke's Drift with: "Aim Fire!" We will never figure out how the AI calculates. We winge when we are frustrated but glee with joy if it is the other way around.
Shall try to start an unofficial screenshots thread?
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
Not my work @Falaise originally posted this.