Jump to content

CarlXII

Members
  • Posts

    143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

CarlXII's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

129

Reputation

  1. I sort of can...If you are taking about the AI area fire feature...The current limitation is that only on-map artillery, preferably mortars, asigned to an AI group can respond to a triggered event....The next 'problem' though is...for how LONG should they fire ? A scenario designer can use a number of tricks (new trigger zones, other ai group movements etc) to 'time' the barrage but there is currently no dedicated timer function for AI orders.
  2. A timer/ duration option for AI orders is something i have wanted for many years...It would be a great addition. That would allow the designers to order AI units to 'wait here' for XX minutes or fire there for XX minutes...Given the randomness of how the battle develops...using the game clock or triggerzones to achive these 'timings' can be a bit clunky as you hinted to...
  3. The AI areafire feature that got added a while back is a small but very useful feature. It adds a nice punch to the AI. Regular infantry squads and other supportweapons like machineguns etc can also be set to do simular things and the AI on-map mortars can now provide some decent, well timed, indirect firesupport.
  4. That should be mentioned in the briefing/ campaign description...Otherwise it's a campaign design failure.
  5. It's been quite a while since i played a Vs Ai QB and things might have improved somewhat since then but from reading posts on this forum i belive that they are still seriously lacking. My experience back then was that force selection and initial deployment on the part of the AI was very lacking and honestly close to an insult towards the player...By that i mean... if a player decides to commit some decent time to do a QB battle and takes care to chose a nice map...Develop a plan and spend quite some time to pick a sutable force to then find after having played maybe 10 turns that the AI have picked a force simular to that what Vascillator described above...Thats would be quite frustrating ! This can be improved in many ways i'm sure but one fairly simple way to help the AI pick a more sutable force might be to assign each individual unit in the editor sort of a prefix and a strenth value that would devide them into a number of distinctive groups. Something like: 1. Infantry. 2. Anti infantry support weapons. 3. Anti armour support weapons. 4. Light vehicles. 5. Tanks. 6. Assultguns/ Tankdestroyers. 7. artillery/ Mortars. When the AI picks its force for a QB it will have a starting strenth-pool for each of these categories dependant on the battle size. These starting values will then be moddified by a number of things... - player force selection - map type - weather - battletype (defend, attack, meeting) The AI will 'cheat' and see what force the player decides to buy...If the player opts to spend a high portion of his points on armour then the AI strenth-pool for things like Anti armour support weapons, tanks and tankdestroyers will be increased somewhat. Light vehicles and infantry will be reduced somewhat. If the player on the other hand decides to pick a primarely infantry based force these AI strenth-pools will be adjusted in a simular way. Infantry and anti infantry support weapons might be increased at the cost of armour. Simularely maptype and weather should also tweak the various strenth-pools somewhat. If the map is heavely forrested or urban for example then armour and anti armour support weapons pools might be reduced somewhat to benefit more infantry and artillery. If weather reduces LOS that might also result in some tweaks to the various strenth-pools as would the type of battle being played do. Preferably these various groups could also be used when painting setup zones and AI groups/ programing. Each setup zone painted on the map should have 'checkboxes' for each weapon type group that could be ticked on or off to allow units of that type to be deployed in that set-up zone. Ai groups could have simular checkboxes to limit what type of units could be assigned to the various AI group.
  6. Yepp... But doing it that way you loose the whole point of...QUICK BATTLES !
  7. I think what Vascillator is refering to is the somewhat 'strange' force selection to pick 9 flail tanks and the tactical choise of doing so... There is nothing wrong with the flail tank itself...
  8. I certainly does... The basic idea of the quick battles is a very good one and if the AI opponent could be improved significantelly it would be a great option for some quick gameplay... As it stands today...Not so much.
  9. Quick battles are useful for some simple testing of equipment and tactics...nothing more. Other then that...It's a 2 player feature.
  10. yes... I would rather see a CM3 upgrade compared to some more eastern front... But if we are not getting any CM3 game...A one year/game release for the eastern front will be quite limited i fear...Better then nothing for sure...but to maintain the quality of previous releases i belive it will require multiple modules/ year to do the eastern front justice...
  11. It required something like 7-8 releases to cover 1 year on the western front...I hardly belive that one release/ year will be sufficient to handle the eastern front.
  12. I fully agree (and always have ) that combat mission is the best in class...What i and some others find dissapointing is the lack of progress in the last 10+ years. CM2 has been around for many years now and the improvements/additions to the system over the years have been far from as impressive as the original product was... Reading the 2024 update part one it does not seem we are likely to see any major improvements any time soon...apart from the stated game performance improvement wich offcourse is a nice thing to get. I honestly had hoped to se the series evolve more over all these years...
×
×
  • Create New...