Carentan Part II

[undercovergeek]

thanks MJK - spending time tweaking the AI now and we should be good for release in a day or two - thanks again

[para]

thanks MJK - spending time tweaking the AI now and we should be good for release in a day or two - thanks again

Looking forward to this UCG you seem to have put a lot of thought and effort into it.

[undercovergeek]

Looking forward to this UCG you seem to have put a lot of thought and effort into it.

its been a very rewarding experience - i can see now how the modders get sucked in as they do and never play the game properly!

im just a perfectionist with OCD - youve no idea how many times ive moved a barrel to make sure it fits right (at least in my mind) - as long as people enjoy it and theres a few 'oh, wows, yeah thats from this book i read/film i watched' and 'damn the surprise attack, i didnt expect that' ill be happy, then i need to find another scenario to build - i like real life ones - i think people already have something to compare your work to and can see what youre trying to do and feel immerssed more in a map theyve seen on tv or read about before.

[para]

its been a very rewarding experience - i can see now how the modders get sucked in as they do and never play the game properly!

im just a perfectionist with OCD - youve no idea how many times ive moved a barrel to make sure it fits right (at least in my mind) - as long as people enjoy it and theres a few 'oh, wows, yeah thats from this book i read/film i watched' and 'damn the surprise attack, i didnt expect that' ill be happy, then i need to find another scenario to build - i like real life ones - i think people already have something to compare your work to and can see what youre trying to do and feel immerssed more in a map theyve seen on tv or read about before.

New scenarios??? Well I have mentioned this on another thread. Any chance, of you have a stab at an Arnhem scenario? I know even with the release of the CW module a fair bit of historical units/stuff would be missing but semi historical is still good. Correct me if I'm wrong but not all historical units/weps will appear in your Carentan scenario.

I know we will eventually get the OMG module but that is probably another 12months away, going by the time it has took to get CW ready to go.

[mjkerner]

para, I'm working on a couple (not OMG)...a delaying action and limited counterattack on a looong map, and a breakthrough/seal the breach on a wiiide map. Will need testers soon. You interested?

Also, when CW comes out, I and I'm sure many others will be building OMG scenarioas...there's always the 82nd Abn, 101st Abn, XXX Corps, and plenty of Red Devil actions to fight in "normal" CNBM terrain.

When OMG comes out, I plan to use sdp's Italian mod with some modded terrain I made from CM Afghanistan to make Crete scenarios (although admittedly, the Brit uniforms and kit, even with modded colors, won't be right).

So, it's all good!

[para]

para, I'm working on a couple (not OMG)...a delaying action and limited counterattack on a looong map, and a breakthrough/seal the breach on a wiiide map. Will need testers soon. You interested?

Also, when CW comes out, I and I'm sure many others will be building OMG scenarioas...there's always the 82nd Abn, 101st Abn, XXX Corps, and plenty of Red Devil actions to fight in "normal" CNBM terrain.

When OMG comes out, I plan to use sdp's Italian mod with some modded terrain I made from CM Afghanistan to make Crete scenarios (although admittedly, the Brit uniforms and kit, even with modded colors, won't be right).

So, it's all good!

That is music to ones ears mjkerner

Stick me down for tester spot mate. I will help out anyone that improves and adds to this great game.

[mjkerner]

undercover: An update on AI planning. check out this thread on the CMSF Scenario Mod Design forum:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=82396

para: my Internet connection is out on my home comp, and will be for a week or so. I can't send files from work or on my iPad, but PM me your email and I'll send you the file(s) when I can. Thanks for volunteering.

[para]

undercover: An update on AI planning. check out this thread on the CMSF Scenario Mod Design forum:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=82396

para: my Internet connection is out on my home comp, and will be for a week or so. I can't send files from work or on my iPad, but PM me your email and I'll send you the file(s) when I can. Thanks for volunteering.

check your pm's mate

[snake_eye]

To undercovergeek:

I just thought that you might run into trouble with the troops having to move through the bridges and that the way they might do it could be erratic.

If that happens, here after is what I learned when I did encounter these annoying behaviour from the troops movements.

But first, the width of the bridge is not an obstacle with the troops has it is with the vehicles and or tracks.

You can even have troops of a platoon size, moving through a small foot bridge quickly.

To do that, you have to paint a move order from the area where the troops are up to the footbridge (and or bridge). Just close to it and absolutely, not on it. Then the next order should have the path painted on the other side and up to the place you want the troops to go (but, again don’t start to paint it on the bridge.)

When I did not do that for an A.I movement on a footbridge, all the platoon stayed on the area before the bridge and did not even attempted to cross it. I changed the orders (Quick, fast, assault..) and they still stayed where they were. They only moved when there was not anymore any painted path square on the footbridge.

From that discovery time, I am not painting anymore a path onto a bridge, be it a troop move and or vehicle and tank.

Hope that might help you and others

[undercovergeek]

To undercovergeek:

I just thought that you might run into trouble with the troops having to move through the bridges and that the way they might do it could be erratic.

If that happens, here after is what I learned when I did encounter these annoying behaviour from the troops movements.

But first, the width of the bridge is not an obstacle with the troops has it is with the vehicles and or tracks.

You can even have troops of a platoon size, moving through a small foot bridge quickly.

To do that, you have to paint a move order from the area where the troops are up to the footbridge (and or bridge). Just close to it and absolutely, not on it. Then the next order should have the path painted on the other side and up to the place you want the troops to go (but, again don’t start to paint it on the bridge.)

When I did not do that for an A.I movement on a footbridge, all the platoon stayed on the area before the bridge and did not even attempted to cross it. I changed the orders (Quick, fast, assault..) and they still stayed where they were. They only moved when there was not anymore any painted path square on the footbridge.

From that discovery time, I am not painting anymore a path onto a bridge, be it a troop move and or vehicle and tank.

Hope that might help you and others

nope im ok here snake-eye no problems crossing the bridge from the AIs point of view anyway - i did have a problem with a pathing issue from 'order 3' to 'order 4' only to find that id left one yellow square unpainted from a previous change of mind - half the AI guys were still trying to go to that 1 square whilst the rest went for the correct order - sorted now, everything ok right up until combat - looking at that play out next, then working out the reinforcements and the timings and then playing it without the editor function, and then release to a few play testers here

[para]

This is looking like it may well be brilliant

[snake_eye]

To undercovergeek :

Glad your A.I movements are going fine. For the testing you can put me on your call list, if that suits you.

[undercovergeek]

To undercovergeek :

Glad your A.I movements are going fine. For the testing you can put me on your call list, if that suits you.

thanks snake-eye, and absolutely not a problem with the playtesting call - more tweaking this weekend - ive plotted the plans upto the assault on the farm, i just havent had chance to watch the assault unfold yet, then i need to read up on how/what/where and when the reinforcements arrive

[undercovergeek]

btw - although the axis troops at the moment arent FJs - am i right in thinking these guys should be fanatical?

[snake_eye]

To Undercovergeek :

The FJ 6 under Von Der Heyte command were not fanaticals. They were young men like their US counterparts fighting for their country. Sure some most of them had been through the Hitlerjugend stuff which was an obligation for a teen age youth. Some were pretty much close to the values of the Nazism, but that was not always the case for most of them. However they had a high idea of Germany strength and had a certain tendency to think that they were the best soldiers to fight against the Americans. They certainly thought that they were best trained than the Americans paratroops. That had been the case earlier, but at the time of Carentan, even if they fared better than the Americans soldiers, defending Carentan, that was not the case. The FJ had just been incorporated and lacked sufficient experiences of combat. As a matter of fact; the FJ 6 Regt had been formed with a bulk of experiences NCO and soldiers having had combat experiences from previous combat in early 1944. But since the average age was 17 ½, you can easily guess that the younger had not that combat experience. That proved to be fatal to the 1 st battalion retreating through the marshes toward the lock at la barquette and which had been wiped out by Johnson’s small combat team.

Remaining for the play test when you are ready

[undercovergeek]

any help on the parameters? cant quite figure what the tolerance levels would be

[undercovergeek]

ok........... the AI managed to take Ingouf Farm as the Allies - very happy with its performance, a few things to tidy up but that part of the battle is nearly over - a few questions:-

• When the AI approaches a target location is there any way of making sure the combat groups get there first instead of the mortars, HQ and ammo bearers!? A couple of times the first troops into combat have been unequipped to do so?
  
• Can i choose a retreat location for the AI?
  

[mjkerner]

UGC,

HQ, specialist teams and the like will tend to move faster than a full squad/platoon, so it can get tricky. Two things will help, and maybe there are others but I can't say. One, make sure your squads/platoons have a large enough...but not too large...map zone. I was experimenting with this very problem last night and finally started taking notes. A German platoon in line should be about 10-12 action squares wide, and 3 deep to get a good dispersment. I was using Assault and Max Assault, and it worked pretty well. The squads would do the assault leap frog, using mostly the assault move order and the HQ, schreck and MG teams would lay low, move fast, them crawl, always behind the line troops. But set up areas were crucial, too. I was testing 3platoons all in one AI group, and had 3platoon-size setup areas and 3 map zones directly forward of each setup zone, on a perfectly flat, clear map. The first test, the 3 platoons each setup in a separate area, and moved to the next zone in their line of advance. The second time,the HQ/schreck and mg teams again all followed behind the line troops, except mid-way toward the other side of the map, all the mg and schreck teams veered over to one map zone on the flank, although the HQs acted properly. More testing needed!

Oh, the second thing is the AI movement orders. That all depends on the map and the enemy placement, etc., but so far Assault and Max Assault seem to work best for me.

But all that said, it just takes a lot of testing to get. Things right.

Oh, I get my AI to retreat by the same method of moving them forward...paint a map zone back the way they came! That actually seems to work well for launching spoiling attacks on the human player. Have say a squad move to a flanking hedgerow, stay there for enough time to (hopefully) fire for a few minutes, then retreat for a while, then back again.

[snake_eye]

To Mjkerner :

Quote/ A German platoon in line should be about 10-12 action squares wide, and 3 deep to get a good dispersment. I was using Assault and Max Assault, and it worked pretty well. The squads would do the assault leap frog, using mostly the assault move order and the HQ, schreck and MG teams would lay low, move fast, them crawl, always behind the line troops./end quote

That deployment is correct for a platoon attacking. It follows the tactical rules that should be used by a platoon.

The only problem is that the squads are dispersed in the width of the attack axis.

That works fine for a final assault. The squads are able to provide flanks protection fire and the MG’s team can shoot from one far flanking position enfilading the field toward the opposite flank direction.

That doesn’t work so well when you want to move the troops along an axis without having them going widely on its sides. That definitively doesn’t work with the assault order. With the move order the squad are on parallels lines.

When I attempted to have a platoon assaulting through a sunken road providing an excellent concealment to the enemy fire, some squads accordingly to what wrote Mjkerner went on the right and the left sides higher grounds. They were mowed down as expected.

If anyone has an idea ?

I had one but it took the entire A.I assigned plans. That is to assign a different number to each squads of the platoon, making each time an A.I pathway order for it. Not practical to use at all, so I dropped that option.

[benpark]

If the AI had a pre made set of assaults that matched the training doctrine for the attack/defend movements, that would be another large plus in the world of AI improvements. Particularly if the individual actions took up a single AI slot.

Aside from the above aside, this is looking fantastic. The level of detail is outstanding. Thanks for making the process public, for the edification rest of us. Really looking forward to it.

[mjkerner]

Snake-eye, you get no argument from me. I was just giving an idea of an "average" size for trying to keep the unit together. You are correct that it doesn't work well for a narrow axis of advance, and probably a bunch of other situations. I think we need about 21 AI groups to really be able to work the AI planning process to get the results we'd like.

Another thing: when you use the yellow setup zones in a plan, the game seems to rearranged and reposition the troops, despite how you may have initially set them up in the Red/Blue map setup zones. So in order to keep the troops in the original stance/positions, I just didn't paint a yellow setup zone for them. That seems to work okay, but I only tried it last night for the first time. Am I seeing this right?

[mjkerner]

Snake-eye, did you try painting yellow map zones just along the sunken road--just one square wide? So if you painted one say about 10 squares long, a platoon should move to that zone and lineup down the road? I'd try but the wife took over the 'puter today to work on a power point presentation!

[necramonium]

Snake-eye, did you try painting yellow map zones just along the sunken road--just one square wide? So if you painted one say about 10 squares long, a platoon should move to that zone and lineup down the road? I'd try but the wife took over the 'puter today to work on a power point presentation!

When there are more than 2 people in the house, always have 2 pc's in the house, a laptop for the fast work, a pc for games... :cool:

[mjkerner]

LOL, my IPad doesn't do me much good for playing CMBN! Should have bought a laptop instead.

[snake_eye]

to mjkerner :

My wife used to single out the laptop and or the PC on which I was working on and only that one ! Took me a lot of training to make her use the other one. As an emergency tool I use my Android cellphone to look at the forum. She has no interest in it, for the time being, just a question of weeks to come .

Well, I looked at the A.I plans I have made some time ago:

I have 2 platoons and an MG section moving along the sunken road. That is too much for such narrow pathways. That is why they deployed on either sides

For the setup positions, you are right not painting any squares. Like you, I just put the troopers where I went them to be at the start of the game. If I had painted the setup position, the A.I would have moved the troopers the way the algorithms of the game is set to have them deployed (depending they are a squad, a platoon and or a company)

Here after are the Advance orders given to the A.I along the sunken road and across the bridge in order to deploy in the village houses.

I have found that they move faster with the advance order than with the Assault one. Since I wanted them to move quickly, but to respond to a threat, I did not use the Dash order.

1st order

2nd order

3rd order