4.0 Upgrade Looks Fantastic --Thanks, BF!

[Warts 'n' all]

I suppose it is a case of swings and roundabouts. Frustrating when playing a stand-alone battle as the defender, a blessed relief when playing a campaign as the attacker when your forces have been depleted in previous missions.

[Bulletpoint]

8 hours ago, DougPhresh said:

I agree that when troops in foxholes/trenches/buildings break cover and run because of a few mortar rounds falling nearby, and get wiped out in the process it can be very frustrating.

This is currently what's keeping me from upgrading. I think such behaviour should only be seen with conscript troops. Even lowly motivated regular og green troops should prefer to hide into their foxholes when under shellfire, rather than to try to run away. Unless they completely panic of course, but I don't think that's the issue here.

[RockinHarry]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

This is currently what's keeping me from upgrading. I think such behaviour should only be seen with conscript troops. Even lowly motivated regular og green troops should prefer to hide into their foxholes when under shellfire, rather than to try to run away. Unless they completely panic of course, but I don't think that's the issue here.

While I had quite a lot of WTF moments with evading (or tactically retrating) units in V4.0. I see it more in relation to those units current situation in combat, which could be isolation (I play iron mode to judge this), overwhelming enemy fire power, multi direction threats, availability of cover and the soft factors. CC also plays its part I think. I saw veterans only back off occasionaly, when punished heavily and isolated. With the mentioned factors involved, I don´t think that greens and regulars now evading more often than not, is unrealistic. What could be improved considerably is the selected retreat waypoint and path. Currently it appears only the biggest threat considered for this (final evade waypoint and face command indicates this), while the most lethal fire comes then usually from enemy units, when the retreat started. Oftentimes it would be just sufficient to just back off 1-2 AS (10-20m) to get out of immediate danger, or using slow/crawl in order to not show a highly visible target. Panicked troops is a different case though, but could be improved as well (generally toward friendly map edge and not just away from the biggest known threat)

 

I now have a self made mission finished (CMBN, MG, VP) which I´m about to release the next days. It perfectly showcases the new V4 AI features integrated for an attacking AI player and for a human player to deal with that. So don´t miss updating to V4.0, the more if you like scripting human like plans for the AIP.

Edited February 8, 2017 by RockinHarry

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, RockinHarry said:

I now have a self made mission finished (CMBN, MG, VP) which I´m about to release the next days. It perfectly showcases the new V4 AI features integrated for an attacking AI player and for a human player to deal with that. So don´t miss updating to V4.0, the more if you like scripting human like plans for the AIP.

Sounds cool. I might even play vs the AI just to see what you came up with.

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, RockinHarry said:

With the mentioned factors involved, I don´t think that greens and regulars now evading more often than not, is unrealistic.

Thanks for your thoughts on this. You're usually very sensible, so I'll take it into consideration.

1 hour ago, RockinHarry said:

So don´t miss updating to V4.0, the more if you like scripting human like plans for the AIP.

I do actually. Both my scenarios have quite a lot of AI work, but most of it is never noticed by the player  The new retreat order is definitely something that would come in handy.

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, RockinHarry said:

<Snip> What could be improved considerably is the selected retreat waypoint and path. <Snip> 

I now have a self made mission finished (CMBN, MG, VP) which I´m about to release the next days. It perfectly showcases the new V4 AI features integrated for an attacking AI player and for a human player to deal with that. <Snip> 

I agree about the retreat waypoint path.

Looking forward to your scenario.  I know you have been working on it for awhile (with the bunker situation).  This must be one of the first releases to incorporate the new Engine 4 features.  Thanks for taking the time and effort to stick with it and get it out the door.     

[A Canadian Cat]

Just a quick not to @Bulletpoint: You can have both CMRT 1.0x and CMRT 2.00 installed at the same time. So, if you want you can experiment with the v4 features while still playing with the original version.

There is one downside and that is hot keys get messed up for CMRT 1.0x since the two games share the Game Files and User Data directories under my Documents

[Erwin]

I was scared to upgrade as often it ends up taking half a day of frustration to sort out the resulting mess.  But, this time upgrading all the titles only took a few minutes.  Wonderful!  Looking forward to upgrading CM2 on my other 2 machines when I get back.  Thanks BF.

PS:  On "Our Account" page on the BF site, wouldn't it be more useful to list the name of the purchased item rather than the date?  Looking for the code for a particular product takes time when you have to check every item.

[Macisle]

On 2/8/2017 at 11:40 PM, RockinHarry said:

...I now have a self made mission finished (CMBN, MG, VP) which I´m about to release the next days. It perfectly showcases the new V4 AI features integrated for an attacking AI player and for a human player to deal with that. So don´t miss updating to V4.0, the more if you like scripting human like plans for the AIP.

Looks like you're going to beat me. I'm working on my scenario as much as I can, but I've bitten off a lot to chew on with the concept and size. It's going to be awhile yet before I can get the next test version out. It makes extensive use of AI Area Fire, with at least one armored "retreat" maneuver thrown in. AI Area Fire is kind of a must for T-34/76s as they have tons of ammo and are pretty much blind anyway .

On a positive note on the new troop behaviors, I have seen them end up producing a desirable curveball result on a number of occasions. Also, last night I was working on one part of the map, testing my AI plan there, and leaving my platoons on other parts of the map to die in place. Over the course of my testing, I noticed that the DIP platoons actually retreated on their own to another clump of buildings after being shot out of the first. They then got shot out of the second and fell back to a wooded area. I was surprised at the coodination and low level of casualties compared to pre-4.0. I wasn't giving them any orders and they were just reacting to the AI attacking them. Pretty cool.

So, it's a mixed bag. The suicidal route is definitely a problem for the reasons that RockinHarry has skillfully detailed. The general self-preservation behaviors can be great or bad, depending on the situation of the moment.

My current feeling is that 4.0 is a huge improvement that just needs some tweaking here and there. From the scenario design perspective, it's a massive enhancement and I can't imagine going back.

Edit: One thing that I've been meaning to comment on is the visual enhancement "side effect" that AI Area Fire gives to AI tanks. Their turrets scanning for targets really makes them come alive visually--especially when they are moving. For me, it's noticably upped the immersion factor.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Macisle

[Jock Tamson]

22 hours ago, Erwin said:

I was scared to upgrade as often it ends up taking half a day of frustration to sort out the resulting mess.  But, this time upgrading all the titles only took a few minutes.  Wonderful!  Looking forward to upgrading CM2 on my other 2 machines when I get back.  Thanks BF.

PS:  On "Our Account" page on the BF site, wouldn't it be more useful to list the name of the purchased item rather than the date?  Looking for the code for a particular product takes time when you have to check every item.

Next time you check through the items, copy the license keys into a notepad doc.

[Erwin]

Have done that now.  But, wouldn't it be more convenient for customers to have the name clearly stated in one's account info?  Then all one would need to do is copy and paste the correct code(s).  I am a big believer re trying to alleviate irritating issues like that for customers and making things as easy as possible. 

[Jock Tamson]

Sure, but at least if you have them copied off locally you don't have to go to the site when you are reinstalling.

 

Edited February 10, 2017 by Jock Tamson

[Erwin]

is true...

[Warts 'n' all]

First thing I did when I bought CMBN was to create a Battlefront folder in my e-mail account, all purchases, order numbers, licence keys etc since have gone into it. Luckily I've never actually had any problems, downloading or activating and playing the game.

[Erwin]

That is what one needs to do I agree. 

My point is that it would have been convenient and user-friendly to have that info presented on the BF "My Account" area in an easy-to-use format.  In our busy stressed out lives, most of us want to be able to do things convenient, easy and fast.

Ditto with the CM2 UI.  It requires unnecessary and time-consuming work which is not fun and which, if corrected would enable games to be played faster (with less mouse clicks and more efficiency etc).  Have repeatedly said that the game itself is already good and detailed enuff.  It's the speed and efficiency of play (ie the UI) that needs addressing so larger scenarios with large nos of units are more practical to play.  But, we'll probably have to wait for CM3.

[RockinHarry]

On 10.2.2017 at 3:11 AM, Macisle said:

Looks like you're going to beat me. I'm working on my scenario as much as I can, but I've bitten off a lot to chew on with the concept and size. It's going to be awhile yet before I can get the next test version out. It makes extensive use of AI Area Fire, with at least one armored "retreat" maneuver thrown in. AI Area Fire is kind of a must for T-34/76s as they have tons of ammo and are pretty much blind anyway .

On a positive note on the new troop behaviors, I have seen them end up producing a desirable curveball result on a number of occasions. Also, last night I was working on one part of the map, testing my AI plan there, and leaving my platoons on other parts of the map to die in place. Over the course of my testing, I noticed that the DIP platoons actually retreated on their own to another clump of buildings after being shot out of the first. They then got shot out of the second and fell back to a wooded area. I was surprised at the coodination and low level of casualties compared to pre-4.0. I wasn't giving them any orders and they were just reacting to the AI attacking them. Pretty cool.

So, it's a mixed bag. The suicidal route is definitely a problem for the reasons that RockinHarry has skillfully detailed. The general self-preservation behaviors can be great or bad, depending on the situation of the moment.

My current feeling is that 4.0 is a huge improvement that just needs some tweaking here and there. From the scenario design perspective, it's a massive enhancement and I can't imagine going back.

Edit: One thing that I've been meaning to comment on is the visual enhancement "side effect" that AI Area Fire gives to AI tanks. Their turrets scanning for targets really makes them come alive visually--especially when they are moving. For me, it's noticably upped the immersion factor.

The scenario was finished already a year ago, but it took some time to integrate and play test the new V4 features. But finally...

The more I play (and it was massive during all my latest playtests) the more I like the new V4 features and AI behaviors. One needs to get used to them and I think with some refinements, it´ll get even better soon. It´s quite a good time for new and old scenario makers to jump into the boat and create stuff for V4.0 now.

[RockinHarry]

On 8.2.2017 at 5:13 PM, IanL said:

Sounds cool. I might even play vs the AI just to see what you came up with.

If you´re still interested and have time, you´re welcome.

 

[weta_nz]

As someone who mainly plays against the AI I have found the new features make the AI a tougher nut to crack in quick battles.  Especially in forested areas where the AI can fall back and regroup enough to ensure that you are going to lose men clearing them out.  Anecdotal - but I believe the troops don't get pinned down as much as they retreat sooner and are thus are more ready to fight back!

Would be great to play some scenarios which are designed and make use of the new 4.0 features. Let me know when it's ready RockinHarry

[RockinHarry]

7 minutes ago, weta_nz said:

 

Would be great to play some scenarios which are designed and make use of the new 4.0 features. Let me know when it's ready RockinHarry

Dropbox links provided in this posting:

SDIII release to be followed very soon.

[weta_nz]

Cheers RockinHarry - I checked it out but I do not have the vehicle pack .  Hopefully there will be more v4.0 scenarios to come

[LukeFF]

On 2/10/2017 at 6:54 AM, Erwin said:

Have done that now.  But, wouldn't it be more convenient for customers to have the name clearly stated in one's account info?  Then all one would need to do is copy and paste the correct code(s).  I am a big believer re trying to alleviate irritating issues like that for customers and making things as easy as possible. 

 

On 2/11/2017 at 5:41 AM, Erwin said:

That is what one needs to do I agree. 

My point is that it would have been convenient and user-friendly to have that info presented on the BF "My Account" area in an easy-to-use format.  In our busy stressed out lives, most of us want to be able to do things convenient, easy and fast.

What exactly is so difficult and inconvenient about keeping your license keys in a text file on your computer or (gasp) in an online document that you can access from any internet-connected device? 

Edited February 18, 2017 by LukeFF

[Erwin]

What's an online document? 

You youngsters make us oldster laugh with your "it's so easy" BS.  I even got rid of my smart phone cos I didn't want to become like the wankers walking around with their heads down thumbing away like demented gerbils.  And don't me started on the morons walking around with earbuds who I regularly almost run down on the street cos they are so oblivious to traffic. 

[Warts 'n' all]

If someone walks towards me with their head down gorping at their phone forcing me to swerve around them, I usually let out a loud "Don't worry, I'll do your looking for you" as I pass them.

[Michael Emrys]

On February 11, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Erwin said:

My point is that it would have been convenient and user-friendly to have that info presented on the BF "My Account" area in an easy-to-use format.

The licensing key is in there, but it could well be more conveniently located. It requires a certain amount of searching and clicking to find and copy it at present.

Michael

Edited February 18, 2017 by Michael Emrys

[Michael Emrys]

14 hours ago, LukeFF said:

What exactly is so difficult and inconvenient about keeping your license keys in a text file on your computer or (gasp) in an online document that you can access from any internet-connected device?

It is not especially difficult. I guess the thing is that one resents having to do a job that one has assumed is a service that one has already paid for. That may simply be a false assumption, but it is one that the whole premiss of computing leads directly to.

Michael

Edited February 18, 2017 by Michael Emrys