Welcome to 2021!

[Bubba883XL]

9 hours ago, Anonymous_Jonze said:

Also this. I don't really play multiplayer because it's so complicated. Really? I have to use dropbox to coordinate turns?

Doesn't anyone use himachi anymore??? 

[Freyberg]

10 hours ago, Anonymous_Jonze said:

Also this. I don't really play multiplayer because it's so complicated. Really? I have to use dropbox to coordinate turns?

I used to enjoy PBEM, although I got beaten a lot, but I couldn't maintain a respectable turn rate - always too much going on in RL.

But the AI is cool too. I would probably enjoy multiplayer in RT if I had the time.

[BornGinger]

2 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:

Did they all target the painted area ? How big was that area ? Did they start to fire at the same time ? Were the off-map assets also mortars or other assets ?

The painted area was actually different smaller ones and if I remember correctly the fire from the heavier artillery, heavy mortars or medium howitzers, came a bit later than the on-map mortars. But it didn't stay for long.

But maybe one of the FOs had requested heavier artillery to shoot on that area which made me believe that the ctrl +c area order caused this.

Maybe needs more testing with the area fire feature.

Edited January 6, 2021 by BornGinger

[user1000]

It took me awhile again, to find this post of importance. Good to hear some news. So over at  Battlefront's WW2 CM forums the earlier half of 2020 and middle was spent by various users (including myself) reporting bugs and finding ways to make the WW2 games that much better. Many times those bugs were identified and reported at that games community forum right up to the latest and current patches. Many bugs were small but in all great play ability we felt were relevant.  I hope these great efforts were culled from the wild and discerned.

[Glubokii Boy]

1 hour ago, BornGinger said:

But maybe one of the FOs had requested heavier artillery to shoot on that area which made me believe that the ctrl +c area order caused this.

Yes...that is probably what happened.

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

7 hours ago, Macisle said:

I've no idea what the playtesters have found on the Berlin map, but on the dense urban map I'm working on for CMRT, I've found the AI using arty much less frequently than expected, despite having huge assets. Sometimes, it doesn't use any the whole battle -- which is weird.

Is this red artillery by any chance?

Wondering if the spotters might be getting suppressed/killed before their strikes arrive?

AI artillery can sometimes be plain difficult.....I'm testing a scenario at the moment that uses a single on-map mortar for a first turn AI 'Support Target' order, before exiting the team a couple of turns later.....For some reason the mortar refuses to fire about 30% of the time and I have NO idea why.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Glubokii Boy]

16 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I'm testing a scenario at the moment that uses a single on-map mortar for a first turn AI 'Support Target' order, before exiting the team a couple of turns later.....For some reason the mortar refuses to fire about 30% of the time and I have NO idea why.

That's wiered ...

If you have multiple assets and multiple targets there are some sort of randomness involved with who shoots at what...sometimes certain areas will see no fire at all...but the next time they will.

But if you only have one asset and one target...that really shouldn't be the case...but it kind of sounds like it...If they do fire two times out of three but not the third time...

???

[Macisle]

9 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Is this red artillery by any chance?

Wondering if the spotters might be getting suppressed/killed before their strikes arrive?

AI artillery can sometimes be plain difficult.....I'm testing a scenario at the moment that uses a single on-map mortar for a first turn AI 'Support Target' order, before exiting the team a couple of turns later.....For some reason the mortar refuses to fire about 30% of the time and I have NO idea why.

No, it's German, with several FOs on map, plus the usual HQ teams. Another weird thing I noticed was that regular HQs seem to be better than FO teams about calling for arty. However, I haven't done any scientific testing. These are just impressions I've gotten from playtesting over the course of making the map.

Not sure on your specific situation. The game engine manual says that AI Plan support targets follow the order of assets in the unit purchase list. So, if you bought a module of heavy howitzers, one of medium, and then one of medium mortars in that order, the heavy howitzers would be used for AI Support Target 1, the medium howitzers for Target 2, and the medium mortars for Target 3. However, I really think there is some variation built into the system. I've never seen arty consistently follow the order of asset purchase when testing my scenarios.  Maybe that 30% is some kind of variation punji pit.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

8 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said:

If you have multiple assets and multiple targets there are some sort of randomness involved with who shoots at what...sometimes certain areas will see no fire at all...but the next time they will.

Damned right.....I'm testing something else at the moment, three AI Support Targets (all set to Destroy and all of identical size), three batteries of 122mm (each three tubes) all with Full ammo.

Usually, but not always, all of the targets get a stonk, but the durations can vary wildly, some ending in as little as seven minutes, others going on for over twenty.

Also just looking at the pattern of shells falling on the target, it sometimes appears that two guns are firing on one target and four on another!

All very odd. 

5 minutes ago, Macisle said:

So, if you bought a module of heavy howitzers, one of medium, and then one of medium mortars in that order, the heavy howitzers would be used for AI Support Target 1, the medium howitzers for Target 2, and the medium mortars for Target 3.

I would go so far as to say that this is almost definitely not the case.....It's never worked for me, put it that way (and I really do like making things explode, one way or another).

Edited January 6, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Sgt.Squarehead]

8 minutes ago, Macisle said:

I haven't done any scientific testing. These are just impressions I've gotten from playtesting over the course of making the map.

This is always a dilemma.....I know what you are spending your time on and I'd much rather you did that! 

I'm in a similar position myself.....Time spent trying to diagnose WTF is going on here is time not spent making wonky islands or writing fiddly AI scripts that may or may not work as intended! 

[Macisle]

2 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Damned right.....I'm testing something else at the moment, three AI Support Targets (all set to Destroy and of identical size), three batteries of 122mm (each three tubes) all with Full ammo.

Usually all the targets get a stonk, but the durations can vary wildly, some ending in as little as seven minutes, others going on for over twenty.

Also just looking at the pattern of shells falling on the target, it sometimes appears that two guns are firing on one target and four on another!

All very odd. 

I would go so far as to say that this is almost definitely not the case.....It's never worked for me, put it that way (and I really do like making things explode, one way or another).

Right. My experience is that the Engine looks at your AI Support Target list and assets and then decides what it wants to do. After that, it will generally hit some places fairly consistently, while occasionally leaving others out, with perhaps a smaller number being left out more often.

I can see the benefits of variation, but from the designer's perspective, it's a PITA. It produces a need for wasteful testing time. A much better system would be for the designer to have total control, but the option to add his own, chosen variations, like with different AI Plans.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

4 minutes ago, Macisle said:

can see the benefits of variation, but from the designer's perspective, it's a PITA. It produces a need for wasteful testing time. A much better system would be for the designer to have total control, but the option to add his own, chosen variations, like with different AI Plans.

I was just about to edit my comment above to reflect this very point.....Having a fifteen minute variation in the duration of the artillery stonks in my second example makes timing the follow-on infantry assault almost impossible, the AI troops have good chance of either sitting around for a quarter hour or getting annihilated by their own artillery. 

Edited January 6, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Glubokii Boy]

These last post by Macisle and Sgt squarehead mirrors my experience exactelly...

And is the very reason for my request of improved handling of the AI artillery...

14 minutes ago, Macisle said:

I can see the benefits of variation, but from the designer's perspective, it's a PITA. It produces a need for wasteful testing time. A much better system would be for the designer to have total control, but the option to add his own, chosen variations, like with different AI Plans.

This !!!

Edited January 6, 2021 by RepsolCBR

[Macisle]

5 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I was just about to edit my comment above to reflect this very point.....Having a fifteen minute variation in the duration of the artillery stonks in my second example makes timing the follow-on infantry assault almost impossible, the AI troops have good chance of either sitting around for a quarter hour or getting annihilated by their own artillery. 

Yup. I still have PTSD from all the hours of getting the opening AI attack orchestrated in the Radzy Award. Between the arty and trying to fit a reinforced battalion's advance under only 9 minutes of smoke was...well...I just don't want to think about it anymore...

And, yeah, the AI will happily advance into its own arty. I think a few usually die that way in the opening of Radzy, but that's their best chance of getting close before the arty lets up on the player.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

8 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said:

And is the very reason for my request of improved handling of the AI artillery...

Yup, that's why you have my (& I suspect, our) total support.....Outta likes, owe you one. 

7 minutes ago, Macisle said:

And, yeah, the AI will happily advance into its own arty. I think a few usually die that way in the opening of Radzy, but that's their best chance of getting close before the arty lets up on the player.

On the two in three times that single mortar fires in my first example I reckon it has about an even chance of killing an AI trooper or three!  The tanks area fire often isn't kind to them either, but that's another story (and entirely my own fault). 

7 minutes ago, Macisle said:

I still have PTSD from all the hours of getting the opening AI attack orchestrated in the Radzy Award.

So that one was you.....Kudos (& another like owed)! 

 

Edited January 6, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[A Canadian Cat]

19 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:

<snip>
Even LAST YEARS bone had the goal of RELEASING atleast one of those modules...that year !

This years bone....didn't even mention them...

That's not what I call progress...
<snip>

Over promise and under deliver is never a good thing. One way to fix that is to stop promising stuff. Sadly that means less of a window into what BFC are up to. I don't know if the rancour out here is what motivated Steve to leave out details - he tends to not get fussed over idle bitching. I would understand if it did. I know it would demotivate me

 

12 hours ago, Artkin said:

A server browser where you can host or find lobbies to play scenarios or quick battles at least. I imagine it would be a lot of work.

Everyone talks about replayability.. well what do you think it would be like with real mp?

No need for dedicated servers, that's kind of a cherry on top.

 

11 hours ago, weapon2010 said:

im still not getting it, do you mean something like the Blitz wargaming site? thats where I find all of my pbem opponents

@Artkin can correct me if I have this wrong but I think he means he would like a server where you can log in find people to play with - either with a simple request for opponents or from a list of people that have already agreed to play and push a button and the game starts with the scenario loaded. For RT play the two opponents are connected by the server and play. For WEGO files are created and transferred between players automatically and you can check the status of your game and play your turns by just visiting the server and clicking a button. All the file handling, notification and launching etc. is handled automatically without and additional setup or file copying required.

theBlitz and The Few Good Men are great places to find opponents but you have to manually create connections between players (shared dropbox folders) start up games and transfer files yourself. Tools like CM Helper and Whose Turn Is It? help with the actual file management but they cannot kick things off automatically or even start the game with the new turn loaded.

So, the current state of the art for RT it is less than half way since there is no easy source for finding RT partners and there are a lot of network configuration steps you need to learn about even if you use a third party tool to help. For WEGO it is sort of half there with two third party tools required. It sounds like @Artkin is looking for a full end to end solution that automates everything with not additional tools required. Which BTW I agree would be nice.

I am unsure if BFC want to go this way since operating servers requires 24 / 7 staffing etc. However there are already communities (the Blitz and TFGM) who might be willing to put the final pieces together if the game had a way to be automated. Then there is also Steam which could be used for this. My idle wish for this would be for BFC to create the needed hooks for starting games, loading turns and maintaining connections and then using that to hook into Valve's services on Steam but also allow others to use them too. Then BFC can stay out of operating servers and let clubs or Steam connect users

[Glubokii Boy]

36 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Yup, that's why you have my (& I suspect, our) total support.....Outta likes, owe you one. 

Thanks

41 minutes ago, Macisle said:

Yup. I still have PTSD from all the hours of getting the opening AI attack orchestrated 

Been there, done that...

[Artkin]

50 minutes ago, IanL said:

Over promise and under deliver is never a good thing. One way to fix that is to stop promising stuff. Sadly that means less of a window into what BFC are up to. I don't know if the rancour out here is what motivated Steve to leave out details - he tends to not get fussed over idle bitching. I would understand if it did. I know it would demotivate me

 

 

@Artkin can correct me if I have this wrong but I think he means he would like a server where you can log in find people to play with - either with a simple request for opponents or from a list of people that have already agreed to play and push a button and the game starts with the scenario loaded. For RT play the two opponents are connected by the server and play. For WEGO files are created and transferred between players automatically and you can check the status of your game and play your turns by just visiting the server and clicking a button. All the file handling, notification and launching etc. is handled automatically without and additional setup or file copying required.

theBlitz and The Few Good Men are great places to find opponents but you have to manually create connections between players (shared dropbox folders) start up games and transfer files yourself. Tools like CM Helper and Whose Turn Is It? help with the actual file management but they cannot kick things off automatically or even start the game with the new turn loaded.

So, the current state of the art for RT it is less than half way since there is no easy source for finding RT partners and there are a lot of network configuration steps you need to learn about even if you use a third party tool to help. For WEGO it is sort of half there with two third party tools required. It sounds like @Artkin is looking for a full end to end solution that automates everything with not additional tools required. Which BTW I agree would be nice.

I am unsure if BFC want to go this way since operating servers requires 24 / 7 staffing etc. However there are already communities (the Blitz and TFGM) who might be willing to put the final pieces together if the game had a way to be automated. Then there is also Steam which could be used for this. My idle wish for this would be for BFC to create the needed hooks for starting games, loading turns and maintaining connections and then using that to hook into Valve's services on Steam but also allow others to use them too. Then BFC can stay out of operating servers and let clubs or Steam connect users

I am not home so I keept short

Spot on. A server browser would just be a two click entrance to a game. It's like when you click multiplayer on a different game, and then you get a big list of all the servers available. 

I am pretty sure Steam offers MP services as you said Ian. This approach would make the most sense but thinking about it now - might nullify the website version.

Hm. 

[mjkerner]

I thought that was the Discord thingy that’s discussed on another thread on this forum?

[Combatintman]

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I was just about to edit my comment above to reflect this very point.....Having a fifteen minute variation in the duration of the artillery stonks in my second example makes timing the follow-on infantry assault almost impossible, the AI troops have good chance of either sitting around for a quarter hour or getting annihilated by their own artillery. 

Set the guns to have less ammunition then.  If you need arty for stuff going on later add extra batteries as reinforcements.

[Glubokii Boy]

3 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

Set the guns to have less ammunition then.  If you need arty for stuff going on later add extra batteries as reinforcements.

I think the point is the unpredictabillity !

If multiple assets are asigned to the initial barrage and the designer has no/limited controll of wich target location wich asset will fire at and for how long...

It will be pretty difficult to coordinate this with ground movement...

Especially as things play out differently each time you play the same scenario...

[benpark]

Scenario Author Mode will illuminate any movement patterns, and their results- use Turn-Based, and run it through to see everything in detail, as many times as needed.

Look at the movement lines for the color codes. This gives an idea of what the designer can expect, and also gives an idea of when exhaustion might kick in, etc.

[Glubokii Boy]

8 minutes ago, benpark said:

Scenario Author Mode will illuminate any movement patterns, and their results- use Turn-Based, and run it through to see everything in detail, as many times as needed.

Look at the movement lines for the color codes. This gives an idea of what the designer can expect, and also gives an idea of when exhaustion might kick in, etc.

Ones again...that is not the problem

The problem is this...

If you have multiple target locations specified for your initial barrage and you have multiple artillery units tasked with this barrage.

You have very limited controll of how this barrage will be conducted. Sometimes all locations will be targeted equally by one battery...the next time you play THE SAME scenario some areas might not get targeted at all and some might get targeted by multiple batteries...the next time you play THE SAME scenario...yet another version of this barrage will be conducted.

If you can't rely on your target zones being fired on it makes it somewhat difficult to plan the whole thing

[benpark]

My comment was about the assault command and the AI.

[Glubokii Boy]

28 minutes ago, benpark said:

My comment was about the assault command and the AI.

Ahhh...ok, sorry !