Engine 5 Wishlist

[chuckdyke]

1 minute ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

It can be reliably done in CM:SF2.....Guess what I use?

IED? I was looking for a WW2 incident. It happened in the village of Bolsward The Netherlands. Canadians were coming and three Germans of a White Bread Unit (Wounded Badge) were stationed there. They asked politely for the bridge to be hauled up, the bridge watcher disappeared instead. They retaliated by throwing a bundle of stick grenades in his house and blew the bridge up. They escaped by a previously planned route after sniping at the Canadians for a few minutes. I thought that would be a fun scenario for a beginner. I could put a TRP on the bridge and let heavy artillery destroy the bridge which is not reliable. You see I got stuck very early in the project. 

[MOS:96B2P]

On 12/2/2021 at 7:08 PM, chuckdyke said:

How do you blow up bridges in game? 

CMSF 2

Edited December 4, 2021 by MOS:96B2P

[chuckdyke]

2 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

CMSF 2

Thanks for your effort, but I look for Battle for Normandy. Found a TRP with artillery still not 100% reliable. Kind regards

[Ultradave]

Depends on the bridge of course, but it's tough to destroy sturdy bridges with artillery. A 155mm HE shell has about 15 lbs of explosive in it.  Even an 8" has "only" about 20 lbs. You need in the area of 150lbs in one spot to drop one span of a reinforced concrete bridge that is about 5 meters wide (very rough rule of thumb for a typical road bridge).  A wooden footbridge is another story of course. One hit = lots of splinters. Getting that one hit though, you can still expend a lot of ammo!

Typically, you'd need to expend quite a bit of artillery ammo to destroy a solid bridge, since only a few rounds will actually hit, unless it's modern day with precision munitions, but that's not what you are looking for.

Dave

[Homo_Ferricus]

Here's one that's hopefully not high-demand from a programmatic POV and also doesn't break BFC's commitment to not violating realism--Editing vehicle load outs. Recently played @Sgt.Squarehead's Mosul battle that put Syrian SF into Humvees and Nyalas to simulate Iraqi CTS. Would be tremendously useful to swap the tens of thousands of rounds of useless 5.56 in those vehicles into usable 5.45... Would be a handy feature all-around and like I said, don't see anything that would be objectionable from BFC POV.

[SlowMotion]

I would like a new option to Scenario Editor. It would make it possible to have good force balance in all 3 playing modes: H2H, human vs Red AI, human vs Blue AI.

I think this could be done if each unit would have an option that can be selected "only for AI player". 
If this would be checked, this unit would appear in the battle only when the AI is playing this side. Otherwise it would not appear.  By default the option would not be selected.

This way you could first select units that would create good force balance in H2H mode. Then add more units for Red/Blue side that would allow AI to compete against human player. And check this option for these AI-only units.
I think this would be a very simple way to do it and you could get good force balance in all modes. Now usually balance is good in one mode, not as good in the other 2 modes.

Edited December 7, 2021 by SlowMotion

[Glubokii Boy]

57 minutes ago, SlowMotion said:

I would like a new option to Scenario Editor. It would make it possible to have good force balance in all 3 playing modes: H2H, human vs Red AI, human vs Blue AI.

I think this could be done if each unit would have an option that can be selected "only for AI player". 
If this would be checked, this unit would appear in the battle only when the AI is playing this side. Otherwise it would not appear.  By default the option would not be selected.

This way you could first select units that would create good force balance in H2H mode. Then add more units for Red/Blue side that would allow AI to compete against human player. And check this option for these AI-only units.
I think this would be a very simple way to do it and you could get good force balance in all modes. Now usually balance is good in one mode, not as good in the other 2 modes.

I kind of like this idea...It may not give the AI any additional AI-groups to play with but it would strenthen the ones it has...

Providing and increased challange vs the AI regardless of wich side you play...

Like you said...SIMPLE and neat...

Good suggestion...Perhaps not the perfact solution...but a good one imo 

[chuckdyke]

Going by my previous post that engineers get their tools like the means to blow up a bridge. The manuals to have a new manual or a manual to do AI editing in more detail. I am one of those persons who likes to read. To write a book is something otherwise excellent players or editors may lack. Skills particularly marksmen. They don't miss a skillful shooter knows when not to take a shot. The algorithm could be looked into. Regular squad is missing the marksman in his squad would still miss but the algorithm wouldn't let him shoot. 

[Codreanu]

3 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Going by my previous post that engineers get their tools like the means to blow up a bridge. The manuals to have a new manual or a manual to do AI editing in more detail. I am one of those persons who likes to read. To write a book is something otherwise excellent players or editors may lack. Skills particularly marksmen. They don't miss a skillful shooter knows when not to take a shot. The algorithm could be looked into. Regular squad is missing the marksman in his squad would still miss but the algorithm wouldn't let him shoot. 

A good sniper should just as effectively stop an enemy's advance as a machinegun nest, sadly that really isn't the case in the game. They only really seem effective in a designated marksman role and even that is down to your dice rolls more than it should be. Having them only fire when they have a high chance of actually making the hit would make much more sense.

[chuckdyke]

29 minutes ago, Codreanu said:

A good sniper should just as effectively stop an enemy's advance as a machinegun nest,

Role taking out HQ, Radio Operators, Anti Tank Specialists to name a view. Against an advancing enemy is the opportunity his activity is masked by battlefield noise. He or she should be an absolute pain in the *ss. 

[Erwin]

Snipers etc really need to be all Crack or even Elite to get the PITA effect.

[chuckdyke]

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

Snipers etc really need to be all Crack or even Elite to get the PITA effect.

Even then 6 shots at less than 400 meters Game SF2 Halt Hammerzeit. RPG in a foxhole. Conclusion an Elite or Crack doesn't shoot more accurately with top notch equipment than a WW2 rifleman with just a scoped rifle. Elite and Crack may spot better but they don't shoot better. I maybe wrong but it is my experience with the game. 

[Erwin]

Usually, a higher experience unit like a sniper will function more "efficiently".  What can mitigate against that is the vagaries/eccentricities/weirdness of the CM system.  For example, the way LOS is calculated, the way the Tac AI works/"thinks".

It is not uncommon for a unit like a sniper which should be able to hit an enemy unit but can waste many shots missing the target because the terrain acts creates an unrealistic LOS "phenomenon".  ie: The AI thinks it can or should be able to hit an enemy.  But, the terrain system makes that shot very difficult, maybe impossible.

In another example of Tac AI weirdness in a H2H game am currently playing, the Tac AI determined that an enemy inf team a couple hundred meters away running towards a platoon of armor was more of a threat than several enemy tanks that were seen in plain view lurking in ambush 800 meters away.  

While the CM system is the best game of its type available (to the public) it is primarily an entertainment product and to play it well ie: competititively, one needs to learn to play vs the weirdness/eccentricities of the game system - not solely play or expect units to act as they may in RL.  

 

[chuckdyke]

The AI and TacAI fire automatically on full contact it comes down to spotting. The spotter in real life has the more experience. The shooter looking through his scope is legally blind. I don't ask for much just in the case of snipers not letting him shoot. it happens at the range. Competitor A shoots free pistol Competitor B rapid fire. Competitor A has 2 hours to fire 60 shots in rapid fire a sequence is 5 shots in 4 seconds at 25 meters. The free pistol shooter shoots at an UIT target at 50 meters. He is after the 10 ring he has the same know how as me. The only difference is he knows when to put his gun down. Since every shooter starts at a range this is my reference point. It comes down to temperament and how one copes with stress. 

[LukeFF]

18 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

I maybe wrong

Sorry, but you are.

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Sorry, but you are.

Thanks for keeping it polite. I think an Elite sniper wouldn't miss because he just wouldn't take the shot. I kept it simple by comparing a 50 meter bullseye shooter with a rapid fire shooter. The rapid fire shooter gets 5 shots at a 5 turning targets and must shoot. It works in the game as the TacAI automatically engage a rifleman on a full contact like a pop up target. Typically a sniper in the game also automatically engages and we have far more misses. I don't have much of an issue with that apart from when the algorithm calculates a miss ideally it won't let the marksman shoot. I have not tested a WW2 sniper vs a SF2 sniper but TBH I don't notice much of a difference. Regards

[Sir Lancelot]

1. Improve AI opponent for quick battles, for example:

- Deploy defending infantry inside buildings;

- Spread out troop deployment rather than cluster everything on the objective box;

- Make AI's troops facing the right direction. Right now, if you make Red the attacker on a Blue attack map, the defender (i.e., Blue) will start facing the wrong direction. Vice versa.

2. Vehicle crews behave more intelligently about when to unbutton hatch.  Right now, some APC crews would notoriously unbutton during the middle of heavy gunfire to reload AGL or machine gun and get themselves killed instantly.

[chuckdyke]

11 minutes ago, Sir Lancelot said:

1. Improve AI opponent for quick battles, for example:

it is very difficult because the map designer doesn't know which forces a player may select. We found QB scenarios are better against a human player. 

[Freyberg]

22 hours ago, Sir Lancelot said:

1. Improve AI opponent for quick battles, for example:

- Deploy defending infantry inside buildings;

- Spread out troop deployment rather than cluster everything on the objective box;

- Make AI's troops facing the right direction. Right now, if you make Red the attacker on a Blue attack map, the defender (i.e., Blue) will start facing the wrong direction. Vice versa.

...

That's odd - I haven't seen these behaviours, certainly not recently.

I too would like to see improvements in the AI, although I think it's already reasonably good. If you have a really bad QB, it's worth having a look at the AI plan and seeing what might have caused it.

 

 

 

[Freyberg]

One simple improvement I would like to see is in the scenario editor.

It would be cool to have another level of zoom out, as well as a super big brush, much bigger than the current big brush - to make chopping down a Master Map and quickly throwing together a QB AI plan for it easier.

[BornGinger]

On 12/12/2021 at 12:26 AM, Sir Lancelot said:

Make AI's troops facing the right direction. Right now, if you make Red the attacker on a Blue attack map, the defender (i.e., Blue) will start facing the wrong direction. Vice versa.

You do this by painting the starting area for each AI-group. After that you use ALT-key + clicking on the area to where you want the AI-groups to face. When you have done that you should see a gray small square (might be another colour than gray) where you clicked on the 2D map. That gray square is the point the AI-troops face when the game starts.

I at least think this method works for quick battles too and not only for scenarios. And it shouldn't make any difference whether the AI-troops are Blue or Red as the "face direction marker" should affect both.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

6 hours ago, BornGinger said:

(might be another colour than gray)

Bright green is Face (Alt) for me.

I see Red for Area Target (Ctrl).

[Commanderski]

Getting close to the end of the year.  Any chance of a Christmas sneak peak of Engine 5? 

[chuckdyke]

5 hours ago, Commanderski said:

Getting close to the end of the year.  Any chance of a Christmas sneak peak of Engine 5? 

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. 

[Pelican Pal]

On 12/7/2021 at 5:18 PM, Codreanu said:

A good sniper should just as effectively stop an enemy's advance as a machinegun nest, sadly that really isn't the case in the game. They only really seem effective in a designated marksman role and even that is down to your dice rolls more than it should be. Having them only fire when they have a high chance of actually making the hit would make much more sense.

A big part of this is scenario design which trends towards troops that are willing to take losses rather than go to ground after taking fire. Conscript or green troops seem to be better for reflecting troops attempts to avoid taking fire. Although the tac ai reactions still leave something to be desired.