Jump to content

Mission Editor Tutorial


Toyguy

Recommended Posts

  • 2 months later...

Couple of little notes for you if you don't mind.

Firstly you have made note of positions you want the units to go to. When you are doing this and you find a good position drop down a waypoint straight away. Adjust it to cover the area you want. Then when you come to making your routes if you finish the route close to one of these pre set waypoints the route will snap to it. Saves you having to find that position while you are making the route. This way also you can make alternative battle positions and then delete ones you decide not to use.

Secondly you may want to re-think the logic on the routes for the last 2 units mentioned (5/A and 3/A iirc). From your waypoint 12 you have 2 routes when you start dealing with these units. The route for 1/A is conditioned and the route for 2/A is unconditioned. For 5/A you have a route conditioned:- this unit is unit 5/A and unit 1/A can't see enemy in Region 2 and Unit 2/A can't see enemy in region 2. Unfortunately you haven't trapped the alternative conditions. So if units 1/A or 2/A can see an enemy 5/A is heading down the route that 2/A has taken. Same problem for 3/A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Around 3:40 you set up a waypoint tactic "Defend" for CO/A. When running the exercise it would NOT behave like "Defend" is described in Chapter 8, but default to "Hold" behavior because there is no unconditioned retreat route specified. If a route is a dead end, the only option for a unit is to stay in this position until the bitter end.

If you want them to react intelligently to incoming fire, you must have some sort of an escape plan - that is, an unconditioned route leading away from the untenable position if you want to rely on the implicit embark conditions that Steel Beasts has built in, or you need to set up one or more conditioned routes with contingency plans for incoming direct and indirect fire.

Then there's the meta critique. You have the CO move alone with any form of protection or backup through a forest, across a stream (where in real life you wouldn't know whether it could be crossed at all), then across a railroad embankment (which in real life has pretty steep flanks of approximately 45...50% inclination, very close to the limit of 60% for most tracked military vehicles under optimal conditions of traction). This doesn't play a role in SB yet because the terrain is artificially simple to traverse, but I bet that in real life the by far simpler solution would have been for the CO to break off at waypoint three and take the road across the rail line a bit further to the west of the current crossing point. That is, if you still want to send out the CO to his very lonely position.

Of course you're in control of your own scenario, so you know that there won't be a flank threat from the northern river embankment where the CO would be really, terribly exposed. But would you risk that in real life?

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input guys.

The routing for 5A and 3A is still incomplete, and we'll be dealing with the other logical alternatives in a subsequent video. For this stage of the development, having them just follow 2A is an acceptable circumstance.

I had the recorded positions for my route end points from a separate version of the scenario which I use "behind the scenes", so I didn't think it made much sense to drop waypoints ahead of time, but thinking on it more, it would be a useful technique to include.

As for CO/A, yes, that's a simplification. His routing also isn't complete yet, not having any alternate possibilities as Ssnake pointed out. We'll be getting to that also. Good points though on the movement not being very realistic and/or wise. I'll have to think about that - I'm not really teaching tactics as such, nor am I qualified to, so the simple approach may be alright. Heck, anyone who's seen me play on Friday night knows my knowledge of armor tactics pretty well ends at getting in the tank :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize the routes for 5/A and 3/A are incomplete but I think a rethink of how you are doing it may still help. From the logic statements there are 4 possibilities that you need to trap (1/A and 2/A can't see enemy: 1/A can see enemy and 2/A can't: 1/A Can't see enemy and 2/A can: 1/A and 2/A can see enemy). I would have thought a better approach would be to start with 2 conditions:-

1. 1/A has reached its way point AND 1/A can't see enemy in region 2

2. 2/A has reached its way point AND 2/A can't see enemy in region 2

For your initial 5/A and 3/A routes then you can do:-

this unit is (X) and (condition 1 and condition 2)

While this effectively does the same it means for the next alternative route you can use:-

this unit is (X) and (condition 1 OR condition 2)

Its just a more elegant solution and allows you to test whether the Units 1/A and 2/A have reached their over watch positions and are therefore able to see if there are enemy in the region.

Edited by DarkAngel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 year later...

I was going to pick this up again but I've decided to hold off until V3 releases, as I am sure there will be cool new features to discuss and some old ones to update. So hang in there - it's not dead yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...