It's export-controlled, so we don't sell it to private individuals I'm afraid to say. If you represent an organization, feel free to email me (my forum name here @eSimGames.com)

But you have an office in California!

Not half bad, really. How does BCT relate to ATF? They seem to indicate that ATF and AATF are further developments of the BCT engine but they sure changed up the control scheme. AATF only offers buttons, where BCT and ATF still offered right-click and buttons.

Sure, but that's no longer from where we send out the software. As it happens the software is being exported from Germany under German export control laws these days.

Hellfish6,

Where do you find that mod?

Scratch that I found it.

I must repeat some wisdom Teut said to me when I made a similar comment, about something else.

"be carefull looking under the hood. You might not be satisified with just playing"

Could you be more specific?...I am not certain to have understood the analogy Brit44'Aldo'.

I think he means that you may end up doing more scenario designing than playing, once you've developed a taste for it.

Well, I think I will be more observing and writing about it than making scenarios and playing them. The goal being to study and report. The problem with your scenarios, is that you know what is going to develop. Besides, since you script both sides, there is no real surprise effect unless the program is bugged, and surprise becomes frustrations.

But certainly 7 years ago, that was the case Britt, I enjoyed scripting the few I made for Arma2 and VBS2.

Yes, that is what I ment

Well, more news from the POA2 front. Turn resolution on more complex scenarios is... wow. It's been puttering along for probably 15 minutes now and I'm on pulse two of three on my second turn overall. Taking potshots at each other from 3km out, starting positions, no movement. It's not even complex yet.

I gather this can be influenced somewhat by tweaking the LOS, targeting and other resolutions in preferences, but the irritating thing is that behind all this, the CPU usage is averaging 12 percent, RAM usage is 98MB.

To be fair, I'm using a lot of AI because I'm on novice, but 20 minutes for turn resolution (turn 4) on an i7@3.4 GHz... ouch.

Which mission are you playing Amaroq?

Scenario 1, "Defense in Sector" (Hagenbüchach / Tuchenbach).

Blue has
2 rifle platoons,
1 tank platoon
1 flight of A-10s

red is a motor rifle battalion, i.e.
6 rifle platoons
1 recon Plt
1 grenade launcher Plt
1 ATGM Plt
1 mortar plt

Pretty rudimentary I'd say, but it takes about five minutes just to work out the target list.

It seems very dependent on the force sizes. In Scenario 10 the first turn took five minutes, but ENY forces are only company sized. In Scenario 12 red is battalion-sized again and the first turn took about 10 minutes. That's long but only half as long as Scenario 1, so something might be buggy with Scenario 1.

Still, in Scenario 12 it's 10 minutes to go through one minute of actual time. I'm afraid no amount of detail can make up for the sheer boredom of that.



Small scenarios like the terrorist airport attack and the tutorial worked much faster, but for that kind of engagement size I don't feel POA2 is the right format. I know ArmA3 would have made that airport map a serious challenge even with no special scripting, while in POA2 I wasn't sure where any challenge at all was supposed to be. Maybe if you play as the terrorists or if at least a human opponent plays the terrorists and you need to keep all the civilians alive. - That would be quite a challenge (but again, probably more satisfactorily and realistically played in ArmA3).

I am gonna start writing MW scenarios that I will be studying in SBproPE!...

I made up my mind!...

Thank you all for bringing up suggestions!...I appreciated them!

I'm currently working on a new SB scenario.
I know it will bring the software to it's boarders, but a few years agao a similar scenario (defence of a blue BN size CT against a MechRifle Rgt(+) ) worked ok. And it even worked in Coop play with nearly 40 players.
I'd didn't try it in the 3.002 version...my PC was down to 8 FPS just in single player :-(

With the code improvements since 3.025, I'm hopeful big size scenarios will work again.




I modified the Kursk area map a bit. My plan is to let BLUE (players side) defend against an enemy MechInfBrig (BMP-3 and T-90's).
The big taks is to skript red's attack. so far I figured out 3-4 possible CoA for Red to take the Airport and the Railway node.(RED is comming from the south)

Map is wide enough to allow for some "manouvering"

What you have to assume is that you got the enemy intent right from the start. I mean it is not realy possible to script it in a way: "Is the airport realy his opbjective? or are they going somewhere else?"

It has to do with the codes, but also the PC technology and the amount of RAM. Playing from a laptop is not always the best alternative when you have a choice.

The PC technology certainly improved, and windows today does not limit the ram as it did in WinXP.

Yeah, I think this is the problem of this whole MW thing: That the tactical challenge slides up one command level when this happens and is suddenly out of the scope of the simulation.

Like here, even if you did script the enemy to possibly choose to go around the airport and take it a week later after it is sealed off, the decision to react to this plan would lie one or more levels above the command level you're actually playing in this game. The commander that you're playing could do nothing other than relay his observation up the chain of command that apparently the attacking force is sidestepping the airport. He is stuck with his mission of defending the airport until he is told otherwise (similarities to current events are coincidental (or not)).

But still, if the simulation is big enough, there will be an element of MW available one level below the highest command level represented in the game and that unit will have a higher command level to report to that will have to decide how to react such a situation, presenting the player with that MW challenge.

So in a sense, it's also a matter of keeping focus. There's always a bigger picture, there's always some higher echelon that needs to make bigger calls. What's important is that the game being played is sufficiently 'large' to allow those units represented a flexible plan of action.

Ronin_GE and Amaroq, I would push it and simplify it by asking:

What is the Auftragstaktik?

What is the Angriffsziel?

MW is not about moving tanks on a map to reach a better shooting position on the enemy, which is attrition warfare. MW is about pitting force against weakness.

The two Germans terms are explained in the beginning of the thread.

Yeah, but my point is that you need to focus on realizing those concepts on the level that is simulated and not be bothered by the fact that there is a higher level where these challenges seem to materialize even more clearly.

I'm sure it can be done on the scale of Steel Beasts and I'm looking forward to what you come up with Gunnyhighway!

There is a common weakness in the "Auftragstaktik" nowadays. That is that many commanding officers think that it only applies to their level and above...while anybody down should do as they are f***ing told.

Auftragstaktik is true for ALL levels of command, from fire team to corps. The main thing when you try to apply it is at the start. You have a given situation, and get a your orders. You analyze these orders(or better tasks) and then ask one question: Wesentliche Lageänderung?
I.e.: Has the situation changed in a way that renders these orders invalid.=>or the boss knew what I know now, he would have given that order.
From my experience, it is extremely difficult to tweak a situation in a way that the student realizes: yes, there is a major change in situation...I have to make a completely new plan.

And for the second part: How do I strip down the task given to me, into taks for my subordinate units.
In all task form I know the task is given with a litte "suffix": "...um zu..." or in the anglo-saxon world: "IOT"==> you simply have to look how your units can achieve the "IOT" in the best way.

Angriffziel when I may (freely)cite from HDv 100 series: the aim of an attack is to take ground, or destroy enemy forces (or both).

Just an example: you give a BN the task to attack/take ground feature X and then hold it for 48 hours IOT secure left flank of own brigades attack.

This can mean: go there push the enemy out, then dig in and hold ground.
But this can also mean: Go there, push the enemy out...but you see an chance to exploit the gap you just pushed in and continue to attack

But ok, I where I want to get next with the scenario I'm working on. Is to get the player to figure out where RED has put their main effort.
The map in 20km wide, when you set against that how wide a bridgade is in attack...you see there is enough room to get your'vs'enemy main effort wrong or right.
The second things is, I wand to let the situation developed in a way that the player has to decide how to use his reserve. Reenforce own units? Block enemy breakthrough? Or, if all went well, counterattack?