Each campaign and scenario need to re-tuned by the devs after the introduction of new missile mechanics

[thewood1]

I thought it was pretty simple question. I just didn't see the connection. But whatever makes feel right.

[Dimitris]

I didn't find anything arrogant in thewood1's response, FWIW. Maybe it's a translation thing.

[SchDerGrosse]

So, actually we have a command version with a new DB, 64 k, all new terain features and the rest, and not a single scenario to play??

Oh you have all the scenarios to play, they are just, well how to put it, "not working properly".

As of now, any plane carrying missiles with a fuel capacity at around 10 seconds will, under the current WRA settings, be completely and utterly useless as they are only effective at around 25% of their nominal max range. We are talking about american sparrow III-s, AIM 120 C-s, Russian Adders, Alamos and Chinese PL-12s. Missiles that often constitute the main armament of the opposing force in the campaign and standalone scenarios.

You as the player can compensate for this by manually engaging targets at the desired distance, but the AI cannot.

Using the rebuild scenario feature to set the AI's WRA to 25% will just result in a more quirky situation because yes, although now planes can actually hit targets, but at the same time by pulling this move you have successfully nerfed the hell out of everything on the AI's side that would have more fuel (like 30 seconds or more) and thus capable of engaging at a much further distance. This includes not only planes but SAM systems and ship based weapons.

So yeah, this is where we stand now.

If I were bold enough, and not be afraid of the scolding of die hard CMO forum veterans, I would even go as far as to say that the legacy scenarios (i.e. EVERY scenario right now) are practically semi-broken.

[blu3s]

I made this script on my own, anyone with basic Editor/Lua knowledge can execute it and try to play the scen with the WRA changes and see if it fits better with his desires?

The script takes into account the max range of each missile to assign a WRA value, shorter range missiles have a WRA of NEZ or 20% of the maximum range, while longer range missiles have a WRA of 60 or 80%. The script assigns a WRA range for each unit, so equal units can have different WRA ranges. This is more fun than the same WRA for all units.

My recommendation is open the scen you wanna try, save it to a new .scen file so you don't override the original and open the Lua Console, change only the first line to enter the name of the AI side. You can run it with all the sides you want, only change the side name.

Edited the script so as not to modify the doctrine of the side and only that of the units. 16/09/23

Code: Select all

local side_name = 'Iraq' ------- NAME OF THE AI SIDE

function AssignWRA(unit,dbid,max_range)
  local range
  if max_range > 80 then
    range = math.ceil(math.random(5,8)/10*max_range)
    SetDoctrineUnit(unit,dbid,range)
  elseif max_range > 40 then 
    range = math.ceil(math.random(3,6)/10*max_range)
    SetDoctrineUnit(unit,dbid,range)
  elseif max_range > 20 then
    range = math.ceil(math.random(1,3)/10*max_range)
    SetDoctrineUnit(unit,dbid,range)
  else
    SetDoctrineUnit(unit,dbid,'NEZ')
  end
end
local side = VP_GetSide({side=side_name})
local weapons_t = {}


for k2,unit in ipairs(side.units) do
  local u = SE_GetUnit({guid=unit.guid})
  local weapons
  if u.type == 'Aircraft' then
    weapons = ScenEdit_GetLoadout({unitname = u.guid})
    for k3,w in ipairs(weapons.weapons) do
      if w.wpn_type == 2001 then
          local data = ScenEdit_QueryDB( 'weapon', w.wpn_dbid )
          AssignWRA(u, w.wpn_dbid, data.ranges.air.max)
      end
    end
  elseif u.type == 'Facility' then
    local mounts = u.mounts
    if mounts ~= nil and #mounts > 0 then
      for i,m in ipairs(mounts) do
      local mount_weapons = m.mount_weapons
        if mount_weapons ~= nil then
            for _,w in ipairs(mount_weapons) do
              if w.wpn_type == 2001 then
                  local data = ScenEdit_QueryDB( 'weapon', w.wpn_dbid )
                  AssignWRA(u, w.wpn_dbid, data.ranges.air.max)
              end
            end
        end
      end
    end
  end
end

P.D: There are some beautiful scenarios made by command users that has into account the recent changes of the game. Check the Mod and Scenarios forum or the workshop on Steam.

[BDukes]

I've been thinking about this quite a bit and made some suggestions to the devs in Kushan's discord. It might be best if they're out of it altogether and can get there by adding more WRA choices or upgrading the ROE template feature. These are suggestions. I don't know their capabilities or workload but hope they can see the slog this could become.

The angst against veteran players is off-putting (or in my case off pudding) to me, but he may be right. Sometimes what I think is easy or doable is mostly because I'm willing to sink the time in and able to code lua etc. On the flip side, the OP should understand that most aren't trying to be annoying but just trying to help. We just forget point one. I appreciate he brought this issue forward and I'll definitely keep it in mind. I have no idea if I was one of the people he is going after but I'll not reply on this stuff again just in case.

I've decided to maintain my own scenarios. I want to make sure I've got creative control and display some ownership when application changes happen. I now use a creative commons license that lets others do whatever once they download. They just need to provide credit. I will not update any of my DLC scenarios unless I'm paid. That opportunity has never been on the table for either side for reasons. It is important to do things that make sense for me and my audience.

Thanks!

Mike

[SchDerGrosse]

I made this script on my own, anyone with basic Editor/Lua knowledge can execute it and try to play the scen with the WRA changes and see if it fits better with his desires?

The script takes into account the max range of each missile to assign a WRA value, shorter range missiles have a WRA of NEZ or 20% of the maximum range, while longer range missiles have a WRA of 60 or 80%. The script assigns a WRA range for each unit, so equal units can have different WRA ranges. This is more fun than the same WRA for all units.

My recommendation is open the scen you wanna try, save it to a new .scen file so you don't override the original and open the Lua Console, change only the first line to enter the name of the AI side. You can run it with all the sides you want, only change the side name.

Edited the script so as not to modify the doctrine of the side and only that of the units. 16/09/23

Code: Select all

local side_name = 'Iraq' ------- NAME OF THE AI SIDE

function AssignWRA(unit,dbid,max_range)
  local range
  if max_range > 80 then
    range = math.ceil(math.random(5,8)/10*max_range)
    SetDoctrineUnit(unit,dbid,range)
  elseif max_range > 40 then 
    range = math.ceil(math.random(3,6)/10*max_range)
    SetDoctrineUnit(unit,dbid,range)
  elseif max_range > 20 then
    range = math.ceil(math.random(1,3)/10*max_range)
    SetDoctrineUnit(unit,dbid,range)
  else
    SetDoctrineUnit(unit,dbid,'NEZ')
  end
end
local side = VP_GetSide({side=side_name})
local weapons_t = {}


for k2,unit in ipairs(side.units) do
  local u = SE_GetUnit({guid=unit.guid})
  local weapons
  if u.type == 'Aircraft' then
    weapons = ScenEdit_GetLoadout({unitname = u.guid})
    for k3,w in ipairs(weapons.weapons) do
      if w.wpn_type == 2001 then
          local data = ScenEdit_QueryDB( 'weapon', w.wpn_dbid )
          AssignWRA(u, w.wpn_dbid, data.ranges.air.max)
      end
    end
  elseif u.type == 'Facility' then
    local mounts = u.mounts
    if mounts ~= nil and #mounts > 0 then
      for i,m in ipairs(mounts) do
      local mount_weapons = m.mount_weapons
        if mount_weapons ~= nil then
            for _,w in ipairs(mount_weapons) do
              if w.wpn_type == 2001 then
                  local data = ScenEdit_QueryDB( 'weapon', w.wpn_dbid )
                  AssignWRA(u, w.wpn_dbid, data.ranges.air.max)
              end
            end
        end
      end
    end
  end
end

P.D: There are some beautiful scenarios made by command users that has into account the recent changes of the game. Check the Mod and Scenarios forum or the workshop on Steam.

Wow, cool stuff!

If i understand correctly, the code takes into account the maximum range listed in the DB, right?

The problem is, that missiles performance now is independent of the weapon's nominal range and the deciding factor seems to be fuel.

E.g. an AA-12 Adder B has a nominal range of 59,4 nm and a fuel capacity of 8 seconds. An AA-10 Alamo C on the other hand has a nominal range of 50 nm and a fuel capacity of 36 seconds.

According to the tests I have made missiles with about ~10 seconds worth of fuel are only capable of actually hitting evading targets at 25% WRA, while ~30 seconds of fuel enables the missile to be fired from about 50% WRA.

This means that Adders fare much worse against evading targets despite their higher nominal max range.

Would it be perhaps possible to make a script that sets WRA based on fuel capacity?

[SchDerGrosse]

The angst against veteran players is off-putting (or in my case off pudding) to me, but he may be right. Sometimes what I think is easy or doable is mostly because I'm willing to sink the time in and able to code lua etc. On the flip side, the OP should understand that most aren't trying to be annoying but just trying to help. We just forget point one. I appreciate he brought this issue forward and I'll definitely keep it in mind. I have no idea if I was one of the people he is going after but I'll not reply on this stuff again just in case.

Mike

My posts contain caveats only due to the fact that in the previous threads that I have made about the problems that came with the new missile dynamics, I have received a massive pushback from a lot of people, and I was told that everything is fine and I should just adapt my playstile to the new changes.

After playing 2 campaigns from start to finish however, I am absolutely convinced that said changes have been introduced to the game by the devs without any consideration to their impact on the playability of in-game scenarios.

I dont think its unreasonable to expect that paid content remains functional despite the new patches.

[BDukes]

The angst against veteran players is off-putting (or in my case off pudding) to me, but he may be right. Sometimes what I think is easy or doable is mostly because I'm willing to sink the time in and able to code lua etc. On the flip side, the OP should understand that most aren't trying to be annoying but just trying to help. We just forget point one. I appreciate he brought this issue forward and I'll definitely keep it in mind. I have no idea if I was one of the people he is going after but I'll not reply on this stuff again just in case.

Mike

My posts contain caveats only due to the fact that in the previous threads that I have made about the problems that came with the new missile dynamics, I have received a massive pushback from a lot of people, and I was told that everything is fine and I should just adapt my playstile to the new changes.

After playing 2 campaigns from start to finish however, I am absolutely convinced that said changes have been introduced to the game by the devs without any consideration to their impact on the playability of in-game scenarios.

I dont think its unreasonable to expect that paid content remains functional despite the new patches.

The thing is with this one is that as a not-so-casual player, you see it, and it's demonstratable. So best to just post examples. Nobody can argue with that (I think ).

I think the problem with polling is there is an expectation that the pollees spend time to dig in and look or that they're somehow obligated to beta test the game. Most don't. So what the poll really captures is who's a casual gamer and who's a grog. Data science people!

I don't think what you're asking is unreasonable, and I have great confidence they'll eventually come to it. There is usually a release with a DLC, so let's see what happens. If it is still broken, I would suggest Baldurs Gate 3

Mike

[SchDerGrosse]

The angst against veteran players is off-putting (or in my case off pudding) to me, but he may be right. Sometimes what I think is easy or doable is mostly because I'm willing to sink the time in and able to code lua etc. On the flip side, the OP should understand that most aren't trying to be annoying but just trying to help. We just forget point one. I appreciate he brought this issue forward and I'll definitely keep it in mind. I have no idea if I was one of the people he is going after but I'll not reply on this stuff again just in case.

Mike

My posts contain caveats only due to the fact that in the previous threads that I have made about the problems that came with the new missile dynamics, I have received a massive pushback from a lot of people, and I was told that everything is fine and I should just adapt my playstile to the new changes.

After playing 2 campaigns from start to finish however, I am absolutely convinced that said changes have been introduced to the game by the devs without any consideration to their impact on the playability of in-game scenarios.

I dont think its unreasonable to expect that paid content remains functional despite the new patches.

The thing is with this one is that as a not-so-casual player, you see it, and it's demonstratable. So best to just post examples. Nobody can argue with that (I think ).

According to the testing that I have done, any missile with a fuel capacity of around 10 seconds or less can only be fired from 25% WRA.

Yet we have a blanket WRA of 75%.

This means that most aircraft launched non-high tech missiles peter out way before they can reach their target. I am talking about AIM 120Cs, Sparrows, Pl-12s and most of what the russians have.

And as I have said earlier, the issue cannot be resolved by the "rebuild scenario" feature either, as WRA affects all units and if you set it to 25%, you are seriously hampering the AI's other assets that have more fuel and thus more reach.

I really hope the devs acknowledge that there is a significant problem and address it in the near future. And yes, till that happens I'll be playing Baldurs Gate 3. :/

[artao5]

I know I have made sever similar topics in the past, but it seems that (apart from me) noone is really bothered by the fact that after the new missile mechanics have been introduced, campaigns and official standalone scenarios just dont function properly anymore.

I'm with ya man. I've been doing it manually. I assume that they've all at least been updated with the new DB tho, so I haven't been doing that part. (If not, wtaf.)
I don't buy the .... reasons ... given (by players). New features and scenarios being up to date with the new features aren't mutually exclusive. If they were done hand in hand, as the features were being developed, the job would have been much smaller. Since it was never done, it's now perhaps a bit more daunting. (And also, just disregard that one guy who's really being a jerk. That's just how he is, he's harassed me too and I had to have a mod intervene; but somehow he too has mod status so we can't simply block him. So report him as many other people have and he might lose it.)
When a company SELLS a product (and let's be honest, CMO is pretty a pretty pricey product), it's absolutely reasonable for buyers to expect that any content for such product is also up to speed with the product it is to be used in conjunction with. The more you pay for something the more you can expect it.
What do they have to do? Let's see:
Go into the editor and turn all all the game option features that aren't. (In some scenarios many of those features don't even matter) Play the scenario to make sure it still works. If it does, YAY! Save it an move on. If it breaks, figure out why and fix it.
In my experience so far I've not found any scenarios that appear to be particularly broken when enabling newer features (as you've described), but then it's also the first time I've played any of them so I simply wouldn't know if they're working as intended (unless something truly weird happens, which I've not yet experienced). There are only 134 missions included with the game to test. I bet the community would be absolutely happy with helping with that. BUT! Such things shouldn't be put on the community's shoulders, not with paid content.
Which brings me to the campaigns. At 20 bucks a pop? YES!! Those should absolutely be updated to current standards by the developers. I'm a bit miffed that none of the campaigns or LIVE scenarios I've bought so far have used newer features at all. I almost returned a couple even because of that.
Regardless, if the devs won't themselves do it, we could take it on as a community. Like I said, there's only 134 of them and all that needs to be done is open them, turn on features, and play through it a few times. (EDIT: I wouldn't know about effects to WRA/ROE and such as I never used the "old ways." Only if a scenario appears to work correctly with the new features with no oddities.)

And that dude saying, "Why fix old scenarios when people don't go back and play old scenarios."
Sooooo ... Never mind new players then? Nice. C'mon dude, seriously? I know in the Discord a lot of new players have been showing up. And I would reckon that most war gamers do indeed go back and replay scenarios. I sure do. Try different things, try to improve, etc. Not "one and done and ignore it forever." That seems like a very odd way to look at it to me.

[artao5]

I made this script on my own, anyone with basic Editor/Lua knowledge can execute it and try to play the scen with the WRA changes and see if it fits better with his desires?

Hey, that's sweet thanks!
Any chance something like this could be done to change the game features all in a nice batch rather than manually (like I currently do) cuz that'd be super duper awesome. I don't know Lua at all.
i.e. - Detailed gun fire, aircraft damage, weather affects ship speed, weather/day/night affects aircraft, etc

[HalfLifeExpert]

Really the only Boost-coast related feature I would like to see implemented is a simple setting for the player side to choose WRA for all AAMs on their side.

This is available for scenario builders, so why not the player too to change quickly? The same thing was done recently with Side posture, and that was most welcome.

It's honestly annoying, especially with scenarios that have a large array of assets, to manually change WRA range for AAMs by hunting for each type of AAM and changing them individually under Side Doctrine.

If this is implemented, then I would honestly have no further issue with Boost-Coast missiles.

[thewood1]

Why wouldn't you use side doctrine? Even the biggest scenarios have maybe six different types of AAMs. I think you can use Doctrine templates side-wide. I have only ever used them for missions.

Even looking at the script, you could just change side WRA for 5-6 missiles manually or load a template. Templates are WAY underutilized by players. They are a very powerful tool. You can create one faster than creating a thread on WRA. And They're even faster to load.

edit: spelling

[SchDerGrosse]

Why wouldn't you use side doctrine? Even the biggest scenarios have maybe six different types of AAMs. I think you can use Doctrine templates side-wide. I have only ever used them for missions.

Even looking at the script, you could just change side WRA for 5-6 missiles manually or load a template. Templates are WAY underutilized by players. They are a very powerful tool. You can create one faster than creating a thread on WRA. And their even faster to load.

Interesting stuff.

Could you elaborate on what exactly WRA templates are and how do you use them?

I am only familiar with the "rebuild scenario" feature with which I can only apply a uniform WRA for the AI

Thanks,

[thewood1]

From the Warplanner release notes:

"Load/save doctrine XML templates: One more popular request is now realized: Players have long asked for the ability to customize a ruleset for Doctrine & ROE settings (including EMCON, WRA etc.) and then be able to apply that as a template to other units, groups, missions etc. This is now possible, by the ability to save and reload such templates. In addition, because the save file is in raw XML format, the contents of the template can be freely edited – by hand, or by automated XML-parsing tools or scripts. Obviously this opens up a variety of automation capabilities."

Its also mentioned in the updated manual. But its pretty intuitive if you note the buttons on the Doctrine/ROE page. And its not WRA templates. Its doctrine templates. WRA is just along for the ride.

btw, this is available to any player, not just scenario editor.

[SchDerGrosse]

From the Warplanner release notes:

"Load/save doctrine XML templates: One more popular request is now realized: Players have long asked for the ability to customize a ruleset for Doctrine & ROE settings (including EMCON, WRA etc.) and then be able to apply that as a template to other units, groups, missions etc. This is now possible, by the ability to save and reload such templates. In addition, because the save file is in raw XML format, the contents of the template can be freely edited – by hand, or by automated XML-parsing tools or scripts. Obviously this opens up a variety of automation capabilities."

Its also mentioned in the updated manual. But its pretty intuitive if you note the buttons on the Doctrine/ROE page. And its not WRA templates. Its doctrine templates. WRA is just along for the ride.

btw, this is available to any player, not just scenario editor.

Thanks a lot!

This way I can tweak missiles individually and not gimp the entire force of the AI with a uniform side WRA setting.

Still, I wish I wouldnt have to spend time to manually tinker with missile behavior in order to make scenarios work..

[overkill01]

I'm not an expert CMO player, and I also don't read all the changelogs that come with every update (yes i'm guilty). I'm also not a programmer, so making changes to codes and all is not my cup of tea.
So yeah, I guess i'm hopeless .

Because of this, i'm very confused and concerned because I would still like to be able to play the old DLC as they are intended without returning to old versions ... .

Can someone summarize this in an easy to understand language and explain how to fix scenarios. And maybe even make a step by step guide with an example (scen) on how to make the changes. (Maybe in a new thread?)
I'd be very gratefull.

Also, how do I know if a scenario needs fixing ?


Then, if I may share my honest opinion:
I understand that dev's don't want to be bothered about fixing all the old scenario's that ran on CMANO, but, at the very least, all scenario's since CMO should be playable in the way they are intended to be played. Or are they ?
And an easy to understand guide on this, from the devs, would be great and a show of good customerservice.

Also, there should be a notice somewhere when selecting a scenario wich can notify the user that the scen can no longer be played as intended.

Thank you,
Lieven

[thewood1]

They are playable. Its someone's opinion without specifying what scenarios are broken. Have you actually played any that are broken?

[MausMan2]

I really like CMO (and going back to the harpoon days) and have religiously applied all updates as soon as they come out. But, admittedly have not spent a lot of time over the last year, or more (lots of competing games/sims out there). Feeling bad about this, I fired it up this morning to do a quick Battle of Latakia in the standalone scenarios, older familiar and historical interest and to get me going again. No matter what, I could not get the the Israel side to fire on the Syrian PT Boats. It's possible I need to study the study sim more to work with the changes. But after reading this thread, I'm no so sure. -don't know when I'll try again. sorry.

[Nikel]

In 1307.19 it works.

Code: Select all

SIDE: Israel
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
1x 331 Saar [Saar 3]


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
8x Gabriel I
129x 76mm/62 Compact HE Burst [4 rnds]
120x 40mm/70 Single Breda Burst [4 rnds]
24x SRCR Chaff
40x 12.7mm/50 MG Burst [10 rnds]



SIDE: Syria
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------
2x RKA Komar
1x RK Osa I [Pr.205]
2x TK P-6 [Pr.183]
1x MT T-43 [Pr.254K/M]


EXPENDITURES:
------------------
6x SS-N-2a Styx [P-15]
4x 53-56VA Pattern Runner
255x 25mm/60 Twin Burst [20 rnds]
20x 25mm/80 Twin Burst [20 rnds]



SIDE: Civilian
===========================================================

LOSSES:
-------------------------------


EXPENDITURES:
------------------

Though the graphic is not correct.

FTL.png (36.15 KiB) Viewed 573 times