Ocelo
General
Map Artist/Eastern Front enthusiast
Posts: 1,400
|
Post by Ocelo on Sept 19, 2010 2:08:05 GMT 1
Hoping to familiarize the new (and perhaps experienced) mappers with some obvious and more obscure tips on mapping, the BK map editor, and making missions. MAPPING QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ARE COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE AND WELCOME [glow=red,2,300]Mapping:[/glow] I recommend that new mappers read this guide. I have put all I know about BK mapping (practically all, always learning) into it. It is very comprehensive and visual, just read the parts you are interested in/want to learn about. 2 places where you can get it: www.panzer-blitz.com/developing-tools/68-tutorials/248-ocelo-mapping-guidewww.mediafire.com/?ynywnoygwinI hope to update this topic from time to time with mapping tips. Also, I hope to see a lot of questions about mapping and making missions (scripting is not my forte, but we have several advanced scripters here who can help). [glow=red,2,300]Scripting:[/glow] There are 2 things you must have to script Blitzkrieg missions. 1.SciTE Editor: this is a very small and simple tool which allows you to view LUA and XML files in a highly simple and accessible way, with may tools to help you: www.mediafire.com/?tznanbgnuwz2.I found that a very beautiful path into scripting lies with this utility: the Lua Script Builder by Lee Campbell. Start with this tool, script a map, assemble a mission, make it work. That is the big icebreaker. After that you can go to the LUA scripting guides and/or map scripts, find the functions you want, copy/paste them into your script, and adapt accordingly. With some persistence and creativity, soon you will be making VERY decent and competitive missions! www.mediafire.com/?ejzwmuwzzdm
|
|
Ocelo
General
Map Artist/Eastern Front enthusiast
Posts: 1,400
|
Post by Ocelo on Sept 19, 2010 2:09:32 GMT 1
Here's a tip for Mappers I just discovered today (or rather the usefulness of it): When making a mission, define the script IDs you will issue to the units you want to arrive as reinforcements. Enter the values under "Groups:" and "Group Property:" in the "Reinforcement Groups" tab. Then, add the corresponding script ID to the units you want in your reinforcement (mush match one of the IDs of course). Then, open the "Reinforcement Groups" tab again, and click on any of the white boxes to the left of a script group number. Once it is checked, you will notice that all the units with that script ID have disappeared. They are still on the map/mission, they just aren't showing up on your view right now (but are on the minimap). 2 Uses: 1.In a crowded/urban environment, where you have several reinforcement groups arriving at various points, but it is too messy to sort them out all at once in the map editor (particularly for MP maps). 2.Allows you to make sure that every unit in a reinforcement group has been assigned an ID, and it is the correct one (or else it will still be visible). Try it out. Its simple and beneficial. BTW: converting BK TGA screenshots is fast and easy with this tiny utility: www.mediafire.com/?dklzwd20mld
|
|
Ocelo
General
Map Artist/Eastern Front enthusiast
Posts: 1,400
|
Post by Ocelo on Nov 4, 2010 14:58:36 GMT 1
A good tip to those making maps on the Eastern Front, late 1943 onwards: Numerical superiority was no longer the key in the Soviet doctrine. In fact, mobile battle groups were now the main focus. These were pretty large, brigade-sized and upwards units, but combined arms were stressed as much as possible, an they would naturally most often be motorized infantry, at the very least with some SP guns in support. Also, human wave tactics were long gone, the obvious (and all-time, universal for everyone) exception being urban combat. Desperate attacks would be pretty rare, and only on the most crucial objectives. Read more: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Battle
|
|
kaoz
General
inter faesces et urinam nascimur
Posts: 1,112
|
Post by kaoz on Nov 11, 2010 14:16:53 GMT 1
Numerical superiority was no longer the key in the Soviet doctrine. Also, human wave tactics were long gone, the obvious (and all-time, universal for everyone) exception being urban combat. and the exeption of: Ukrania 1944 Estonia 1944 Latvia 1944 Kurland 1944 Budapest 1944
|
|
Ocelo
General
Map Artist/Eastern Front enthusiast
Posts: 1,400
|
Post by Ocelo on Nov 22, 2010 19:35:12 GMT 1
kaoz: Budapest was mostly urban, and the others employed numerical superiority in advance (as do all armies capable of it), not human waves. Also, those theaters were of secondary importance to the forward advancing armies (in Poland, Germany, west of Budapest), so they were generally given less priority in terms of armor/air support (though still very present and important). This stems from the fact that, unlike the Germans, the Red Army wasn't crazy about destroying all enemy encirclements at once; deep battle stresses strategic advance and victory over the operational destruction of enemy forces. Hence, the units that ended up eventually participating in these battles (after wearing the enemy down via siege) were not as strong as the frontline advancing units. This is mentioned in the article, it is an interesting read which makes complete sense historically.
|
|
kaoz
General
inter faesces et urinam nascimur
Posts: 1,112
|
Post by kaoz on Nov 28, 2010 15:56:33 GMT 1
if 136.000 men stand before 22.250, i'd call that a tidal wave. i'm not an expert in Red Army tactics, but i think they mostly advanced in encircling the enemy and perform artillery barrages before the actual assault began.
Budapest was encircled by 1.000.000 who entered the suburbs, indeed to perform a guerilla war. The Germans performed 3 major counter-attacks, which i would also name as "waves", altho' then a little tinier than the Red Army wave.
i took your comment as a mockery towards my OA maps because they use the so called "waves". i cannot explain enough that: 1. they are fictious 2. it is impossible in BK to be fully historically correct 3. a BK map needs to be more playable than correct imho 4. BK is only a game for fun
|
|
Ocelo
General
Map Artist/Eastern Front enthusiast
Posts: 1,400
|
Post by Ocelo on Nov 28, 2010 19:24:31 GMT 1
Actually, I recall only one OA map (of the ones that I have played so far) that has this problem. This issue is very common in a number of BK maps, such as the well-known Korsun Pocket chapter for Germany. I haven't played all the OA maps yet, but I remember the Riga map is well made. Due to the dimensions of the map and the short distance that the enemy units travel while attacking make the attacks of infantry and tanks pretty well coordinated. However, another map I recall uses huge, highly dispersed waves of infantry, cause they advance a long distance, and hence lose their formations, support, and the overall thing looks like a fiasco. Dunno what you mean to say by the numbers. Just because a side has more men doesn't mean it uses blunt human wave tactics. The Germans in Stalingrad (on the western bank of the Volga) outnumbered the Russians immensely, especially towards the last days before encirclement (ie: the 6th army vs ~300-400 Red Army soldiers). It doesn't mean they used human wave tactics at all. IMO the reason for the higher number of Soviet troops was the fact that Germany relied extensively on highly mobile but expensive troops, such as panzergrenadiers. These moved fast and a division could often be moved up in time to stem an enemy assault or counterattack. The Red Army in WWII had to focus on building tanks. Due to the slower speed of regular infantry, their response time to an attack was longer, which is what necessitated a larger number of them (this changed during the Cold War, when practically all Red Army infantry units became motor infantry units, at first on trucks like in WWII, later on APCs). I know very well that BK is not historically ideal (nothing is), and that playability and fun are very important to a game. However, some maps take the enemy numbers too far, when similarly challenging attacks could be made with fewer, better coordinated enemy units. Believe me, OA is not the first thing that comes to mind for me on that matter. I just want to encourage mappers to balance and coordinate enemy defenses and offensives well. BTW, your troop numbers for Budapest are off. 1,000,000 Red Army personnel participated in the initial encirclement offensive around the city. 180,000 Axis and 500,000+ Red Army soldiers participated in the battle, while 90,000 and 170,000 men participated in the battle for the city itself, respectively. So it wasn't even a 2:1 ratio for the attackers. I just did a large map for the battle, so I read up on a few sources.
|
|
|
Post by hungaryblitz on Nov 30, 2010 22:40:44 GMT 1
archival data, the number of Hungarian-German troops:92200 Soviet-Romanian:157000 but Hungarian was a lot of technical, air defense, policeman, construction outfit. Battle was long and hard 108 days: 29 October 1944- 13 February 1945 In the city: 24 December - 13 February 1945
|
|
Ocelo
General
Map Artist/Eastern Front enthusiast
Posts: 1,400
|
Post by Ocelo on Nov 30, 2010 23:19:44 GMT 1
but Hungarian was a lot of technical, air defense, policeman, construction outfit. Not to mention they defected. A lot of the Soviet units obviously fulfilled rearguard tasks as well; it doesn't make that big a difference if one is busy munching rations as a supply truck driver or a policeman. I'd actually go for the policeman. Also, after some Rumanian-Hungarian tensions became apparent, the Rumanians were transferred away from the battle (they themselves were defectors, and were later promptly shipped of to Siberia or wherever as POWs). Battle was tough and rather bloody (more for the civilians IMO), but not all that long; 2 months for a city of that size isn't bad. Of course, Budapest was one of the places Stalin said to hurry up and take (and the commanding officer was eager to do so as well), unlike some wasteland like Karelia (in terms of military importance, not referring to the place itself) or the hopeless Konigsberg Garrison (though that fell quickly too). The SS didn't disappoint, however.
|
|
kaoz
General
inter faesces et urinam nascimur
Posts: 1,112
|
Post by kaoz on Dec 3, 2010 16:59:28 GMT 1
ok, fair enough Ocelo. i know, i should take your tip less personal. don't worry about the numbers.
i try to do research, but as you start creating a map, it becomes an experiment, certainly when adding lua scripts.
if AI/enemy troops need to go to the other side of the map, they intend to become very chaotic. it's even worse if you use the lua for to swarm than the command! (if you know what i mean)
what i have tried in those particular maps, is that you, as a player, need to retreat and set up new defenses, while still delaying the enemy. in that sense, there is simply no other way than to script waves.
|
|
Ocelo
General
Map Artist/Eastern Front enthusiast
Posts: 1,400
|
Post by Ocelo on Dec 3, 2010 21:05:57 GMT 1
kaoz: IF you use script commands for swarm, as opposed to start commands, there should be no theoretical problems. Land the reinforcement, and wait for it to reach a certain area on the line (have it stop in that area). Then, add a command that checks for how many units in the wave are still alive at that point. After you get this number, have a function check for whether that many units are in the assembly area (you can leave a margin of 1-3 units, in case one of them gets stuck or something). If positive, give the command for the next attack (there'll likely be only 2 if you designed the mission for only 1 retreat). If negative, run the GetNUnitsInScriptGroup command again. You could also split the ID numbering between the infantry and the tanks, so the infantry have to advance a little further. That way they'll reach the enemy defenses at the same time. Its tedious and requires script commands but its certainly realistic. One of the GZM-7 mappers did this to such an extent with his 2 large Stalingrad maps (4 missions, 2 for each side), that the enemy attacks are extremely well coordinated with infantry support. Of course, he also gets the support of the GZM-invincible Stukas, but it still works). In tradition to the device described in the first paragraph above, you can also just first insert a function that checks the chunk of a map where you want the reinforcement to appear for player's units. If the player still has units there, it'll default onto the described sequence. If not, it'll save on some potential bugs and slowdowns (I found that 10 computers, 10 ways the same mission runs). If you want to make the player retreat out of a certain area, just make that an objective, which will complete when the region has no player units.
|
|
|
Post by Major Pain on Dec 3, 2010 23:01:50 GMT 1
Let me add to this discussion.
If you don't add in the fact that the player may counteract the attack, the AI units will ignore enemy during a move command, until fired on.
Then two things can happen:
1. The unit turns and fires which is its first AI objective.
2. The unit forgets the initial orders.
So you must add aggressive stance and recheck units progression and sight values. That is, if you want something that resembles accuracy.
How many times have you attacked a troop cariier that was on the way to a location? It was an easy kill....but what if when it detects your units, it unloads and the troops begin an attack?
The other issue is that all units in proximity should respond & engage as a reaction to a squirmish or larger action. BK handles extremely poorly, but a good script can overcome this.
|
|
Ocelo
General
Map Artist/Eastern Front enthusiast
Posts: 1,400
|
Post by Ocelo on Dec 3, 2010 23:49:21 GMT 1
@mp: I'd like to add in that the phenomena of diversity of the objectives' nature and the probability of various mission outcomes. This may sound complicated, but its basically saying that on a certain mission, a certain range of various events can happen with the player. Some of them are boringly predictable, and the player will experience them for a hundredth time. Others, however, can bring about very exciting situations, which can be challenging, rewarding, and realistic at the same time. While it is difficult to manipulate their chance of occurrence (and are practically impossible to ensure 100% of the time), the key to a successful, entertaining mission lies in a good, nice, and realistic map, effective unit placement, and good balance, not only of the overall forces, but also at various locations on the map and points along the mission scenario (of course sometimes these can be purposely disbalanced). It may sound complicated, but play a few of Dmitry M's missions. While you may not adore the original gameplay of BK, you will likely enjoy them, because they are optimized for it, and combine the necessary amount of factors which make their completion diverse and fun. The mind naturally enjoys being challenged and rewarded, and that is what the mapper must aim for in the mission, configuring unit placement and balance to the nature of the mod. Of course, some also enjoy historical reality. While it should always be present in a mission, historically realistic (both visually and statistically) situations give an added bonus to the experience. This is primarily ensured by correct unit usage (it is vital to not only use the units in existence at the time, but to also limit oneself to the units actually allotted to the participating formations), and by historically correct map making (IMO this doesn't equate to Google Earth, just adhering to some standards of the locations, such as those described by Folgore with regards to Italy, and to practical realism/common sense). Hope at least some of that makes sense. These are the ideals I go by when mapping. Rarely am I successful, but I do my best to aim in that direction. Unconsciously, I think that all mappers do this to an extent, but knowing this may help. As for examples, I have already mentioned Dmitry M, BK's original game mapper. Others include the famous Achtung panzer by GordonCZ and maps by Manhunter (although in Manhunter's, IMO, the 'reward' isn't big enough because you don't control or destroy all that many troops with relation to map size and mission time, but they are still very good and are enjoyed by many people).
|
|
kaoz
General
inter faesces et urinam nascimur
Posts: 1,112
|
Post by kaoz on Jan 19, 2011 23:19:26 GMT 1
However, another map I recall uses huge, highly dispersed waves of infantry, cause they advance a long distance, and hence lose their formations, support, and the overall thing looks like a fiasco. A fiasco? Each unit has at least 2 or 3 start commands and sometimes up to 9! You cannot imagine how much time was put in that and in difference to a lot of maps (where f.e. 30 tanks are given only one start command to only one point on the map looks more ridicule to me than a soldier keep hanging on due to the distance). Whether the attack waves are a fiasco or not, i think they bring direct action and as i wanted to force the player to withdraw and set up a new defence, simply makes it not being the 100th map imho. Futhermore, i love objectives, but have tried to create them so, that it doesn't matter which you do first, sometimes you can win without succeeding them all, only to bring more variation. Besides, only the first 4 OA maps have these heavy attacks, just because of the time schedule; the later maps will vary. In some, you don't have to kill all the enemy units, in others one cannot simply shell the opponent and drive over the few units left. And again, in some, you will have to use the artillery to get passed a certain point. To me, each map has been a different experience, the next chapter will bring more attack maps and 2 snipermaps, in the last chapter, i'll try to focus on direct assault (read: tank wars) maps.That's why i said, don't mind the numbers. I read a lot about Budapest as well, but i never promised a historical correct map about the city, units nor numbers; only a fun map with patrols, counter-attacks and funny objectives. It was supposed to be the only map for OA and i worked almost 2 years on it; placing all the buildings was a nightmare actually! But in the end, more likable than a random generated map imo.I have used both, sometimes mixed, sometimes varied.
|
|
bb
General
Blitzkrieg junkie (tried to quit several times).
Posts: 1,362
|
Post by bb on Jan 20, 2011 0:18:35 GMT 1
Guys, I lost the track of this argue, but have tried to use the command Cmd(3, "scriptunitnumber", GetScriptAreaParams("scriptarea"));;
I learnt it in stalingrad scripts and runs very, very well,
|
|