Jump to content

Battlefront.com

Administrators
  • Content Count

    30,145
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Battlefront.com

  • Rank
    Administrator

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. A cooling off period might be best for you and others. However, what I just posted still stands as does my offer to reprimand anybody who labels you a Neo-Nazi. You are correct that name calling is name calling. Unless it's about Danes. They're on their own, which ironically is just the way they like it Steve
  2. Actually, on this point I agree. Neo-Nazi is a specific and loaded term that has all kinds of baggage that goes with it. I live in an area with a large right wingers around and I don't think of any of them as Neo-Nazis. Would be Fascists? Some of them, though most are (honestly) simply not intelligent and/or informed enough to know what the results of their political views would ultimately lead to if not checked by the middle and the left. Ignorant is a better term for most people on either political extremes IMHO. I've had my share of run-ins with true Neo-Nazis and far more with right wingers. While there might be a lot of commonalities in philosophies, which shouldn't be surprising since one is a more extreme version of the same mindset, they are not the same thing. Same thing with liberals being labeled Communists. Very few liberals would be even remotely happy under Communist rule. Casually tossing around labels doesn't help anything. For the record, I do not consider you a Neo-Nazi. Right wing and offensive at times? Yup, absolutely you've managed to establish that on many occasions. Even if an argument can be made that positions you take offer comfort and encouragement to those who would push people into ovens, that still isn't the same thing as being a Neo-Nazi yourself. Words matter and I do think it's important to not use a term (especially a loaded one) inappropriately. Therefore, next time someone calls you a Neo-Nazi you can ping me and I'll give them a talking to. Though I expect I might also have to give you a talking to at the same time as there's usually something you've posted to cause that sort of accusation. Meaning, if you don't want to be incorrectly called a Neo-Nazi it is advisable to not post things that could give people that impression. Steve
  3. OK, back to the initial issue that started this thread. As has been pointed out there is no such thing as a perfect simulation of real life. By the time there is, the machines will have taken over the planet and, with some luck, not eradicated us in the process. Therefore, simple deduction means that Combat Mission is not perfect and never will be. What has to be kept in mind is that if you play Combat Mission fairly regularly you have experienced BILLIONS of TacAI decisions. Cripes, it could be even TRILLIONS (I did some quick math and came up with 7 million theoretical TacAI decisions in an average game). Think about it. Every few seconds every Soldier makes one or more distinct decisions based on TacAI logic. Multiply that by the number of units you have in a game, by the length of time a game plays out, by the number of games played. Since it is impossible for every single decision to be reasonable (i.e. realistic, not necessarily correct) there are going to be questionable outcomes. Some may have a plausible, but not very likely, justification. Others simply defy that. I'd say this is one of those situations that doesn't seem to hold up to any reasonable standard of "bad luck" and instead crosses the line and is a "bad result". Everybody is going to eventually experience these sorts of things. Given the collective quintillions of resultsplayers on this Forum experience, there's going to be some notable boo-boos to highlight. These are termed "outliers" and aren't a problem provided they remain that way. That said, there are some things players can do to minimize getting bitten by the necessarily gaps between spotting checks: Don't use overly large or overly restrictive Target Arcs. Too large and the unit's attention is spread too thin, too narrow and it's the opposite. Don't rely upon units in adverse situations to be totally on top of everything that's going on around them. Tired, shaken troops deliberately behave less efficiently. Especially if they are poorer quality to start with. Don't move units around until they've had a chance to spot known dangers and/or targets. Moving reduces the quality of spotting, depending on the Command used and tactical conditions. The more adverse spotting situations are combined for one unit, the more likely it will miss something. To sum up... is it realistic that even with all the terrain and battlefield distractions that a unit in adverse conditions would miss a Tiger at that close range? Not likely, even considering that real life has a lot more crazy stuff in it that we account for. Does this one incident highlight some sort of underlying limitation of the Game Engine that is more likely to bite someone than not? Sure, because there's only so many times your CPU can afford to do a spotting check for every Soldier and that is less than real life. But does this indicate some major problem with the simulation itself? No. If it did, none of you would be playing Combat Mission now, not especially 10 years ago when the spotting checks were even less frequent and less sophisticated than they are now. Combat Mission is an incredible simulation of real life, but nothing is perfect and therefore neither is Combat Mission. Now that I've attempted to offended all of Scandinavia, I'm going to go out and get some farm brewed beer. At least the whole world hasn't fallen apart! Steve
  4. One thing that cheeses me off more than other things is when someone drags a personal chip on shoulder from one thread (which is bad enough) and into a second. Which we've got going on here, apparently. Ask yourself a serious question. If being on this Forum is such an aggravating experience for you, do you still want to be a member of it? Because with comments like this I'm really thinking you might want a vacation or to move on. Either one is a possibility, but it's your choice as your behavior is what dictates the outcome. Also, don't pick fights for other people. If Person A directs a comment at Person B that is potentially offensive to him, I expect Person B to complain and not Person C to come out swinging. If Person B doesn't raise objections, then maybe Person C missed something. As for Danes being loudmouthed... that's just a statement of fact. And I can state that because I'm 1/4 Dane (my grandfather came over), so I'm a 1/4 authority on this matter! And if that's not enough, my blue eyes, blond hair, and fair complexion didn't come from my Italian side of the family Now, If I were Swedish... then I would be expected to keep my mouth shut, just like the Finns keep insisting would be for the best. And the Norwegians should just stay out of it because nobody cares about what they think. My job here is almost done Steve
  5. No, we have not done anything for the sound effects. There's an endless "wishlist" of good things that people want, but there's so many other things that need doing. I do not expect anything to happen with the sound effects for any title, CMRT or otherwise, anytime soon. Steve
  6. IIRC there was more than one problem with the radios, so I don't think something got re-borked. The problem came from the massive CMSF1 to CMSF2 data migration, which was a one time thing. Had to do with the original CM2 TO&E data organization being different than everything post CMBN v1. Lots of problems like the radio thing came about during the massive rewiring effort, but most were found and fixed during initial testing. Obviously missed this one It was kinda an odd situation. With the one I recently fixed it was mostly Blue forces that were affected. Because the leadership elements are so often riding in style, they used the more powerful vehicle radios. It was only noticeable when the HQ was dismounted and far enough away from their vehicle to lose C2 connection. Which meant the absence of the radio was inconsistent and, therefore, less likely to be noticed. IIRC the earlier problem was more of an across the board situation with some higher level variables, but I could be mistaken. Steve
  7. I can only speak to the radio thing as that is something I personally fixed. Radios were missing from quite a few units across multiple nations. As I said above, we fix things as they are brought up. I'm not always aware of them and even when I am that doesn't mean I remember 'em. We have bug tracking software to do that Good point! That was an odd situation that (fortunately) wasn't widespread. It has to do with the quirky way the game handles the TO&E and the very specific way I reorganized a very specific unit in a very specific formation. Most of the times the method used had no legacy implications, but in that instance (and perhaps a few others) the chosen technique wasn't right for the occasion. I'll double check CMRT and make sure the method matches the need. Steve
  8. I'm 99% sure I fixed that a while back. I'm doing work on the TO&E today and it definitely looks fixed. I also reworked many of the Platoons to have their HQ baked into a Squad, which was standard practice for Soviets through modern times. CM initially wasn't able to do that, but changes after CMRT came out made it possible. Steve
  9. What MikeyD said. Sometimes those fixes are applicable to a specific title, sometimes all, and more often somewhere inbetween. I can't even begin to say what has been fixed since the last round of patches because we are constantly tweaking and updating the code, artwork, and TO&E as problems are brought to our attention. At this stage of the engine's maturity most of these fixes are very minor in the grand scheme of things, but still likely noticeable. steve
  10. The determinant for this feature is historical reality for the given force for the given time. Soviets never had that capability even at the end of the war, at least not in a way meaningful to CM's level of simulation. Steve
  11. Not sure I follow you. Plus, any changes like that would be for the Game Engine, applicable across all titles (WW2 in this case), and not for a specific release. We don't generally make such changes except when we do an Upgrade. Steve
  12. They can coat it with as much nostalgia as they want, we don't care as long as we get to see the original wartime source material. Fortunately, that's what they are doing Yup, already known for decades. The problem was trying to figure out where all those SMGs went to because the official TO&E that was known didn't show how they were allocated. We had to guess. The newly release source material finally answered those questions. And in hindsight, it's kinda obvious that's what they did with them. Soviets were all about concentration of similar things to achieve their results. For Fire and Rubble? Not much. I'd have to check, but I don't think there was a lot of changes to equipment for those two areas between late Summer 1944 and Spring 1945. Steve
  13. Some elements of a unit are loaded dynamically, such as what icons a Team uses, which bits and bobs get stuck onto a Soldier, if a Leader has binoculars, etc. But the unit itself and how it is connected to other units are baked in. Vehicles are considered a "unit" in this regard, but with pretty much everything being loaded dynamically. Meaning, if you purchased something called Panzer IV J (Early), and we decided to replace it with a Maus, then the Maus would show up complete with all its stupidity. But it would also mean *ALL* Panzer IV J (Early) in *ALL* situations would show up as Maus. Which is totally not sensible and that's why we never alter what a vehicle inherently is once we set it up. Details are, of course, edited all the time. In fact, with Engine 2 we redid every single model to improve their fidelity and all existing scenarios used the new models without any further modifications. Basically, yes. However, for the most part only a few bits of "header" information of a formation is loaded dynamically. This means that in the TO&E coding the Soviet Rifle Company as it exists today does not look like the one everybody is playing with today. That allows me to do modifications to large, complex, interconnected Formations without having to redo the whole thing. In this example I created a new SMG Platoon with some new Squad types, added it to the existing Company and subtracted one of the existing Platoons. Boom, done! If I had to rebuild entire Battalions every time I made small changes we'd still be working on CMBN Commonwealth Module Steve
  14. Correct! Anything above the individual Soldier level is baked into scenarios and won't change unless someone rebuilds it. For example, if we decreased the number of SMGs for a type of Rifle Squad that (should) show up even in older scenarios. But new Platoons with new Squad types won't because they are new structures and that's the sort of thing that's basked into a scenario file. Steve
×
×
  • Create New...