Jump to content

Holdit

Members
  • Content Count

    374
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Holdit

  1. I love the KSP tagline: "Failure is always an option..."
  2. I can't see why they couldn't knock all that out over a long weekend... (I'd push the PTO higher up the list, but that's just me.)
  3. Some posters seem to be assuming a false dichotomy when it comes to modding: that either new material comes direct from the developers only or else it's the wild west. What I'd like to see is something more along the Linux model, where people can make/suggest changes, but only one authority can authorise their release into the game, and this would only refer to the more data-driven mods i.e. new theatres. The current system where visual and sound mods can vary according to the tastes of the player, would continue, because that doesn't affect anything important - for all you know, you opponent's panthers could be pink. In an ideal world, I would see the place for modding - or third party development - would be in the area of new campaigns or theatres e.g. some modders get together and put together a package for the Winter War, and so the uniform graphics, the research for the weapons, maybe tweak some weather to account for extreme winter, etc. The weapon, TO&E, and vehicular data would be provided in a format specified by BF. The modders or TPDs would run their own playtesting and provide the results to BF for review. BF would then run some of their own quality control and when satisfied, release it as a new module, which players would either have or not have, just as it is now with other modules. All in an ideal world, of course. (Actually, in an idea world, BF would release one game including everything between 1936 and 1953 - next week... no, make that tomorrow...wait..this afternoon...)
  4. There's a difference, though, between the engine and the data - or maybe there isn't with CM, but in theory at least, giving someone the ability to add data e.g. weight, speed, calibre, ,muzzle velocity, rate of fire for a given vehicle, gun or small arm isn't the same as letting them muck about with how the engine crunches that data. That, of course, should be BF's and BF's alone to mess with. In addition, BF could act as gatekeeper for new additions, the data for much of which is already known, so they could do things like make sure nobody is trying to sneak a 90mm gun onto a Matilda.
  5. Or just look at the Linux community.
  6. I'd like to see something like this...one engine, just one, that will support all of the terrain, all of the building types, all of the weapons, for ETO, PTO (there's a lot more to it than beach assaults) and North Africa, with a limited selection of content for each. One engine to buy, one engine to patch. Because of the vastly-increased potential scope, out of the box, the game might contain a limited sample of unit types and vehicles across all theatres, just to get things going. A bit like the original Squad Leader, which only provided MKIV's,, Shermans and T-34/76's, one personnel carrier for each nation, regular infantry only, etc. At the same time, release the tools for others e.g. modders or contracted third parties to create the additional content e.g. database entries and graphics. Find some to way make it worth their while to get involved, but ultimate control for releasing content would rest with BF. That way they could concentrate on the engine while others get the theatres/campaigns out more quickly. I'm not claiming that this would be feasible or realistic, just what I'd ask for if the genie-of-the--wargame appeared and asked what my wish was. Regarding CMx3, I have to say that I have no interest in buying multiple versions of another engine that after another 13 years is still likely to have covered the same ground as CMx2. I haven't even picked up the new CMFI release yet, so depleted is my enthusiasm for the way BF is doing things - still no fix for the CMBN bocage bug over a year after it was reported. The military contract thing doesn't sound encouraging; it just sounds like more time spent on that and less time on this. I've seen that happen before with another publisher.
  7. Not long, I suspect. But I was thinking more in terms of ease of management of versions, patching and map reusability.
  8. One engine. All theatres and conflicts from 1930 onwards. Specific conflict packages contracted out/licensed to other creators where BF isn't interested or is too stretched already, but BF retains full control of the engine. Also an editor supporting copy-and-paste-able, rotatable, exportable and generally reusable maps and map segments.
  9. Copy-able, re-usable, rotatable maps and map segments.
  10. As a result of the Ad Hoc at Chef du Pont experience, and for other reasons, I've rediscovered ASL. ASL does live on, independently of CM.
  11. Has anybody tried this since the patch was released? I just noticed about the patch, so I'll take the scenario for a test drive myself some time this week.
  12. Glad to hear it - thanks for the feedback.
  13. In my scenario the German friendly direction is SE. I'm not sure what I could change it to that might help, though, since they might have enemy troops in any and multiple directions.
  14. What's the hedgerow gap problem?
  15. Some more discussion about this scenario here...
  16. Tell me about it. I can remember banging my head off the desk during that phase of the design but that might have been the VCs or just programming the German AI opponent around them. I did a lot of tests (to save time I cheated by putting some Americans in that barn near the exit point and had them doing a a quick dash from there), but I can't remember for sure if that was one of them. I have a vague memory of trying it and the result being a draw, since scoring is based on destroying units that need to exit, but I couldn't swear to it.
  17. Glad you like the concept. I get my WW2 tactical jollies from ASL as well as CMx2 so I might do more. I think you're right about the proving grounds; I've had more feedback here in 24 hours than I had in the previous 2 months (i.e. none). I'll wait until a few people have played it and see what they think because I wouldn't consider myself a good enough player to know if it's really ready for prime time.
  18. Yep...I did actually base it on 40 metres, the 20 was just a memory blip. That said, the guy who did the "Block Busting in Bobruisk" ASL-to-CMx2 port used 20 metres I think, and it might actually work out better, so if I'm doing another one I might experiment with that, or 30. Making the map the same size does leave you with a LOT of detail to fill.
  19. Thanks for your encouragement. It's based on a real engagement, but the OOB is a bit of a fudge and the map is fictitious. I did use an overlay - a screenshot of the ASL board used in that scenario: With ASL's 40-metre-wide hexes, though, its maps don't look good when translated directly into CMx2, so I added a lot of my own interpretation and some Norman flavour (bocage). I placed the houses and woods as per the ASL map, and the roads inasmuch as that's possible. I added crops and bocage and additional trees wherever I thought it would work, so the CMx2 version of the map gives the attacker more cover on the approach than the ASL American player has. My aim was to translate the ASL scenario into CMx2 rather than recreate the historical one, but I don't think anyone has covered that engagement yet, so maybe... This is the OOB I used... The scenario is actually from the ASL Starter Kit, a stripped-down version of ASL for people to use to dip their toe in the water - I think the CMx2 version might make a good training scenario for CMx2 too - a nice simple infantry-only fight.
  20. Oops I forgot to mention that. It's probably best played as Allies vs AI in single player but I think it's a good candidate for H2H too.
  21. "Ad Hoc at Chef du Pont" is a semi-fictitious scenario based on the ASL scenario of the same name and the ASL scenario "Gavin Take", in which General James Gavin and two scratch columns of paratroopers try to fight or sneak their way to a critical bridge of the the Merderet River early on 6th July 1944. The situation is historical but the map is inspired by the ASL map, but with lots of adjustments to make it suitable for CMBN. It's a first try at a full scenario and was actually created a couple of months ago. I was wondering why I hadn't had any feedback at all when I remembered I hadn't mentioned it in the game's own forum... It's available at The Proving Grounds: https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tpg2/cm-battle-for-normandy/ad-hoc-at-chef-du-pont/ ...or from DropBox: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ebl7z9rp9rtwrcn/ASL - Ad Hoc at Chef du Pont.btt?dl=0 Feedback welcomed, good, bad and constructive.
  22. ...or at least, if one must take a swipe...have the good manners to actually provide the answer at the same time.
  23. I'm not sure if this is picking at a scab, but will the patch be addressing the question of unbuttoned crew vulnerability?
×
×
  • Create New...