rlg85

Glad to see that there are at least potential rumblings of a CMMC or something like it for CMBN. I was a participant in CMMC 1 on the German side (Honestly can't remember what name I went by though) but being a bit younger at the time, struggled to keep up with the commitment it took as a player. I'd really love to sink my teeth into the detail that campaign had, planning with COCAT and whatnot. Only this time playing the battles in CMBN.

Sounds like a bit of personal experience... Accidental firing might cause a bit of a problem if you're storing them there. Also your buddy probably won't want to help you get those out.

Ammo cans in the field? I don't think so. At least with the M42 Airborne uniforms you can quite easily carry 200 rounds of ammunition per person, and quite a lot more than that if you start stuffing your pockets. If you really want to get crazy, show some airborne troops carrying their ammo in rigger made pouches on pistol belts instead of cartridge belts Each pouch can carry 32 rounds or so depending on how big the rigger made it. They also often shoved ammo in GP bags or in their musette.

Great job on some of the improvements in 1.03. But, the target arc is still borked. 1: Target arcs given to specific waypoints or at the end of movement simply vanish and are not followed. You CAN assign them, but once the vehicle gets there, the just vanish and aren't followed. 2: I haven't seen anything from BFC addressing the fact that you cant give target arcs into corners of the map because you can't end the point off of the map.

I for one appreciate Steve's last post, nice to see (as expected ) that they are hard at work addressing the issues we've had with the game (Did I mention the shoots through walls one is killing me? /sarcasm) Anyway, speaking for myself at least, I don't expect to see the 1:1 be "perfect" and abstractions are expected, at least at this point in time. I think the main thing we're hoping for is for cover from terrain to be a little more apparent (seems like something that could abstracted to some extent without detracting from the overall 1:1) And for our little dudes to better use said terrain for self preservation. If these major parts can be addressed, and we have soldiers that can respond enough to the enemy and terrain so that the currently high kill rates are brought down quite a bit, then i'll definately be pefectly content to wait on the little fancy 1:1 details that have been mentioned in this thread. It looks like you guys are moving in that direction and before we know it those of us who have problems with the game will have fewer and fewer things to worry about. Now about those QBs..*insert sarcastic smirk here*

When computer technology and AI are at a level to be able to do it properly , why not? Sure it is pretty much a "looks cool" feature, but not everyone can stand playing a game where the graphics are NATO symbols, or a workaround for 3D in the case of CMx1. Wouldn't you prefer 1:1 assuming terrain fidelity and AI issues could somehow be solved? I know why not isn't exactly the greatest reason ever, but when it comes to marketing video games, a "why not" addition sometimes seems to be a great selling point. This all assuming it can be properly implemented with enough programing work and computers that can handle it. [ August 11, 2007, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: rlg85 ]

I don't really think 1:1 is incompatible with the scale as a whole, as MD seems to think it might. But I do think that the 1:1 together with the proper attention to detail as CMx1 had isn't feasible with today's computing technology, unless they can get a lot more out of the current AI without adding CPU strain. So I think 1:1 is the cause of the problems, the main disagreement I guess is whether it fits with the genre at all. I think it could, with enough advance in computer ability , and a hell of a lot more AI and LOF calculation programming. As I said, I wish they had made an intermediate step by showing 1:1 graphically and keeping the abstract calculations. But they decided to attempt a full leap to 1:1 and ran into the great wall of CPU speed and having to program a fully intelligent 1:1 aware AI. [ August 11, 2007, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: rlg85 ]

Ok asking this nicely... If you had bothered to read the posts preceding yours, you would see that your post contributes nothing other than spam. So would people stop making drive by posts in every random thread with "This game sucks" or "This game rocks" generalizations? MD's great post and some of the resulting discussion however, provides real feedback for BFC to consider (whether they do anything with it is up to them, as CM is their baby and they can do what they will) If you had bothered to read (instead of complaining about words) you would have seen there was a legitimate discussion about the merits of 1:1 in this scale. Fanbois posting how great and completely flawless the game is over and over followed by people set on hating the game posting how bad it is over and over pretty much accomplishes nothing other than adding posts to the board.

Oh definitely, there are many things in this game that are absolutely superb. Ive been playing around with the editor and I love it. In your thread back before release I posted that one of the things I was looking forward to was indeed 1:1 representation. But that was because I was more interested in the novelty of it, and I had just assumed that the gameplay would be there. I also think that a 1:1 credible graphical representation , while maintaining an under the hood non 1:1 abstraction would work better than the current CM:SF system that leaves people confused as to what it actually is. In other words, you would see all 10 men in the squad, who would act realistically to the best ablity of the programming, but with the understanding things are still abstracted, we've just upgraded from 3 static guys to 10 semi-realistic acting ones, but what happens under the hood (which is what gives CMx1 the degree of precision it has) would be the same. Seems like that would have been a hell of a lot easier to program, instead of having to worry about how much bullet drop and windage Sgt. Jim Bob will have to adjust for on his individual shot. I don't think that should matter in anything on a scale above an FPS anyway. (Like OFP) But I wouldn't expect them to reverse 4 years of work on having the graphics AND the engine at a 1:1 level One other thing, and this isnt a criticism, but an honest question that I haven't really seen completely answered. With the things that seemingly are abstracted (walls,terrain elevations, area fire etc.) What actually is calculated 1:1 under the hood? In some pre-release discussion of the hot zones (or whatever the exact name for them is), it seemed as if LOS would be based on these 8m zones, but the LOF would be actively tracked on a 1:1 basis with the visual terrain mesh. That doesn't seem to be what we have,so does that mean there is some sort of hybrid?

Wow, I step away from the forums for a bit and come back to find a post from Michael Dorosh of all people that fits my beliefs about this game almost to the letter. So what has changed from your defense of CMSF? This post leaves me wondering why I ended up in an argument with you over the fact that I thought they had made a wrong turn with this game, when apparently you had very similar thoughts, just you were able to state them much more eloquently. (Admittedly I did jump to conclusions about long term design decisions, which is mostly what you went after me for. But.. your post here seems to support that they might have a longer term design shift in a direction away from a CMBO type game) As I've said before, I love BFC games and I still have hope for this one. But I fear that the series has taken a fundamental wrong turn, one that has been well explained my Mr. Dorosh here. When it comes down to it, I was looking in the wrong place all along. It isn't RT causing the problems, but the 1:1 representation. All the weird terrain abstraction (Is the wall there or not?), single point area fire, lack of AI are all generated from that 1:1 representation and the changes needed in the terrain system in order to facilitate it) I can now see where why BFC was offended at all the people stating that WEGO was gone, and that they had killed WEGO. Because we we're barking up the wrong tree, they didn't make a conscious decision to kill off WEGO, and included it (almost) fully into the game. But it no longer works nearly as well in this 1:1 world where terrain doesn't mean what it looks like and soldiers don't know how to use the non abstracted terrain. (except when it is abstracted, and the wall that looks like it is there.. isn't) I also still don't quite understand how the bullets/shells are actually tracked. If they are made 1:1, then why does LOF seem (at least for area fire) to be tracked on the same 8m blocks that LOS is? Isn't that just an abstraction system that isn't as good as the original? Also the 8m thing doesnt explain why shells and bullets will travel completely through walls and buildings and fly for much further than 8m.

Im happy with this current patch, but the firing through walls thing is still driving me crazy, I cant seem to actually hit any walls with area fire, everything just goes through them and hits something on the other side.

Im happy with this current patch, but the firing through walls thing is still driving me crazy, I cant seem to actually hit any walls with area fire, everything just goes through them and hits something on the other side.

Im happy with this current patch, but the firing through walls thing is still driving me crazy, I cant seem to actually hit any walls with area fire, everything just goes through them and hits something on the other side.

Well I'll give Steve and the others at BFC some kudos for foresight on this thread, they saw this coming. I remember specifically that they had reservations about how casualties would be modeled, because as soon as they were shown and first aid was performed, people would want to do other things with them, like CASEVAC

Yeah, the cam works (See my fix for some with problems in the tech area) I still think it is a little dodgy, but overall the major problem is AI/path finding. Oh the wall LOS/LOF is a major distraction as well. I was lead to believe in pre-release forum discussions that hotspots would only be used for LOS and LOF would be actively tracked, obviously that isn't the case and it causes a big problem in this regard.