AlexUK reacted to Warts 'n' all in CM Battle for Normandy v4.03 patch has been released
Damn! There goes my excuse for being rubbish.
AlexUK reacted to Warts 'n' all in CM Battle for Normandy v4.03 patch has been released
Tried a few battles and the opening mission of The Scottish Corridor for a test. So far our old friend the hedgerow gap charge has failed to put in an appearance. Units are cowering, regaining their composure and then resuming the fight. Once I've finished my current RT campaign I'll be getting back to Normandy. Exits stage right singing "Oliver's Army" badly -->
AlexUK reacted to Holdit in Battlefront Poll
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...)
AlexUK reacted to 37mm in Battlefront Poll
I have a relatively small list...
-Distant gunshot sounds, they don't need to be specific for each weapon... it could be more generic (like the current "gun shot trail" sounds) but the sound of battle should go further than ~800m.
-Intermediate distance bitmaps... currently, for terrain, CM runs either at high detail or uses the tiny distant "minimaps". There seems to be no in between... which is strange as virtually every other thing on a CM battlefield has a range of various distant LOD's (perhaps the oddest exception being vineyards in CMFI... they are either visible or invisible, there's no in between).
-Individuality & independence is nice & all... however community is not without its merits.
Could a small independent company not work with other small independent companies to share things? The people behind reshade might know more about shaders than anybody at BFC, the people who make independent first person shooters might have better sounds to share? There are small independents working on amazing things in areas like voxel physics & learning AI... a deal with BFC might help them to train up the next Skynet.
You've seen yourself that working, with Slitherine, in areas that you might be lacking, can be beneficial for both parties.
Surely, as you're all competing against AAA games (and budgets of tens of millions of dollars), agreements could be reached?
-CMx2 was launched with a totally new theatre never seen (or even imagined) by most CMx1 players. Obviously, that means CMx3 should launch in Vietnam!
AlexUK reacted to Erwin in Issues with tank targeting accuracy
Completely different challenges with weaker German armor having to use new tactics to deal with the (on paper) stronger and better French and Russian armor. We currently have many different WW2 versions of CM2 but they are all late war and all feature essentially the same equipment (and usually similar tactics). I don't know if you played CM1, but those of us who did, greatly enjoyed being able to play early war scenarios where new equipment was still being tested where one hit did not always mean a kill.
AlexUK reacted to RobZ in Issues with tank targeting accuracy
It's clear to me after reading the responses that very few in this discussion actually understand what the issue is. I'm not saying tacAI should not aim for center mass, I have already stated earlier that this is exactly what they should do. But the issue is their aiming precision, not the gun accuracy. If we put a laser pointer in the tacAI gunner optics, that laser would point constantly on a 1x1 CM square on the targets center mass. That is the issue. If we did the same with a human, that laser would be very many places on the target, still center mass, but not exact pixel perfect center mass. This is what makes the AI too accurate, and this is the issue I have been talking about all along.
The hull down statistics is more or less a response to the "hull down myth", which we see doesn't hold up in all cases. And part of the reason for this is the perfect aiming of the tacAI that makes the overall hit zone very tiny and locked to a spesific area, in this case the upper hull.
@Saint_Fullers post is infact supporting me on this. They aim center mass cus they are not precise enough to aim for spesific areas, yet the tacAI in this game is so precise they can consistently hit the ball machine gun mount if the game told them to aim there.
For the "advanced calculations" required to make the AI aim different places is an odd response, the game already handles this stuff with zeroing shots. It doesn't even need any advanced calculations, just make the AI have a random offset from the pixel perfect center mass point, so they aim more spread out, but still center mass.
I already Agree on many of the more obvious and logical points you guys bring up as that's not the issue I'm pointing out.
AlexUK reacted to Hapless in Issues with tank targeting accuracy
Not much I think I can add on top of the last few posts.
We know that CM aims for centre mass and we know that's both realistic and infinitely easier to code than using a thousand variables to calculate exactly where the gunner should aim.
We know that for some German tanks, presenting a hull-down target means the centre of mass is shifted from the effective armour of the hull front plate up to the less effective armour of the turret mantlet and the vulnerable muzzle/gun barrel.
I think the question has gotten to be: how does the player manage that? In one corner we have "expect to get hit, get into the open so centre mass is the better protected hull front"; and in the other corner we have "don't risk getting hit at all, play pop-up from a hull-down position".
There's an argument for both, but I know which point of view I would rather my opponent held.
Two things I'd add would be:
Testing is good, but unless it includes ingame behaviour then it's of limited use (and if you fight from a static exposed position with the pause command overriding the (reasonably sensible) TacAI then I'd love to play you). Ideally what we would need are examples from actual games under ingame conditions when players are trying to win. And finally: no one complains about this happening to Shermans. There are elements of this discussion that feel a lot like "Invincible Panzer Syndrome" vs reality. Heavy armour doesn't exclude any tank from basic tactical principles- it's insurance against the worst case possibility.
AlexUK reacted to MOS:96B2P in Stop Getting Shot At
A few additional.
Indirect fire Hide in a building, direct fire Hide behind a building.
Pin with MGs. Kill with HE
What teams/vehicles have overwatch for the moving teams/vehicles.
Disembark at least one terrain feature away from OpFor.
Supporting fire call time is X minutes. Where am I likely to need supporting fires in X minutes.
Pay attention to team/vehicle suppression meters.
What is X Platoon's contingency if it gets hit by indirect fire.
Maintain a reserve.
Don’t be in a hurry to die.
AlexUK reacted to Macisle in Fire and Rubble DAR: BFCElvis vs Ithikial_AU - German Side
Thanks for the info, Ithikial.
Things are sounding good. I have a question about indirect vs. direct HE and infantry displacement behavior, though. Yes, if an infantry unit in a building starts taking direct HE fire, the best choice is to displace asap (out of LOS of course, not into the enemy unit's LOS via front door, etc). However, the opposite is true for indirect HE if that means running out of the building. I sure hope that's been taken into account and factored in. I've done a lot of testing on my urban map and infantry hiding on bottom floors can weather a substantial amount of powerful arty with minimal to moderate casualties. But, if they run out of the building, they're toast. Just recently, I was testing some QB setups and noticed large swaths of AI infantry who didn't set up hidden driven out of very protective buildings to their deaths by arty. It was night and day vs. some earlier non-QB testing where they stayed hidden in place.
AlexUK reacted to Macisle in Kharkov Map Sneak Peak
I put that in Google Translate and the answer I got was "hype hype hype hype hype." 🙂
However, yes, a status update is long overdo. -Am on one of my many breaks right now, but here's a summary:
Primary building of master map is complete. All doors and windows are done, unless I decide to redo something. I do have a couple of funky experimental church constructions that I need to work the clay on more, though. I also need to do a final round of fine-tuning the elevations. It's probably okay now, but I'd like to smooth things out a bit more in some areas. Balancing the sprawling connected building sections with some of the elevation changes, as expected, was a biatch. However, fighting through it yielded some neat stuff. As stated many times in this thread, the project won't come out until after the CMRT module is released. I need elements from the module to finish things. The current path to completion is:
1. Finish what can be done on map/scenarios/campaign/QB maps without new module.
2. Get new module, integrate new units, and create custom graphics pack using some elements from module. Also, winterize.
3. Complete the map/scenarios/campaign/QB map work. I'm doing what I can in terms of "pre-working" scenario ideas. However, I want to avoid duplicating work wherever possible. That means I need to wait so that I have to do things like unit setup as few times as possible (for example, if I change the master map, I have to redo unit setups for any slices, each of which takes at least an hour).
Anyway, that means the project is still a number of months away. But, it will be released in 2020 for sure.
And, there may be a SP campaign.
AlexUK reacted to Macisle in Kharkov Map Sneak Peak
As we eagerly await the coming of CMFR, here's a quick status update:
I'm picking up the project again after a super-long break and am pecking away at what I can do without the new module materials. The later release date means that I may or may not make release of my project in 2020. My hobby time is much less than it used to be, but I'm still hopeful and dying to get this baby out. Currently, I'm focusing on updating all the building internals to what I have identified over time as the best design for tactical play and user-friendliness. I'm making good progress there. I had forgotten how detailed some of the early pics I posted were, and so have decided to go ahead and post a current shot of the master map from the same angle as that which started this thread. Enjoy. 🙂
AlexUK reacted to Freyberg in North Italy QB maps
I've been working on a series of QB maps - starting with large-huge base maps, which I am slicing up, adding AI plans, to make QB maps of various sizes.
It's still in progress, but I have been quite pleased with the latest base map, around 2.5km square, of rolling cropland. There is lots of patchy scattered cover, but also frequent avenues of long-range LOS. I found the result of this latest one quite picturesque...
The land descends gently from the north, through gently rolling fields.
As it descends, there are occasional low escarpments, offering views of the surrounding countryside.
Scattered amongst the fields, there are one or two patches of open woodland.
Spend the afternoon wandering pretty shaded paths.
The roads are generally good in this part of Italy.
And here and there are some delightful Italian farmhouses and farm complexes.
Some of them are quite modern.
Others with a historical feel.
For the well-heeled businessman, or an ex-GI flush with looted Nazi treasure, enjoy a stay in this charming part of Italy...
AlexUK reacted to IICptMillerII in Evade towards enemy
I can tell you for a fact that the bug is known, and it is being worked on right now. I get the frustration, trust me. But it is being addressed. I want to see this thing fixed just as much as you do.
There is a bocage-specific bug that only Normandy suffers from at the moment. Again, this bug is known and being worked on.
AlexUK reacted to Lethaface in Evade towards enemy
AFAIK BF have actually confirmed it and said they work on it after the previous patch was released, but they said it wasn't an easy fix because difficult to find out why. Perhaps someone could find that post and sticky it, because this problem gets re-reported very few weeks. It might also help people like you who falsely assume there has been no confirmation/response from BF and start going wild about them being money hungry bastiges or something (my thoughts).
Anyway, apart from bocage, I don't see why WW2 is unplayable. As is modern. So that leaves a lot to play.
The remarks about them not patching without money to be made is uncalled for I think. Just look at the patch history. Many patches apart from paid 'upgrades'.
Also, you can still buy those modules but you choose not to. While you are calling out people that say you should live with it, I think you are creating unnecessary fuss/drama and spreading incomplete information around a real issue with bocage fighting.
Relax, it will be fixed in the next patch I'd expect. Keep your money nicely in your pocket until then, hopefully inflation won't damage the value in the mean time
Apart from bocage, it's not really effecting much other stuff. I've had my share of bocage already a long time ago, so I'm not really impacted by this bug.