Swant reacted to PIATpunk in is this the hedgrow bug v4????
the problem here is that the behaviour ruins a decent fight against the "AI" and suspension of disbelief is cancelled at that point when the enemy are gladly rushing towards you. And you can't issue orders to the "ai"
I spotted the bug within 30 minutes of playing the patch release back in the day (and reported with saves etc)
The only official Battlefront employees posting here have been happy to spend plenty of time espousing their beliefs regarding current military/political conflagrations or posting AARs about future modules requiring undying devotion to purchase; but FFS it's about time they started talking about what the dev is doing ( as he won't post here) on what he has done regarding a game breaking issue - I have spent fricking HUNDREDS of frickin dollars on investing in a system I expected would give me a fair fight (let alone time spent). And before the apologists butt in, I am specifically talking CMBN; although the behaviour can be observed in other modules.
Rant not nearly over.
TL;DR: talk to your customers (repeatedly) about their pain points or expect less income. Or - declare that the residential support is useful but not as useful as the military dollar.
Man. This is like Cleese hating the Commies (and then told it's time for tea).
Swant reacted to zmoney in is this the hedgrow bug v4????
This is me. Every time I fire it up I play for a while then one of the bugs rears it’s ugly head and I get disappointed. This is the reason I won’t buy Rome to Victory or the latest west front game, nor will I buy anything else until they release a patch to fix the few super frustrating bugs in an otherwise amazing game. Seriously it’s like two or three bugs that are keeping me on the sidelines.
Swant reacted to Warts 'n' all in Question - Amiens Tonight, Prelude on the Seine
I think that the Battle Pack was great idea in principle. Especially considering how few new battles stemmed from the Vehicle Pack. I think that where Jon fell down was putting so much effort into the six fictional Linnet battles, and the Waterloo one. I'd have preferred a top notch campaign, and fewer, but more closely historical battles.
Swant reacted to Warts 'n' all in CMBN - Upgrading to Version 4
Sadly @Bulletpoint is right. Carry on with Engine 3. There are only a handful of scenarios/campaigns that have been designed specifically for Engine 4, which leaves you with plenty of content to play whilst we wait for the hedgerow bug to eventually get fixed.
Swant reacted to rocketman in Updated Troina campaign?
The file name for what I assume is the updated campaign is "Troina v2" and file dates can change over time for other reasons (depending on where you found them). Anywho, here is the link for anyone who want it and @Swant : https://www.dropbox.com/s/cztr2dzf2fyf2kv/Troina v2.cam?dl=0
Swant reacted to landser in What I'd like to see in CM3...
I don't pop in here that often anymore, but saw this thread and wanted to chime in with my wishlist for Combat Mission. And it is three items long. This post will likely seem far longer than three wishes warrant, but I want everyone to get their money's worth
Wish 1: Campaigns
I used to play a lot of Combat Mission, going back to CMBO and on through most of the following WW2 titles. To get it out of the way, I love CM gameplay. For me it's the finest tactical wargame toolbox going. I can still, after nearly 20 years, remember specific moves I made playing the CMBO demo scenario over PBEM with one of my best mates. It takes a great game to have that sort of staying power in my limited memory. I say this to show that what I criticize is done out of a desire to see Combat Mission evolve, not out of contempt.
About 6 months ago I built a new PC. I have not reinstalled any CM title, which means this is the first PC I have used since CMBO that didn't have any CM games installed on it. And for me it comes down to content. Single scenarios don't light my fire. Campaigns are what interests me, and I've played them all. That might sounds like BS, but I mean literally, I've played every campaign that I could find for the titles I have. And honestly, that's not so absurd, as there aren't very many. Some I loved, some I didn't. Some were completed, but not all.
CM campaigns, with their episodic nature, lack replayability. There are AI plans, sure, but moving the AT gun to a different spot doesn't make the scenario all that different really, and even then the designer needs to implement them in the first place. Still the same forces, same map, same objectives. So I play it, either like it or don't, and then never play it again. The unknown is no longer. If I know the enemy has three tanks, and I've destroyed three tanks, I can deduce they have no tanks left. The uncertainty that makes each probe or advance so nail-bitingly thrilling is eliminated by prior experience.
Some of the campaigns are really well done, especially given the limitations of the engine, rules and toolset. But once played, I have no desire to try them again. Combine that with the very limited pool of campaigns available and you're left with nothing to play. I took a break of a couple years from CMBN. When I came back engine 4 had just been released. I ponied up the 10 clams and very excitedly went to find new campaigns to play. What a huge disappointment. After two years or so away I could find nothing new. Maybe there were a couple. I was expecting dozens.
For a campaign player Combat Mission has gone stale in my view. Why is this? Are campaigns so time-absorbing and difficult to make that few even attempt it? Are potential designers put off by the fact that what they finally do make didn't or couldn't match their vision? Are they left uninspired or dissatisfied by the process? Whatever the reason, the player base is left with little new, unseen content to tackle.
Well, I could just make my own campaign you might say. I could, but I don't want to, mostly because by designing each scenario myself, all of the uncertainty is once again gone. So that won't do. It's something you do for the good of the community, not for yourself to play I reckon.
For me this needs to change in order for Combat Mission to evolve. And for me there is only one practical way to do it. A dynamic campaign generator. The player needs to be unshackled from the tether that binds him to the mercy of folks generous and talented enough to provide this content for us. We need a way to create this content for ourselves, free of the laborious methods currently required, methods that remove any sense of mystery should we then want to play it ourselves. The current model doesn't work in my opinion.
If Battlefront won't give us this content (and I am not expecting it necessarily) and instead rely on talented players to do it while providing tools that don't make it easy, then it's clear a new way is required. For me, the single most important and needed advance in the Combat Mission series is a way for players to quickly and easily generate the content they are interested in.
I want to fire up Combat Mission, whip up say a company-sized campaign for US paras and have at it for the next two or three weeks. Persistent forces. Persistent map end-states. When I'm done I do it again, with whatever combinations I find interesting or intriguing. For me, this is the way forward. We have this amazing tactical simulator, but little focused content that I'm interested in, and I'd say my tastes are fairly broad. If Combat Mission had started three years ago I'd give it some slack. But after 19 years? it's beyond time to shake up how players get the content they are interested in playing. Put this in each player's hands, and cut that tether.
Wish 2: Artificial Intelligence
I stepped off my campaign soapbox as I'm going on too long, though there is more I'd like to say. But campaigns are reliant on the AI. The way it's done now, designers need to rely on placement and timing, and each scenario is playtested within an inch. Any subsequent changes to the engine tend to throw this off balance. If a scenario is designed with infantry acting a certain way to shellfire, and that reaction is later changed, it fundamentally changes how the scenario plays out. This needs to be disassociated from the design of the scenario. And the only way to do that which I can see is a good AI system, that allows units to decide for themselves how to proceed, not just acting on the whim of the scenario designer's vision. Combat Mission would improve exponentially in my opinion with a good AI, and it would be a fundamental requirement for a dynamic campaign generator. Until or unless the AI is redone, the campaign idea won't fly.
Wish 3: Combined Arms
I play campaigns as I've noted. But now and then I would enjoy a Quick Mission battle. Remember the Combined Arms setting for QMB? Where did it go? What happened to it? It was the only setting that both allowed me to fight a balanced AI opponent and at the same time not know ahead of time his composition (because I picked it).
I'll end with that. I could write pages of all the things I'd like to see in the next step for Combat Mission, but I'll spare you my ramblings. What I want most is a relatively simple way to create the content that interests me, in the format (campaigns) that I like, and do so without relying on anyone making it for me.
Swant reacted to Bulletpoint in New issue in 4.02? Troops reluctant to fire on spotted enemies
I've done some tests on this and I have savegames if anyone's interested.
Armoured cars often won't shoot even when having a good LOS/LOF to a good target (enemy infantry). I don't know why they don't. Interestingly, it seems it also works in reverse - the enemy teams in the forest won't shoot at the unbuttoned AC commander.
Infantry often won't shoot in dense terrain. I have an idea why this happens:
The infantry squad is not split. It consists of two teams. The squad has a solid spot and a grey target line to an enemy team 80m away.
Here's the interesting bit: The infantry squad will not open fire on its own. BUT if I select "combine squad", the LMG gunner immediately opens fire.
So there is some kind of issue or bug at work here. A "hand brake" that keeps squads from reacting to contacts if they are not split and if only part of the squad spots the enemy.
Swant reacted to Ithikial_AU in [Released] The Lions of Carpiquet - A CMBN Campaign
<--- Campaign author.
Yeah mission 1 is just a simple test to see if you'll know about the minefields or not in Mission 2. It's a gentle ease you into the campaign type of mission.
Mission 2. Yes they are meant to be plotted during deployment. Just try to replicate as displayed on the Tactical Map in the briefing - doesn't have to precise. There should be quite a bit of overlap between the fire missions. This is all to display the final stage of the creeping carpet bombardment that occured as the Canadians crossed over a mily of wheat fields to reach the town. If you don't follow this fire mission plan, later missions may 'look' a little funny where I had to recreate the map but in a badly damaged state.
Enjoy and let us know how you got on.
Swant got a reaction from General Liederkranz in Artillery Adjustment Bug or Feature?
The FO's can't call in simultanous missions, but when the mission are fire for effect he can call in another. If he have a howitzer FFE at one place, and adjust a completely diffrent asset like a mortar at another place, then why wouldn't the howitzer mission just keep going? It makes no sence that the howitzer, have to adjust to the mortar.
Swant reacted to Bulletpoint in New "02" patches for Game Engine 4 are now available
Maybe they are finally prepping the TacAI for war in the Pacific?
Swant reacted to H1nd in hummm patche 4, I need your opinion
At this point I am quite baffled how this could get through the testing. This issue with troops charging towards enemies when evading is very obvious from simply just playing the game as you normally do. I have been trying out the revised road to montebourg campaign and aside from first mission I have seen this issue come up in all scenarios regularly during normal gameplay. It is just plain and simply broken. Not as badly as it may have been before but broken nevertheless. For H2H games it seems that the remedy is once again using the pause command (exploit?) to stop troops from fleeing. But the poor AI will get its infantry massacred in simple firefights.
Swant reacted to hundtand in Update on Engine 4 patches
One of the things that have been grating me is the fact that there's no indication on the website of these, more or less game breaking, bugs being present. By trying the demo of CMFI for instance I could easily be led to believe that things are functioning as they ought to be in the current version. When in reality, I could be waiting for a few months to have the game I paid $80 for to take the shape of what was advertised. That's the real kicker here, lack of information, not the very long delay to see the issues addressed. I wonder what happened to the notion expressed in the sales policy that an informed customer is a happy customer.
Swant reacted to Bulletpoint in European Union Army
I think that's a quite superficial analysis.
The US spends more on military and NATO contributions, but the EU spends more on humanitarian aid and global development (as share of GNI).
Or to stay in your metaphor, you're pushing down on the lid of the pot to prevent it boiling over, while the EU is trying to douse the fire below.
This arrangement actually benefits the USA, because you are able to translate your military investment directly into geopolitical influence, whereas the benefits of global development are more widely distributed and don't always return directly to the donor countries.
Also, by keeping the EU military small, you're neutering a potential future military rival and keeping EU countries dependant on the USA.