Jump to content

HerrTom

Members
  • Posts

    759
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by HerrTom

  1. I think it also doesn't help (IIRC) that BFC only has half a programmer too, since Charles is only part time and I don't think Steve touches the engine side much (correct me if I'm wrong). There are certainly only so many hours in a day!

    I'd also like to apologise to Steve et al. I stand by what I said but I certainly wasn't my best last week and I don't stand by how I said it.  You guys certainly don't deserve that tone.

  2. 16 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

    Sigh. If you don't think what I said applies to these bugs, then why are you taking up time and space posting this? 

    Honestly? I don't know. Who knows what bugs you know about? Did you forget about them? Do you think they're unimportant? Some have been around for years!  As to why I'm taking time and space to post this - I want to know!

    19 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

    And really, do you think my impressions of our customer feedback, or gamer behavior generally, was a blank slate prior to this thread and only the material in this one thread is forming my opinion?

    Of course not. But given the context of the thread, I thought citing the thread would be helpful to figure where the current conversation is. I thought that made sense, maybe not. I'm not sure.

    21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

    C'mon, it's like you're trying to pick a fight just for the sake of doing it.  That sort of thing certainly doesn't make me feel I need to reevaluate my understanding of the world I have to deal with.

    I might be, I'm sicker and grumpier than before. I was hoping to share my perspective. I haven't been super into CM recently after encountering a whole bunch of these bugs in a row, switching from game to game. I searched the forums before posting and found others had mentioned them, so went on to the next game, and so on. I posted about the artillery almost a decade ago.  Anyway, I took a break and came back to find that really nothing had happened. It's frustrating, and I get that this is only my perspective, but clearly a lot of people who I remember being quite positive and supportive chaps back in the day are equally frustrated.

    25 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

    Baby+bathwater+window= your loss.

    Don't get me wrong, I'll be watching for it, but I am definitely going to wait quite a while before buying anything else in the future given my own seemingly unreasonable gripes to make sure it'll actually be supported.  I'm still here because you are one of two guys who make games in this genre, and your Ukrainian friends are allergic to anything past 1943.  Despite how it may sound to you I of course want you to succeed!

    28 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

    Yes, I understand that we've been slower to fix some things and it's annoying and even angering.  I don't disagree with you that we should do a focused round of bug fixing for latent bugs that have, for whatever reason, failed to get addressed in previous builds.

    Honestly, thanks for that. That's a step to the kind of communication I think I was trying to get at in my first post. People in this thread have legitimate grievances, and by and large we haven't been as civil (including me I think) with you as we should.  I think we see "We did pretty well with our 2022 calendar" in the second paragraph and immediately think "What are you guys smoking?"  According to your internal metrics - you probably did do a pretty good job. Lots of stuff behind closed doors and it sounds like tournaments were a big pile of problems for sure. But from the perspective of us plebs that sounds comical given what we've actually seen on our end.  But that's the core of the communication problem - we can't tell that, all we can do is see, right?  Anyway, thanks for staying civil Steve!

  3. 2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

    The same is true for bug fixes, though to a lesser extent because we do want to fix all bugs.  But phrasing everything as some sort of Bug of Doom (e.g. "the game is unplayable because the spent casings don't bounce correctly off of bushes") is distracting from bugs of more importance (e.g. a tank variant not being in Individual Vehicles or a weapon with the wrong ammo).  It is also time consuming to sift through reports of X problem only to find out it's not really a bug or it's far more limited than was originally claimed.  TacAI behaviors very often fall into that category.

    So you see, having a bunch of hot headed people demanding all kinds of stuff from us and to have done it yesterday really is counter productive.  Having a bunch of cool headed people weighing their thoughts and comments before, during, and after making them is much better for everybody.

    I'm not sure the hyperbole is helping your point here, Steve, even if it's understandable given the high emotions in this thread.  Going by this thread, the demanding peoples have mentioned: an easy-to-fix model bug in a Panzer III (that Phil already figured out and seems to have been fixed! Great!), the aforementioned T-90 armour bug (finally fixed, and by your definition seems a bug of more importance), the two I mentioned (9K114 missiles don't work at all and artillery damage to subsytems), bugs with the GILL ATGM guidance, and the LAV-AT sights not functioning.  All of these seem like major bugs, no?  Or are they "the game is unplayable because the spent casings don't bounce correctly off of bushes?"

    I was excited to see what was coming for CMCW and to hear news of an update to the engine, but honestly after this last year and reading this thread, I'm not as much anymore. I don't trust that any bugs that show up with new units in BAOR will be fixed even within a year (if ever, going by the LAV-AT), let alone anything in the new engine.

  4. I'm sure dealing with us is a pain, but from my perspective you guys might have a little communication problem. From the 2022 prospective, only the CMCW patch released, and in July (and again in November!). And that was aimed at early February. I certainly appreciate the September update but it was radio silence until then. Then radio silence until now.

    CMBS just got a patch that fixed one major bug in the game, which is pretty great too. I haven't had a chance to test it yet but the patch notes haven't mentioned the at least year old AT6 bug (also in CW which patched twice this year with no dice) and armored vehicles and their subsystems are still immune to artillery save for direct hits, which we've known about since at least 2014. I know these are maybe my big bugbears but you can't argue that having such long lasting bugs is a good look? We also have no idea if you even know about them. We post on the forum and occasionally get a volunteer tester to ask about it and then it gets forgotten about until maybe next year it gets fixed.

    Finally, and I don't mean to be rude, but you say you spent recent time on content: what content? I guess you mean CMCW (the best game you've released, and I'm genuinely grateful you you guys!) But that was in 2021.

    Overall I think we might be less cantankerous if instead of getting official word when the deadlines go whooshing by months later, a word sooner might make us happier than otherwise.

    Anyway, I finally caught COVID and am grumpy so I apologize if I come across the wrong way! I wish everyone here the best and am looking forward to 2023! 🙂

  5. An excellent video! Quite informative and it's great to see the principles in action.

    On 1/7/2023 at 2:34 AM, domfluff said:

    Even what would be referred to as a Soviet "meeting engagement" isn't the same thing as a "meeting engagement" in CM/wargaming terms, which typically means "an even fight" or something similar. Instead the term refers to an attack from the march.

    I would quibble with this definition a little bit. A meeting engagement in Soviet military science specifically refers to an engagement where both sides are on the move (though variously defined by different authors as either or both on move or on the offensive), and by the 1980s was expected to be the most common type of engagement in a real war.  An attack from the march is a different but related concept in that a meeting engagement would likely, but not necessarily, involve an attack from the march.

    Edit: Some good sources on this that I think are very good if anyone is interested:
    The Offensive by A. A. Sidorenko
    Soviet Airland Battle Tactics by W. Baxter - don't let the title scare you, he did it on purpose!

  6. On 12/22/2022 at 12:06 PM, chuckdyke said:

    Tell us what  you think is wrong. Compared with real life it maybe a little too effective Imo. Look at D-Day aircraft battleship blasting away with very little to show for it. You need to specify which era.

    I think this thread from 2017 (!! it's been a minute eh?) expands a bit on it. Particularly this post I have some plots showing the armour penetration power of a few standard artillery shells. The problem is in CM that only direct hits (i.e. shell hits tank) cause subsystem damage beyond the tracks.  The first post also has a good article grounding the investigation.

     

  7. This is a small thing (hopefully) but I'd really like some extra knobs to play with particle effects in the game. Perhaps a way to configure explosions and smoke effects (while keeping the core gameplay effects, naturally) with things like:

    1. Multiple variants of smoke or explosions. Right now we have 1 explosion (explosiona) and 4 types of smoke used in different contexts (smoke black, smoke grey, smoke white, smoke dust). I'd like to be able to make multiple explosion animations or multiple variants of a single smoke texture to give some more variety to the effects.
    2. Ability to set explosions to render at the proper z-level. Currently explosions render on top of the transparency pass, so you see them clear as day through smoke, trees, glass, etc. I'd like to be able to have them look properly obscured by smoke and dust.'
    3. Define explosion animations for different calibre rounds. This would be like #1 above, but like we have explosion sounds for small/medium/large etc. the possibility of making different animations, for example, for autocannon hits, for tank gun hits, and for aircraft bombs would be pretty cool.
    4. Ability to define the orientation of explosions. This would be best combined with #1 again, but if we could create animations that are oriented normal to the surface of whatever the object is striking we could make some very realistic looking explosions.
    5. Ability to make explosion animations for specific materials. Like how impacts can cause different sounds depending on the material hit, I'd like to be able to make a different explosion for dirt, concrete, metal, etc.
    6. Longer explosion animations! To the best of my knowledge we're limited to less than 30 frames. I'd love to be able to make something just a little bit longer to really blend for example smoke to fade out.

    So... "small" ask right? 😄

  8. As best as I can tell, yes. There's one single explosion animation that's used everywhere, randomly rotated and limited to 28 (I think) frames. It's rendered on top of all transparency layers as well, so you see it on top of trees, through smoke, etc.  I'd love to have a lot more knobs to tinker with when making explosion mods (Ability to orient it normal direction of surface? A more detailed particle system? Render them behind smoke and trees?  Multiple explosion animations so we can make explosions for different calibre rounds? The options are endless!).  The sphere of pixel particles is also hard coded, so we can't mess with that.

  9. 3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

    I am guessing here that "axial position" is above and below the round?  This would make sense with those dead zones.

    Yes. IIRC positive is towards the base of the round, negative is towards the nose.

    3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

    Ok, back to topic, here is an outstanding example of making Soviet tactics work:

    That's a great video. I think it demonstrates particularly well the key principle of closing with the enemy. Advance, advance, advance and shoot as much as possible! It's served me well in scenarios though I haven't had the chance to dig into the campaign yet.

  10. IIRC there are estimates that the engine area on the M1 has about 40mm of RHAe protection. Taking a chart from my super old thread since we're talking about 15Xmm artillery:

    https://i.imgur.com/naUB7oS.png

    You're not fully protected from an artillery shell landing within ~25 meters of you, but it's important to note the spread - it's super dependent on the angle the shell hits.

    For a direct impact, it's a different story. In that case, fragmentation is probably one of the lesser concerns and you'd have to guess the detonation wave pressure, which will yield or fail the material depending on how high it is.

    Nonetheless, it's good to finally get some traction on fragmentation after all these years!

  11. I think writing in more complete thoughts might help people engage with you, I have to admit I have a lot of trouble understanding what you're writing.

    13 minutes ago, semmes said:

    we have established...
    Really? Before, anybody mention anything, anywhere?

    Most of the discussion in this thread, really.  For example, these great insightful posts:

     

    16 minutes ago, semmes said:

    ...they shoot at you and you don't take cover,
    By "cowards" I think you mean "training" and that should be "always".

    I'm not sure what you mean here. There's good discussion in the thread The_Capt linked to. I would say I'd like some better controls over what your squads do when they get shot at, like whether to stop and drop or sprint off, etc.

    Also, it's not visually represented but I recall our pixeltruppen get a little "saving throw" to represent taking cover in microterrain not represented at the game level that increases their survivability.

    19 minutes ago, semmes said:

    ...military trucks are by-design all terrain?
     - Are you saying the military never had road-bound lorries?
     - You read something about requisitioning any kind of vehicle?

    A truck that can't drive on grass isn't very useful, even as far back as the Great War that was the case.  But ultimately, don't drive them through tough terrain. They're not tanks or jeeps!  What's really the problem here?  That a truck gets stuck if you drive it somewhere it could but really shouldn't go?

    --- skipping a bit since I don't have that much time ---

    20 minutes ago, semmes said:

    Prove it.
    Wow! Have you been asking everybody to prove every single statement in every thread?
    -and... maybe you do remember those 2 Rf pl getting into the woods-
    and... the code is the only proof.

    I mean, you're the one making the accusations here.  Give some evidence why something's wrong, let us engage you on the game-mechanics level!  Hell, sometimes they just don't agree with you (like, *cough*, artillery fragments against light armour!) but you at least get an interesting discussion about it.  Look at it this way, if I tell you the world is flat, that goes against the current understanding, it's my duty to give you reasons to believe that.  Similarly, if a game mechanic doesn't seem right, show us why.

    24 minutes ago, semmes said:

    "outgoing" plate of armour...
    There is a thread about that.

    You might need a couple of well thought out paragraphs on this one. I don't think anyone understands what this means.

    I'm going to stop here. Cheers!

     

    (also @The_Capt I 110% support the idea of CM:Z, but only if I get my Bundeswehr and Nationale Volksarmee first! 😎)

  12. 41 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

    I really like this idea. It could be really interesting to have a few scenarios that say upfront that you don't stand a chance of holding, but your goal is to hold as long as you can and inflict as much damage as you can, and then withdraw. For this sort of scenario you should have an exit zone available to your rear, and you should get points for every one of your own troops or vehicles you manage to exit, and points for every enemy soldier or vehicle you manage to destroy. It might also be nice if there was a mechanic where you got a few points for every minute you managed to keep the enemy off of the objective. I know I would have a lot of fun with this sort of scenario, but I can't speak for others (I'm a bit of a glutton for punishment).

    This sort of scenario could fit really well into CMCW, in which you play as NATO border forces at the start of the war. These forces would have been hopelessly outmatched at the start of the war, and wouldn't have been expected to actually stop the Soviet advance, but rather inflict delays and casualties in order to permit the first real defensive line to be formed by the main NATO forces about 20km back.

    The first US Campaign mission in CMCW is exactly this and is great for it. Your job is to bloody the nose of the Soviet forward recce elements and then retire from the field before getting clobbered by the arrival of the forward element.  I was very disheartened to find it came from a different direction than I expected! 😎

  13. I would be incredibly surprised if it wasn't NVA/Bundeswehr (plus, I'd love to see a professionally done version of my mod!)

    8 hours ago, sawomi said:

    Siegfried Lautsch

    I have his book, Kriegsschauplatz Deutschland. I'll see if I can dig anything interesting from his maps.

    Edit:
    Found a map. He was in V. Armee so naturally his data is about its role in the "united armed forces" as he puts it.

    P5j80Gn.png

    Oh some translations to help you guys:
    GSSD = Gruppe der Sowjetischen Streitkräfte in Deutschland, Group of Soviet Forces Germany
    OK = Oberkommando, High Command
    GdMSD = Garde-Motorisierte-Schützendivision, Guards Motor Rifle Division (likewise MSD for w/out guards)
    GPD = Garde-Panzerdivision, Guards Tank Division (likewise PD for w/out guards)

  14. Something else to note re: ZSU-23-4 vs M163 is that the former had a Radar fire control system while the latter only had a Radar ranger. Thus, the Shilka can leverage its FCS to put shells where the computer expects the aircraft to be when they arrive vs the M163 where the gunner has to eyeball it.  I think this disparity, more than any other, makes the Shilka far more effective at the AAA role.

×
×
  • Create New...