Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Everything posted by CarlWAW

  1. Cool that you like it. Can we expect it with Bulge? (the earlier, the better for scenario designers)
  2. As a scenario designer myself, I don't have a problem with no feedback, but feedback would be good, to learn in which areas something could be improved. The solution could be soo simple: It had been suggested many years ago, to give scenario designers the ability of a debriefing text, after the battle is finished. In this text, a clickable e-mail or HTML-link, the program is able to call, would do wonders, since the player only needs to click it, an email for the scenario designer would pop up and would be sent automatically, all managed by the installed mailprogram. A debriefing text would have numerous other positive effects, but who am I to make suggestions to the allknowing mob on this forum...
  3. Probably true, but I am afraid, if it would be overcome, the current tagging system couldn't even use it to it's full extent anyway. The suggested solution would make it a breeze to include i.e. a certain unit portray for a certain unit, or give a certain vehicle or building in the scenario unique paintings, while this possibility would create total chaos with the current tagging system.
  4. ASL Veteran, although it's moot because the current system is purrrfect and has 0.0000000000% chance to be changed, I want to clarify to you that my suggestion should be understood like an optional very last mod folder (higher priority of the mods in the z-folder).
  5. Do you really want to demand from others, to show respect to provocateurs? Where was the respect torwards my suggestions, when the answers were: you need help, we can help you. Do you really believe, people do not recognize the false friendliness in this forum and how you support mobbing of critical voices? Customers may not know how the mod tags work, but I believe they recognize very quickly what is going on here. This forum is the proove that you like mobbers. Therefore I find it a bit funny, that you cricize me about being rude or showing no respect to mobbers. Interesting, but the most important aspect you seem to have forgotten: user friendliness. In the past there have been corrections because the initial plan or design didn't work out. The less than stellar success of modded scenarios could also be an encouragement to improve it. But it's definately not a high priority thing, there are many other things that need to be improved. Is it really 0.0000000000%? Not 0.0000%? Or maybe even 0%?
  6. @folkie Did I ask for help? You remember me about a rapist, saying he only showed his love to the woman. @ASL Veteran I wrote that the subfolder should contain the mod data, not the scenario or campaign files. That would not be good. The whole gamefile sorting mechanism would no longer work. The most transparent solution I can think about would be a packed format: the scenario designer packs hid BMPs/BRZs with the scenario-file into one archive, similar to the BRZ-packer, but, ofcourse, a BTT/CAM file would be created. The difference between the current naked BTT/CAM files and the one containing additional mod data could easily be seen by the larger filesize of the scenario/campaign with the extra visuals.
  7. You seem to be quick with personal judgements. Where did I write about problems finding mods? Have you never read this or any other forum? Even PBEM is already too complicated for many customers. My point of view is taking the DAUs into account. And I thought I mentioned several facts? Is it beyond your imagination that someone can think outside the fanboy-box. Because the current system is good enough for you, doesn't make it any more accessible for the average customer. I raised several arguments why I think the current implementation sucks - btw which arguments did you reply to when you are talking about throwing the baby out with the water? For many customers even installing mods in a special folder is already too difficult. I also often cannot understand the reflexes on this forum: instead to think about the additional possibilities and optionalities, the mindset of fanbois is strictly binary. Transparency is one of the main design principles of user friendly software. If something is not transparent, it is rejected by customers. And searching for mods that fit to a scenario and installing them separately is such a case. But this doesn't make the problem go away: the average customer will never see your mods currently, although he has played scenarios from you. How many CM customers even have heard about mod-tags? How many of them can install mods? How many know, how the tag system works? How could this system have been tried, if the game doesn't check if a subfolder exists? And Kohlenklau, if the current system was such a big success, how high is the percentage of scenarios with dedicated mods? I guess even 10% is way to high! Now lets take into account how many are downloading and installing the mods. You probably end up in the low single digit percentages... Great system?
  8. Kohlenklau, if I want a mod from you or anyone else, it would be installed in my mod folder and I would have it available all the time. -Y No need for tags to see cool mods from modders. But the real power of individual modding lies in individualizing battles. A certain unit, certain buildings in a certain scenario or campaign. All that works with a simple subfolder. And if someone prefers his beloved standard mods, he just removes the subfolder. And with the current system nobody sees your mods anyway. I don't have the time nor do I want the time to search if a mod exists to a corresponding scenario. Additionally if BFC offers only huge 15 GB downloads for customers to be even able to install a module, then I think the size of a few MB for scenario is moot. Additionally since PBEM turns easily can exceed 100 MB per turn. But that's not all: Even if I would have the time to search for mods corresponding with a scenario, I wouldn't do it, because there is no data consistency. Which version of the mod belongs to the scenario? Is scenario X the older scenario that is covered by mod A, or is it the newer scenario which isn't covered by your old mods? And to prevent that, the size argument even comes hunting you: if you want to make sure, all people have all the mods you use in a scenario, then you must offer mod packs, if you don't expect players to go hunting for all available mods from you and finding out which one is the newest version, or if there maybe could exist a newer version somewhere. So instead of just packing the corresponding files into the scenario's subfolder and making sure, that players get the scenario in the form you expect it to look like, they would even need to download mod packs to be on the safe side. The current system is awful from a data consistency point of view, it is not user friendly, not modder friendly. And the amount of work to program something like tags probably cost way more precious development time than to check if a subfolder of the same filename exists and load the BMPs or BRZs from that folder.
  9. 1. I am not sure if I understand you. There are not that many scenarios and campaigns out there anyway. So where is a problem? 2. HDD space is huge and cheap. There will never exist enough modded scenarios to fill a HDD. 3. Tidy, no confusion. If a scenario/campaign is finished, it can be deleted and with it all associated mods in the most comfortable way. You should like that, you know, your argument about wasting HDD space... 4. Much easier to create for scenario designers. Therefore much more inviting for designers to use. 5. As easy to install as a single scenario. 6. No obsolete, unused tagged mods. 7. If a player doesn't want to use the mods, he doesn't need to research tags, he just deletes the subfolder. It's hard to imagine how someone can defend such a complicated system with so many disadvantages.
  10. I find the current system with scenario related mods very confusing and not good. The game knows, where the scenarios are stored. A more straighforward and user and scenario designer friendly solution would be, if it would simply check, if there exists a subfolder with the same name in the scenario folder. If such a subfolder exists, the game additionally loads the contained BMPs or BRZs in that folder.
  11. Womble, there is no need to speculate, firing tables show the hard numbers.
  12. Instead of your school wisdom how about firing tables?
  13. Minimum safety distance (MSD) according to FM 6-141-1 Field Artillery Target Analysis and Weapons Employment: Nonnuclear (15 February 1978): @ 1000 m: 60 mm: 260 m 81 mm: 330 m Minimum safe distance (MSD) is defined as the distance in meters from the intended center of impact at which a specific degree of risk and vulnerability will not be exceeded with a 99% (3 σ) assurance. 99% = 3 σ = 260 m 1 σ = 87 m diameter (62% of rounds impact inside) - 11 action spots 2 PErange = 0,6457 σ= 55,96 m PErange = ~28 m PEdeflection = ~ 0,66 * PErange = 18,6 m PErange = 28 m PEdeflection = 19 m PE50% = 56 m * 38 m (7 x 5 action spots or 2128 m²!) Only 50% of all fired rounds should fall in a square of roughly 7x5 action spots. I have never read that applied WW2 tactics of any side used single mortars to knock out guns. If it would have worked, nobody would have been so stupid to risk tanks or to waste 105s or amass 81s to do so. The mathematics support it. For most players it's probably mire fun that CM allows to do so, but realistic it's not.
  14. Fizou, it doesn't make a difference, because a FO can't change the dispersion pattern - it is a physical constraint.
  15. I hope the behaviour of mortars will not be changed torwards more accuracy. I think they are already too precise and effective against point targets. According to my knowledge, in reality not even singular 81 mm tubes were useful as gun killers. It was the dangerous task of the tankers, often after artillery support, to deal with them. The smaller calibres were even less effective. The 75 mm infantry guns were more effective, because of their much higher precision and the more effective grenades. I guess the majority would not like the gun terminator weapon #1 in CM, mortars, be reduced in it's effectivity, but I would like it, if the realsim was increased. The use of a single barreled 81 mm mortar was lying more in the effect of supression of an area and less in the effect of knocking out spot targets. 60 and 50 mm mortars should be even worse and only good for (hopefully) supressing a dozen or so action spots.
  16. At 2:50 THAT's the sound from a smartphone mic: youtu.be/POzyfVNuJx0?t=2m50s Later in that video one can see the cable that the guitar is not acoustically recorded but recorded on a separate track. That's the proove, that it's not a simple smartphone recording. He has a powerful voice and sings dynamically. Even untrained ears should be able to hear, that the loudness is compressed. Consumer products use automatic gain control (AGC) in their audio path, to be able to capture all different kinds of amplitudes. The transient sounds of the guitar would simply vanish during the loud parts of a powerful voice, but the guitar not only is not covered, but the midrange is compressed while the transients are kept alive. Compression is used on his voice, too. Besides the quality of the product itself, which is indicating that standard recording techniques are used: He is a professional musician, why should he not use standard techniques but act like a layman? Musicians usually have ears. Since everyone of you probably has a smartphone, I'd suggest you make some recordings with it while you sing and then drop something loud while you keep singing. And then tell me, if the louder signal had an impact on the less loud signal... The myth of singing into a consumer product and becoming famous - has been a well crafted lie from the music industry. No good sound without without (semi)professional equipment and techniques. Smartphones are not.
  17. Surely it does sound like a toy guitar, but like a professionally recorded one. Can you hear how close the voices sound? Although they were recorded from far away (according to the vid) in an awfully sounding room. From my experience it's technically not possible to catch the breathing of a voice from one meter away with such bad mics - and if a loud source like a guitar even is playing into the mic even less so. All nuances in the voice are lost, because they are way too silent compared to the sound from the guitar.
  18. I only have heard it on the notebook, but I am quite sure this is fake. The transients of the guitar have studio quality. The sound of the left hand fingers were also catched perfectly -> my guess: a setup using 2 condenser mics for the guitar. Voices are not distant, but each voice was recorded with a close setup (consonants and breathing). -> guitar and voices were recorded with separate mics with close mic setups in a studio. And huge Wal Mart stores don't reverberate but sound dry like a studio... But a very clever idea. I guess it's a keyframed video and the keyframe is cleverly moved away, when sync problems with the lips and fingers could become obvious. But the real singers and the guitar player nevertheless are very good.
  19. What practical problems do you think about? The practical problems with the locked view on units could be overcome, if movement within the action square(s) a unit is placed in, would be allowed. The real problem with Franko's rules is the enormous self-control which is necessary to stick to the rules, when you are experiencing battlefield chaos which can immediately and always be overcome by moving around freely. Therefore it's simply not possible to play these rules H2H. Even playing them against the AI demands way too much self-discipline. But this mode gives an unprecedented intense experience. For players who do not have the patience for PBEM and find the AI boring: this mode makes playing the AI challenging. It is suited perfectly for people with not enough time, because even very tiny battles can become intense. I think this is a huge understatement. The experience of terrain FOW this mode creates is just incredible. How will it look like behind the ridge? Or the impact of bad weather on vision. Or the chaos, when an artillery barrage goes down and you can't escape it. Or the feeling for slopes, the importance of height. All that is missing with free movement and this mode brings it to life. I would suggest you to choose a tiny platoon sized attack in thick fog, print the map overview and (and try to) stick to the rules from pre-setup to finish. You will be stunned about the level of realism and chaos your game is already able to model if the god's view is taken away and replaced with unit view. If you like realism, as developer you should give this mode a honest try before judging it.
  20. This statement I do not understand: since CMx1 there is a pretty good solution for the Player as God and Terrain FOW problem: Franko's True Combat Rules. Why do you not offer such a mode?
  • Create New...