Jump to content

Mattis

Members
  • Content Count

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Mattis

  1. Yes thats what CMSF1 assumed. But players wished for Syrian air to be added to play out those hypothetical scenarios and with Black Sea getting many of these Russian air assets and Igla/Stinger done they´ve probably decided to add them which was a fantastic idea. So Syrian air assets and anti-air assets were proposed as features of the CMSF2 update. Now we presented with a half-baked solution that many blue factions suddenly don´t get AA cababilites creating uneccessary-stupid quick battle imbalances. Also aren´t there more important issues that needed to be adressed with a patch in CMSF2? But great to see that they damn sure got that time to remove features after release. Of all reported issues they´ve decided it is of uttermost importance to remove British Stingers so quick battle players are screwed over even more. Thank you Battlefront for patching features out of my game after I purchased them. Thank you for granting me that ability to get pounded by Syrian Air Force without having any defense while they can shoot down my aircraft, this realism...
  2. Looks like that the 2.01 patch even punches quick battle players into the face by removing AA capabilities from the British. You buy CMSF2 and instead of expanding it, they proceed to remove features from it post-release because of stubborn TOE reasons that have nothing to do with reality. Great stuff...
  3. What the heck is a promotional page from 2019 of the UK army proving? The British Army definitely had Stinger stockpiles in 08 which are scheduled to be replaced by Starstreak since the late 90´s . However 2001 the UK Army again received Stingers from a Raytheon contract issued by the US: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/4499/greece%2C-italy%2C-uk-buy-stinger-sams-(feb.-20).html But more important this narrowminded TOE-whoring is destroying more realism than creating it. I got the upgrade because I love the fact that Syria receives air support and naturally believed that BF at least would equip all blue nations with the Stinger. Now we have three blue nations which ABSOLUTELY can not defend themselves against Syrian Air in quick battle. How is that realistic? The other air defense assets are not modelled in CMSF2 so at least give us the goddamn Stinger, and even if the countries wouldn´t have them in stockpile (they do) they would get them from the allies prior to the invasion of course. I mean what is this supposed to achieve? Why don´t change the website description to: "Enjoy the most realistic ground warfare simulation where Syrian AA will shoot down your Eurofighters and Apaches but as a Dutch, British or Canadian you have to helplessly watch how rusty SU-22 will blow your forces into oblivion" with a disclaimer beneath it "make some houserules with your Syrian buddy so he can´t use the shiny new air toys which probably where the reason why he purchased this goddamn update in the first place." Absolutely nobody asked for the removal but almost all asked for the EXACT THE OPPOSITE: Stinger´s addition to NL and CAN forces to allow all quick battle players to enjoy an at least somewhat believeable scenario where OPFOR has air. What´s next? Patch 1.02 Hotfix: Removal of the BMP-3 because there is no Syrian TOE list that states its existence? We now really considering about keeping a unpatched version around to allow for unrestricted Syria vs British multiplayer quick battles. Thanks for this early april fool´s joke. Please add the Stinger team to all blue nations everything else is just stupid.
  4. To the other mentioned observations which are probably unintentional I ask myself why one would intentionally remove the Stinger teams from the British Army? British (and the three representatives of the NATO module) are Fim-92 operators and now we have another army without AA capability which requires to play MP with silly house rules. Patches are supposed to add/fix features not to remove them. Please allow all blue factions to use Stinger teams.
  5. The Germans atleast have a Stinger team in the special team section in the editor but not in any formation (and thus not in QB either likely). NL and CN look like they don´t have them displayed at all, nowhere. Would be great to see this getting a patch.
  6. CMSF1 module install never required a base game license but just a base game install and of course the module key. This one dollar patch was basically for people that didn´t wanted to get any of the modules but still wanted to get continous updates on their base game that they had bought from retailers back then and which didn´t come with licenses. However do not worry there were plenty of people that had the similar scenario (CMSF1 retail base without license + CMSF1 module licenses + CMSF2 big bundle upgrade). The helpddesk will definitely help you out on that 😉.
  7. Pretty sure that with the helpdesk you´ll able to track down the purchase including the license.
  8. You´re definitely not the only one. Especially a low sun can cause distorted shadows but AFAIK there isn´t much you can do.
  9. You can use any decal mod and interchange them between all CM games that come with hit decals (CMSF1 and CMA don´t have hit decals).
  10. There are people that love to pretend that they are speaking for the community but they aren´t, it isn´t the truth. There are a few that are extremely vocal but there are much more people playing CM and contributing to it for decades which you don´t see post here occasionaly, or let alone have a forum account. Most people definitely would like to see your project to happen. From where I do know it? Because most wargamers aren´t that malicious bigoted and outright stupid that they would crap onto one´s idea to provide free content just because it isn´t suiting exactly their reactionary preferences Now regarding these triggered "watcha out into whose face ya getting here" guys. They are just targets and it is really itching to give them some lessons😅. But you already adressed everything important like a smart person would do. And your thread deserves better than getting riddled with flame wars. We definitely could use more of your decent kind around here. Best success for your project. Amen
  11. Ridaz stated that he is focused on completing the story right now and at the moment does not own CMSF2 so perhaps keep it easy on that artillery barrage of questions. Take your time with this idea when you get your hands on CMSF2. If it takes you a month, a year, a century, thats fine, no rush. The CM community is happy for everyone considering to get into campaign making business. And while getting feedback on your idea is always smart remember don´t let yourself put under pressure by that feedback as it may not represent what everybody thinks and sometimes can derail into a "do it like I would do it". Keeping the speciality of units in mind is definitely important but you don´t need to follow them by the book. Battlefront itself doesn´t, in order to provide us with challenges and new situations. Most official campaigns and missions don´t follow this rule by the book and task specific elements of your force with objectives and pitch you against opposition a real commander never would consider to do. The CM games come with such a big variety of forces and so much room for hypothetical scenarios it would be a shame to limit your own ideas stoically to force those super green TOE and MOS checkmarks. But from what I am reading here you definitely got something promising going on there.
  12. It was someone else then still doesn´t change the fact that his post in the provided context makes absolutely no sense.
  13. And some need "they are definitely not the brightest bulbs in the box" refreshers. He once told me to name myself St. Mattis so I named him St. . Its some sort if inside-joke but every intelligent person could guess it by context of the last two posts between us but this requires what? Exactly, proper reading and not just casually pick up a one-liner in the middle of a thread while watching a funny sloth fail compilation but then decide to jump onto it and make yourself look like a sloth. If you have absolutely no clue what is going on its simply better to stay away from that keyboard. Also keep in mind reading->thinking->writing and not the opposite way. Amen.
  14. Correct all the new retreating behaviour. For being one that is still taught in the secret art of proper reading you´re hereby granted the title. St. Squarehead from now on. Amen
  15. This has nothing to do with the Lada VAZ-2101 having an unreliable engine... Before the real cold of the winter arrives I always add some blips of organic coconut oil from Target and rape oil frome Safeway to the motor oil and remove the sparks and put then into a tobacco box. I know you may think now "Organic Oil? Uncle Mattis, This is heresy!" but trust me the engine starts like a charm even after longer breaks and even in colder environment. By the way I also do the same to my Mitsubishi Lawn Mower. With that the early spring start up issues are gone. And you definitely not hear me. But don´t worry this isn´t of any importance anymore. Amen
  16. Definitely, I also have the impression that the campaigns aren´t simple ports but definitely upgraded in every way playing in a very different and evelated in a better way. I didn´t notice something unusual about MANPAD and AAA performance. IR Strelas don´t come with convenient RWR warnings and people that believe MANPADs are only a threat to rotary should check the history of downed US fixed wing, the word Strela will be sadly mentioned there several times. As being a polite and honest FAC you of course would call of CAS as soon you spot SAM or AAA activity when you are not able to immediately surpress said threat... Which I believe many players don´t do and just silently sit there watching if the poor pilots will live to tell the tale. However I am curious to see how CAS performs when you narrowed down the AAA´s vehicle position and order a point target CAS or very tiny area CAS on it, if they are able to take it out before the guys respond. Never did this as I always played it safe and either took the AAA out by hunting it down or by artillery. Please let me know when you a) was able to read this comment completely and correctly and b) may know if such a CAS mission would proove successful or still definitely endanger the CAS aircraft. Thanks and of course Amen.
  17. Proper reading, proper reading is really becoming an art nowadays isn´t it? I know the hardship of nowadays proper reading and challenged attention spans while everyone is just interested to tell his stuff but not that into reading or listening properly what others have to tell but you definitely can´t approach a forum like that free news tabloid laying around at your local coffee house which you give some quick glances to check the headlines and perhaps some fancy words that capture your attention while waiting for the cashier to hand out your change for your just ordered soy Frappucino with extra Stevia and digesting enzymes to take it easy on that belly. Take this with funny salt however I stated it two goddamn times what you´re telling here but will next time state it 4 times to be sure everyone is up to date, so lets bring it up to 4 gentlemen. Perhaps putting it into bold and in bigger helps. CMBN because it´s original campaigns have less stubborn timelimits what I believe was done back then as on the older CM engines there was no retreating TacAI and so you had to smoke opposition out one by one which naturally required more time. With the new retreating mechanic these campaigns tend now to be easier. Again in bold: because it has many single player campaigns that were built with Engine 2.0 in mind which I believe was more difficult back then before the newer engine´s TacAI and retreat mechanic was introduced with 4.0. Bold, caps lock, and funny font to be sure THE CAMPAIGNS WERE DESIGNED WITH OLDER ENGINE´s BACK THEN BUT TEND TO BE EASIER WITH 4.0 TACAI Amen may St. John Ripley bless you!
  18. You´re welcome but you got me wrong on the AI one. I am not blaming it I in fact enjoy the hell out of the newest engine iteration and AI. I meant that I like to recommend CMBN to new players because it has many single player campaigns that were built with Engine 2.0 in mind which I believe was more difficult back then before the newer engine´s TacAI and retreat mechanic was introduced with 4.0. So you tend to end up with having more time to achieve things. Its hard for me to explain this one, perhaps someone else is better with the words in this regard but actually it has only idirect relation to the topic to be honest. In a MP scenario with the possibilities you´ve explained in mind it makes absolutely sense to add an unknown overtime to prevent users from pulling gamey cheap stuff. Perhaps this way the culture was established. I often thought that not being able to take certain objectives before overtime starts would may end up in some kind of penalty but couldn´t get any confirmation on this. However like explained it would love to see such a penalty instead of harsh time limits as it could please not so quick and ace CM players alike by granting best victory conditions only to the best and quickest while the rest is only able to get normal or tactical victory whatever you want call it..
  19. The mentioned Courage Conquers campaign is a good example. CMFB has one of the worst cases of "take that town here that we just discovered having trice the force, you have 30 minutes, otherwise we lose World War 2 BUT keep in your casualties in mind we don´t know what could come in the future *mysterydrama glance*" timelimit syndromes although it generally got worse in the newer releases thus CMFI, CMRT, CMBS. Also what is it with this sekrit overtime that isn´t mentioned. In reality combat and the world doesn´t end suddenly after 30 minutes but in CM it can because of god´s imposed time limits and you always sit there with paranoia "St. Puller help me I just have 5 minutes left, better throw all squads into the meatgrinder or hope for overtime?!" and after all my men are wasted, suddenly my commander arrives with his jeep and tells me "Mr. Mattis I just looked over the maps again taking that town with 3x crack Germans must be really hard to achieve in the time window of my lunch break and now that the 30 minutes passed and the world suddenly didn´t end, I found out that dessert is served hereby I suprisingly grant you more time for your assault but won´t tell you how much, hopefully you didn´t already wasted your men because you believed this is a instant game over mission hoho, please make good use of the additional 5?, 10?, 15?, 20?, 25? 60? minutes." Stopped counting how often I wondered about this idea. Sure you can play around with this in a "Try to achieve X. Company Z herefor can hold up the defense for 45 minutes perhaps longer" type of scenario but this "we won´t tell you the sekrit overtime" it is in almost every goddamn mission. WHO COME UP WITH THIS CULTURE? At least there are some mission designers that tell you right from the bat how much time you get. Isn´t a system like this possible: We give you two hours (alternative 90 minutes normal 30 minutes overtime) for this operation, however if you´re able to take this town and hit cease fire in 90 minutes the nearby Unit XXXX can pull of a hell of a stunt move, you will considered an hero of the Soviet American Vaterland by Benito Churchill himself and receive a medal, and this is the only way to achieve all objectives here. From what I´ve seen total victories are always triggered when the enemy surrenders however you still can have failed objectives. So skilled CM player would be able to achieve extra objectives others won´t, giving them their challenge without forcing it onto others. Think about that. However this issue is the reason why I recommend WW2 beginners to start with CMBN because it´s original campaigns have less stubborn timelimits what I believe was done back then as on the older CM engines there was no retreating TacAI and so you had to smoke opposition out one by one which naturally required more time. With the new retreating mechanic these campaigns tend now to be easier. Don´t get me wrong I´ve played ALL and won those CMFB, FI, RT, BS campaigns. But I enjoyed these CMBN campaigns the most because I found myself having enough time to make appropiate recon, care for casualties, reposition etc. which resulted in authentic immersion and gameplay without ending in this usual gamey Starcraft click and rushfest which fell forced onto me in the other titles. But don´t get me wrong it isn´t a walk in the park and you still have to keep momentum as time is still of the essence. The same by the way I can say now for CMSF2, which I also can recommend to new players because from what I´ve seen THANKS HEAVEN they kept the original not so strict timelimits when updating the campaigns but added extra challenges to it like minefields, anti air defenses in order to challenge real commander skills like keeping casualties low and expecting the unexpected and not your ability to zerg rush everything AFAP. I myself also used a helpful site over at LeslieSoftware that shows the branching trees of all campaigns and also what victory conditions trigger what path in the campaign. You may disagree with me on the practice and consider this as spoilering I do not as no other mission details are obtained and since I´m using it my enjoyment doubled especially with this campaigns where you just fighting time limits. This allows me to prevent driving my complete force against the wall because of a strict time limit in an unimportant early mission (which in most cases you can´t tell) to then end up with not enough forces to continue the campaign or to achieve a mandatory win in a following mission which was basically business as usual for me in RT, FB, FI before using that website. The opposite of course is also true, preventing you from saving your men from carnage because of a strict time limit in a mission and deciding against going for that objective that would kill half of your forces just to suddenly find the campaign end screen (at least in this case you not required to go back dozen of saves and hours of progress). Yes there are some campaign designers that give you great details in the always accessible campaign description but again most campaigns are too damn ambigious on that information. So St. Elrod bless this site without it I probably wouldn´t had the motivation to complete some of them. Amen
  20. "What is this Mr. Mattis? Why you´re Uploading two times the same "best" picture, stop spaming the forum and polluting the planet with taking server space up over in Island." No this is the exact middle between the settings and I think called "better" or whatever. It takes perhaps 10-15 frames instead of 40 away on my system still being complete fluid even during camera turns and runs. "But But" yeah start counting and good luck finding those crysis 4 high quality trees that are responsible for the other 30 frames in the best picture. More even in some maps like urban maps or desert maps like in SF2 I AM NOT EVEN ABLE TO TELL WHAT IS DIFFERENT from balanced to best other than I am about to end up in hospital´s stroke unit from witnessing my precious frames dropping into basement. Years and dozen of threads mentioning the hazards of this setting but still do you want know how many people are running the best settings instead of at least the better or balanced? Basically everyone that comes up with fairy tales like "I would be happy to have 30fps" or "my game runs bad because CM just runs on half cores", "CM is really badly optimized for my gaming chair" etc. I never run CM below 30fps even on bad systems. Why people, why you love to bang that head of yours constantly (leading to my head also getting banged oberving this), every smart men out there experiencing such problems would first check his settings, no? Learn to solve problems not to create ones always being dependant on others doing so. I know some of your are older (me included) but please figuring computers and gaming out is not much more demanding than figuring a M16A4. Don´t be like the Youtube millenials nowadays who forst need a streaming celebrity to give them instructions on how to cross the street without getting hit by a car and then still get hit by a car. I am not adressing the masochist among you that like to play with their 5fps Microsoft Powerpoint slideshows for "CM in the 90´s" nostalgia but for the HillyBillies like this RecruitHatred or what was his name and others out there that make a living out of complaining and pointing fingers instead of being a smart gentlemen and learn to solve problems.
  21. balanced: Now I hear already an army of "people but but but there are trees missing Mr. Mattis!" Yes in 2000m or whatever they start to drop but if you play on a PC comparable to the performance of a Mitsubishi Lawn Mower in the last cold days of late April thats how things are still better than getting a epileptic seizure from turning that cam right? 40 damn FPS difference between balanced and best. Now some may come up with: "but but I got a powerful PC as a reward for accomplishing my successful biking license at school and it still doesn´t run appropiate". Yes it is still taxing HOWEVER: (next post)
  22. Yes its the two settings, the most severe one is the 3D model quality setting and please not again this goddamn mumble jumble about pregame cache, virtual whatever, engine allocation, which texture is loaded and whatever. 3D model quality should simply be called "Draw Distance" or "Foliage" and yes you can see it in foliage heavy games like Red Thunder. Finding this out would consume less time than making posts ala Bill Gates. 3d model quality best:
  23. I did this in battle. It worked. I just need to leave the vehicles dismounted at the beginning otherwise the former crews return into their vehicles. The German ones look pretty identical to the Marines ones (there is just the minor German flag on the plate but this can easily be modified) Marines can mount and dismount all day without help 😀. Damn I love it.
×
×
  • Create New...