Another reason for a centralized Forum...

[76mm]

I'll pile on for the request for persistent map damage. 

[Erwin]

Has no one mentioned "Scaleable UI"?  I have to downgrade to 1600 x 1200 on my 30" monitor to make the UI readable.   With 4G UHD monitors becoming more common it would be great to have the CM2 UI scalable so it can be readable at UHD settings.  

[PIATpunk]

+1.  Would be good not having to use a magnifying glass to interpret the ui readout when we are talking upgrading monitors from 1920x1080   :-)  

[LongLeftFlank]

Will there be any way to "bootstrap" CMSF1 maps to the new engine editor? Asking for a friend who doesn't want to spend most of 2018 totally remapping a certain Anbar city.... 

[sbobovyc]

4 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Will there be any way to "bootstrap" CMSF1 maps to the new engine editor? Asking for a friend who doesn't want to spend most of 2018 totally remapping a certain Anbar city.... 

If the map format is not changed, you can try to use my mdr mutator script to port the map.

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Will there be any way to "bootstrap" CMSF1 maps to the new engine editor? Asking for a friend who doesn't want to spend most of 2018 totally remapping a certain Anbar city.... 

Both the original post made by Steve

and later in this thread

Steve said that their stated goal is to allow CMSF2 to load and play all the old scenarios.

[Battlefront.com]

Ian is correct.  All CMSF1 scenarios should load without any end user fuss at all.  Just pop 'em in and start rocking.  So far we've seen no reason that won't work. 

Where things get tricky is with play balancing, swapping out fixed trenches for FoW trenches, etc.  That obviously takes a Human touch to address so "mileage will vary" in terms of how well an unmodified CMSF1 battle plays in CMSF2.  But the map itself?  No problemo.

Steve

[Jumpete]

On 12/10/2017 at 8:19 AM, Battlefront.com said:

Possible, but "early 2018" does not mean January 1st

Rome to Victory could be out sooner.  We'll know better in a few weeks, but I'm not counting any chickens before they hatch at this point.

Steve

Well, after these few weeks Steve, do you have any news for sharing with us ?

[Erwin]

On ‎11‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 5:12 AM, Battlefront.com said:

Ian is correct.  All CMSF1 scenarios should load without any end user fuss at all.  Just pop 'em in and start rocking.  So far we've seen no reason that won't work. 

Where things get tricky is with play balancing, swapping out fixed trenches for FoW trenches, etc.  That obviously takes a Human touch to address so "mileage will vary" in terms of how well an unmodified CMSF1 battle plays in CMSF2.  But the map itself?  No problemo.

Steve

Along with news that the CMSF mods should swap out to CMSF2 as well, this is xnt news. 

Modders and scenario designers had over 5 years to perfect their craft with CMSF b4 the WW2 CM2 titles were released.  So, many of the scenarios and especially the many campaigns that were produced for CMSF are outstanding.  

[Battlefront.com]

On 11/8/2017 at 12:59 PM, Jumpete said:

Well, after these few weeks Steve, do you have any news for sharing with us ?

It's still going rather slowly, but it is now at least going!  I'm expecting very early 2018.

Steve

[Mord]

Which in Steve-speak means, maybe June. LOL.

 

Mord.

[Macisle]

Any news on a patch that will fix the current suicidal rout issues? I've been working on a large urban map for CMRT with heavy use of multi-part buildings that should be offering excellent defensive material, due to the potential for units to ambush and fall back to safe parts of the building out of LOS. However, very frequently, units are running out of the building into the open (and usually toward the enemy) once they receive any decent enemy fire response.  This is happening even when they are protected by an outer ring at the bottom floor of a multi-story complex. In other words, say they are on the 3rd floor (but could be the 8th, it doesn't matter) of a central part that is connected to a 1-story outer ring that would completely shield them if they just go to the bottom of the 3-story section they are in. Well, instead they are passing through the safe ring and out into the open to be shot down. This makes what should be very formidable building complexes rather easy to take. No flamethrowers needed. Just rattle the cage and shoot the birds when they fly out.

This problem also seriously affects infantry AT teams in buildings. Unless the unit pause workaround is used,  once they fire from a building (and thus panic themselves), they tend to suicide rout into the open, despite any available out-of-LOS cover in adjacent connected building sections. Of course, if they are hard-paused, they will also stay put to receive any enemy return fire instead of the ideal of taking a shot and retreating to sure safety by use of an initial timed pause (the use of which currently makes them vulnerable to suicide rout once freed from the pause).

It seems that complex building structures that should be supplying super-cover might actually make the potential for suicidal rout worse. Without the pause command used for a hard pause--maybe dealbreaker worse.

I know that the next CMRT module is supposed to have huge Berlin maps. Both for my map (which will probably be used for a H2H campaign that integrates the new units, to be released post-module) and for those, I'd really like to see the suicidal rout issue taken care of. 

 

Edited November 11, 2017 by Macisle

[DMS]

Great news! For Berlin battle Soviet heavy guns would be great. 122mm, 152mm. If crew vulnerability would be tweaked a litle. Now they just walk and don't hide behind gun shields. And FOG-2 static flamethrowers. They could act like "blast" command, with more flame.

[waffelmann]

Will the soldiers get new models in CMSF2? These from the new engine with individual gear?

 

 

 

Greetings, alex

[Jumpete]

11 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

It's still going rather slowly, but it is now at least going!  I'm expecting very early 2018.

Steve

Thanks for your answer Steve. I was hoping gifting myself an italian present for Xmas. I shall to wait a bit mor but I'm sure that the result will be worth it.

Can we wait the preorder in next weeks?

Edited November 11, 2017 by Jumpete

[jtsjc1]

8 hours ago, DMS said:

Great news! For Berlin battle Soviet heavy guns would be great. 122mm, 152mm. If crew vulnerability would be tweaked a litle. Now they just walk and don't hide behind gun shields. And FOG-2 static flamethrowers. They could act like "blast" command, with more flame.

And don't forget the 203mm tracked howitzer the Russians used to "reduce" fortified positions with direct fire. 

[JoMac]

1 hour ago, jtsjc1 said:

And don't forget the 203mm tracked howitzer the Russians used to "reduce" fortified positions with direct fire. 

Nah...This is Engine 4, and no need for Big HE to realistically reduce buildings and occupants...Just need to use Small Arms or have small HE rounds fall anywhere on the Map to make sure the Building Occupants flee in quick manner

Whatever happened when it realistically took several minutes or hours to take a Block of buildings...From an excerpt from "Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan"..."According to myth, the Earth was created in six days (then, v3). Now, watch out! Here comes Genesis! (v4) We'll do it for you in six minutes!

Edited November 11, 2017 by JoMc67

[jtsjc1]

3 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

Nah...This is Engine 4, and no need for Big HE to realistically reduce buildings and occupants...Just need to use Small Arms or have small HE rounds fall anywhere on the Map to make sure the Building Occupants flee in quick manner

Whatever happened when it realistically took several minutes or hours to take a Block of buildings...From an excerpt from "Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan"..."According to myth, the Earth was created in six days (then, v3). Now, watch out! Here comes Genesis! (v4) We'll do it for you in six minutes!

I like the sarcasm.

[Battlefront.com]

Having it buried in this stunning Kharkov map buried in this thread isn't doing it justice.  I'm breaking it out into its own thread where it can better see the light of day   For those of you who did not see this beauty, head on over to the CMRT Maps & Mods section:

Steve

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'd completely missed that in the various goings on here. 

[A Canadian Cat]

On 11/11/2017 at 4:12 AM, Macisle said:

Any news on a patch that will fix the current suicidal rout issues? I've been working on a large urban map for CMRT with heavy use of multi-part buildings that should be offering excellent defensive material, due to the potential for units to ambush and fall back to safe parts of the building out of LOS. However, very frequently, units are running out of the building into the open (and usually toward the enemy) once they receive any decent enemy fire response.  This is happening even when they are protected by an outer ring at the bottom floor of a multi-story complex. In other words, say they are on the 3rd floor (but could be the 8th, it doesn't matter) of a central part that is connected to a 1-story outer ring that would completely shield them if they just go to the bottom of the 3-story section they are in. Well, instead they are passing through the safe ring and out into the open to be shot down. This makes what should be very formidable building complexes rather easy to take. No flamethrowers needed. Just rattle the cage and shoot the birds when they fly out.

I started some tests to look at this because there have been a few posts like yours around. There must be more going on here though because I did *not* see the behaviour you saw in my first try. I built a small map with a building complex and a single stand alone building in 3.12. Then I ran the test in both 3.12 and 4.00. Basically a US squad vs a German Platoon. Two teams are in the font building of a complex one on the first floor and one on the second floor. The third team is in the single story stand alone building near by. The Platoon HQ is in the back attached building nice and safe so everyone is in C2.

The bottom line is: running this in 3.12 it takes about 6 minutes before all the US teams have withdrawn. In engine 4.00 it takes around 4 minutes. So the 4.00 engine does seems to have guys getting out of dodge earlier than previous versions. I have not run this enough to comment on casulties or how reproducible those numbers are.

As for withdrawal routes there is no significant difference. I gave the guys in the building complex exits to the rear attached buildings (the best choice), out into the side yard protected by bocage (the second best choice) and wide open lawn on the other side (the sucky choice). They consistently choose the best choice and mostly crawled and sometimes ran in to the attached safe building. The guys in the single story house had no good choices just open spaces. They hold their position longer than the guys with the good withdrawl routes. When they decide to go they chose to exit out the back door (better than the front) and keep the building between them and the enemy (they cannot block all the incoming fire so they are going to die if they stay there). In the 4.0 engine they often make a break across the open space to the building complex. Which I think is actually the very best choice for those guys since they have to be in the open they might as well make a try for safety.

Can you share a save game or two or the map you are using? PM me to work out details on sharing.

[Broadsword56]

IanL, please try the tests in 4.0 with fortifications like trenches and foxholes, and then pound them with HE and small-arms fire and see how fast even good troops flee their good cover. Buildings are likely a separate issue altogether.

[sburke]

6 minutes ago, Broadsword56 said:

IanL, please try the tests in 4.0 with fortifications like trenches and foxholes, and then pound them with HE and small-arms fire and see how fast even good troops flee their good cover. Buildings are likely a separate issue altogether.

it is covered

[Macisle]

9 hours ago, IanL said:

I started some tests to look at this because there have been a few posts like yours around. There must be more going on here though because I did *not* see the behaviour you saw in my first try. I built a small map with a building complex and a single stand alone building in 3.12. Then I ran the test in both 3.12 and 4.00. Basically a US squad vs a German Platoon. Two teams are in the font building of a complex one on the first floor and one on the second floor. The third team is in the single story stand alone building near by. The Platoon HQ is in the back attached building nice and safe so everyone is in C2.

The bottom line is: running this in 3.12 it takes about 6 minutes before all the US teams have withdrawn. In engine 4.00 it takes around 4 minutes. So the 4.00 engine does seems to have guys getting out of dodge earlier than previous versions. I have not run this enough to comment on casulties or how reproducible those numbers are.

As for withdrawal routes there is no significant difference. I gave the guys in the building complex exits to the rear attached buildings (the best choice), out into the side yard protected by bocage (the second best choice) and wide open lawn on the other side (the sucky choice). They consistently choose the best choice and mostly crawled and sometimes ran in to the attached safe building. The guys in the single story house had no good choices just open spaces. They hold their position longer than the guys with the good withdrawl routes. When they decide to go they chose to exit out the back door (better than the front) and keep the building between them and the enemy (they cannot block all the incoming fire so they are going to die if they stay there). In the 4.0 engine they often make a break across the open space to the building complex. Which I think is actually the very best choice for those guys since they have to be in the open they might as well make a try for safety.

Can you share a save game or two or the map you are using? PM me to work out details on sharing.

I don't think I have save games for the "outlier motherlode" QB that spawned my earlier post. -Will check, though. I have started saving turns when the issue comes up and have a couple of things so far that I can send. I also did some arty testing that I can report on. However, I'll be tied up for a day or so before I can get around to it. Perhaps I should try and get a few more examples from freeform combat and send you a batch in one go.

[mvp7]

On 10/16/2017 at 8:51 PM, Battlefront.com said:

We sell the Paradox Upgrade and promised people who purchased it that they'd be treated just like all other CMSF customers.  That includes our plans for CMSF2

Does this also include people who have purchased the paradox version of the base game and the (battlefront.com) expansions but not the separate paradox upgrade?

And could you please clarify: does the CMSF2 at release include the contents of CMSF1 and all its expansions and have the normal price of $60 (without discounts)?

Are the maps of the CMSF2 going to be exact copies of the original maps or is the terrain going to be smoother as in the later CM2 titles and will there be some water added to the riverbeds for example?

Edited November 15, 2017 by mvp7