Webwing
-
Posts
2,309 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Webwing
-
-
handihoc,
That is a very good point. Eloquently put, if I may say so!
-
-
Always something new to be discovered in this game!
Looks great!
--
-
Hey handihoc,
One of the advantages of playing WEGO.
I was an RT only player but lately have been playing more and more WEGO due to the replay. Some pretty amazing stuff happens in CMSF and it's a shame to miss them.
I thought this map was perfect for snipers, but mostly from the Syrian side. But apparently it works both ways!
-
-
Once wire is in WWII it could be retrofitted in the modern warfare engine.
I think that's the general idea Steve has mentioned in other posts.
-
-
As I was writing my response you were doing the second post!
So, what sets the whole thing would be the settings in mission/scenario #1. No changes after that.
I never bothered to change the settings in mission #1 since I figured it was getting its info from the core file. Core and #1 are always the same for me then.
Anyway, that's what I get in my tests. Bad news for PT then.
-
-
That's definitely relevant!
If that works, that's exactly what Paper Tiger is looking for.
However, I had made some tests before with this and it didn't seem to work that way. I never managed to override the core units settings. Not once.
If a unit is VETERAN in the core file, no matter what I set it to in the subsequent missions, it will stay VETERAN.
Might be worth some more tests.
-
-
Originally posted by SgtMuhammed:
Within 5 minutes I had suffered a total defeat in a scenario I have played at least 7 or 8 times.
Whenever I play anything from George I'm extra careful.
I see a house far away that is not even an objective and I know it is not there by chance!
He gives you 90 min. I know for sure I will need all the time!
I haven't got that far yet, but PT has done a great job, no doubt.Originally posted by Normal Dude:If you want to see a nasty AI attack, play the fifth mission in Paper Tiger's Hasrabit campaign. I think it was the fifth.. it was the one where you must stop them from getting too close to the helicopter base. The AI kicked my butt!
-
-
The responsibility is mostly on the mission designer's side.
In my experience when designing a mission, it is much easier to make the AI as defender in a mission than as attacker. It's a lot more work as the attacker, but it can be effective both ways.
If you play a mission where the AI does a good job at attacking this is due to the designer having made a good strategic plan. It has also to do with the TAC AI taking care of the details and surprises.
Paper Tiger's campaign is a good example.
His missions are probably the best examples of what I just said. The AI side has a lot of initiative, is very aggressive and "clever". I have no doubt he spent a lot of time preparing those attacks.
The last one from George Mc has also some pretty nasty flanking maneuvers from the AI with perfect timing.
If you add to this, several AI plans, you can have a very human like attack.
-
-
Clear as muddy watter!Originally posted by Paper Tiger:Is that a bit clearer?
Just joking, it's very clear now.
It was probably the way I read it not the way you explained it anyway.
It is not possible AFIK.
If you change the core mission file in any way and then re-import this file, the changes will apply to the whole campaign. Every single mission in it. Just as you said.
When you think about it, it wouldn't make much sense to have several core files, since then they wouldn't be core anymore.
What I understood from that part of the manual you quote is that if you decide that you want to change the force mix in any way, when you import it again only the changes will apply not what is common to both files, the new one and the original one.
But I don't really see the logic in changing the fitness of the troops mid campaign. The resting state is ok though.
Some things shouldn't be changed in the middle of the campaign IMO.
For instance, Equipment Quality, Leadership, and even Experience, although this last one is debatable. Even motivation is debatable. But it seems to me that those last two also have to do with something more long term and not something that would change form one mission to the next.
Maybe the nomenclature is a bit misleading? I don't know.
For me fit has to do with training. But then you have this term weakened in the options. For me weakened has to do with being tired not with fit or not fit. Does that make sense?
Or does "fit" and "weakened" has to do with some minor injuries? I don't think so.
Maybe Steve could clarify that.
-
-
-
Sorry!Originally posted by Combatintman:Webwing,
That's pretty much what I suggested in my first paragraph, I'm happy with it and have no issues with it (for a change!).
I guess I got a bit lost in the reserves thing!
I think this idea has a good potential. But like you pointed out it also can be messy in some situations.
It would be nice that once the reinforcements had arrive that you didn't need to commit to them imediatelly. They would be there in a sort of poll of units waiting to come to the map if you needed them or not.
Also, there could be an option in the editor where the designer would decide if the reinforcements are optional or mandatory. Some the player has no say as to accepting or not, others he does.
As for the reserves to be used in campaigns it's still not clear to me how to best do that. But it would sure be good to carry on talking about it because, like you said, it would make it even more dynamic.
-
-
TOG,
I like that.
I like the idea of giving more control to the player.
As a scenario designer the hardest thing to do is to balance a mission, not to make it too hard or too easy. But players expectations and skills are different and what one feels is easy another thinks it's too hard.
I sometimes put in more forces than I think is necessary, in the form of reinforcements, to account for that fact.
Would be nice if the player could chose weather to use them or not. Specially important in a campaign.
-
Combatintman,
Interesting points.
But to not mess too much with what we got already in the game, what about if the players reinforcements(what they are called now in the game) arrive but stay off map. The player would then have button to call them in (only a few minutes delay) if he feels he really needs them.
-
-
Paper Tiger.
Lets see if I understand what you are saying.
I imagine you mean weakened in the Fitness settings.
You don't actually need to change anything in the core units file.
After you imported the core units into the mission you are working on you can then delete what you don't need or add other units you need.
Now you can also change the settings for those units. You tried that and it didn't work. Is that it?
Settings for Rest and Supply are set by the script for the campaign:
[bLUE RESUPPLY %] 100
[bLUE REST %]100
In the example above your units will be fully resupplied and rested from the previous mission.
[bLUE RESUPPLY %] 0
[bLUE REST %]0
In this example if they expended half their ammo and where in a tired state in the previous mission, then that's how ALL your units will be in the next mission.
So if you want ALL your units to be still tired leave the [bLUE REST %] at zero.
Although this might not be exactly the same as the fit setting it will impact the mission in almost the same way.
I imagine fit units will get back to a rested state faster than unfit units.
But a unit won't suddenly become weakened in the middle of a campaign. They will become more tired. The are more or less fit depending on their training long before the campaign started.
In this sense the system works very well and you will able to get the results you want.
Remember that the % has to do with how many units have a chance of being resupplied/rested and not the amount of rest or supply.
-
[ April 26, 2008, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Webwing ]
-
Upload it to mediafire.com and send the url.
-
-
That's the only way I use area fire!Originally posted by Secondbrooks:Area fire on buildings when squad starts it's assault. Can save the day for those guys.
-
-
AFIK if you save mid mission, the plan has already been chosen. So, same plan once you came back to that point.
To see a different plan you need to start the mission again.
It also has to do with how you had set this up in the editor: Frequently used, Rarely used, etc.
I thought having more than one plan was a waste of time since not many people were replaying the missions. I found out that this is not the case, that people do replay missions and campaigns quite often so now I'm always doing several plans for my missions.
I'm trying to make the plans really different. One is an aggressive and somehow reckless attack. The other careful advance and flanking manuover, etc.
Afte some time even you won't remember where the enemy is coming from!
-
[ April 25, 2008, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Webwing ]
-
Another issue that might be related and that is also dynamic is the fact that you can have several plans for the AI.
It means that you can replay the mission several times and have a good chance that the enemy will try something different.
So the idea of replaying the mission to try and do better might go against you in case you end up with a harder, more aggressive plan the second time around!!!
Now, how dynamic is that?
-
-
I am amazed that people think this is a minor issue.
It is not!
I think this would be easy to fix but what do I know. Besides I'm not the one to decide what is priority or not. All I can do is ask.
But I suspect a lot of people don't even read the briefings or find them boring. It's not their fault.
Typeface design and use has been studied for centuries. The size and design of typeface you see in magazines and newspapers are not the way they are by chance.
Small type makes for difficult, boring and tiresome reading.
-
-
All in the mist of a long forgotten pastOriginally posted by MarkEzra:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Sheesh, we have our own Timothy Leary here
Steve
</font>
-
I don't save during a mission simply because it breaks the flow of the events and just doesn't seem right for this kind of game. Apparently a lot of people feel that way too.
On the other hand we designers tend to be a bit control freaks. We want to have the player do what we think is right or punish him for not doing so.
Talking to people here in the forum has made me change a lot of ideas I had regarding this. Some players feel that being restricted in some ways like duration, setup zones, etc. can take the fun away. Others feel that those limitations makes it more realistic and fun.
I know some players don't even read the briefing in some missions I designed! It seemed absurd to me. This is definitely not the way I planed the mission to be played but if the guy is having fun, what's wrong with it? It's his game, I just made the mission.
Today I think the ideal situation is to have a system that gives you enough options to do the project you have in mind, as well as possible, but leaving room for the player to experience this in his own terms.
CMSF has the potential to appeal to military guys that even want to use it as a simulation of RL combat. It has also the ingredients to appeal to the more casual player wanting just to blow some buildings and see some tanks in flames.
It's not only to do with the type of player but the mood you are when you play. Sometimes I want something realistic and long. Others I just want to relax watching tanks blow up!
I don't mind seeing missions or campaigns that restrict the player in some ways and force him on a certain path if thats what the designer had in mind.
I would definitely not like to see that incorporated in the system though.
IMO we need a flexible system not a restrictive one.
-
-
I think there is hope for a productive atmosphere in here.Originally posted by Sirocco:I said at the start of this thread that I hoped we could have a new, more productive atmopshere her
but with pricks like your testers running around loose with their arrogant and condascending attitudes I think there's little hope for that.
Actually I think there is already.
There has been some interesting discussions in this thread.
But you should avoid generalizations. That's where prejudices are borne.
If you feel someone has been rude to you I'd be glad if you directed your outrage at that person.
Do you know all beta testers?
Personally, I see no problem in the way you expressed your opinions here. Until now.
-
-
Field Marshal Blücher,
You are not alone. I totally sympathize with you.
Paper Tiger,
You are the first one to use the campaign system in CMSF to it's full capacity.
I think doing a dynamic campaign is the way to go but in the end it's an option that the player might choose to disregard if he so choses.
Personally I see no problem in that. You tell the player how you think is the optimal way of going about it but it's up to him to do it or not.
I say that because although I believe players should play according to the rules of a dynamic campaign in practice I am a cheater myself!
I played the first mission in the Hasrabit and decided to replay it as soon as I finished it. I started to laugh when I realized what I was doing! Human nature I guess. We see where we failed and we just can't accept it. We want to correct it. We are sure we could have done better. We can't always do that in RL so it's good to be able to do it in a game.
By the way, the enemy attack was quite impressive! :eek:
handihoc,
I'm glad you are having fun with this one after the previous fiasco!
-
-
I once posted about this and was told to buy some new glasses!
I think we do need bigger typeface for the briefings.
-
[ April 22, 2008, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Webwing ]
-
Combatintman,
Yes, when people ask for new options they want more control, not less. This whole core/auxiliary units might get a bit confusing in that light.
-
Now instead of debating how it would be IF this or that were implemented I'd like to invite you to take a look at the campaign Paper Tiger has just released.
For me this is a very good example of how to make good use of what we have already in place now in the current system.
Only the last posts from his campaign thread:
Originally posted by afreu:Just played the "Hill 142" mission. The weird thing is that the enemy gets a 2000 point bonus. I didn't meet the artillery observer objective but occupied all zones. Alltogether 1250 points vs. 2250 points for the enemy - tactical defeat. O_o
Originally posted by Paper Tiger:That sounds right. That mission can only be successfully completed IF you kill the artillery spotter. Failure to do so results in a branch leading to a mission with more artillery support for the AI. The bonus was given to the AI to make sure that ONLY this condition (ie getting the artillery observer) was the deciding factor. Of course, you can't win it if you don't control the village either. To make a campaign dynamic with real consequences to success and failure, it's necessary to skew the VP conditions to ensure the player fulfills his objective.
Anyway I'll have another look at it this morning. Did you win in the earlier missions afreu?
*MOD* Briefing Text made bigger
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Marco,
Great job!!!!
Thanks a lot for that!
I'm sure many people will be pleased with this.
-