Webwing

-- Very ironic SlapHappy! --

Hey Oddball_E8, All the battles ( there are more than 5 actually ) have 90% infantry in the force mix. Nothing really precise. I wanted infantry only. But there are a few Strykers and some APCs in some missions though. Still the proportion is close to 90% inf to the rest in every mission. --

I guess soldiers AI is a lot more complex to code than vehicles. In CM:SF is the same thing, there is almost no complain about tanks or Strykers but loads about soldier behavior. It's just really hard to simulate how humans behave. Although you may argue that there is a human driving a tank, for instance, vehicles are a lot more limited and predictable in what they can do. As for the screenshots its just that vehicles in 3D look almost real whereas humans... well you know what they look like. -- [ January 01, 2008, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

I have to agree with you that the game would benefit from some improvements in that area. I don't think the game is not fun and I really have a good time playing it the way it is but definitely it would be great to see some improvements in those areas. But I don't think that is easy to accomplish. I think the biggest challenge here to the devs is how much should the units obey you and how much they should disobey you! If you tell a soldier to attack a target he will try to relocate to get a better view of the target. This is dangerous of course. Should he do it or not? Maybe you want him to take the risk. If he doesn't move then you will have to manually reposition him which will then fall into the babysitting dilemma. It's not as simple as it seems! The defend command seems to work well to make them stay where you put them, for me. It all depends on the skill of the troops though. -- -- [ January 01, 2008, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

I guess 1C/BF have acknowledged this problem in a post some time ago. I guess this is not an easy fix though. But to be honest I haven't even checked that since I'm working almost exclusively with infantry in my mission. It's kind of complicated to balance that. If you are going to work with squads then what is the point of having a game where you can control individual soldiers? So there is this issue that if you have too many soldiers on the battlefield you will have a lot to do!!!! There should be some sort of Hunt or Move to contact where the soldier would move but if he found a threat he would stop. I agree and understand what you are saying but again is kind of a delicate balance. If the AI gets too clever then all you have to do is select all troops and tell them to advance and they will know when to stop, take cover, etc. Not much left for the player to do then. But yes the way some soldiers just march to their deaths is kind of weird. This varies depending on the skill but it is an issue for sure. [ January 01, 2008, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

Hm... I'm in a hurry now but will comment on this points. Based on my experience with the current version of the game not the patch. I don't even have the latest version of the patch since I'm supposed to concentrate only on the Builder. No problem for me to comment as a player based on my experience with the current public version of the game though. Once the patch is released you'll be able to see for yourselves anyway, which is better than any second hand opinion. --

Wolfhound, Builder? You will love it man!!!! Hang in there. Your dream is about to came true! But one advice. Open the Builder that is already in the game. Practice placing the static objects, trees, etc. You will need this practice later once you have your terrain done. -- --

Hey Slap, Well, I've been mostly playing/testing the Builder. Now I'm starting to work with the editor and test the missions in game. The mission is infantry only so it might be a good one to test this sort of things. I don't see any problem with my squads in game right now. The way you put it is also too generic. Can you be more specific about what exactly you think is wrong. Give me an example of a point in a mission. What you ordered your squads to do? What they did and what you think they were supposed to do that did not happen. I'll try to reproduce it in my game ( current public version )and tell you what I see. [iMPORTANT] Actually none of the testers are allowed to comment on the patch for the time being. Since it is still a work in progress. MadMatt has authorized me to talk about the Builder only. [ December 31, 2007, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

----- Happy New Year to all!!!! ------

You are doing great Seabee. The comments about winning, points, etc. you are getting doesn't mean it is not good or that you did anything wrong. As you can see most enjoyed it a lot and have mostly good things to say about it. Testing and tweaking is the most time consuming and in my opinion the most frustrating bit! Simply because you can do only so much by yourself. You definitely need the feedback of others to help you in this. That's why you see so many versions of the same mission. In the end we have to "release" the missions in a sort of beta state and have a public testing. For me this is very frustrating. I like to show people the work only when I think is good and finished but unfortunately that is not possible in this case. The players that download later down the road will play a more finished mission while the ones in the beginning will see it more in the rough. Very much like CM:SF itself!!!!! Hope to see many more missions like this!!! --

No, map designers painted heightmap like terrain texture. You can imagine that lining up landscape with some bridge was a pain Maps of terrain types and such were also drawn by hand. I've replied about new triggers in beta forum. </font>

Yeah. I'll probably finish the Crossraods conversion first though. You played it in CM:SF. The map will have the exact same terrain, as far as possible. Still both games are very different in so many aspects. But it will be interesting how it plays out. ---

:eek: That's a tough one Slap, but I haven't really noticed squad AI as majorly disfunctional myself. However I gotta admit that I mostly am play testing my own missions which have pretty "loose" objectives for both player & AI that either result in meeting engagements, assaults or defensive battles. By "loose" I mean setting groups to you infantry defend this rect & you tanks storm that rect etc, etc. During these missions I find fire & manouvre by squads, so one squad lays covering fire whilst the other moves, then vice versa is the best tactic, as in RL. I'm usually doing this with number keys & formations. Could it be that the missions you are using for this assessment are overly scripted? Above said, I believe you are right. Squad AI could be a bit more intelligent even if only for the enemy AI. </font>

SlapHappy, I'd be interested to hear more about this from you. Lots of discussions but they are scattered all over the place. You are deeply involved with this game and have a great experience playing and looking into the stuff under the hood as well. Maybe it would be a good idea to put it in a non emotional totally rational way the points you think need to be addressed. In order of priority. And maybe even divide it in two lists. One, of things that would be feasible in the short term, and other for a next version of the game. Maybe a new thread? This way it might more focused. -- [ December 31, 2007, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

Sounds really good! Great to see a new mission from you ThePhantom!!! ---

Sneaksie, Let me say that it is a privilege for us players to have you here in the forum always ready to answer our questions. Your support is fantastic! Thanks a lot. You mean you didn't have this editor, it's a new tool? So I suppose you used a program like 3DsMax or something and then converted the mesh to the game engine. Is that it? I played around with the mission editor in the beta version but didn't see anything new. dmg said there are new triggers. Have you got some sort of list of the new triggers included? And any other additions to the mission editor? Thanks.

Well, I guess you will have to quit your job and get a divorce! You will go totally nuts when you start using it!!! Using the tips from Sneaksie I am converting another map I did for CM:FS (see picture). I converted the messures. 8x8 to the 1 pixel = 1 meter used in TOW. You will be able to import your maps as a texture and work on top of them!!! --

It is a shame there are so few missions uploaded to CMMODS. Let's hope that with this new tool people will share more of their work. This map builder is fantastic. It is a program/game in and of itself. A great present from 1C and Battlefront. I don't remember a game developer that has ever released a tool like this for free. When I first heard of it I thought it was going to be something a lot more basic. But this thing is a beauty. You'll soon be able to see for yourselves. You will sure be able to do that, no problem. All games have to face performance issues. Some people are making beautiful maps for CM:SF but some are just frame rate killers and so nobody uses them. I can't play many because of my old machine. This map I did for TOW played fine in game. So this things you intend to do will be fine.

Hi Wolfhound, What do you mean? You want to make a map or a mission. There are two tools in TOW: 1- Editor - for you to make missions using maps (terrain) that already exist in the game 2- Builder - with this you can edit houses, trees and other static objects. A new patch will be released soon. This will include an upgrade for the Builder. You will then be able to make the whole terraing and then add roads as well. --

You are right it has been discussed a thousand times. Skinning and sounds that's all you can do. Here's a recent answer from Steve to a similar question: You might like to read the whole thread: Mods and so on --

You can easily do that! Like Sneaksie said though there is the poly count issue. In the pictures bellow you can see first my map and a map made by the 1C guys. The 1C map is an area where they have a river!!! Still look how few polygons they use!!! Now compare that to my map and see the huge amount of polys there are just to make my river. :eek: I just went about doing whatever I had in mind but to be honest I would have to redo my map completely and use polygons in a more economical fashion. You cand get as much detail as you like but there will be a big performance hit, I guess, when you play the game. I'm learning from my mistakes at this point. The best way to start a map apparently is to start with the biggest brush and very smooth surface changes. Then you go working your way down to smaller brush sizes and stronger changes in elevation only in the areas where they are really needed. -- --

Good to see you here! Me too, lately I have spent a lot of time with CMSF. Now I want to start to spend more time here. WWII is more to my taste actually. By the way this is an infantry only scenario! --

Thanks guys! Sneaksie, I have put a lot more trees but they don't show up in the distance. When you get closer you can see them. But I didn't put too many of them since I was concerned with frame rate and the manual talks about some limits in their numbers bellow 3000. I have 1128 already. Maybe I could add another 800 or so and get them to 2000. Now talking about polygon count in the surface mesh. How bit a hit they have on performance? Is there a way to know how many polys we have in the map? It would be also good to know, the same as with trees, what would be the ideal number here. -- -- [ December 28, 2007, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

Hi Wiggum, It was supposed to be out before Christmas but testers still need to finish playing it. It's finished. It's just testing now and some tweaking. If you want to give it a go I could send it your way. But you need to send me the feedback then about every mission you play!!! --

With the new Builder many possibilities... This is a test I'm doing for a possible Normandy Invasion scenario! Apparently is feasible. It's already in game and working. :cool: Now I know the high ground is waaaaaaaaay too far. But this is just a test. --