Webwing

---

And here two more screens: -- --

Hi guys, Here are two panoramic views of my first map using the Builder. I've been busy somewhere else but I will be doing more stuff for TOW. My idea was to have a brand new map and a mission to accompany it. So that you could have something with which to distract yourselves while waiting for the patch. Unfortunately there are some issues that I need to solve so that it will be compatible with the current version of TOW. I'm using the BETA of the patch. I did the map in two days. I set this as a deadline to see how I would do. You could spend months in only one map if you wished. There is so much you can do an try out. So many details to add. I wanted to upload it as it is and then upgrade it with a bit more time. One thing I would say to players that want to use the Builder. Get used to the previous version where you can add houses and trees, etc. There is not much use in an empty terrain. So once the patch is finally released you will already be familiar with this part of the builder. You can't imagine how gratifying it is to be able to make the whole landscape, every elevation, river, etc. And then add roads,houses, fences... And then go to the editor and make a mission specially for this map. When you get to the game and play it for the first time it is pure bliss. To see the result of your work and of what was until then only in your imagination. Absolutely fantastic. I did this map from scratch. I had an idea for a map similar to one I did for CM:SF. I opened a clean summer map which is just a flat surface with a texture of grass. From there I did the main texture in Photoshop to have the fields and different colors in terrain. After that everything was done on the Builder and the mission on the Editor. I hope to be able to sort this out soon so that you can have a go at it. Hope you had a Merry Christmas and Happy new Year to all. [ December 27, 2007, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

I don't think I understand what you are talking about. You mean in the Editor? Or ingame? The editor has exactly that already! You mean to do that for the player's forces? To automate the behavior? ---

LongLeftFlank, It's true my Christmas party was great! Overtime I have read so many weird theories and speculations in this forum that by comparison my little joke is not so far fetched. Besides you can't imagine the stuff that comes up at brainstorming sessions in advertising agencies! -- [ December 26, 2007, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

Nah! One programmer? Do you buy that? At least 3. Maybe 4. I shouldn’t be telling you this. Is sort of inside info. But we are all friends here so what the hell. I have a friend whose girlfriends’ brother overheard a conversation between two old ladies in a supermarket. Apparently one of the old ladies is the mother in law of a beta tester. From that and from his talent to read between the lines ( he says you have to spread the lines wide apart to get the juicy stuff ) he came up with the following theory: BF is not a team of 3. No one believes that anyway. They are eleven guys from Ireland. They met in high school when they were playing in the same football (soccer?) team. He says Steve was the goalkeeper. They had this idea of becoming professional football players but, since that didn’t work out due to a knee injury of the only one of them that really knew how to play, they had to think of something else. Anyhow they ended up lauching BF no one really knows exactly why. Being an internet based business they decided they could move to a country south of the Equator where the weather was better and the beaches nicer. Problem was the place was so nice in fact that no one wanted to put in too many hours of work a week. So they come up with this idea of the 3 guys team. Nobody would complain they were not working hard enough this way. My friend says Steve is not really a person. “Steve” is the name they use to communicate with the public. They have all this rules and templates so as to have the texts looking like if they were from the same person. They are obviously not! Who they think they are fooling ?! If you watch carefully you will notice some expressions and some uses of words, and some changes in mood… Have you noticed he usually writes his posts in the evening. Come on the same guy doing overtime every day! No way. They take turns every month one of the eleven is responsible for this. I know what you are thinking! What about the 2 weeks when “Steve” disappeared. Well, they were participating in the football finals of an amateur championship. By the way they lost on the semi finals, at 44 minutes of the second half to a team far inferior to theirs. The referee gave a penalty that everyone agrees was a mere foul. But I digress, sorry. Anyhow, it seems everyone has got a theory and my friends as good as anybodys. [ December 26, 2007, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

- One more vote here! Very good idea. Shouldn't be difficult to implement. I have to say though that I have a tendency of thinking that a lot of things are easy to implement. I guess when you're not coding, EVERYTHING is easy! -- [ December 26, 2007, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

That must be a joke... </font>

Steve has said several times that this game is very organic. By which he means that even in my example the T72 might not necessarily destroy the Bradley with one or even two hits. If the T72 hits the Bradley at all!! They try to simulate not two robots but a real war environment. The variables are many, the angle, if the tank and APC were moving, precisely what part of the armor was hit, the experience and moral of the gunner in the T72, if LOS was not totally obstructed, quality of the equipment, faulty ammunition, etc. In theory it would be a sure kill but in real life it might not be the case. Same in the game. Pretty cool ha ?! :cool: So, showing you a table that says that a T72 round can penetrate the armor of a Bradley at x meters might only lead to confusion because you would expect that to happen 100% of the time. This is not the case in real life and not the case in the game. After you play a few missions though you start to understand pretty well what you need to kill what. And you'll definitely have a lot of fun in the process! But they might even release a table like that. Who am I to know! [ December 26, 2007, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

I won in Riesberg on my first try!!!! Maybe I'm really getting better at this game!!!! RT Veteran It was very well balanced I thought. Tough and challenging but not impossible. BUT Mark has said there are 5 plans!!! So maybe I got the easiest one of all. I wouldn't be surprised. --

Wow! Looks great. It seems big but there aren't many elevations or too many trees so I think it would play smoothly even for me! I can imagine a whole campaign only with this map! --

Cpl Steiner has been too quiet lately. He's up to something! --

Merry Christmas to all!!!! ---

One way I have used it is for instance. Blue has to TOUCH several points and OCCUPY two. Red must only OCCUPY one. This one is the same as the last one that blue needs to occupy. --

Hey M1, I understand you were just pointing out the irony of someone criticizing something with a post full of errors. It made me smile when I read your first post. Still I must agree with Elmar that there is no need for ridiculing the guy since he is new here and English is not his native language. I think it's great that you can communicate in English so well and also know a bit of those very difficult languages you mentioned. IMO people with broken English should also be welcomed here as long as they are trying to contribute with something. Funny you mentioned you are Russian. In the TOW forum several developers of the game post constantly. Russians all of them. They are extremely helpful, polite and answer all the questions the players throw at them. It is indeed a privilege to have them in the forum. Still, their English is not very good. Sometimes it is hard to understand what they are trying to say. But some people have more talent for languages than others. They are not in the forum because of their English skills but because of what they can do to help players. And they are doing an excellent job. Not to mention the great game they have produced. What matters in my opinion is the willingness to contribute with something positive. I'm not sure Wiggum will contribute with something other than finding questionable bugs but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. -

If I understood this correctly Yskonyn is interested in something like: What would a round from a T72 do to a Bradley armor, front, side and back at x meters. In game, not in real life. Of course in this example you don't need to look into any data to figure the results. --

You are right IMO. I like the flexibility to be able to have different objectives for each side. The more options you add to the scenario editor the more you have to rely on the designer to make good use of them though. The designer must use his common sense and experience to avoid making missions that are ambiguous in their objectives. It can be very frustrating for the player. Briefings are sometimes also not clear as to what the player should achieve. Bottom line, it's all up to the mission designer. If you played a mission where that happened do write to the designer and point that out. Email or here in the forum. I'm sure he will be glad to hear from you. This kind of feedback is very important to make missions better. --

Great Seabee! I'll try the new version soon. --

That's something I haven't played with. I thought the buddy aid was given by someone on the same squad. Do you have to send someone from another squad to patch up the wounded? Does a CO performs this better or faster? I've to start using this things more. --

Merry Christmas!!! --

Paper Tiger, Are you playtesting the missions before creating core units? That means you already added units to it. I hope not else you'll lose a lot of work. It should be the other way around... Create the core units, import them in your missions, deploy then, playtest them. --

Hey Kip, I have learned a lot from these games. And what I don't learn from them directly it somehow pushes me to look for info somewhere else, in books and the internet. Then I came back to the game and practice it!!! Way cool! --

That IS cool! :cool: Thanks for the info Cpl Steiner. Would be nice to know how to do this on a regular basis. I got a Javelin team killed before they could fire the weapon even once and did not know if sending another team to the area would make them pick up the Javelin. I'll do a test and see what happens. --

A bit late but still. Merry Christmas to all!!! --

Paper Tiger, Great to know that you are doing a campaign! Cpl Steiner has given you a great answer. I'd just add that you don't necessarily need the core units. You can leave that empty and add units in your missions as you normally do. On the other hand you can have core units for both sides if you wish. The only purpose of the core units is so that the campaign engine can track those units from mission to mission. The units that are not in this core file will not be tracked. I think this is the one cool feature of the campaign and without it you will just have a sequence of missions. But anyway those are options you have but they are not mandatory for the campaign to work. Be careful when you do the script for the campaign. If you open it in a program like Word some lines might jump and mess your comment tags which will give you an error when compiling the campaign. --