Kwazydog

M1, yup, its certainly doable and is one of the items that has been on our list since release We would also like to do similar with vehicles showing penetration damage, etc. Steiner, they are indeed doing some great stuff with Bad Company. I only with they were going to release it to the PC, I find it had to get into console FSP games. Dan

Guys, dont take this as a certainty as Im the art guy and its not my area, but I just wanted to clarify what you should likely expect from modules. Im pretty sure that when improvements are made such as the above along with others such as Tac AI improvements, engine improvements, data updates, etc, they will most likely be available via patch updates, not in the modules as such, as we wish to make these changes available to everybody. Modules will tend to focus on vehicle models and TOE data, and maybe other stuff that I am not aware of . Dan

Sounds good M1, Im looking forward to seeing it To be honest the Red equipment already in game is a good selection for most of the former Soviet client states. Dragon, please be careful making broad statements like this as newer forum members might take them seriously. The Marine module is coming along very nicely so far, and it certainly wont be the last modern warfare module available. Dan

Actually guys, you have pretty much everything you need to simulate a Korean battle now if you wish too, their equipment list is basically just a subset of the Syrians (they dont have the newer ATGMs, tanks, probably no ERA, etc).

Just for the record guys Ive run this past Charles and there isnt any sort of code in the game that would cause team leaders to be hit with more frequency than regular solider. Each soldier is treated as an individual. Dan [ May 14, 2008, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

To be honest, you actually do get used to it after a while. Just wait until WW2 rolls around, we will be anti-german or worse for leaving out someone's pet steam roller Even if we forget the setting for CMSF for a moment, the fact of the matter is that it is very unlikely that the US military will again use the M113 in a combat role in any conventional conflict. As such its a low priority to add it to the TOE of the US military. If the time comes when we release a module representing a nation or time frame that does make its inclusion warranted, then of course it would be. Dan [ May 12, 2008, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

Actually I believe that has been dropped from the official kit. Dan

Jason, just checked this as I thought you might have spotted a bug. From what I can see though, it looks like you were looking at the 125mm figure, which is the warhead size. Range is listed above it as 500-3000m, but let us know if your not seeing this. This would probably explain why you havent had much luck getting them to fire. Just for the record I have fired them off of roof tops without walls guys. Generally these missiles are rather inaccurate thanks to their guidance system and the significant amount of training needed to use them, but I have had some luck with them. Dan

Jason, if you go back over my comments that Mark was referring too you will see that I was referring to the fact that the initial ATGM placement is off as the new LOS system is more accurate. More importantly the US AI is very very basic so it should not be used as any sort of reference to US reactions or movement. As such its not a great test scenario as is. For interest sake I just gave it another shot on Veteran. My guys actually did a little better this time with the ATGMs taking out all Bradleys without a loss, though one was suppressed for a short amount of time. To me is seems that you were rather unlucky in your test, or your placement of the ATGMs may have not been optimal in your run through (I placed mine in brush to the rear, amongst the trees). I can see how things could certainly go wrong for the ATGMs in this scenario, but in general I think they should have the upper hand. Dan EDIT : Jason just noticed your last comment noting that you werent moving the ATGM teams. As I mention their placement isnt great since the ELOS changes so indeed, the results you were seeing werent unexpected. Glad you had been luck on the re runs. [ April 13, 2008, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

Guys, this scenario was basically set up as a test range for ATGMs and Martin included it on teh CD as it was a bit of fun. I only put in a *very* basic AI in order to get the units to move forward, nothign more, and I have done no testing with it at all since the ELOS system was put in place. Bottom line...please dont use it as any sort of reference scenario, there are much better scenarios out there by people considering more familiar with the editor. That being said I just gave it a run through with 1.08 and I think maybe you were rather unlucky in your run through Jason. I took out two of the M2s with the sole AT-4 that has LOS down the valley without him being spotted (the other AT-4 appears to have no LOS now since the including of the ELOS system). After killing the first two he spotted the last and fired but missed, as which point the M2 returned fire killing two of the team and causing the third to retreat. The M2 then moved forward into sight of one of the SPG teams whom opened fire. The M2 began to retreat but was immobilized by the second hit with the crew bailing by the third. Dan [ April 06, 2008, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

Stiener no worries, and yup things have been getting a little heated a little too quickly over the last few months. Hopefully we are just about to the point there we can look more so towards the future of the CM series than focus on the past and I think we are starting to see the overall tone of posts head in that direction. And yup, I know Charles is hoping to do more with water in CMx2 than a simple blue tile, which is why we decided to hold off until there was time to do it justice. Time will tell as always Dan

Steiner I am not too sure what you are referring too here, the members you have been responding too directly arent testers if that is what you are implying. They are just expressing their opinions as were you. Water will come, but we are waiting until we have the time to implement it properly, both visually and technically. We could just colour a tile blue and call it water (players can pretty much do this now with the marsh terrain if they like), but we are hoping to be able to do something more. Dan [ April 04, 2008, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

Just for the record guys, ATGM stats and for that matter all weapon data is based on real world data, we dont fudge up minimum ranges in order to balance game play, etc. Its possible we have some figures that are incorrect as there is a lot of conflicting info out there and as always we are open to reviewing them, providing we have solid info to base those changes on. Jason, a lot has been refined in recent builds with regards to what you describe. Im wondering by some of your comments if maybe your basing your info on earlier builds. I have recently had my first PBEM battle in quite some time which was an infantry heavy engagement and overall I was very impressed with the results which we will continue to refine as time goes by. Dan [ April 02, 2008, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

Oddball, that covers the tanks reasonably well. The list is probably a little more extensive than you are considering though when including Self-Propelled Artillery such as the Wespe/Hummel, Marder series, Priest, M10 and recon vehicles like the M8 and PSW 232, 234, etc. Even though some of these are based on chassis we will have already modeled the open nature of the vehicles will significantly increase the work needed. Also lets not forget about the good old kubelwagon, jeep, maybe a couple of trucks and a prime mover such as the skdfz 7 to move that 88mm around . Then there are the AT guns, AA artillery, howitzers, mortars, etc along with animations for loading and operating that will all take a noticably more time than when we previously visited Normandy. Unfortunately, no Different styles of uniforms require different models. For instance a Panzer crew will look different to a US soldier, who in turn looks different to regular German infantry, etc. Each of these require their own model and LODs, skinning, unwrapping, and so on. Also, keep in mind that small arms are 3D models now with seperate clips, workable tripods, ejecting shells, etc and not 2D BMPs of old, so they are also require an extra amount time over the previous method. As Steve said, dont worry, we will get there! I just wanted to clarify in more detail some of the work the visuals for Normandy will require over previous versions of the game. Dan [ March 11, 2008, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

Childress apologies, my bad...in hindsight my post actually came across more harsh than it was intended also, I guess I should have added a smiley in there somewhere Flamingknives/Pvt Ryan, the main problems with mortars up to this point has been a combination of animation, modelling and coding issues. It is certainly something that will be coming into CMx2, as I beleive Steve has mention, and hopefully that may include the UK module. AT guns are also a must of course, which will need similar implementation. Dan

Actually there are 9 variants of Stryker in game so if you are going to take a dig at least get it right. In total there are over 50 variants of vehicle available to the player in CMSF, not including command versions, many of which I doubt most people knew existed until they saw them in game. Guys, its a trade off. If you want 500 polygon models without exhaust, articulated tracks and suspension, hatches, detailed system damage, etc then we can indeed included hundreds of vehicles in each game due to their simplified model. In fact, we already did that and that game is available to you, so enjoy it. Each vehicle in CMSF takes at least 5 times as long to make as those in CMx1, so its physically impossible for us to include the same amount of vehicles within the same amount of time as we did in say CMBB. On the other hand variants of vehicles are now easier for us to make, such as the various Pz-IV models, so once we make a master model of a vehicle type it will be a lot easier for us to construct an entire family of vehicles. If you look at the CMBO vehicle list you will see that the bulk of the vehicles you guys saw in game were variants of the same vehicle. As such the vehicle list available to the player for WW2, particually when including the modules, should be quite impressive. Dan [ March 10, 2008, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

Pandur, I have this card and havnt seen the problem you mentioned above. I am using the latest drivers from ATI, released the day before yesterday I beleive, so it might be worth trying those. Dan

Hi steiner. Actually Charles already compresses the files so there is really little use in zipping them (I dont bother myself anymore, I was doing it out of habit more than anything). Some sort of check may be possible though. Dan

Yes, I would suggest this too. I have played maybe 1/2 dozen PBEMs since 1.02 and have never actually experience this type of crash due to an engine problem. I have experienced it though when I managed to zip up the turn before it had been completely written to the hard drive, which isnt hard to do due to the larger file size. If we could have the turn sent to us Charles will be able to take it apart and sort out just what is the case either way though. Dan

Out of interest are you guys zipping your turns before sending them, or leaving them unzipped? I have played several PBEM games through without it ending in a crash, so I am trying to determine what might be the factor casuing yours. Dan

Slowmotion, out of interest could you retry this test with the commander unbuttoned, those old Soviet tanks are notoriously blind when the commander is buttoned up. Its not impossible some more tweaking does need to be done here, but overall Ive seen pretty good and realistive results in the couple of PBEMs Ive had time to play recently.

Hi Guys! Could someone please send me over the file which is causing the crash. We beleive we have this problem sorted, but we want to be positiive you guys are experiencing the same issue. Thanks! Dan

The general forum would be the best place to discuss mods for other games guys.

Hehe, now youve done it Charles! Dan