aka_tom_w
-
Posts
8,130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by aka_tom_w
-
-
Yes for sure, they are like small, man portable, tactical, fire and forget nukes in the game! (for scenario balance purposes this one weapon is THE most unbalancing factor IMHO especially because the TAC AI when the Computer AI is the US player cannot acquire and shoot them, but that is a WHOLE other issue.)Originally posted by Leopard II:Would also be nice if we could directly edit the equipment that a vehicel carries, as for example reduce the number of Javelins.
-
This is not an unreasonable list of requests.
Reposted here from the Scenario design forum
Originally posted by Webwing:Now that Steve is back reading the forum I’d like to post, in one single thread, my take on some issues i find important regarding the editor. Some of the topics might be addressed in 1.05 but still a relevant thread in my opinion.
I have already spent an enormous amount of time in the editor. Much more time than playing the game itself.
I would very much like to know what others have to say about those issues as well. And this is one of the reasons for this thread.
Time savers and little tips that would help specially the beginner:
The option to turn off fog of war. On top of my list!!!
I don’t have a clue how other mission designers do it (apart from MarkEzra). I think having to place high buildings with spy units on top to look at the enemy to see what the AI is doing is a very clumsy way to solve this problem. Pressing surrender or cease fire also is not exactly a solution since then you have to restart the mission. Not very efficient and very time consuming.
-Parameters: Casualties – less than, more than. Just to make it clearer. Yes, its in the manual, I know.
-Highlight what Plan you are in an even easier way to see. When you have more than one plan and specially when programming RED AI (most of the time). I go back and forth from the Units tab to the AI tab. As I do that sometimes I just add orders to say group 3. I test it and it doesn’t work. In the end I find out that I was programming group 3 from Plan 1 of Blue, the default! Yes, I know, its my mistake but if there was a way to improve that would be very welcome. Perhaps using tabs, I’m not sure. But this one is maybe just me. I don’t know.
- First plan can never be set to NOT USED. Which makes it more difficult to test a mission with several plans. I understand the logic behind it. There need to be at least one active plan. Not sure what would be the solution here.
-> Another thing that might be interesting is to be able as in the campaign, to disable one side as playable. If you plan a mission for Blue only, the player would not have the option to choose Red before the start of the mission. The way it is since he will only read the briefing after that he might think there is the option to play Red when in fact there isn’t.
Some things must be looked into like the artillery issue and the fact that the roof command has no effect for instance.
Other players/mission designers will add to this list, I’m sure.
Improving the game improves the editor
Some areas of the game, once they are patched and improved will prove a greater help to scenario designers than actually adding new features to the editor. For instance Spotting of units, Pathfinding, AI in general, Use of Javelin by the AI, Column command for convoys, just to name a few off the top of my head.
I’d definitely would rather see this areas have the attention of BF before start lobbying for new features in the editor. Like I said those would help designers more than any possible new feature would.
Triggers and random events.
I’m all for it from a mission designer’s point of view. But to be honest I don’t feel that they are in accordance with the philosophy behind the design of the editor as stated in the game's manual. And I totally agree with this philosophy. I still haven’t explored the full potential of the editor without triggers, etc. It has got enough depth the way it is.
The editor in TOW(which I also like very much), script oriented, gives you most of the features I have seen requested in this forum, with a lot of control. Still people in the TOW forum are requesting new commands to be added all the time! There is no end to it really.
In CM:SF editor BF has achieved a great balance between ease of use and powerful features. To water it down to make it easier to use would completely kill it. But to add too many options will make it too complex for most players. But as you noticed by now I’m an editor freak, so the more features the better for me!
Units Structure
Human beings in general have a certain resistance to change. We prefer the comfort of our old ways. IMO the Units structure in CM:SF is a good example of this. First few times I used it felt cumbersome and restrictive. I feel the opposite now and strongly so. To the point of saying that changing it would be a step backwards. For starters it’s educational to new users as there you have all the structure and chain of command for you to see. It is very clear, simple and easy to use. In the beginning you think you will need to add and delete a lot and will be time consuming. Not so. It keeps your troops very well organized.
Map editor
A beauty. What can I say? More flavor objects? More buildings? Let people add their own custom made objects? All welcomed.
Campaigns
Never thought it could be so easy to link 3 missions with branches in a mini campaign!
-
This is just a fog of war (FOW) level and Elite vs Basic is mostly about who can see what and when.
Basic FOW means you can see all the units all the time (I think)
Elite means for spotting sometimes even your own friendly units cant' spot each other, and so spotting and finding opposing units is much more realistic.
there should be no RPG accuracy issues at either FOW level (basic or elite, the same percentages and accuracy should apply to all RPG's fired)
try it again, play some more and see how it feels
to test try this
find a smallish scenario you are familiar with and play as the side you are most familiar with (usually blue) in Basic Training, play the same scenario over again and do everything the same in Veteran FOW then do it all over again (everything the same) in Elite FOW.
The things that you should notices changes in would be the more realistic spotting, and the time it take casualties to "heal".
Everything like calling in arty or air support is longer slower and harder in Elite FOW (more realistic)
Accuracy of all shots fired at all three levels should stay the same.
(If I am not completely correct about this you can check the manual or someone will correct me here in this thread
I said that because I may have missed a few things.) -
Thanks!Originally posted by Sarjen:TheLouch did some testing here:
http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=72;t=000042#000000
Some foliage and brushes and grass dont seem to give cover at all.
for those that are interested that is a VERY informative thread.
-
its an OLD thread but its worth a bump
as the game engine even after 5 patches still works the same way..
-
I have used General in the past to flatten buildings because I did not know (until now) that General meant a mixture of air burst and ground burst.
the label "Mixed" would be a better choice then "General" I agree.
-
this is not an unreasonable request..Originally posted by DaveDash:I thought I'd give this a bump to see BFC's thoughts on the matter, now that Steve is back.
. I'm not asking for super invincible U.S. troops, just a more accurate reflection of U.S. survivability focus when it comes to vehicle design.
-
interestingOriginally posted by SgtMuhammed:I don't think I have seen airbursts in a "General" barrage. I think I saw them in earlier versions but not since 1.04.
I don't recall seeing any airbursts (and they are hard to miss) when requesting the general selection for arty?
I did not understand Inf Armour Or general either, until now, but I am not so sure you get some air bursts and some ground explosions from "general". hmmm :confused:
-
nothing short of mind boggling....Originally posted by igor:This is an unbelievable post. Not a peep for 2 months and then THIS? Talk about biting the hand that USED to feed you. This will only inflame those who, like myself, feel that CMSF is unfinished, unplayable in it's present state and will most likely be very skeptical about ever purchasing a Battlefront item again.
just a hint
in RealLife when an authority figure says its time to lay down the law, there is usually a follow up to that action that results in someone's mistake or actions being made "an example of" if you catch my drift.....
So hands up.... Who would like to be made the first example of "how to get banned" ? :eek:
-
are there other games that feature the RealTime play back you are asking for?
I wonder about this.
Seriously, I have always wondered why games like Myth for the Mac that were 3D realtime RTS games (no resource collecting and no building) had the capacity to be replayed. Myth is an OLD game but at the time 7-8 years ago it was a ground breaking ballistically realistic 3D RTS and you could rewind it (but not while playing real time)
so I have always sort of wondered about that
I agree with OM's RAM comment if we all had 16 gigs of ram on board the game could probably be made to rewind in real time and it would magically all happen in RAM.
-
umOriginally posted by c3k:Steve,
Just want to let you know that some OTHER guys made some, er, "tough" posts about CMSF and BF.C. Not me. No sirree. Not me. No need to remove my name from the 1.05 distribution list. Maybe those "others". Not me.
I don't see a need for you to browse through ALL the threads during your absence. Do you? Good.
Thanks,
Ken
I might suggest Steve WAS reading all those posts, the only absence was from posting not from reading....
(maybe the more he read the less he was inclined to post... that sort of thing)
so...
make of that what you will
-
"Your milage may vary". In a forum enviroment it means that your opinion may not nessesarily be the same as the rest of ours. </font>Originally posted by DaveDash:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MarkEzra:
Sirocco: I'm curious...what does this stand for: YMMV?
-
I think there is something here that should be looked and and reviewed in the game mechanics and survivability code.
-
But right now Huntarr and the other beta testers are the only ones even vaguely representative of BFC posting information on these forums. They are part of BFC's customer service model whether any of us like it or not.Originally posted by dalem:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:
Firstly, may I remind you that you are no customer of Huntarr? Secondly, customer relations isn't just a one way street though. Plenty of people here going out of their way to be dickish yet asking for restecp.
You have to learn to see this from the POV of the customer - they ain't always right, but they are always the customer.
Do you get that?
-dale </font>
-
wow
thanks!
great work
-
this is still a good suggestion, but I think the part about "coding would be a nightmare on stilts" is particularily appropriate here...
Originally posted by MiB:I was thinking about this. I doubt Steve & co would actually implement this - I'm no computer guy but I'd imagine coding it would be a nightmare on stilts - but I thought I'd share it anyway.
Lots of people are complaining about the AI and how it reacts to various situations - especially when under fire. I then remembered an old game, Starcraft, where you could make custom maps with things called "triggers."
Triggers were areas you painted on the map, within which you could use a very simple premade programming syntax to make cool things happen. For example, you could state that when a unit entered this space you just painted, it would spawn x amount of y units in another location, which you could then order to attack the area that was just entered.
I was thinking - would this kind of system work well for all the people complaining about the AI? Instead of complaining to Steve about the reaction, you could program your own.
For example, you create a new behavior that applies to all Strykers, call it "cautious" and put in language to the effect that "Whenever a Stryker is fired at by AT-infantry, it will pop smoke and reverse 25 meters"
A more aggressive commander might put his default response to immediately putting down fire at the infantry or the area if they can't see them.
What do you guys think?
-
I am hoping something like "triggers" or events or reactions or something will be on "the list" to work on later in the game engine.
-
oops
wrong thread..
-
"Has anyone ever seen the AI use a javelin at all? "
A: No
"Currently (1.04) i dont think AI has the ability to take from cargo."
A: It is impossible, at the present time, for the AI to do that, I believe that is correct.
-
In Real Life is the really possible?Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:In RL, would it not be possible for one of the "air guard" soldiers to equip a Javelin and fire it from the open hatch? Surely this would be preferable to physically leaving the vehicle and becoming exposed to potential small arms fire whilst dealing with the threat?
Its an interesting idea, but the CLU and the missile might not actually physically fit up through the hatch. (but I am only guessing about that part) :confused:
-
sorry
"Does anyone know what is done in RL in this situation? I would assume that AT team dismounts to kill the enemy tank"
NO
in the game as it stands now in v1.04 it is unrealistic to expect the TAC AI to have the dismounts acquire the Javelin and dismount and Aim and engage and fire the missile against and armoured threat without human player intervention. The code is just not there yet! (AND if it was "easy" to do it would already be in the game and as you have mentioned it is not! so don't expect it any time soon!)
sorry
[ November 14, 2007, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
Well there you have it
In my response I did not factor in WEGO play, to be honest I have only been playing realtime so it had not occured to me. My answer was based upon thinking that the player was playing the Red Side and the AI was controlling the US strykers.
It might be A LOT to ask for the Tac AI to have the Stryker based dismounts aquire the Javelins and dismount and deploy and fire the Javelin in response to an armoured threat (without player intervention). To be fair to the game and BFC I'm not sure that is possible. (Even it would be desireable, which might be up in the air.)
-
"and how bout a Stryker force not only retreating behind cover at the first sign of serious Red armor . . . but maybe the AI could even take the bold move of then deploying boots with javs to actually do something about such a threat?"
OK
I could be wrong about this but I think the clever scenario designer can script or program the Blue side AI to dismount troops at a certain time or location, but not really in response to a Armour threat directly. That would be nice, yes.
This is therefore more problematic in Quick battles where no human brain has scripted the AI response like in a planned or designed scenario.
It might be really hard to make the AI do what you have requested but it is not really an unreasonable request. (I think)
-
Yup!
AND that's why I bumped it up.As such it could help the understanding of what the current issues currently are with LOS, LOF and spotting. Relevant since that's the topic du jour.People wanted the devs word on what was going on, this is still it.
New to CM:SF
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
you should be playing now with the latest v1.04 patch
right?
and if you can hold on just a bit longer the v1.05 is rumoured to be released soon.
Welcome!
What a great AAR! (Very cool info about using your brother's real world military tactics, excellent way to approach the game and the tactical challenge presented to you!)
Many thanks for the post and sharing or fun and pleasure with the game with the rest of us
Cheers