aka_tom_w
-
Posts
8,130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by aka_tom_w
-
-
right onOriginally posted by lassner.1:In my view of the matter, the WEGO system is much more exciting than that of PBEM; I'm surprised at how many people are trying to suggest that PBEM and TCP/IP WEGO are sufficently similar that those of us who love TCP/IP WEGO should just accept the loss of our favorite mode of play against another human opponent not in the smae location (which, in my case, is *all* of my opponents).
I too am appealing to Steve and Charles to implement TCP/IP WEGO as soon as possible whatever changes have to be made to make it work.
I played and loved all of the CM series in TCP/IP WEGO mode, and I hate not having it available now!
sounds good to me!
-
oops
double post
-
bump of an old thread about this issue
-
-
-
-
the answer is mostly unknown
I think it is officially a maybe
but it is not a priority for the next patch, v1.03
is it important? Yes I think so,
Will it take a long time to code?
Probably.
Will it be worth the time and effort in direct $ from increased sales? :confused:
I suspect BFC believes that to be unlikely, but I think they are on record somewhere as saying something to the effect of "never say never, as long as someone else picks up the development costs"
(i.e. some military software gaming defense budget somewhere THAT really needs that functionality for training purposes....)
or something like that....
There is a WHOLE TCP/IP wego thread kicking around here somewhere.
[ August 17, 2007, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
does it have realistic physics and ballistics or just plain old cummulative hits points?
(and yes you can tell I have no idea what I am talking about because I don't know anything the game and have not looked at it)
but I am curious enough to ask a question or two....
-
That sounds good to me!Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:There is a simple solution to this. Have the Stryker vehicle have its own "Acquire" command. If there are troops on board, the Stryker can acquire their Javelin launcher, Javelin missiles, and even their 5.56mm and 7.62mm ammo in 500 round chunks, just as the troops acquire stuff from the vehicle. No changes needed to the interface or new commands other than to enable the acquire button for the Stryker and modify the game code to treat gear held by troops as acquirable by a vehicle. The only complication is that several units may occupy a vehicle, so the vehicle would have to take the equipment from the unit that had the most first. In practice the player would probably just acquire everything and then switch back to the unit to acquire back from the vehicle what the unit needed.
-
a drop heavy equipment command would be nice...
I agree with Mud on that one
-
Thanks
good to hear of a positive solution!
thanks for the link
-
In my opinion if you don't see rubble in the gap, there may be a bug at this point that prevents crossing thru the gap.
(just speculation)
I have never seen the rubble in the gap, being that the only times I have blown a gap in the wall there is a gap with no rubble and you can't drive thru it. I am pretty sure BFC is working on this.
-
Steve and BFC are always on the look out of examples of this bug, post screen shots and keep a "save game" handy (when you see this issue, pause the game and save it, with a save game title, like Shoot-thru-walls-patched with v1.01" or something.)
FWIW
Post screen shots in this thread if you have them.
Something like this:
-
a GOOD AI needs a GOOD AI plan and a GOOD AI designer, the beta testers have been learning how to do this as FAST as possible, there may only be a handfull really TOP LEVEL elite AI designers at this time. Seriously, this should not be unexpected. (Let me explain, you need two things to be done well, FIRSTLY the AI designer, must be a SOUND understanding of military tactics and come up with a tactically superior plan or strategy, (not everyone can do this) THEN its like using a sledge hammer to fix a swiss watch, to get the timing right in the way you intend to have the AI respond at the right time, so you need a good plan, then you need to figure out how to exectute the "good" plan in the AI editor and then you need to test the heck out of it!Originally posted by George Mc:The strategic AI behaviour is 'written' by the designer i.e.e the designer sets out a plan for AI allocated units.
..
Cheers fur noo
George
Anyone of you who owns the game can open up the editor and try to program the AI, it takes time and patience and LOTS AND LOTS of time to learn and to test.
The AI designer/editor is very powerful and VERY full featured and it is possible to make it do some REALLY cool things, but it takes many many hours to learn.
[ July 31, 2007, 04:38 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
When plotting waypoints for foot units think of this:
Way point for soldiers on foot should also be thought of as "Rally Points" the TAC AI likes to understand a waypoint as a place to gather and "rally" before moving on. You could try get them where you want with fewer "rally points" if you don't want them to stop and "gather" at each way point you plot.
"I too have noticed that individual soldiers will often ignore a waypoint placed directly in front of a door, to circle the house and enter the building from the other door. Usually it seems like it is about half the squad."
This might just be the TAC AI trying to "help" you.
-
link here for background review of POA2 if you are interested
Originally posted by thewood:And let me tell you, with POA2's excellent freindly FOW system, if you set up your command structure wrong, you are completely dependent on the AI running units that drop off the net.
Let me clarify. POA2 does try to make you use TOEs just like SF, but the do make it easy to substitute in units and attach individual units.
-
OKTook me six maybe nearly seven hours to get somewhat comfortable playing. Now just going into hour nine I'm starting to have a little fun, but holy cow BFC that was not my expectation!From my own experience beta testing this game, the post above is "NORMAL"
It should take 6-7 hours to "get it".
When first asked for feedback about the camera controls I said "I am having a lot of problems with it and I really don't like it and it does not "feel" comfortable at all"
But after about 3 days of testing I was a convert and it felt ok.
By hour 9-10 of playing the camera should be secound nature if you are using a 3 button scroll wheel mouse (if you are not using a scroll wheel mouse GET ONE! I would say the camera controls are might be bordering on unplayable without a scroll wheel mouse IMHO)
The camera controls are great once you get used to playing and in a day or two of playing they should become second nature...
FWIW
-
If the man is a yellow circle he is wounded and can likely move along slowly.
If he is red circle he's dead.
SO
I think all yellow circle wounded can move, so if the rest of the guys move SLOWLY enough, he should not be left behind. SO.. if you have a unit with a bunch of guys with yellow bases chances are they can move slowly so get them out of the line of fire and save what's left of the unit, or if you can send a fresh unit in their place.
the only guys you need to worry about are WIA with the yellow, base because you want to do what you can to prevent them from becoming Red base KIA's
I think.
-
Which "Village" map are you referring to?
wondering?
-
I fully support the no buying of units.
I love it and I think this system is GREAT.
I would like to suggest, one of the REAL issues, here is in fact the time it would take someone many many man hours of time to invent (from SCRATCH) a point/value/rating/cost system for every unit in the game. It would be an artificial construct at best. I am personally VERY glad that NOT one minute of design and development time was waisted in this gamey and wanton pursuit.
Of course this simply means my war game playing philosophy is completely diametrically opposed to everyone else's here that enjoys the fun of "shopping" for units and cherry picking the best units to "out shop" your opponent before you even get to the battlefield.
Somefolks here clearly consider that one of the most fun aspects of the game. OK that's great, but given the wildly assymetric nature of warfare this game simulates how you place values on availble weapons?? Seriouly. Lets start with the top of the line M1A1 Abrams Lets say its 1000 points as a baseline? What is a Javelin worth? What are two irregulars with an RPG worth? Both can knock the fictional 1000 point Abrams! So realistically HOW do you do it? How do you determine what is worth what on your fictional gamey shopping list?
NOT to mention the WHOLE new set of victory conditions that are available to the scenario designer. (if that matters).
-
wow
I am not against WEGO at all, I would lobby for TCP/IP Wego too.
BUT I TOTALLY agree with Elvis, I have been testing TCP/IP Realtime with him in the beta test since before it was actually playable. Elvis and I have had many many PBEM and maybe 1 or 2 WeGo TCP IP battles in CMx1 over the internet. We both have families and young kids and very little time to "goof off". So we both discovered we could play MORE and wait less in TCP/IP realtime, the action is instant and gratification immediate.
For the record I support the lobby for somekind of technical miracle or breakthrough that would permit WeGo TCP/IP that would be great.
BUT
in the meantime why not try a RealTime TCP/IP battle? You will find (if you relax and get over the time deadline angst or anxiety, (chances are your opponent has the same problem/issue)) that you will be not doing much of anything in the first few minutes except waiting....
You will play more and wait less.
I am not here to suggest it is anymore realistic to play realtime then to play WeGo, no arguement there, (its a video game for crying out loud, both are artificial in different ways).
Battlefront is commited to customer support and further patches will be forth coming.
(Its hard to tell if this is a real big issue, or if a VERY vocal and loud minority are making noise about something the majority of players could not care less about? :confused:
I don't know the answer to that so I let Steve and Charles figure that out.
In the meantime just give TCP/IP realtime a chance since its there and it works, WITH the first release. (If anyone cares to remember we had to wait for a few months and a couple of patchs IIRC for TCP/IP when CBMO was first released, as a point of reference.)
Have Fun!
Play the game!
Its a Blast!
-
um.. I might suggest might also be now known as "Move to Contact" or "Hunt to Contact"
this makes sense to me:
No bug, Hunt works similar to Move to Hunt, that's intended. You can set a Target Arc, too, if you want to have the guys stop only when enemy appears within a certain area, for example.Martin
-
any minute now.....
-
ROTFLMAO!Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:<FONT SIZE="20">LAME</FONT>
In the days before the CM:BB release, I actually did an entire fake AAR complete with screenshots showing the new game in all its glory, despite having no clue what any of the new features would be or look like. Madmatt was so pissed he pulled all his hair out. (That's how I remember it, anyway. He did lock the thread, in any event.) Go big or go home, girls.
quick wego question
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
as you can see its a bit of a firestorm of "What the ƒ%&!"???????