hoolaman
-
Posts
1,929 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hoolaman
-
-
An over simplification based on personal preference, and an understandable position. If we could snap our fingers we'd have them be able to limber up. Reality is life's all about choices and often one's personal preferences aren't inline with others'.
The primary reason most people play, and enjoy, Combat Mission is because of it's graphical environment. That was true even in the early days and in fact became a liability as CMx1's abstracted environment became further and further behind what technology could support.
The more the graphical environment is violated for the alter of grogginess the less the game will appeal to people. We do plenty of graphical compromises, but this was one that was over the line. And that should concern you because we'd be out of business if only the hardcore were interested in CM.
Steve
I understand you guys have to make compromises, but I'd point out that the limbering and movement of AT guns already looks and behaves horribly, so there isn't much of a quality bar to cross. It's not like there are animations of everyone rushing around packing up the guns, or animations of them properly pushing the guns.
And I mean this in the most positive and constructive way.
-
A shame when the simulation is deliberately sacrificed on the altar of graphics.
-
Not sure I like this idea. Destroyed is destroyed. I know we don't have wrecked vehicle models but I can see how even a non burning vehicle would be pretty dangerous to be messing around it. Yes, mom, those are sharp rusty metal shards. Yes, mom, I'll stay away from it.
Immobilized though that I would like to see changed. Right now you cannot get into an immobilized vehicle to get goodies. Acquiring form immobilized vehicles should be possible.
The problem is that especially light vehicles have a very low threshold for becoming destroyed. 1 Bullet through the engine? Destroyed.
Its a two part equation for me. A light vehicle should be far more likely to be immobilised rather than destroyed.
Then you should be allowed to remount immobilised vehicles to use their weapons and remove ammo from them.
-
A very good analogy. I would say Combat Mission only counts for about .001% of all gamers, I mean the best .001%, right at the top of the gaming world.
Simulation games, like Combat Mission generally gather the most intelligent, polite, and friendly gamers that exist. They also tend to weed out all non hackers who don't pack the gear, or brain tissue, to tie their own shoes or cook their own breakfast. The simple fact that one must read the game manual before playing the game automatically disqualifies every single kid in the world who thinks "reading is boring" and "science/history class is dumb".
To be fair this guy's less than eloquent ravings are pretty much what this game gives you as a first impression.
How many games even have manuals these days? Not even one of the recent PC games I've played have required a manual, they introduce game concepts and even a complex UI in the form of an interactive tutorial. This is what gamers expect these days.
The UI and camera controls are pretty hard work, and very unorthodox. Even on the forums here in the past both have been lambasted.
Performance too can be very poor on high end systems. Shadows ARE terrible, smoke is quite basic.
Everyone here knows why these things are so and seeks to excuse them, but don't expect everyone else in the world to excuse them.
-
I think that is the reason for differences between vehicles. At least no one has suggested a better explanation to my knowledge. See MikeyD's post in the linked-to thread.
Could be they only bothered tagging the Panther correctly and the whole sub-system damage thing is bugged.
The fact that tanks in CMSF never had any performance degradation from totally destroyed optics (or several other systems) is no real excuse. The system was designed for CMSF, I recall at one stage totally destroyed smoke launchers could still fire smoke too.
-
The DRM system can trigger an antivirus alert due to it having some form of encryption.
If you downloaded the files from a reputable site, I shouldn't think there'd be a problem with malware.
Just disable your AV. I think it might recommend to do so in the install readme anyway.
-
Horse apples. They're not 100% concealment 100% of the time, but they do, inarguably, affect LOS.
Trees block LOS and can even 100% block LOS, but the leaves at the top don't block LOS any more than the trunks at the bottom. Hence the "canopies" of (graphically) 100% obstruction do not exist.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that show a 25% chance of rounds landing within the centre 4 boxes? Your original table said 11 rounds before a hit to target centre?
So it seems pretty reasonable if you'd gone to the trouble of wheeling up a 240mm howitzer to fire on a hard bunker, that you could spend maybe a day and 10-20 rounds to kill it.
Not precision fire, granted, but pretty plausible.
-
What appears as a solid wall of treetops from eye level will at times afford a clear shot anyway. I suspect it might be due to small "keyholes" that are hard to get an overview over and protect against.
Treetops canopies don't really exist in the LOS system.
-
so hey if we can introduce say US/German equipment on the same side in battle, then we could use 'captured' tanks for scenarios...
Yes simulationally that will work, you get a Sherman + crew fighting for the Germans. But that US tank will always be a US tank, including crew. Bunch of traitors.
-
I presume you mean in terms of reputation?
because the U.S. 90 mm AT/AA gun has very comparable performance.
The US 90mm is not a badass nazi ubergun, so no comparison.
-
Just a pointer for the future: be sure of your ground when you're reporting what you think are bugs. Assertions that something's a bug when it just isn't will get people's backs up.
lol.
Translation: If we don't like your tone you'll get abused by forum regulars in a way that'll make you think twice about coming back.
-
Looking back on the ultimate purpose of these public AAR threads being to showcase GL to the general public, I'd say this one has failed miserably. All I'm left thinking is that the game is buggy and not that much fun!
The problem with the bugs that remain is that they are so subtle that they are nearly impossible to prove, in systems that have little or no UI feedback. But this AAR shows there are still things that can throw a whole battle into question.
How many other vehicles have their 3D models tagged wrong or their crew upside down or whatever other esoteric thing that nobody will ever find?
It doesn't help either that the community here is pretty hostile to people criticizing the game who don't submit 1000 replicate tests.
-
The unit of comparison is "nominal pounds" 25:40:50
-
This is something that is definitely possible. This is, I think, the first request I've seen for it since CMSF was first released. Because moveable waypoints or not, the ability to click on movement lines and switch units is still applicable. So I don't feel too bad about forgetting about this behavior since in 6 years nobody that I know of has mentioned it until now
I think everyone was too busy begging for movable waypoints for most of that time.
-
I am not sure I understand what you mean, but I suspect folks are once again jumping to conclusions that aren't supported by actual facts. A little testing would go a long way towards understanding how fog works (or doesn't)
What makes you think anyone is jumping to conclusions?
The OP was making a point about graphical representation of fog, not the game effects.
As for my point, the tank essentially cannot fire its weapons at all in these conditions simply because there is no LOS. Sound contact 10m ahead? Too bad. Does that make sense to you?
There were many examples where LOF=/=LOS and the two functions in the old games would be superior. I haven't played the last couple of versions of the engine though so I'm not sure what has been fixed.
-
Yes we are and not just sometimes. Yourself included. You just told everyone they are nuts about correcting his behavior when you just said you aren't even sure what the behavior should be.
Welcome to the banana tree. Beware, the refresh monkeys are out to get us.
Perhaps I didn't phrase it very well, but I was responding to the guys saying it is impossible to program the game to have a unit ignore the arc and defend itself.
It's not impossible, only having it work perfectly every time is impossible.
GaJ's incidient lies so far on the "defend yourself you idiots" end of the spectrum that it shows that behaviour that I understand is supposed to be in the game, is actually not in the game. Which could be a bug. Maybe. I haven't been involved in beta testing in a while.
-
I wouldn't disagree. There is no Fog of war even in fog for terrain. That was almost a really bad pun... While it does get hazy at a distance you can only really tell when enemy units are on the screen. That then becomes the difficult part. You don't have a good visual cue as to expected LOS. You can still see the building 500 meters away even though you can't see the tank in front of the building only 100 meters away. I can't say I understand the technical difficulties in portraying fog the way a player would be expected to think it would be.
This is the best example of why the targeting tool is NOT a LOS tool as claimed by BFC.
-
Welcome to the near-impossibility of getting a computer to behave like a human in all situations. I don't know what to tell you, GaJ. I know how frustrating it can be to try to get your p-troops to do what you would have them do, or even sometimes as here to do what they would normally do in Reality. One more example of just how complicated Reality can be.
It is not that complicated to program in some self-preservation behaviour according to some set of criteria. Though that criteria will never please everyone, I'd have thought taking casualties from a spotted enemy at about 50m would trigger some sort of response and exempt the arc. In fact, from memory that is supposed to be in the game now, so this very well could be an actual bug.
Which was GaJ's point I think.
Yet everyone jumps in and tells him he's doing it wrong. You guys are bananas sometimes.
-
Bil has more eyes and is possibly making better use of concealment. GaJ has some monolithic items to get seen, and I don't remember whether Bil took a generally higher level of experience (which does affect spotting quite markedly). Bil is also killing things as he spots them, since GaJ's defensive approach to date has been deliberately economical of units at the coal face (piecemeal, to some). So GaJ has a couple of sets of eyes looking for Bil's several dozen sets of eyes, and once Bil has seen something, he pretty much stops until that's dead, meaning that no new units of GaJ's get a chance to see Bil's units.
The long grass has certainly provided Bil with a surprising amount of cover for his scouts, but Bil has also kept most of his assets behind LOS-interrupting crests.
There's also the fact that Bil is far better at presenting his suspected and partial spots to us the reading audience, and he is not shy of gaming the game to correctly guess what he is facing. Not cheating of course, just wringing every bit of info from the game engine like a player has the right to do.
That combined with the fact that many of us are reading both threads probably gives a false impression of what he really sees at any one time.
However there are still many wonky spotting problems. Tanks still seem way too capable of spotting distant and supposedly concealed objects. And the fact that tree canopies do not actually exist in the game engine makes for some strange situations when there are different elevations.
-
No accuracy bonus but they do get a concealment bonus. At least the CMBN manual says they do.
Exactly. I've learned to not put too much stock in BFCs technical document writing.
-
I had to search back into the AAR to see, when the 3 inch AT gun opened up on the Elephant the first shot went high followed by three nicely grouped shots on the gun mantlet. That sounds like standard practice in the game for a decent gun. Judging from CMBN experience the 88/L71 is considered better than just 'decent'. King Tigers and 88 Paks get a remarkably high percentage of first round kills. It takes a really big map and really crappy weather to see first round misses.
That was a stationary gun in a defensive position so it doesn't at all compare to the situation going back the other way.
Although I have no idea if an unmoved gun really gets a ranging accuracy bonus and concealment bonus or if that is just an assumption because CMX1 did.
-
CMFI U.S. 57mm does not have a HE round. At this point in time I'm not entirely sure the AP shot even has a burster charge. That detail is 'under the hood' and not in the documentation. I'd have to fire a few rounds to see if there's and indication of a 'burst' when it reaches the target.
Lol, every round in CMx2 "bursts".
-
Of course it'll be in the EULA that you can't redistribute the software.
Vanilla windows install discs can be downloaded on torrents to use with valid licenses. I've done this with an OEM PC that doesn't even ship with a windows disc.
With the bunch of nerds we have here I can't see the torrent running out of seeders. If you did you just get on the forums and ask for someone to seed instead of moaning about how evil/incompetent BFC are.
AA unmovable
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Yeah I understand plenty of stuff.
Steve said that it is not happening because there was no solution that wouldn't look jarringly terrible (Paraphrasing).
I said that the animations for guns already look jarringly terrible so why not just do your best on the animations and get the functionality in there.
One idea suggested by someone else was to have a limbered and unlimbered model for these guns, which is perfectly practical, but I can see why even making the model is a very very low priority.