hoolaman
-
Posts
1,929 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hoolaman
-
-
Oh, good point. That could be fun if using colored smoke on targets acted as a sort of temporary TRP.Originally posted by dalem:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
-snip good stuff-
Note also the use of the 2" mortar for "marking targets", something a CM player doesn't have to do because he is omniscient.
</font>
-
This was discussed in one of the CMX2 wish list threads. Along the lines of the diagonal idea, someone suggested ROUND maps.
Most of these ideas above are very arbitrary and cause more problems than they solve, however I think a round (or oval) map would be an elegant and effective improvement. I hope BFC considers it!
-
I can assure you it is repetitive.
You may have noticed previous threads on the topic have been locked due to exhaustion.
-
-
I think experiences like this PBEM thread illustrate that if BFC went out without clothes on, nobody would hesitate to let them know.... And probably point and laugh. m/Originally posted by Wartgamer:Quickly changing Topic:
Speaking of storys, I am going to read a story called "The Emperors New Clothes".
-
I'll second that. I asked the same question in one of the other PBEM threads.Originally posted by aka_tom_w:Can someone please tell me why TCP/IP is not threatened the same way PBEM is?
There has not been ONE word of discussion about how or if TCP/IP play will or might be impacted, BUT somehow the game files might be too big for PBEM but "no problem" for TCP/IP??
I say this because Steve has lumped TCP/IP in the same "no problem" category as solo play or LAN play or hotseat head to head play.
Does this not at least make some other folks here besides me curious?
(confused)
:confused:
-tom w
If a PBEM file ends up being 10+ MB surely an internet connection will need to transfer a similar 10+ MB every turn? This would make TCP/IP even MORE tedious and impractical than PBEM if data transfers were exceedingly large.
That would mean, if I assume correctly, that there would be NO remote play at all. The options would be LAN (maybe also a problem) and hotseat and thats it.
Is there some technical trick I am missing here?
-
-
[
Hey thanksOriginally posted by aka_tom_w:Excellent Post!
I agree with those thoughts completely!
ALL of it!
-tom w
.One issue is whether relative spotting and C&C limitations will make the concept of the "movie between orders" almost obsolete. I know it is at the heart of the WEGO system, but I don't envy BFC having to come up with a WEGO system that is 1. fun to play, 2. fun to watch the 60sec movie and 3. Realistically impedes the GOD and BORG. Diminishing what the player sees in one go seems useful only if there is no other way for the player to get the information. If cycling through units provies just as good of a picture of the battlefield, why restrict the movie?
Does anyone else think using generic unit markers to "report" what a unit has spotted during the turn is a good idea? This marker would include info such as speed and direction etc. This would allow you to watch the movie ONCE in an overview form, instead it will present the info of the movie to the player during the ORDERS phase rather than during the movie.
Does this mean that my pet C&C idea of using "command-zones" that can be altered during the battle by HQ's as a kind of like a large waypoint corridor is not going to be featured? That's sadOriginally posted by battlefront.com:As for the concept of locking certain units into their own sectors. This is tricky for a number of reasons, so we aren't likely to do much with it. One of the things you have to keep in mind is that the senior commander of a force usually (not always) had the ability to move assets around as he saw fit. At least ones directly under his control. But it is harder to redeploy stuff in real life than in CMx1. There are some reasons for this...
-
Maybe I'm technologically retarded, but surely if PBEM file sizes make PBEM impractical, a similar predicament would be encountered for TCP/IP games. A similar amount of data must surely be transferred via TCP/IP. Would this be a fair assumption?
If this is the case, TCP/IP seems like it would be even more tedious and impractical than PBEM if turn transfer data amounts increased dramatically. It would make the time constraints of an internet game even worse as you sit for maybe half an hour waiting to download turn info.
If my assumptions are correct, will there be any remote human vs. human play method possible except LAN?
Steve, please let us know if this is in any way a fair assumption. If PBEM must go out the window will internet play go with it?
-
Sorry to post consecutively, but I promise I won't do it every time, or post four times in a row! (EDIT: Damn tankist slipped a post in there
)How about, to reduce the reliance on the movie, the functionality of the generic unit position marker be increased.
Imagine, instead of a star or maple-leaf, a "last position" unit marker could give more info to the player such as:
*Direction of travel (little arrow)
*Time since disappearance (12 secs ago)
*A "trail" showing the path it took during the turn.
*Number of men spotted (with 1:1) eg. "I think I saw ten men sarge"
etc.
This way, every generic unit marker becomes a little "report" to HQ. This method saves the information for when you click on the unit, making it less neccesary to witness the action during the movie. Naturally these reports may suffer from varying degrees of inaccuracy.
It may even be possible to have two types of movies, one overview movie, and many unit specific movies. Then instead of analysing the 60 sec movie from all angles, you watch a battlefield overview movie as detailed above and then simply go around and start giving orders to your units. Every unit you click on will show a range of unit marker "reports", and if you see a unit that looks like it did something important you can then choose to watch the movie for this unit only.
This would save time and reduce awareness for the player, who may misinterpret the situation and not watch a unit specific movie at all and miss out on important info.
-
Hello everyone. It has been a long time since I have seriously waded into a CMX2 thread, but I thought I would put forward a couple of little ideas.
Firstly, from a GAME perspective I think it is essential to allow the player to watch the whole movie through as an overview so they only have to watch it once to get a reasonable overview of the situation on the battlefield.
The question is, what do you allow the player to see so the benefits of relative spotting are not wasted away.
I can imagine the most common situations raised by relative spotting will be:
* Two (or more) units spot the same unit but identify it differently. eg. 1 tank, spotted by various units as tank? PzIV Tiger? etc.
* Two (or more) units spot one unit moving from cover to cover, and each spots it as a separate unit markers, so it appears there are more than one unit.
* Two (or more) units misidentify the position of a unit, or get sound contacts in different locations for the same unit, producing a scatter of markers and sound markers for only one unit.
Now as far as I can see, the player will have all this info available to them one way or another by cycling through his units. With this in mind, I think the movie should be played back with ALL of these contacts and misidentifications appearing at once. Sure this would make for a very cluttered and confusing picture, but isn't that the point? A real world commander would get many conflicting reports and have to then go through and assess the info.
The only problem would be where multiple units got the position of an enemy correct, but not the identification. To solve this you could diplay the "lowest common denominator" during playback, and if you click on the enemy unit you could see a list of the two (or ten!) different reports of the identity of this unit.
-
Using command-zones could achieve this aim. Using Kip's screenshot, imagine if the squads were confined to the "arrow" area. Within it they could move without any delay at all. To change the company level orders (replot the arrows) would result in relatively large delay, to leave the zone on a platoon's own initiative would result in delay or some other bad effect (fragile morale, friendly fire incidents etc).Originally posted by PLM:The problem with this command stuff is the person in charge typically wouldnt micromanage the exact movements of any movement anyway. Then you're putting too much emphasis on who's in command range and not. The AI sucks on its own. It cant handle ANY situation. I dont want troops isolated to just be inept and be massacred by the enemy human player. I want to control unit movements completely without any sort of command delay.
Anyhow, I have mentioned this ad-nauseum before. Just thought I would mention it again
, as Kip's screenshot is almost exactly what I had in mind when I mention "command-zones" or "command-radius" as in this old thread here: Originally posted by Hoolaman on October 18, 2004 05:32 PM: -
Using command-zones could achieve this aim. Using Kip's screenshot, imagine if the squads were confined to the "arrow" area. Within it they could move without any delay at all. To change the company level orders (replot the arrows) would result in relatively large delay, to leave the zone on a platoon's own initiative would result in delay or some other bad effect (fragile morale, friendly fire incidents etc).Originally posted by PLM:The problem with this command stuff is the person in charge typically wouldnt micromanage the exact movements of any movement anyway. Then you're putting too much emphasis on who's in command range and not. The AI sucks on its own. It cant handle ANY situation. I dont want troops isolated to just be inept and be massacred by the enemy human player. I want to control unit movements completely without any sort of command delay.
Anyhow, I have mentioned this ad-nauseum before. Just thought I would mention it again
, as Kip's screenshot is almost exactly what I had in mind when I mention "command-zones" or "command-radius" as in this old thread here: Originally posted by Hoolaman on October 18, 2004 05:32 PM: -
I can't give you an official diagnosis of insanity as only BFC can, but the last word on PBEM was something like:
"We plan to have it in there if at all possible"
Which means unless some vital technical issue makes it totally impossible, it will be in.
So you might have to be content with near insanity for a few months more.
-
I must say I like the Australian Army Eurotiger helicopter on the frontpage.
Not sure why it has both RAAF and army insignia on it though. ?
-
A little OT, but I suggested a while ago that targetting be left entirely to the TacAI based upon what it spots (with true relative spotting) and also making use of targetting SOPs.Originally posted by Wartgamer:So the player may not artificially optimize target selection in the future. Infantry small arms in particular will target for self preservation lets say rather than for the Borg commands that the player generates.
IRL a unit would be more likely to have fire discipline orders/dispositions (SOPs) and naturally they would only fire upon targets they become aware of themselves. This is opposed to the "psst, over there" effect of manual targetting in CM.
Although this idea produced a heated negative response, Steve actually kind of defended the concept. I wonder if this is on the list for "increased uncertainty for the player" in CMX2.
-
Wartgamer, I am confident that the good folks at BFC know how to test a game.
-
I think this one deserves a *bump*
Any scenario designer can find all of italy in 1:25000 topo. It is a gold mine.
As we have established, *most* of the maps seem to be wartime era give or take a few years.
So check it out!!
As noted above a freeware program called screenprint32 v3.5 can be used to save or print a screengrab of the maps.
If anyone is having trouble getting the maps, post your exact requirements including region and nearby towns, and I will see if I can find them and pass them on via email.
-
I take it to mean the map editor refers to something similar to the current system, where maps are constructed from a palette of objects. An object editor would allow creating or importing a 3D model and assigning game parameters to it, such as:Originally posted by Cull:Ok, though I mostly get that, how about just some good ol' straight shootin'? I'm dim like a 40 watt.
What's the difference in the following statements?
1) Map/Terrain editor - manipulates objects already known to CMx2's game system.
2) Model Editor - manipulates the objects themselves.
Destructability/cover
Weapons Hardpoints (windows or mounts on vehicles)
Entry/Exit points
Transparency/concealment
So when a bullet hits a building the game knows whether it ricochets off a brick or smashes through a window. Or when somebody is hiding behind a big stone wall, the game system doesn't allow guys to see through it.
-
Hi Philippe,
Might I suggest putting a yellow star patch and some identity papers in the background?
This was the "national symbol" that defined the Jews of Europe at the time, and seems more appropriate than the flag.
-
The BFC car company had spent millions to tool up their production line for the CMXX GT.
This was their first car design, and while it was not perfect, their factory was built so that not many changes could be made to the design without extensive retooling.
So they decided instead to build an entire new factory, with the latest programmable robots to make a whole new car. The car was a new design taking into account all the lessons they learned making the CMXX GT.
And because the production line could be changed just by reprogramming the robots, the capacity for building all sorts of new models and improving existing ones was greatly increased.
-
Thanks a lot Steve,
This thread will no doubt be helpful to clear the water about what the new engine WILL be.
That is of course to the exclusion of what it might or might not be.
Personally, I think everything this community has to say about CMX2 has well and truly been said, even in light of the new "bones".
I hope someone up there was reading the "what do we want in the new CM game" threads, as there were tons of great brainstorming type ideas in there that may benefit even hardened wargame design veterans.
-
I searched the rest of the AWM collection but couldn't find anymore maps of this sort online.
Doesn't mean they are not there though! There is a lot of stuff online.
-
To go back to the car parable, here's how I see it in reference to the whole forum.
The Ford car club is well attended by a wide range of people. Some fondly remember the old muscle cars, but most liked the most up to date fancy models. Some were very mechanically minded, and some were happy as long as their car worked. But all of them loved cars and all of them liked Fords especially.
So on Sundays they would get together and discuss what features they would love to be in the NBT from Ford. Some people did not really understand the point of the discussion, and kept asking for a MK2 model of the car they were currently driving. Some of them wanted the same interior and mechanics, but with a new streamlined body shell. Some of the more creative ones came up with many amazing new ideas for the engine and transmission, as well as sketching out sexy new body shapes.
Then one day a Ford designer showed up, and started releasing details about the NBT, which was on the drawing board. He said things like.
It will have four wheels
It will have an incredibly advanced engine
It will have a high tech polymer shell
It may not be available in manual transmission, but to design a better car, we are willing to make this sacrifice.
It will still be fueled by fossil fuels
The car club was so excited by this, they fired thousands of questions and concerns at the Ford designer. The designer tried to answer the questions, but since the car was not built yet, he couldn't tell anybody what they wanted to know. The loudest people were complaining about how they love manual transmissions, and were hoping that they could stay. They also wanted to know if they could still tinker with the engine.
The car designer got angry about the lack of insight of the group, despite the fact that all sorts of interesting discussions had been going on in his absence all that year, and despite the fact that the people up the back were asking him a myriad of sensible questions. Some of the group thought all that could be said about the NBT had been discussed at their regular Sunday meetings, and didn't have much to say. The designer ended up saying, "we are making a car you cannot even conceive with your puny minds, and no I do not have a picture, because the car has not been built yet". The group, being up to date on the latest technology, was slightly insulted, but indeed could not think of a car that was 10 years ahead of all the other cars out there, but knowing they could not influence things AFTER the car was built, kept yelling out suggestions. The designer got angry with the Ford Club and pointed out to them that they were not that important anyway, because they were trying to sell Fords to people who don't already own one.
THE END
)
Bug in the CMAK/CMBB score calculation
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted