Lt Bull

Very interesting links. Hey, these guys seem to be based in the same city I live in!! From the info in the links, Hunting Tank Software appear to have at least at some stage had personnel with professional software design/managment experience, but there is still no evidence of previous specific computer game design experience, let alone computer AI design expereince. So I too wouldn't necessarily refer to them as amateurs, but there certainly is evidence indicating that actual computer game design is new to them. Lt Bull

You know what...you are probably correct and it may not be as ridiculous as you or others may think. For some reason, many people (and computer game developers) have become fixiated with the notion that the main purpose or reason why people buy computer games is to play against a computer. This may have been true when computer games first came out, when the internet was not as popular or did not connect people up in the way it does now. In fact, I would even go so far as to say many people would even think that a computer game is defined as a game you can play against a computer. I certainly do not. A computer game to me is just a game you play on a computer. I will vouch that of ALL the computer wargames I have ever played that also have a multiplayer option, the computer opponent in each has been by far the LEAST intelligent and challenging opponent, undisputedly. This might tell you something of where I rank a computer opponent and multiplayer capability when evaluating a game. NOTE: There is one very important exception to my statement that I need to point out (although it is not strictly a wargame, though in many ways it is). The game of chess. For some reason, the computer opponent of this very simple yet mathematically complex game has collectively been the subject of intense (worldwide) computer opponent development and has been taken to a level in which not even the worlds best chess player at times can compete with. I think that computer game designers who decide that they are NOT going to design a game with an AI opponent are much more innovative, radical and forward thinking than the computer game developers that do, or feel compeled to. To me this "radical" approach is really just a "retro" game design mind set. I think many of us have forgotten that prior to the advent of computers, ALL games were designed and played without any consideration towards whether or not a computer opponent could be coded. The focus and efforts were primarily geared on the human game play experience. By deliberately freeing themselves from the burden of havng to code a computer opponent, computer game developers open up a whole bunch of possibilities that would otherwise have been impossible: a) They are free to make the game as intricate or as complex as they like without ever having to ask themselves the creativity stiffling and totally arbitrary question "Will we be able to code a decent computer opponent to understand these rules?". No need to find or pay for specialised develpment cost related to computer opponent coding. c) Money, resources and time that would otherwise have been spent and directed towards coding a computer opponent can be redirected towards improving other areas of the game (or even just pocketed). d) Will encourage players worldwide to socially interact (online) to find opponents and play (hotseat, direct connect, PBEM etc). Sure this "no computer opponent" approach to computer game design may not be suitable for some games, especially if the market is small, but the way the internet now provides a way for people of common interest to meet and engage each other quite easily, regardless of how obscure the intrest is, is a key reason why such a computer game design philosophy is not as stupid or "radical" as it might sound. Lt Bull [ July 13, 2007, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

Hi I have been anticipating CMC since it was first announced (3-4 years ago?) and thought (like most of you) it would see the light of day before CMX2...seems like I was wrong. How many of the people behind this game would have thought back then, that by mid 2007, that their potential customers would be more likely to be wondering IF this game will ever be released rather than WHEN it will be released? Here is what i think has happened. 1. From what I understand, the guys behind this game are NOT game designers/developers, but primarily a core of overly ambitious/enthusiastic CM gamers/aspiring modders who took it on themselves to go out and make a campaign level CM game that BTS never had any intention of making for them. After convincing a reluctant BTS that it "could" be done "with a little bit of help", they are now realising they have bit off more than they can chew. 2. The practical side of what they were trying to implement and the skills required to do it was much more involved than originally thought. Basically trying to make a square peg (the very idiosyncractic CM engine) fit inside a round hole (their concept of the campaign layer of the game). 3. The work required and skill set needed to code a decent AI/CPU opponent for CMC was grossly underestimated (this is a an EXTREMELY specialised field of computer game design and one that I doubt any "casual" game developer would have). 4. They have found that they needed more help and assistance from BTS trying to interface and integrate CM (something it was never ever fundamentally designed to do) into their own campaign level software design. Gamers/fans in the past HAVE been able to successfully "change" or "adapt" an existing game and basically transform into a new one. A great success story is Red Orchestra. Basically a fan based "mod" of the Unreal game that eventually evolved into a stand alone game and a VERY well polished and professional commercial release. VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: Unlike the guys doing CMC, the Red Orchestra crew were NOT burdened with also having to also code an AI/CPU opponent as the game is primarily multiplayer! I wonder if coding a competent AI/CPU for single player was the elephant in the room they seemed to have overlooked when they first set out to do CMC. :confused: Lt Bull [ July 13, 2007, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

Thanks _UXcva! That did the trick. Lt Bull

Rocket-Man, OK I now see that you already are aware of this problem and have mentioned it in the notes for RM-GaJ H/C Topo Grid Open at CMMODs. However, your suggested remedy of using RM-GaJ H/C Topo Grid Grass from the CMAK database (renumbering the grass files from bmp 1550-1569 (the grass bmp file numbers) to bmp 1570-1589 (the open bmp file numbers) and save the renumbered files in your CMBB bmp directory) did not fix the problem. In fact, I am getting the same turquoise disclouration I got with the original mod. :confused: Lt Bull [ May 17, 2007, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

Rocket-Man Great work on this mod. I am playing a scenario now that features steppe terrain and high hills. I am getting weird light blue colours on the tops of my higgest hills using your mod. What is the problem here? Thanks Lt Bull

Yes I have noticed that. But it doesn't seem related to even the limitations on spacing limits between adjacent units at setup. I have just gone and done a test. At setup stage there is a minimum distance the game allows you to place units adjacent to each other. If you bunch them up at setup stage as close as it lets you, and leave them there and go to the next battle, in next battle setup, you will find that the game WILL move them further apart. So the spacing limitations at setup dont seem to have anything to do with WHY the game apparently NEEDS to spread out the units even further BETWEEN battles. [ May 06, 2007, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

OK I think I many need to be clearer. After re-reading my post I realise that it could easily be misinterpretted as you have. I will edit it to be more clearer.

I had to rephrase my question as I saw it could be misinterpreted. I am refereing to how CM does not allow closely placed units to remain exactly where they are on the map from one operation battle to the next. This is not refering to the effect that the no mans land setting has and how it may spread opposing units apart by changing the front line. I am refering to how ithe game tries to keep a minimum spacing between your own freindly units between battles. It happens even if the no mans land seeting is set to zero. eg. At the end of an operation battle, you might have a platoon of infantry and AT gun huddled in foxholes in a patch of woods. All seems OK. You enter the next battle setup screen and you see that the front line has not changed. However, not all those foxholed units you had neatly huddled in that patch of woods are neatly huddled in foxholes anymore. All the foxholes stay where they were, and so do some of the units that were in them. But some of the units now find themselves repositioned slightly several meters away NOT in their original locations, NOT in foxholes and in many cases NOT even in the same terrain. In between battles, it seems the game "checks" all units on the map and repositions them individually if neccessary (ever so slightly if need be) to ensure some minimum spacing between unis is maintained. I've never worked out WHY this (must) be the case. Is it actual game design intent (if so, is the thinking behind it?), was it a case of "we can't seem to stop that from happening", or was it a case of "we totatlly missed that/forgot to fix it"? It's just that I have been playing several operations lately where we decided to employ self imposed "play em where they lay" /continuous rules and it is annoying to find (friendly) units that eneded one battle close to each other, slighlty spaced out the next battle. It is a problem even when you play with zero no mans land settings and you find that some of your troops now are "isolated" within a patch behiond enemy lines. In this case, if the game has spaced them out as I have described (eg. potentially putting a previously well hidden ATG that ended last battle in woods now in open ground) the player can not nudge it back to where it was. Left in that new spot (just meters from where it originally was), the unit may find iteself in exposed open terrian and basically be dead meat once the battle commences. The only option is to move it out of that isolated setup zone completely and reposition it somewhere within your own lines but this is not what you want to do. I just can't see a reason why that must be the case. Lt Bull [ May 06, 2007, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

Hello I have been considering buying the bundle pack but the inactivity of this forum and reading many posts about errors connecting to the server and errors relating to MS Net Framework has made me think twice. Do I really need to downgrade my systems software to MS Net Framework v1.1 in order to play? Is it true the game can only run at a max res of 1024 x 768 otherwise you get graphical errors? Am I wrong in thinking that the apparently flakey server people have posted about is a result of admin negelct, because the game is at the end of it's life cycle and very few people are playing so it's not worth making it any better? Is this why this forum seems "dead"? Where is everyone? On average, how many people would you typically expect to see logged on to the server? Lt Bull

Absolutely. That would have been my weapon of choice for that situation. Perfect weapon for the job. BTW...I am unfamiliar with LiveLeak but when I watched the video, after it I saw links come up to other videos. One was of a 12year old Afghani boy who beheads a man suspected of helping the US. Although it was labelled as "censored" I started to watch it but then just couldn't watch it when I saw the boy with the blade in his hand and the blindfold go over the poor man. Did anyone else see it? Not many things disturb me but this kind of stuff just makes me sick and sorry for how ##@#ed up this world is. Lt Bull [ April 23, 2007, 04:38 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

Hey InvaderCanuck...if you contact me within the next few hrs by email we can try a TCP/IP game. I just happen to be up for one rigt now. Lt Bull

I completely agree with what has been said here about ToW, CMSF and regular CM. One thing I don't understand is what makes players/game designers think an RTS format could ever allow a player to sensibly manage, control, plan and execute with any level of satisfaction any "big battle" type game of the size and scope CM currently can handle or that somehow the RTS format of game somehow represents some kind of evolutionary game design panacea or apex towards which all games like CM will (and must) gravitate towards. ToW seems to have been born of this "delusion". RTS style games have their place, but for CM scope/level/depth/detail kind of games, forget it! Exactly what I thought. I just feel more involved and get more satisfaction from dedicating time and effort to playing CM. Agree. Mandating the player must control each soldier makes me worried about the practical gameplay implications of simulating large battles (greater than company) like in CM. Perhaps this is not the design intent. If it isn't, when will we ever see a true CM successor? I can't see myself NOT playing CMBB or CMAK anytime soon. Although admitedly I wasn't thrilled about the modern day setting, I have been impressed with what I have seen and read and look forward to CMSF and hope it is as good a game as what our faithful CM trios were. My real concern is whether the new CM engine will ever allow us to simulte the range, scale and scope of CM battles we have become so acustom to and fond of. The CM game concept (innovative use of WEGO turnbased system, attention to deatils, excellent use of abstractions, TacAI, PBEM etc) was a major step forward in many respects and dealt with the many limitations of virtually all RTS game systems (most relevant beign the Close Combat series): and that is to realistically simulate tactical battles involving many individual units on large maps that would otherwise be impossible for a player to sensibly and intelligently manage had it all been in the regular "real time" game format. This is why ToW or any other RTS will never be the "next big thing" if you are talking about a CM usurper. Lt Bull

I understood that solid objects like walls and buildings (or infantry being in a trench of course) would offer cover. However we can ignore buildings as "cover" for this discussion because any infantry unit behind a building trying to use it as cover would basically block the enemy LOS and LOF to it anyway. So is it then true to say that (except for trenches and walls) whenever ANY infantry unit is spotted by the enemy in ANY terrain, you may as well just forget about what terrain they appear to be in and just treat them as existing in open terrain for all incoming enemy fire? [ March 31, 2007, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

I too asked about this some time ago but got no real answer. I do know that units do not occupy discrete terrain tiles like they did in CM. They seem to be ALWAYS in open terrain. As far as what you physically see on the battlefield like a brush here or a tree and tree trunk there, I am unsure if they are just cosmetic or whether they actually affect anything in the game. eg. Should I move my squad behind that brush I see on the map to get more concealment or is any spot just as good as any other? My current perception is that all the foliage graphics you see in the game is just cosmetic and it is effectively like fighting on a CM map with all the terrrain graphics but in reality no matter where the unit is positioned on the map, it is still always consderd to be in "open terrian". I am hoping to be corrected. Bull

MikeyD, I have ben a fan of your work for some time now, but this latest offering just looks even more amazing. Great work, much appreciated. Now I just need to find a scneario that features these fine beasts. Open to suggestions (needs to be PBEM friendly). Bull

Darkmath All good questions. Been playing this game for so long and I don't know the answer. Looking for a definitive answer. Is the chance of spotting an infantry squad unit directly proportional to the number of men in that unit? ie. twice as hard to spot a 5 man unit than if it were a 10 man unit. Similarly, is the chance of killing a man in an infantry unit directly proportional to the number of men in the unit. ie. twice as likely to kill a man in a 10 man infantry unit than if it were a 5 man infantry unit. Would be interesting to know exactly how BTS handled this. Bull

Thanks tom for bumping the Concealment thread. Unfortunately I can't find a definitive answer to my rather fundamanetal question. Bull

Thanks tom Still can find a definitive answer to my questions however. :/

Despit being a CM disciple from it's genesis, this might be my first post in the CMSF forum I guess I was very much impressed with the latest screenshots I have seen that have certainly captured my attention and interest. Anyways, my simple question is one I have asked about ToW before. Will infantry/units be considerd to occupy "a" terrain tile like in CM and thereafter gain the "abstracted" cover/concealment benefits for occupying that terrain, or is it more like ToW where this does not apply and units physically are basically "always" considered to be in open terrain but gain cover from physically being "behind" solid objects physically represented graphically on the, like an individual solid tree trunk? How about movement speed? Bull [ February 20, 2007, 04:50 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

(kind of OT for this forum, but seeing it hasn't been moved (yet) I will chime in) I have downloaded and installed this. Unless I am mistaken you can only ply the demo in multiplayer. But when I log on to a server (a local one with a decent ping), the game just feels all buggy and laggy and wierd so I am not too impressed so far. I have NOT been able to play one decent normal game and end up just loggin off. It is either all laggy or choopy and I just give up because it isn't fun. Having played OFP this game just "feels" like the same game with better graphics (that is wahat it bascially is anyways). It is always hard to try and judge what the enemy (and friendly) AI can see. For example you may be in what you think is long grass or in brush but it is hard to judge how much concealment you really have. I mean if you physically took the scenery as verbatim, and put yourself in the enemy AIs shoes and looked at where you are in the grass or behind a bush, you would stand out very well but in the game the AI doesn't see you (unless you start shooting). Bull

This is another one of my concerns with the game design. That much of the terrain graphics you see in the game (such as vegetation, grass, trees, brush etc) does NOT affect the LOS/cover besides just looking nice. Infantry DO NOT occupy terrain like they do in CM. They are effectively ALWAYS considered to be occupying open ground as far as cover and concealment goes. Unless I can be told otherwise, this is my understanding. This has been discussed before. Bull

Where have you been and what took you so long? Someone else might be able to better advise you there. Yes, what you are doing is part of what you need to do. Alternatively, you can greatly enhabce the 3D visualisation of the terrain by using a height contrast gridded terrain mod. Check them out HERE . You can use CTRL+left click to jumo to a spot you point at with your mouse. Using the +/- button lets you cycle through from one unit to the next. TAB centres the camera view behind the unit selected. Press ENTER to view the unit stats. It won't tell you HOW to use the unit though, that's where you need to perhaps combine historical antecdotes on the unit with your own ingenuiity to work out how to best use the units at your disposal. You must also know your enemy! Consult your friendly weapons of WW2 website or book to get the historic low down of what you see in the game. There is a CMAK Companion book that may help in this resepct. Read more HERE. Enjoy the game. Make sure you play against a human opponent! Consult www.cmmods.com for graphical mods that can greatly enhance the visuals in the game.

Great thread. Good to see actual graphical comaprisons to actually clear up this seeimingly widespread misconception that the Sherman tank was abnormally tall/too high.

Thanks, I see now. I was aware of the two types but never really paid much attention (strange, as I have been playing for so long ) I guess the thing that made me think it may have been a bug is that the 3in Mortar FO is assigned a Transport Claass of 1, just like a regular squad or HQ unit, and nowhere in the unit details screen does it say that it can't be transported. Contrary, the Transport Class info indicates that it can. Bull