Jump to content

Derfel

Members
  • Posts

    200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Derfel

  1. Amizaur; Yeah, so did we... still hoping for a WEGO solution for CMBN but it seems far off... In the meantime a savable, not just pausable LAN game would be a great thing, I suspect that if you could pause and save and restart the game the crashes might be less of a problem since they seem to be a sort of cumulative problem... as I said; We live in hope...
  2. akd; Will do. If I had a save game it would be even better but since you can't save LAN/Internet game...
  3. Although I'm delighted that some attention has been given to my favourite mode of playing, head to head via a LAN, with the new pause function. LAN play is still somewhat less than stellar. I spent the weekend finding the limits of the 2.0 CMBN/CMFI LAN play and the results are a tad depressing; the largest map that can be played for anything longer than 20 minutes is 800 by 400 meters with a maximum of 15-20 units per side. Anything larger and the game will freeze some 25 - 35 minutes in, eventually resulting in a complete crash, sometimes taking the operating system with it forcing a restart of the computer. This, mind you, is on two computers that easily handles the large or huge scenarios in single player mode, they're connected via a gigabyte network unencumbered with other traffic and are literally standing right next to each other. How the game handles via the internet I don't think I want to know.. I experimented quite a bit and it always comes down to those three factors; 1. Map Size, the larger the map the quicker the game collapses. 2. Number of units, more units equals shorter time before the crash. 3. Time, the longer the scenario the greater the chance of the game crashing. You can actually tell when the crash is approaching as the time discrepancy between the two game clocks increase, in one instance we had almost a full minute's difference between the games. Also control of the game gets increasingly erratic. It's always only the "guest" computer that suffers the problems and the crash, usually the host can quite happily finish the game without noticing that the other computer has frozen. Happily our little group of players prefer small battles, our speciality is in fact Byte Battles, but it is sad being restricted to small maps as even Byte Battles sometimes need a bit of room to give the players tactical options. So has anybody out there done any better, is there something to do about this, except of course hoping that Battlefront finds the time to improve the LAN/Internet game? If so I'm all ears, if not; we live in hope.
  4. Excellent! I was almost about to try my hand at modding this eyesore myself, but now I don't have to. Keep those mods coming people, they're always welcome and very much appreciated! -Derfel
  5. Though this is somewhat under the heading of singing our own praises, we have been getting quite good comments on our "Byte Battles", have a look at our website, (www.kretsen.nu/bytebattles) perhaps you'll find something you'll like. They are almost all intended to be small, short and intensive. Also a number (well, the number is actually three... ;-)) of CW scenarios are in the pipeline and should be available after Easter. BTW folks, we are also looking for Beta testers for our Byte Battles, if you're interested go to the site and contact us at the email address there. -Derfel
  6. Yeah, modded british weapons! Thanks a bunch. BTW did that contraption really work? (the sleeve, I know the Vickers worked just fine) If so I guess it would be better than the mitten the Yanks used... (thinking of that scene in Pacific when some poor mutt carries the MG around getting his arm burned to a crisp)
  7. Thanks indeed! I must say your work gets better with each mod, I just installed the Staghound and the weathering is great! Please do the same to the Carriers if (when?) you do them. In pictures those things always look like they've been dragged thru every hedge in Normandy, backwards.
  8. Now that I've managed to pick my jaw off the floor I want to put in a question; Is anybody out there thinking of modding the churches? To my mind the stock versions are a little... underwhelming... I'd do it myself if a/I had the slightest inkling of how to do it and b/ I had a shred of graphical talent... since I possess neither I'm just hoping that someone will take this on. In any case I want to add my "Holy Crap! That stunning!" to the rest of the accolades, really looking forward to seeing these mods in the game. -Derfel
  9. @Statisoris: No, I do not. A matter of definitions, to be sure, perhaps I should use the phrase TCP/IP multiplayer We-Go or something like that. PBEM is simply to cumbersome to be a real alternative to the way we (my little group of gamers) prefer to play. Not knocking those that like or prefer PBEM of course, to each their own. -Derfel
  10. Personally I find it comforting to know that the Beta-guys are at it, the complete radio-silence of the Battlefront team made me, like others in this thread, wonder if they've decided to quit while they're ahead and had taken off for warmer shores... @Sixx: Thanks for teling us at least that much. Now get back to work. ;-) Completely useless information: In Swedish the word "Mouse" is sometimes used in the less than polite way that "Beaver" is in English. In the late 90's I worked as an education consultant to teach a lot of people to use PC's and let me tell you, it took a lot of nerve when facing a (usually less than enthusiastic) group of women to tell them: "Ladies, please grab your mouse"...
  11. @Rambler: Spot on! I too think I would give it around 75%, the game really is "bipolar" so many good thing and a few really strange ones (my pet peeve is of course the lack of multiplayer in WeGo mode and the lack of a pause function in the real-time MP, but there are others) @Bletchley Good point, when all the modules and patches are in place it will hopefully be more like 90%, CMSF really took great strides with each module so there's plenty of reason to hope for the best (even though I fear my personal peeves might not get addressed). -Derfel
  12. Yeah, that's the one. I should have guessed a Stockholmer would be interested in busting up Gothenburg. ;-) -Derfel
  13. If you feel like blasting your way through downtown Göteborg (Gothenburg) there is now a Scenario on the Byte Battler site that let's you do just that. The map is based on official late 1930's maps (though some adjustments had to made in the map editor). At the moment the scenario is only meant to be played from the attackers side, but it's still a WIP so there will be more possibilities later on. Let us know what you think, the address is on the site. -Derfel
  14. HI! Thanks for your input. We'll have a look at the scenario, especially the inaccessible field, I'm quite sure it used to be accessible... but strange things happen when you fiddle about with a scenario. A quick look at our test log shows that the German players won the first 8 out of 10 test games which might have led to some "downsizing" of the German force in terms of experience and leadership. In any case, a version 1.1 will be available shortly as we are updating a good few Byte Battles based on feedback from players. -Derfel
  15. Ahem... not to bang our own drum or anything, but the Bytebattler has just opened its doors again and I believe you might find what you're looking for there. The Bytebattler -Derfel
  16. Quick bump just to let you know that a new scenario has just been added. Others are on the way. -Derfel
  17. Heh! Sorry for the confusion, the "version 1.0" refers to the version of the scenario. When we make the scenarios they're named 0.1-9 until they are ready for release, that version is 1.0. After that they get new version numbers if we update them. I'll change the column name so this gets clearer. As for the different versions of the game; as I understand it scenarios made under V 1.0 are perfectly playable under V 1.01. -Derfel
  18. Thanks guys, more scenarios are in the proverbial pipeline. -Derfel
  19. Yes, folks, just like the seasons and certain skin diseases the Byte Battler will always return, and now it has. As before the idea is to host and inspire the creation of Byte Battles i.e small, intense scenarios. Usually, but far from always, intended for head to head play. The new site is a bit more basic than the old, a result of the move from a Microsoft to a Linux environment and a subsequent learning curve, but we're getting there. The Byte Battler Small but fierce. -Derfel
  20. Excellent work! As you're so kind as to take requests, here's one: A touch more weathering, especially around the gun barrel and the exhaust. From the pics I've seen it seems like once you fired the main gun a couple of times you basically had to sand blast the muzzle brake to get rid of the powder residue. Same with the exhaust, look at the Bovington Tiger when they drove it for a bit the other year, the exhaust system became sooty in no time. Of course in the meantime I'll happily use the present mod.
  21. Heh! I guess next Byte Battle will be "Byte Caddy Shack"... BTW Pete, if you read this, let us know if you've got any WIP. -Derfel
  22. OK, so I'm idly looking through the maps of various scenarios, hoping for inspiration for a new couple of Byte Battles (Yea, folks, the ol' Byte Battler is about to fling its doors open again). I note that most maps feel a little... contrived... (so do my own maps, no disrespect for the brave chaps who made the scenarios). Until you come to the work of Pete Wenman, these maps (Brecourt Manor and Crossroads at Montardrou among others) are absolutely stunning! Not only are they extremely pretty but they somehow feel right. My hat off to you, Sir! So if you're fiddling around with the map editor, wondering what it can do; have a look at these maps. The only problem is that these maps gives me an inferiority complex; personally I'm now planning a Byte Battle that takes place on a golf course... a very flat golf course... a very flat featureless golf course... -Derfel
  23. Thanks for the input, Steve. The position I'm advocating here is a gentle encouragement towards full WEGO TCP/IP which in no way should be understood as a some sort of ultimatum (it would be a fairly pathetic one wouldn't it?) No, I think most of us will buy the game, play the game and probably enjoy it greatly even without that one feature that we feel so greatly elevated the last one. And keep hoping that one day you'll find a way to put it in, while applauding every step that takes us closer. Now, you will of course say what you just stated; you know we want it, you guys want it and some version will hopefully appear eventually. However as any one advancing a minority interest knows, the task is to keep your particular interest as near the top of the agenda as possible without incurring (too much) wrath from the powers that be. Considering the shower of malcontents that always surface when you guys put out a new product I feel that a gentle reminder of our particular hobby-horse might not be a bad idea if we're not to be drowned in the clamor for running Bren tripods or intercontinental ballistic missiles or whatever. So; [Arnold voice] We'll be back... [\Arnold voice]
  24. @Blackcat: Well, people with even half a life will tell you that playing wargames is a waste of time and energy, so what's a little more waste? ;-) @sand digger: Tantrum throwing, though it seems to be an Olympic sport these days, is not what I mean with a calm and reasonable manner, I would for instance never argue for the delay of the game in order to include a particular feature, as long as the game works. I seem to recall that CMBO was at v 1.12 before TCP/IP play was implemented and that was ok by me. I will wait and see how the new game works out and every now and then I might write a gentle reminder that there are at least a few customers (as I said above, I rather think we're more than a few) that would like to see full WEGO multiplayer. Remember Cato's "Kartago Delenda Est" and remember what finally happened to Carthage... ;-)
  25. Indeed it IS sad news (even if it's not really new news) when a feature that made the previous series of games absolutely unique is dropped. There were and are a lot of RT games out there but as far as I know the CM system with WEGO and TCP/IP was the only one of it's kind and when combined with all the other virtues of CM... well, it was great fun. The people I've had contact with both personally and through my CM website (The Byte Battler) all seemed to play a lot of TCP/IP play, and though we probably are a minority (I've never actually seen any figures on this, has there been a poll or customer survey or something at some point?) we sure as hell were an active minority what with tournaments and scenario manufacture to suit the TCP/IP gamers etc So; will the lobbying for the full WEGO TCP/IP now stop? I don't think so, especially considering how fluid the game scene is, even in this small corner of it things have changed a lot over a comperatively short time. Many things that was once stated as improbable or even impossable has come to pass. As long as these lobbyists express themselves in a calm and reasonable manner I don't see why this should be a bad thing, hoping against hope is a great tradition.
×
×
  • Create New...