IMHO
-
Posts
1,054 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by IMHO
-
-
19 minutes ago, landser said:
And with how precious campaigns are in the Combat Mission world, not having these modules restricts our choices more than they already are.
I'd disagree. CM is different from other games since it offers every gamer an ability to make his/her very own game in no time. Aside from CMxx I play ARMA3 and HOI4. You cannot make your own games in HOI whatsoever and any descent scenario for ARMA3 requires scripting and good command of the engine so next to impossible for an "average" unless you can invest hundreds of hours into learning the object model and methods.
-
1 hour ago, Bagpipe said:
So clear this up for me too please, if they upgrade the engine you have to pay for the upgrade on every game you own if you want to run that upgraded engine on your game yeah?
-
If my memory does not fail me we've had just two major engine upgrades for the past 21 years of CM series existence
And the first engine upgrade was released via new games rather than altering existing games so you didn't really need to invest more into the games you already own - old games stayed on the old engine and you got a new engine simply by buying a new game. Second engine upgrade was released step by step for the newest games in the portfolio (newest back then ). But you had to buy this upgrade just once and it upgraded all the games that you own that were meant to be upgraded. If I remember correctly it was 10 bucks whereas new games costed 40 bucks back then. Again 10 bucks in past 21 years and you got it all in one And those were TOTALLY different and MUCH improved games after the engine release. Minor upgrades come in patches and they are free.
-
May be there were paid upgrades for WWII titles - I don't know. After CMBS I stopped playing WWII titles though I own two full sets of them as well. I didn't know I can reuse Win keys for Mac platform so bought a second full set by accident
- There are modules that add to your unit roster - they cost money but you really need to buy them only if you're either into "authentic looks" or you want some specific set of equipment or units that significantly alters the gameplay. I'm not a big fan of the former so I own only Marines for CMSF1/2. Three full strength fire teams, AAVs and Milkor do change how you play the game IMO.
So basically the CM business model is (or was - let's see what Slitherine will do to the game
) different from big Triple-A titles. Yes, you pay more upfront but basically that's it. You don't need to burn monies every year or half a year to stay in the game.
1 hour ago, Bagpipe said:I guess to strangers the pricing structure is just a little excessive in appearance. I suppose the confusion probably stems from other developers not ever upgrading the engine of one game in particular so the situation never really arises in the general gaming industry.
The question is will there be more revenue if BTS changes the business model. Will more gamers flock to the titles should BTS lowers the bar? I really doubt. CM is a VERY special game made for VERY special audience. If you like it - you'll buy anyway and if you don't - you won't bring your monies irrespective of the price. E.g. up-to-date GAME MECHANICS in EU4 will set you for $200-$300, up-to-date HOI4 - $150-$200. And when I say GAME MECHANICS I mean it. Without major DLCs you're playing TOTALLY DIFFERENT game from the rest of "the bunch". You have nothing to speak about with other players, guides and tutorials are useless etc. Good strategy/tactical game is expensive to develop so if the costs are allocated to a smaller audience you have no choice but to charge more for individual title. I'd say in terms of bang for a buck BTS is super-efficient.
-
If my memory does not fail me we've had just two major engine upgrades for the past 21 years of CM series existence
-
5 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:
I also made a few minor adjustments to the American AI and reduced their combat power ever so slightly
Will this new version automatically overwrite the old one if I ever update? I'm using BFC distro not the Steam. If it will be overwritten can the older version be put somewhere? I do prefer a "harder one"
PS I think the discontent is partly due to how well placed all kinds of AT assets are. Were it not so carefully thought over - people would have waltzed through with no forum discussions. Actually each time my observers revealed a new one I was marveling the placement. And I liked well-timed retreat orders. Not one time I was right in the middle of carefully positioning my infantry to "ambush the ambusher" when the enemy suddenly redeployed and I had to start over again
It was exactly long enough to delay my progress yet not too long to save the units to fight another day. Exceptional scenario!
-
Incendiary pigs!!! May be different flavors for NATO and Warsaw Pact!
-
9 hours ago, Bagpipe said:
I guess I am just struggling to justify the full price of another module when i already have CMCW.
Like, If you have invested in the game engine (i.e. bought one game already)...
They are not modules - they are different games. Gameplay is totally different. What you can get away in CMSF2 you cannot with CMCW and what is okay for CMCW is not for CMBS. And WWII titles are another beast unto itself. So they are not DLCs to a common base game. As per real modules in "CM speak" look into the TO&E. Like I bought CMSF/CMSF2 Marines to get 13 strong rifle squads, high capacity AAVs and Milkor MGL. Infantry combat feels sufficiently different with them when compared to US Army rifle squad with no CDTE.
-
14 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Yep, main issue on the M774 was availability if I recall. That and the usual military acquisition song and dance.
And thanks for making this happen! CMCW is incredibly well designed and full of most enjoyable content!
-
On 7/21/2021 at 8:30 PM, danfrodo said:
They've got the 105mm L/56 m68A1, compared to the 105mm L/62 m68 of the M60s.
M68/L52 and M68A1/L56, no? M68A1 after some time used a reinforced breach allowing bigger pressure / higher muzzle velocities.
@The_Capt, if I'm not mistaken M774 can be fired from older breaches. Only M900 required a stronger breach - differentiated by breach serial number. Am I right? -
On 6/30/2021 at 12:52 AM, ASL Veteran said:
I think it's pretty obvious that the main issue most have with this thing is the setup zone
On 6/30/2021 at 12:52 AM, ASL Veteran said:I probably could have had everything come in north behind the mountain, but then no doubt someone would be complaining and wondering why everything is coming in behind the mountain and not on the road.
I had few replays and there has never been any problem with the main road INSIDE the setup zone. I really doubt TOW can hit anyone there - it'd hit the trees before it reaches any target. Sure there's a potential danger with TOWs hitting the reinforcements placed in the wide open but they're vulnerable enough to potential air support so they have to be hidden immediately in any case. The road OUTSIDE of the setup zone is dangerous but driving along it does not look safe anyway so why should it be a problem?
-
On 6/29/2021 at 9:07 AM, Geoff-Ludumpress said:
Map is great but I would change the footbridge to a wide bridge - options for the tanks
Nah, that will kill all the fun. If you make the footbridge accessible to the tanks then you don't need to fight for the main bridge at all. You just clear the forest and take all your heavy force behind the US lines and win easily. Too easy - no fun.
On 6/29/2021 at 9:07 AM, Geoff-Ludumpress said:consider a longer map edge so incoming units are not in direct LOS to pre-sighted AI.
- Firstly it's somewhat narrow firing lane.
- Secondly it's an an easy setup, immediately discoverable. Compare that to Debaltsevo in CMBS.
- There's no pre-sight for AI AT assets - it still takes full time to discover your units, target and fire. You have to consider possible enemy AT assets in the nearest buildings and overlooking hills. Add to that pre-planned barrages on setup zones and heavy air-support in CMCW that happen sometimes and you'd see you need to safely hide your units the first second they appear. Driving "those pesky command units/vehicles" across a wide open terrain for more than 10secs is definite ticket for disaster as well IMO.
PS @ASL Veteran both the map and scenario is great! IMO they are meant to be challenging!
-
On 5/4/2021 at 8:00 PM, Green Clutch said:
Am I missing something?
On 5/7/2021 at 7:09 PM, slysniper said:The designer has more than explained now that the method is to use the infantry to move through the woods and to clear the enemy with arty and atgm's.
Guys you have to play CMBS more
RUS vs US or Excellent RUS (BMP-3/T-90) vs UKR Thermals teach to:
- Never ever move armor to a place that can be fired at from a place that has not been under observation by two observer teams for at least a minute (and two-three minutes is much-much better).
- Count seconds for your vehicle exposure. 3secs for APs, 5secs for HEATs, 10secs for TL/ATGMs at medium distances. That is the time for the actual exposure - vehicles take some time to drive out of the view.
-
Use pop-and-hide multiple times to trigger a shot and thus force a lengthy reload for an enemy armor. That reveals enemy armor position as a bonus if you have eyes to look at
- Find unconventional observation angles for observer teams. Putting even 1-2 psn observation teams in front of enemy armor with thermals is a sure recipe for disaster. Even 1.0-1.5km distance is not enough - thermals can sometimes acquire targets pretty quickly.
-
Be greedy with the number of people in observation teams. One guy is waaaay better than two and two is always better than three. Yes, you'd need more time to dwell upon the battlefield but you'd keep your guys alive. Hopefully
How CMCW is easier than CMBS (so far
):
- No Javs that can be fired from inside the buildings with impunity.
- No thermals for US infantry.
- Relatively few thermals for US armor.
PS
-
CMCW is a really great game!
-
Czechmate is a really great scenario
-
On 7/31/2021 at 3:03 PM, Artkin said:
Arma never was quick to load until Arma 3. And that was after a lot of time too. Arma 3 took a very long time to mature.
-
I've been playing both franchises for about 20+ years so I remember the timeline OFP: ColdWar is 2001 whereas the first CM - CMBO - is 2000. ARMA2 is June, 2009 whereas CMSF is July, 2007. BUT ARMA3 is Sept, 2013 and CM Engine 4 is Dec, 2016 (but more like Jan, 2017 ). So CM had more time to mature at first but later on fell behind. I'd call it a a pattern of progressive underinvestment into the engine So it'd be interesting to know how many people really understand CM engine internals by now...
-
We can discuss AI/Scripting side if you're into it. I sometimes play with ARMA3 scripting when I'm fed up with selling PMs/BAs/QAs/Coders and want to vent it out with hands-on coding
On 7/31/2021 at 3:03 PM, Artkin said:I assume OpenGL draws everything on the map at once. Where as DirectX only draws when you look in that direction or get closer. This is my assumption.
-
Don't know how it works
But I kinda doubt you cannot customize viewport rendering in OpenGL. My guess is massive downside with going DirectX path goes with all those versions of Windows, DirectX, GPU drivers. It'll multiply your development/testing effort. But on the upside you can utilize GPU resources whereas CM cannot use more than 20%-40% of a platform's computing resources.
- Loading time certainly has nothing to do with OpenGL/DirectX. My first guess would be there's no pre-loading/pre-processing the maps - every time we load CM engine "starts fresh". And secondly it's most probably an architectural problem - too many layers, using "consumer" libs or being too high level with abstractions.
-
All those things will end up in bottom line of Steam sales channel. Those are not the folk used to "CMesque experience". I kinda think CMCW is a swan song of CM
-
I've been playing both franchises for about 20+ years so I remember the timeline
-
On 7/27/2021 at 2:53 PM, Artkin said:
Cmcw really does run incredible. I would estimate a 1.3- 1.5x gain over CMFB (The last game they made). And I would estimate a 3-5x gain over titles like CMBN and CMSF.
It's craaazy. I was able to run the largest map ever made for CM. 5.7km x 5.7km... Played in real time.
It takes me about a 1.0-1.5 minutes to load a "big" CMCW game like a Czechmate. Save is somewhat faster - 1.33-1.5 times faster, yet even for them 40-60secs is kind of unbearable. ARMA3 takes 15-20 secs to load a real 3D game with all its glitz. It seems current CM engine has waaaaay overstayed its welcome.
-
Seems like everyone has to play CMBS before playing CMCW
Specifically RUS vs US or at least UKR vs RUS.
SPOILERS!!!QuoteIMHO playing vs AI the only thing to fight for is the forest on the Blue's right flank / Red's left. Whoever controls this - slaughters the other side. Built-up area in the center can be a minor remedy yet taking one's armor there incurs significant penalty if one does not control the forest. Like in CMBS - concentrate all your forces to seize the controlling features and play for delay for the rest of the map. If you bother at all.
PS CMCW is pure gold! Kudos to the team - arguably the best release ever!
-
On 5/5/2021 at 10:19 AM, CaptainTheDark said:
Because it's RT, I didn't see whether they ever downed a plane.
If they down one you'll see a tool tip over the lucky team
-
On 6/26/2021 at 8:40 PM, womble said:
I was working at a defense show the other year. A client had some gear mounted on a vehicle that they had to make sure they absolutely did not turn on by accident, because the bill for fried mobile phones would be astronomical. And it wasn't aimed at mobile phones.
I'd rather care more about MW relays.THAT would foot quite a bill if one factors is the inevitable consequences
-
On 6/26/2021 at 11:46 PM, db_zero said:
Maybe they can figure out a way to direct the microwaves in specific directions or arcs from which the drone threat is coming from
If one can do this one can get at least a coarse track on an F-35/F-22. Not so many nations have this capability
-
8 hours ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:
it’s true what they say about tone being lost when you write on the internet, it was intended to be tongue in cheek but clearly that was lost so apologies.
That's why smileys were invented
Apologies on my side for this misunderstanding. Let's leave it as lost in translation
-
21 hours ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:
In the biz we call that a workaround. It’s a naff one but I suppose it does work.
You don't know anything about me so don't patronize. Next time write in the post you're just venting your anger and not really seeking an advice. So we may duly disregard your creative thought.
-
On 6/2/2021 at 6:50 PM, Probus said:
I haven't seen it mentioned but has anyone had a problem with saving a game over another game and the new save not being saved (new .bts file not written)?
Delete the save file in File Explorer first. Then you'll be able to have a proper save under the same name.
FYI @Kevin2k
-
On 5/1/2021 at 5:47 PM, rogue189 said:
I started playing the American campaign yesterday, but found that the game would not override the save file if I used the same file name. I accidently started with a real-time game, but then switched to turn based. I played the first mission for about 15 minutes and kept saving with the same file name, but when I reloaded the game, it was back to turn one of my real-time game.
Try deleting your save file first via Explorer and then saving under the same name via the game.
FYI: @Monty's Mighty Moustache, @umlaut, @RigTom
-
1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:
There are a few different shades of Soviet green that appears in the game. Not my call on that decision. I think the T-64As and BMP-1s in the screenshots I posted look the best.
Since you mentioned it
- CMCW screenshots that I've seen represent a Soviet Army field uniform. But in reality GSVG frontline troops were to fight in camo (Berezka at that time). Refer to Zapad exercises photos.
- For tanks/BMPs and other frontline equipment there were military district specific colors - e.g. GSGV and TurkVO used different ones.
- Comparing your and @BFCElvis screenshots - yours look perfect but for TurkVO (unlike GSVG) and @BFCElvis 's are kind of way off the mark. GSVG used a deeper green anyway unlike TurkVO.
- But most of all helmets are unnatural. They were colored at the production plant - so the same color for everyone and it was deeper green.
- If you want I can provide you the samples of old Soviet colors of 80s.
-
19 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:
You must have missed what sparked the discussion: https://imgur.com/FIB5gco - someone clearly thought there was something strange about this feat. The view from the turret was shown here.
I see now. The tank was looking (and was seen) through the tree trunks so with my preference for CMBS I didn't get the point. I'd say if someone has ever seen forests with little undergrowth (say mostly birch or many of pine forests) it would be an example of how CM is good rather than bad at representing concealment. In most (or rather all
) games we just get a generic forest with no differentiation between LOS through trunks or tree crowns. And in CMBS it does matter.
PS Am I using "tree crown" correctly?
-
8 minutes ago, Dr.Fusselpulli said:
Was the color of the soviet tanks changed? I have the feeling they are looking much better now compared to previous pictures. Now they have exactly this proper yellowish green which I was looking.
Without a properly color metered display one can hardly guess.
-
48 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:
That little BP and what happened in the next couple of minutes broke @Trasher's will to continue.
?
In my experience LOS in CMBS is pretty predictable. Just one needs to think not in terms of WYSIWYG but in terms of those ellipsoids-for-tree-crowns and tree trunks (that are not much of a concealment yet block the shells pretty well). IMO CMBS uses the best possible proxy for discovery - everything else would have increased the load hundreds of times for negligible improvement in gameplay. My guess is we have this discussion in CMBS thread because discovery in CMBS is maxed out so the difference between LOS and LOF is minimal. In my experience it's rather the opposite for CMBS - in many cases pixeltruppen tend to open fire having a clear LOS but no clear LOF. But guess there should be some logic in LOS-LOF buried deep down in the code. Yet TacAI way of thinking seems clear and predictable IMO.
And the first engine upgrade was released via new games rather than altering existing games so you didn't really need to invest more into the games you already own - old games stayed on the old engine and you got a new engine simply by buying a new game. Second engine upgrade was released step by step for the newest games in the portfolio (newest back then 
But I kinda doubt you cannot customize viewport rendering in OpenGL. My guess is massive downside with going DirectX path goes with all those versions of Windows, DirectX, GPU drivers. It'll multiply your development/testing effort. But on the upside you can utilize GPU resources whereas CM cannot use more than 20%-40% of a platform's computing resources.
How often do sales come up on the BF website?
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted · Edited by IMHO