Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

WineCape

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,919

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by WineCape

    Armor far too accurate...

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    ...Cutting Bocage with the Rhinos Back..
    Driving backwards w/ Rhino tanks and ploughing in this way through bocage is a known bug. It was picked up during earlier Beta testing, was apparently fixed, but somehow reared its head [buttocks] again during release. AFAIK, Battlefront is aware of this as it has been reported on the relevant beta forums.
    0

    Cover Arc for Armour - I know, I know, but it's a biggie.

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I just wanted to ask if anyone knows if there are plans to include a 'Cover Vehicle Arc' in a future update? Is it high or low priority for BF?

    The official word is that Battlefront will have a re-look at the possibility of Armor Arcs at the next "major release, and not until then." That is when Battlefront will also have major changes in store for the User Interface (UI), i.e. to show (& have) more commands available with the redesigning of the game's UI. [The next major release = Battle of the Bulge family of games.]

    Reason = Armor Arcs have a major impact on the TacAi and it is not just a simple issue of plugging it into CMBN without other possible issues being tested together with this.

    0

    First Impressions (CM:BN Full Release)

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Having a ton of fun. Been away from the CM series for a couple of years aside from briefly playing CMSF. I'm very happy with what I am seeing here so far. Still learning the ins and outs of controlling the units and the camera to my satisfaction.

    We must all remember this is the first module of a multi part release. Many of my favorite units aren't in the game yet, but I can sure see the potential here as a scenario designer. I can remember after CMAK was released going back and redoing my old CMBO scenarios with the additional vehicles, details and goodies.

    Kudos to BF!

    JW

    Welcome back Spoon!
    0

    First Impressions (CM:BN Full Release)

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    - sometimes I see very small bugs, like dead guys lying contorted vertically off the ground, or guys marching along normally, but at an unusual angle to the ground (tilted back 15-20 degrees), the odd floaty weapon; gladly these bugs so far exclusively fall into the 'charmingly quirky' category rather than 'game-breaking'

    Good thoughts LemuelG,

    Can you send me a saved movie file of the above issue so I can have look at it (a FRAPS ingame snapshot = added bonus) as well as what system + video card + drivers you run CMBN on. I assume it's PC and not Mac?

    My email/PM details are in my profile.

    0

    Bocage + pathfinding = rage

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I prefer, after 11+ years on this forum, and seeing the extreme likes of Gaylord, Lewis et al, all the way to the not-so-wild-extremes.... Steve's way.

    At least he is consistent, even with our Beta testers, in that regard. My take on (extreme) Diplomacy? It's a manner of (extreme) rudeness -- heh, some British can excel in this manner to a high degree, sometimes :)

    0

    Bocage + pathfinding = rage

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    The reasonable reasoning man. Love that concept.

    Poster 1: "I have a complaint. It's legitimate. I say so, so it must be so."

    Reasonable Deduction 1: Maybe you have, maybe you don't. Who's to know, especially since no proof/evidence is forthcoming, only opinion, your observation, your conclusion. The issue might well be game breaking, annoying to various degrees, or plainly moot. Furthermore, it may/may not be an statistical outlier, and/or, the same method/goal can be reached via an alternate offered method XYZ in the mean time, on absence of providing some evidence/proof and only your conclusions/observations. Human response: possibly unreasonable complaint

    Poster 2: "I have a complaint. It's legitimate. Here some proof ..."

    Reasonable Deduction 2: Ahhh, yeah, given your evidence, not just your observation/conclusion, we might agree, or the parameters should change to reflect it clearer for us. Maybe there's no solution yet, and/or the suggested alternative might not be ideal, but it's offered and here it is. Human response: possibly reasonable complaint

    The Reasonable Man Concept will dictate thus: actively help Poster 2 given time allowance. Poster 1, on the other hand, will in all likelihood get a "combative, standoff" reply/counter point - not unreasonable to believe so. Poster 2 might, as a bonus, even get a future invite from BFC to be a Beta tester -- he seems a reasonable reasoning man! Poster 1.... ehhh....not so reasonable.

    0

    Bocage + pathfinding = rage

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I found BFC response to the OP's so called 'deductive reasoning' appropriate. Combative? And? Certainly no flame, rudeness or downright ad hominem attack was seen.

    Just because you find, imaginative or real, certain x feature/Method frustrating makes certainly not the 'logical' observation/deduction they should have done away with the theatre altogether. Thank God such reasoning is not prevalent among BFC testers/makers, as no game would have seen the light of day. Ever.

    0

    Armor far too accurate...

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I dont say you are wrong, or CMx2 is wrong or CMx1. I just see that its lots of different results to Cmx1 and thats what disturbing ppl about it. I dont have a Problem with Accuracy in Game. I trust you with it. When you say Tank xy or Gun xy has a 90% Hit Probabylity on First Shot at x Meters then be it! Dont need to mess with the Experts there.

    But what about the Reaction Times of Tanks? After a Commander Spots a Unit and transfer it to his crew.

    Is there any "C2" Infopassing from Commander to Gunner etc? Feels like the Tanks reacting instant after spotting?

    Taki, there may well be a problem with the shooting on the move at certain distances and/or reaction time of gunners, given the small sample and what has been reported so far. BFC/Testers will look at this issue, and try to get 'some meaningful sample' from a specially created scenario, to come to some observation/comparison/conclusion versus stationery shooting. It may well be these two hit% categories (mobile/stationery) are just too close to one another in results, given certain specific parameter conditions, and Charles will then decide what to do with the issue.

    This all takes time, and we thank you (and others) for bringing this under BFC's attention. However, if only a very small % of players report this issue, it might also be an statistical outlier result, and BFC might not be inclined to look at it for now, given other pressing matters, time and priorities. PS: Note that a minority of players, reporting a specific issue, will also not be ignored out of hand.

    0

    Armor far too accurate...

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    One thing that can always be counted on... someone with 10 hours of gametime seems to know more than dozens of people with thousands of hours of gametime AND the guys that made the game. Love it :)

    Anecdotal testing is useless for anything other than raising a question which leads to more serious, rigorous testing. This is as true for a customer as it is for a tester, or even me for that matter. What is needed is a statistically valid sample set from a scientifically valid test scenario.

    Usually the first attempt at a test environment isn't right either, as some variables are included that should be excluded, or variables that are excluded which should be included. The peer-review process of any experiment is critical and here is one of the most important areas because SO OFTEN the test parameters are flawed in some significant way.

    Once the test range and variables are themselves scrutinized and adjusted, a large enough sample size needs to be generated, tabulated, and analyzed. The results are then compared against real life data as best as it can be. The LAST thing that happens is conclusions are drawn.

    At present, you guys are still at the beginning of step one... anecdotal observation. Until you've gone through all of the above steps, including (and MOST IMPORTANTLY) the peer-review stage, there's no case to be made. Steve

    ABOVE_SHOULD_BE_FRAMED_AND_HANDED_OUT_AT_PICKETS.

    ---> With this on the reverse side of the placate: We're is not saying people are wrong. We're saying they don't have the evidence to make a claim that we're wrong.

    0

    Modest Interface Requests: "Done" Button

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    As someone who has recently transitioned from realtime to WEGO play in CM, I find myself making the bone-headed mistake of hitting the big red "Done" button when I'm not yet ready. This sometimes happens during the playback phase, when I've paused my review of the action and then make the mistake of hitting "Done" instead of "Play" to get it going again. But it's worse when I'm in the orders phase and hit "Done" accidentally or because my brain isn't sure I'm actually out of the playback.

    I propose the following simple changes:

    1) Make "Done" a different color during the playback and orders phases, so the player will have immediate visible feedback on its function in the current phase.

    2) Ask for confirmation when ending either phase, or at least the orders phase. I know some people will wail "But that adds a whole 'nother mouse click to the turn!", but it seems a small price to pay for peace of mind during PBEM. It's just too easy to accidentally blow a whole turn right now.

    3) I'd also be happy with a more obvious visible distinction between the orders and playback phases. Maybe "Playback" could be superimposed over the otherwise-dormant orders button block of the interface during playback.

    I think these changes will make it harder to make simple, irrevocable mistakes that can ruin a game. This will be especially helpful for those who play late at night with a beer in the other hand.

    You have my support on this.
    0

    Barkmann's Corner

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Guys, play it two or three times and note how the AI makes different attacks . . . This one really shows the replayability of scenarios in CMBN!

    Steve

    Indeed, the Allied AI does not follow always the same attacking path. Played tested it 5 times as Axis, on Iron/Elite. In not one instance did our intrepid Barkmann scored less then 14 AFV's taken out, even running out of ammo on 3 occasions. A turkey shoot par excellence. A brilliant scenario to get you that uber feeling, until the next scenario....

    I tip my hat to Jaws.

    0

    is there a mount command and

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I think this was a bad design decision. While I agree a crew that is broken, shaken, etc would not get in another tank, a crew that is not in a bad state would when ordered. Tanks were taken over by different crews for many reasons.
    Indeed some were. Though this is not the real issue here. Charles decided, among a list of thousands of possible features, if not more, that this is they way it will be, given his programming time, his priorities, the law of diminishing returns if he spends too much time programming X feature to a further degree, at the expense of features ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ, given the fact that other features also need to be addressed and simulated/abstracted to a certain extent. So he does the best he can do, he programs some limited re-crewing in certain specific instances.

    The point is, if he programmed all the "design decisions" everybody wants and needs, we still be awaiting CMBO. It's a financial decision, made by Charles/Steve. And since it's financial, I doubt Battlefront would be hemorrhaging monies if a specific issue/feature is not to (some) people's X-degree of simulation and/or liking.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...