SenorBeef

A small request, but ideally a small fix. Have the game engine 'remember' what state the kills/stats window was in when it was closed (that is, whether it was displaying kills or stats). Normally, this is a minor issue, but it's been annoying me lately at one point: At the end of the game. Now that we have FOW-free end of game kill screens (thank you), I go through all of my units to see how many kills each gets. The problem is that, because the kill window takes up a third of the screen, and I can't tell which unit I'm looking at, so I have to close the kill window to get a better view. Well, when I open it again, it'll be in 'stat' mode, so I'll have to manually click the kill mode again. Once or twice, no big deal - but I usually have to do this with 75%+ of my units at the end of the battle if I want to see their kills, and so it's quite time consuming. If it stayed in kill mode after it was closed, I could just hit enter, view the location, and hit enter again. Or, failing a permanent toggle state, a key or key combination to switch it to kill mode, which would be quicker than using the mouse. Oh, also, put me wholeheartedly into the "Toggle option for old CM scroll/camera movement style" camp.

EXTREMELY unlikely.

CMBO didn't model vehicle morale, so there were no "broken" vehicles. Only abandoned and knocked out ones.

I'm guessing tank crossings were 'operational' movements, rather than tactical - with engineer support and everything - and would be inappropriate for an ongoing battle. Could be wrong.

I believe the manual says that the whole platoon stops as soon as one squad comes into contact - and that has been my experience. I was playing in a game where I was trying to attack an enemy position in the woods. I couldn't see them directly, but I knew they were in there - so I gave all of my squads independent move to contact commands through the woods. Well, the lead squad spotted the enemy platoon - and the whole platoon stopped. Only the lead squad was in LOS of the enemy troops - the others stopped out of LOS. Which meant the whole enemy platoon could concentrate fire on that one squad. Very unpleasant. Anyway, I think this removes the usefulness of the command. The idea behind the command is that you want to move your squads into position where they can attack enemy that they don't yet see - typically through woods and such - but the whole platoon stops as soon as anyone is spotted, typically leaving one of your squads to fend for itself. It would seem much more logical to have the contact command evaluated on a per-squad/unit basis - that way, your men would move until they all made contact with the enemy, and you could bring the appropriate force to bear. It makes more sense. Perhaps when they're given a move to contact/hide command, where they want to maintain stealth, in that case, the whole platoon can stop when one squad makes contact - but the current setup makes move to contact entirely useless for me.

The cease fire feature in CM, if done by both sides, ends the battle - so it definitely is an official cessation of hostility. I'm pretty sure the cease fire option has no affect on the way the AI plays, other than whether or not it accepts the cease fire.. so I think you have a false impression of what the cease fire feature does. My guess is that signally for a cease fire publically signals weakness. If both you and your opponent are out of steam, and aren't really sure how much force each other has left.. and you signal for a cease fire, the enemy might feel confident enough to destroy you. Whereas if you both (secretly) request one, it'd go through. Well, that's my only guess. If that's the case, an option for secret or public cease fires might be nice.

Not true. Granted, he has to hop into the gunners seat to make a shot, but being buttoned up represents closing and locking all the hatches.

Well, the demo only has a certain set of units and textures and stuff for terrain - so if they only released a new map, we'd only be able to play on the same terrain with the same unit types.. they'd have to release an 'update pack' or something if they wanted a significantly different mission.

Oh, and if you're making a new waypoint, backspace won't clear it. You have to click to place it, then delete it. In CMBO, if I remember correctly, hitting backspace while placing a waypoint will 'negate' the command, like hitting X when placing a target will get rid of the targetting line.

The mouse scroll areas on the screen are somewhat broken. I mean.. when you hold it to the top right, you turn right and move forward, right middle, you turn right, etc. When the mouse is moved to the bottom left corner, it moves back and turns left properly. But when moved to the lower right corner, nothing happens - no screen movement. The whole corner is dead, not just the very edge of the corner, and so "back" and "right" movements in the area also don't work right. Also, the 'zones' that control which way you move seem to be slightly changed from CMBO.. if they were adjusted to match it would make my CMBO habits properly move the CMBB screen.

First post in 2 years. I just wanted to be one of the firsts on the new forum.

Spoke too soon, just found it in the archives: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=019304

I brought this up a while back here. BTS weren't friendly to the idea of exporting battle results into a text file. I tried searching for the thread, but I can't find anything I've ever posted here - it looks like they lost or reset the database since I last posted here, which was several months ago.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iron Duke: **Bump** Just getting is out of the "ether" guys. Just as a side note...is there any interest out there for a third AKoTM? If so, please chime in. And remember...I need 32 souls for this. Out. [ 09-09-2001: Message edited by: Iron Duke ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> *grumble*

Pondscum better win, or I'll be embarassed having lost to him

You guys forgot about the quantom flag teleporter. CM realistically models this - in game, you can press shift-f, and your flags are magically teleported into subspace until you call them back.

One more request: Even if you decide not to implement the whole idea, at least outputting the AARs to text should be very simple - and that would allow, at least, half of my proposal. With just the output AARs, files could be read and 'interpreted', as far as what units did what - and then those interested in the campaign would have to manually look at that program and manually add each unit to the editor. But thats alot better than manually doing everything. So if you could at least output the AARs to text, which is definitely the simpler of the two things I requested, I can still make something of it. Thanks for your consideration.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rollstoy: There are programs called "Hex-Editors" that enable you to view the .exe file byte for byte. You can then identify ASCII character strings within the .exe. Regards, Thomm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I figured as much - I was just curious how he knew "not associated with any models".. I suppose he simply meant that they're not in the game. Or by the location in the file.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Hi guys, There are currently 3 entities that have been requesting some sort of API data input/output functionality. Senorbeef, Killmore, and a guy from Australia (doesn't post here much). While providing an API is *certainly* easier to do than writing a whole campaign system ourselves, it isn't a simple 5 minute thing. We have, on numberous occasions, discussed this issue at great length. The problem for us is still one of time. Charles figures it would take about 2-4 weeks to code up and document an API interface. It isn't as simple as some my think to do this. The documenting aspect, which is required for this to work, is part of why it will take that long. He will also have to code up routines that will allow the imported data to be utilized by the system. Currently, for obvious reasons, there is no way to dump data into the game from an external source which is NOT a save game file. Since we refuse to give out the save game file format, another method has to be written up. Will we ever take the time to do this? Probably. Will we do it prior to the release of CMBB? No. That is all we have to say on the matter for now. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you want, to save some time, or see if its practical, I can write up the specs for the file format we'd hypothetically use, and do some psuedocode to show how input/output would work. Or not. If you've made up your minds, I can respect that, as much as I disagree.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lindan: I think it's realistical not to expect this kind of things before the engine rewrite. Lindan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Er, I've mentioned several times that what I ask for isn't going to fundamentally change anything already in the game - it would require 2 add-on functons. One would output data that is ALREADY generated and kept track of - it would simply output it to a file, rather than to the screen. The other is a bit more complex - but not hugely so. It would translate a text file of unit lists into whatever format BTS uses internally. This is also and 'add on' function, not requiring the internals to be entirely reworked, as far as I can see. And to Eric: I'd probably be most of the logic in c++, and the interface in VB, its easier that way. [ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tecumseh: I know little about WW2 and the names mean nothing to me, but grogs may be interested in this. These are the vehicle names in CM's raw code that are not associated with a model. I guess at some point BTS considered including these. Sd Kfz 7/2 Flak vehicle Sd Kfz 6/2 Flak vehicle Brummbar Mobelwag Panzer IIIF Marder I Sd Kfz 135/2 SPH 4.7cm PaK auf Pzkw 35R(f) Sd Kfz 2 Kelten Kraftrad PSW 222 PSW 232 8-Rad PSW 233 PSW 234/4 armoured support car sIG 33/1 Grille sIG 33/2 auf Jpz 38(t) Sturmtiger Aufklarer Flakpanzer Stuart I Valentine Tetrarch Tetrarch CS Locust (i may have made a spelling mistake or two)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Where are you getting this "raw code" from, out of curiosity?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dilger: I have posted reguarding this issue once before and got very little in the way of feedback. CM is the best tactical level WW2 game I have ever played and I feel confident that extended campaigns would only expand the impact of this game. The long term strategy and logistics required to command an organization (ie platoon, company, battalion..etc) over the period of weeks or even months on the Western front would greatly increase the depth of this game while making the single player aspect of gameplay infinitly more enjoyable. Personal command is completely addicting! Is there any reason why campaign gameplay has been left out? Is there any chance that it will be included in CM expansions or CM2? Does anyone else find they would like to see a more traditional campaign mode in CM?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I proposed a campaign system by which BTS would have to do minimal work a while back. No reply from them. Campaign proposal

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: I guess I'll give 'er a push...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BONE PROPELLER

My anus is hurting, badly. I'm down to just 8 sherman jumbo 76es