Gun Dog

Oops.. My fault on the previous post. I have summarized two members responses because I think they make my point better than I had on my original. I hope Battlefront takes these valid opinions into consideration when designing future games. Thanks. Gun Dog

I want to set up my own battles, but it seems an unreasonably tedious task finding and setting up my units prior to combat. It appears that units larger than a platoon are distributed along the board edge without any real rhyme or reason. Therefore, I have to 'hunt down' all my units from along the map edge and organize them into company sized elements. and then place them where I need them. Although it is not the end of the world, it seems that an easier way to see your units using a TO&E/unit heirachy surely should exist. Would a setup screen where the scenario designer could click on a given unit or HQ's and have ALL it's subordinate units highlighted for easy placement. That way, for example, all of 'A' Companys units (including weapons platoon)are available at a glance, easy to find and easy to set up. Large battles are partuclarly tedious becuase of having to scroll the sheer number of units to find something. This would also have a second benefit. It would allow me to see at a glance the units at my disposal. I HATE missing that 120mm Spotter in the trees and not realizing I had it until the game began. Some have criticsed this as 'gamey', but I say it is a tool for scenario designers. Not a gamey feature. Actually, in real life, commanders generally know what units they have under their command. Especially if it is an attached or OPCONed unit with unique capability... like an arty spotter. So... has there been any consideration or real discussion to a set up screen to assist in keeping units along TO&E lines during set up as opposed to the seeming random way units are distributed along the board edge?? Thanks.

It is supposed to help you see the lay of the terrain a bit easier.

"...You aint worth it?" Wow! That one line was a bit rough, no matter what the nationality of the author. As for the original posting, I think the author might see an improvemnt in some of the graphics if he downloads the various hi-res mods.

Gun Dog, havn't you seen the tile mods for CMBO where people have exaggerated the land's color brightness/darkness? In other words, the higher the land, the lighter color of the grass. The lower the land, the darker the grass gets. These mods help a player gauge the overall 3D of the terrain, even from a birds eye view.</font>

Yes. I also have 'driven' across the terrain, but that kinda misses the point of my post. I would like to step back a level or two and see the overall terrain. IMO, 'driving' across the terrain is somewhat 'gamey'. A real commander could not reasonably expect to drive into every nook and cranny looking for a covered avenue of approach. Instead, I imagine he would assess the terrain from a vantage point and give his marching orders from there, based on what he sees. Since the terrain is already in 3-D, I wonder if some system of highlights/shadows would be an overwhelming task to put into some future iteration of this remarkable game.

I have not seen this posted before, so here is my request for the next CMBB patch or CM3 game. Is it possible for the current engine to more realistically visually represent 3-D terrain? For example, under current system, I have a difficult time 'seeing' and therefore taking advantage of the the subtle differences in terrain. Sure, I can download a grid for CMBB and the differing color of terrain also helps, but I think I would find it more helpful still if the game could incorporate some sort of highlight/cast shadows on the terrain. I think a slight shadow would help me to visulize the subtle height differences a little easier. (Similiar to the way a map/globes sometimes use shadows to give visually enhance the 3-D feel.) If not feasible for this engine, can it be considered for the follow-on engine? I imagine there are a lot of us who are having a difficult time reading the terrain and who would appreciate this feature.)

What I still dont understand is 'why' CDV has to re-make an english version when there is already one available? I unsderstand there are some sensitivites about the SS, but is that it?? Is there more that I am missing? What is the issues on the Continent that make distribution issues so different as in the US? It seems CDV is simply a distributor (alas, apparently, a poor choice for one), but if everything is already coded and written for english, is it that difficult to simply changes the few lines of code that reference SS? (Pardon my ignorance, but I have not followed this distributor issue until only recently when I noticed problems arising with CDV)

Hey Buddy. I'm with ya. I was merrily humming along on my 600x800 res and couldnt wait till I got my new video card to really maximise the performance! Imagine my surprise (and disappointment) when I got LESS performance. Hopefully, my situation will be resolved w/ new driver. Have you looked for an updated driver for your card?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: You purchased the CD from BTS or CDV (Europe) ? There should be no 'Demo' banner in the game unless you're playing the 'Gold Demo' which isn't sold (free download)... ...what version of CM are you running (on the first screen in the lower right hand corner should be the version number in white characters). ...go to the Display tab and check the state of the three DirectX Features and make sure that they're enabled (if they're not the 'enabled' text will be on a 'raised button'). Run the two tests to see if things are actually working. ...When you get the Software setting, your video hardware isn't being seen as 3D capable, which would indicate a video driver problem in your case.<hr></blockquote> First, thank you Schrullenhaft for taking the time to give me such a well considered reply to my post. I tried all you suggest, so therefore I believe it must be related to the driver. The software was purchased online last year from BTS and played fine on my old P-350/stealthII (albiet slow on occasion). It has only been since the upgrade, that I have noticed the problems. As you suggested, I had checked the DirectX box and the direct3D drivers are enabled, and they test fine. yet, it seems CM is not seeing my card somehow. And that DEMO thing is really baffling. I have downloaded the beta 27.10 drivers and will try them this evening. If there is still a problem I'll take a screenshot and be back tomorrow for further help. Thank you again. GD

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Good question there Paw! Thankfully the answer is... no, it won't delay anything at all. CMBB will be released as soon as it is ready, which is later than we expected simply because we've been adding too much stuff instead of wrapping it up Whatever is going on with CMBO in Europe is of no concern to us as far as CMBB is concerned. Steve<hr></blockquote> While I would be as happy as anyone to see CMBB out, I am delighted that you are taking the time to do it right. Thanks.

I am sure this has been brought up before, but a quick search of old threads didnt show up anything, so I'll ask and perhaps someone will have an answer. My question revolves around 3-d lighting to help me better visualize the terrain. As it exists in CMBO, the lower the terrain, the 'darker' it appears. I suppose this works for many, but I find it difficult to distinguish the height differences using this method. Especially when I am trying to send my tanks to 'hull-down' positions, or simply trying to read the battlefield from a distance. Since we are using a 3-D engine, is it not possible to use reflective lighting/shadows to describe the layout of the land or topography? Since I am not a programmer, I dont know the limiations, but as an otherwise satisfied CM gamer, I dont think it would be unreasonable to consider for some future iteration of the CM series. Anyone seen or heard anything on this subject?? Thanks in advance. GD

Related to my previous post, I even reinstalled CM to see if it would work differently. No change after the re-install.

I hope someone can help. I just upgraded to XP and the GeForce2 video driver. I have seen the postings regarding the video drivers/XP and that is not my problem. My problem is, when I boot up, the only resolution the game finds is 640x480 and asks me if I want to accept it. When I scroll thru the list, I only get different refrsh rates. Not higher resolutions. How do I get CM to see higher resolutions. I have tried deleting the CM Prefs file, readjusting the Video settings to ensure 600x800 (or higher), yet CM continues to come back to the 640x480. Also, I dont know if this is related, but the title screen has DEMO across the top, even though I am booting from the CD (I purchased). Any ideas??? Thanks in advance. GD

I do not know whther there is seperate image file associated with light/med snow vs. heavy snow. While I am content with the way things are, if there was a seperate BMP file associated with light/heavy snows, then I would like to see a little more definition in the snowy roads, especially under certain conditions. For example, it would be nice if roads in light/med snow conditions could have darker areas in the tire ruts representing slush and mud while roads in heavy snow could remain as they are. On the other hand, I imagine under a heavy snow, roads would be apt to disappear altogether. Lastly, I want to publicly commend FRANKO and MANX for giving me great new scenarios. I am new to Combat-missions.net but the scenarios I have seen there (especially FRANKOs)are well thought out and well referenced. Kudos.

From my days flying attack helos in the Army (Cobras). Actually, there was another "Gun Dog" in the squadron. He brought his name with him when he transferred in. It must be popular among gun drivers.

Sorry. I meant 'Grogs', not Gorgs.

I believe that CM has found it's niche market and that market is most of us. (Gorgs of one degree or another). Other publishers have had the opportunity to create a game of this detail and shied away to appeal to the 'gamer' audience. Let Hasbro and the others market to the masses. I dont like the gamey games that they offer anyway. In the meantime, I'll be happy as a clam playing my CM. I am doubly happy because the game specifically does appeal to the small market of which I am a part of. BTS, keep up the GREAT work. My next wargame purchase will be your product.

I had the first one and I thought it was terrible. The sad thing is, it had such potential. It has been awhile since I played it, but I remember the ability to sail only 8 points of the compass thereby negating some of the handing ability of those ships that could sail closer to the wind. No shoals, no forts to tangle with, no real weather/sea state modeling. Where was the land? How about various anchoring options? How about Command/Control? I would liked to have replayed the Battle of the Nile, but you couldn't do it with AOS1 No, I'll wait til I see more on it. I would love to see someone do a SERIOUS effort on the genre before I plop down another $45 bucks.

When CMII comes out, I'd be curious to play a 1945/46 Americans vs. Russian scenario. That would not be so far fetched.

You got me on forst glance. However, on closer inspection, the second tank was exactly the same as the first. Also, the perspective should have changed just a little bit. Make another with the T-34!

While I respect Annalist's opinion, unless I misread the posting, I can support 1/2 of his view. First, I heartily agree with him that there IS room in a game of this type to deviate from the purely historical (i.e. whether the commanders did/did not have maps before the battle) just for the purpose of including elements that may be simply fun. (I orginially supported the option of seeing the map THEN buying your units, until I saw BTS posting why it would be too much of a hassle to implement) After following the related posts, it seems that there is a camp of purists seem to feel that anything other than purely historical has little place here. While I see their point, I suggest that there is room for some ahistorical 'fun' as long as the game system itself remains as accurate, realistic and as deep as it currently is. (I would like to be able to make a 1945/46 Russia vs. US scenario sometime. While it may never have happened, it could be an interesting 'what-if') Where I somewhat disagree with Annalist is, I do not believe that the game should be designed to be more appealing to a wider, less-grog audience. Those games are already on the shelves (and I have wasted tons of money trying them only to find they were either grossly simplified, inaccurate, or designed for kids or the mass audience) I believe CM has found it's niche, and I am it! We hardcore WWII tactics buffs have gone far too long without a serious unit-level tactical combat game that addresses this genre. Frankly, I have I have waited patiently for CM for 20 years (since my old SL/ASL days). I feel that CM is the closest (only) game that reaches the level of detail that I yearn for and while I do think there is room for 'fun' I do not think CM should ever become less 'hardcore' than it is because this is the level of detail many of us have been waiting for.

Many people have discussed whether it is 'real' or not to be able to buy your forces before or after you have seen the map. From my understanding of WWII, the whole concept of 'buying' your forces is somewhat unreal and part of the game. In real life, you accept what the higher command (or fate/luck/availability/etc) sends your way. So if the concept is already somewhat 'gamey' why not just recognise it as such and give us the option to look at the map first? For those who chose not to look at the map, that would be thier option. IMO, I don't believe that allowing this would detract from the game, but would in fact ADD to the fun. For an example, in my old Squad Leader(rest in peace), we used to design our own scenarios where players would study the map and the objectives first. Following that, both sides would secretly purchase whatever units we felt would be most suitable to accomplish the mission(with-in the point allowance) and once the game began we fought with what we bought. (Often times we found out too late, that we bought the wrong mix, but that added to the appeal) I recognise this is 'gamey' but it is still a feature that was tremendously fun and would be great to have now that CM has multi-play capability.

ok... one house = two stories, etc., is all fine and good. That is not the point. The point is where is the occasional church steeple or larger building? Since CM visually portrays steeples and beltowers in the towns. If it is visually depicted as being there, why not be able to use it??? Is it that much harder to program into the game? My sharpshooters and observers would be appreciative (at least until they got blasted).