sfhand
-
Posts
1,008 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by sfhand
-
-
Copy and paste is the opposite of modular programming.
???
-
...
The alternative is to ignore your post entirely.
Please... don't do me any favors.
-
Why not quote the entire sentence? Why leave out:
"but with so many vehicle modeled across so many modules it will take me years of <alt-tabbing>to integrate the rough outlines these graphics provide."
Don't bother responding, it's a rhetorical question to which I already know the answer.
But LOL at anyone who honestly thinks I wrote I would only use it once.
-
Because we have already asked and been told so - OK?
Thanks for sharing...
Well it is if you only need to look at it “once“ which was the basis of your original request.
Not what I wrote at all...
[edit: what axe are you grinding that you would so willfully distort what I said?]
[2nd edit: it really makes me wonder about the truthfulness of your other replies]
-
I'm not going to respond line by line. I am not a computer programmer but I do understand the concept of modular. BF has been very open about the modular nature of the game engine.
In one mode of play information is shown in a pane and in the other 3 modes of play an empty pane is presented. If the game is programmed in a truly modular way there is a section of code that already exists for one mode that can be plugged into the other 3 modes in a copy and paste action. My limited programming background coupled with information from BF leads me to this conclusion.
I'd be very happy to be informed by someone who knows that it would be more difficult than this if that is the case. Are you such a person? If not, I turn your question around and ask you, if you don't know why guess and assume it's difficult?
[edit: leaving the game and reading a manual is not much of a solution, btw]
-
Well, I'm playing Red right now in one of my pbems and found myself <alt-tabbing> to get information. I was only asking for something if it was an easy fix, or, more importantly for the UI in CM:BN while it is still in development.
I definitely have no idea how difficult it would be to include the information in all modes of play, but I'm imagining it's just a matter of duplicating a section of code for the modes it's not included in, i.e., the code for it already exists and is use in basic training mode.
The bigger question for me is why this type of information is left out of veteran, elite, and iron modes. It seems like a pretty artificial way of making things more deadly. In my mind's eye, as scarey place to be sure, the information is elemental to so many in-game decisions it's absence seems somewhat surprising. But that information is exactly why I have the game manuals on my desktop.
-
Over in the Normandy thread it was mentioned that CMSF graphically represents the armor effectiveness of enemy vehicles. As one who plays only iron mode because of the spotting rules I was unaware of this. A little experimentation showed that only basic training mode reveals this information.
So I'm asking, would BF consider making that information visible in all modes of play? As it is now I can <alt-tab> out of game and check the appropriate manual, but that seems like an immersion breaking activity to me. What would be the downside of showing this information in all modes of play? Is there anyone who would object, and if so for what reason?
My view is that once I know the capabilities of a given unit I would never look at the information again, but with so many vehicle modeled across so many modules it will take me years of <alt-tabbing>to integrate the rough outlines these graphics provide. And then, after I start playing CMBN I'll start forgetting about modern unit characteristics so when I play the occasional CMSF game I'll still be <alt-tabbing> for each enemy unit.
So, I like the spotting rules of iron mode but I would like to access enemy unit characteristics with the game. If BF was open to it would it be too much work to put in the next patch?
-
Data tables would be pretty much superflouous after playng the game for a week. A little playtime and you know the 3 inch gun won't pierce a Panther hull front at 300m but will hole it easily from the side at 600+. You'll know an 88 Pak will take out any tank at all angles and all ranges. You'll know a PzIV's 50mm turret front is vulnerable to 37mm gun hits. Tank gunners in WWII didn't have wargamer data tables at their elbow in the thick of battle so why should you?
Ummm... because we're wargamers playing a wargame? I don't know about you, but I haven't gone through any of the training that those guys went through. Everything I've read, not much I admit, points to the fact that the Allies were extremely well prepared for Normandy. I do agree that with time I will know most of the answers to my questions, as a function of experience, but that doesn't mean we should be in an information vacuum.
-
...I thought these variables were already baked in.
Would we be having this discussion if they were?
-
It is only available in basic training mode.
I don't find it a stretch that experienced soldiers in the field, trained on weapons platforms and briefed about the enemy, would have a general idea about the effectiveness of their weapons as well as the general characteristics of the enemy's weapons - which is what this simple graphic represents. But that is just me.
On a side note, I play iron mode because of the spotting rules so more information about the capablilities of the units I face would be welcome.
-
What you had in CM:SF was a graphic for each vehicle that was a matrix.
Location / facing on one side, threat weapon on the other
So you had lines for say:
ATGM Vs front, side, rear, etc.
Tank main round Vs front, side, rear, etc.
Chain gun Vs front, side, rear, etc.
These were colour coded - Thick Green was very good, Green was good, Yellow so so and Red bad
Went and grabbed a screenshot (hopefully clearer):
Part of the reason for this is that a lot of modern armour protection values are either classified (or at worst case estimates).
Now of course Second World War values are pretty much in the public domain (if you know where to look) but I’m pretty sure they are sticking with this simplified approach as most customers just want a X beats Y type table.
Something that lists the effective value of 80mm of X type armour at an angle of 30 degrees or the penetration values for a 75mm L70 round at 100m, 200m, 300m, 400m , ... is probably not what they are going to try and either document (or fit into the game itself).
That information - graphic - is not available for enemy units... at least not in iron mode. It would be welcome if it were, at least by me. [edit: not in veteran mode either]
-
Originally posted by DaveDash
"What Steve says here is exactly right. CMSF is just missing the aesthetic middle part of the spotting process where units turn from completely unknown to "type" identified, to positively identified. In the CMSF engine they just remain as a "?" for longer, until your units have positively ID'd them."
Sorry, I can't figure out how to quote properly.
Last night playing CMSF... My Scout platoon moving toward a few buildings got a contact on a rooftop 200m away. 5 seconds later the contact was fully identified as a sniper from 180m. While not Instant ID it is pretty fast. You can talk optics all you want but it was a guy poking his head over the roof wall. I think you are confusing the length it takes to identify because if you lose sight it just goes back to a "?". Maybe you are playing RT & are on opposite side of the map so you don't notice that they have been fully identified, because they change back to "?". I play WEGO so I see what the contacts are in replay. I would like to see the question mark stay for a lot longer even when directly observed (from a distance). It should be something like "I saw a soldier on that rooftop but I don't know if it was 1 guy or part of a squad". no other info until you close within a 50m and are fully engaged.
Can you say with 100% certainty that the sniper team never shot at your scout team? Incoming fire can reveal the unit type in many instances - not hq I realise.
Everyone who has played enough to be familiar with the game seems to agree that while improvement would, well, improve the current situation, the current situation is not as bad as some would have us believe. As I mentioned a few pages back, any new improvement would be subject to controversy as well. Take your suggested "fix" for example. I would find it way to limiting. For me any solution that doesn't take quality of spotting unit, quality of spotted unit, time of day, weather, distance, concealment of enemy, and other such nuance into account would be more of a sideways move than a forward move. But, intermediate generic icons that would allow direct targeting - grunt or vehicle - coupled with eliminating some information all together - too much squad and hq info - would be cool, no doubt.
-
...
Therefore, the problem is still, as it always has been, in coming up with a system that penalizes units from making coordinated actions in excess of what their level of command, training, cohesion, etc. would allow for.
This is not easy to simulate in a single person game.
...
It is when I'm the single person...
I've been playing your CM games from the beginning and I am still the biggest obstacle to unit cohesion with or without command delays. The thing is, I wouldn't have it any other way. For me, the game is about strategy and tactics moreso than systemic tricks that can be adapted to with enough time and familiarity.
I tried to say earlier, probably about another topic, that if one really wanted the "realism" of a Battalion Commander we should scrap the 3d representation and give periodic text updates, some accurate some not, about the situation of the battle. But this game goes so much deeper than that and it is up to me, the player, to decide what level of fidelity I wish to play it at. At some point that's what a game with as many facets as this has to be about, doesn't it?
I have yet to play a CM game where all my movements were like watching synchronized swimming and that's with and without command delays, which I now view as being an arbitrary encumbrance on the player.
-
...
It would essentially make playing ... against the AI obsolete.
Welcome to my world. I'm sure I'm shortselling myself by only playing pbem, but what the heck, I'm having a good time.
-
I wonder how far off the old xls tables could be... I'll probably use them as a guide until I learn for myself.
-
I only play Iron mode and wego as well, but if you see a spotter run into a building or a small patch of woods on a hill you can call in arty on them or area target with armor or onboard mortars. In CMX1 if you saw a soldier do the same thing would you call in arty? It could be a sniper or an LMG and you just wasted half your shells killing a non game changing unit. I also miss the days of facing a german Tank IDed as an Assault Gun, Me confronting it with a couple Shermans only to find out too late that it was actually a Hetzer. Now, I will know it is a hetzer and will avoid direct confrontations like the Plague.
I don't see this as destroying the game but it does take a lot of the fun and stress out of the game.
Ummm... given the control I have over the amount of arty I can drop the answer would be yes, there is a good chance I would drop a few rounds on them if my spotter had a question mark icon for them (I'm sure my opponents appreciate this), and no, I wouldn't have "wasted" half my shells engaging them. I'm sure I've "wasted" plenty of arty on less worthy targets in one game playing Red than the situation you describe.
edit: but it is obviously a bigger deal for you than it is for me, that doesn't make either one of us wrong just different people with different tastes.
-
I'm really trying to understand the uproar... I only play iron mode, so I can't speak to other modes, but I know if I spot an HQ unit I will shoot at it just as I would if I spotted any other unit (unless I'm setting an ambush). In order for me to have anyone but the spotting unit engage the target they have to spot it. Usually this means they have to move to a location to enable spotting it. Moving units are easier to spot than stationary ones. For me, moving a bunch of units to "gang up" on an HQ unit is both unnecessary and foolish.
That said, would I value a spotting system in which there was a time of uncertainty about the spotted unit? Sure. There would need to be answers to questions about which threshholds, e.g, time and/or distance combined with spotting unit equipment, would have to be exceeded in order for more complete IDing to occur, which I'm sure would open up future rounds of debates and criticism.
But to call the spotting mechanics of CMx2 Borg IDing and present it as being just as problematic as Borg Spotting is way over the top, IMHO.
[edit: one last point, I play wego which means that the tacai does most of the targetting for me, I get input once a minute and can fine tune targets but usually once a unit, e.g. the HQ in question, takes fire it moves into cover and frequently spotting is lost and other targets are aquired, i.e., the firing unit switches to other targets it can spot.]
-
Well, I'm going to keep beating my drum... while playing in iron mode it doesn't matter if someone on your side id's an enemy, each unit has to spot and id the target to engage it directly. So this seems like a non-issue to me, in fact the label Borg IDing seems way off the mark, even if discussing wished for (not be me, btw) features like misidentification.
-
As a wego player I'm having a lot of fun imagining a rt player trying to manage a largish battle with varying command delays on 2 fronts with no ability to pause and obviously no replay... thanks for that!
-
Play in iron mode and there is no issue...
-
I didn't understand the question. Who is Pinetree?
Pinetree made this:
http://cmsfmods.heroku.com/mods/4115?view_type=preview
I noticed a base in your screenshots that seemed like a cross between the stock CMSF bases and pinetree's which made me curious.
-
I'm still asking about pinetree's base mod...
-
Is that an evolution of pinetree's excellent base mod I see???
-
Ya but PBEM sucks... playing games over months isn't exactly... fun.
...
If this is happening to you and you don't like it you are playing the wrong person not the wrong mode. I used to have several pbem games going on at once and frequently spent the entire eveing sending and receiving turns (usually because one of my opponents was free and wanted to play that evening) and all of those games resolved themselves pretty quickly. My current "main" opponent is usually good for a few turns a day. If you want to play with someone who will commit to 3 or 4 turns a day (for the time being) send me a pm.
Thickness and penetration data
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
The big problems with that graphic is that it is only available in basic training mode (say hello to borg spotting) and that the other tabs in the pane are operational (gives you information about damage and ammo). Apparently it is no easy task separating the information from each tab.