Peter Panzer
-
Posts
591 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Peter Panzer
-
-
Well, I downloaded the demo with every intent to merely take a peek at the engine improvements and stick with CMSF until BFC revisits the next modern ops title, but this game is simply too compelling to pass up. The tools are here for skilled scenario designers to pack in tons of atmosphere and explore a wide range of small unit actions. This is BFC's most fully realized title to date and I have been having an absolute blast with the game thus far.
CMBN really shines at the platoon level. Probes and hit-and-run tactics in the bocage can be faithfully executed. Maintaining cohesion on the assault once sh*t starts going sideways is practically a game within itself.
Company and platoon support weapons take on a prominent role and can influence the fight in satisfyingly realistic terms. Rushing the hedge gap into the muzzle of an MG42 is a bummer, mortar exchanges are suitably unpleasant for virtual doggies and krauts alike.
BFC's dedication and passion for the subject matter is plainly evident. The visual nuances are a great leap forward and can be downright cinematic. CMBN begs the player to get in close and just keeps on giving - it's the perfect aesthetic compliment to the close quarters hedge fighting.
Best of all, I love that I can fire up CMBN, be immediately pulled into the environment and spend my time making the scenario unfold instead of fighting the game. BFC definately got it right with this one. Congratulations on a great piece work! Tantalizingly, we haven't even seen the really nasty stuff yet like Fallschirmjaeger, SS Mech Infantry and Montgomery's sense of operational art.
I noticed infantry bases get clipped when they are on the first level of "independent" buildings. The buildings seem to be separated from their foundations as well - perhaps the issues are related. What's more, that guy's body language is a bit...suspicious.
-
Good to see a few BFC affiliated folks still keeping the die-hard Modern Ops guys company.
Likewise, thanks for the updates - I suspected the wait for 1.32 would be lengthy given the work necessary for the Normandy game. The bummer is not only the waiting, but the fact that 1.31 actually fouled up previously working aspects of the game (i.e. PzF-3's and the UK rank structure). So, there is a bit of an "adding insult to injury" element at play.
Hopefully the various bugs and TO&E errors posted here since October 2010 have been catalogued for easy review when the work gets underway.By the way, any chance we can get M72's (LAW) added to the US Army TO&E in v1.31? I was under the impression these were being issued to Airborne and Light Infantry units during the last few years of fighting in Afghanistan.
I am doing my damnedest to skip the Normandy series, as I feel CMSF was a very "late bloomer" and I really haven't got my money's worth out of the game and its three modules. So, here's hoping 1.31, big or small, is a solid piece of work.
That said, the Normandy Demo is very compelling - congratulations on what seems like a magnificient effort! I'm just not ready to trade in my Brads for Greyhounds yet.
-
I've put off most of NATO while waiting.
Same here. I would love to know how things are progressing - I am likely going to skip WW2, so v1.32 is "it" for me until BFC revisits modern combat in a future release.
v1.31 seems to have made the UK rank structure a little wonky as well - I'm not sure how much of an effect that has on CoC in terms of actual gameplay, but it would be nice if it was cleaned up in v1.32.
Here are some things reported way back when. Also see, NATO vehicle bugs.
Here's looking forward to one last batch of fixes for CMSF!
-
Marco:
Mods are loaded in alphabetical order.I swear there was I time when I knew that - thanks for the reminder.
Always wanted to do the ZSU-23-4. But am in over my head with Shermans and stuff, so no time right now I'm afraid.Ah, I didn't know you were assisting with the new game. Well, that bodes well for the Normandy folks! Perhaps in the future, between Wirbelwinds and Ostwinds, temptation will lead you back to the ZSU.
-
Great little, functional mod - thanks Marco.
Any chance you might grace us with another vehicle mod for CMSF? I would love to see someone with your capability mod the ZSU-23-4 even if it was a simple "sand" scheme. "Three tone desert" would be out of the park.
By the way, any of you using Scipio's unit panel mod will have to delete the "def" icons he included or they will overwrite Marco's changes. It took me a moment to figure out why the "x's" and "+'s" were not being replaced with the colored bars in my version of the game.
-
...it would be great to have these included in the next patch.
gibsonm:
Any news you can provide the CMSF die hards on the progress of v1.32 or is all of the time/testing being devoted to the Normandy game?
-
Slight change of pace here...
Here's one that would be a good graphics fix for v1.32 - the T-72M1V TC model needs a nudge forward in the hatch to avoid clipping...
Interestingly, Syrian AFV crew's have never had their own unique Unit Portrait in the user interface assigned to them. Unlike the western forces, which each posess a separate portrait for AFV crews, Syrian AFV crews use the same graphic assigned to unfantry units. Not a huge deal, but it always struck me as odd.
Here's some other stuff I just can't seem to shut up about...
-
...as soon as we get v1.32 out.
Broadly speaking, is v1.32 something we will see prior to the release of the Normandy game?
-
There is a duplicate thread here, which lists some other odds and ends that would be great for v1.32. Of course, it's by no means all inclusive. For example, I also seem to recall some discussion on reexamining the amount of Canadian dismounts from LAV's and such at some point.
Sounds good. I am really looking forward to v1.32 and am holding off on playing the NATO module until the kinks are worked out. Thanks for letting us know it's still on the radar....we have reasons for not throwing patches out without proper testing and addressing other issues at the same time. Each patch we produce takes up a lot of time to create, test, upload, and support. -
Where doors always invisible from the exterior but visible from the interior when structures are occupied or is this a freshly introduced visual glitch?
Invisible Doors
Steve mentioned his sources indicated Dutch Recon Platoon CO's are equipped with FNMAGs. Is that correct?
Dutch Recon GPMG?
-
I don't think BFC is in the business of releasing "hotfixes." I suspect v1.31, which took about a month to release after v1.30, was as close as we are going to see their coming to such a thing.
Frankly, I would rather they not be in a rush to push out an update and spent adequate time on adding more fixes and polishing the "quality control." The later being especially important if v1.32 is CMSF's closing act. Let's hope as much gets squeezed into v1.32 as possible even if it takes a bit more time. I sure wouldn't mind seeing "Exit Zones," which are in CMA and CMBN, get bolted onto CMSF if it was practical to implement!
In addition to the aforementioned missing PzF's, here's some stuff I and others (c3k) tossed up at various times after v1.30/v1.31 in case it got missed or forgotten (I hope this helps)...
Several folks remarked upon the ineffective airburst effects on rooftop infantry...
Multiple Flavor Objects inserted per single click.
Flavor Objects/Editor
The flight path for the MR-Spike is not visually represented correctly. As it's presently modeled, the missile flies in a straight line with its warhead permanently pointed skyward at a 45 degree angle instead of along a trajectory with the nose correctly changing its attitude accordingly. The missle shown below is not on an upward, arching trajectory, rather it is flying on a direct, "flat" course with its nose oddly tilted the entire time.
When the camera is pulled back, it also exhibits two exhaust plumes one at the correct angle in relation to the missile's depicted "flat" course and the other at a forty five degree angle. In the image below the missile is aligned with the top plume. Perhaps it should be depicted arching upward to match the angled plume instead?
Spike MR
The Eryx should be able to "Deploy" via a small tripod.
Canadian AT4's? Canadian F/A-18's?
Eryx/CF-18/Coyote AT Assets
-
I'm not sure if this effects the issues being discussed here, much less qualifying for placement in a tech support forum, but the flight path for the MR-Spike is also not visually represented correctly. As it's presently modeled, the missile flies in a straight line with its warhead permanently pointed skyward at a 20 degree angle instead of along a trajectory with the nose correctly changing its attitude accordingly.
When the camera is pulled back, it also exhibits two exhaust plumes one at the correct angle in relation to the missile and the other at a forty five degree angle. In the image below the missile is aligned with the top plume. Perhaps it should be arching upward to match the angled plume instead?
Also, the Eryx should be able to "Deploy" via a small tripod.
Related or not, it would be great if these things could get cleared up in v1.32.
-
Why can't the Canadian SRAAW (H) be "deployed?"
-
-
Canadian Coyote recon vehicles are still equipped with M136/AT4's. Wasn't this identified as an error prior to v1.31? I thought the Canadians didn't utilize the AT4.
-
...sheesh, these WWII guys and their requests for updates. I mean come on, these folks think a M4 is a tank and a M1 is a rifle.
-
With programs with this degree of complexity, bugs will always be around somewhere. I think we've got a better track record than most.
Absolutely. If I didn't agree I wouldn't be spending my time drafting these posts about a video game.
Yup, some of the issues raised above are perceived rather than actual. Off the top of my head I know the door isn't visible from the outsideMaybe I wasn't clear enough on that one. Indeed, when there is infantry inside of a building the walls become semi transparent and the doors and windows become completely transparent. However, if you move the camera inside the occupied building the door reappears fully opaque. It seems inconsistent.
-
Steve and MikeyD:
Thank you for your quick replies!
Yes, there will be a v1.32 and yes we can put in fixes brought up hereThat's what keeps me coming back again and again. Thank you for your commitment to making sure the "little things" are not ignored - it is truely what sets you guys apart.
However, the LT gets to keep his GPMG because that's what he is supposed to have.Odd. I am not a Dutch military expert by any stretch. Perhaps one of the folks from the Netherlands here can help us Yanks understand the doctrine on this one. You're right though, they are, well...Dutch.
M707 optics box is just 'eye candy' and doesn't need to rotate to provide the unbuttoned spotter enhanced spotting ability. If he's unbuttoned he's got the capability.I hear you, but there are lots of things in the game that could be attributed to "eye candy." It struck me as odd that new work was applied to the Nyala and Fuchs gunners, but the woeful M707 got the short end of the stick again.
All ATGMs in the game have that standard single 'exhaust plume', though most ATGMs in fact use mid-body dual rocket thrusters.Yes, I'm with you on your points here as well, but the attitude of the missle should be corrected for the sake of visual accuracy. With all of the detail jammed into this title it seems lazy not to.
I've reconciled myself by considering that flame animation a rather pronounced tail guidance flair.
I like your thought, but I think the extra exhaust jet is the result of the missle not being animated correctly.My thanks again to you both!
-
Doors are visible from the inside of inhabited buildings, but are invisible from the outside of the same buildings.
M707 weapon stations have not been able to rotate since the launch of the game.
If you think all of that is being "too picky" here's another one. Soldiers manning the Fuchs weapon station do not rotate in relation to the MG3. What's worse, sometimes they do not even rotate at all. The soldier below completely ignored the assigned cover arc.
I may get rode right out of town for saying something like this, but it seems like more things than usual slipped through the testing, regressed or were reported and not applied to versions 1.30 and 1.31.
Any hope for v1.32? Not so much for the introduction of new things, but rather to fix what we already have or perhaps more accurately, were intended to have.
-
Will we see additional corrections for CMSF released in the future along the lines of v1.32?
I know CMSF must eventually be put to bed, however I ask because while v1.31 was a great way to get the v1.21 folks up to speed, it omitted fixes for several of the errors and bugs reported in the "Teeny Weeny Little Bug..." thread.
A few of these issues would outwardly seem to be higher priorities to address than things such as rank icons or displaying scenario time limits on the New Game Screen. For instance, the poor ability for airbursting munitions to inflict casualties on infantry on rooftops.
Like v1.30,v1.31 also "broke" elements of the game that were functioning correctly in previous versions. A recent example being the disappearance of PzF3's from the Marders. For its part, V1.30 introduced a tedious bug relating to the placement of flavor objects.
In addition to the ineffective artillery vs. infantry in/on structures and the lack of PzF3's, here are some other reported bits that didn't make the cut for v1.31...
Multiple Flavor Objects inserted per single click. Working with these things in the editor was never fun, but v1.30 raised the bar on their toilsome nature.
The Spike MR missle does not fly with its nose permanently poised at a twenty degree angle. It also has one exhaust plume.
Dutch Lieutenants in Recon Platoons are armed with a GPMG? Really?
Continued below...
-
I'm good to go now - thanks SD Smack.
I had a few downloads going simultaneously, which apparently weren't playing nicely together.
Damn I love this mod. Thanks Scipio!
-
I attempted to download the recently uploaded v1.30b, however the .zip file appears to be corrupt. Can anyone confirm this?
From WINRAR...
! Unexpected end of archive
! C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\Scipio_Silhouettes_v130b.zip: Either multipart or corrupt ZIP archive
-
I'm not so sure you're entirely correct Yankee Dog.
I thought Allied forces were operating with FAC's in the field during the summer of '44 coordinating smaller, "tactical aircraft" from "Cab Ranks." I had also thought the modest effectiveness of this early CAS system was partially due to the relative lack of bomb carrying capacity of the fighter-bombers of the era not strictly communications hardware or techniques.
Here is some information about RAF FAC's in Normandy you might find interesting (highlights are mine)...
FORWARD AIR CONTROL.Visual Control Posts.
Initially, in Normandy, fighters were controlled from ships. Each of the five beaches had its own Air Staff aboard a Headquarters Ship, under whose orders there was a Fighter Direction Tender. Dusk on D-Day found 83 Group Control ashore and starting to take over from its FDT. It seems that in the first days of the Normandy landings there were problems caused by the understandable confusion, the difficulty of accurately identifying forward positions and the problems of communication and co ordination when the aircraft were still based in the UK.
When the first rush was over, additions were made to the control apparatus. Armoured divisions were given their own RAF controllers, who travelled with a wireless operator in tanks whose armament had been replaced by wireless sets. Half-track contact cars were used as forward visual control posts.
It is difficult to work out the precise organisation, and even more difficult to identify the equipment and vehicles used. However it is clear that the Visual Control Post consisted of an RAF controller and equipped with a variety of wireless sets. There was an RAF VHF transmitter/receiver for communication with aircraft, a high frequency RAF set for communication with Group Control Centre and a set for communication with the army unit being supported.
The Visual Control Post had fighter bombers assigned to it. These might be already in the air nearby, waiting to be given a precise target, or waiting on the ground if the base was to far away. The army unit would identify targets it would like attacking and the RAF controller with the VCP would decide if it was practical. If necessary the Group Control Centre would be asked to notify the aircraft and then the controller would contact the aircraft direct, giving a grid reference and any landmarks etc.
The vehicles varied over time and with the unit to which they were attached. There are reports of the following
- A light reconnaissance car. If this is correct it would not be able to carry all the wireless equipment and crew needed so it would report back to a halftrack. Light reconnaissance cars were available, being used by the armoured car flights of the RAF Regiment. In any case it seems to have been a one off.
- A wireless van. This seems to have been a forward controller from Forward Direction Post, a radar unit. On occasion they did take a wireless van forward to try and direct fighters against enemy aircraft flying below the radar.
- White Scout Car. These are mentioned but they were probably halftracks since it was common to call halftracks Whites.
- Ram Observation Post Tanks. These would be an excellent choice since they had been converted for artillery forward observation and had room for various wireless sets and personnel.
It seems that by July the following were standard
- A Sherman tank with a telescopic aerial mast fitted in the turret. This carried an aerial for an RAF VHF set. These were used by armoured brigades and were deployed as required.
- A halftrack, again carrying a telescopic aerial mast. The mast could be dismounted. These were used more widely. In both cases there seems to have been a second halftrack, presumably carrying some of the equipment and personnel. It is possible that these were the vehicles of an army Air Support Signals Unit tentacle.
The Visual Control Post was short lived. It had several drawbacks
- If it selected a viewpoint from which to observe a target it was not in a position to see what was happening elsewhere on a brigade front. One VCP was not sufficient to cover the ground, but more than one controller would be confusing for the air support.
- In a forward position it was not in a position to consult or liaise with headquarters staff.
- It could not be aware of the positions and movements of units flanking that being supported. This could be dangerous in a mobile battle.
The Visual Control Post was replaced by Forward Control Posts. These operated from divisional headquarters. It was found that the location of the Forward Control Post was not important as long as it had good communications and access to accurate and up to date information. When required, armoured units could have forward controllers mounted in Sherman tanks. These were held at brigade headquarters for the use of artillery observers and air controllers. Normally this was only required in the case of a breakthrough and rapid advance.
In Normandy the following methods are recorded.
1. 29 Armoured Brigade Headquarters. The brigade had rocket firing Typhoons on call and an RAF halftrack arrived to control them. Positioning itself at tactical headquarters near the command tanks the Flight Lieutenant Liaison Officer was given the target, a wood which was hiding Tiger tanks. The halftrack erected its telescopic aerial with its guy ropes and star shaped aerial. The crew of the halftrack laid out a fluorescent red arrow pointing towards the target. The Flight Lieutenant called in the Typhoons by first talking to the airstrip and then to the cab rank leader. Planes dived and each fired two rockets destroying the targets. Medium artillery finished the job. The halftrack was hurriedly packed up and moved off with the brigade headquarters. (Eye witness account)
2. Operation Goodwood, 18 July 1944. During the battle the RAF would give continuing support to the Army as requests for help were received. They would be kept in touch with the Army’s needs through tentacles of the Air Support Signals Unit attached to each armoured brigade, division and corps. In addition, a Visual Control Post housed in a tank was attached to the armoured brigade of the 11th Armoured Division. It carried an experienced Air Force Controller with a very-high-frequency wireless set which enabled him to communicate directly with fighters operating above. To some extent they were handicapped when the air force officer in the Sherman tank of the 29th Armoured Brigade’s Visual Control Post was wounded, but the young tank commander took over and, when he was unable to control a strike, the aircraft were directed to an alternative target by the Group Control Centre. (Eye witness account). This account is supported by the Divisions War Diary. 18th July 1944.1215. VCP with Tac HQ asked to get Typhoon RP attack down on tanksat 085608. Unfortunately Officer IC VCP wounded and this attack delayed. A 2/Lt Asst ALO soon picked up what was required of him and coped very well indeed through the rest of the day.
3. 19th July 1944. 2015. 13 RHA give PW statement that the enemy main defensive positions are at 043615 – 053613 – 050600. VCP arranges for these positions to be attacked by Typhoon RP aircraft and get 13 RHA to put down red smoke on the targets. The aircraft have difficulty in seeing the red through the general smoke and dust of battle, but eventually made several successful attacks.
4. ‘My father served as a Forward Air Controller in Normandy. In the days after D Day he was mostly attached to the 51st Division. One section had a Sherman and a halftrack. The other section had two halftracks. The standard method was to align the two vehicles towards the target. Part of the crew went forward with a 2” mortar. They spotted the target and fired a smoke bomb onto it. The radio operator then called in the Typhoons. As up to eight planes targeted a single tank they always got a kill.’
I'm certainly not a CAS expert, WWII or otherwise, and I don't want to sidetrack akd's thread. More to the original point, this would definitely be a good feature for our modern game!
-
This, along with trees that don't shrug off tank rounds, would be primo adjustments if they found their way into v1.31.
It seems both would be potentially applicable to the Normandy game as well.
So, how many of you would be willing to wait longer for v1.31 were BFC to pop on by and say, "gee guys, we think it's feasible, we'll get the CAS request protocol fleshed out a bit more. Oh, trees shouldn't stop multiple T-72 or Stug III main gun rounds either, let's see what we can do about that too."
I know I would gladly wait. Maybe. For a little while.
Hopefully the various bugs and TO&E errors posted here since October 2010 have been catalogued for easy review when the work gets underway.
I like your thought, but I think the extra exhaust jet is the result of the missle not being animated correctly.
List of Known Issues
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Here are a few visual hang-ups that have a bit of influence on gameplay...
The .50cal. on the M20 does not rotate according to an assigned cover arc. This weapon station should be able to swing into position anywhere along a 360* field of fire - note the correct behavior exhibited by the M3 gunner/mount.
This is a disadvantage during any "quick draw" moments as the gunner must rotate in order to engage a target outside of the frontal arc as opposed to being positioned as desired by the player.
Infantry get cut off at the ankles when positioned in Independent Buildings. The player can still gain information about the unit via the UI, but it might be something to polish at some point.