76mm
-
Posts
1,366 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by 76mm
-
-
Because, dear wart, when it comes time to reload the game, it goes five to ten times faster off a disk than it does from the web. Plus, if god forbid BFC ever goes tits up and the game is no longer available at all on the web, I'll still be able to play it.
But why would you have to store/run the file from the web rather than your hard drive?
-
It might just be that converting the maps at "BFC central" is a trivial task, and each title will have all the old (relevant) maps, plus any maps designed "specifically" for the new one. It may even be that the new maps will be made available to the other Ostfront families as the engine gets patched and upgraded. So it may be that the titles will all have an ever-growing library of maps even if the architecture constraints mean they're separate families for technical reasons clear only to brains-in-jars.
Well that would certainly be helpful, but I'm also concerned about user-made maps. My incentive to spend the hours necessary to create a big, beautiful map is fairly limited if I know that I will only be able to use it for CMRT, whereas if I knew I'd be able to use it for the next three games as well I'd be cranking out maps right now.
I should say that one of the primary reasons I am so interested in maps is that I really enjoy (fictional) meta-campaigns, which frankly require a large amount of maps.
-
Version upgrades for the engine would be paid for (though patches, free); as would be data packs for the periods and fronts you want to play.
You start CM vx.x: THEN decide which of the "data packs" that you have you want to play with ...
This seems like a really good idea to me, but presumably not as easy as it sounds.
I've said this before, but for me the most important issue is map re-use. Having a wide selection of maps make it much easier for people to create scenarios, more quick battles, etc.
But making good maps (especially large ones) is a difficult and time-consuming exercise, and having to re-make them for four Russian Front titles seems like a real waste of time, given that many of them will cover the same terrain in different years. Therefore I really really hope that Battlefront gives us some kind of map converter utility, or better yet, just allows us to use the CMRT maps in the 43 title, and the 42 title, etc.
-
The code would have to be able to recognize more than one type of terrain at a time and know how to list them all. Isn't it obvious that that is a more complicated task than identifying a single type of terrain as in CMx1?
To say that it is more complicated to identify two or three types of terrain then one type of terrain might be true (and I'm not sure that is correct, since presumably the data for each tile includes all of the terrain types upon it regardless of their number), but it does not necessarily mean that it is particularly complicated...while it is more complicated to walk and chew bubblegum than simply to walk, somehow most of us manage to handle both!
I would guess that UI issues would also be a factor, although I can't see how they'd be an insurmountable obstacle.
Just to be clear, I think this feature would be a "nice to have" but not critical, and at this point not near the top of my features wishlist.
-
Precisely how would you handle multiple types of terrain in one AS, as is sometimes the case? We're listening.
Why exactly would it be so complicated to list all of them? We're listening.
-
If BFC provided all units and all timeframes combined then BFC would have to put out a single $500 product... about five years from now. Is that really what people want? Wait ten years for the development of an impossibly large sixty gig mega-product?
But that's not what the OP is asking for--he's asking for the ability, as games come out, to combine them all in one game rather than four separate games.
The biggest issue for me is map re-use; it will be a real shame if we can't re-use Russian maps CMRT for other games in the series.
-
They won't attack unless they spot something.
I'm OK with that as well, but in largish scenarios with everything else going it is often difficult to tell if they've attacked or not...or at least I've never noticed an actual attack. Maybe they have not actually launched one?
-
I'm OK with that, but I can't even tell when an airstrike has actually happened. I hear a plane buzzing around, but have yet to see anything happen.
-
This is a keeper, thanks!
-
Thanks for the bridge and crop tips.
Do any of the crops conceal troops unless they are crawling? None of that stuff sounds tall enough...
Also, so what kind of terrain is impassable for infantry? I guess deep swamp?
If so, I hope the modders get to work on that terrain, because it looked like a golf course!
-
Another basic CMx2 question: how can I tell what kind of terrain is indicated on the map? In most wargames you can mouse over it and find out, but I can't see how to do this in CMRT.
For instance, in one of the scenarios there is some greenish looking stuff that my infantry can't enter...swamp? There are lots of types of terrain that I can't tell what it is...some kind of crops, but head-high corn, or soybeans?
Also, what is the deal with bridges? I didn't think a wooden bridge would hold one of my SU-76s, but it did...if a bridge can't hold a vehicle, am I prevented from moving a vehicle across, or will the bridge collapse if I do so?
-
And in that respect the water splashes are no different than being able to see a wall or hedge knocked over / blown through a kilometer away, even though no one on your side was even close to having LOS to said wall or hedge.
I don't agree, for at least two reasons:
1) with a wall or hedge, once its down, its down, and you can't tell too much about it. with a river, you can count tracks and actually know how many squads, vehicles, etc., passed that way.
2) For better or for worse, we need to have the walls/hedges go down for the battlefield to be "correct". Not so with water splashes...
Thus, showing the splashes seems to have serious FoW downside, with little upside.
-
...poured machine-gun fire into its 6- by 10-inch aperture...
Sounds like a significant design flaw...
-
Not sure if this has been pointed out, but there seems to be an issue with the Maxim animation--the guys are not holding their rifles while moving:
-
I just tried the method described in Bil's website, and it doesn't seem to work, but maybe I'm misunderstanding something.
I thought that I should plot my waypoints, and then if I selected the last waypoint and then a targetting command, I would see the LOS from that last waypoint?
When I tried this in CMRT, instead I got LOS from the tank's current (ie, initial) position rather than from the final waypoint.
Am I doing something wrong, or did I misunderstand something?
-
While slightly OT, this thread reminds me of something I saw during Desert Storm. Actually, just after operations ended we were stationed near some kind of oil facility. In the middle of the facility was a deep crater about 15 yards across. At the bottom of the crater was a flattened T-55.
I don't know what hit it, presumably some kind of laser-guided bomb, but it was pretty impressive.
-
And that is exactly what 'Vin's animated text' mod now does! Go get it!
hmm, I don't see it on CMMOD, where is it??
-
The casualties disappear after aid is applied so I think that's what you are mistaking that for.
You might be right, but shouldn't the buddy-aided casualty still be shown as a casualty (ie, with the red text)?
I thought the point of showing the red "Casualty" text was to show when units had suffered casualties in the current scenario (instead of coming into the scenario in a depleted state).
-
I am re-reading the manual and have a question about Spotting. On page 39 the manual says:
"Enemy units that are not seen by any of your troops are not shown on the map. This includes muzzle flame, smoke, dust and other effects directly attached to enemy unit behavior--there are also not shown unless the unit itself is already spotted by at least one one friendly soldier."
Is that right? Why would you not be able to see smoke or dust from any enemy unit unless you had seen the unit itself? At least under certain conditions, you should be able to see dust from miles away, even if the units are not visible. Ditto for smoke.
-
Now that I'm playing more, I'm seeing this on a fairly regular basis, but actually casualties disappear during the game, not only when I save, exit, and re-enter. It seems to happen particularly often with two-man teams (AT, scout, FT).
It doesn't happen all the time, and of course with the couple of units I've tried to get screenshots with, all of the casualties remain...but I'll keep trying.
-
Battlefront,
I cannot get comfortable using the system you have in place. I need the on-screen clicking. I refuse to buy a CM game until this happens.
Don't worry, there are trained professionals here to help you. A few hours (minutes?) of practical exercises will have you handling the camera like a vet.
-
So from the video we can tell that ideal circumstance are circumstances under wich there is no significant wind and the target is stationary and that under those circumstances, an experienced pilot is very likely to hit his intended target...
You don't think that having up to 12 flak guns firing at you would be good cause to call circumstances less than ideal for an experienced pilot?
-
Oddball, could you please include an open-top AFV such as a Marder or SU-76 in your test? If FTs have no effect on them, that is a problem!!
-
Looks good. I would certainly use this mod for the right scenarios!
King Tiger Henschel mod released
in CM Red Thunder Maps and Mods
Posted
Great work, thanks!