Jump to content

Rokossovski

Members
  • Posts

    402
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Rokossovski

  1. Any luck in getting this resolved? Does anyone (more adept than I) have any useful advice to offer?
  2. [Insert cry of anguish here]. I've been refresh-monkeying CMMODS for days in my eagerness to get my mitts on this mod. I hope the administrator hasn't gone off for the holidays. That would leave me refresh-monkeying for a long time. P.S. I'm looking forward to another Africa mod too!
  3. Ohhh . . . nice! How does it compare in terms of height and apparent concealment compared to grain? The combat effect is presumably identical, but I'm hoping it's the same height and so forth as grain so its appearance does not mislead the player concerning the amount of concealment it offers. Eyeballing it just now, it looks pretty comparable (but more visually appealing).
  4. Hate to hijack the thread, but care to share your technique? I get camera spinning on a dismayingly regular basis. The only "cure" I've found restarting the computer, and the fix is only temporary.
  5. There is the small matter that the Airborne vehicle crews would share textures with the Regulars. (I haven't spotted separate textures for Airborne vehicle crews). Fortunately, those crews would ordinarily have the good taste to stay inside their vehicles and not tarnish our immersion with their unfashionably shared textures. For the purpose of scenario creation, having the Airborne on the same side as the Reserve units would require players to use appropriate mods that change their vanilla appearance. Not a problem for me, but a factor to consider if a scenario is to be widely shared. For my taste, that issue is outweighed by the benefits of giving the Reserve side access to a better class of (Airborne) equipment -- in particular ATGMs.
  6. Come to think of it, in the meantime one could simply slap in reserve bitmaps in place on of the existing airborne uniforms. If airborne is put on the same side as the reserves, it would give that faction access to some nice toys such as BMP-3s and AT-14s.
  7. Wow! I am so ready for some red v. red goodness. Those are some very inspirational shots. By the way, although the vanilla textures for airborne are quite similar to regulars, because they do not share the same bitmaps they can be modded into something visually distinct. (And even represent units on the same side as the reserves in red v. red fights). I'm hoping someone with more talent than I will create new textures for airborne.
  8. I hope they fix it. The problem, however, was also present in CMSF1 as Mord pointed out in a post on July 22nd: (near the end of his post). A related issue is that although reserve ATGM crews do exist in the game, albeit only in the separate "Reserve Antitank Platoon" formation, there is no associated Reserve ATGM included under the "specialist teams" tab. The result is that if you want a Reserve ATGM launcher, you have to take an entire platoon. You can remove the recoilless section, but you have to take the HQ and a section with two launchers. The significance of this is that it creates problems when creating red v. red scenarios when one wishes to use reserve Syrians against standard Syrian army units -- who have different uniforms and thus a different appearance.
  9. This is me, a person, talking about wanting to see uncons in Ukraine. Ideally multiple subtypes.
  10. MikeyD, You know, today would make a very nice "one of these days." (The mod looks great!)
  11. Yes, load times seem much quicker. I was wondering if other folks were seeing the same improvement.
  12. Please let this mean different textures for reserve and militia that are different from regulars, not that reserves will be tossed into the same indistinguishable bitmap corner with regulars, Republican Guard and so forth. Otherwise, CMSF2 would have even less red v. red potential that CMSF1 had, because only the most poorly equipped militia would maintain any visual distinction from the rest of the Syrian army. Please don't close out player options for red v. red scenarios. Please. *Stays on knees, keeps begging* (By the way, the Syrian textures look nice. Thanks for posting them).
  13. This. So much this. Unique bitmap names for the different branches (regular, Republican Guard, etc.) would greatly enhance flavor, and would be especially (although not exclusively) helpful for red v. red scenarios. Heck, in CMBN there are three different textures just for US airborne in order to provide the correct divisional shoulder patches. Different textures in the "appearance" drop-down menu would be ideal, but failing that please at least provide unique bitmap names for the different branches to give modders a chance. *Drops to knees and begs*
  14. Ninja'd by Mord That's what I used to do with CMSF1, because the Militia/Reserve troops had the solid color uniforms that were distinguishable from the camo used by regulars (and Republican Guard, and Airborne). The militia/reserve units, however, had significant equipment deficiencies and an absence of unit type choices, but it was the best option available. I was hoping that the upgrade to engine 4 standards would include taking advantage of the options created by the "appearance" drop down menu that did not exist back when CMSF1 was designed. I'm still hoping they will slip in a drop down option for the Syrians, even if in vanilla CMSF2 the difference is a subtle one -- mods could use the option to create other variations as needed. That sounds like a bug. I hope they squash that before release.
  15. MikeyD, thank you for responding. Unfortunately what you describe is what I feared -- CMSF 2 not taking advantage of the "appearance" options already available in the other CM2 titles. The appearance drop down menu allows scenarios where the same type of unit (Syrian regulars, say) to be present on both the "blue" and "red" side and have the appearance of belonging to different armies or factions. This enormously expands the options for red v. red scenarios. (Think Ethiopia v. Eritrea or any other clash involving eastern block equipment on both sides). For example, the availability of two different options in the "appearance" drop down menu for the Ukrainians in CMBS ("standard" and "digital camo") in effect allows the creation of an entirely different faction. I use a mod the turns "digital camo" into the appearance of an unconventional force, which can either represent Ukrainian militia, or the Russian-backed separatists. So, a scenario might include both Ukrainian troops, and the very same unit types but with a different appearance (and usually different soft factors) fighting against them as separatists in the same battle. Similarly, in CMSF2, if there were multiple options in the appearance drop down menu for Syrians, it would greatly expand the possibilities for red v. red scenarios because Syrians on side "A" could look different from the "Syrians" on side "B." That is all good to hear, but what I'm talking about is a different appearance between units, not a different appearance within units. Variation within a unit does not create a different appearance for the same unit type selected to fight on different sides. Thank you for the thought, but unfortunately I don't think so. Adding a unit tag would affect both sides. So if one uses a mod tag to change the appearance of, say, Syrian regulars, it would change the appearance of those Syrian regulars that appear on both sides of the battle; thus it would not allow the Syrian regulars on side "A" look different from the Syrian regulars on side "B." That is something the "appearance" drop down menu permits -- if Battlefront provides for more than one option.
  16. I'd really like to see waffelmann's question answered. In CMSF 1, the lack of variation in Syrian textures really limited red v. red scenarios, which were my favorite. I am really hoping there are different textures available for Republican Guard, Airborne, etc.; or, better yet, multiple available options on the "appearance" drop-down menu in the editor for the various flavors of Syrian units. Just having those options available would hugely expand the scenario-making possibilities for red v. red.
  17. Why not? I thought everyone's could.
  18. Thank you Oleksander. I hoist a beer in your honor.
  19. Dang! I'm not first post. Curse you, Erwin! *Shakes fist impotently at the sky*
  20. Those are my number 1 wish. (Technically, my number 4, 3, 1, and 2 wishes respectively).
  21. Please don't limit the flexibility of the editor. I can imagine legitimate reasons a scenario creator may wish to depict higher quality units that the game ordinarily presents as Volkssturm. For example, the Volkssturm would be good candidates for modding into partisans (such as Yugoslav partisans, who could be quite competent) and hard coding soft factors would limit those options. Soft factors have normally been left to the scenario designer's discretion. Please don't depart from that sound policy. (Also, thanks for the bones!)
  22. You may not be far off with the estimated release date, but because the game is set in the summer of 2017, I don't think Ukrainian equipment obtained after that date is likely to be included. Although, come to think of it, Battlefront could justify the addition of Ukrainian javelins by reasoning they would be supplied to Ukraine as wartime allies in the hypothetical backstory provided for the game.
×
×
  • Create New...