stikkypixie
-
Posts
4,132 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by stikkypixie
-
-
Why not just have a 'random' map option that picks a map from the 300 plus sitting in the application folders at random? As new maps are added, the selection takes the growing list into account.
So, the map isn't generated as such - it had to be created by a developer or a modder, but the player doesn't know which map he's going to get. Surely that would be a low cost way of pleasing everyone?
It's already in.
-
In an attempt to answer the OP:
A really big change is the sense of just how many dudes are in these fighting formations and how much space they take up. Even with CMx2 bunching them up a bit too much
the 1:1 is a big change. CMx1 with its squads that exist as singularity points in space cannot give any idea of how much space 30 men must occupy.
CMx2 terrain is more complex but at the same time the tile-based system gives a bit more of a Steel Panthers hexfeel to squad moves. Instead of CMx1 terrain LOS being high res showing across nice neat squares of translucent glass (forests), LOS in CMx2 is is a tile based rather low res 8x8 metres, complicated with sub-tile elements, and with the multiple LOS heights the game exists truly in 3D.
It seems to me when comparing the two games that each squad in CMx1 was like a vehicle with hitpoints. The infantry model in the new engine is vastly changed.
LOS in CMx2 is point to point. The LOS checks on the 8x8m squares are a rough filter, reducing impossible combinations. If it is possible a much more detailed LOS check is performed and then the LOF calculations are done.
The biggest change for me is that squads no longer act like one big lump. In CMBB if a squad gets suppressed, everyone gets down; if a squad routs everyone routs. This made it impossible to for example break contact, because running back the whole squad will get suppressed and everyone dies. In CMx2, what happens that some guys will make it out and some guys don't. Some guys will shoot and some guys won't.
-
Thanks for your answer. Will my friend be able to get access to the .exe file without log in to my account?
No, you have to be logged in. You probably want to pay your friend a couple of visits and bring a couple of beers
. A note though, BFC allows downloading the .exe 10 times or until 365 days has expired from the first download. It's a VERY good idea to back the .exe once you download it. -
And what is he/she doing on the back of the manual?
-
The installer .exe is the same for everyone (it was like this for CMSF so 99.99999% sure it will be the same
). You can ask a friend to download the game and burn it to a CD or copy it to a memory stick and give it to you. To ACTIVATE WITHOUT internet go to the game manual on page 9. So there shouldn't be a problem. -
Since I can't seem to edit my post I'll correct it this way.
After some more trial runs I've discovered what was being done wrong. One breech is indeed large enough to drive through. It was the timing in which the orders were being given that was messing me up. You can only give the order for the vehicle after the hole has been formed in the wall, other wise the AI plots a new route. Since it does the calculations at the beginning of the turn, the whole route needs to be prepared in advance.
I don't know the exact timings for vehicles, but for infantry (so not the engineers) I find that pausing 30 seconds after the breach order STARTS is usually enough time for the non-breaching infantry to run through the gap. It can be a bit tricky to estimate when the engineers will get to their breach waypoint though. Have you tried pausing the vehicles for say 45 seconds relative to the breach order?
-
That maybe what he meant, but what he said - with emphasis - is that adding auto maps would make the game inferior than not having them. Which isn't true.
Maybe automaps were good enough for CMx1 but they will not be good enough for CMx2, it's hard to extrapolate especially if you've never seen what a automap in CMx2 looks like.
Anyway my two cents. Glad that the option of having a quick game is back. The maps won't be random (although randomly picked), but that's ok for me because I've played close combat on the same map over and over again and in the end you learn to live with it because I liked them. Mind you CC3 only had like 30 maps.
If only that demo would be released.
-
Now there's an optional version of the silhouette mod with effective ranges. (As per CMBN manual.)
Hey Marco, ever told you, you were my hero
. -
Be careful what you wish for people....
For all I liked CNBB I think the CMx2 version could be a very different game. One of the biggest changes that we have seen is in command and control (C2) and the importance of battlefield cohesion and communication.
I think this will be the key to making the game realistic in that the russian superiority in numbers will be balanced realistically by terrible C2.
This will mean that as a Russian player a lot of the time you will be either issuing orders to no one or watching your orders being ignored. Certain in a T-34 v PzV battle I suspect that once the hatches close you could find yourself as all but a spectator.
The way to win as the Russians might be to have a solid simple battle plan and to stick to it hoping that the Germans don't do something unexpected and that you can make enough progress before the fog of war gives the advantage to the Germans who will react better.
In effect to win as a Russian you will need to play as a Russian.
If they build it that way and it works they will have made a brillant game, but it might be one that disappoints those people who love Russian hardware and underestimate russian weaknesses.
I remember the frustrations in CMBB of having a tank that could cut a PzIV in half but was scared to face it. If anything I suspect that in CMx2 commanding the Russians will be even more frustrating.....
I like that idea and the challenges it brings, but not everyone will.
Peter.
I don't know if you played CMSF or not, but being out of C2 does NOT mean that you CANNOT give orders any more. Being out of C2 affects morale, fighting performance, spotting and relaying information. What you will see is that it is really hard to read the battlefield because there will be <?> contact markers everywhere and Russian tanks will more difficult time spotting (if they don't have radios that is, although I suspect by the time of Bagration, this will be less of a problem).
-
I don't know whether that's poppycock or a straw man.
I think it's a straw man, because you don't need to 'pack an entire encyclopedia with your product' to deliver the information people are asking for.
It's poppycock, because we don't know the sources that BFC used to determine the effectiveness of given weapon systems and we don't have years to do the extensive research and might not arrive at the same conclusion if we did. Neither have we been trained on nor fought with and/or against all these weapon systems, so passing on a distillation of the knowledge to the (possibly new to the genre, especially at this level of accuracy) player is entirely reasonable. The old 'info' screen from CMx1 was hardly information overload.
Look just wait for the game to come and see whether any additional information is needed or not. Arguing about this is not going to help, even if everyone agrees there is still the question of not having enough resources to implement this or any other practical reason.
-
First impression: the top download link for CMSF demo goes to some random shady download site, which tries to give me a CMA demo setup file that's like 5MB in size. Whoops. Oh well, let's try another one. Well, that worked.
What link is that? I just tried it and I end op at worthplaying.com and it is perfectly legit. Just curious.
-
I agree with a lot of what yllamana has said. A lot of the gripes I have with CMSF (I've only bothered with the demo) and CMBN (judging from AARs and facts iterated on this forum) are the same ones he has. The keyboard movement controls are more than awkward and the change to "relative hotkeys" adds confusion and unnecessary keystrokes. The UI is also cluttered and confusing. Additionally, there's no guided walkthrough or tutorial in the CMSF demo, which turns off a lot of people.
Not saying that you're wrong, I really don't like the relative hotkeys either. But I do have to say that the interface issue is just a matter of getting used to. It is also highly subjective.
Anyway the hotkeys system can be changed in a minute (or use the space bar). The interface needs to convey a lot of information, if you have ever played close combat you know it can be much worse but even then CC still remains highly enjoyable
. As for the camera controls, I'm one of those persons who use the mouse to do the navigating so I rarely use the keyboard, to be honest I don't know any game where the best way to move around a 3D map is the keyboard. And once you discover the glory that is crtl+left click you never go back.
CMBN will apparently include a tutorial, so at least that is covered; although no tutorial can convey all the things you have to consider to get most out of your troops.
-
Yeah, he was cool. That great quote about the biker bar...
Michael
How did that go again?
-
Out of curiosity, how are personnel casualties calculated in game? I understand from other posts that vehicle casualties are calculated off the 3D model now with multitude other factors incorporated, but what about people? Is the trajectory of every bullet tracked to see if it hits a 3D man? And if it does, how then is a KIA determined rather than a WIA? Are body areas tracked, or a random chance applied based on pre-determined factors, or something else?
Basically yes if I understood it correctly (and it seems to be that way from experience in CMSF), but in lesser detail. Bullets (all of them!) are tracked, but the soldier models are less detailed than the tank models. In CMSF body armour was tracked for example, but there was no distinction between upper torso or lower torso etc.. Also the "calculations" are a bit fudged to give more realistic results because the 3D guys are not as smart. So a hit to the arm might not result in an injury because the game decides that guy was lucky even though the polygon was clearly intersected. It is a bit less easy to see because unlike tank shells not every bullet can be seen (some people feel the tracers are already over represented). If you look at the second video AARs posted by Tyrspawn you can see that each time a bullet hit a tank it results in a hit text (minute 39, keep an eye on the Tiger).
-
As long as player/modders can tweak things to their liking if they like fewer casualties or many casualties, all will be well. Not the weapons lethality (which isn't the problem), but aspects of the game that reward/punish certain player behaviors.
Sure you can really heavily penalize own casualties as a scenario designer or set the morale or motivation of the troops really low so that they will be very reluctant to fight back.
Play an average CMSF scenario as the Syrians and you'll see what I mean.
-
Saw this dark three parts preview - where's the mortar/artillery craters?
Just transparent explo globes, and no damage levels shown on buildings, just a sudden collapse?
And say, will the rather gay/playmobil-style soldier models be customizable?
Rather short on developers, i suppose?
You're right, I always preferred lesbian lego-style movement myself.
-
German 3 para regiment,elite unit, defending Cassino town 1944.Between 14 and 23 March, during very heavy fighting they lost 50 men killed, 114 wounded and 270 missing. from a force reckoned to be 700-750, 60% casualty rate.
CMBN one hour battle, what looks to be a German infantry battalion, 157 men ok, 100 killed, 70-78 wounded = about 32% casualty rate, that is a bit stiff.
once again if it is just playing style, though again, from what I saw the ai did nothing suicidal in the battle, then ok, no problem but if it is that the accuracy of the aimed fire is too high, then that is a problem.
I feel that it's not the accuracy of aimed or unaimed fire that is the problem, but the fact that we put our little virtual soldiers in the position where they receive a large volume of fire. I guess in real battle most of the time people are hiding in cover.
-
-
Well if your coming upto a hill and want to be in a hull down position it would flash up at the point you would be roughly in hull down from the direct opposite side...I understand what your saying but wasnt there an order or something in the old CMx1...I thought it went something like this...long time ago I can't remember...I just find trying to get hull down is a fiddly business in CMSF..
And where would the direct opposite end be? The first hill or the hill behind that? An implementation like that would involve the AI somehow guessing to which position you want to be hull down. In CMx1 you had to put a second waypoint to where you wish to be in hull down and if there wasn't one the tank would just continue to go there.
In CMSF you can just eyeball. Remember the terrain is much more detailed and it not that hard to find potential hull down positions. It's no more fiddly than in CMx1 and that hull down command was not used often or you would probably remembered how it worked.
-
something that would really help the WEGO players is the time in mins and seconds it will take at the end of a waypoint..this would make timing things alot easier...also info saying something like hull down popping up near the waypoint when trying to position you movemoent end point...
With these two bits of info added alot of the negatives when using WEGO will be easier to get around...especially the timing point raised.
Hull down is a relative thing. How can you tell if you're hull down if you don't tell relative to what position?
-
I can't wait for the CMx2 Ostfront game so I can relive the experience of my IS-2s fleeing in terror from every German tank I command them to fire upon.
That behaviour has changed from CMx1
. -
Was it deleted in 5 seconds?
-
This and two weeks.
-
OK - so how does this work in CMBN?
Do you have to get in there at eye level and place movement/facing vectors?
Or do you tell the tank "go here" and the TC AI is smart enough to figure it out?
(BTW, pardon my ignorance as I did not really PLAY CMSF - just tested the demo for graphics settings purposes.)
What I do is, eyeball a potential hull down position, then plot the waypoint at that location and highlight the waypoint by clicking it and selecting the target command. This allows you to see what locations can be targeted from that waypoint as you move the mouse around (the target line originates from the tank, but the LOS is for the waypoint). In addition, if the location of the waypoint is hull down relative to wherever you're pointing, this will be displayed as text next to the vehicle. That way you can find good hull down position. Remember that since ballistics are now done with the polygons, there are gradations in hull down, in the sense that you can be barely hull down to completely hull down and shifting that waypoint around a bit can make a huge difference.
That TacAI will never be able to handle finding hull down positions because it does not know relative to where on the map you want to be hull down.
. A note though, BFC allows downloading the .exe 10 times or until 365 days has expired from the first download. It's a VERY good idea to back the .exe once you download it.
). You can ask a friend to download the game and burn it to a CD or copy it to a memory stick and give it to you. To ACTIVATE WITHOUT internet go to the game manual on page 9. So there shouldn't be a problem.
The Eastern Front next?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I'm pretty sure this is not the case. Unit icons are greyed out if they cannot be controlled, but that's because they are panicked (or something similar) and not because they are out of C2. Unless you can show me the page in manual
.