stikkypixie
-
Posts
4,132 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by stikkypixie
-
-
Hi nardiajn,
The drop-down they are talking about is this one:
-
ok stupid question where do print screens go in Windows 8?
Thx guys
Have you tried opening paint and pasting the content?
-
Lets just admit that this part of the game is not correct. Particularly so in the case of assault guns.
That's what abstraction means. You could always give pause orders yourself to the tank.
-
Is it just me are are the MG gunners a little more murder minded in their gunning too? Not the AKs and such they shoot all over the place but the lmg mmg and hmg's. And Drozd is really neat.
You mean accuracy-wise? Or pure lethality? I suspect the lack of body armour has something to do with it (and cover as well).
-
Did the Shock Force engine get any upgrades/fixes that never got patched into Afghanistan?
I believe they are actually quite close, if not identical too each other (and different from the WW2 games). There are less patches for CMA, but that's because it came out after CMSF.
To be sure, you could check the patch release notes. Have fun!
-
I am sure it didn't take that long before....
I suppose the extra time is in forming a hole or piling debris up to raise the tripod up to window height?
It's shorter in the open. In the a building it was always longer (as far as I can remember at least).
Ah, from the manual p.88 (CMBN):
Others may be de-ployed, but the Setup Time is increased: for example,
heavy MGs may deploy inside buildings, though assem-bly time is increased.
-
Thanks for the quick replies.
Strange then i have 2 heavy MG's in buildings (US) and after two whole moves in the buildings they still have not deployed ! Does hitting the deploy button again reset the deployment or pack them back up again ?? I have noticed the bug as well by the way .
Deploy MGs in buildings take about 5-7 turns. You'll have to be patient.
-
The only "problem" I can see with that is that it becomes a good strategy for the customer to just wait as long as possible before buying any game.
That is if you have to pay a total of $55 + $10*number of versions to get the latest version. lets assume v4.0 so that would be $95 (maybe a bit lower with a discount for multiple upgrades).
On the other hand if you wait a couple years you can get that same game for $55 (and maybe even cheaper if you wait for a holiday sale).
Don't get me wrong I think continued support is great and I want this model to succeed, but presented with that choice the latter option sounds much better to me.
Given the pace of the releases I think I'd rather spend my money than wait 1-3 years to have to buy the game
. It's trade-off we all have to judge for ourselves. -
Forget about this patch/upgrade dispute. It doesn't change anything, that's true. But I like to complain and I like Combat Mission so I complain even more when something is not like I wanted to be
But I couldn't understand (and still can't) for example why such things like movable waypoints or cover armors (which was some basic things in CMx1) couldn't be implemented in a base game, not even in a patch. You are saying this is something more which should be sell as an upgrade. And I'm asking why can't you sell finished game and then develop and improved it for money instead of selling your product sliced into pieces?Forget about previous version of Normandy. That was my opinion and it doesn't matter now. I found there too many irritating bugs and the engine was horribly optimized
That's a valid opinion and your entitled to it. Still you haven't answered my question, what bugs made the game unplayable. Give some examples?
And more to the point, what needs to be included in a game before you feel it is finished and how much would you be willing to pay for it?
-
No, Normandy was unplayable and full of bugs until many patches were released and that was why I didnt buy it before. That's what I mean. Just like GTA IV ;P But this is not reason to be proud of this
There were 3 patches (1.01, 1.10 and 1.11) released since the game came out in May 2011. I don't find this "many". I have played GTA4 (
) and to compare Normandy with the state of GTA4 is just silly.What made it so unplayable for you (and that was fixed?), Normandy that is?
-
I will be swinish
It should look like this: Charge $xx for unplayable game(Normandy)
Add lot of patches to make it playable
Add few vehicles and maps for $xx
Add support for continued new features for $zz aka payable patches
Than make new game with few changes.
Shouldn't you just cut your losses then? I don't think they'll change their pricing policy and it's clear that you don't think their products are worth the price they are charging (even though you might enjoy them). Why give yourself so much grief about it?
And on a personal note, seriously if you think the game is "unplayable" because it lacks this:
Moveable Waypoints
Ability to assign special uniform types for select units types on a unit by unit basis.
Target Armor Arc Command
Expanded Floating Icon Categories
"Fog of War" Floating Icons
2D Editor Map Overlay
Auto-Assemble Road/Wall/Hedge Tool
Camera Jump to Groups
Target Briefly Command
New Rendering Shaders
Bump and Normal Mapping
Improved Framerates
Pausable Realtime TCP/IP Mode
then you seriously have way higher standards than me:).
-
Thanks for making this!
-
I don't know about the command halftracks, but I'm pretty sure the Pionierpanzerwagen cannot bridge.
Seasonal greetings!
-
Thank you for making this. Downloading it as soon as I finish typing
. -
-
Yeah, I started watching the trench platoon closely and it was virtually always a shell landing smack in the trench that caused casualties. Still no idea why the guys in foxholes seemingly loved to crawl out of them during barrages though.
No, I did not.
Hiding should reduce the casualty rate a bit, forcing them to keep their heads down.
-
I only ran five of each, but hopefully someone else has more datapoints to add.
Obviously, the platoon in the open was eviscerated by artillery, not sure if that matches wartime effectiveness or not. Surprising to me was that the trenches provided less protection than foxholes, approximately 2/3rds of those killed/wounded in foxholes had actually crawled out of the foxholes during the bombardment and were hit as a result. Nearly all the trench platoon's casualties were physically located in the trenches. I'm guessing with a larger 'open' area, the likelihood of a shell planting itself inside the trench is higher and that accounted for the seemingly ineffective protection offered.
Something to think about.
Did you tell the platoon to hide?
-
So what have we fixed so far?
1. The old methodology of spreading fire (which is what started this thread) has been abandoned and new "smarter" behavior created. Early tests indicate this largely fixes the problems most of you have been discussing throughout this discussion. This, actually, is where the Pool Table test helped out. NOT because of the results, but because it was easier to notice the targeting logic and understand why it needed to be adjusted.
2. Suppression effects have been increased. Not just for MGs but for small arms in general. The increases are proportional to the amount of lead being shot, which means MGs will cause proportionally more suppression than they used to.
Steve
Is this change already implemented or will it be included in an upcoming patch?
-
In a recent scenario one of my HQ units spotted an SPG on move one. Not having any armour myself, but a fair amount of off-map arty, I directed the unit to hit the Marder (I believe it was) with an 81mm barrage. During the the next few moves, some of my guys popped smoke and it interrupted the LoS, but the barrage landed where I wanted it to, so I was quite confident I'd disabled the enemy vehicle.
Later on a Marder popped up in a slightly different place (on a line between original observer and first SPG).
At the end of the game, there was no evidence of a damaged SPG in amongst the mortar craters form my barrage. What I want to know is: does the FoW extend to units placing spotted elements in the wrong place?
Or was it more likely that that the original had escaped the barrage and managed to move without being seen?
I was playing on "Warrior" difficulty
SPOLIER
This was the "La Hamelet" mission from Road to Monteburg
SPOILER
I believe if you see the actual marder then that position is accurate. Every level of FoW before is depicted by the <?> contact markers.
-
That solved it! I didn't even know you could turn off the icons.
Thank you.
Beneath the orders pane there is a game menu. If you click on that you can find a list with hotkeys which shows you what can be turned on or off. Have fun!
-
I've had CMSF+all modules for about a year without problems, and about three weeks ago the unit icons disappeared after another program crashed while CMSF was running.
I've uninstalled/reinstalled once, but the problem still persists.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
Have you checked that the unit icons are turned on (I believe by pressing ALT+I or CTRL+I). Just getting the obvious out of the way.
-
0h the debates that could evolve.
Precompute LOS from every point to point when the map is created:
Well, that works easily if everyone's LOS point is the same elevation (Z coordinate), but start mixing in the various elevations for infantry lying, standing, kneeling, 'short' armor, 'tall' armor, hull guns, turret guns, and TC LOS versus gunner LOS for short and tall, and it rapidly becomes a debacle just in terms of map file size. Ugh.
They could just limit to calculating the worst case scenarios no? As in, no possible way of getting LOS no matter the stance and height of the vehicle?
-
Stay tuned for the following conversation
US - Hey BF you need to lower the mobility of the sMG teams. They need to tire faster if going distances over say 60-80m.
BF- okay done sMG teams now tire faster
US- Hey wait a minute, my team was almost out of ammo they shouldn't tire so fast anymore. You need to add weight characteristics for EACH ROUND my guys are carrying and if they have the proper sling for carrying ammo cans.
BF- Go f**k yourself. (spoken very politely)
I'm pretty sure ammo weight is already factored in actually.
-
Thanks. I think that explains points 2, 3 and 4.
About point 1. I noticed that when there's a small obstacle, like a low wall, in between the Stryker and the enemy, then the Stryker can't get a line of sight on the ground next to the "invisible" enemy. This means I can't fire at the ground, even though the Stryker can hit it when he shoots automatically when the enemy stands up. Is there a workaround for this or is this a glitch in the game?
One more thing about those squares. I think it's quite annoying because if you can't fire at the enemy, there's no chance to kill the enemy, right? I guess it only suppresses the enemy?
Those squares, is this solved in the new Italy game? I read it's a newer engine. So does it have smaller squares, so that it's easier to aim at a specific point on the ground?
And one final question about those squares. Should I be imaging in my head a grid view, like the HEXes you can see in many strategy games? Or do the squares only apply to shooting?
First about the artillery, try not to use emergency missions if you can because they will miss.
As for the aiming thing, you are right (of course
), if there is a small wall in front of an enemy squad you cannot click the ground where that squad is. But there is a workaround, you can usually target the ground in front of the squad or behind the squad to area fire.What area fire does is to "spray around" the square, so eventually some rounds will fall where that squad is lying prone. I have found it to work quite well.
By the way the game tracks every round so area fire can *definitely* hurt the enemy. So you don't need to "see" the enemy to kill him.
As for the squares, it's something you're going to have to get used to, but it's not as bad as you think. The square serve 2 purposes, they define the terrain, they help reduce the calculation of the LOS (without impacting accuracy). The units however are tracked on a much finer scale using the polygon models of the soldiers and vehicles and bullet path to determine hits.
The squares are also in CMFI and probably won't in the future (although I might be wrong). Personally I have gotten accustomed to them, and barring one or two oddities here and there I find that it works quite good.
Good luck!
. It's trade-off we all have to judge for ourselves.
newbie 1st game
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Ok, this just means you don't have the 2.0 version of the game (it has minor enhancements). What version does your opponent have? If your opponent has the 2.0 version the game, you won't be able to see his/her turns.