birdstrike
-
Posts
1,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by birdstrike
-
-
Usefulness is hardly an issue. I guess most people would want to see such a feature added, and there are scenarios which would greatly benefit from it. It's a matter of allocating resources.
It could be as simple as using a saved game from the end of the first scenario and just import the new units for next scenario, or it could require the game code to be turn inside out, I don't know.
-
Don't know if we'll ever see that. Something like the old 'Operation' style campaigns Depends would be nice IMHO, but if the coding required is too difficult or would take away resources needed for the other things for Normandy, I doubt it'll happen. It's also a question of how many times this feature would get used eventually. If it's only for a handful of maps it's hardly worth the effort, I reckon.
For what it's worth though (and to lobby for consistent building damage
), from my experience, I think the current AI would already be able to deal with buildings destroyed from an earlier battle. The question is valid if players woud destroy each and every building on the map to deny building cover to the AI, but I'd say two things would basically rule that out: for one the player may not know if he needs the buildings himself in the following mission, and secondly there's always the option to use preserve objectives to prevent him from even reaching the next mission if he does that. -
Argh, confused me.
You mean like the different weather states (hazy, overcast, &c)?There is 3 types of mountain backdrops, the basic one for clear and overcast weather (overcast is just a darker version of clear weather), one with light fog for hazy and one with heavy fog for thick haze.
Sky changes related to the weather setting, basically same as above, but thick haze has a distinct red tint to it and overcast is overcast, of course.
-
This has been around since the beginning, IIRC. Same happens to Army MOUT troops (or any units which can split into 3 seperate teams for that matter it seems.)
I think the game simply doesn't like splitting and rejoing squads at will. I found the only 'stable' way of splitting squads is using the stock split team sizes (split, assault, AT teams).
-
Mountain textures are in the base game bmp/textures/skybox/mountains folder
Simply replace the original texture with a new background (keeping the aspect ratio IIRC). The sky is a seperate texture so you only want the actual 'object' which can be seen on the horizon.
-
And thanks for the comments to Dietrich, aswell.
-
The post wasnt a gripe. I didnt mean for you to go changing stuff.
I thought it was a damn good mission.
I was just overall upset with the sniper thing..They shouldnt have to be set on 'elite' or 'crack' to be dropping guys at 300m. Game flaw, not map.
No offense taken.
In fact, I totally understand: as a gamer I always want more firepower than I get, but as scenario designer one is always much more reluctant to add too much. And the snipers in the scenario should have been elite in the first place -they were set to veteran by accident - I must've changed their experience setting along with the rest of the batallion at some point.
Low and behold it didnt say I WON, but said 'Unconventional Minor Defeat' or something to that matter.That's strange - it should say something like U.S. defeat/victory/whatever. Has anyone else seen this happen?
Anyway, thanks again for the comments, much appreciated. And I'm glad you liked it.
-
Thanks for the comments. Not afraid of the bad press, are you?
Just curious, did you score a victory?
I rechecked the US snipers' setting and realized it was 'veteran' instead of 'elite', as it should be. Mea culpa.
I've already uploaded an updated version (Mk IIIa) with the correct experience setting. (Those who've already downloaded the scenario can simply set the US Sniper setting to 'elite' themselves if they don't want to redownload. In the unit editor look for "2-87 Batallion - A Company - Sniper Team" and set experience to 'elite'). Hope that increases their performance.
About limiting fire support - that was a design decision, I didn't want to make the scenario too easy. The other option would be to give more fire support and increase the penalty for collateral damage - so far, something I've been reluctant to do for a couple of reasons.
Some buildings don't have their doors placed to the convenience of the player. If you forget checking for a suitable entrance, your guys can end up running around the building looking for a door.
And if the ATGMs are killing off your squads, you can try to use split squads to reduce casualties somewhat.
-
You should also get a decent graphic program. I'm using GIMP - it's free and offers a lot of possibilities. (A windows installers can be found here: http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/stable.html)
There also is a downloadable manual here: http://www.gimp.org/docs/
All those options in the program can be overwhelming at first, but you can start slowly, just playing around with the basics and then move on step by step, and don't be afraid of making mistakes (when I started, I had no idea what I was doing
). For any specific problems, feel free to ask, there's a lot of great artists around here who can help you and there also is a lot of information on the web about using gimp (or whatever program you want to use) to create or manupulate pictures.
-
Okay, sold. Where can I preorder?
-
I should have done that in the first place-
anyone interested can download the map here, to take a closer look at the terrain:
http://www.mediafire.com/?znyh05mdklw
(and if there are no objections I'll delete some of the pics to save some bandwidth
)Please keep in mind that this is a work in progress, the units on the map are a only meant as a starting point and do not represent everything that I want to use in the finished scenario. It should give a general idea, though. Also, the original plan had the Marines first retake the village from a Red Paratrooper unit which occupied the village shortly before - for a defense-only scenario the Blue troops would have a few less troops.
Blue would retain about 1 company + 1 CAAT squad and 2 additional TOW launchers and a few Mk19 and M2s. They would not have access to heavy artillery and keep only mortars with limited ammo. I have to rethink about giving blue air support (thanks for the suggestions, PT - I think giving a lone harrier to blue would be quite a good idea).
Red would get something like 1+ tank company (TURMS and T90s), 2 Mech Companies (BMP-2s and -3s), some other bits and pieces and some infantry on foot, bringing the total to something like 1 Battalion or so.
Red unit experience would be veteran and above (with some elite formations).
In addition, Red gets abundant artillery and some air support (at least that's the plan - will see if my machine can take it
).(That's for a Red AI attack, of course. For a H2H scenario Red would get considerably less.)
-
5) and 6) are looking towards the center of the map from the hills in the upper right corner/upper left, respectively.
5)
6)
-
All right, here are some quick shots of the map:
Total map size is 1888x928m. Blue would be on the right side of the river defending, red would enter the area from the left, trying to cross the river and reach the right edge of the map.
The brown areas are actually woods, the trees are just not visible at this distance. The edges are generally higher terrain the area around the river and the village is lower terrain.
The two bridges would form a bottleneck for the attacker, but to make it easier for the AI, I also added a few crossable fords in various places (mainly to allow infantry attacks off the main axis).
Some shots from a lower angle:
1) shows the ridge on the right edge of the map
2) shows the village as seen from the wooded hill at the bottom of the map
3) shows the plain on the left side of the river
4) shows the Red force deployment zone at the left edge of the map.
-
Far from anything wonderful
Apart from the unit balance, the AI is giving me a little headache.
I'll upload a map screenshot.
-
I wonder if the issue is related to the new dismount-able weapon systems? Has anyone noticed something similar with the Humvees?
-
Interesting topic. Happens I've been working on scenario of this kind and asking the same questions.
The plan was to have a mission along the lines of a Classic Operation Flashpoint red Force invasion with Blue at a disadvantage: a Company of Marines, no air or heavy artillery support in an ad hoc defense against an armor heavy russian-style red force, including artillery and air support.
However my machine would not allow for too big a map and too many units, so I'm aimed for nothing more than 1 OPFOR Battalion on a 2km x 1km map.
-
I saw this happen just the other day, so I tried to recreate the issue.
Indeed, it only seems to affect the WMIK with HMG and GMG (fire support section, IIRC). A lost crewman cannot be replaced with another soldier and his weapon is not taken over by another crewman.
Some pics to better illustrated the problem:
WMIK GMG lost its gunner. The guy at the 7.62 does not take over the GMG.
After loading a 2-man command team onto the WMIK, the GMG is still unmanned.
-
Second that. Same here.
It's especially annoying when you only have two guys left and the bloke riding shotgun refuses to let go of his GPMG. Would be good to give the heavy weapon priority over the 7.62 in that case.
-
Of course, he'd look less like a dork without that hat.
People usually expect the face to go with the voice - and vice versa.
That said, I guess Ol' Blue Eyes would probably have a harder time these days, aswell.
-
Thanks for the update.
I just want to make sure I'm not using a scenario name which is already taken.
-
Thanks Thomm. That's excellent!
Much appreciated. -
Does someone happen to know the names of all the missions in the British Campaign?
Thanks.
-
Only been playing CMSF since it came out.
I still had CMAK installed up to last year, but deleted it when I needed the space for CMSF mods and modules.
-
I wonder why the hunt command terminates all further movement orders. If this would not be the case, it could add a wide range of tactics.
Hunt followed by reverse -> retreat on contact
or similiar
Hunt followed by any other movement order -> on contact move to...
Hunt followed by hunt -> similiar to the classic CMx1 hunt command
Now let's combine this with pauses at the waypoints...
Speaking as always as a non-programer, I wonder if it is difficult to remove the 'termination-switch' from the hunt command...
I like the idea. That's something I would have liked to have back in the old CMx1 days, too.
), from my experience, I think the current AI would already be able to deal with buildings destroyed from an earlier battle. The question is valid if players woud destroy each and every building on the map to deny building cover to the AI, but I'd say two things would basically rule that out: for one the player may not know if he needs the buildings himself in the following mission, and secondly there's always the option to use preserve objectives to prevent him from even reaching the next mission if he does that.
You mean like the different weather states (hazy, overcast, &c)?
BFC main page trojan
in Combat Mission: Shock Force Tech Support
Posted
Wow, good thing I did check the forums first. The mail smelled kinda fishy - lucky me.