SlapHappy
-
Posts
1,576 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by SlapHappy
-
-
One of the things often forgotten about the MG-42 is that in the heavy configuration they employed a 4x scope giving it some better level of firing accuracy at longer ranges.
https://www.mainemilitary.com/productcart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idcategory=160&idproduct=2421
-
The RR in the Wehrmacht was primarily used by mountain troops, was it not?
-
Actually I do not think that it´s a bad idea. Well, not this clip obviously but premade animations with game graphics. Once close combat starts, the game calculates the outcome "behind the scenes" while the clip displayed is eyecandy only. Obviously that´s only a workaround until the 1:1 representation gets better, maybe they already achieved it in CMN?
I believe something like that's been done before in a video game.
-
BTW, isn't Ranger Run a baked scenario? I think that's what it was called.
-
Basically, baked scenarios allow you to preprogram units ON EITHER SIDE with the ability to carry out orders without your intervention from the beginning of a scenario. I was able to create a simple convoy group that would follow a road system under it's own programming. Honestly, very tedious to get the units to do exactly what you want and you lose all ability to edit the final baked scenario.
I wouldn't say the feature itself is totally with merit, however.
Or maybe I just like the idea of the feature more than it's actual usefulness.
-
Yup...people get pretty angry when they don't understand something and they lash out at it and those responsible for it. I can completely understand that games like CM are not interesting or desirable for people whose idea of wargaming is Company of Heroes. What I don't get is the hostility launched at anyone who tries to offer an alternative to the overused RTS model. It's almost as though they think that a developer is OBLIGED to offer up another clone of the same titles we've seen before but with flashier production values and still nothing under the hood that pushes the envelope in any way whatsoever. I was excited about Company of Heroes when I first saw some initial press and screen shots. That was before I found out essentially what the game really was all about. After that discovery, I knew I knew was no longer interested in the title and forgot about it. What I didn't do was develop a burning desire to see all the employees at Relic die in a plane crash over the Everglades. Call me abnormal.
Chalk it up to fixed thinking......
I remember back in the way early eighties when I had acquired a copy of AH's Arab-Israeli Wars. Of course, anyone who's been a player of simulation board games can attest how difficult it can be to find opponents for a game. So I've convinced my (actually very bright) cousin to play a scenario with me, even though he knows it could take up 3 or so hours of his life. I let him choose which side he prefers and he decides to play the Arab nation (Egypt, I guess, I can't remember which scenario), most likely because the scenario gave them many more units than the Israelites.
Well, about 1/3 of the way through the game, he realizes he's pretty much being stomped. He can't grasp how his quantitative advantage can be so offset by the qualitative advantage of my units. The he gets pretty angry. I try to tell him that the game is attempting to simulate a real world event and that part of the appeal is just playing and not necessarily winning, but he would obviously get better the more he played around with tactics and such.
But we never got through that game and he quit in a huff. Just goes to show you can never underestimate the power of someone's preconceived notions even in something as simple as a board game.
-
You can achieve something at least similar to this using baked scenarios, though, right?
-
Not trying to derail the thread, but did you know that Andy Griffith was a voice actor for Close Combat: A Bridge too Far? He supplied one of the British (yes, British) voices.
Sixxkiller: That's still very impressive considering you have no formal education in that language.
-
Steve
Will CMSF:2 incorporate a new or heavily modified engine? By referring to it as "2", it kind of implies that it will.
Or I guess it could just mean that the "modern" Combat Mission has moved on to another theater of war.
-
It works something like this.....
Surely CM:Normandy will be out by the end of the Summer!
-
Citing the first two examples of games built upon an engine doesn't really show that basing things on an engine doesn't limit the builders' creativity. If games based on Euphoria continue to be new and fresh (i.e. RDR and GTA4 haven't exhausted the possibilities) then a new paradigm of game design might have been born
Thanks Steiner and Womble.
It's my understanding that Euphoria is a physics sub-engine primarily. It can be combined with a number of other systems to create a game that doesn't rely on preset (and limited) animations. I don't doubt that a game like CM might be too large in scale to implement with it, but the possibilities are still pretty fascinating if you ask me. As Steve himself said, animations are a particularly troublesome to implement and it seems like you can never have enough of them. Which is sort of why I brought the whole topic up in the first place.
BTW, Backbreaker football is not a FPS, but rather than a sports simulation. So there is one example of a non-shooter game. Actually, all sports are simply an example of real-world physics in action.
-
I've been watching some videos showing early testing of the Euphoria engine on YouTube.
Since those videos have been made, the engine has been used in many recent games like GTA4, the new Indiana Jones and Backbreaker football.
Does anyone know how well that engine might scale to something with the scale and detail level of Combat mission. Is it only useful for small third person games with a limited amount of action and on-screen components?
The potential for destructible environments that don't require crude, unconvincing animations seem a natural fit for a simulation game like CM. Is licensing such an engine most likely well outside the $$$$ range for Battlefront? I personally don't think they'd ever license some one else's engine, but thought I'd ask.
-
I havent been looking at this forum for a while. Did anyone remember to ask when the game would be released?
Mike
So, when will the game be released?
-
I like it. I'll have to keep my eyes peeled for that one.
I've been a big proponent of BFC increasing the animation set in the game. I like to think my lobbying for the new "wall jump" animation was a factor in getting the one we currently have. It's much more appealing than the old "hurdler" animation.
I've been thinking about an animation that is actually more of an option for soldier posture during a movement command. Instead of only being able to utilize HUNT movement while standing, you should also be able to use it prone. I was able to sort of mimic such a move using real time mode and the STOP button.
I had a prone soldier who was behind a protecting ridgeline with enemy soldiers a few meters away but out of LOS. I SLOW moved the soldier (prone) to the edge of the ridge and pushed STOP as soon as he was able to achieve LOS. In this way he was able to dispatch 4 enemy soldiers while maintaining good cover. Otherwise he would have likely been killed trying to achieve the next waypoint which was beyond the ridgeline. A prone HUNT command would allow you to achieve the same idea without all the micromanagement and you could use it in RT or turn-based mode without penalty.
-
That's been my experience with this game engine. No one would argue that IN MOST CASES a 3.0 GHZ Dual Core I7 is faster than a Pentium 4 @ 3.0 GHZ even when only one core is considered. Other factors besides raw clock speed make that the case.
However this code was released 3 years ago and is even older than that from it's inception. We all know from BFC that the game does not utilize multiple cores. But there may be other factors that the game engine might be insensitive to as well. Signs indicate that we are not likely to see single-core CPU's that run at 5 GHZ+. It may well be that there is some improvement in FPS between an i7 and a P4 running at the same clock speed, but is that increase significant?
Recently Intel reintroduce hyper-threading to it's CPU current models. Will that be useful with the game engine performance? If so, to what extent?
-
I have a relatively modest system by today's standards: e7400 intel @ 2.8 GHZ w/ Nvidia 8800 gt AND 2 gb ram. It's disconcerting to see people with CPU and GPU that are 2 generations removed from mine who are still complaining about poor game performance.
So the question to me is not "why does my uber-system give me relatively poor frame rates?".....It's "what the hell does it take to really goose up this game engine and give real performance gains?"
And we still don't have a solid answer as to what those factors are. The only thing I've noticed is that raw MHZ increases in CPU tend to bump up FPS, but are those gains linear or no? And if they're not linear, why not?
I think a good benchmarking standard would be useful, but how would that system best be implemented? So many questions. I have considered upgrading my system solely for the purposes of improving playability of CMSF (which is one of only a couple of games I even play). But I certainly am not interested in tossing out $400 or so just for a 4-5 FPS gain.
-
You're probably right...I was probably taking weapons from dead and injured allied Afghan soldiers. I know that one point I had a US command group that was primarily armed with AK's and some RPG's as they had exhausted all ammo for their own weapons.
-
*Some Spoilers*
I don't post much as far as feedback on user scenarios - But I have to agree that Joint Venture is scary fun. I say scary because you really get a sense of terror from the besieging irregulars. I found keeping the starting troops alive is a matter of finding the absolute best cover situations for not only the troops but the HMG trucks as well. If you can those fifties up as long as possible, they can be invaluable in fighting off the human wave. Don't leave them out in the open where they can be targeted by grenade launchers and other long range weapons. Bunker them behind buildings.
Eventually you may need to loot those enemy troops as ammo will become scarce. Make sure to do that between attack waves. An enemy RPG can be very useful if you're trying to chase off a determined assault against your trench or building position.
I've replayed this scenario over a half dozen times - the only CMSF mission I've played that often. Just a blast. Thanks for making it.
P.S - If there are any out there who are interested in checking out a scenario that is demanding to run ( computer intensive) as well as quite unique, check out CITY RUINS. Massive city brawl.
-
My question is: How much would a SEAL team add in variety to the way the game is played now? What would delineate any of these units in the tactical sense given the current capabilities of the game engine?
I would much rather see more useful infantry capabilities including new animations. The only useful approach I can see to adding these Special Forces units would be if the scope of the game's capabilities were extended anyway. Plugging something like that in now feels too much like putting the cart before the horse.
-
Have you guys checked the limit settings on your VIRTUAL memory?
-
I think we're (unfortunately) going to go into the CM:N era without any type of close quarters combat detailed modeling. As Johnny points out, it simply isn't worked properly into the action point system. You could say the same thing about a lot of other possible tactics/maneuvers.
A shame really. I feel BFC needs to start addressing animations and AI for these types of situations. Anything that seems to require additional animations seems to be anathema to the developers, however.
-
One "Operation-Campaign" type I have yet to see is the use of 1-3 or so maps to represent an urban area that is being fairly constantly infiltrated by insurgent forces with a Blue Force opponent attached to a nearby encampment. The novel Joker One depicts just such a situation in Ramadi with a Marine unit.
Although I understand from another thread that this might come to fruition soon enough.
This would be a type where persistent damage would be a useful feature.
-
One concern I've had for a long time is the relative scale of movement in regards to the fastest movement rate - FAST - as opposed to the actual human potential.
In other words, soldiers don't seem to move as fast as they could on scale.
This would be very important in a high density area like this where a sprinting individual could cross enfilade zone very quickly and increase self-preservation by presenting an extremely short-term target.
-
So the ultimate role of these AT missile vehicles in CMSF is to fire their expensive guided missile systems into trenches of conscript troops? And in fact not even particularly effective in that role?
To me that means one of a couple of things: The units themselves aren't particularly useful in REAL LIFE or
The game does a poor job of modeling their capabilities.
Tactical employment of rifles/carbines in Normandy
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
One historical book I read referred to the German infantry squad as nothing more than an oversized MG team with most squad members responsible for carting around extra MG ammo and providing security for the firer and loader.
Later, the squad added an additional MG. I'm hopeful that Battlefront will give the infantry squad the proper feel in the game to simulate this tactical doctrine.