SlapHappy
-
Posts
1,576 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by SlapHappy
-
-
Ha Ha. Yep, I was really looking forward to that one. Until I got a gander at the demo and found out the game was not at all what I thought it was going to be based on the lead-up to release.Originally posted by Tankbuster:also known as ....Completely over Hyped
They did a pretty good job of covering up the fact it was another resource-building game with hit-point allocated armor and out of scale maps.
Still, based on the way the gaming media sluts unhinged their jaws for it, you would have thought it was the second coming of Jeebus.
They make the automotive magazines look like a font of integrity and impartiality.
-
Has anyone successfully completed all five objectives? The closest I have come was to complete three of them. I've played the mission about four times. I was surprised with just how much the German AI throws at you in this one. I destroyed a lot of infantry and armor, but was basically overwhelmed.
-
OK, Rune you don't have to be THAT honest.....Originally posted by rune:Still being worked on, you can blame me, I broke the patch.
Sio is working on getting a fix. No ETA yet until we see why we are getting the error.Rune
-
Non-enterable buildings aside, it seems that many of the maps were created without regard for hard cover possibilities. Especially in regard to MG placement. It would have certainly made HMG's more effective to have the possibility to place these units in areas where they have the possibility of fulfilling their role as an area denial weapon.
A well-supplied and dug-in MG was nightmare for infantry and a tough nut to crack especially for unsupported troops. Their complete lack of mobility and low survivability make them a unit purchase to be avoided in this game as currently implemented in my opinion.
The wall graphics also leave a lot to be desired. On many of the maps, the walls are slightly taller than man-height, and since infantry can't scale them, foot units are forced into streaming "around" these obstacles into the narrow openings represented by gates and such. Along with the enterable buildings, I think it would be nice to add in the extra coding and animations to allow infantry some obstacle scaling capabilities.
-
Company of Heroes.
-
Oh God, yes! A most unspeakable crime in the eyes of the whore-bent gaming press. They are a big part of the reason PC Gaming is in the state it is now.Originally posted by Petrus58:....... but also for not being CoH. [/QB]
Shills.
-
FinnN is working on that. Many other squad types will probably appear in the near future.
-
The scripting capabilities will end up being the strongest asset in this game as time moves on.
Even though now it is considered a detriment by some.
Watch and see
-
One way to avoid the ability to have free reign over the map with your own artillery strikes might work if you do it this way:
Create a spotter unit composed of say two guys. Create a third army which is an ally of yours. Give that third army the support units, but no ground troops. When your spotter group sees an enemy formation, call the allies support and create target RECT based around spotted units.
You will never get the targeting icon that you normally get because the units don't belong to you and get treated as if they are AI controlled.
Should work in theory.
-
Oudy
I was looking at those files and noticed that some had a mesh file called GUN and others didn't. I pretty much chalked that up to inconsistency in their naming conventions, though. Can you verify the barrels all have their own separate mesh files? I also got the impression that in some cases, the tank guns are in sections. Or rather, there are more than one mesh for the entire barrel length.
Incidentally, even though I could look at the texture files, it wasn't clear whether the barrel textures were included with the main texture file (the 512 x 512 one). I think it looks alot better than I originally thought it would without altering the texture files.
-
Pandur
Also be aware that troops who are situated near trenches will also crawl into those trenches under AI decision-making. That includes uncontrolled player infantry........Just some behavior I witnessed.
-
After looking at some of the data for a bit, it seems that there are 3 primary data elements that affect grouping
KDistance - Which seems to be a modifier. It's value is always less than 1.
Grouping Dist - Which seems to be a baseline in meters.
SizeTargetForGrouping - Which seems limited to two types man-sized? or 1.8 and vehicle? or 9. All the small arms are based on the 1.8 value, while shells are based on the 9 value.
Machine Guns are all lumped under one heading at least for these variables. There is no light or heavy differential. However, HMG appears on a separate table which uses an index of 9 for SizeTargetForGrouping along with the tank/gun shells. There is also a pistol, SMG, and Rifle group. Of course, there might be other variables not in this formulae which affect the final value as well.
-
Oudy
This website has lots of credible-looking info about WWII tanks, small arms, etc. for many nations and is beautifully organized.
-
Based on a penetration table I got on-line, the 37L21 is over-modeled by about 5 mm at 100 meters. And about 3 mm @ 500. These numbers ARE based on 30 deg sloped armor, however. I don't know what the encyclopedia numbers are based on.
Actually, the biggest error seems to be that the figures I got on-line are based on APBC ammo, not AP as listed in TOW. The AP ammo as listed on the website is almost useless against armor.
http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_vehicles_adv.php?op=getvehicles&vehiclesX=14
-
Engineers minus flamethrowers aside, I would think that satchel charges would be doable within the context of what can be currently altered.
And perhaps teller mines, too?
-
Pandur
Based on my HT Assault mission script writing I can tell you that infantry defending in trenches have a definite advantage vs. onrushing infantry (as it should be). Even when the entrenched are of lower quality, it will take some fairly good numerical superiority on behalf of the attacker to see any kind of success. Happily, multi-directional attacks do seem to give some advantage when storming entrenched positions (as it should be). Also, some vehicular support is always a plus as well.
-
I agree the placeholders for the player side seem sort of redundant. I'm not sure what purpose the other player icons serve on the map unless it's just to reference the placeholders later.
-
I think the scripting language needs to be elevated to a higher order by simplifying routine tasks in an easier to use format.
This would speed up the design process. Unfortunately one of the current things missing is an input dialog for the editor.
-
Pandur
The thing to keep in mind about enemy AI units that are reinforcements or otherwise, is that enemy units will do nothing but stand and move around just a bit in the area they are originally generated....They will fire or otherwise engage units in their LOS, but that's about it. Any mission specific movement requirements have to be scripted in some fashion.
In fact, they will not even pursue your forces when spotted as friendly AI tends to do when not given a "hold" order. I found this out when generating a script to create a Russian "human wave" command.
-
Which army is yours? It should be Army 1 by default. If you are referring to the AI army not using it's support, remember you have to set a condition in the script how it will use it's support assets. There is a good example of how this is done in the mission editor video tutorials that are stickied on this message forum.
-
Nikki
Can you duplicate the results without the bazooka rounds?
-
There is a rating for the guns and ammo which relates to the "tightness" of the dispersal pattern modified by gunner quality and other factors, correct? So the light machine guns have the same rating as the heavies? (around 5-6 for 7.92 ammo).
Also, the heavier calibers have a lower number (tighter) pattern? Am I understanding this correctly? Weren't the MG-34 and MG-42 in heavy role used with optical sights with around 4x magnification? Wouldn't this effect dispersal pattern independently of the actual velocity of the ammo?
Also, would increasing the number beyond it's base figure "loosen up" the spread even more. And if it does, will the rounds spread out on the vertical or horizontal plane? Or both?
-
Interesting. I'm going to try a test setup.
-
"mostly iam a fan of reinforcements when you reach a certain spot or phase line."
That can be done as well within the scripting capabilities. You can even determine the number of troops required to reach the location before the reinforcements are triggered. Or even create a probability function on whether the reinforcements show up or not. Or when they show up. You can even randomize WHAT TYPE of reinforcements show up. Or combinations of all of the above.
Pretty much unlimited possibilities, as I said before.
Editing Vehicle files
in Theatre of War
Posted
Oudy
Nice work. How are you identifying which meshes to move? Trial and error, or are you able to view them with a utility? I haven't had any luck finding something to read the .msh format files (with or without the textures). I noticed in the file header there is a "BS" in all the .msh files.
The only thing I was able to find is there is a custom SDK provider called Bitmanagement Software which is a German concern. They provide an SDK for Blender. They also provide custom SDK's for developers. The Blender exporter is called "BS Exporter". That's just a shot in the dark, though after doing a pretty exhaustive search on Google for any scrap of info I could find.