umlaut
-
Posts
1,915 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14
Posts posted by umlaut
-
-
Thanks mate, I thought so: It doesn´t look like you´re going to run out of stuff to do in the foreseeable future.
-
Your Lynx need litle changes too
I am working on an updated version of my Lynx mod...
So Aris: Could you tell me if you´re planning on updating your Lynx sometime soon? Then there´s not much point in making my own mod.
-
Updated models for some vehicles too, does that mean those mods are obsolete?
I can´t speak for all of the vehicles, but it certainly means that in regards to the Pz II Lynx:
I was not happy at all with the original CW version, so I made a mod for it back in april.
I´ve just checked the new version - and it is not compatible with the old version. So I´ll have to make a new mod...
However, the good news are that the new Pz II Lynx looks great - and has a completely new set of extras and much more detail. So it is actually not as nescessary to mod this one.
I´ve also noticed that the King Tiger looks much better.
Thanks a lot, BFC.
-
Yes, gliders and such would be nice.
But you are far from the first user requesting (wrecked) civilian cars, and I have to say that I think the focus on having civilian cars is out of proportion. This is why:
In 1940´s Europe civilian cars were much more scarce than in the US: They were mainly a thing for relatively wealthy people and/or for business use (doctors for instance). That is why Hitler´s promise to supply every german family with a VW was such a radical and seductive idea.
Moreover, the chances of getting petrol for a civilan car in occupied Europe in 1944 was very close to nil.
Thus, I find it safe to assume that most civilian cars in France were stashed away in garages and barns in the summer of ´44 - since they were very valuable items that couldn´t be used at the moment. That would be what I would have done, if I were a car owner in France june 1944 - knowning that the war was heading my way.
-
The range to the last target was exactly 100m.
That is: 109,36 yards
-
This is what I´d call a cliffhanger :-)
-
what part of this do you not understand as a warning for firing a bazooka from within a room.
Well, most of this, actually.
If the quotes from the manuals above are supposed to tell the GI´s that they shouldn´t fire bazookas from inside rooms, I´d say the do it in a very indirect way. I would have imagined they´d say something like: "DO NOT FIRE FROM INSIDE BUILDINGS" to make sure the message had gotten across.
So when you get them to add it in the game, dont forget to make them add the effects if he mis-judges his clearences.
Please tell me, where exactly I said that I wanted these features added in the game? akd asked for references that supported that soldiers were trained not to fire zooks and schrecks from inside buildings. I went looking for those - and to my own surprise I wasn´t able to find any. So I posted the findings.
-
Do you have any references to support this?
When I read this I went searching via google. I found these manuals for bazookas and panzerschrecks (plus a few more superficial manuals for panzerfausts):
http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/bazooka/index.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33599058/TB-200-6-Launcher-Rocket-AT-M1-Bazooka-USA-1942
http://www.bergflak.com/images/D1864_1.pdf
http://www.bergflak.com/images/Merkblatt.pdf
As far as I can tell, none of these manuals mention restrictions on or warnings about firing from buildings (but I must admit that I do have a hard time trying to read german set in gothic font - as in the last manual). If firing from buildings was considered lethal or hazardous, wouldn´t it then be logic to assume that the manuals would have warned against it?
-
...so can zooks and schrecks fire from a balcony
But if I recall, I'm sure you can now fire Panzerfaust from within buildings.Just ran a quick test: six teams of schrecks and six teams of tank hunters (fausts) sitting on balconies while eight Shermans roll around the corner at app. 50 m range.
Result after 60 seconds:
Plenty of small arms fire, a couple of dead TCs, one dead tank hunter...
...but none of the 36 panzerschreks rounds or the 12 panzerfausts were fired.
-
Yeah, I'm thinking people don't want to "work for it". Make the scenario because you like making scenarios.
If people couldn´t be bothered to work for it, why should Bimmer be bothered to upload it?
-
This has been discussed here earlier. So here´s an updated version of my earlier input to the discussion:
Let me use my latest (of two!) CM2 scenarios as an example (named "Waylaid", link below): It has been downloaded 124 times, but as of yet no one has commented or rated it. I can only guess at what this means, but based on my own way of using scenarios I can imagine a number of reasons for not commenting/rating:
1. I downloaded the scenario, but then I forgot all about it
2. I downloaded it, had a look at it, and decided I didn´t like it (or didn´t feel like playing it today)
3. I downloaded it, played it, thought it stank but was too polite to say so (!)
4. I downloaded it, played it, loved it - but forgot to comment/rate.
There are probably more reasons, but these are based on my own way of using the repository.
I admit I am not very good at writing feedback myself - but I do try. But all the same I do think that the lack of feedback is a great discouragement for scenario designers.
Speaking from my own experience again: Having spent around three months designing and testing a scenario - and then having zero feedback. Do I feel encouraged to upload another? Take a guess.
That doesn´t mean I might not still design scenarios for myself - that is afterall my main motivation for designing them in the first place.
But the step from playing them yourself and then to uploading them on the repository is actually pretty steep: Not only do you normally have to playtest the scenario vs other players. And that takes weeks, if not months. You also have to write a briefing, create a tactical map, make a few screenshots and so on. Chores that aren´t necessary when no one except youself are going to play the scenario. So why go through that extra hassle?
Personally, I have also come to suspect that my strengths might lie more in designing the maps, not the scenario mechanics of AI plans, composition/balancing of forces and the like. So I´ll probably upload maps rather than scenarios in the future. Players can then use them for QB´s or for making their own scenarios.
This leads to another possibility: If anyone is interested, we could try a joint venture - with me designing the map.
-
Thanks a lot for the tree mods. I´d like to express my gratitude with a little poem:
"I´ll raise a leg to salute Aris´ trees",
says the dog with a bark - and leaves
-
I forget who made it but its easy to find. look for alternate weapons silhouettes. theres several variants and one has the weapons ranges under the pic. very useful.
Right here:
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=107081
-
That smoke looks fantastic
- just as all your other work.
-
I fully agree. I´ve still only struggled and sweated myself (and my pixeltroopers) halfway up the slope in the second battle. But it is so far a brilliant campaign - looking very much forward to the next battles. Great work.
-
I must admit, I really don´t understand the problem:
I don´t like to look at the bases either, but I find them extremely useful when I need to locate and/or get a quick overview of my troops. Just as Rake stated above.
And when I´ve finished that overview? I click somewhere on the map to deselect the units - and the bases disappear.
I don´t see why we would need a special key for doing that - but maybe there is something in the question I´ve misunderstood?
-
Yes. I'm always afraid my pixeljoes will notice it, stop in their tracks, and say, "Hey wait a minute -- are we in a game? They're making us die for a &@$&@ GAME???"
Sounds like you´re reading Vonnegut too :-)
-
I've never understood the cult of the 'perfectly balanced' H2H game, myself. This is war, not checkers. Some days you eat the bear, some days the bear eats you. If the opponent has a thrid more men than you that just makes the game more thrilling!
I agree, MikeyD. But other players feel differently.
That is why I think the scenario designer should state whether the game is "perfectly balanced" in the description field in the editor. Unfortunately, there isn´t room for that many words in the description field, so I think it would probably help if the max numbers of characters were raised by 50 to 100 percent.
-
Yes, that was one of the questions I had in mind, too: As far as I understand CM (and I admit I might be completely wrong), we would only be able to use the already existing 3D shapes (unless someone mods them) - but we could mod their skins. Right?
-
Hi Tempestzzzz
Your discovery sure sounds exciting - and it seems like it could open a lot of flavor object-modding possibilities.
Unfortunately I am one of those people that doesn´t know very much about changing codes (or whatever). I have read your previous posts on the subject, but I´m still not sure I understand how this works. I would be grateful if you could perhaps start a new thread for us dummies and explain the mechanics - and how we can use it.
Thanks for your great work :-)
-
umlaut, yes, there is a problem, but it's with the anti-virus program.
Thanks for the reply, Martin. Yes, I suspected the problem might be with McAfee - the program has certainly become more and more obnoxious lately. That is why I chose the words "a problem", not "BFC´s problem".
Unfortunately, it is very hard for those of us that aren´t that knowledgeable about what is going on under the hood of a PC to tell whether the blame lies with the website blocked by the anti virus programme or with the program itself. And many of us "dummies" will probably choose to trust the anti virus program - just to be safe.
Fortunately, this is the first time I´ve had McAfee conflict with CM - the problems seem minor compared to what I read about Norton on this site.
-
A single brixia mortar could come in very handy here ;-)
-
I use McAfee SiteAdvisor, and as soon as Gamershell loaded, I got a McAfee screen saying "WHOA! Are you sure you want to go there?"
I've learned the hard way not to spend much time on sites they recommend against... I went somewhere else to get my d'load.
I got the same message. I had already tried Atomicgamer, but McAffee told me the file was infected with a trojan or spyware and abandoned the download.
So at Gamershell I decided to take a chance and download anyway.
But I do think it is a problem that I have to disregard warnings from my anti virus programme to get a patch.
-
I experienced this with a german HMG team yesterday while playing CMFI. But this is the first time I´ve come across it - and I´ve been playing CMBN and CMFI regularily since the release of CMBN last may.
Patch 1.11 for Battle for Normandy is out!
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
The only thing I have noticed regarding AI "behaviour" is a british 51mm mortar team that had LOS to a target before the patch - and no LOS after. Probably due to the mentioned "Corrected a problem that sometimes gave on-map artillery the ability to shoot through intervening terrain."