sburke

Broadsword did actually try creating them in CMBN by sinking a building. So far they have worked pretty darn well, but graphically they don't look great. In CMFI the ground shaping works a litle differently. It should look more appealing, but not sure how it will work yet.

This thread was worth reading just to see that. Kind of like the Monty Python society for placing things on top of other things.

With a theme like that it was discarded? Have we no standards... specifically low ones?!

Yeah I have just been running to check performance and the first casualty was a Pz to one of the TDs.... The AI will fight, it just won't move LOL

Yeah that was one of the issues I had with this map. The Kall valley slopes over the course of the map, however water comes in only one level in CM. I had a number of folks give suggestions (I can't recall who all it was, but I really appreciated all the input I got) and the net result is the Kall stream is represented more by mud, marsh and rocks than anything else. As to the armor, I am with you on this Pandur. Too much armor and it becomes a tank engagement. That's fine if that is want you want, but if you want combined ams you need to tone down the armor support quite a bit. Sometimes I think armor afficionados only want variations on a Kursk theme.

Or go with Microsoft essentials. LOL we all have our preferences, but I had the same feelings with Norton and even AVG. Spent more time dealing with them and they still couldn't seem to keep me protected.

Are you sure, the base map didn't have the bocage laid in, just a ground tile to denote where the bocage lines might go. The actual map has only a few trees, some Church buildings, locations names etc. No actual bocage. Check the 3d view.

And probably extremely happy

The map is based on The Gamers Tactical Combat Series map of Schmidt in the Huertgen forest. The full game map includes Vossenack, but to get that on to a CM map I'd have had to alter the scale which would then alter weapons effectiveness proportionally. That might have still made an excellent map, but I was trying to work with an idea of using the Gamers Op sheet planning forms as an OP layer to determine unit plans and reinforcements for a 2 day mini campaign. As it is the map included the Kall crossing, Schmidt and the surrounding areas. I am working a similar map/idea for the Screaming Eagles TCS game but have decided to wait until CMBN is upgraded to version 2 as map making is so much easier. Pandur some other maps you may be interested in are: Broadswords XIX corps map. It needs detail added, but the topology is great and the road network is in. I have been messing around with a version of this to be a fictional area of Lorraine. http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=1438 or Pete's 2x2k map. Pete's maps are always really well done. http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=1921 And there are probably a dozen more One bit of good news is I expect when we do have CMBN version 2, this map will show an improvement in FPS.

LOL couldn't wait for Tiresias to get back? Whatever the reason, glad to see another AAR.

Wow thanks Pandur, you have no idea how happy I am to see someone get use out of that.

Actually he does, he is confused It does get frustrating, but it is simply a computer program. It can only respond to the data as it comes in. The fact that just a second before it knew you had something there doesn't help it now that for whatever reason it can't see it. For example suppose it wasn't that it's view was blocked by a tree but that the opposing vehicle backed off below LOS. It would end up doing the same thing. It can't react saying, I know that vehicle is there though I can't see it at the moment so I am gonna override the commands I have been given. Question though, does the Semovente have a covered arc or face command? (I can't review the video here at work) The downside of those is when you are dealing with an enemy that appears outside the arc. Life gets complicated fast. I have learned that I need to be more judicious in my use of arc commands to allow my units to be more flexible. Generally learning it only after I got a unit killed..... repeatedly.

Thanks SDP. Somehow in the short space of like 8 weeks I think folks forgot how quickly CMFI hit our greedy little paws. The amount of work those QBs represent and the amount of time they were created in makes it nothing short of amazing that this is all they have come across. Apology unnecessary and the offer is outstanding, what more could anyone ask?

Man that is just downright mean. Here we are slapping players around for not being polite and you gotta go say "I got lots of stuff and you'll never see it, nyeah nyeah nyeah nyeah nyeah!" That hurts. Cough em up PT, we don't have time to be polite and give feedback, we are too busy playing! Same goes for you mjkerner, I am not interested in sitting around in my senior years in a wet pair of depends too addled to even turn on a PC just as you release a dozen new scenarios. No that drool coming off my jaw is not me savoring those new battles, it is just my way of saying hello. Mind wiping my chin? To all you designers, it isn't that we mean to be impolite or that we don't appreciate your work, but after finishing a grueling battle who wants to go back to the repository to write some flowering prose? No way! Back to the trenches and another killing ground! As MikeyD noted, the repository isn't exactly built to easily go back and find an item to write a response especially as it starts accumulating more material.

Yeah that is a whole other subject. I really don't know the process that goes into the QB design and am not qualified to speak on it, but your point is well made.

The guys who design them can respond about taking a look, I can't speak to that process or effort at all. But as to playtesting them - I spent a huge amount of time just testing scenarios and that was largely looking for buggy stuff while giving some feedback on the design. Playtesting all the QBs is utterly unrealistic if you want to see more than one game/module a year.

+1 on that. It is really hard to report without being able to reproduce.

Not being a designer (at least not yet) I can't really speak to motivations or expectations on feedback, however I work closely with a team within our company that is responsible for generating a quarterly survey of user feedback. The most common issues we run in to are lack of a usable survey baseline (not enough respondents) and lack of useful data in the response. Frankly getting good user feedback to project what we should or shouldn't be doing is difficult. Add to that that even good responses can go in opposite directions and I begun to understand Bimmer's feeling a little better. Feedback is very subjective based on what one person likes. What they liked about it can be entirely dependant on their player skill and methods. One person's challenge is another person's cakewalk. You also have players who just can not accept losing. We have all heard the number of complaints about school of hard knocks. The designer of that scenario and campaign has taken enough hits on this forum, however what have we actually done by that? It was an attempt at creativity we have actively squelched. Personally I liked that campaign and enjoyed what the designer was trying to do. Was it tough, even demoralizing watching my pixeltruppen get obliterated trying to force that bridge? Well yeah but I also got a better appreciation for what the US army went through in Normandy. I got a scenario and a historical lesson wrapped up in one, dang! To the designer of that campaign I say ignore the feedback, it is an interesting campaign and if it is tough, fine I'll consider it to be the School of hard knocks after all.

I am not sure I follow the logic. When they fix it, whenever that is, they will only have fixed it once. The question though is really how much effort does something take to fix and where are they in the release schedule. If it is simple and the next version of whatever isn't about to go out the door, then it likely would get fixed. If however it is something that is going to take some work and the release is imminent I suspect it wouldn't make it. BF has committed to maintaining at least two versions so having multiple patches is something I expect they are taking for granted. I understand it may be breaking the game for you. I feel somewhat the same about the barbed wire in pbem issue, but sometimes you just have to be patient. In an ideal world I am sure they'd prefer to fix bugs immediately and not affect the production cycle. Life however is a series of tradeoffs until it sucks so bad you'd prefer to be dead.

Yeah I have tried several and wasn't real happy with any. Using Microsoft Essentials now and I have to say I have been a whole lot happier and as far as I can tell.... I haven't been bitten for it.

Bug fixing is a constant so holding up releases for bug fixing (unless it is something that just completely crashes the game) is not likely to take precedence. Then again what the hell do I know.

What is the correct ToE for a fishing fleet and should you be able to split crews?

I've taken it for a brief test drive. Holy crap LOL The Panzer sweep looks pretty incredible. I have not tried in PBEM mode yet. I did notice a game save takes a bit so I think I'll give that a run and make sure it doesn't create any issues.

I just gave it a quick shot to see where it placed my units. I tried several times alternating between selecting attacker and defender both as HTH and single player. I was placed in the proper zone every time.

My apologies then, but can we just drop the whole use of "fanboy"? It seems to have a variable definition ranging from anyone that is simply contrary to anyone who defends the game/BF strategy/pricing/CMx2 as an engine/the color green/the letter "t" etc etc. as is (whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant).