sburke
-
Posts
21,147 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
103
Posts posted by sburke
-
-
Got to agree here with the many experts who've taken time out from their normally breathless discussions of Which Things Can Penetrate Which Other Things to signify their approval of the necessity for the deliberate targetting of enemy non-combatants.
This thread was worth reading just to see that. Kind of like the Monty Python society for placing things on top of other things.
-
CMFI had all its parts & pieces flying together in pretty fast towards the very end. Unfortunately that meant some earlier QB maps got old flawed buildings 'baked in' despite having been fixed in the editor. A couple QB maps have a few buildings with uncooperative distance lods, a couple sitting at skewed angles that you couldn't reproduce in the editor now. I remember for an early Beta I threw together what might've been the first CMFI scenario (involving drunk G.I.s out looking for a brothel). Unfortunately, not one building on that map survived into the following Betas. The scenario had to be discarded.
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
-
hehe, as you can see the river is dry, its a CMSF river so i though the ford is pretty obviouse as it is, i think. i thought about adding water, but i figured ever single FPS is needed so i dont add water in an area that is basically setup zone and not a hotspot of the map.moments, thats it.
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.
-
i have seen broadsword´s one, but it got lots of bocage
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. -
That map also sports some buildings with missing upper floors. And yeah, DC is correct, I was his opponent and I was in the town within two turns.
Mord.
And probably extremely happy
-
could be by the looks but its in hüttgen forest in germany as far as i know.
there is lots of time invested in such maps and as i failed with my last try for CMBN, it was a slideshow in the setup zone already, i did browse the repository a bit in the map section and after i saw this one i had to do something with it, it was just to good to be left there just like that. to have decent FPS the map can not take more then a battalion plus some toys per side but with lots of open this is enough to defend this map very well.
i upload in GaJ cmmods for now, i totally forgot about that.
its up at GaJ´s CMMODS
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.
-
And the cyclic behaviour is there to simulate confusion. You just don't get it, Mingan.
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.
-
Please report any poorly designed VLs on the ME maps - and I'll make sure you'll get them revised.
Only explanation I can produce as to how this came to be is lack of time/timepressure. Sorry about that; I'll make sure the MEs are once again thouroghly reviewed and fixed where needed!
cheers/
sdp
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?
-
FWIW, I have a lot of stuff that I have developed for my own use that I have no intention whatsoever of sharing because I know that it will be unappreciated. Not just QB conversions of most of my maps with their own PT scoring system or revised and improved versions of my favourite campaign missions but also stuff that you guys have never seen.
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!I agree, Umlaut. I have about two dozen scenarios I made for myself...it's the steep jump to finalizing them for the community that I just lack motivation to do. Maybe someday when I retire I will get around to it.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.
-
Doesn't have to be playtested necessarily - just look at the thing.. If one side has a 200 point VL, on a hill, right next to his setup zone, and the other guy as 2 50 pointers at the bottom of the hill.. then it obviously isn't fair. Simple stuff to look out for for whoever makes the map(s), places setup zones, and/or labels them as good to go for a ME.
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.
-
All the CMFI maps really need to be looked at and play tested before they are considered good for a ME. I'm going to setup in the corner and not issue any orders for my first turn, plus not rush straight to the VLs for the first few turns to be fair to my opponent, and I'm going to ask him if he wants to start over with a different map - but what a pain in the butt.
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.
-
I'm unable to reproduce the error you encounter. Savegame?
/sdp
+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.
-
AAF thinking, that. "Here's a bug we know about, let's release the next version with it in, so we have to fix it twice."
And the mortar bug is real close to breaking the game for me. I feel dirty every time I use a mortar in DF, and resent it every time one is fired at me in that mode.
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.
-
Um. Bug fixing should come first or they have to go and fix the bug for anything they make before they fix it, instead of fixing it in the existing code so it's fixed for everything thereafter. Perhaps doing the fix for "legacy" code should come later, but fixing it in the current cut (v2.whatever) ought to be a priority.
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.
-
Remember the almost-war they had with Iceland a couple of decades back over fishing rights? This could break new ground by taking CM into naval warfare.
Michael
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.
-
U guys took me wrong as so far as i am realy thankfull for anybody helping to make things better with CM2. On the other hand we had plenty of discussions which went nuts because some people tended to "defend" even the most "questionable" lets call it features. I dont know if these were the beta-testers or not. I am also not interested if they were or not.
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).
Check the 3d view.
Real firing tests with CMBN weapons
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
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.