Cid250
-
Posts
257 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Cid250
-
-
Any news of development roadmap for the next year 2018?
It's the development of new modules frozen?
Thanks
-
Just wondering...
This front is so important... that i miss the diversity of the old CMBB.
-
5 hours ago, AstroCat said:
Turn replay would be great... I never really understood why the game couldn't save each turn replay and then just play them back in a row. It seems like the game does it anyway as you play it. You can save each replay and then load them up already.
I agree... would be great to combine all in just one single file. It's not that big for the current storage standards, nor for the network to download it, even from an online repository.
-
The title says it all?.
Those two are for sure very complex features. So the question is for long term... and aimed to the playerbase opinion.
To be able to save all the game replays and share it in a whole battle replay allowing to move the camera into the full battle, was a good feature that maybe had no sense in the past due to the constrains on file size and network bandwith of the past years... but for the standars of 2017 and comming years that's not true anymore. There is no problem with very big file storage nor with network bandwidth availability world wide.
Also, more than 2 players in a single multiplayer battle, it's a very appealing feature (from my point of view), with much less computer computation power and network bandwidth constraints as the time goes forward... 2 vs 2 or even 4 vs 4 battles with WeGo reporting to central server storage (for single master client side computation), or any kind of central game turn battle repository (with server side merge and computation of the turn), it's feasible technologically and the cost of it goes down each year.
The question is...
Are those two features, a big player magnet?. Or... it's not popular enought to invest any time in their development?.
How many of you, will really play the game more, if those features were available on this game in the long term?. It's a niche withing a niche?. Or a bigger and strongest multiplayer enrichment, will encourage some fresh air, thus increasing the vitality of online matches?.
I think specifically on the "SPARE" player feature, if on a 4 vs 4 player running game, a player or two leaves... any other player of their side can take control of those troops, being less dramatical than in the 1 vs 1 player match when one player leaves.
-
Oh No!.
DVD-R is also the format for Market Garden?.
It's sad... i've just preordered it.
The only reason to buy a DVD, is the long life storage backup, in order to avoid long download times or as a backup for Hard Disk removals.
If it's just a DVD-R, then it doesn't have any sense to buy it.
-
In the preorder says:
"Market Garden" is the second module in the critically acclaimed series of WW2 tactical combat simulations and requires the base game, "Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy", upgraded to v2.0 in order to play. If you didn't upgrade CMBN yet, we also offer an attractive Market Garden Bundle which includes the new module as well as the 2.0 Engine Upgrade for only $5 more!
Well... i have the base game, and all the modules, including the ones in fortress Italy.
This mean that i still don't have the 2.0 engine update?. I thought that was included in another previous module, i'm wrong?.
It's not clear for me if the 2.0 is mandatory in order to install Market Garden.
-
Do the germans a correct use of the LMG within the new module release?.
-
Wreck,
that's not true. Using indirect fire ("verdeckte Feuerstellung") with MG34 & MG42s guided by FOs was common practice in the Wehrmacht.
It was highly effective, allowed shooting above the heads of the own units and even allowed to combat units taking cover.
IMO it would be cool, if CMx2 would simulate HMGs ballistics and allow that (would make most sense on 2+ km maps).
That's true... i've even pictures of the german manuals explaining those indirect fire procedures.
They even had special clinometers and optics to do the job... specially at ranges of 3.000 meters, when they align 4 Tripod MGs to beat the same area with all of them...
At those ranges the bullets rain from the sky at step angles, and you can be hit even behind an horizontal cover.
Those indirect fires were done as measure for reverse slope defenses... and the clinometer was used to pass the fire over the hill to the other side where the enemy defense is suspected, as supression method.
One of those practices of MG indirect fire was part of one chapter of the TV series Brother in Arms (don't remember what exactly).
-
+1
and cover amour
I just forgot that...
-
LMG - MG42... that weapon was designed to pawn in any firefight at ranges over 500m, but at 230m you are caught in close fire where several semi-autos are an advantage over a fast firing death machine like an MG42 in his bipod configuration.
You need to repeat the test at ranges over 600m, and in normal circumstances, the german squad should win if the weapons and tactis are well modeled in-game.
-
Another old CM feature that i miss too much... those old lines from HQ to their units (red or black), gives a much better visual feedback of you chain of command.
Will be nice to have those lines back eventually... at least as an optional feature, like drawing trees or not.
If a true LOS tool is included, much better.
Happy new year 2012!. Is not the end of the world.
-
Lack of info points to that...
-
Based on how many things you need today to add content...
CMBN will need an obscene amount of years to get only a 20% of the content available in CMx1 engines.
May be it's true that the code for the new CMx2 Engine is more organiced and hepls to speed coding of features... but there are so many areas that grow in man-hours of work, that the final result is a much slower develompent pace if we count the number of features.
For example, will be impossible to wait for a Finnish, Romanian, or Italian army... or even for complete set of URSS, Germany, and USA for a time period from 1941 to 1945.
The only solution to this situation, in order to complete a minimum of the content available on CMBB & CMAK, would be to add a huge amount of extra work force.
Is there any plan to outsource the expansion of content with a greater number of companies?
-
And why wouldn't you include RT? If anything RT would benefit more than WeGo for having more players. I hardly see them selling multiplayer as a separate product. Though I'm looking forward to seeing large multiplayer matches in CMx3.
Real Time will need for sure a more complex solution... since the bandwith of 8 players will be a must for the server simultaneously to avoid LAG.
A PBEM implementation avoids LAG... and they can release a second version of the server as soon as they test it and remove LAG issues.
In the other side, is very difficult for 8 players to be available the same day at the same hour for a battle... PBEM doesn't need to have all the 8 players online at the same time... PBEM it's way more flexible than RT.
-
I can't find the official reply of Battlefront about the chances of developing a real multiplayer option within the CMx2 Engine lifecycle.
Will we need to wait for a CMx3 engine to include that feature?.
I know that this kind of fetaure is a lot of work... and the problem is how "money" returns...
So... if some day that product is available, it must be sold as a separate product: Combat Mission Multiplayer Server.
Combat Mission Multiplayer Server needs to be developed as a client-server model.
For PBEM WeGO for example, the "outgoing mail" folder sends the move of each player to the server like "DropBox". Then the server mix all the players moves and returns a single file to the "incoming email" folder of each player.
Real time doesn't need to be implemented, because it's difficult to find the time for 8 players at the same time the same day, for simultaneous play. PBEM WeGo is more flexible... because 8 players can send their moves at diferent times and it isn't a problem between players of diferent time zones.
Let's say that this server price is 150$, how many players do you think that will be interested in pay for that feature?.
-
Fix some bugs or wrong modeled features, first!.
Open Toped vehicles like the Marder III are modeled Wrong... a Open vehicle must see his enemies before than a closed tank... and this game doesn't model that fact.
Take a look into the Open vehicles and his view capability of contacts... something is wrong with this game in that area.
-
Disk space size is not a problem anymore...
I have a Network Attached Storage of eight 3Gb HDs, that's 18 TeraBytes on Raid 6 linked to my computer as another hard disk via iSCSI protocol.
Today 18 Tb is a bit expensive... but in 3 or 4 years, it will be in every home at the same price than a single 1Tb HD of today.
What's exactly the problem with the size of a full replay of two hours between batallion size units?.
-
Armor Arc.
-
Some ideas about command panel reform, now that Battlefront has time to improve the interface and a "mayor overhaul" is on their way -huzzah!-
Command panel is probably the most delicate part of GUI, as everything it contains is highly interactive, opposed to the just informative mission for unit/team/details panel. Also, order system is a core functionality. As you can see on this same forum, It is probably one of the harder learning curves. Of course, It can't lose their richness but it can be presented with less use complexity.
Some constructive criticism first. This is a command panel in RT or at order phase (if playing turns):
Main point of interest is those tabs. First, they hide info. Is my unit deployed? hidden? can they run? you must switch tabs to know all of this info. Second you need to select correct tab if you are using panel to give orders. It's one more click on an already complex procedure. Also, they occupy space.
Turn controls occupy unused space also. They can appear only when watching turns, freeing space meanwhile.
Finally, red button can be merged with timer, they share meaning. This way digits can be seen bigger and with a very proper red background.
This way you can have a solution with all orders at once glance even keeping the same space restrictions. An example with orders buttons reduced half in height:
As you can see I maintain order groups (now columns), even left blank space for non applicable orders to current unit still. Same nine spaces for every group, except special orders wich has its four needed places. More room can be achieved. So, even in the same space, you can eliminate tabs and have full information on a faster interface.
Some similar reform can be made with unit info tabs (ammo/defences/damage - unit/formation), but this another case study...
Now some words about command panel on turn mode, when visualizing
See all this unused space? and, at the same time tiny little buttons for time control very close together. Raise hands those who has finished turn instead of rewind or any other wrong combination. There are a lot of space available on this mode, so you can have BIG buttons, like this:
YEEHAW! those buttons are so huge I can pulse it without staring out of the action! no more frustrating mistakes.
Yes, this is a GOOD UI design.
My only question is about laguage tranlations into german... that language has words very long... Will those space be enought?
-
You should be looking out for patch(es) long before modules... and/or new titles. It might be more productive of your time to instead regularly visit Repository and grab new scenarios as they arrive, like plucking ripe fruit from the branch. You can either wait-and-wait for a new module or you can double the number of basegame scenarios one-by-one. Heck, you could even make a couple of your own and post to share!
Well.. the probelm is that with the old CMBB we had so many units and countries, that we can do very different scenarios.
I love those Finish Vs Russian, or Rumanian vs Russian, battles.
The standard US and German units doesn't fill all my needs, and i want to see new units and countries as fast as i can, at least to get 50% of the diversity and rich options available in CMBB.
The only thing that can be even more nice that the addition of more countries an units, would be to include in a module, some cool features, like the Replay of the full battle.
-
6 months
9 months
1 year
...
Well, may be the correct question will be if those modules will include some mayor feature that justifies the extra development time.
Por example, TCP/IP WeGo, or four players in a battle.
If mayor features are included, the question is: Will it be backwards compatible with the main game release?.
If there aren't mayor features planed... 9 moths seems about right.
I know that it's imposible to give an exact date, but will be nice to know the development roadmap and the features that we should expect in the next modules.
A lot of software companies publish a development roadmap.
-
Seriously... When?.
-
Loading, please wait...
-
6) specific anti-tank arch.
7) different unspotted icons for tanks and veichles (again, as stated in other posts). I just find it conterintuitive (sp?): "Sir, I'm sure there's an enemy formation behind that bocage, but I'm not sure if it's a tank or an infantry squad making tank noise with their mounth"
In some way... CMBB and CMAK are still beter games than CM:N those are two examples.
I wold like also an option to display "command" lines... the old red and black lines show when you are in command range of your HQ... nothing is better than those command lines, to get the overall picture really fast.
An option to turn ON/OFF those red/black lines, will be nice.
Annual look at the year to come - 2023
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Cid250
Early war stuff is more interesting, since all WWII Games put the Focus on late war.
Poland 1939 is interesting.
France, and Norway 1940 are a must.
Finland - Rusia, 1940 winter war... Too
Add also Balkans, Greece, and Crete 1941, and all the Africa stuff, and the Spanish Civil War 1936 to 1939, for early Russian, German, and Italian weapons.
Minor countries like Romania and Hungrary are also interesting.
There is the work for another 23 years of development.