RichyG

I think your quoted idea better explains the idea I had in my head! This would be an excellent comprimise and I can see in the current CMSF official campaigns where this feature would be an exceptional addition! As concerns the camapign script, if your right then its how I imagined it would work and its nice to finally get an answer on the matter. I'm not a fan of an all or nothing approach to resupply but your right when you say just to set it to 100% and thats what I've mainly done for my own campaigns (never finished any )

Well I did just think of a potential comprimise. A reasonable solution would be that a a new scenario can be loaded dependent on if the player wins/loses as per normal, however, it would carry over the damage to terrain and wrecks from the previous battle. Theory being, a lost scenario could result in the player having to 'try again' but they would have all the damage from the previous battle or if they won and then the next scenario required them to defend the same ground from a counter-attack, the damage would be there again. The scenario designer then gets to set-up plans this way. It can also carry the persistant units over. As concerns the persistant units, I know the core file does this but I don't think it does it very well. It provides a % chance for resupply for each unit but that could mean randomsly some units are resupplied "FULLY" and others who really need the, say, ammo are left with none. I posted a question about this before the campaign files resupply, it wasn't clear whether it resupplied the units involved in the previous battle, the next battle or in the the entire core file. I got ZERO response for this question!

If you begin the summarise you can start to see some kind of reasonable solution. Two major points wanted here are: - Persistant Units - Persistant Battlefields So you have to begin to find a solution to bringing these two features into the current system. In order to have persistant units, the campaign core file needs to record each individual from battle to battle. This is hardly a demanding process if handled at the end of a mission where the player would expect a load waiting period. The campaign file can be improved to handle resupply. Persistant battlefields should be easy if handled as a static map. Rolling maps I agree are slightly more complex and I gather the draw system for maps is different to how it appears (a tile system). Time can easilly be advanced by applying a new time of day to the map. Complexities arise with redployment for the AI, I can't think of a reasoned solution right now, but I would reason along giving the AI a strategic plan (Defend, Delay, Probe, Attack, Assault) and the AI sets would find suitable terrain to occupy and use (Large Buildings, Elevations, Large Areas of woodland.

I think sfhand has a point that operations could be done coupled to a long game but I think it would need to be longer than four hours. You could need to simulate up to a day of fighting (perhaps). Albeit a modern example, but take the 'blackhawk down' scenario that lasted over night (can't remember or find the exact times right now.) i think about 12+ hours. The only complication that arises here then is the inability to quickly reorganise units but it would be a more realistic way about it.

I'll add my penny's worth. I would love to hear where the information was gathered for BF to determine that Operations were not in the public interest!? I too agree that operations were THE reason I played CMx1, the single missions just didnt grip me for the same reasons given by most others. I love continuity and long-spanning games. One of my favourite games of CM:BO was the operation where you had to link Omaha and Utah beaches. Additionally I must attack CMSF's campaign system. I may have to put it down as the worst campaign system I've seen in a strategy game (close combat 2 may go down as my favourite ). A distinct lack of continuity, "random chances" for the replacement of troops, ammo, vehicles. Even if the system is given a go ahead, the choice of only two possible outcomes is abysmal. And a final point before I rant on forever, the Marine Campaign mission where your "choice" of going left or right is given, basically, on whether you win or lose the scenario. If you surrender on purpose u can skip the mission and carry on with the campaign (baffles me).

@HijackGMH I've got my system to run at the same state of yours it seems. resolved background warping issue but still have shocking framerates no matter what size map etc. In theory my PC should thrash this game into the floor (i run Crysis DX10 at medium settings to put it in relation). I've got an nVidia GeForce 8600 GTS. I'd like to resolve this issue after wanting to play the old operation style scenarios that only CMx1 can provide!

Yeh must agree... I really miss the CMx1 operations... its the only thing I played! You can see the attempt of trying to make a similar scenario in the Marines campaign from mission 1 to 2 but its shockinging obvious its a brand new map and hardly anything from the first mission persists in the second. A CMC type campaign map is the only thing that, to me, would have provided an improvement. The linked campaign feature of CMSF is seriously underpowered...

I'm not one for bumping threads but I can't believe that I havn't had an answer for this, its been several days!

I agree, it would add an interesting element present in modern warfare...

I agree this kinda of effect would be awesome to reintroduce... I mean being pinned down by snipers etc.

In the campaign script you can have Refit, Resupply, Reapir and Rest percentages I know what they do cus I read the manual but what it doesn't say is if these values correspond to the units that just fought in the previous battle, the units in the upcoming battle or the entire core units list... ...I'd like to clarify as I'd like to have only some units get resupplied after a battle if possible.

Simply put the target command needs more depth. We should simply have a command dialog similar to that in CMx1 that allowed tanks to choose whether the main gun was used. Dialog could offer options for fire intensity and weapons used. In addition I like the idea of mulitple spots for targetting, I agree with wanting to target multiple stories within a building.

I can't see why if there is say more flavour objects created in line with another module, why they can not be introduced as a patch for everyone who does not purchase that module... Bohemia Interactive would commonly release patches containing new vehicles, weapons etc. in their patches for Operation Flashpoint, as well as more scenarios completely free. Christ, I'd personally make the flavour objects free of charge if BF would implement them

Issue Fixed with Marines Module...

no thats not me... my name on cmmods is the same as here

May have the answer... I made a new campaign and suffered same issue... I think its to do with having a core file for the enemy units... now I know in Marines they're adding red core units to the marines campaign... now can I use an enemy core file currently?

I don't have one, perhaps its about time I get one... I don't usually suffer with money issues, its the first time in years lol... just in time to annoy me too! If the release holds off til friday I'll have the money with no problem! If all fails I'll just have to pay the full price :|

You can buy CMSF for under £7 on play.com now :|... they still sell CMBO, CMBB and CMAK at full price though lolol!!

nah I'll sell my gf's laptop instead! she got new super-duper desktop coming so she dont need it ... grrr... need to get euros into pounds and into my bank !!! but they all closed right now

Just realised I'm suffering from money in the bank issues Just got back from hols so I still have alot of cash in the form of euros and I don't get paid for a few days ... uh I mean is it likely the module will be released within the next week? If so I got to get some money from somewhere! ----- On the continuing topic I defo agree, I got no problem of buying direct if the service is good. The problem with internet shopping is trust as you gleefully hand over your card details to someone you've never met! :| But as a developer (artist) myself I know the woes of publishers and I currently work in the retail industry too so I know the crap that it goes through also. Self-Publishing is probably a good plan, cuts costs etc. What marines could do with is a better review in PC Gamer than the initial release got... I bought the game anyway as I'm a supporter of Battlefront but I had to unfortuantly agree with the reviewer on alot of aspects at the time... patches have eased my personal complaints since then.

OK, will pre-order now...

Just wondering, is the Marines addon going to be sold via UK retailers such as amazon or play? Personally, thats where I prefer to buy all my games because they've never let me down once in four years. Otherwise, will there be a mail option to the UK from Battlefront?

The fear is BF don't want to lose out on expansion packs... basically if they'd openedly allowed the introduction of full modding then we'd already have both a marines module and british pack made by the community... I think if BF made more sales off the original games release then these such aspects would not be such an issue. Now over with the totalwar series, Rome Total war was not initially capable of accepting new models since no one could use their file type but within a few months someone had cracked it and made an import/export tool for 3ds max and voila! the community could do all sorts! In the end, Creative Assembly buckled and let out their own exporters etc. anyway. reskinning is not enough as you can't really do anything creative. The totalwar games managed to still release addon packs despite there already being a huge load of community projects. They mainly made their mark on being to hardcode aspects of the game meaning that new features were the real reason for the expansion, NOT the art work! Plus, the decal idea is a good one but I think the larger scale of things needs to be concentrated on first such as the suggested damages etc. would add plenty to the game.

I've seen the community practically create all the graphics to a game before now... for those who don't know, Total Extreme Warfare series and the WMMA series by grey dog software were done in this way. The community contributed there around 90% of the graphical work there (I did the belt renders for WMMA for example). The main discussion has been on getting damage to look more realistic and this could easilly be improved by setting up more phases of damage for the walls using both textures and models. One thing I would suggest for BFC team do is look into replacing their textures from being bitmaps to a mipmap filetype such as DDS. performance would improve drastically and there could be a budget for more detailed textures overall in the close up shots. Someone mentioned about "floating maps"? This is a huge task to overcome... most games will prevent such occurances by restricting camera movement or breaking the view by presenting a physical horizon. With CM's style of play this is an uneasy task to overcome... you literally have to treat it as a "tabletop" wargame situation and accept it.

I wouldn't slam Vista in its entirity... I avoided it for over a year simply because of the scare stories... most of which were true However, few months ago my brother made the plunge and tried it out... turned out to be quite good (main reasoning was to run Crysis on DX10). Basically, get the Ultimate edition as it doesn't treat you like a total idiot and lets you get on with it and turn off all the aero junk, it simply wastes your time and computing power. With Vista I havn't had a single PC lockup, crash or freeze as a result of the OS. It's only been applications that have crashed, moslty cus the of the software.