Kieme(ITA)

For what's Worth I belive number 1 could be simulated by changing some hidden values of vehicles concerning spotting abilities etc. even though the real value of these assets is not guaranteed. Number 2, not really clear, but I wonder why would you need an even larger smoke screen? You can already lay down pretty large ones, yet to see CMBS artillery. Number 3, seems just out of scope of a CM game and I am unsure these would be used in a combat environment as the one CM games show. As regarding modding, I belive all of the above is impossible to mod due to modding boundaries.

A view from Orsha master map 5 (please ignore the terrain issues, modding in progress), showing the intensity of the effect on a large forest of similar trees: Vanilla: Modded: Sorry to hack CMBS forums with CMRT related things, but I belive that CMBS will show the same issues if the trees get ported.

Another update, this time on tree number 6 (the same situation on number 7 and number 8, but thinking of it I will re touch all trees for this reason): the vanilla 2d version is very different in color: Appears really much more saturated. I managed to solve the issue by desaturating a lot and adding some more brightness, still not exactly the same:

I like all the original CMRT trees a lot; moreover, the fact that I didn't notice the multiple LOD (I would have said 1 or 2 max, instead they are be more) means only that they do their job very well. Anyway, I am trying some tree modding just for the sake of trying; there are some trees too saturated in color in my opinion, but it's just a personal taste and it's easy to modify. As regarding the 2d model, for long distances, I have since now checked trees 1 to 3, and the only one that fits a bit less is the number one. Generally, I also tried to mod such 2d versions by making them a bit more desaturated and a bit less bright, if the fitting improved by any means is really very hard to notice. Although I have the impression that if the 2d textures (or paintings?) could have a bit less of "noise", so to say, they would fit a bit better. Update: I belive there's something wrong with tree number 5. I changed some values, yet as it was for the vanilla textures, there seems to be something wrong with the very first LOD change, as you can see here: I didn't see such a strong difference with trees from 1 to 4, tree number 5 shows what appears to be a much darker version with the first LOD change, you can see where the LOD changes by looking at the distant terraint Tiles, which are more different than usual from the closer ones because they are not modded as the closer ones [i didn't mod the mini Tiles] (so the impact of LOD change is stronger there for a reason), yet the tree should be more similar.

Maybe a tagged mod for trees in a city environment would do that, but the bark texture is also used for the branches, so I am not sure of the result.

Thanks very much for the explanation MikeyD, I'm not sure what's the meaning of "knokout channel", is it like Alpha channel, the "transparent" color?

Hi all, I have been trying to mod trees for a long time, without success. So, I'd like to better understand how these work, and I'd like to ask for your help, so please correct me if something is wrong. When looking at the file database I see these three bmp graphic files (for each tree type): tree-x-bark tree-x-bb tree-x-Leaves From what I understand now: using the taller darker tree as reference tree-x-bb is a 2d texture used to render the tree at long distances: tree-x-bark and tree-x-Leaves are used at close/mid distance to render the 3d tree: Now, this happens when I reach a certain distance from the tree, the texture somewhat changes again, and I can't tell what happens, please note the different trees of the first line with respect to the previous picture, as they get a somewhat different tone (while some trees of the background retain the previous aspect): So, what happened there? Do the trees have a sort of "scaling back" or different LODs? Not sure If I am using techical terms correctly, sry I am not an expert. When modding, any kind of graphical replacement I apply to the tree-bb file doesn't seem to be recognized. Is tree-x-Leaves the main (only?) file that matters when I want to change the visual render of a tree? (given that it wil keep the original shape and dimensions)? Thanks in advance for your help

It's possible that they are older than the new versions, could you please point out one or more that don't work? What's the problem, you can't see them in game or they make you crash?

I hope we will never see this monstrosity in a CM game: http://www.combatreform.org/aerogavinbankingcompositetn.jpg

It has already been stated that irregular units will come with modules, besides, it has also been stated that the current Ukraine conflict has very little to do with that depicted in CMBS, and the latter is not an attempt to simulate the current events.

Seems to me IFVs will be more common on CMBS fields than any MBT, therefore even an apparently old and moldy 100mm gun will be a very useful asset, even if it can take one single target out before being oblitarated, it surely is less expensive than another IFV.

To make a hole in the ground with explosive, assuming you have perfect terrain conditions (no ice), no heavy vegetation, you'd need to first make one or more holes using a specific device, such as this http://img.directindustry.it/images_di/photo-g/perforatrice-diamante-carotaggio-57853-4304105.jpg then, you'd need to put the explosive charges inside, detonate them, and the result would be a messed hole with a lot of dirt around that still needs work before it can be used as a dedicated terrain defence.

Sure they can, the problem is having such heavy vehicles operating in an area that is likely to be theatre of a combat in very few hours or less. You need to move them, by trucks, unload them, make them reach the precise point you want to dig , work on an area that is larger than 1 square kilometer, make holes, trenches, positions for vehicles, then move them back to the trucks, load them, and move out. All the while under the thread of air Attacks, artillery strikes. If you are in a position that is not threatened by artillery then enemy units are so far that they can just bypass that position you prepare or ignore it completely. Modern combat depicted in CMBS is much faster, more unpredictable than it was during WW2, I can't really see an armored battalion setting up fixed positions on the ground outside Kiev, if they still don't know exactly from which direction the Russians will attack the city. Any kind of set up positions of such entity are very easily bypassed or encircled by a mobile force, again, as it happened during 1991 war. There might be cases where a position can't be ignored or bypassed, such as a mountain pass, for example, yet how would such defensive position perform with regards to modern artillery and air assets? Would a horseshoe dirt bunker improve the possibilities of an M1 tank to survive an artillery or air strike?

I'm not really convinced for 2 reasons: First, if such kind of prepared positions were used rencently they were done in an asymetrical warfare situation, where a tank can become a useful pillbox to defend a crossroad or a FOB etc. CMBS displays a much different warfare condition, where none of the sides have a complete numeric, technological, training, air or land superiority. From what I infer from the manual, also, the entire campaign covers very large portions of Ukraine, thus suggesting a much more mobile conflict than anything we have seen in europe since WW2. Second, recalling 1991 first gulf war, Iraqi vehicles positioned in static defenses, even with entire battalions, didn't perform much well with respect to Attacks coming from air and ground units, and I am sure the practice didn't appeal too much to US obesrevers. it wasn't a perfectly symmetrical fight such as CMBS' idea, yet it's still the closest thing to a large scale conflict involving troops, vehicles and air assets we had in the past decades. All in all I wouldn't call for the programming of a specific ability within CMBS game (such it was when we got CMBB, when this feature was introduced for the first time, if I recall correctly), if you really need to display something like that, for a custom scenario or a very special situation, you can use the terrain as people shown here, but in my opinion it's not a practice that would require a specific effort in terms of game representation/programming. In a magic world we might ask for Gen. Patton's opinion on the subject, I am sure a line of his would be quite enough to close the discussion to us all.

Not sure what it would require from an editing point of view, I am no programmer nor expert. All I can imagine is an actual soldier model with something like 2d textures added everywhere, like a doodad, to simulate the false foliage. I'd like to see that just for the aesthetics, but it's no big deal.

I have not seen any reference to this feature. Can't be sure, but from what I understood nobody would sacrifice mobility over a hull down position, the modern battlefield does not approve the use of this method, which, if it ever had a sense, it was 70 years ago.

Thanks for your replies guys.

Hi everybody, I'd like to ask your opinion on this matter. Supposing that CMBS will sport the usual terrain options, we would have: Very Dry Dry Damp Wet Muddy Now, if you had to Group the 5 above conditions into 3 distinct groups (similar conditions within the Group), which would you pick and how would you Group them?

Thanks, yes I'll do as much modding on CMBS as my schedules will let. The buildings for sure, then maybe some terrain and vehicles. Thought about implementing both HD and standard resolution versions.

Well, it's a nice thought Seedorf, I have seen and used several of those pointers and I can tell you some things about them. First of all, when compared to the laser system mounted on a vehicle or a military grade infantry equipment, the common civilian lasers lack in terms of stability and shock absorbtion, this means that at any given distance the common civilian laser won't be easy to be pointed directly on a target for long time. Second, the civilian laser has not the same power of military grade ones, so I doubt they will be as efficient at longer ranges. Although an experiment would be interesting to be seen.

Check last manual pdf at the end.

Thanks a lot for taking time to upload on youtube too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Tu_nN4nzug

Thanks for sharing. I like the formation encyclopedia a lot, thanks.

If BFC hasn't closed this maybe it's a good idea to keep it up and let the crap collect here. Everybody's happy.

And who in the world are you to say something like that? Some kind of god? Or you just belive you are over a throne? BFC has decades of game development and distributuon behind them, who are you to judge their work using such an arrogant and totally disrespectful phrasing (which has no place here even if you were some kind of game distributor god)? I am sure we will enjoy CM games in the next years as we did in the last years, and not thanks to you but thanks to BFC.