eniced73
-
Posts
588 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by eniced73
-
-
Curious as to why you would jump on this? What "new" features would make the CMSF title that much better?
I believe the "overlay" and new "trigger" function would spark new scenario's from the community. Moveable waypoints are nice. Target briefly would help out. An update to the QB system would renew the multiplayer interest. Not sure if this would be included?
-
Originally triggers had been coded so the AI had to 'see' the trigger get tripped but that caused no end of grief and was abandoned (thank God). Currently the designer can toggle the trigger for "Trigger friendly", "Trigger friendly armor" "Trigger enemy" or "Trigger enemy armor". The 'friendly' trigger can allow for some coordination. Let's say unit A springs into action due to an enemy trigger. As they move forward they over-run a 'trigger friendly' spot along their path that tell unit B that its time to move forward in support.
You guys have made a great decision here. Giving the talented scenario designers here more tools to work with is going to improve the game ten fold for the single player experience. Would be cool to be able to play the turns back at the end of a single player scenario in editor mode to appreciate how the AI reacted to your moves.
-
I dunno why you waste your energy even responding, Steve. (It makes it sound like the twerp got to you in some way. Best is to just ignore.)
I agree Erwin. I posted in the new forum requesting a beta tester to do a small showcase on the functionality of the new TRIGGER idea. 100 plus views but no response by any one. Yet a post like this gets multiple hits and responses even one from the big dog. Come on guys. I get as sick of these nonsense posts as anyone so how about ignoring them in the future as there is no need to defend the game on these issues. We all know it is one if not the best one out there so why waste your energy addressing. Oh, and please someone at least tell me that they really do not have the time to showcase the new trigger function so I do not keep checking my post for an answer. Thanks ahead of time.
-
I agree with C3K 100%. Bil is pretty good at scouting out your positions and then moving his units into ideal spots to get targets. If you mount an aggressive attack he is not going to have the luxury of attacking in spots advantageous to his force. Throw home run hitters curve balls and watch them struggle.
-
Vote for a dual flame throwing HT in the mix. Would like to see this thing in action.
-
I understand a lot of you guys enjoy reading and following AAR's by the Beta team but while enjoyable it may not showcase all the new units or functions. How about having a tester showcase a very small scenario that was created explaining the new TRIGGER function. Throw in the new units that Bil and Elvis do not use. They can simulate the battle themselves doing a hotseat game. That way there is no waiting on turns or other things.
-
You have to sport some flame teams in there. Is this not to showcase the new units and functions of the game.
-
Been getting back into CMBN recently and just noticed a unit called "cannon company" under the infantry tab. It has an on-map HQ unit and vehicle, cool. But added it and no on-map guns, just the HQ...?
Uh, what's the point? Or does it require Market Garden to get the on-map tubes?
Everyone else gave you pretty good info on the real world unit but you stated you already knew that. Pertaining to the game - there is no on board option to see the 105's as you already know. They are just artillery that you use the HQ unit as the spotter. From my experience playing the game you can get the rounds in faster if you pick a single "forward observer" unit to make the call. From what I remember they are around 2 min faster.
-
Oh, I do understand the significance of the issue. Everyone does. Who would not like to know what your chances are since that would help make your tactical decisions that much easier. You alone should see how little can be proved with something being wrong in the spotting whether it be in hull, partial, or in the open. You have done extensive testing on all this. Maybe the beta-testing team will share their tests with us and explain what they find?
-
It's 7 seconds (*). Did I eNICEd your day?
(*) usually - may be faster sometimes
Yes! You did. Actually you tested the cycle to be from 2 to 7 unless it has changed with further testing. Too bad there is not a way for you to put all your test posts on this subject in one thread (by itself without the bs). You have put up some informative information. Thanks.
Forgive my lack of Math skills as from your posts you are clearly versed in this subject. But when your most important variable (spotting cycle) can range from 2 to 7 seconds (verified by poes) and the actual chance of spotting said unit is basically unknown I do not see any kind of spotting tests let alone hull down ones going in any direction. Especially the end. You will be stuck in an infinite loop like Sheldon was on that one episode of 'big bang' and poes will have to draw you a loop counter with an escape to the least objectionable solution. Does not make sense, nope not again, **** spotted in 7 secs that time, hmmm, that one was 34secs, ahhh...F...it, shat happens move on.Testing the effects of hull down is simply a means towards the end of gaining a better understanding of how spotting works, as well as empowering players to make informed tactical decisions as opposed to relying on assumptions.As far as making informed tactical decisions as opposed to relying on assumptions......this is a game. Yes it is heads and tails above all when simulating combat but it is a game. If you find yourself saying I am going to move my armor into hull down position and have a nice little side shot on that enemy armor you better be ready to smash the **** out of your keyboard when it does not happen.
I am not bashing you or anyone else testing this and I read and reread all your posts on the subject as I appreciate the time you put in. You guys are much more dedicated than I am. But I do not see an ends to the means in this case. Too many unknowns.
-
I must say this thread had provided much more sport than actually playing the game.
This is an interesting line from post 152:
"Actually, CMBO was far more beer and pretzels than any game we've ever made. Which is partly why CMBB and CMAK sold so much less than CMBO."
I agree somewhat. Reading some of the discussions going off on tangents and the way people back them. Very entertaining. Good for the game though. Getting BF involved as much as they have been is a good thing. Keeps them thinking outside their box. If it was not somewhat for the ones that complain the game would stagnate to a point.
I re-read this thread last night and came to the realization that I am fine with BF not revealing everything about the game (spotting in this case). Yeah, it would be nice to know does your units spot in cycles of X seconds. But on the other hand not knowing what is going on gives the game that sense of "Oh ****" feeling when something goes awry. Sort of evens the game out somewhat between those that excel and those that are just casual players. Makes games more interesting.
As far as continuing this discussion on hull down spotting, I think you are heading down a one way street. You have to look at the basics of spotting before you even think about looking at hull down, partial hull down, or sitting in the open. How can you possible test any kind of scenario with any kind of good results without knowing the specifics of spotting? Look at Van's test where the spotting times varied from something like 20 seconds up to in the hundreds. All done on the same map with the same circumstances. Unless the spotting system is completely redone you are not going to see any kind of consistent results on these tests.
-
I think it is excellent that you guys are putting the time in trying to get an idea on this. Many thanks from me as I would like a better understanding of the game.
But if we do not know basically squat about what factors are being considered and what are not how do we get where we want to be? What the hell did I just say? Anyhow every time we start one of these every one says all factors and such have to be the same with no addition factors that can skew the result. Well, how many definite things do we know about the game code and how it works? None! How does the game actually spot? Not just in hull down but just spot in general. I seen a post that it goes in some kind of cycle count but never seen BF confirm anything. Looks like they did confirm the more eyes the better. But how so? Do they scan from left to right in a cycle of x seconds or do they scan and then pretty much go blind for x seconds and then scan again? And if we do not really know anything about how the game spots how can we even test spotting in hull down or spotting on the move? Seems like we are embarking on this journey to figure this out but hell we don't even know where we are starting from. I hope you guys figure it out and would help in any way I can but more so I hope BF gives you guys some more concrete examples of how it works to get you a jumping off point. Just my two cents which is not worth much.
-
I just posted something to that effect in the other hull down thread (how did we end up with two of them anyways?) But since you brought up anecdotal examples I should make a couple of points:
1) In any "real" in-game situation hull down status is likely to be only one of several factors influencing spotting.
2) There is a very large element of randomness in CMx2 spotting, to the extent that in any encounter who spots who first will often come down to dumb luck. To illustrate how much variation there is even in tightly controlled test situations here is the raw data from my last hull down spotting test.
Spot times for fully hull down tanks (grey target line) in seconds (84.5 seconds average)
221
63
58
40
35
47
28
65
39
20
16
56
325
70
30
258
81
45
110
105
93
47
53
98
57
30
250
24
219
44
56
33
86
30
30
112
9
24
21
160
24
146
40
154
55
409
36
43
87
102
16
20
11
47
175
175
78
105
105
13
16
250
26
Spot time for tanks in the open in seconds (57.4 seconds average)
11
35
52
18
31
193
19
92
101
53
5
8
15
24
48
127
142
8
17
3
64
18
106
32
35
83
64
46
27
25
138
25
50
43
17
268
15
9
97
69
17
79
131
37
6
52
159
114
61
32
18
48
52
60
138
37
43
47
27
43
38
56
91
Uggggh! That is disappointing. Bil should have played the lottery that day he was able to seek a hull down position and get three shots off without being spotted.
-
Yeah, I have played plenty of CM1 before and honestly do not use what you are describing there either. I did misunderstood your post though and should have read it twice. The only time I can see your suggestion being somewhat useful is in huge battles. Like the BB tourney games at WEBOB where in the first couple minutes moving large quantities of troops halfway across the board is tedious. From my experience the majority of playas are more in the medium battle range in which I do not see it being of much use. I do not have a problem wasting time finding and clicking on the units to issue orders. Moving your pointer a couple more inches to the right or left is not a big deal. I guess it might be though if you are trying to squeeze turns in on your lunch break?
-
Yeah, we've talked before that it would be a "nice to have" feature if there was a way to easily identify all the teams of an individual squad.
But, the #1 feature that would speed up play (by far) would be selectable waypoints/lines so that one could instantly select the associated unit by clicking on any waypoint rather than to have to go hunt for the unit itself before one could make any changes to its waypoints.
I just click on the line and then hit the "tab" key. It takes me straight to the unit. I can see the benefit of this for large multiple orders per unit but I am more of a one order short command type of guy. So the tab key works fine for me.
-
Panzer Command had a decent little feature. It had a small message box on the UI that could be toggled on and off and also resized to your tastes. It would let you know if an unit is surpressed, taking casualties, taking damage and what type. If you clicked on the message it would automatically rewind the turn to 5 or 10 seconds before it happened and put you on the unit that it happened to. Nice in big battles where you can quickly gather information on what happened to who.
It also had a box on the UI that showed the icons of all your units. It was scrollable I believe to handle larger battles. This would actually do what you are talking about and hilight the unit icons that are taking fire. So the message box would tell you specific damages and casualties and the other icon box would show what was taking incoming fire.
-
I don't use H2HHelper but IIRC there is a message capability there.
Correct. DB and H2HH go together like peanut butter and jelly. The chat function will do exactly what you want.
-
http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/how-to-use-z-bee-mod-manager.17854/
Here you go. Yes. You will have one install for each of your games. I have 3. One for CMSF, CMBN, and CMFI.
Try my steps in setting up your paths. If it still does not work shout me an email.
-
Over a month and nothing. Thanks for the support. No big deal. Played one mission and put that on the back burner anyhow.
-
The HD usage of the program is almost nil. It is where you are storing your mods that is the issue. Using JSGME they have to be stored in the same place as the game/JSGME. With Zbee you can have all your mods on a separate HD. Not a big issue to most but if you need to keep your SSD running nice with CMBN it could save you from bogging it down. Zbee also does a lot more than just swap mods like JSGME. You have that nice Bulge Mod - well you can set up Zbee to activate all your Bulge mod files with one click. Instead of going in and deactivating and then reactivation each Bulge file. It allows you to set up mod sets which activate in one click. Easy to use.
-
JSGME does work. I have used it and it is decent. Only problem is that you have to install in your BF folder. Eats up HD space.
Use Zbee mod manager. It is easier to use and will your mods from anywhere. I have mine stored on a separate drive off my SSD. Go over to thefewgoodmen forum and look at the tutorial that I put up. I can also help you out if you PM me.
-
Is the concept of cross mixing units between theatres even been considered? I know the historically anal grogs cringe at this but I think it would be cool. If I own every single game and module put out it would be nice to have all those units and even terrain available to use in one game.
-
No problem. Thanks for sending it up the ladder.
-
I am updated to the most recent version and do not have any mods installed. Is any else seeing this? As I rotate the camera three different textures or something appear on the building roof.
http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab93/eniced/shot2.jpg' alt='shot2.jpg'>
You guys have made a great decision here. Giving the talented scenario designers here more tools to work with is going to improve the game ten fold for the single player experience. 
CMRT - BETA AAR - Soviet Side
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
Nahhhh! Why don't we let our men ride little pink ponies and throw bubble gum and lollipops at each other. This game is about shooting and killing! Do I want a PBEM battle to drag on for six months because my men do not want to expend ammo? Not me.