stoex
-
Posts
639 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by stoex
-
-
scottie,
BORG spotting also plays a great role here, since in CMx1 if you tried to retreat those units in close proximity to enemy forces, as soon as someone spotted them, EVERYONE spotted them and that was it. They were toast. In CMx2, if one or two enemy units spot the retreating scouts for a few seconds and get off a few shots, they would more likely make it to safety, since there is no (un-gamey) way to target them with all the nearby units at once.
Also, in CMx2, due to 1 to 1 representation, enemy units would most likely spot only individual soldiers (not the entire point-sized team) from time to time, if at all, and CMx2's individual bullet tracking would then further reduce the effectiveness of potshots against the retreating scouts, as opposed to CMx1, where any shot in the vicinity of the units would have a chance of hitting them.
On the other hand, if they were spotted by a Sherman, they would still be in trouble
. -
Hold on, skelley - a 57mm AT gun in CMSF? I'm more than a little confused. What would that be exactly? An RPG? SPG-9? ATGM? I know of no AT guns in CMSF...
-
moneymaxx,
looking at your statement it actually gives me a different perspective:
Aside from the fact that being each and every officer on the battlefield at once is inherent to the entire game, with all the pros and cons that entails, how about this: Isn't elevating your troops' performance to a point that's better than what could be expected from them exactly what commanders receive medals for? Don't we all want to receive that medal when playing CM? You don't expect the CM engine to prevent players from sacrificing crack or elite units by doing something stupid with them, like running them through an open field in front of a company of tanks - so why do you expect it to prevent them from doing something ingenious that will turn the battle in their favor?Since when the player gives an order to a inexperienced unit he effectively replaces the commander of that unit by a veteran/elite commander (the player). The player prevents them form making mistakes, he tells the bazooka man to wait for a flank shot, he looks for a covered way to get from A to B, orders them to not fire too soon... The player elevates their performance to a point that's far better than one could expect from that unit in RL and in some way or another should be punished for that.When a player gives an order to any unit he effectively replaces the commander of that unit by a commander of his (the player's) own quality. Of course he does (except for the morale and other modifiers of the respective CO unit). If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be better and worse players. Everyone would play the game equally well, and we might as well take the players out of the equation entirely and have the AI fight out the battles all alone.
Thanks to the engine the way it stands, your green soldiers perform far worse in any given situation than they would if they were elite anyway (i.e. that green Schreck will likely miss the flank shot you set him up for, more likely than a more experienced soldier at least - or be spotted before he got into position)...at least let the player be a smart commander!
The way things stand it will still be the opponent beating you, or being beaten by you (whether he is a player or a scenario designer), rather than real or perceived limitations of the game itself. And it will still be harder for you to perform exceptionally when using low-experience troops than when using high-experience troops. Seems like everything is as it should be to me, but I am maybe extrapolating something from your post that I shouldn't. Dunno, seems right to me.
-
scottie,
I'm not a tester or anything, but I am 100% sure that impacts from HE and other large ordinance will create craters in CMBN as they do in CMSF. There would be no point in taking this feature out of the engine. What Steve is saying is that foxholes and trenches are not deformations in the terrain mesh - in order to give them the FOW that was clamored for so much. In order to achieve this effect the foxholes and trenches are actually objects placed on top of the existing terrain.
-
Thanks for the link, Michael! Might have gone to the trouble of checking Wikipedia myself when you get right down to it. Would have been more difficult, though, as I wasn't entirely sure what you were talking about. Makes perfect sense now, of course. And I also understand the difficulty of training gunners to use the apparatus - a little like those 3D-books that were around some years ago, where you had to look 'through' the page to see the hidden image. I know a lot of people who could never manage to do that...
-
MikeyD,
Please explain how it is difficult to train a human being to see in stereo. I thought we all did that automatically thanks to our anatomy, us having two eyes and all that. I'm sure what you're saying is true, but if you wouldn't mind explaining it in words that a non-grog can understand, I'd be grateful...for instance, what exactly is a stereo sight? I would have thought it was like binoculars (you look through it with both eyes, and see one picture), but probably that's where at least a part of the misunderstanding is coming from...
-
The system we want to implement is not dissimilar to what c3k outlined. It helps with the "alternate reality" problem a great deal because the 3D representation is shown only it is positively identified as a particular type of vehicle. There are still issues with things like skirt armor, but those problems are far more isolated and simplified than trying to have a PzIV mis identified as a StuG. In other words, it makes the programming of the alternate reality more simplified.
An interesting bone, Steve...while I have no idea, obviously, of how this is eventually going to work when it gets into the (or better a) game, your statement raises some interesting questions about how such an implementation will affect the AI in particular.
Since I know there is no point in my asking these questions now, I will save them for an appropriate time. Just chipping in to say my imagination is running wild.
-
Sequoia,
I'm too lazy to insert a link here, but this definitely can be seen in one of the screenshots we got for Christmas. Towing guns is certainly in the game. Check out the screenies in the TO&E section of the CM:BN page.
-
Dietrich,
Not to be all nitpicky here, but just to set the mathematical record straight: If the Germans flew around 10,000 sorties in the time frame you mentioned, and the allies flew about 120,000...then the ratio is 12 to 1 - not 12,000 to 1 as you stated. If the allies had had a 12,000 to 1 air advantage, the war would have ended within days I think
. -
I agree, Ankh Morpork (great name btw
), neither you or nor I know how a pbem file is encoded. But I do know that while CMSF (and CMBN) now are playable in RT, and the engine is built around RT, that does not mean the engine or the save files are programmed/encoded or even capable of streaming battle data out of the files on the HDD. That's all I meant. The game engine itself and the data being handled by it on the fly while playing can put a heavy taxing on even high-powered rigs (as anyone can tell you when they experience frame rate drops on large scenarios), so 'simply' subtracting the in-game calculations and 'replacing' it with on-the-fly decoding of data from stored files may not be entirely easy to do. At the very least new 'replay' file formats would probably have to be devised (which may be even bigger than current savegames to allow streaming, who knows?) and the engine would have to be extended to be able to do this. Also remember that a lot of stuff that gets calculated in-game according to the game mechanics can immediately be thrown out again after it happens (like all the random effects), but would have to be stored in the replay file to make it happen the same way in the replay.But as Steve said, it's on the list, and it's certainly technically feasible, so we will probably get it eventually. I hope we do
. -
Ankh Morpork,
I have played CMSF and I know about data
. The simple fact is that savegames in CMSF (and also the PBEM files) are in a very compressed format, and since CMSF handles a lot more data than CMx1 games (like deformable hi-fidelity terrain and 1 to 1 soldier representation), they also tend to be large. Someone else has stated this. However, unlike what you seem to assume, even streaming this data out into a video may not be feasible, since it can often take the game engine up to or more than a minute to load a 60-second turn from a pbem file. Even on a fast computer. Of course I don't need to tell you that this is a problem . There is probably a way to remove the redundant parts from the pbem files and get them into a format where they can be strung back together into a full battle (before loading them into the engine), but this would have to be done beforehand, not on the fly. Remember that quite a bit of overhead is included in a pbem file compared to what you need to make an AAR, besides the fact the data needs to be translated into graphics & sound. Every second pbem file contains data from two consecutive game turns, for instance. -
I agree, vincere...
I got a 'Bosch' drill for Christmas and it beats my cat hands down at making holes in walls. The cat can really only scratch the surface
. Never tried clouds for that though, maybe they work better?No product placement intended
. Merry Christmas all and thanks to BFC for the great announcement! -
There was already some griping about this problem a while ago, which is why MeatEtr uploaded the Training Campaign to the repository.
http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=568
Download and enjoy!
-
Not my impression, phil.
I have just come out of mission 4 in the Dutch campaign (a real slugfest!!!), and I have serious issues with the GILL missiles as well. They should have been one of my most important assets in this mission and quite simply put, they failed miserably. I had them all on second and third storey rooftops and while I found they spotted well, they couldn't hit a thing for the most part. I have narrowed the problem down to this, though:
The GILL missile tracking system seems to have a lot of trouble under circumstances where LOF is obscured by smoke. In my battle, there was a lot of artillery coming down, plenty of vehicles burning and popping smoke, bombs dropping, etc. Under those conditions, every GILL dropped to the ground after 100-200 meters. On the rare occasions where LOF was clear, they actually performed adequately, I'll call it maybe 70-80% hits. Unfortunately, it is also not a very strong missile when it does hit, as many tanks survived a hit or two. How realistic any of this is, I have no idea, but that is my experience in-game. Always look for the clear LOS/LOF. Also try not to fire at moving targets if you can avoid it, the GILLs seem to have trouble with that as well.
In the described battle I found the CV9035 to be an excellent system to fight tanks in urban terrain. They spot well and their 35mm Bushmaster can brew up a T-72 MV from the frontal aspect (!!!) with a little luck. Certainly from the flank the CV 9035 will usually take out the tank before it can react. Too bad they have a rather short supply of ammo, my only gripe.
-
Pitching in here. I haven't even read the last few posts in the thread completely, but I am 99.9% sure I know what is happening (partially) in c3k's test. Here goes:
Det 5 in the first example, as they run away from the scene, gains a total of 50 rounds HEDP in two steps. This is because they are running towards the HQ unit carrying those 50 rounds (and the HQ unit is running towards them, I think), at least in the beginning. The reason for the two increments is that each man in the 2-man HQ unit comes into ammo sharing range at a slightly different time. The first man to come into range is carrying 30 rounds, the second man 20 rounds. Make sense?
The same thing happens to Det 6 in the 2nd example - as the HQ unit nears their position, the two men come into ammo sharing range one by one, adding 30 and then 20 rounds HEDP respectively.
As for the vanishing PPHE, I believe this is due to the fact that Det 6 never had any PPHE rounds on them to begin with - those rounds were being carried by Det 5 and showed in Det 6's ammo count as long as Det 5 was close enough to share. As Det 5 runs away, Det 6 loses access to those rounds.
Remember that rounds being shared show up in the inventories of all units within sharing range. This means that the total number of rounds shown in the GUI (adding up the numbers for all the units within sharing range) is in fact higher than the amount physically carried by the units. If unit A and unit B are both carrying 50 rounds, and they are within sharing distance, both units will show 100 rounds in their inventory (if all the men in both units are within sharing distance, that is - see above with the 2 men in the HQ unit).
Maybe c3k could do another test to prove me right but like I say, from my own experience with GILL missiles I am quite sure this is how things work.
-
The MANUAL confirms that the triggerman has to be no more than a certain distance away from the IED, depending on the method with which the device is triggered. See page 104 & 105 in the CMSF manual.
-
@ Pandur
I get how you think these ideas are no good. The way you describe it they might not be depending on how people make use of them. However, the key to any such mechanics is to make them non-mandatory. That way players can communicate about their preferences before starting, set the game up accordingly, and not have a problem either way. Or not play the game if their preferences do not match. Just the same as it is now
.I agree it's not a good idea to force such concepts onto players who don't wish to use them - unfortunately ROE and other game parameters as options is something BF does not have a great track record in providing. The choice between WeGo and RT in CMSF is but a first step in the right direction as far as I am concerned. Many other options are possible...
-
-
Waaarg, thanks for doing a test. Now of course I'm wondering whether I've gone off the deep end
. I remember clearly loading up my PzG squads with launchers (not just rockets) from the Marders, and in particular I remember thinking about whether I wanted to equip my Platoon HQs or their 2IC teams with a PF as well, since there was one in their vehicle also. I decided against since I thought it might weigh them down too much, and I probably wasn't going to need that many PFs anyhow in mission one (no vehicles expected in REDFOR).Anyhow, I'm not going to reinstall to version 1.30 just to find out, and I trust your test anyway, so I'll just let it rest now - since we all concur there is a problem now in that there aren't enough PFs in-game. Now all we need to do is get along without PFs until v1.32 comes around
. -
donnieitaly,
Go ahead and do the download, then start the patch. The boxes you need to check appear during the installation of the patch, after you open the downloaded file on your computer.
-
I want to drop something here because it seems appropriate.
First off, I would like a reload order option as well. Something I could choose to tell my troops to do when I need it, and ignore if I don't need it or don't want it. That's why it's called an option.
Second, and more importantly (and this is not the first time I get this impression), I think BF made a bad decision in the original design of the GUI for CMSF. The relative orders menus (you know, the ones where you scroll through the menus with ?some keys? and then give orders with the numerical keypad, which AFAIK nobody uses), limits the entire game engine to a total of 4x9=36 possible orders, which is further effectively reduced due to the grouping of orders into more or less arbitrary groups of more or less similar orders (movement, combat, special, and admin), which leaves open slots in some areas, while having not enough slots in others. I think one of the main reasons for BF avoiding various very good suggestions that have been voiced on these forums for additional UI options for the players (move to contact vs. hunt, reload, building assault commands for example) is the fact that they would have to redo the GUI or give up on the relative orders scheme to do so. Steve even gave this as a reason for something being difficult at one point, though I can't remember what exact request it was. The relative orders scheme may have seemed a neat idea at the time, but it's a dead-end street in terms of game development as far as I can see. Hard-coded into a corner...
Just my opinion of course.
-
Definitely a new issue, Waaarg. When I started the German campaign back in V1.30, my Panzergrenadiers in their Marders (in mission 1) came to the battlefield not equipped with any launcher, and I had them grab one each from their Marders. If the Marders now have no launchers onboard (and I admit I haven't checked), then this has certainly changed from 1.30 to 1.31. Looks like some TO&E change went awry...
So I just checked it out in-game and it's true. The Marders now have no launchers on-board, just rockets. Methinks it may have been intended to give the launchers directly to the PG squads and take them out of the Marders (to avoid too many PFs being available), but something went wrong and the squads never got the launchers. Certainly not the way it's meant to be...BF please check this out!!!!
-
Thanks for the test, c3k! Says it all, really. There is clearly an issue here that needs to be addressed.
-
As far as I know, all weapons and units share ammo now (if applicable, meaning same ammo type). I could be wrong, though, and I certainly haven't tested this. I know small arms ammo is shared, as well as MG ammo and GILL missiles. That's the ones I have seen explicitly being shared.
.
CM:BN Beta AAR/DAR Bois de Baugin - German side
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Yeah, sometimes I suffer from logorrhea
. I hope my point came across, though...