Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

JRMC1879

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    287

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by JRMC1879

    Walls.

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Now I am not discussing the why and wherefores of this as I know its been discussed already.

    Just picked up playing CMSF again - with regard to low walls ... can tanks et al crush them ? I am just trying to refresh a poor memory - I know its in CMBN etc - and I think it was added to CMA - but cant recall if its something you can do in CMSF ?

    0

    New Scenario: Battle of Vienna

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Thanks , glad to hear you like it :). Actually there are 3 pairs of flak towers in vienna, each consisting of one round "combat tower" that had lots of guns (including a twin 88mm) and one rectangular "command tower" wich had a radar. The tower depicted in the game is the Augarten combat tower:

    Runder_Flakturm_Augarten.jpg

    However it actually looks more like the Augarten command tower:

    augarten_l03.JPG

    Flaktower pairs location:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Wiener_flaktuerme.jpg/600px-Wiener_flaktuerme.jpg

    L = Command

    G = Combat

    What are they used for now ? Can you visit them ?

    0

    New Scenario: Battle of Vienna

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    New Op HERRICK 5 Afghan Mission

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    One of the maps that 'I have up my sleeve' has developed a little faster than I thought. This mission will probably complete my Op GLACIER series and will be a hybrid of subsequent GLACIER operations which took place in early 2007 during 3 Commando Brigade's Op HERRICK 5 tour.

    The reason this will be a hybrid is largely due to the fact that on Google Earth the area around Garmsir District Centre has got imagery which doesn't overlap too well and unfortunately the subsequent objectives for the GLACIER series sit on the other side of the join!

    More to follow in due course.

    Excellent - I love the scenarios you are producing.

    0

    New file at the Repository: Caen Area Map Project (2013-03-07)

    in CM Normandy Maps and Mods

    Posted

    This is my finally finished map of a ca. 4x4km area (very detailed!) to the northwest of Caen, where heavy combat took place between German and Allied forces. Featured are the villages Franqueville, Authie, Buron, Saint-Contest, Gruchy, Cussy, Bitot as well the Abbaye Ardennes and the Hameau de Saint-Louet. The area is very open with large fields between the villages and relatively flat. It is based on aerial photographies from 1944 and 1947 and mostly true to the real world (as much as the given tools and my skills permit).Performance: The map itself runs -despite its size- very smothly on my PC, but that is without any units. Loading times are pretty excessive, though, Up to 7 minutes. The general idea is for people to use smaller parts of the map to create their own scenarios on them, for instance the 12th SS assault on Authie and Buron on June 7th or the Canadian assault on Cussy in July. For that you have my full permission.The file includes the map itself plus a number of template files which can be used for briefing graphics with little adjustments.Note that I consider this a lite version, with relatively few flavour objects. An even more detailed version will probably uploaded at a later time.The map itself does not require the Commonwealth module, but no American forces were involved in the fighting North of Caen and SS, British and Canadian forces were heavily involved there.

    More...

    Superb Map. Always surprises me the effort some of you guys put in to creating content.

    0

    Grenade goes through wall

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Bullets don't go through brick walls. Grenades shouldn't either. Looks like a bug to me.

    Well, its not the wall thats an abstraction but the path of the grenade. I would imagine its fairly routine to track the path of the bullets into the wall as the wall is so high and the bullet starts at a certain height and travels in a straight line.

    I would image the code for lobbing a grenade is the same regardless of if it travels over a wall or not. So - it may be coded to check if it hits the wall - and would explode on the other side if it does - it just doesnt show the thing on a curve over the wall it it hits. I have seen plenty grenades explode on the safe side of the wall in that situation.

    0

    Gustav Line.

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    I'd rather the end man get shot than the first three or four play follow the leader into bullets. Also spotting is severely restricted currently.

    Another issue with CMx2 I think is that the soldiers appear totally deaf. If they had some semblance of hearing they'd hear the shots and possible scream of the man in front..not carry on walking to their death.

    But you are somewhat missing the point. Sure proper dispersal and formation whilst moving is a good thing to have. But you are talking as though they dont want to put it in. I would suggest all that is a lot of coding and there are priorities.

    If they had put the effort in to code in the formation thing - you would only be here complaining about the thing they left out to get it done.

    0

    Are new modules more about adding new equipment than features ?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Is it just me or does the addition of new equipment (TOE, nations , vehicles, etc) via the modules not add much to this game ?

    Honestly strike me down if i'm wrong , its just I have played the commonwealth module for maybe 2 hours since purchase months ago and I just keep getting bored :(

    Sure 2.0 added some features, armour cover arc is great.

    I admit I have not looked into this in too much detail but on the face of it the modules to date seem to be more about adding new equipment and formations rather than new features into the software. Maybe that's more important for most of you , just doesn't add too much to the game for me.

    I maybe alone but I am finding it hard to have sustained interest on CMx2 2.0 for any length of time these days. I need more of a link between battles in a campaign. Everything feels very detached :(

    All IMO.

    Scott

    Mmmm ... definitely alone I think. "Just" add new vehicles and units ? Thats what half the game is about for me. There is no other game I am willing to spend money on as readily and no other that I return to as often. Gustav line will bring into scope literally thousands of new situations that are possible. Even just taking anzio there must be hundreds of historical situations that can be created.

    I havent touched half the content I have with these games. To me that is what draws me in. No other games creates that feeling of acutally watching a battle unfold.

    Sure new features are great but personally whenever one of these modules gets announced I do nothing but play in my mind what I can do with it when it arrives.

    Perhaps yes a visit to the scenario editor would be useful - playing out a situation you created may rekindle things for you.

    0

    Unbelievable!!!

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    ArmA 2 has maps larger than all maps available in CM and allows battles with several thousand AI that wont clip into one another. 'Tac AI' in ArmA appears to be noteably less sophisticated if it even exists and user generated missions need more accurate AI plans than in CM though, but i think its still prooving that pathfinding on huge maps with thousands of AI can be done without clipping and with hardware available to the average customer today.

    On the other hand it must also be mentioned that at least in my experience AI vehicles in ArmA2 get stuck more often than in CM2 and that the AI needs much more accurate movement paths defined in the editor by the user in order not to get stuck, so pathfnding algorythms in CM are probably more complex and resource demanding.

    From my experience - the tac AI both friendly and enemy - appears to be absolutely non existent in Arma - the primary reason I stopped playing it. I played a scenario with the british forces module and when ambushed in a Scripted mission - the 8 AI guys with me stood around and did nothing. Not very little. Absolutely nothing. When I compare that to what the Tac AI does in CM - the two are incomparable.

    0

    Unbelievable!!!

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Yep, that's what I would shoot for (which *would* lead to discussion about development priorities, but at least it's a possibility).

    Just a secondary comment - we do track every bullet, but they're MUCH easier. No paths to consider, just a trajectory, finite lifespan, won't be "in the world" for more than a few seconds.

    Complex objects that have places they can't go, *could* potentially be anywhere they *can* go, need to live potentially as long the scenario is running, but which need to be collision-checked against all / most other such objects constantly, especially while pathfinding (which needs to create potentially thousands of paths in a very short time) are going to be a huge collision burden. We do our best, but a full solution to that on CM's scale isn't possible.

    I imagine that section of code must give you headaches just looking at it !

    Personally I would like to see the "business critical" collisions high up the list. Despite the exaggeration of the op - I for one would like to see bridges being blocked by wrecks and live vehicles. Even if it was only that situation as it is quite specific. Depending on how difficult it is to do perhaps bocage gaps as well and narrow streets - which I think are most relevant to normandy - but if its only the bridges then I am fine with that. Everything else I can quite easily live with.

    0

    Unbelievable!!!

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I would definitely complain about this, and ask what we can do about it, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. With respect, what you're talking about is hard. No game on CM's scale - thousands and thousands of complex potentially colliding objects, with complex pathfinding - does it. None. We approximate some of the more attainable parts of it, but we definitely don't *solve* it. If you say this is a problem that has a straightforward solution which is possible with today's processing power, you're misrepresenting it.

    Note again that I'm not saying you shouldn't complain about this, just that talking about the basic principles and then saying "it's not too much too expect" is, well, wrong.

    If he hasn't already, I'll ask Steve to come in and see if he can follow up on my comment. I can talk about the technical aspects of things, but "solving" the wider problem isn't what we're after. He can speak to what we might be able to do about this more specific issue.

    To me that would perhaps be a best case solution. IE - not perhaps determining vehicle clipping and "pass through" in every possible situation. (and I am aware of just how difficult proper collision detection must be in a game like CMx2 - what some forget I think is that it tacks every bullet. Just one burst from and MG42 could account for a couple of hundred separate objects - all of which must then be checked against everything else in the game space.) But perhaps the more specifically "business critical" side of things like vehicles blocking single lane bridges.

    0

    Unbelievable!!!

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Yes, but that is the point. They are not pushing other vehicles out of the way, which in some circumstances would be acceptable, they are ghosting through with virtually no impedement to movement, particularly over bridges. Had that occured at Arnhem Bridge, Grabners attck would have simply floated through the tangle of vehicles and Frost would have lost the bridge at that point. So I think this is massively relevant.

    I don't know how many times such issues arose in RL during the war either but so what; you are happy to have something happen which is completely impossible and contrary to the known laws of physics?

    But heyho, just so long as German helmets are the right shape and the belt buckes are accurate, who cares about the laws of physics, eh. To hell with reality just listen to the bangs and get on with the game and lets pretend it never happened.

    Jesus - you need to take a chill pill pal. Your point doesnt become more relevant the more you are an arse about it. I didnt say it was a good thing - merely that you are - in the context of the game - seriously overstating its importance. I too cant see why its an issue - but you called it a "game breaker". Also - you only point to the one most famous example - name me another where it was relevant. I too would like it to be resolved but hyperbole is useful in making a point - exaggerating means your point is lost. And just so you know, I could give a f**k about the shape of german helments, so long as they are not triangles.

    And just for the record - Grabners attack consisted of 22 vehicles. 5 of which passed through unscathed as they took the british by surprise and 12 of the remaining ones were destroyed by mines, piats and hand grenades. they were already on the northern ramp at the time and in no contemparary account I have read does it mention - vehicles getting in each others way was what caused the attack to fail at all.

    Sure if you watch A bridge too far and want to take that as history you might think that - but they show most of the vehicles being destroyed in a bunch in the middle of the bridge and the british waiting for them when that is not what happened at all. All the german vehicles made it to the northern ramp and their progress was stopped by mines that had been laid and not a single vehicle was destroyed in the central span of the bridge itself - so even in that example you would need to point me to an account that says it was at all material to the tactical situation.

    0

    Unbelievable!!!

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Well, slight over reation. I cant guess but would like to know out of all the probably millions of individual tactical situations that developed during the war

    how many were actually relevant to one tank getting in the way of another ? Someone bought up market garden - but I am sure vehicles getting in the way of each other were much less important than the fact it was a single road the germans could easily road block a hundred times over and lay artillery fire on. After all - if tanks can push each other out of the way, a tank comes along and pushes the other one out of the way. then its no longer in the way and the issue is irrelevant.

    0

    Adding waypoints to existing waypoints

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    Please excuse me if this has been asked, I couldn't find anything specific.

    Is there any way to add waypoints to existing uncompleted waypoints in the next turn?

    I am playing a PBEM game. At the end of the first turn all I want to do is continue with adding waypoints to units with existing waypoints. The only way I can see to do this is to delete existing all existing waypoints, then reenter them so I can then extend to more waypoints.

    This seems like a pretty basic concept to me, I must be missing something.

    Thanks for any ideas.

    Erm ... just select the unit. Any move orders you give are tagged to the end of the current set of waypoints...

    0

    The Colonel's Tutorials

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    We're done Baron. Actually blacks in America are quite a bit different than blacks in Africa, for better or for worse. But Im not arguing this with you. The US wasnt founded by freemasons, thats nonsense. You dont know anything about the US at all, and probably have never even left Russia. I can actually say I've left the US and been in Europe however. I don't need bogeymen in the night to be afraid of, and I think it's obvious who the victim of misinformation is here. (one clue - its not me)

    Eh ? What the hell was that all about ?:confused:

    0

    2013 according to Steve

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Why move backwards in time with the eastern front game? Wouldn't it make more sense to start with operation barbarossa and move forward from there? Not really complaining, I'd just like to know the reasoning behind such a decision.

    Because it will sell more. People like JSII's and SU152's more than those piddly little BTS and 7 ..s ... personally I will buy anything - but I think its a consideration.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...