Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

sandman2575

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    141

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by sandman2575

    Winter Bulge

    in CM Final Blitzkrieg Maps and Mods

    Posted

    These are all amazing, but the pic with the Moebelwagen and Hetzer -- Holy Hell!  Gorgeous.

    Worghern, I would love to know how you achieve the shading and lighting effects. As if we're not asking enough of you already -- I wonder if you'd consider including whatever shaders / filters / 'sweet fx' settings or tools when you release the landscape mods.

    Simply amazing work.

    0

    Stalingrad MOD: Comments Suggestions Help

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    4 hours ago, kevinkin said:

    A little ahead of schedule:

    2 AM September 15, 1942
    Stalingrad, the vital city on the Volga is in ruin. As von Paulas's forces attacked to secured the Stalingrad downtown area, they first had to occupy No. 1 Railway Station. The elite 71st Infantry Division advanced on September 15 into the teeth of the 13th Guards Division. Over the course of the day's fighting, the station would change hands several times. In the evening Chuikov personally sent 1st Company (Lt Anton Kuzmich Dragan) 1st Battalion 42nd Guards Regiment to retake Stalingrad-1.

     

    Requires the Stalingrad MOD and umlaut's Factory MOD

     

     

    http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/

     

     

     

     

    Just gave this a spin. Fun, intense scenario! I don't think it's a spoiler to say that, if you're playing as Wehrmacht, it really makes you rue the German infantry's relative lack of automatic weapons in '42.

    The urban map is terrific. Just incredibly impressed by the hard work that went into creating this amazing mod.

    Here's hoping the next scenario features a little more armor!  : )

     

     

     

    0

    Stalingrad MOD: Comments Suggestions Help

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Thanks grunt_GI.  I wonder if one solution might be to title the folder something like "ZZZZ_StalingradMod" or some such, i.e. making sure it's the last group of modifications that get loaded and hence overriding my other installed mods that may be in conflict.  (CM still follows this protocol, doesn't it -- load order of your Data\Z directory is determined alphabetically-?)  And then just deleting the folder when I want to play 'regular ol' Red Thunder' ?

    0

    Stalingrad MOD: Comments Suggestions Help

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Sorry to be obtuse, but just have a question about installation --

     

    I unpacked the 4 .zip files into a single folder, "Stalingrad Mod" -- placed this is my Data\Z directory with my other mods.

    My question is:  will my other mods interfere with the Stalingrad files? I have *many* mods installed -- vehicle, building reskins, "Vein's special effects," sound mods, etc. etc. Are the Stalingrad mod files specially tagged to prevent interference with my existing mods?

    0

    Stalingrad MOD: Comments Suggestions Help

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    This is really extraordinary. Congratulations to the development team and more importantly, thank you!

    Question -- is part of the vision of the project to eventually create a proper campaign for Stalingrad (whether German or Soviet focused) -- or is the idea to provide 'one off' scenarios? I recognize that a full campaign is an enormous amount of work to produce, but I was just wondering what sort of thing might be in the works.

     

    Thanks again !

    0

    Kampfgruppe Peiper Campaign

    in Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg

    Posted

    Given that the game gives you no way to recover from an immobilized vehicle at the crucial juncture of the bridge -- and that crossing the bridge is something you need to accomplish very much nearer the beginning of the 1.5 hour scenario than later, and with more than just a handful of AFVs and halftracks -- I'd say it's a flaw, especially since the scenario makes the likelihood of immoblization high, between the (SPOILER) several intense arty strikes in the bridge vicinity and ease with which vehicles get bogged in the craters. If the bridge gets blocked, there's little you can do besides throw up your hands and say, "well, now there's no way I can take the objectives. That was a fun campaign, I guess..."

    I resorted more than once to re-loading saves because of immobilized vehicles. It got to the point that I was saving *every* turn in order not to have the entire campaign come to an premature and highly anticlimactic conclusion -- generally something I don't like to do. It is a game, after all, and to the extent that the game throws up barriers to being able to complete the game, over which one has no control -- I'd say that's not great design.

     

    Regardless, like I say, I think the KP campaign is overall terrific, as is Final Blitzkrieg in general.

    0

    Kampfgruppe Peiper Campaign

    in Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg

    Posted

    7 hours ago, Erwin said:

    Was curious:  I know that if one loses mission #5 (Stoumont) the campaign ends.  But, does it matter in the first 4 missions whether one loses, draws, or even what scale of victory one achieves?  Because one is given so few infantry, and it is so easy to lose infantry, am wondering if it's better to aim for a draw (or maybe even a loss is fine), or a minor victory and not bother attempting anything better since achieving a higher victory level is usually costly in losses (which do not seem to be replaced), and I cannot see any benefit from a higher level of victory (or is there a benefit??).

    Also noticed:

    The arty in mission #5 (Stoumont) is missing one 105mm battery (according to the briefing).

    Regarding resupply and replacements, the Stoumont briefing warns that there will be no further ammo resupply, and to conserve mortar ammo.  However, I didn't receive any 81mm or 120mm resupply after mission #4, so Stoumont starts with already low ammo for the mortars.  Is that a briefing error, or have I misunderstood the resupply issues? 

    PS:  Re the Stavelot Bridge (or any bridge) issue, try always putting the max number of waypoints across a bridge plus MOVE or SLOW.  I put a platoon and a half of vehicles across that bridge with no problems.

     

     

    Am curious about this as well. I too began Stoumont with very low ammo left for my mortars, having used a lot in Stavelot. The idea of 'rationing' some of your arty for future missions, as the briefing suggests, is frankly pretty ludicrous -- you barely have enough arty support for Stoumont, much less subsequent actions.

    Also -- is the ability to deploy mortars *in* the halftracks a new feature, or did I just never realize you could do this in previous CM games?

     

    Overall the Kampfgruppe Peiper campaign is really excellent. Although a minor gripe about the Stavelot crossing. It is *very* easy for one of your vehicles to get disabled at the entrance to the bridge or on the bridge, especially with the propensity for 'bogging down' in shelled terrain. If this happens near the beginning or even the middle of the mission, you've effectively already lost. There's no way to clear the obstruction, and so no way to proceed with taking your objectives. I admit I resorted to a bit of 'save scumming' in order to get through this mission precisely because of this, which is essentially a design flaw in the scenario if you ask me.

     

    0

    CM Performance

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Thanks for clarifying, Bulletpoint. Still, given how 'expensive' 3d Model Quality is in terms of FPS vs. the actual graphics benefit it confers (which to me seems negligible), I see no reason to crank this to anything above "Fastest." Even one click up "Faster" takes a noticeable hit on performance.  Setting to Fastest gives me around 45-60 FPS on average (with V-Sync Adaptive, Half refresh rate) -- on Faster this dips down to around 30-50.

    The real question though is, why on earth should 3D Model Quality be so extremely taxing on your system? As I said, I have a reasonably powerful PC, and playing at 1920x1080, it handles other graphics-intensive games at highest settings with ease. In fact it's safe to say that in my library, CM is the worst-performing game that I regularly play. Shadow rendering in CM is also pretty abysmal, but 3D Model Quality takes the prize as the most unreasonably demanding graphics setting in the game.

    Look, I'm not someone who needs all games to hit the magical 60 FPS or better mark. I'd be perfectly happy if CM could run completely consistently at around 35-40 FPS (this compared to Graviteam Tactics, where I get 100 FPS with ease). But if I set things like 3D Model Quality to "Balanced", CM routinely bogs down to the 15-20 FPS range, which is just unacceptable. The  lag is very noticeable and distracting.

     

    0

    CM Performance

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I recently bought a G-Sync monitor -- and had in the back of my mind the idea that maybe, just maybe, this might improve things with CM's terribly laggy performance.

    In short, for anyone contemplating a similar purchase for similar reasons -- it does not. In fact, I now disable G-Sync and use the Adaptive V-Sync (half refresh rate) setting when playing CM.

    I have tweaked CM's settings and the settings in my Nvidia Control Panel a million different ways in a vain attempt to find the 'sweet spot' for good performance. I'm convinced it doesn't exist -- EXCEPT for one setting:

    3D Model Quality.  Set this to "Fastest", and your game will suddenly perform as you might expect it should. No more dipping into 12-15 FPS for simply panning your camera. Changes to 3D Texture Quality seem to make no difference -- I keep it at "Best." But for whatever reason, 3D Model Quality dropped to lowest setting, Fastest, makes a very big difference. And I honestly cannot see any difference in visual quality between higher settings and Fastest. Vehicles and troops look the same.

    It seems like 3D Model Quality at lowest setting is disabling some graphics feature that (A) is *intensely* demanding and (B) makes almost no visual difference in the game. I don't know what it's supposed to be doing, but whatever it is, it's not worth the literally 20-30 FPS cost of keeping it on.

    The only other intensive graphics setting is Shadows -- turning shadows off generally yields a 5-15 FPS benefit. But I can't disable shadows -- it makes the game look considerably flatter and worse. So setting 3D Model Quality to Fastest has for me been the best solution.

    For anyone interested -- here are my settings in Nvidia CP. I have a fairly robust PC:  i7 3770k oc'd to 4.6 GHz; Nvidia GTX 780 Ti; 16 GB RAM, Windows 7 x64. With these specs I can easily run other graphics intensive games at high or ultra settings. For example, by contrast, I can run Graviteam Tactics at a constant 100 FPS --

    INGAME SETTINGS:

    Vertical Synchronisation: On
    Antialias/Multisample: On
    High Priority Process: On

    3D Model Quality:  Fastest
    3D Texture Quality: Best

    Nvidia CP:

    Anisotropic filtering: 16x
    Antialiasing - FXAA: Off
    Antialiasing - Gamma Correction: On
    Antialiasing - Mode: Override any application setting
    Antialiasing - Setting: 16xCSAA
    Antialiasing - Transparency: Multisample  8X
    Maximum Pre-rendered Frames: 4
    Power Management: Maximum performance
    Texture Filtering - Anisotropic sample optimization: Off
    Texture Filtering - Negative LOD Bias: Allow
    Texture Filtering - Quality: High quality
    Texture Filtering - Trilinear Optimization: On
    Threaded Optimization: Auto
    Triple Buffering: Off
    Texture Filtering Anisotropic Filter Optimization: Off
    VERTICAL SYNC:  ADAPTIVE (HALF REFRESH RATE)

    1

    Why ride the suicidal Hanomag halftrack when you can walk?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    With respect to OP --

    This isn't just a problem for the Halftracks. It goes for pretty much any unbuttoned AFV. It seriously drives me crazy how, in CM, unbuttoning is pretty much suicidal.

    Recently playing the "Firebrigade von Saucken" scenario in RT -- a Maxim killed the tank commander of one of my unbuttoned Tigers from a distance of over 500m -- in three bursts.

    This sort of thing is beyond ridiculous. Firstly, unbuttoned commanders or Halftrack gunners will happily sit exposed, unresponsive, for many seconds after it's obvious they are receiving fire. But worse, the commander or gunner is a ridiculous bullet magnet. Unbuttoning in CM is essentially the kiss of death, no matter how safe you think your commanders are.

    Now, I'm not saying tank commanders should be invulnerable. If you unbutton 50 m. from concealed terrain or buildings that may well contain enemy troops, you're asking for trouble. But that's not how it works in CM. As soon as you unbutton, you will attract bullets from any position with clear LOS, even at distances near the limit of small arms weapon range.

    Also during Firebrigade von Saucken -- another of my panzers was sitting quietly for many turns in cover, apparently undetected by the enemy. I did a little experiement -- saved the game, and then had that tank unbutton. Sure enough, he unbuttons and immediately attracts small arms fire, and is killed. I was all but 100% certain that would happen, and it did.

    I *really* wish this could be changed -- it is immensely frustrating and 'suspension of disbelief' killing. I essentially never unbutton my AFVs anymore. The button in the game panel should essentially be disabled or removed if it's going to be this absurdly lethal to unbutton.

     

    0

    When?!

    in Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg

    Posted

     

    I just thought it was his hobby. Every man needs a hobby.

    As to the lateness of the release... Well there is definitely no retail dependency or pressure, that's for sure. I don't know how well BF do from seasonal sales. Regulars that are interested will buy it whenever it comes out. Other CM fans will also probably buy it later on, if they're not tired of the late war western front, since there is little competition. That other game we're not supposed to talk about has also just been released, so beat BF to it, although it has a very different flavour, with a very Eastern Europe style UI. There's no saying you can't buy or enjoy both, and the market is hardly saturated. I can wait.

    Well, the idea that that game can't be mentioned in these forums -- Graviteam's Mius-Front -- is pretty ridiculous, although I'm aware there is plenty of hostility toward it around here. It's a fantastic game. While I can understand why the Graviteam games may not be to everyone's liking, or every fan of Combat Mission's liking, there's absolutely no reason one can't find both the Graviteam games and the Combat Mission games equally excellent. I do.

    So yeah, pick up Mius-Front -- it's a mere $35 and it will provide you with a different take on the Ostfront from Red Thunder, and something to bide your time with until Final Blitzkrieg. There are things Mius-Front does better than Combat Mission, and things (especially modelling infantry combat) where Combat Mission is clearly superior.

    0

    German attack doctrine in CM

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    @JasonC -- Like others, I've found your posts about doctrine extremely informative and helpful -- thank you. I wonder if we could prevail upon you to offer your insights into American and Commonwealth doctrines?  I know this is the Red Thunder forum, so likely inappropriate to this setting, but the CMBN forum would fit the bill.

     

    Or, if American / British doctrines have already been explained, maybe you could direct me to where those threads are --

     

    Again, many thanks for your efforts --

    0
×
×
  • Create New...