LemuelG
-
Posts
327 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by LemuelG
-
-
New artists can just come in on a Monday and start cranking out perfect models for the game
Why, that sounds great! Get cracking then
But really... is it not time for a first module bone? This dog is hungry. There must be something to show.
-
I am not lobbying for castles to be constructed in the editor.
I am
I think our desires are not different - I envisioned it as an alternate 'modular'-type building-set, offering much greater protection, option of smaller loop-hole windows, and add-on towers/gatehouses/thick walls.
If we are to be fighting over Europe for some years to come, it would be a real shame and a missed opportunity if we never got any castles.
I think they feature more than enough in the Normandy fighting to be a high priority. I don't even care if the towers have to be square! We need it.
-
I see what you mean. That MG really went to town - but I think I know what happened.
If you follow the first guy to get up and run, he somehow sidesteps a full belt from MG and runs through the hedge in front of it and takes a position not far from from where he started... just on the other side of the hedge - I think the AI tried to take cover when he came under fire, the final position was a good choice, the 'best' way to get there happened to be through the middle of a kill-sack.
Needs more bocage-holes. The AI is actually pretty good at taking cover, but not determining the safest path through labyrinthine bocage (he always takes the quickest route). It was an accident waiting to happen.
-
I have tired of tinkering - scenario is 'playable' and close to my 'vision', there will not be a final version until 3-squad para organization is added to game. I thought about extending the German deployment a bit, but haven't gotten around to it - my energy for personally testing this has reached it's limit!
I think it is fun though, I have played this a lot - the last match I squared-off against my flatmate for a more-than-satisfactorily violent and competitive encounter, I am pleased I did this.
http://www.mediafire.com/?rq9h2b1vxj32aqs
There is an AI plan for the US on attack, and is IMO most fun and challenging to play HTH. Real-time (no frivolous pausing) is recommended by the designer, for Germans to make it easier for them to displace without delay when they are about to be over-run/mortared, and the US to replicate a sense of inertia as they attempt to co-ordinate their numerous and fragmented forces in the assault (if I could have disabled their comms I would have).
US and German teams are pre-split for the benefit of the AI, feel free to re-combine them in deployment - no complaining. Some German defenders are pre-placed in corner-positions which you will not be able to move them back into once they leave it, keep it in mind. If you don't agree that the 505 had 3-squad platoons, or BARs - you're welcome to leave those extra guys I've added to A co. behind.
Feedback is much appreciated - I am interested in victory conditions, timing of the progress of US players (when did German position X fall? When did you capture building Y? etc.) and the displacement of German AI defenders, is there too much/too little time? Would the scenario be fun with even less Germans? Would an objective for the US of exiting some troops over the causeway be worth putting in? How's the US AI plan? Did it do enough to keep you on your toes as a defender?
I'm already working on the German cross-causeway counter-attack later on D-Day, coming soon.
-
-
Ok, I'll have a look later and get back to you - I like a good mystery
-
Newer laptops with dedicated ATI or Nvidia engines in them should get the job done.
This. It runs so good on my modest (i3, 4GB RAM, ATI Radeon 5470) laptop I haven't even installed it on my desktop yet! Activations and all that
-
Shrug? It does sound unusual.
Here's a thought - did they have ammo for their rifles etc? Maybe all they had was grenades, and the targeting order compelled them to rush the MG? Wild speculation on my behalf, no more.
-
I will have to check the friendly map edges but i doubt it is the reason as the edge they were running to was a side edge not a front or rear edge.
It is based on the compass points. Check what it is in the editor and get back to us.
-
Something worth experimenting with is modular buildings and varying the windows on each facade - you can get rid of all upstairs/downstairs windows and create an attic/basement, giving troops a place to go if things get too hot.
When I wanted to make an unusually strong building I put three side by side in an L shape and made doors/knocked-down walls in the interior as needed so all buildings/levels were connected from within, then I put a tall stone wall around most of it, leaving only two exits open, and a segment of low stone wall to allow a lower level window; most of the windows on the rear and sides were closed to limit the angles from which the troops within can be engaged. It's pretty rough, but hard to assault.
-
Apart from that I would maybe not try and get the Americans across the river and give them more points to just hold to obtain a draw? This way you might make it more even? i.e. change the Victory locations / zones. As it stands you are encouraging Americans to cross river and attack yet the Germans should easily be able to hold this off as limited crossings...
Good idea, if you look at the context the US has no need to assault across that river in the middle of the night - they could happily take up blocking positions on exits and send up a Piper Cub at dawn. The Germans have every reason to break out across that river before daylight.
Germans - capture crossings; exit recon elements in direction x,y; hold village/farm; destroy x% of enemy.
Americans - capture crossings; prevent enemy exiting (possible? I'm not sure suddenly...); hold roadblocks x,y/farm; preserve x% of forces.
Points should be fairly even, and enemy objectives known so there is an incentive to disrupt the enemy plans and break any potential deadlock. Americans have same forces, but more tubes.
-
Have a re-read of Keegan's 'Six Armies in Normandy', p99 to 102, (The 1st/505th at the Merderet) if you think that buildings in Normandy shouldn't offer much cover to defending infantry. These stone-buillt farmhouses were veritable fortresses even to WW2 weapons. You needed artillery or armour to reduce these strongpoints. The MG team holed up in the Manor team held up an entire company of US paras and their 60mm mortars were useless against them. In the game, you can kill the defenders in buildings with a single 60mm mortar without much difficulty.
There were a significant number of these stout Norman farmhouses and barns peppered around behind the landing zones and they were significant enough threats to attackers to warrant mentioning. (ibid. p171)
We're not talking about town buildings here which may offer less protrection to a defender.
Have you seen Le Manoire De La Fiere? It's a castle... literally - it has a tall tower with thick granite walls and strategically-placed loop-holes big enough to poke a gun out of, and not much more. There really is no way in the game to adequately represent this. Further west (2km-ish) of La Fiere is Chateau De Amfreville (dubbed: 'grey castle' by the paras - hints at it's nature) has a huge castle-type twin-towered gatehouse and very thick walls, these are the 'stout Norman farmhouses'... small castles, positions built specifically for fighting and defence. I guess castles are sort of like really big, well-fortified farms
The Germans at the manor could control certain fields-of-fire through their loop-holes but were quickly isolated, blasted by a 'zook, and riddled with a tommy-gun through the floorboards then gave up; most casualties in the battle were caused by the MGs hidden in hedges and the causeway outside, and they (the US paras) heavily limited mortar-use because of the proximity of friendly troops from a number of different units converging on the area.
(edit) should mention - German mortaring stoved-in the entire frontal facade of the manoire later D-Day afternoon, it was anything but impervious to mortars.
-
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It's not about a ratio. You're obviously not even trying to comprehend, so just forget that anyone else might have a valid point of view.
It's clear I don't think the idea is valid - if you can wish-up a fairy-Godmother to wave her wand and have it in, then sure - I see it primarily as a case of hundreds of hours of coding and testing for S.F.A. How hypocritical and patronizing of you. If this was the steppe I'd be rollin' just like you, but it's bocage-country, and if you're getting enough waypoints wrong that it's worth making this much noise you should adjust your tactics, like RL.
There are approximately 1 zillion things which, in my opinion could benefit the game at-hand more than this: fire; flamethrowers; castles; medals and more sophisticated campaign 'stat'-databases; partisans and civilians; trains; anti-aircraft; on-map aircraft; bulldozers; smaller trees (seriously); streams, creeks and other above sea-level water bodies; thin dirt-tracks; bridge-layers; recovery vehicles; repair sections and highly dynamic vehicle-damage; boats; swimming; parachuting soldiers/re-supply; soldiers climbing steeples, trees etc; proper ammo re-supply methods; collapsible GUI; earthworks - good ones; animals (how are the Germans to tow their heavy weapons?); medics; aerial-observers; curved roads and an end to the tyranny of a 45-degree angled world; many many different types of flavour-objects and buildings; more sophisticated 'morale' model; all vehicles, weapons and national armed-forces of WWII in it's entirety... who doesn't want a million things?
Sure I could have ignored this subject (not even the damn topic), so the troll in me is coming out - just try to dig that software-design is about what you can afford leave out as much as what you actually put in to it, and is perhaps a more arduous and risky process than laymen assume. Marginally useful may not be good enough, I am sure they thought about it, and decided no - I agree - it is like a piece of scum floating by in the gutter while I window-shop for items I just can't afford. You don't agree, fine - it's not that I can't comprehend, I choose to challenge the idea, welcome to the internet.
-
you're right.
Burn. Maybe I should start myself an Emrys-style sig-line. Your tendency to plot 20-WP movements is baffling to me, and does not somehow turn simple logic upside-down.
click/key/click
click/click-hold-drag/release
Once, or a hundred times, the ratio remains the same. Not nearly enough 'improvement in usability' to be justified. I guess we're just gonna disagree, no skin off my nuts - I'll play carefree, and you'll complain that your 20 WP movements make for too much work, and it's not your fault, but the camera/UI etc etc. That's one endless-loop I'm getting out of right now.
The moral of the story: don't hold your breath adjustable-waypoint fans.
-
Being able to adjust the intermediate waypoint is so much easier than having to delete all subsequent waypoints, redo the erroneous one and then redo the subsequent ones (with additional chance of error and iterations of this cycle).
Have you played "Crossroads" in the Courage and Fortitude campaign?
No. Unless that's the first one, then yes.
Wouldn't it be easier still to just get all the waypoints in the right place first-time? Why aren't your intermediate WPs (waypoints from here on) in the right place? It never happens to me, so why should I see it the same way as you? Is it not possible that your technique needs work, rather than there being any notable issue with the game?
I'm not trying to break anyone's balls - but this idea just sounds like people can't accept that they aren't playing CMx1 anymore... what feature currently in-game would you have dropped to institute movable WPs? Would you rather have this than fixing the OOM issues many suffer from? Would you have this instead of earthworks which aren't a hopeless kludge? Are you happy to wait much much longer for other units and theaters to be added to the game?
This is how software development works - is the feature worth the work it will take to implement it? Clearly BFC answered "no". I agree - I see no great difference between what you ask for and just doing it manually to individual units.
Here's a comparison between adjusting a WP, and just placing them precisely first-time:
Manual: LMB (select unit); order-hotkey; LMB (WP placed).
Adjusted: LMB (select unit); hold LMB (select WP); drag (move WP); release (WP placed).
Well, you saved yourself a hotkey-press per WP (sort of, you still have to do it for the group) and gained an annoying carpal-tunnel-inducing hold-and-drag. Worth it? I say not.
That's what I'm talking about - I wont support an idea I see as redundant, and being a public forum I reserve the right to challenge people's ideas - if this is causing you trouble then maybe the problem is you. My diagnosis: some folk are still playing CMx1. New game, new techniques.
-
Are you sure, that's the only effect of the face-order?
My impression is, that units are less susceptible to incoming fire if they have a face-order torward the incoming fire.
IIRC correctly, the face order was the reason, why the CMX1 retreat command was abandoned, since you can issue a "fast" or "quick" to run away but combine it with a face order torwards the incoming fire.
I can't be too certain of much, I suppose - but my experience seems to be that the facing only occurs once the waypoint is reached, and is just the guys arranging their position behind available cover in the direction you order them. If I'm right that means a facing on un-paused waypoints is never made, and they just move-on instead.
What you suggest is kinda cool - I'll have to play around the next time I fire it up. In the meanwhile I must acknowledge the possibility I'm wrong, naturally I don't think that I am
-
the game isn't made solely for your enjoyment.
No... it isn't is it? Sorry I don't support your idea, there are other things I want coded (a long long list) before things you personally desire, but which I would never use. Get it?
Best of luck with that.
-
That's really interesting. Thanks for the pics.
-
It happens to me too. ATI Radeon 5470.
It's kinda rare, and I think it happens when multiple trees on the same tile fail to display properly - in the editor just placing less trees in the tile seems to kill it (easy fix) - i.e. three trees reduced to two, two to one. Flickering gone.
-
And the reason for that statement is?
Because they will move on immediately to their next order once they reach the waypoint, the facing order isn't relevant or necessary (you want them to move-on, not align themselves behind cover), it's a waste of time and a redundant order. So why do you do it?
Take the example of moving a vehicle. You have to put down a lot of waypoints for swift, smooth movement around obstacles. The best way to do this is all in one go so you don't have to keep reselecting the move order you want, so "Fast > Click, click click...." rather than "Fast > Click > deselect movement mode > move camera > Fast > Click > deselect..." A consequence of the clunky camera navigation. So you're laying a potentially long path from a long way away. Some of the waypoints will be in the wrong place. If, once the path is down and you're not in 'add waypoints' mode, you could sweep the camera along the path and just shuffle the one or two waypoints that are off-line it would save deleting and redoing all the many further waypoints.Obvious really.
Oh really? You have to click on the unit to show the order-line anyway, and you have to manually click and drag that order to the specific location you want it to go too... does that not beg the question: why not just select each individual unit and place the order? click/hotkey/click - next; I can precisely move a full, split-squad platoon in seconds.
Obvious to you, an irrelevance to me.
But I suppose even the currently existing feature of being able to select multiple units and giving them orders all at once isn't really needed since you never, ever use that particular function, right?
No, never ever. It just creates more work when it turns out all the guys but one are gonna end up in the wrong place anyway and you have to spend time individually adjusting most of them... I guess we are playing the same game, huh?
-
Then: Select a platoon, choose move order and click on the destination. Click and drag the waypoints that are slightly out of place. Done.
Didn't even read this at first, but must respond...
So, you want to individually adjust each unit's waypoint after you make a formation movement order? And this is better than setting each one individually in the first place, how?
-
Any problems with that system?
Yeah, I think it's a waste of time to 'face' if they're not pausing at the waypoint, and if they are I'm clicking it anyway and your scheme is redundant.
Furthermore, the way you describe your system just sounds like it will make the whole process more confusing and frustrating. I simply can't think of any situation in which I would want this.
Not gonna fly.
-
Be sure to quit CMBN completely, restart the program, then launch the editor and the map.
Hmm, I notice this a lot - you preview your map, exit, when you try to scroll around it drags and chops until you cry and reload it - for the record that's all I do, save/load and that fixes it.
I'm gonna check out your map, should have it loaded by sometime tomorrow
-
(WARNING: Some persons may find the following comment hearsay or blasphemous.) My level of enjoyment and in particular immersion in CMBN reminds me of my experience, pre-CMx1, with Close Combat: A Bridge To Far (my first CC game). Both are small scale and 1:1. I cared about every broken/bloody blob in CC:ABTF and I feel the same way about my wounded soldiers in CMBN (except now I might be able to administer First Aid!).
Heh heh, my first impression after firing it up in RT and watching my troops carry-out their first orders: this is like a 3D CCV; sweet.
Would have been better with castles.
MG34/42 - commonly fired from the hip or shoulder standing?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Maybe, that shoot-out at the end is amazing... first he's one-hand hip-firing the M60, then an M16, then a shotgun - and I'm pretty sure he was dual-wielding the shotty and M16 at one point, and that's when he's not impaling guys on broken steam pipes. Rambo is a pussy in comparison.