Georgie

Was this a limitation on the effectiveness of the 34 and 42 vs the 1919?

Calling all computer grogs. Some earlier post in this thread were about the low rate of fire of the mg42 and 34. This may be because the soft ware of the game has to track each bullet path and a normal rate of fire for a 42 or 34 would tax the limits of the game. Gotta go to 64 bit so that the full potential of this game can be realized.

Thank you. Much appreciated.

Hello Broadsword, do you recall the authors name. I've tried searching the Repository with no results. Sounds like a tool that I need.

Here is the plan. Stick with 32 bit thru the CMBN game and go to 64 bit with the Bulge game. CMFI will have to struggle along with 32bit. But, to do any thing outstanding compared to what they have already done with CMBN and CMFI BF will have to go to 64bit. Believe me, I think that CMBN is the cats meow and CMFI will be too. But BF is gonna need lots more bits for the Bluge and the OST front.

I have a new computer built just for CMBN. It has 12 gig ram and 24 gig virtual mem so that shouldn't be a problem. My operating sys is 64 bit and I sure would like to be able to use it on CM. I think that BF is making a mistake sticking with 32 bit.

Yes I have 1.10 installed and so far haven't had an oom event while building a huge scenario ie 3000m x 4000m. But, I have experienced an oom event by adding trees treees trees and two yes two battalions for each side and bringing them together to exchange fire on a 4000m x 4000m map. Kinda of an extreme circumstance? Yes, but that is in CMBN, will the next game need more memory? Try snow, lots of trees, massive battles, maybe not IRL but massive battles by the very hard working and ever imaginative scenario designers. Im sure BF is aware of this and are taking steps to alleviate it. I'm wondering if the coding of CMFI already has the first step in alleviating this problem once and for all.

Probably will. Seems like most of the trees in the Ardennes are pine though. Maybe I'm wrong. Also, will the snow in the branches add a lot to the polygon demand?

Not quite. Its an "out of memory" problem where your computer crashes on huge scenarios. BF has already almost completely corrected the problem with the latest patch but it is still possible to reach an out of memory condition. CMFI uses less polygons in models and I am wondering if this or some other better utilization of polygons has corrected the OOM problem even better.

Probably like any other skilled trooper they were valuable. What I'm portraying is that the Germans have their back against the wall and are scraping together a large enough force to repel the Americans who with their numbers and wealth of tanks are about to seize some very important objectives. The trucks have already served their purpose and are just targets. If we had triggers I could shift forces with them and put them to a good use. Trigger plug, trigger plug.

Good point. I can juggle the casualty level of the squad to reflect this. A side note. In the scenario that I am building, a huge one, there are ten or more trucks on the AI side, German, and AFAIK they are of no use to the defenders and are just targets for the attacker, so I recruited the drivers, each has an MP40, and put them in foxholes to fight along side the regular squad members. Seems like this would have been the normal thing to do when you need as many troops as you can get.

It works. I went back to an old map that I made and removed some of the contour dots and it made the map more "natural" looking.

I think that I have been using too many dots to define the contour. I'll do as you suggested. Thanks again.

I am having trouble making a map with smooth contours. I tried making it with decreasing and increasing contour lines. but the outcome is not smooth without a whole lot of micro managing of the elevation. Like take an elevation of 50 and as it decreases to 20 it is convex. Anybody else having this problem? Any body have any hints? Thanx in advance for any help. Maybe some thing I am doing wrong.

Sounds reasonable. That's what I'll do.

Does CMFI have an even better solution for the OOM problem?

100yards is very close quarters for an ATG, that is bazooka range, so if a tank crew member were looking out his slit or periscope in the correct direction then the gun was sure to be spotted, its the reaction time that is too short and the accuracy for so short a reaction time that I have a doubt about.

To me , one of the few game changing problems is the robotic appearing tank spotting and response ablilities. It isn't TTL and this has been posted by several experienced ex-tankers. BF refuses to change it and the only reason that I can think of is because it would unbalance the game. Maybe we should be happy with it the way it is and realize that this is a game and not a sim. Still a great game that is miles ahead of any competitor. This appears to happen only at close to mid ranges but at long ranges, 800m to 1000m or further it appears to me to be more as it should be, based of course on my limited knowledge of the subject. I have been working on some huge scenarios with long ranges and the difference is very obvious during testing.

Getting a tank to button up IRL caused a drastic drop in the tanks ability to spot and respond so it was a good doctrine. In this game the tank still has uncanny spotting ablity even when buttoned up at medium or short range. At 1000m or so it spotting ability is drastically reduced, as it should be, and probably what a buttoned tank at short range should have. Makes me wonder at the axiom of never commit a tank with out an infantry cover. Dosent seem to matter in this game. Try putting a box on your head with a small slit in the front and on the sides and none in the back. Kinda what it must have been like. Can you imagine IRL a crew member spotting a threat to the side of the tank and communicating this to the commander and the commander verifying it and getting the gunner to respond to it in 10seconds. If tanks were made in the game as blind as they were IRL then they would likely be too vulnerable for the game.

I'm making a scenario and wondered if it would be too far from the truth to add a BAR team to some of the armored squads. They seem puny with out the BAR and with two less men. Wonder whose bright idea, IRL, it was to short them the BAR. There is room in the halftrack for them.

How common were BAR teams. Were any of the armored infantry squads supplemented with a BAR team on a wide basis.

Has there ever been a response from BF regarding triggers?

It would be great if there was a method where an existing scenario could be loaded into the editor and and the AI portion redone to include a response to triggers instead of "time" where desired. To be done by the original designer of course. But even without this feature the triggers would add so much scope to the computer defense that it would be worth it for the original designer, at least in my case, to start over with just the map. Its fun anyway.

Over a hundred hits on this thread in the last couple of hours. Could it be that there are thousands of players out here that want triggers to be included in this game? BF you have dedicated fans, how about getting some more.

Just preordered CMFI and will order CMFI again with the trigger update. Being positive you know.