The Steppenwulf

As s strictly WE/GO player I do think there is massive play value in RT but there needs to be a mechanism introduced which would make it more appealing - to limit the chaos, increase control. That mechanism is simply a mandatory battle pause where both players can take 10 mins to look around the battlefield, consider the situation, regroup, reorganise etc. So as a suggestion, perhaps it could work something like this; for each 5 mins of battle, a 2 minute mandatory pause, every 15 minutes, the players get 5 mins. Personally I think such a mode would get more gamers interested in CM. Most new gamers will come from other war games and knowing only RT mode of play anyway, then discover the problem that they find CM not well optimised for RT. Then (like me) find WEGO to be tediously slow. The mandatory pause idea is one which offers to bridge that gap. And I'm sure BF could easily implement this idea in a feature update, perhaps even with options regarding pause occurrences/frequency and length of pause.

Pixelformer is an excellent little program which handles 32 bit image files. A bit tricky to get tasks done until you know how e.g. saving is export not save. Still, once learned it's really handy and something I use alongside my Paintshop to get some tasks completed where I feel that Pixelformer is more efficient to use. Really I couldn't recommend it enough; it's responsive, takes care of lots of varied tasks and is a tiny program package for what it does. Extremely useful tool! http://www.qualibyte.com/pixelformer/download.html

This a very interesting game-play point. Can't believe that I also (with some embarrassment) have overlooked this. Thanks for pointing it out!

I'd be interested to know what the potential hit could be on graphics processing? And I assume the textures are not high def, but still stock res? Thirdly what about the lod transition from high/low textures, is this heavily affected due to the pronounced higher lod difference - not that it is exactly smooth in stock CM but still?

There has to be a consideration of real world vs game mechanics for game design reasons. There must be a severe enough forfeit for using crawl, (to sufficiently offset the clear advantages)m otherwise there would be less incentive to adopt other movement types - resulting in a less interesting game.

Indeed - a paradigm shift in terrain modding! Brilliant work, a most welcome member to the community!

We should add The Bridge at Remagen to that list of reasonable (watchable) productions. Not set in the Ardennes exactly, but near enough, and close to the time frame than the others.

These are particle effect animations and inaccessible.

There's only one other small games company, other than BF, that I would ever consider donating money to, to ensure they stay in business. And I would still prioritise BF above the other.

Normal maps can be generated from the texture map you have already edited. You simply put your newly edited texture through a program which will automatically generate a normal map. How much bump you will get on the final model will depend on the inputs settings you dial in during generation. These settings are fairly simple but depending on what it is you are creating, the settings dictate how much bump your require. So soft materials, like thick socks for example, will benefit from different settings from those required to generate hard flat metal objects. Thus some experimentation may be required, with extreme settings to see the difference. This is especially true if you are new to bump mapping. Crazy Bump is excellent and the one I have always used. The reason is because of the almost industrial standard quality of the maps, though someone working in the industry may claim there are better, I don't know. http://www.crazybump.com/ As I understand it, most modders with Photoshop generate a map through the Nvidea plugin. It works pretty well - I just prefer the program above. Another possibility is Blender (3d modelling suite) or tools for free game engines like Unity (all free). They will almost certainly have their own tools for generating maps and I expect they will produce excellent results. Hope that helps other than to say I wouldn't sweat too much over it, once you've generated a few maps you'll get the hang of it and it becomes a very straightforward process.

... except when you get your ass kicked

Perhaps worth bearing in mind that the min specs for Black sea are not XP either, but actually Vista onwards. How many of us XP users were aware of that? Well I'm still with XP and the game runs beautifully on my machine! Since FB is the same game engine I think it highly unlikely that fundamental o/s requirements here to drive the game will have changed at all.

Yep, I'd like to add that my experience of assistance from Steve and Co is exceptional. Some criticisms of BF may stand up - in part - but their customer support is better than one could ever expect from a games developer! BTW: thanks for the latest voucher you sent me Steve

X -Com 2 - we know!

I like this idea, something I hadn't ever considered. Specific Infantry animations in urban environments (eg firing over/around obstacles) would do the trick. Yep, I suggested this a long time ago. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/109400-new-featuresfeature-ideas-for-cm-for-the-next-few-years-thread/?do=findComment&comment=1442547 Competitive battle scenarios where full intel is available to both sides at the start of play would play out faster in the early stages and place more emphasis on speed and maneouvre. Smaller (perhaps more mobile) size forces in larger battle areas - this would bring greater tactical variation to CM games. it's quick win in terms of programming so why not. Playing Black Sea, I really wanted to see some apartment floors, that have had their facades blown out, to be billowing smoke. Perhaps this could be randomised to represent the chances of interior furnishings in a property catching fire: Great eye candy, adds immersion and in programming terms is another quick win. Some other ideas:- Tanks and vehicle sounds - On hide the spotting signature is dampened! IRL hiding in ambush means engine cut-out. Not reflected in game. Again it's a cheap trick but two generic start up/cut out engine files to cover all vehicles would be enough to do it - nothing much to add to the memory. The effect of a silent tank hull down in a forest in ambush would present this impression so much better than what we have presently. I'm inclined to think that ammo counts should be lower and suppression far easier to achieve than it is presently. This forces players to use light target as the default rather than target. I suspect that the balance of maneouvre tactics against firepower would shift here in favour of mobility. Target only gets a look in when the fight gets desperate, such as being outflanked. In short gameplay would become more 3 dimensional. Barrciades for street fighting - nuff said.

Superb! I've always found it's the unique little breakthroughs like this that give the greatest pleasures in modding.

My hunch is hex editing in the MDR file?! There's much that can be achieved with a little ingenuity and some tenacity. Well done regardless - can't wait to see some screenshots!!

Thanks for all your comments! I've already applied some UI background polish to this work for version 2 that, in my zest, I didn't get time to apply before I released. That is now complete! Rectifying those silhouette errors is the next task as well as some other slight adjustments (eg. the UKR/RUS variants). The final task for v2 will be extending the mod with other fresh UI features I'd already been experimenting with before, but wasn't satisfied enough with the final product to include in version 1. As far as time frame is concerned - the Easter hols are my target for completion and release.

PP - Thanks for pointing these two mistakes out, Russian UAV hardware is an easy oversight but I really shouldn't have erred on the PK! On the flip side, they are relatively straightforward to rectify. Thanks to everyone for taking the time to post your thoughts and advice - it's really appreciated!

Good observation! I was aware of the UA/RUS difference also. If I recall right, I think the same distinction applies to the AKS variants and the SVD?. It is something I shall address! In my defence, the EE weapon images were far trickier to work with than the US ones - some of them were reworked in Photoshop over and over again just for shading, brightness and contrast -and most I still do not feel completely satisfied with. There does come a point in any piece of work where you think better to be satisfied with 95% of the release now, rather than delay further and tinker, to still get only 99%. Thanks for you comments and observations - it highlights the tasks for my attention in version 2.

Thanks for your kind words and comments Kieme. I did initially produce the silhouettes with the wounded cross idea, so most of the images in this style I have already created. My move away from it was motivated by a break with what feels like a WW2 format to me and an attempt instead to give it a more modern edge with my own stamp on it. Nevertheless, I do take your point on board and I shall upload both styles as a choice in version 2. We all love options after all!

Here FINALLY for download are my modified weapon & vehicle icons for CMBS:- http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=2909 Also included but foldered separately and labelled are some previously made vehicle silhouettes. I believe these came from the Euroscape mod for CM Shockforce. Naturally there's little point in redoing work that's good but I have included these images with my work for convenience - complementary as they are to the mod. I believe credit for the Euroscape work goes to; Donald Abrams, Gordon E. Molek, Marco Bergmann, Stagler, Mord & Paul Gulianelli. Also included are new special equipment icons, branches icons and C&C icons. Many are entirely fresh designs, I hope the community enjoy them! (Note that you'll need the "ukraine" mod tag added to maps to use the ukranian HQ silhouette - I've added this tag as a .txt file) I should mention that Kieme has also produced some really excellent UI icons & silhouettes & I encourage players to check that work out (from the BF forums) and perhaps mix and match to get the best of both sets. I mean why not – I would?! I will be sure to revisit this work at some point, if not before the next module comes around, so constructive feedback regarding adjustments/amendments is welcomed.

Yes it seems true prima facie that the integrity of a H2H game would be compromised with this function. However, if conversion of a .bts file to .btt were limited to an end of game flag, or alternatively, required both player's password to enable conversion then you have a lock of sorts to prevent using the function as an in-game exploit. Naturally sequential .bts files (follow on battles) would be fow exploitable (at the in-between stage) but since the function is only likely to be used by H2H campaign players, chances are they have a campaign umpire or neutral performing the duty of "next game set-up"; at the very least more likely to be trusting of each other.

The CM community cannot afford to lose any of its members - least of all someone who contributes so much. Glad to hear you are on the RTR!

"The Keep" - with reference to the film of the same name. Set in Carpathia, thick fir trees (not water), guarded by elite SS.