The Steppenwulf

A recent solution for the bridge pathing problem was suggested and it might be worth checking out. Go into options and switch the ATI left click compatibility to "off". The "on" mode was a solution to a graphic card issue in CM:SF and is now redundant.

What are the battlefield dimensions Ken?

Steve, I think you might have overlooked my post some pages back. I was hoping for a response but I know you can't read and answer everything. And I'm not claiming that this is in any way a priority. It was query about the "intel" feature in the scenario editor. At the moment only one side can have advance intel or neither. It always left me thinking what about both sides having a nominal amount of intel or perhaps even one side having more than the other. I am assuming that the current feature is active for multiplayer scenarios and is not just for single player games. I must be honest I wish I understood more about how it works. It's just that I figured it could add an interesting dimension to MP scenario design and even QB's. What are your thoughts?

Stealing Oddball's music there!!! Steve, I have a very straightforward request - if it's not to late to get in MG at this last moment: Intel in the scenario editor:- Currrently, there are options for only "Axis", "Allies" or "Neither". How about "Both"!?! See I think both sides with 50% intel or even 100% intel would be an interesting dynamic to throw out there for scenario design. I did post this request elsewhere somewhere on the forums sometime ago. Now I know that you normally will do this only with an upgrade but you have mentioned here that you have some secret features under the hat. And I'm sure the programming is a dead easy undertaking on BF's part. Possible - what say you?

The consistent dissenters Waclaw and Beelzebub are polish players. There's nothing pejorative in stating that fact for the ease of indication of who we are talking about. If you american guys want to refer to Wodin, Womble, Para and me as the english chaps, I very much doubt any of us would consider that to be remotely offensive. Hell it's not as if we chaps don't want to be english and consider it an insult. EDIT: Ok ok, for the sake of harmony, I shall in future refer to them as 'our European friends' - better!?!

You've described the polish position succintly. They seek an alternative "minimalist" package. Perhaps it's a shortage of HD space!?!

Great job BF!! I too was particularly taken with the architecture, but there's much, much more to like and get excited about. This module will build on the base game and first module in a way that provides the best illustration yet of the evolutionary aims of the BF model for game development. I firmly believe that will be the key signature highlighted by those who review it. I wondered if our sceptical polish brethren might care to comment - or are they sheepishly hding. Perhaps an apology might rectify things...

Yes snakee, the editor images are NOT the same as those in the 3d environment.

Damage decals are not going to add significantly to either processing or memory. Full model damage would be more significant. However, I don't think the drag on computational power weighs in either of these considerations, as I will illustrate further on. However the real issue, above any other, will be in the time and effort to create such additional effects. 1) There has to be some correlation with the physics and shot direction otherwise it really is effects for effects sake. 2) 3d damage modelling - compare a jeep taking a direct artillery hit compared to a tank losing a track. The variations and 3d modelling work to carry it off are no light undertakings. What interests me more (and is relevant to this debate) is that in the editor, German armour has the various camo options active (although the actual textures have yet to be added). I figure that at some point they will be added (a feature intro in MG perhaps or is it to be implemented in the add on packs?), giving us the option of selecting different camouflage textures for vehicles as well as infantry. This feature excites me more than damage because, IMO, it permits more customisation possibilites - beating damage in terms of game immersiveness. Nevertheless, the relevance to the point about memory is that, by liberally applying all these additional textures (as they continue to enhance your visuals) is potentially much more demanding on your machine than a mere damage decal. But what would we rather have?

Yes, I was there, one of many, many issues with arguably the most supported product of the franchise - with ETW it was much, much worse than that. But you know all too well what I'm talking about.

There's the nub of the issue right there - it's called trust and this entire debate centres around trust. I think I referred to this in one of my first ever posts on these forums. I can understand why many gamers - particularly younger ones - are so sceptical about game software and their developers, specifically regarding game content/pricing and value. The reason for that is because so many game companies out there fail consistently to produce a product that IS value for money. Worse than that, they often leave bugs and unfinished content in the game unattended to. Even worse than that, when the customer tries to get some answers on these matters the companies show no responsibility to address the games issues or continue to support the product beyond a six month post-release period. There's little wonder the products wind up unplayed a mere few months post purchase. I know this experience all too well, I used to spend hours on Ubisoft's forums trying to get answers (Ubisoft were reasonably good back in the day). Try Creative Assembly, or Codemasters - noone can equal their ineptitude. The bottom line is that for most companies (with hardly any exceptions), once they've taken your money - normally in the premium price bracket - their dev team have already moved onto the next project. And, guess what, they don't care. When I discovered Combat Mission and BF I realised that here was a company and a product that is fundamentally different. a) The product is unsurpassed in what it is trying to do. You want a 3d ww2 tactical battle sim - this is top of the class. You want maximum features and options to provide flexibility for your games/scenarios - this is probably top of the class. c) You want an established community and all the support and contributions with community added content - almost top of the class. d) You want long term support for the game and see it evolve and improve over time - this is undoubtedly top of the class. e) You want a dev team that listen to their customers and have a continuous dialogue with their fans - this is undoubtedly top of the class. For me, the way this company operates goes way beyond the mere product, it's the philosophy. For that alone, they deserve double what they charge for their products. Mind you, it's a good job they don't because I would be priced out of the games altogether on my current budget. But the point is that BF are unlike any other games company and I am not going to judge them with the same yardstick. That's where the trust/belief comes in. Now, can we let the staff get back to work please

No worries. All I need is a list (ideally written up in a .txt doc) of all the old files names and a list of the new names entered underneath. Something like this would be ideal: QB_old_file name_1 QB_new_file name_1 QB_old_file name_2 QB_new_file name_2 ... Note: EACH file name, one underneath the other. There's no need to include the file type (.btt) because that doesn't need renaming. For some extra convenience we could reverse the process in the same script - thus reverting the new names back to their original names - a two way door instead of one. How's that sound?

You could write a script that renames files automatically. Anyone that wants renamed files could just download your .bat file - no need for uploading renamed maps. If you don't know how to do this, I'd be happy to do it for you. Just PM me.

There lies the critical diff between a wargamer that plays computer games and a computer gamer that plays wargames: Our philosophy - realism is found in the gameplay first and foremost, and secondly to that, in the effects, art and visuals. @poesel71:- I didn't know that BF had already inferred that damage decals were a serious possibility. I did imply in my earlier post that I wouldn't be surprised if they fall under consideration at some stage. Thanks for retrieving that post :-)

I'm not even sure that Matrix have produced any 3d wargame. I confess I'm not a fan anyhow so I cannot be sure. But if this is the case then that tells you all you need to know about any attempted comparisons; half-assed!!

One would have thought that a generic damage decal that overlays the vehicle textures shouldn't be too difficult to implement. Though I doubt that they would be at all very aesthetically convincing - merely better than what we've currently got. Implementing real model damage is an altogether different undertaking. Each model would need to be modified with a damaged type, and where appropriate, visible damage effects implemented with a physics animation sequence. Without animation, it wouldn't be too convincing. Then there's the shot modelling; which area of the vehicle gets struck would need to be tied into the right animation and damage model. For example; it would be no good having the turret fly off if it was the track that was hit or a skirt. Anyway, I think you get the idea - to do it right (as BF no doubt would wish, as we would), it's a substantial undertaking all of its own. Considering what else could be done instead with that effort... Despite that, it would be great to think that BF might get round to adding full battle damage at some point way down the road. Effects might only be bells and whistles but still...

But then I started thinking... :confused:

This is the best I think there is on scenario ratings: http://www.theblitz.org/scenarios/Combat-Mission-x2/cmbn/action=list&game=153 I don't know whether "A Few Good Men" holds such data becaue I've rarely visited in any case. It might be worth googling it and going for a peek. What I would add, as my personal opinon, is that ratings don't really count for much in terms of guidance. One man's meat is another's poison and personal preference regarding the type of scenario (campaign), size of scenario, and game mode type shape each individual's experience. Despite that, there are some scenarios/campaigns that most members would endorse as 'must plays'. If you request some recommendations here. I'm sure members will list the ones they personally recommend.

Exactly. Whilst, the influence of heli ground support must be represented in any modern game, I suspect something along the modelling of ground support as it works in CM2 currently is what we are looking at for the Black Sea franchise. The 3d modelling of one type of air asset cannot be made without taking account of the effect upon the entire 3d battle space. Whilst Steve answered, quite predictably to my query, that there are no plans for theatres beyond those confirmed; Black Sea and CMSF2, I'd still be surprised if we don't get treated to the 'cold war' theatre eventually - if not CM2 then CM3.

Great news to hear that BF will redo CMSF for the upgraded engine. I really do feel pretty spoiled by the schedule and continuous upgrades that CM promises. A CMSF2 is like the icing on the cake. I wondered if you might consider developing -after the fictional modern ones - some factual middle east conflicts, eg; Iran/Iraq, Arab/Israeli etc. I suppose it's uncertain how much demand there is for that but there's no doubting it's virgin territory for 3d computer wargames - which perhaps gives it some latent strength: Originality carries weight in reviews, especially in a world where every other developer is just rehashing the same old tried and tested theatres, eras and ideas. Another thing that really floats my boat would be a fictional retrospective conflict like an 80's cold war scenario in northern Europe or the Baltics. Possibility?

Hmmm, what specifically are these "basic things" that this project has, that the other's don't? If you enlighten us to what it is that is so unique about this project (considering that is only an idea with apparently no concrete programming direction -merely a call to arms), then we can all understand exactly what conceptually needs to be considered that hasn't been already discussed recently in various threads. I mean if you list certain requirements that you want to see incorporated in a design then the community (rather than one individual) will better understand why/what and even how. That seems to me to be a far more effective place to start than the Tower of Babel that we currently have.

I'm interested to know about game saving for this. This process is surely facilitated by vassal itself and outputted in a standard format for all vassal modules. Actually, I'd really like to examine the save data format for myself, would you be kind enough to post a game save file (from your module) here on the forum so I can download it and take a look. Thanks in advance

Exactly - a leap of faith!! But as I already indicated, your point, extrapolated into its essential quality, does carries some merit.

It would need to be a two-way function for the kind of interfacing required but OK, I take the point that your suggestion is at least a constructive way forward I will give you that. But that's only because it might tempt BF to 'bite' and it's better than sitting on one's hands. It's definitely a worthwhile exercise in that sense. Notwithstanding this, I cannot agree that any such operational management software providing XML output data would facilitate the development of a tool in any direct way in which you imply it does or could.

You've overlooked the fundamental stumbling block here. This is that the data is compressed and requires knowledge of the compression method to then output into a textual format. Attempting to reverse engineer the algorithm really is some mean task. If one possesses strong knowledge of the various methods used, one will sure be off to a good start, but in all truth, decryption is seriously hard stuff, even for MI5/CIA code crackers. I'd wager that there's noone capable of such a feat in this community. Thus the only realistic solution is some collaboration from BF. They could just tell us the algorithm they use, but of course they won't - it would undermine the point of encryption of CM's game save files, which is to protect the data from multiplayer exploitation. The only answer is that they see altruistic value for the community in such an exercise and provide us with a function (probably a standalone tool) that decompresses and compresses the data with player password protections built in. However, as Ian.Leslie pointed out to me on another forum, this could require an investment of considerable time on the part of BF's programmers with uncertain financial value or benefit and may thus invalidate it as a worthwhile enterprise. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1453663#post1453663 I think he has a good point!! Finally, I find it pertinent to add that the hint that Steve would take back the idea for consideration of persistent battlefield damage has excited me. This is because the function used to do this would be exactly the same as outputting all other details on the CM2 battlefield from a save file ie; unit positions, unit state - including all ammo, time & conditions, and most important of all for an operational campaign - all the map data. Persistent battlefield damage, whilst not necessarily giving us everything we want for seamless interfacing with an op campaign, would at least demonstrate that BF have (in practice) carried forward data from a .bts file to a new .btt file (or edited .bts file). This would represent a significant step forward in cross-functionality and takes us dreamers one step forward to the holy grail - a foundation stone if you like.