Jump to content

Glubokii Boy

Members
  • Posts

    1,984
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by Glubokii Boy

  1. This feature/drawback has both its pros and cons imo. 😎

    I used to hate this also but atleast a skilled map designer can use this fact to his advantage when designing maps to provide some very tricky challanges that would othervise not be the case...But i agree it seems weird at times not being able to target locations you ought to be able to fire at.

    Today i kind of like it...and i don't like it...

  2. New ideas are always welcomed but personally i don't really share any of these 'wishes' 🙃...

    A. To get the AI to be able to handle this will not be a small task i'm sure...Adding a new feature of this magnitude that might only work well in H2H games is not a direction i would like CM to move...I would much more prefer that they spend this time on improving the tactical AI for individual battles.

    B. Without a very well functioning group order feature that allows you to asign task to platoons, companies etc...A massive increase in battle size will not be very intresting to many i belive...Handeling every individual units in a brigade myself...No thank you ! 😎...A slight increase in battle/map size...i'm all for though...

    C. In order to allow airplanes and helikopters room to manuever the maps would need to be really large...I mean LARGE ! 😊...And ones again...I doubt the AI would be able to interpret the battlefield situation well enough to be able to 'compete'...

    Just my thoughts...others might very well agree with you...Personally i would prefer they improved the tactical AI for the current type of battles first...

     

     

  3. 4 hours ago, Combatintman said:

    You're full of Christmas cheer aren't you.  Der Ring der 5 Panzer you got for free in the first place as @George MCreleased that as a community scenario .  So let's say 30% is 'old content.'  Looks like you're owed $3.  Let me know where to send the money to or maybe we'll set up a crowdfund.

    I highly doubt this has anything to do with money ! This battlepack is ridiculously cheap considdering the amount of work that has gone into making it...It costs 'nothing' 😎

    Good as this pack may be...It really does not bring anything new (other then more scenarios). We get NO game engine update ! NO new equipment ! NO new theatre of war ! NO new timeframe ! 

     

  4. On 12/18/2022 at 4:42 PM, DougPhresh said:

    but there will be high points too, and sometimes that gets lost in the moment.  

    These high points needs to be more common place...

    Whenever they do happen they provide us with the best tactical wargame avaliable anywhere (for non military users) thats for sure...but they are to few and to far between...

    A bit more priority on us common users from the main BFC programers would be welcomed indeed.

     

     

  5. 10 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

    For those wanting more content, feel free to jump into the editor and build some new scenarios for the community. 

    That is obviously a good suggestion 😎...But it might not solve the 'problem' that some of the guys around here are having, including me 😊....

    It's not neccesarely MORE content that we are looking for,  eventhough that is always welcomed, but rather THE RIGHT content.

    What i mean by that is that the basegames and modules for the timeframes and locations that we are intrested in is simply not avaliable. Personally i would very much like to play and design scenarios set on the eastern front WW2 during 41-43.

    Other guys might favour the pacific WW2, North Africa WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Various fictional conflicts current and past, Arab - Israeli wars etc, etc...

    No matter how hard we try to work in the editor we simply can't make those scenarios because those units are not avaliable. Thanks to several gifted modders around here some of these conflicts can be done to some degree but not to the regular BFC, CM2 standard that we want a love....For that to be possible we need the correct tools avaliable...Units, terrain, timeframe from a dedicated basegame, module...

    I realize that it is a tall ask to expect every single forum member around here to be able to play exactelly the conflict he wants but i think it is the lack of new basegames, modules that frustrates some of the forums members somewhat...If BFC could find a way to speed up the release of these assets that would be a very good thing imo 😎

    4 hours ago, Aussiegrit said:

     But while I patiently wait there is just so much content, campaigns and missions before you get into the user created stuff, I honestly don't know how anyone has the time to say I've played it all.

    I think quite a bunch of the guys around here don't neccesarely play all the scenarios and campaigns that are avaliable...I know i don't. Some may not like big battles, some might not like small battles, some might not like urban fighting, night fighting, bad wheather fighting, some may only play WW2 and other prefer the modern games...

    No doubt...There are a lot of scenarios and campaigns to play...but i don't want to play 200 scenarios...whatever...I want to play scenarios and campaigns that i find to be intresting and enjoyable...

    Many of those scenarios and campaigns are currently unavaliable because of the fact that the basegames and modules required to make them simply does not exist and considdering the recent release rate of new basegames, modules they probably never will be and that makes me somewhat sad...😉

    11 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

    For those wanting more content, feel free to jump into the editor and build some new scenarios for the community.

    I fear that the lack of new community made scenarios might atleast partly be the result of the slow progress of the CM2 game series as well as updates to the game engine...My guess would be that many of the oldtimers have simply lost intrest in this game...the updates are to few and to far between...

    Appart from some of the modding threads there really in not all that much going on on this forum any more...sadly.

    11 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

     

    Can vouch for each of those guys listed and the effort they put into creating official content, I'm desperately trying to scramble to keep up with that standard. I still bow in awe at benpark and his effort to recreate 1945 central Berlin. The research undertaken to try make the most accurate recreation of historical engagements and help out in designing accurate TOE/OOB is in my mind second to none among the BFC official staff and the wider volunteer circle.

    Want an example? A small tidbit from my own work last Friday night. I've been recreating an engagement that includes the US 2nd Armored Division and been drawing from various historical and printed sources. Well I stumbled across digital scans of the divisional day by day reports and hand drawn maps of unit movements from June 1944. What was there was information that went against what was printed in some major history books by some big name historians. Though it was clear where the confusion over the years has come from given certain 2nd Armored battalions were detached from the Division in early June. Well this discovery slowed down putting the scenario together as it required me to go and edit my unit files and swap formations to ensure the scenario you play is the most historically accurate as possible.

    Finally, keep in mind that many of us have day jobs so working on CM content is on the side of "paying the bills"* and because we have a passion for wargaming, CM and most importantly history.

    * Feel free to send next weeks winning lottery numbers my way.

    I have dabbled quite a bit in the editor during the years and are fully aware of what it takes to design a scenario, map or not least a campaign.

    I'm greatlful for the guys doing these things and  i do considder the products that BFC do release to be of the highest quality and i have no doubt that the guys working for BFC are working hard. 😎...

    I just wish there could be more of them...espesially working on new basegames, modules, game engine updates...

    When it comes to these things i'm a little bit dissapointed...It takes to long ! 😊

     

  6. 9 hours ago, AndreaVochieri said:

    . And I'm also ready to pay for a new module or a new game. 

    As are pretty much every one else on this forum...That's not the problem...The problem is that we have close to nothing to buy !

    The BFC release rate has been far from impressive during the last decade or so. Take WW2 eastern front for example. This is a theatre that easily could feature 8-10 basegames/modules.

    The first eastern front game (CMRT) was released back in 2014 i belive. Almost 9 years ago. During these 9 years ONE additional module has been released. Currently we don't even have minor nations included in the timeframe depicted in these games. 

    There is a lot still left to do to come even close to cover the eastern front in CM2...A task that BFC seems to be far from capable of achiving on their own...What could possibly be wrong with exploring the possibility of recruting some 'sub contracter' that could help with improving the current release rate..?

    Apart from the eastern front there are many other possible theatres of war that would fit perfectly as a CM game...Very few of these will ever be made if BFC decides to go it alone...

     

     

  7. 1 hour ago, BFCElvis said:

    Could you imagine? Having someone doing that? Ugh.

    Yes...i could 😎

    A perfect example would be DCS world from Eagle dynamics. They are doing exactelly that and because of that have been able to expand their game world many times over. Simply by allowing 'outside' designers to help develop new maps and new flyable aircrafts. 

    And as it happens...DCS world is not a fantasy space invaders game.

     

  8. Allowing outsiders to help BFC with their...less than stellar...release rate of new products does not neccesarely have to mean that those outside products would be riddicolous fantasy games...

    Surely BFC could demand to have a 'quality check' option before releasing any outside projects in the Comnat Mission name. Ones these outside teams considders their products ready...BFC will have a look at them and if they meet the desired standards add a simple code to the files...

    Without this code these 'modules' will not be playable within the CM game engine....

    Something like that ought to be possible...There are many, many possible scenarios for future modules out there and without any outside help to lend BFC a helping hand we will most certainly never see them as BFCs productivity...atleast for non-military during the last 5-8 years or something have been downright pityful...

     

  9. 1 hour ago, weapon2010 said:

    One of my wishes , and there are many , but this is at the top of the list.

    One view lower than the current lowest which is 1. 

    The lowest level 1 causes players to misinterpret what they are seeing and they say "LOS is broken". It isn't broken , but  one elevation lower, the current lowest level is 1, which is about tank gun level or the height of a normal soldier .A level 0 would be ground view or what a prone soldier can see, this level would cut out most of the "LOS is broken" chatter and would be really cool.

     

    Given the way the terrain and LOS is abstacted in the game i'm not sure that that would be all that helpful...

    Personally i would prefer to have a drop down menu when checking the LOS from various waypoints...

    For regular rifle units the options could be something like Standing, kneeling and hugging the grond and for AFVs and crew served weapons it could be Gunner, Crew... or something like that.

     

     

  10. I would also mention DCS as a good example of this idea 😎...

    I belive that the development of CMCW uses this idea to some extent but expanding on this would be a good idea i think...Any products would obviously need to meet BFC standards...

    It ought to be doable...but maybe the 'niche' aspect of this gameseries makes this a somewhat less lucrative proposition for any would be designers...

     

  11. 9 hours ago, Artkin said:

    The way I see it: a map/scenario/campaign pack is just a good thing. Bfc can hire forum goers to push high quality content for us while Bfc themselves can spend their time on bug fixes, features, and the next game. 

    I don't see this upcoming pack slowing down the schedule whatsoever. 

    I think that's pretty much what they are doing now...

     

  12. 8 minutes ago, Erwin said:

    I checked again and "IV schwere Zug HQ" has a radio.  I have this unit dismounted and the radio icon appears in its equipment roster.  

    Yes i know 😊...

    That comment of mine was in regards to the first picture...That of the Werfer gruppe HQ....If you look at the picture you will see that it has NO radio...please also have a look at THAT HQ in the scenario...It has NO radio....

    That is your problem...It's the WERFER GRUPPE HQ that is causing your problem.....It is shown as being in command if it is within distant visual contact of other HQs but it needs to be within close visual contact to function as a link in the mortar chain...as it has NO radio...

  13. This is very strange 😎 ??? Are we even looking at the same scenario ?

    Granted i have not played much CM in the last year so i might be completally wrong here but in my scenario the situation looks like this...

    3 Werfer gruppe HQ

    aaa1.bmp

    I can see no indications of a radio nor an indication of radio comms....only binoculars and voice/ eyesight comms.

    schwere Zug HQ

    aaa2.bmp

    Here i do see both a radio and radio comms....

     

     

     

  14. 5 hours ago, Erwin said:

    Also note that both Werfer HQ and Schwere HQ have radios. 

    You're looking at the Werfer ZUG hq....You need to have the Werfer GRUPPE hq in contact with the on-map mortars and one of the radio HQs in that chain...

    These are two different HQs...I belive the Werfer Zug HQ controlls the 120mm off-map mortars...The Werfer gruppe HQ is the one that is in the same chain as the on-map mortars and this HQ does not have a radio...

     

  15. Also the Werfer HQ needs to be in close visual contact with either the Schwere HQ, the 9th Company HQ or the III/ Germania HQ. 

    If non of those three other HQ are in close visual contact with the mortar teams then the Werfer HQ also nees to be in close visual contact with the mortars as well as one of those other HQs...

     

     

  16. 58 minutes ago, Erwin said:

    What continues to unexplained is why Schwere ZOG HG can be moved to a far remote location on the map with no visual contact with the ONMAP mortars under its command and yet all the C2 buttons remain green - which is supposed to indicate that the Schwere Zug HQ is in communication with all units in its chain of command. 

    The C2 buttons only shows HQs up the chain i belive...If you are checking the C2 chain when having the Schwere HQ selected then the link to the mortar teams nor the Werfer HQ are included in that list.

    The Schwere HQ is most likely in contact with its 2 supperiors....9th company and III/ germania via radio coms...

    You need to have the mortar teams selected when checking the link and that needs to be all green unless you have a radio equiped vehicle next to the mortars....

     

     

     

     

     

  17. 1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

    With the Germans the Mortars on the Map have an HQ with a Radio the mortars need to be in contact with their HQ. The Radio is in Contact with the FDC which is most of the time not on the map. Any HQ can call for mortar support. 

    Seems correct...

    It is when the german side have an on-map mortar set-up with the radioless section HQ as the immidiate HQ to the mortar units that complicate things somewhat.

    In this situation it seems to me that the radioless section HQ MUST be included in the correct chain of command at the correct distance in order for the firemissions to become avaliable.

    That is within CLOSE visual distance of any of the other radio equiped HQ that is in the communicationchain of the mortar units....It does not have to be next to the mortars but it has to be within this distnce...close visual...to one of the other radio equiped HQ in the mortars chain...Having the section HQ being within close visual distance of another radioequiped HQ not in the mortars communicationchain (the green dot list) will not work neither will having some other radio equiped HQ next to the mortars if the section HQ is not placed correctly.

    Having a radio equiped vehicle next to the mortars does not seem to require the section HQ to be correctly located...This demand seems to apply only to HQs.

×
×
  • Create New...