nathan1776
-
Posts
68 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by nathan1776
-
-
10 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:
Does your ISP do Carrier level NAT? If it does, you are in for a bad time. Some allow you to get a real ip for a fee, or just for free if you ask, but simple port forwarding won't work on a CGNAT.
I don't know
. I asked my contact for my internet at the condo I live at, who asked her contact (who I'm guessing is the tech guy for the condo), who said he asked the ISP and is waiting to hear back.
-
7 minutes ago, Redwolf said:
****ty routers with bad documentation.
Some people use a VPN for this. You don't need the actual virtual part, but if you just leave port 7023 open at the VPN endpoint then your router doesn't have to cooperate anymore. Your opponent then connects to the VPN's endpoint's IP address.
I'm not totally sure I understand what you mean by "leave port 7023 at the VPN endpoint"; I use SurfShark and don't see any settings about leaving certain ports open or not.
I'm also trying to use SurfShark with a static IP and it's still not working.
Do you know anyone I should talk to for help about this? -
I went through the same steps you described and it's saying the port is closed. I wasn't prompted by WIndows to allow anything.
I've just posted a job to Upwork to try to get an expert to help me with this. I don't understand why it's this complicated to get a Network game going.
-
Thank you so much for doing that for me! That's really going to help me to debug this.
-
As I wrote in my original post, I believe I have set up port forwarding correctly: https://i.imgur.com/l2bL3RR.png
-
I'm trying to play CMx2 games via a Network connection and I'm having a nightmare of a time getting it working.
I believe I have added rules to my Windows Firewall to allow all TCP and UDP traffic on port 7023.
I believe I have added port-forwarding rules to my router for TCP and UDP traffic on port 7023:
When I check port 7023 on port-checker sites, it still shows up as not open.
I'm waiting for my Steam friend to be available to try again via the game.
So, if you're able to play Network games, can you check if port 7023 appears open when you go to these sites?
https://www.portchecktool.com/
-
Did you restart the game after making the change? It might be that the game loads all the textures into RAM when it starts, in which case modifying the image after the game has already started might not change the way it appears until you restart the game.
-
24 minutes ago, George MC said:
Oops tell a lie. i designed the original version and its AI plan but it was updated for CMSF2. i didn't update it.
Just checking the AI Plan the designer who updated it has had the attacking AI units area fire at the more obvious would be ambush spots... So the AI is not spotting your units but using recon by fire on the more obvious ambush points - which if you keep the Blue Team in the default set-up positions is where they will be....
The intent of the original training scenario was for the player to play both sides and have a feel for how to use the units. it was neverd esigned to be tactically challenging or a puzzle - just a means to explore how the game engine works with core units.
I've gone into the editor and removed the area fire commands. See how it plays out now? Hopefully I got them all!
Thank you! I'll give it a shot.
-
15 minutes ago, George MC said:
Nope. There is nothing you do in the editor that will enhance the ability to spot - least nothing you can dot hat a player can also do. Spotting is a game engine thing.
I'm not sure you understood my question: when you were developing the scenario, were you able to get the AI to enter the kill zone of the L-shaped ambush before you started engaging them? Or were you seeing the same behavior I'm describing, where the AI were spotting your units before they entered the kill zone?
-
22 hours ago, George MC said:
I'm the designer of that training scenario and can confirm there is nothing in that re game engine or design that involves em spotting your guys.
However, spotting and buildings and guys inside are 'depends' functions with lots of variables as @womble has outlined. So whatever is going on its not a scenario design issue. The AI has no hidden bonus. It spots/shoots/reacts same as player TAC AI pixeltruppen do.
So, was it your intention to have the AI spot the hidden US soldiers as quickly as they do? It seemed to me that I couldn't execute the ambush as it was intended to be executed (waiting until the enemy were right in front of me, so they would get shot at from the flank by my other soldiers).
-
1 hour ago, Khalerick said:
To be fair, it is very unusual to get spotted like that. I tested the scenario and it's actually considerably worse than you even described: technicals roll up and make INSTANT spots on you, regardless of hide, target arcs, hide w/o deploying, etc.
Makes me wonder if it's part of the scenario design. I've played enough PBEMs and scenarios to know this isn't normal at all. The scenario itself is also listed as a 'Tutorial' so maybe it's just trying to illuminate some aspect of the gameplay instead of presenting normal aspects.
Thank you! I actually bounced off / gave up on CMSF2 because of it, it just seemed ridiculous to me. So it's a relief to hear that the game isn't normally like that. I'll have to try some of the other scenarios.
-
Thank you all for your help! It still seems a little unrealistic to me that people in moving technicals could spot my guys from 200-300 meters when they're just peeking their heads up. But at least now I hopefully know how to avoid them getting spotted.
-
I'm playing the CMSF2 tutorial scenario ("Ambush") on Iron difficulty and set all of my infantry to Hide, but they're still being spotted by the enemy AI from like >200m. Why?
I saw that the unit statuses flicker between 'Hide' and 'Spotting'; so is it that the AI is spotting them when they're poking their heads up? Is there any way to stop them from doing that?
-
22 minutes ago, womble said:
I'd be interested to see a direct quote from Steve that said that. My recollection is that they said they weren't going to sell on Steam for [reasons]. Those [reasons] changed. The reasons that they stopped developing CMx1 20 years ago (basically, "it's too hard to develop this spaghetti code any further", to be simplistic) haven't.
You're making some assumptions about what would be "easy" that may well be far from reality, and you're forgetting that the outfit has a very small developer staff whose time is devoted to CMx2 now. Veering back into an abandoned code base isn't going to be on their list of things to do. And what you're proposing definitely requires coding updates. You're touching on the spotting engine and on the AI, and the updates needed for either of them to achieve the things you're proposing in the OP are way past "minor".
Thanks for the information. What kinds of coding updates would be necessary?
-
10 minutes ago, Combatintman said:
Well stop thinking it then - it isn't going to happen - you're urinating in the wind with this one.
IIRC the devs also said at one point Combat Mission would never be sold on Steam. And now it is.
-
Quote
Niche market
The idea is to expand the market. I was obsessed with OFP when I was in high school, to the point where my friends made fun of me for it, and I thought for years that it would always be a niche product. But then I saw it become one of the most popular games in the world (in the form of DayZ and then PUBG). I've met several beautiful young ladies who were amazing at the game (way better than me); seeing this "niche" game become so popular was an eye-opener for me.
QuoteOutdated game
The graphics may appear outdated to some people, yes, but as I said before, there are people who don't consider old-style graphics to be a deal-breaker.
QuotePeople still regard knowledge via the Internet as free unless it has been produced by a real production company with qualified instructors
Some people may think like this, yes, but many others don't. Again, I'll point to Udemy.
QuoteCM never was mass market or held the global and historical stature of chess
Yes, but again, the idea is to expand the market.
QuoteBad economy
I'm going to be asking something around $10 for the course. It's not an outrageous amount of money.
QuoteChess is about the only game people will spend lots of money on learning
I'm not asking people to spend "lots" of money; I'm asking them to spend $10. Here's an example of a $20 CS:GO course on Udemy: https://www.udemy.com/course/counter-strike-global-offensive-play-like-a-pro/
QuoteI think there are 2 distinct learning curves. Ground combat concepts and game UI and mechanics.
Yes, I agree. I intend to create lessons that teach how the game/UI works, then lessons on each weapon system (its purpose / strengths / weaknesses), then simple combinations of weapon systems, and then go up in complexity from there.
QuoteBoth characters are memorable for who they were, and only in part due to their expertise. you don't really plan to teach the psychology of team management and command.
Yes, of course, but I suspect that knowing what to do goes a long way towards being held in high regard by your soldiers. I would need to find it, but I read an account from a company commander in WW2 who had been in the Army for years before the war started, and so he knew proper tactics, and when he was given a mission to take out a series of bunkers he was able to do it quickly and without any casualties, and his battalion commander was astonished because the other (less experienced) company commanders had taken horrendous casualties. He had adopted the simple tactic of focusing on a single bunker at a time, having everyone in the company fire at that one bunker, and having a single(?) person go up with some explosives to destroy the bunker. Whereas the other company commanders had their companies rush all of the bunkers at once (each company had its own list of several bunkers they needed to take out).
And when I played OFP a lot back in the day and played some platoon vs. platoon engagements (all humans), I was blown away by how our experienced military leader was able to win consistently. Unfortunately I don't remember what he had us doing.---
All of the problems that you're all bringing up are very obvious ones; I'm well aware of them. I think these obstacles may very well prevent this from being profitable, but I am pursuing this idea because I think that I might be able to make it work in spite of them.
And I'm not hurting for money; I work as a programmer and I'm paid pretty well for my time. But I have many ideas for things that I wish existed, and if I can get paid for creating them, then I can spend more of my time working on them, bring more of them into existence, and spend more money promoting them via things like sponsored YouTube videos. -
18 minutes ago, George MC said:
You might want to double check the BFC end user agreement. CMX2 has this. I’m pretty sure CMX1 had same or similar.
“You shall not, in any way, modify, enhance, decode, or reverse engineer the Software. User- created scenarios and other materials like graphics or other mods may be distributed free of charge, but shall not be sold, licensed, or included as part of any package or product that is sold or licensed, without the prior written consent of Battlefront.com, Inc. You may not rent or lease the Software or related materials.”
Thank you for the warning, but I mentioned in my original post that I got approval from the CM devs.
-
I understand what you're all saying, but you guys are not the target audience. And the sales pitch wouldn't be, "Learn to play CMx1". The sales pitch would be something like, "Do you admire Captain Miller of Saving Private Ryan or Captain Winters of Band of Brothers? Would you like to learn to command like them? This course will teach you to be a company commander. We'll be using the realistic game CMx1 but you can apply what you learn in this course to any other realistic wargame game you play, or even to business. The course's learning curve will be so gentle your grandmother could do it. Buy it for your kid as a present."
QuoteDoes Lindybeige play the Combat Mission games?
Yeah, I emailed him about doing a sponsored video and here's what he said: "As it so happens, I used to play this game. For a while I played it as a PBM sending text files of instructions to friends of mine."
-
I understand the devs have stopped working on it. But I've been seeing a lot of "old/old-looking" games get popular on Steam, and that has made me think it might be possible to revive the game by releasing a relatively-easy-to-create package of content. And I've heard some CMx2 players saying that there are ways in which CMx1 is actually better.
-
48 minutes ago, kohlenklau said:
If somehow you could make it like little TikTok shorts with a nice cleavagey type bouncy girl...
Believe it or not, having an attractive lady teach the game (via videos) is an idea I am considering and well-positioned to execute.
Quotecome to the CMX1 forum and ask for free tactical advice and all the guys will offer advice for 0.00 which is your competition.
Yes, but that way of learning can take more time and effort for some people than having a ready-to-go course. And my idea is to offer hundreds of small exercises (similar in spirit to chess exercises/puzzles) to reinforce the ideas and build confidence in playing the game; that's not something currently available.
-
2 hours ago, Thewood1 said:
From the Battlefront.com CMSF2 game info page...not all the games used to have this statement. Most do now.
Thanks. I can play the game, it's just the UI font that's messed up.
-
4 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
IMO misguided but a lot of sales are concluded by the graphics. So CM1 is seen as one step up from space invaders. CM2 is not known for its graphics. To attract a younger support base, it needs improvement BF I am sure is aware of it. The selling point for me are the soft factors in the game.
I agree that there's a subset of gamers that put a lot of weight on graphics. But I think there's another subset that put more weight on things like gameplay, ease-of-play, and low price. That's why a game like Vampire Survivors, which has an even-older graphics style than CMx1, can be so successful on Steam.
I had thought about doing a Kickstarter before creating the course to reduce the risk of building something no one wants, but there's a particular entrepreneur whose process I'm trying to emulate, and his method is to build the product, release it on a particular day to get media attention, and if it doesn't get traction, try something else.
-
Quote
I wish you well and hope it works for you.
Thanks! I think it's a good idea, the big obstacle for me is just putting in the number of hours required to get it done without losing motivation. I created an "Intro to Programming with Python" university-length course for an Upwork client and it took an enormous amount of time and effort to get it done. If I didn't have my client needling me to finish it, I don't think I ever would have finished it. I'm hoping that by posting my updates to this thread and getting feedback I can get some of that same kind of motivational benefit.
-
Quote
I wonder how many folk still play CM1, can't imagine many are buying it from GOG or wherever in preference to CM2. That being the case you may be limiting your target audience rather severely?
Thank you for responding! Yeah, so, it's a gamble on my part, but my idea is to try to get new casual players into the game who otherwise would not consider buying a Combat Mission title. People who don't have a gaming PC. I have a non-gaming laptop and while it will run CMx2, CMx2 running on my laptop does not look anything like the Usually Hapless videos. IMO the environmental textures in particular actually look better in CMx1 than what I need to use in CMx2 to get the game to run smoothly.
My specific idea is to pay YouTubers like Lindybeige to promote the course to try to reach those casual players. Lindybeige can get millions of views on his videos that are about WW2. If I can get 1% of 2,000,000 people to pay $10 for a course, that's $200,000.
Also, you can buy CMBB for $6 on GOG. Some people seem to be extremely price-sensitive and aren't going to want to spend $60 on a CMx2 game on Steam if they aren't sure if they'll like it. Check out the game below that I just stumbled across yesterday. 90,000 reviews, Overwhelmingly Positive, and the game uses early-90s, pre-CMx1-era sprite graphics. A lot of the reviews mention that the game only costs $3 and the amount of content you get for what you pay.
And now look at the reviews for Arma Reforger, that just game out a day or two ago and is marketing itself largely as being a new engine that allows for better graphics for the Arma series (sound familiar?):
A lot of the reviews here also mention the price-to-content ratio:
QuoteI realised that some crazy fools had posted loads of useful Youtube videos and some of them are excellent learning tools.
Yeah I totally agree. But as you mention yourself, it takes time to find those videos. And I do think it's possible to provide an even-more-gentle learning curve for people than what most of the YouTube videos allow for. That's why, for example, Udemy is able to sell courses on things that also have people doing tutorials about it on YouTube. I pay for courses on Udemy because they're relatively cheap ($10-$20) and I know I'm going to be getting a great teacher who provides bite-sized lessons with an extremely gentle learning curve and actual exercises I can do after I watch the video to reinforce the idea.
Does port 7023 appear open for you when you go to port checker sites?
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
I actually just remembered that I was also having trouble running "yarn install" a month or two ago when using the internet from my router, my condo's internet, and my phone's internet. I was only able to get it working when I drove to a restaurant and used their internet. It seemed like the internet connections I was using were blocking some port needed to install some of the libraries.
I'm still waiting to hear what the ISP said but my best guess at the moment is that this is a result of the ISP blocking the port.
I don't understand why using a VPN isn't solving the issue.