Gafford reacted to danfrodo in CMRT Module 1 Bones
Like everyone else here, I want more content. I want it now. Or at least by Monday. I want eastern front 41-43, I want the desert war. I want 1980s nato vs warsaw pact. I want Korean war. But BF is just a few developers and delivering software is ****ing hard, really ****ing hard. For those who have never had to do that it's hard to imagine how much goes wrong in the simplest ****ing thing when it's in the hands of users.
So keep complaining about wanting more, I will too. But attacking BF personally like that, basically calling them thieves, that's just ****ed.
Gafford reacted to Howler in Irrational Behaviour
I was fortunate to have @IanL arrange an email exchange for a savegame illustrating the issue. Yes, in this day and age - I don't have a dropbox or whatever else is used by folks these days for moving files. Most people would think a save isn't a priority given that there is no formal way to provide one to this vendor.
If saves are so important - could some official means of providing them be established by BFC? We all have accounts on this board and care enough to report which would seem to me that some secure mechanism could be setup to allow it. It could always be shutdown if it becomes abused.
There is no sticky anywhere on this board detailing how users should provide these saves.
I'm tired of people telling me that saves are required but not telling me how this can be done.
Now, that is interesting. I'm my case, the one save sent to @IanL involving the CW 18 Platoon scenario, is fixed. It was always broken (rush forward and back) and is now never forward, sometimes stay in place, or otherwise backwards. So, 4.02 is an improvement.
Gafford reacted to sburke in Irrational Behaviour
I don’t think anywhere I suggested just throwing one’s hands into the air. I also don’t think anyone has linked it to pre 4.0 if you have a suggestion that is the case then definitely you need to provide a save. To suggest that the one person who has access to debugging focus on this issue assumes that that is actually their priority and that is frankly not well founded. I personally have not felt this to be game breaking and I am playing across multiple titles including a pbem in CMBN. I think you are assuming from your own viewpoint what should be BF’s priorities and not looking from their viewpoint.
As to the baked suggestion, that is just a thought, not anything based in actual testing. It was purely an example that this could be unrelated to what folks have suggested as the issue.
Software is complicated , which means thorough testing and validation. I wasn’t suggesting it doesn’t mean fixing, just that the timeline for fixing and the prioritization has to be taken into account.
Edit. Your point about bridges is a perfect example. BF has addressed that multiple times and yet yes it still exists to the point I still avoid bridges on my maps. I don’t think it is so much an issue that BF hasn’t looked at but something really basic in the code simply doesn’t like them.
Gafford reacted to sburke in Irrational Behaviour
I am not sure I understand the logic flow here. Previously you commented on the fact that the TAC AI in CM is really complicated to the point you surely wouldn’t want to do it. Then you suggest BF could easily answer questions relative to the TAC AI. Which is it?
what exactly would you have them answer that would change your mindset about “supporting them”? I can tell you now as a beta tester I submit behavior to BF that “looks” wrong with as much hard data (saves and the like) as I can get. Charles then looks at it and builds a patch and says have at it. I do not expect more than that as frankly I wouldn’t understand it. I can only test and see if it seems to have worked. Testing AI is a pain in the butt as you also have to consider unintended consequences which is one reason BF is so slow to address these. As it is none of this has stopped me from playing and dabbling in design.
I am honestly pretty tired haranguing folks to stop just harping on behavior to provide saves and not just comment and yet 90% of these threads are completely useless to helping isolate what might be going on. People point to one item, assume that is it and then assume because they guessed at it presto BF should fix it.
I am still on the fence on this particular issue simply because something about it seems very specific but it hasn’t been nailed down yet. For example if it turns out it is specific to something baked into a map, which maps? I expect this one is going to be around a bit yet. Nature of software. In a game this complicated if you assume you will get easy fixes and easy answers you are doomed to be disappointed. Yeah it sucks, but as someone who troubleshoots software issues a lot, it is how it works. (And the software I troubleshoot isn’t even this complicated).
Gafford reacted to 3j2m7 in New "02" patches for Game Engine 4 are now available
Appreciate Elvis thank you !
Gafford reacted to Trooper117 in New "02" patches for Game Engine 4 are now available
Thanks very much!
Gafford reacted to Bil Hardenberger in PBEM game without any cheating
That isn't how it works... this game has simultaneous orders and neither player can view the action until after both players have given their orders. Both players will watch the same movie (from their sides of course) before they give orders for the next turn... it repeats like that until one player is left crying under his desk...
The problem you are worrying about doesn't exist in this game.
Edit: damn beaten by @domfluff, damn your eyes!
Gafford reacted to Anxel Torrente in PBEM game without any cheating
I'm quite new to this game and wonder a bit about playing a pbem game. What I'd like to know first, before I invite someone or reply to someone's invitation to such a game, is how likely it is that my opponent will "cheat" when he is doing his moves.
As far as I understand there are two possibilities when one is involved in a pbem game.
Person A - Gets the save and makes his moves before he sees the real-time result of his moves and the ones from Person B and then saves the file.
Person B - Gets the save and looks at the real-time result from his own previous moves and the ones from Person A as well as makes his next moves before he saves the file.
In this way Person A is able to make his moves and only after that see the result of his and the opponents moves. If he doesn't like the result because one of his armored cars, tank or whatever is being destroyed by an enemy tank, anti-tank gun or an anti-tank rifle he can simply order the tank or whatever, which is being destroyed, to use direct shots towards the area from where the enemy shot came with the result that the new real-time result is better than it was earlier. Or he can decide to use a mortar crew to use direct shot on a position he didn't think about and only during the real-time realizes is filled with enemy squads. There are of course many new decisions Person A can make to improve his possibilities to win the game after he has seen the result. The above ones are only two of them.
What I wonder is how often do you think those things happen? And maybe you have noticed a little odd thing happening and been thinking to yourself that your opponent probably changed his moves after he had watched the real-time result? Or maybe you could be honest enough to let us know when you changed your moves to get a more favorable result and also why you did it?
Gafford reacted to benpark in After the next 2 modules?
Incorrect. It's the same group of people that have made everything else CM on your HD.
It is the same method that BFC have used for as long as I have been doing this (since 2001)- they do the code and OOB stuff and tell us what is and isn't possible on that basis (with other input and content where needed), they also do the majority of the art work. One person heads up organizing the campaigns, scenario list, maps, etc.. That's me this go around for RT- the guy that made half of the giant CM master maps on your HD since CM:MG and the subsequent WWII titles. The guy that did a fair number of campaigns and scenarios since GL for all modules. I know the drill.
This is not an outside job, nor is the CMFI module. Other testers are kicking things in as well, as always. So the trend you have seen in CM:FB will continue as far as number of areas mapped, quality of content, etc..
*The notion that bugs cause delays is a given* I can't believe I wasted internet ink typing that. Obviously true, and unfortunate- even with a genius behind the wheel of said code.
We are indeed on that RT module. And then some. When it comes time when things are in properly vetted visual shape, BFC will be throwing bones.
Gafford reacted to IanL in Evasion BUG
I think that is why Steve used the word tweaked. At any moment of stress the tac AI reserves the right to do something that *you*, the player, might think is dumb. It even reserves the right to do something that is objectively dumb But I believe Steve and Charles did not actually like how often it chose to do that in the new patch so they made adjustments.
To call it fixed might get players thinking that their pixel troops were going to read thier mind and do the right thing
Gafford reacted to domfluff in Moving in the face of potential and identified contacts.
Sometimes it's also useful to use it when dismounting ifvs. The squad will debus, one team will hang around the vehicle, and the other will run off to cover, which is far faster than you can do manually (unless you pause accurately enough to manage this at end of turn, but that's piling on even more micro, and some more failure states as well).
Gafford reacted to Josey Wales in Morale observation under 4.01
@Howler thanks, this is a good example of one of those times when having squads or sections split all the time may not be the most beneficial setup for the situation.
By recombining the 2 detachments you averaged out their morale states which allowed the unit to stay in the fight and prevent this flank from failing.
Gafford reacted to Josey Wales in Asst. leader doesn't take over after platoon leader dies?
The Coy XO definitely takes over if the Coy Commander goes down.
A Bttn XO does not appear take over if the Bttn Commander goes down.
It would seem as if from @Bulletpoint's post that the Asst Plt Ldr behaves more like a Bttn XO than a Coy XO.
I have no idea or explanation as why it is like this.
As for a leader attributes passing down to his subordinate units - this categorically does not happen. I explain this in my post The Relationship between Soft Factors, Morale & Fatigue
To conceptualise this, imagine the leadership modifier is exactly the same as the fitness modifier with respect to who it affects.
An unfit Platoon HQ that gets out of breath walking up a hill does not mean that all of the squads under their command get out of breath walking up the hill.
The same for Leadership. A Plt Leader who has a -2 Leadership modifier only applies that modifier to the rest of the Platoon HQ. The squads are dependent on the leadership modifier of their individual Squad Leaders (or team leaders when split).
I think this gets confusing for people because of 2 reasons.
1. The Leadership modifier is the only soft factor that can dynamically change as a result of casualties.
2. It is the only one of the factors that is applied to individuals as opposed to the team as a whole. Experience, Fitness and Motivation remain the same for a unit throughout the game irrespective of which individual within the team becomes a casualty.
What I mean here is that a unit with +2 Motivation, Veteran Experience and is Fit at the start of the game will still have +2 Motivation, Veteran Experience and be Fit at the end, even if all but one member is killed and the unit is Rattled and Exhausted. Leadership, however, will change depending on which individual becomes the casualty. If for example the sole survivor of a squad is Sgt Cane who had a +2 Leadership modifier at the beginning, the Squad will still have the +2 Leadership modifier. However if the sole survivor is Private Pants then the Leadership modifier is likely to have changed to -1 or -2. The the other soft factors will remain the same as they were at the beginning because they apply to the unit as a collective.
Gafford reacted to 3156Regt in My Return to Combat Mission!
In the early 2000's, knowing nothing about it, I picked up a boxed retail copy of "Barbarossa to Berlin" and ended up spending untold hours battling back and forth across the plains of the Eastern Front. WEGO had me hooked! I toyed around with the original "Shock Force" because it was very familiar to my actual military service, but I'm really a WW2 buff at heart.. I got away from the game as I upgraded computers over the years. A few years ago I started noticing that Combat Mission was out again and with a new engine, but for no particular reason, I never pursued it... until now. Well - a few days ago I bit the bullet and bought the latest build of "Battle for Normandy". Just - wow. After a bitter fight through the hedgerows, my beleaguered US squads finally knocked out the dug-in PaK 40 that had been holding my four Shermans at bay, allowing them to commit to a high-speed "cavalry charge" in-line across the now-secured field in the last three minutes of the game, to form a semi-circle at the objective crossroads all the while gunning down the remaining German infantry as they broke and fled in abject terror! It was rather glorious!
That was only my first mission, and I'm already eyeing the additional content - specifically Russia and Italy... Thanks Battlefront guys - I have returned!
Gafford reacted to usgubgub in Update on Engine 4 patches
I am a stalwart supporter of BFC, been playing the games for longer than I can remember. I made a modest contribution to the development of CMFI some years ago.
Yes, waiting for the patch has been unusually testing, but this game system has so many facets that even though I played less I still had a lot of fun making maps and designing scenarios, not to mention fun testing them.
These guys are a small team of extremely dedicated enthusiasts. They give 100%. I still haven't found anything remotely approaching their product for the kind of game play I appreciate. I have total confidence in their judgment and integrity. And I don't begrudge them for one minute the long gestation of this patch, or the confusion over exactly when it will be released.
Thank you Steve, thank you Charles, thank you everyone else who put their time and effort in bringing these games to us.
I've gone through a rough patch that has lasted nearly ten years so far. If and when I get back on my feet, I will be glad to lend a hand again. I hope it will be soon (can't give a precise date though... sorry, I couldn't resist that :-) ). In the mean time, I don't mind saying that playing your games has often been the only source of fun and relaxation for me, and a good way to avoid going mad during the long spells when real life got held up in limbo.
Gafford reacted to mirekm61 in Update on Engine 4 patches
I would like to remind you what has been introduced in patch 4.0 because you complain a lot, and the game looks much better than version 3.0. I will mention only what happened in the gamplay and editor, it's hard to call it a game break. The only thing is the infantry is leaving the place too easily under fire which seems safe.
In some cases, this is annoying just like spotting a short distance. However, you can still play it.
Vehicles have access to a new movement command called Hulldown. This command allows a vehicle to move forward until only the turret is exposed to a specified target, and then the vehicle stops moving.
Improved Infantry Spacing
Infantry on the move will now respect each other's personal space! While moving, squad and team members will maintain a few meters of distance between each other. Soldiers will also spread out laterally on the move when possible (some terrain may necessitate column movement, such as paths through rough terrain).
Peeking Around Building Corners
Infantry units positioned adjacent to building corners will now automatically post some soldiers at the corners to observe and fire around the obstacle
AI Proactively Avoids Artillery Fire
The TacAI that runs soldiers and vehicles will more proactively, and reactively, attempt to avoid incoming HE fire. Two classic examples are that the AI will attempt to avoid being wiped out by incoming artillery barrages and direct tank fire.
Combine Squad Command
Combine Squad is a new Admin Command for squads. This command is useful for squads that have suffered major losses and need to consolidate their remaining personnel into larger teams.
AI Area Fire Orders
The AI can now be scripted to use Area Fire! Each AI Order can have a target zone designated.
AI Facing Orders
Each AI Order can be given a location for it to Face towards.
AI Withdraw Orders
AI Groups can be ordered to Withdraw towards their movement destination. Vehicles will move in Reverse to the destination, while infantry will leapfrog back while turning around to face behind them.
Personnel replacements and ammunition levels are now more uniformly resupplied across all core units between campaign missions, as opposed to the all-or-nothing check on each unit done previously.
3D Flavor Object Clone Tool
Flavor objects can be cloned within the 3D view without having to go back to the 2D view.
32 Order AI Plans
Each AI Group can now have up to 32 orders, increased from 16.
Small streams can now be placed on battle maps.