sttp

Oh wow, excellent sites. Thank you. And sleuthing can sometimes be fun.

Of all the WW2 games I've played over the years, I'd say that (besides these!) the most fun I've had is with the original Call of Duty. Yeah, I said it... those dirty words Call of Duty. But the franchise was groundbreaking and truly excellent back then. Classic multiplayer battles on some of those classic servers. There are actually still a few good CoD1 servers around (Historians and RA come to mind, at least if you're in the eastern half of the U.S.), and the battles are just as much fun as ever. Not totally realistic by current standards, obviously, but just fun. Racing jeeps around Foy, Rhine Valley or Kursk, gunning it out in Carentan, Cassino, or Brecourt manor... some of the best FPS gaming ever. CoD World at War was well done, too. Red Orchestra 2 / Rising Storm is a more current first person shooter, and much more realistic. A modern classic. It's weird, the way cycles work -- 10 years ago the market was way oversaturated with western front WW2 first person shooters, but now there is, amazingly, a giant shortage of them. Battalion 1944 looks promising though. As to flight sims, IL-2 Sturmovik was/is very good. With a head tracking device and with a realistic throttle & stick combo, it can be extremely immersive.

What a fascinating discussion. IMO, the maps included with CMFB are outstanding. Those master maps... just wow. I've been hoping some 3rd party designers would cut 'em up and use them for addon scenarios. Not too many of those yet. I'd have a go at it myself, but... to be honest, the part I love is the designing of the maps, trying to tweak the landscapes and buildings to perfection, while the part I'm much less comfortable with is the design of the AI plans. Pretty sure I'm not alone in that. As to finding good historical maps, is there any consensus here on the best web source(s)? Free would be great, obviously, but if the quality of the maps were high enough and the database large enough, I'd definitely consider putting out a little cash.

I'm certain that most veteran map makers already knew everything below, but I wasn't able to find this kind of info when I did a forum search. Maybe it'll be useful to anyone delving into the editor for the first time.... So, after lots of testing (by creating grids of 64 water spigots per 8x8 meter action square, lol), I've now made more sense of how to accurately place flavor objects and keep them where I want them. Or at least predict where they'll end up after a reload of the 3D environment. The logic is apparently pretty straightforward: It seems that flavor objects just snap to the southwest corner of whichever 1 x 1 meter grid spot you place them on. So it's just that both grid coordinates are truncated, i.e. the decimal portion is just stripped away. A crate placed at, say, x=7.88 y=23.88, will just eventually migrate itself over to (7,23)... not to (8,24), even though (8,24) was much, much closer. If there's already another flavor object at (7,23), the new object will replace it. Which goes to what Bulletpoint said. (Thanks.) Also, predicting which part of a given flavor object will snap to that lower left / southwest corner of the 1x1 map grid spot seemed weird at first. But I think it just depends on the particular object -- specifically, where the (0,0) point is on its 3D model. It's usually the upper left corner of the object -- whichever corner is northwesternmost when the object is oriented in its default position. So it may not be the pole of a telephone pole, for example, that'll snap to that southwest grid position, but instead it'll be the upper left/northwest corner of its particular 3D model. It may be more complicated than all of that, but this rule has held true for about a dozen objects I've tested so far, plus it just makes sense from a programming perspective.... Hope this helps someone. I like adding lots of flavor objects to maps, and things are much easier in the editor after being armed with this knowledge.

Just to help them track down and isolate the issue... the bridge thing has happened to me in Umlaut's excellent "Tiger By the Tail" mission ( http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cm-battles-for-normandy/tiger-by-the-tail/ ), which I've played a good half dozen times. It happens on the two main road bridges toward the rear. I also had a bunch of weirdness not too long ago in a Market Gard scenario, near/under the Arnhem bridge. I'll see if I can find a recording for that, because I can't remember which scenario it was or even if it might've been a QB....

Is there a limit to the number of flavor objects you can insert into a map? Or the number you can have within some set number of square meters? I keep having crates turn into fountains and things like that, in between saves or edits. I'm guessing that exceeding some kind of limit might be the reason? Also -- and I assume this is related, but maybe not -- the slanted shelters won't stay precisely where I put them. They sometimes move a few feet on their own. And they can look really horrible if they stray just 6 inches from their intended position. I do try to save frequently, and I know I've seen barrels inside buildings before and things like that, so I think that means it's not an object overlap issue? I'm stumped.

Wow, what an awkward position to put a software publisher in. "Hey Battlefront, do you mind if we violate the terms of your license? Let us know! Publicly. Here on your own forums. Thanks!!!" (I'm not being judgmental or anything. It's just kinda funny to me, in a weird Gary Larson / "The Far Side" sort of way or something.... )

I agree about the encyclopedia. It'd be helpful especially with respect to armor thickness. I've been using http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/ to help find penetration probabilities for the various tanks and shell types. I don't know to what degree the CMx2 games mirror these numbers, but I think it's pretty close.

In addition to some of the other ideas for a new and more strict play mode, I'd love to see an option that would let you set a max camera height for a scenario, so that you could really only see the action from the ground or 20 ft. or whatever. Just another way to chip away at the "player has perfect information no matter what" problem.

Wow, great job Ian L. That's very helpful, so thank you. You even include all the 3rd party scenarios. Nice!

Do the most popular mods, like Aris', affect performance/framerate at all? I actually don't know the answer to that question. That's the reason that first springs to mind for me. Or maybe it's just the extra development time it would take? BF is small, and it seems like each employee is already extremely busy.

Agree 100%. I'd be willing to throw significant money their way for more content. Whether it be battle packs, vehicle packs, or more frequent modules. Or even some kinds of special little addon utilities. Like something that'd give you a bunch more stats after a battle. Or maybe some kind of 'VCR' addon tool that'd let you string together and watch 3 or 4 (or more) WEGO minutes at a time. (Yes, I know that the second one, especially, very likely won't ever happen. Just pointing out that many of us would probably pay significant $$ for such a tool. Personally -- and maybe I should be embarrassed to admit this -- as much as I play these games and enjoy analyzing the replays, I'd probably pay $50+ just for a more robust replay tool alone....)

Very cool. Thanks. I wish more people would upload their save games like this. Also... man oh man, that is one beautiful QB map.

That all sounded completely reasonable to me. (But my god there is going to be so much bitching about around here!! Everyone brace yourselves!) Personally, I'm looking forward to giving you more of my $$. And yeah, if the CMx2 cost was broken down by hour... well, there's not much else a lot of us could do for that price. Important to keep in mind.

Casus-Belli, I like your suggestion for improvement. I've often wanted to play on beyond when the AI surrenders, too. Just to mop things up a little more.... (You know, maybe see that nebelwerfer mission you've waited 8 turns for finally come through. Happened to me yesterday in Diedenhove.) Nothing wrong with offering the player more options. And I wouldn't think that the programming required for this addition would be that involved? Though... perhaps? The issue of use of limited programming & testing resources, when there are much higher priorities, may be part of some of the friction you're receiving. Still, even if a majority of players don't get or don't use the no-time-limit (or extend-time-limit) option, who cares. Many would enjoy it. And we're each allowed to use the program in personal and novel ways, right? I'm sure that 90% of all players wouldn't get how anyone could derive 'fun' from some of the things I do within the editor or with my QB's vs. the AI... but, hey, it's fun for me.

Wait a sec... that is almost certainly not the case here though, is it?!?! Yes, I saw Steve's comments from Sept. 20, and I don't think he meant it the way you described. My assumption would be that if you purchase 4.0 separately (for $10 or whatever), then that would update all four CMx2 titles to 4.0. But that if you did not purchase the separate 4.0 update -- i.e., just purchased the new CMFI module alone -- you'd end up with 4.0 for Fortress Italy but not for Normandy, Bulge, or Red Thunder???? Now that I think about it more, there'd likely be some problems with that update method, so my assumption is probably wrong. (I think that plan would be 100% fair though, for the record.) Surely you would not be required to purchase 3.0 and 4.0 separately ($20 or so, but for all four titles) just to play a new, full-priced CMFI module?

Just wondering how many of you have played CMFB's "Chaos at Ferme Diedenhove" scenario, and if your results were in line with the results you're used to getting? Did you attack primarily north, or south? Was immobilization a factor? I finally got the Americans to surrender, but... the price was higher than usual. A bittersweet victory, with some interesting surprises throughout. So, I recommend it. And to the scenario designer, I say... "good job." It really captures the essence of what December 16th/17th must've been like.

Yeah. Crazy is the right word. Not to diverge from thread's topic too much, but.... just finished this one (the 'Chaos at Ferme Diedenhove' scenario from CMFB), and wow... what a wild ride that was. So many ups and downs. Finally got my total victory, w/ just 9 minutes left, but it came at a higher price than I'm used to paying. Cool scenario. Very nicely captures the essence of the first few days of the Battle of the Bulge. Kudos to the designer, whoever it was. (Author is not listed.) I tell ya, nothing against the other CMx2 titles -- and I mean that, as CMFI is probably still my favorite overall... IDK, just has something special about it -- but the quality of the maps/missions in these BF titles just keeps getting better and better. The CMx2 players who are holding out on buying CMFB, for whatever reason... I really think you guys are missing out. And now, back to the thread's true topic: ammo dumps. That's a cool little video you posted, user1000. Hope you'll make more. Thumbs up.

Might've been a jumbo, can't recall precisely. 'Chaos at Ferme de Eidenhove' mission in CMFB. Which is, truly, chaos. [Slight spoiler ahead?] All kinds of tanks and TD's and other armor everywhere. Minefields. Mortars and rockets. A nasty enemy dug into the forest. Immobilizations no matter how hard you try to avoid the mud. Insane spotting issues, due to the nature of some slopes. Very cool scenario as you go deep into it.

Just lost an entire team to the cook off explosion of a TD they'd taken out 3 turns ago, and happened to be just now passing. Maddening, but realistic -- one of those unpredictable things you should always account for, but often find yourself disregarding. Really adds to the game's richness and depth, IMO.

I've had the same thought. Sometimes you need your guys to make it to the assigned waypoint regardless of danger, i.e., end positioning being more important than the damage you may suffer in order to get there. Other times, preservation is the main focus. I think many variables play into how hard they'll go for the waypoint, but, yeah, you're right, it'd be really nice to have some more control over that. If not a flag, maybe another movement command or two could accomplish the same thing?

Wow, I've got hundreds of hours in with this 'game' and I feel like I'm still learning new things all the time.... Thanks for those links. Definitely some very interesting and very important information there.

I've seen this happen before, too. I can't say whether or not this result is as BFC intended, but I assumed that it was, as it does kinda makes sense. I guess "knocked out" just has a very specific meaning within the game, and that the mortar is broken in some other way that doesn't quite meet the "knocked out" criteria?

There is a great tool by Mad Mike over on CMMODs that'll let you extract the campaign missions individually. You could then edit the time (or whatever else you want) and play it as a single mission. http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=229 I think you could also pack the edited mission back into the campaign, and still have all the campaign added functionality, but that part I am less sure of.... At a minimum, the tool gets you several dozen more individual missions.

Does the Target Arc command keep a moving infantry unit's eyeballs focussed on that arc's direction, or does their target arc direction kick in only after they've stopped or reached their waypoint or whatever? In other words, are moving troops' heads / eyeballs working like a tank's turret, rotating to look at, say, their 3 o'clock position? Or does their spotting while moving always focus primarily on the direction of their movement? The manual's examples for Target Arc all use vehicles. Page 50 of the v3 manual says "The Target Arc command orders the unit to only fire at enemies within a certain target area and/or range....This Command is also useful to keep a unit’s “attention” focused on a specific part of the game map while it moves....The target arc increases the chances that units will recognize and engage an enemy threat within the target area quickly." So yeah, it does say a target arc is useful to keep a unit’s attention focused in the arc's direction, as if it applies to vehicles and troops on foot, but the testing I've done... well, I can't conclude that much from it, but if anything it seems like it's the latter, that moving infantry's attention is focussed on direction of movement, until they stop. But I really can't tell. And (believe me) I need every slight spotting advantage I can get.