sttp
-
Posts
291 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by sttp
-
-
2 hours ago, Erwin said:
Precisely... it's very hard to think of scenarios that feature dumps - considering how many people were clamoring for that feature.
I create defensive "against all odds" style QB's for myself all the time (ones not good enough to be released publicly, unfortunately) where ammo dumps play a prominent role. I doubt I'm the only one. So it's definitely an appreciated feature. Their absence would be (and apparently once was) felt quite acutely.
-
Engine version 4.0 on the way... sweet!! Can't wait. Even though its expected features haven't been announced (AFAIK), I'm sure there'll be some pretty neat things included. With the CMFI Gothic Line module also in the works, sounds like Battlefront is as busy as ever.
-
Great to hear! Can't wait to get my hands on some new Italy scenarios.
-
It's probably one of those no-win situations for BFC and their AI. I've been on both sides of this issue. The problem is that there are other battlefield circumstances where it'd be very, very stupid for the rest of the vehicles to continue on when one of their buddies had just gotten hit. In circumstances like yours, though... yeah, it seems silly for them to stop. The algorithm needed for the AI know which behavior is truly appropriate for a given situation would probably involve several dozen variables... and take substantial processing time.... and it'd probably never be tweaked to everyone's liking. There'd always be those edge situations, where you could force an absurd result.
The 'ideal' solution for many of us here, of course, would be some kind of way to tell your vehicles to either "go, and hunt, but DO NOT stop," vs. "go, and hunt, but back off cautiously if things go south".... In other words, another new movement command. (To go along with the 17 other new commands I'd also love to see, haha.) But I guess BFC has got to keep the number of commands reasonable, since not everyone wants to micro-manage the way lots of us probably do....
In situations like you describe, OP, I've started using combinations of staggered HUNT and FAST commands. It sounds like you probably already know this, but with a FAST command, the vehicles will not stop. You lose the extra awareness the crew would have with the HUNT, sure, but sometimes not stopping is more critical.
-
Okay, so I've used my entire attachment quota (2.0 MB), and would like to post a few more screenshots. But in my account settings, under "my attachments," I don't see any way to delete my old and redundant images.
-
I call this one "Sunset"....
And yep, it was end of turn. Now that I think about it, "Most Interesting or Suspenseful End-of-Turn Moments" would be a good sub-category in this screenshots forum. I've got some real doozies, but I'm guessing others have even better examples.
-
18 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:
There is already another thread on this topic, in which it was posted a week or two ago that for unspecified reasons it was thought that the disks would be released in early May. Well, here it is early May. But I am wondering if production of the disks is being held up so that they can incorporate the changes embodied in the yet to be released patch. I don't know if that is something that BFC would do, but it would strike me as a judicious move.
I just got an e-mail today from Battlefront.
"Subject: Battlefront.com has sent you a package
"This message was sent to you at the request of Battlefront.com, to notify you that they have shipped a package to you. For details about your shipment or to track your package, please refer to the information below."
-
8 hours ago, Atago said:
How do you play a campaign mission stand alone? There are several throughout the CM series I'd like to do that with.
There's a tool you can use to extract the individual campaign missions / scenarios. It's at cmmodsiii, and is by Mad Mike: http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=229 Beautiful piece of work.
-
Sounds like everyone is pointing out the disadvantages of Hunt, so maybe it's worth mentioning its advantages, too? To me, the troops seem hyper-aware during Hunt movement. They spot more quickly, They fire or return fire more quickly. So I use it more and more all the time.
I'm playing Cutline to Grosshau right now -- beautiful mission -- and I just (today) ended up losing an MG42 over on the right side... because I got impatient and tried to "Quick" the MG team over to their new spot, instead of using the "Hunt" command I really kinda knew I should be ordering. Time is starting to look like a real issue in this mission, so... yeah, that'll happen. But I'm pretty sure that gunner would still be alive if I'd used Hunt.
Quick obviously is the perfect command for many situations. But Hunt is perfect (IMO) for others, when awareness and reaction speed are more important than ground speed.
-
1 hour ago, sandman2575 said:
Without wanting to have too much given away -- can anyone tell me how many missions there are in total for the KP campaign? (I know the campaign terminates early at certain junctions if a mission turns out a failure -- so I'm talking max. number of missions if the player succeeds throughout?)
Eight, I believe.
Die spitze Command Decisions Bridge Over the Ambleve Pt. 1 Bridge Over the Ambleve Pt. 2 Storm on Stoumont Lifeline To the Meuse To the Meuse!(with the !)
Anyone played Lifeline yet? It just looks really interesting -- huge, mountainous map -- and I'm thinking of playing it as a standalone mission.
-
31 minutes ago, MikeyD said:
A Japanese soldier walked from foxhole-to-foxhole and peered inside to see if anyone was inhabiting them.
Man, what a crappy assignment for that Japanese soldier. Talk about drawing the short straw. Or maybe he was just unpopular? Or, most likely, Private Shugiyama was able to simply float or roll past those American foxholes by using his absolutely humongous gonads....
-
A guy's 100 meters away from you in this flat and empty field of short grass.
He yells over and says "hey, I'm gonna start firing my 30 calibre rifle at you. For 60 seconds. So you'd better either get into that halftrack, behind the gun, or you can just stay out there in the open in whatever position you choose. Your choice. Either way, I'm gonna fire once every two seconds."
Which option do you take?
-
2 hours ago, Heirloom_Tomato said:
I hypothesised that a halftrack gunner or TC is a higher threat than an infantryman in the open due to the amount of "hurt" they can send in the direction of my men. Therefore, my infantry are more likely to all fire at once at a halftrack gunner or TC out of concern for their own safety, rather than to shoot at an easier to hit target. Is your quote above confirming what I suspected? If so, it would seem to me, that players tactics are causing higher death rates rather than faulty game mechanics.
I agree with this somewhat, but on the other hand, the simplest tests one can devise do pretty quickly start to hint that something more than "faulty tactics" is at play here. We can pretty much remove "tactics" from the equation.
This evening, I took Rokko's scenario and removed the brick wall. The German soldier therefore had no cover whatsoever -- it was just that 1 guy with his Kar98, 100 yards away from 2 Americans with Garands. Flat, open terrain. 40 trials of that. Then, 40 trials of those same 2 Americans vs. a German halftrack, the same distance away. And the halftrack was facing them.
Average number of shots needed to kill the German 100 yards away who had no cover : 30.
Average number of shots needed to kill a much better protected halftrack gunner: 19.
Rate of fire was the same whether the Americans were targeting the halftrack gunner or the lone soldier. (Both were right around .6 rounds per second.) So the " TacAI willingness to shoot" that's been mentioned appears to be minimized as a factor
Vs. the halftracks, it took the two infantrymen only 5 or fewer shots in almost 25% of the trials, 10 or fewer shots in nearly half of the trials, and 20 or fewer shots in almost 75% of the trials. It was one shot-one kill 10% of the time. These kinds of numbers may reasonably reflect reality, Not sure. But they must be contrasted with the following....
Vs. the German on foot, in the open... well, these two infantrymen could take him out in under 5 shots only 17% of the time, and under 10 shots about 20% of the time. The median # shots it took to kill the HT gunner was 12. The median number of shots to kill the infantryman out in the open was 26.5. (Note that vs. the halftrack, the mean is more than 1.5 times the median. This reflects the fact that it was basically only a few extreme trials that pulled the average so "high" up to 19... i.e., 12ish is a much more typical result than 19ish.)
These kinds of numbers are surely not conclusive, and we shouldn't read as much into them as their precision implies. We really need to test more infantry types and vehicles. Absolutely. But, in the meantime, how can such results not be at least initially alarming? Some people call tests like these "apples and oranges" ... and some say it's merely "poor tactics" by players plus their confirmation bias making it seem like infantry are much more accurate vs vehicle gunners. More numbers are needed, yes, but... it's a start, and in my opinion even these have a lot to say.
(Oh, and by the way, yes, I do have a full spreadsheet and all trials have been saved.)
-
How about 3 different infantry types vs. 3 vehicles types, then each of those same 3 infantry types vs. 3 other soft target types? At 1 or 2 different distances? That would be very useful, but... well over 1000 trials total, Twice that if we do 2 different distances, But if we break it up into 20 people... maybe? It'd be tedious, sure, but very doable. And this issue, after dozens of long threads arguing both sides, could be put to rest.
If the 3 by 3 types is too daunting, then how about 2 types by 2 types, at 2 different distances. (Thay'd be 240 total trials, I think.)
-
But the tests are measuring shooting accuracy with respect to number of bullets expended, not time 'til KIA / WIA, right?
It may not be as perfect a test as we would all like, but it's hard to imagine how one could simplify variables more than Rokko has done here. I'd maybe add a few different ranges, and try it with different vehicle types and soldier types before drawing too many conclusions, but clearly, something strange is going on.
For my 5 trials, for whatever they're worth, every HT gunner was a KIA after 11.8 shots, on average. Every foot soldier was a WIA after 67 shots, on average. The idea, of course, is to combine the numbers from all players' trials and then do the stats, but I thought I'd post these for, again, whatever they're worth.
My "raw" results with Rokko's test:
vs. German halftrack
1 - 5(K)
2 - 6(K)
3 - 12(K)
4 - 24(K)
5 - 12(K)vs. German soldier
1 - 104(W)
2 - 62(W)
3 - 33(W)
4 - 107(W)
5 - 29(W)If this particular test isn't one that can reveal the difference everyone seems to be talking about, then why don't we all, together, construct the kind of tests that would be most useful. Even if it required 30 trials each for testing, say, 5 or 6 variables.
-
Couldn't resist sharing a link to a video I just found, a hilarious parody of BFC, Final Blitzkrieg, etc., in the "World at War" style. Is this uploader/YT user a forum member? Very creative. Fess up and get the recognition you deserve.
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
Not quite correct. It is more like:
"I have a feeling the casualty rates are too high because I don't like the results. BFC fix or do somefink!"
and
"For all we know they might be too high, but nobody has shown us data from in the game to establish this is the case. Do that and then we can talk about if there's a problem to fix and, if so, what sort of fix is needed".
That's where this is winding up. We CAN NOT take action based on "feeling" because we don't know if that "feeling" is correct, and if it is correct under what circumstances it is correct. Until the "feeling" is proven and the conditions surrounding it can be isolated, there is nothing to fix.
Yep, I agree completely. Feelings and anecdotes are unreliable, so quantitative data is needed -- hard numbers on how often and how quickly TC's die in-game But there's still this problem: what is the baseline we're measuring that data against?
Players are wanting to know if "infantry accuracy vs. TC's in-game" is really as 'off' as they sense it to be. To measure how far our newly-obtained data deviates from the norm, we need to first define what "the norm" actually is. We need some "expected rate of TC casualties" to compare our data to. And I'm just wondering what it is that people think defines that "normal" rate?
Seems simple, but really... in your opinion, do we compare our new data against "infantry accuracy vs. TC's in real life"? Or is the norm we compare our data to, instead, actually "infantry accuracy vs. other targets in-game"?
I'd imagine that both things play a role in setting player expectations. But... we can really only test the latter. The former is more subjective and anecdotal.
I really do think that the frustration of losing TCs so easily in-game is generated by how instantly hyper-accurate enemy infantry seem to become vs. newly-exposed TC's, compared to how relatively inaccurate those same infantrymen are vs. other targets. When a person loses a TC nearly instantly from a pistol at 80 meters, I can see how it might feel just very... I don't know... 'discontinuous' or incongruous or something.
BTW, as I've said, I for one am actually fine with things staying the way they are. I can see why they kinda need to be that way. But I also get where the frustration comes from, and why it is that "it happens this often in real life" doesn't truly address the psychology of this gaming issue.
-
Those with concerns over this TC issue seem to be arguing this (paraphrasing):
"In the game, infantry accuracy vs. TC's is much higher than infantry accuracy vs. soft targets at a similar distance."
While those responding to this complaint -- a complaint they apparently view as baseless -- are defending the in-game results with this:
"The TC rate of loss in-game seems to be historically accurate."
It's possible that both positions are correct.* This may be why we have a bunch of people talking past one another. Until everyone is at least addressing the same issue, one side or the other is probably going to be unhappy with any resolution BFC comes up with.
* meaning that this one 'big' issue is really just two smaller issues -- infantry being a little too inaccurate vs. soft targets, but a little too accurate vs. vehicle crew -- and each issue may very well be unavoidable due to map size limitations, gameplay balance, etc.
-
This is not a complaint, just a heads up for the patch list or whatever: something surprisingly significant seems to have been omitted from CMFB's camera control functions, at least in "FPS" control mode.
Currently, in CMFB, the camera's orientation/direction is unlocked and free to change anytime you activate camera left/right/fwd/back movement with the keyboard. (Camera orientation will change based solely on your mouse's position vs. the center of the screen.)
In every other CMx2 title, camera orientation/direction will change only if if you 'unlock' camera panning with the left mouse button. If t's not pressed, camera direction remains fixed, and you're free to do other important things with your mouse while scrolling your viewpoint.
To put it in different terms, it appears that with CMFB, at least in FPS control mode, there's no way to command "pure" left/right/fwd/back movement of the camera, as is standard in every other title.
Players could probably get used to any major control changes BFC could make... but then you go back to play Black Sea or any earlier title, and bam, fundamental control & movement is different all over again. So, if BFC's goal is to keep the core camera & keyboard controls the same within the CMx2 family, could we please get this one on the patch list? Going back and forth to the older titles is now screwin' with me, big-time.
BTW... can't neglect to say that ,overall, Final Blitzkrieg kicks major butt -- very nicely done! Looked through a bunch of the QB maps a while ago, and geeze, map design & environmental richness just get better and better with each title. Improvements like that can be a hard sale when responding to customer demands for a list of "new features", but the value that's added with all these little details is very, very real... (i.e., to all of you holdouts out there -- just buy the damn game already, LOL. You won't regret it.)
-
1 hour ago, snarre said:
about last video , it tjust player fault if you ceep tank unbuttoned on that gind place
In case you're referring to me, I unbuttoned all 3 tanks just to test the very issue we're talking about in this thread....
And besides, isn't blaming the TC/gunner casualties on a player's "poor tactics" kinda missing the point? This is a game, after all, and players will make all kinds of decisions that are slightly better or slightly worse than some other alternatives. That's what games do.
And here people are talking about a tactical decision that's not even made by the player -- it's the AI unbuttoning a vehicle that the player has ordered to stay buttoned. So the real question is, does the AI punish a player's poor tactical decisions at the appropriate level? I think not, that the punishment (insta-dead TCs) is too harsh... but I'm not really advocating for a change here, since the alternative takes the balance way back in the other direction.
-
For me, it's not so much that the infantry accuracy vs. tank commanders (or halftrack gunners or whatever) is unbelievable when compared to reality. It has more to do with the in-game disparity between 1) infantry accuracy when targeting those vehicle crew members, vs. 2) infantry accuracy when targeting everything else. The difference is so large that it's always a little jarring to see it happen, and it does take away from the immersion a little bit.
I'll paste in a video example. In it, 3 tanks go from buttoned to unbuttoned in the beginning of the turn. This results is 3 dead tank commanders within 4 seconds. There's enemy infantry within 200 meters of all of the tanks, sure, but this tank commander=bullet magnet game behavior can definitely be very frustrating. On the other hand, and in fairness to BFC, I've read the user complaints from before the issue was tweaked, and it sounds like people were just as frustrated with that situation.
-
11 hours ago, womble said:
However, the lack of visual cue for the user might mean that the don't realise the congested overhead is what's stopping the mortar shooting.
Yes indeed. I may have misunderstood the author's line of thought with that prior post, as it's an easy issue to confuse re: the game engine. I know I played my first battle or two under some similar misconceptions.
-
Something else worth mentioning: Battlefront has done a really great job at capturing that subjective "feel" of the Ardennes region at this time of year. Very authentic and convincing. We all spend so much time talking about the logic and mechanics of the game that it's easy to overlook the accomplishments in the art department.
And I'll say this again, too: these maps are phenomenal. Open the master maps up in the editor and your first thought may very well be "holy crap!" I know mine was. I'm really looking forward to seeing what 3rd party scenario designers can do with these.
-
CMFB without a doubt seems to perform better. I admit, though, that I don't have any objective numbers to confirm that. What gives me the impression of better performance is maps like the following, which my PC is handling just fine. I think a map like this would've been a real problem in some of the prior titles. (This map is from the "Hot Time at Hatten" scenario, and note that the battlefield is not nearly as barren as this zoomed out pic makes it appear.)
Battle Packs, Vehicle Packs?
in Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
Posted
All of those features sound excellent, thanks. Just the first addition, alone (the vehicle follow command) will make me much more willing to take on some of the larger scenarios. I'm intrigued by all the AI modifications, too.