homewrecker
-
Posts
84 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by homewrecker
-
-
15 hours ago, Combatintman said:
Not all of the information here is relevant to the later titles, such as the absence of the Special Editor Overlay in CMSF which required endless measuring of x and y dimensions, but it does highlight the tile and building mismatch issue. Even the best mapmakers will produce maps that are not scaled exactly to the original ground so don't beat yourself up about it.
To illustrate the point, the image below is something I'm working on in CMBS (map size 3.5 x 2km and about a month's worth of work). If you look closely, you'll see that the real lake and the CM lake are not the same size and if you look at the main road just south of the lake, it is not aligned as per the original road. There is then the knock on effect for the buildings south of that road. These are the choices all mapmakers have to make themselves. The general rule though is avoid too many zig zags in your roads because they just look naff. Now I wouldn't pretend to be the greatest map maker in the World but I do take pride in my maps and try to get my maps to a state where someone can look at the real image and the CM map and think 'yeah that's the same place'. This I think is one of my better maps because I did spend a lot more time in street view than I generally do but it is not exactly to scale in those areas where I've had to move roads and buildings other features are 'smooshed together'. A point to note is that I haven't omitted trees on the Eastern edge of the map that are obvious in the original - they're just not showing up in CMSF because of the way the image is rendered.
This is a sweet looking map by the way, been really into Black Sea lately. Is this for a scenario or a campaign?
-
39 minutes ago, MarkEzra said:
Here is something to always keep in mind:
Elevation keys trake lots of memory. Use them sparingly and effectively. Especially in large Maps. I always consider my maps to be art. But functional art they must be. If the average player PC can't run the map easily it won't get played
Thanks, luckily this map shouldn't have that many elevation changes, some slight declines on the south and west sides of the map. There is also enough foliage and such that i don't think i need to add any low ground or covered approaches for either side. Any specific maps of yours that would be good for me to look at? Would like to see them as reference for elevations in future work.
-
6 hours ago, Combatintman said:
That's looking alright @homewrecker - nice to see you looking ahead to how the map will play a part in the overall mission construct. One thing to check with your 5 storey building blocks is the joins between them. The map editor will default to a solid wall so if you want to move troops between those buildings without running out of one and running into another you will need to go into the 3D view and hit CTRL left click to give them doors on both sides and make sure they line up. Be warned, this is bloody fiddly work.
Thanks for the heads up on the interior walls, would have overlooked that. I fiddled about with editing buildings in the 3d view after work last night, had to get the engine 4 manual to find all the keys for everything, but it was 2am and time for bed. Going to work more on it later tonight, I will have more material to put together a thread on progress.
-
Here is a preview of the map with the overlay fairly visible. Did alright on the roads, do need to clean some of them up but i can do that later. There will be 2 objectives, the police Station, and the government center. I am going to take liberties with the location of the government center to get it more toward the center of the map. Between the 2 objectives are 2 main roads with many offices, restaurants, shops etc lining both. Should make for an interesting meeting point for forces between the 2 objectives.
.thumb.png.d4c79b016ce62200c28b3f61f09f4d33.png)
-
40 minutes ago, Erwin said:
It would be great if you posted progress reports - like a blog - so we can see how you are getting on.
I will I actually have some work done with roads and a bit of the residential area in place. Problem is I think i scaled it incorrectly. Seems a little too smooshed together. Will probably just roll with it. Get it right in the next one. I'll start a thread tomorrow and post some pictures of my progress.
-
2 hours ago, Combatintman said:
Good on ya mate ...
The stuff at TFGM covers a lot of the resources available and where to find maps and aerial photos and stuff. Otherwise, although map making can be time consuming, it isn't overly hard to make a reasonable map with the editor overlay. It does help if you know what stuff looks like from the air but of course nowadays you do have the benefit of going into street view.
A lot of people out there will say 'do the elevations first'. Personally I only start with elevations if there are large variables in elevation on a given map. If the elevation difference is less than 30m then I will generally do them at the end. Of course everyone has their own style and preferences and you'll evolve your own as you get into it.
Otherwise, I might start with the part of the map that is going to be the focus of the action but generally I start with the road, river and rail layout. If there are lots of roads and little tracks, I'll generally just do the most important ones. You'll soon work out that you cannot exactly replicate the lie of roads and railways because the editor does not give you gentle curves - it is 45 degree increments all of the way. This means you will need to make some decisions about where your roads will run. You can make this easier for yourself by orienting your map overlay so that the majority of the roads run as straight as they can rather than have it strictly oriented N-S.
You will face some similar dilemmas with building placement. Each building (except sheds) occupies at least 8m x 8m and you can only orient in 45 degree increments. The buildings oriented at angles are quite big and I nearly always end up with a building at the wrong angle or too big for the building being represented. In these instances you just have to decide what looks best and move on.
Unless it is a small map - don't go mad with Flavor Objects. They are resource hogs and they can also throw up some issues for AI pathfinding. When placing these objects, and pretty much everything on the map, think about why it is there and would it be there? Schoolboy errors are haystacks in fields in scenarios set during the winter, woodpiles placed right outside a doorway for someone to trip over, road signs pointing the wrong way and many more besides.
All maps based on real ground will be a compromise between:
Replicating the original ground as closely as possible.
Ensuring good AI pathfinding.
File size and therefore load times, because once you start adding units, AI Plans, briefings and briefing graphics to your scenario the bytes start to add up.
If you haven't done so already, read the scenario editing tutorial that comes with the game - it touches on some aspects of map making and fairly predictably scenario making.
Anyway, those are a few of my starters.
Big thanks for the in depth response. I'm basing the map off the small town where I live in Concord, NC if ya want to check it out on google maps. Was looking to do something I could later turn into a small infantry MOUT map. Seems to fit the bill. So I am pretty familiar with the layout and some nuances of the land in town.
The only intimidating aspects of map making that strike me hard is elevations. But as mikeyD said I'm just gonna try and have fun, take the feedback I can get and keep going at it. I dont have a lot of free time for this but I'll hope to have something to show in a few weeks and go from there.
Thanks for all the tips, they are much appreciated.
-
Today, I started researching how to make a map. Briefly read the engine 4 materials on the subject, selected a map from google earth, and created an overlay. I do have it successfully imported into the editor. My goal is to create a small town map for quick battles, and go from there into learning to create a small scenario. Guess I'm just looking for any tips from those who are vets at this task. Anyone care to share some of the tools and experience that may have helped them when they got started?
Edit: Found a treasure trove of information at TFGM. Should help immensely. So maybe just some advice if amyone is up for it.
-
1 hour ago, George MC said:
Agreed it's an excellent AAR. Interesting to see how players tackle this one.
I reworked this one for CMSF2 bit larger map, rejigged BLUEFOR OOB and totally revamped RED AI plan using triggers. So might be worth considering keeping your powder dry for the revised one?
Thats awesome! But i may now have an itch that must be scratched. But perhaps on a different scenario seeing as there are many in my scenarios folder i simply never got into. Had fun with the SF2 demo marines scenario, really looking forward to your reworked version.
-
Really digging this AAR man! Entertaining and I'm learning some too. I kind of struggled with marines in SF1 at first but they were always one of the most fun to play due to the massive firepower available at platoon level. I think I have this scenario and may give it a go soon. Good luck With the rest.
-
What i wouldnt give for a m163 type unit for the US, would double as an infantry shredder.
-
On 8/19/2018 at 2:46 PM, Erwin said:
pm sent
I too was looking for one of the old US army uniform mods, the one with the dusty 3ID uniforms. No luck. I still have a lot of the others though, dusty marines and brits, i think the brits with rolled sleeves as well. Tons of vehicle mods. Any way you could pm me a dropbox link to the US Army uniforms Erwin? I would really appreciate it.
If i remember wasn't there a site for CMSF mods on the cmx1 mods site? I tried to visit it, and get an invalid certificate notice. Expired or taken down?
-
On 11/11/2018 at 12:52 PM, Badger73 said:
Because Battlefront does not publish a game covering this, I think it is worth your while to take a serious look at Matrix Games' forthcoming "Armoured Brigade" title due for release 15-Nov-2018.
This +1. If we ever do get an CW combat mission title, there will be plenty of map/campaign inspiration material to pull from for the community. I am probably going to pick that one up, really liking how they designed their map system for the random battle generator. Amd the in game database editor for creating/editing units. Its gonna have some great modability and near infinite replayability. Hoping we do get to see CM Fulda Gap sometime in the future, maybe a first title for CM3?
-
Cant wait to get my hands on the base game + marine module.
-
30 minutes ago, kraze said:
Games are expensive to make? You gotta love this excuse for any game. It's basically asking "yes, rip me off".
Wonder why games were not expensive to make and did not require an inflated pricetag at a time when engines had to be written from scratch, tools for them had to be written from scratch, everything had to be animated by hand and took half a year instead of mere weeks in mocap studios. Nowadays about half of game development process is all but finished before devs even start.
If games are expensive to make - how come games, which cost a lot more to make than any Battlefront game, rake in hundreds of millions $$$ (and sometimes even billions) of pure profit - if devs and publishers supposedly struggle financially and can barely make do?
And if games are expensive to make and require anticompetitive pricing - then maybe the business model of said developer is messed up? Because a business is about knowing how to do the thing you do.
Games like ARK were made for a bunch of proverbial peanut cans instead of real big cash. ArmA2 was a low-budget game (a large chunk of assets was even reused from the previous game) and yet a mere free mod skyrocketed the profits. Yet even before that it was chock full of content and effort. Wargame series are fairly obscure games and yet devs managed to easily handle the financial failure that was Act of Aggression and lackluster sales of Steel Division 1 - because Wargame series still brought in good profits without inflated pricetags. If your product is good - the budget does not matter.
Battlefront has a niche market man. Budget does matter even in large companies. And those large companies have marketing dollars and distribution deals.
I'm blown away I can upgrade to SF2 for $35, talk about loyalty to your EXISTING customers.
-
I had one crash reloading a saved game on Day at the Beach played in Turn based mode. Happened once, didnt happen again. Havent had any since, I did play with my shader settings but i cant remember if it was before or after since I usually turn them off anyways for the smoother frame rates.
-
14 hours ago, MarkEzra said:
Welcome! Game testing starts with one question: Is that right?
Thanks sir, I'm a long time lurker, just decided to get invovled after the ball got rolling in shock force 2. SF1 was probably my favorite CM release. I just hope I can help, very excited for the update.
-
14 hours ago, Erwin said:
Glad someone else noticed this. It was mentioned some days ago. Not sure if this is a bug, or we simply do not know why the AI may choose a TOW, or the 25mm or the MG when targeting (either LIGHT or full TARGET).
It was you who pointed it out to me Erwin, I just went back to check. Coax isnt fired with the crew opened up either. I couldnt get the Brads to use their coax on my orders, they only use it on their own volition.
-
On 10/21/2018 at 1:36 PM, Erwin said:
I didn't find that. When I used TARGET the Bradleys fired their 25mm not their TOWS. IIRC the AI decides when it's appropriate to fire TOWS and there is no way the player can order TOWS to be fired.
TARGET LIGHT should fire the MG. However, I found that on several occasions a Bradley would fire its 25mm. This is not the way it used to be.
So, has the SOP of the game system AI been changed?
Ok so now after playing through passage to wilcox again I've realized the difficulties. My Brads all use the 25mm when target light order is issued. Which did wipe out half a squad and panic a squad of engineers. What a pain! I did witness the use the coax on their own on multiple occasions, so weird. I dont remember this being as much of an issie in SF1, correct me if I'm wrong. Abrams all use the coax or mounted 762 if opened up. Could it be the weapons loadout? Target causes them to unleash the Tows, as well as target briefly. So relatively the 25mm is lighter than a Tow? Minor coding issue?
Appologies if this sounds goofy, I have zero experience play testing.
-
K going back I notice the scope icon for the DM of the squad, just didn't see it rendered in game. So I answered my own question. Sorry fellas.
-
4 hours ago, c3k said:
A couple of thoughts.
First, practice it. Save a game, try it. Do it again. Your men will die. But, as long as you're learning, they'll die grateful that their sacrifice was not in vain.
Second, HUNT is a poor order for building entry. HUNT translates into "move slowly and carefully until enemy contact and then stop". The LAST thing you want to do in a building entry is stop. Even if the bad guys have the "fatal funnel" totally bore-sighted and booby-trapped, YOU KEEP MOVING. Giving your men a HUNT command means they will stop right when the enemy opens fire. They'll die. Your men, that is.
ASSAULT is similarly handicapped in that it means, "one team moves, then it holds position as the other team(s) leapfrog up and join and then they all accordion forward again." So, your squad moves by team. Not good.
You want to dynamically enter and dominate the space. Enough about my dating habits, let's turn towards the game.
Setup some overwatch. Give them Target for 15 or 30 seconds. They'll use high explosives (LAWs, etc.) so be careful about fratricide. If that's an issue, give a Target Light, a Pause (for 15, 20, 30 seconds) then a move with a Face at the end of it. Stagger it so SOMEONE is always guns up at the enemy location.
So, 2-4 overwatch/suppression elements, timed to lift their fire as the maneuver element becomes adjacent to the building.
The maneuver element should actually have two parts: close support and entry. Move the close support team adjacent to the building, on a wall with windows. (Not the big picture windows! That's a sure way to die.) Give them a 15 second target command into the building.
The final element is the entry team. They'll move adjacent, pause while the close supporters are doing their thing, and then they should QUICK into the building. Do not give them a FACE command. (A 360^ covered arc would be the only command I'd give, and only to keep them from engaging units outside the building envelope, and only if I knew/suspected that would occur.)
The timing would be:
Teams 1-4 (or about two squads) firing for 15-30 seconds. As their fire ends, two teams, independently, move adjacent to the building. One team area fires into the building for 15 seconds. The other team waits 15 seconds while FACE into the building. That same team then enters with QUICK.
As you can see, it can take about a platoon and you're only entering with a team.
A lot of suppression, a lot of eyeballs on overwatch, and a few trigger-pullers to kick down the door.
Oh, and have someone set up to shoot down any squirters.
Im going to try this, i have always struggled with MOUT operations in SF, its quite chellenging. Thanks for the lengthy post with the details, i clearly havent gone into this level of complexity with my orders and need to give it a shot.
-
2 hours ago, Raptorx7 said:
The marksman in the US Army infantry squads sometimes carries an M4 with an ACOG so it is present in the game.
Never noticed that, will have to go back and look. Thanks for the heads up. Maybe it isnt represented graphically? Ive got a lot of hours in SF1, but i guess I missed it.
-
10 hours ago, Erwin said:
Am interested in the answer to this as I have always assumed that TARGET LIGHT meant fire MG's.
What is confusing, is that in the "Wilcox" scenario, I have seen some Bradleys which are ordered to TARGET LIGHT fire their 25mm and other Bradleys fire their MG's only.
One Bradley has fired 4 missiles. But not sure what made it do that.
Not sure if this is a bug, or if perhaps the type of target affects which weapons system is used, or what...?
Does it depend on target? My thought is given the nature of the game troops and vehicle crews do make their own decisions based on situations despite orders. Could this be the case?
-
11 hours ago, SlowMotion said:
When I played this scenario in turn based mode my attacking aircraft was destroyed by those Shilkas. So worked fine in my case,
Playing this scenario I had my Tornado shot down. Are there any other AA assets for the syrians in this scenario? I didnt notice any but may be mistaken.
-
Something I've wondered since SF1 was released was why no ACOGs for the Army. All rifles seem to have aimpoints on their models. All info I can find suggest the Army contracted for these in 2007, which is in time frame for the game. Though im pretty sure they were in use as far back as Just Cause in 89. Are these represented in abstraction or were they left out of the TO&E for the Army?
.png.33d60d12943f6770d51771a478e5ff47.png)
Getting into map making
in CM2 Scenario and Mod Tips
Posted
As I've added objects to the map, I haven't noticed significant increase in load times. Maybe a second or tow. Still a lot to add though. I've added the elevations I wanted for specific parts of the map. I am going to start a new thread in the CMBS mods forum with my progress on this QB map. Have made some good headway.