Pericles
-
Posts
170 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Pericles
-
-
Infantry running along river beds 25 feet deep.
-
I can't attach the .brz file because it's too big. But the issue is encountered immediately in the Cry Havoc! mission (for those players who decide to send units across the river). Must have been a mistake by the map developers (putting in a deep water tile at a river crossing point). Oh well, not a huge deal, and definitely not a game breaker.
-
I'm currently playing the "Cry Havoc!" battle in CMBS, which pits U.S. vs. RUS.
To my surprise and disappointment, I was able to order one of my squads to cross a section of river that was about 25 feet deep. The squad traversed the river section by running at full speed at the bottom of the river. They were submerged for about 45 seconds. This looked terrible.
Any plans for Battlefront to fix this? Options are to remove the ability for infantry men to traverse bodies of water greater than ~5 feet deep (so that characters' heads aren't submerged), or to add new swimming animations.
-
That's a fair assessment of the AI issues. I recently played a night mission in CMBN for the first time and the spotting limitations really screwed up the AI behavior. I had two enemy armored vehicles drive right past entire tank-supported platoons that had been in place firing at the enemy for most of the mission. That enemy vehicles simply drove past them and into a field of no consequence.
-
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being terrible and 10 being perfect, what is your opinion of the quality of the AI in the Combat Mission series (engine x2)?
My opinion after many hours logged with CMBN and CMBS: 7/10
-
At this point in the series, with all the theatres and vehicles and armies on offer (with no changes in animations), it's a simple equation really:
new animations > new vehicles/battlepacks
-
Josey Wales is not me. I like his style too.
-
This is how all AARs should be done.
-
Good AAR. I hope you are able to keep output up (so many AARs published on the forums involve only weekly or bi-weekly updates).
-
On 04/01/2017 at 3:02 PM, kinophile said:
If by 'open' you mean car-keys-in-the-bowl... Then no. Well.. Maybe. Buy me a nice dinner* first, then we'll talk**. .
Its more to encourage TFO along his journey of self discovery as he learns that his irrational fear of open spaces on a map is driven by his mole-man ancestors and does not reflect reality, his existential dread of my drones is overblown and his faith in the power of numbers is outdated.
Let's make this a communal effort and help our pseudo-REMF friend overcome his own fears and, y'know,
SEND HIS TURN.
:-)
*Wine helps.
**Skip the steak, just get me drunk.
Genius.
-
On 03/01/2017 at 7:07 PM, TheForwardObserver said:
"The 25 mike mike declareth the glory of the Bradley and the TOW missile sheweth his handiwork."
A shopping bag floats into view, it dances elegantly across the ground, blown by the wind, moved by the same forces that spreadeth the seeds of the great forests, and the grass of the great savannahs, defiant and ignorant of the curse of declination which condemneth man to circles. A BTR bursts into flames in the foreground, the crew emerges stunned, mildly discontent, cursing the lowest bidders. The driver runs back to the blazing BTR, he's forgotten his cell phone-- he braves fire and destruction to retrieve it. He succeeds, and without hesitation takes a selfie to prove it-- moving with a purpose he updates his instagram-- 12 likes in 3 minutes-- today has been a good day, he mutters to himself. He joins the rest of his crew. They move on, they will subsist on mushrooms and berries from the forest until their column has caught up. They will tweet until help arrives.
An FO slips away into the shadows, he seeks a larger target. He will wait.
A darkness gathers in the East as Kinoron once again sits atop mount doom, casting his thermal-less gaze upon the landscape, he sees nothing. He will wait.This is high quality discourse right here. Subscribed to thread.
-
Just now, JoMc67 said:
Ok, Pericles...Don't be a 'Mr. Scrooge'.
You're right, I'm a bit hungover and surrounded by family, so perhaps I'm prone to overreacting to benign exclamations.
-
58 minutes ago, IanL said:
The full will allow you to install the whole thing from scratch on a clean machine or in a clean directory.
The smaller one is for installing over top of an existing fully patched game.
PS while the licensing issues are addressed you can install your older game to a separate directory and keep playing.
PPS oops sorry you guys are finding licensing problems. For whatever reason during testing these issues didn't come up. Bummer wish we would have hit them ourselves before you saw them.
"Bummer"? Doesn't seem like a genuine apology or sympathy from a tester.
To recap, no one who purchased the engine 4.0 upgrade was capable of licensing and playing it. This has since been remedied for bundle engine 4.0 upgrade. Problems remain for the single CMBS version 4.0 upgrade but will of course be fixed, probably within the next 24 hours. In the end, these are minor nuisances for a superior strategy game and a significant update to gameplay features.
-
2 hours ago, Childress said:
Anyone else on the Forum with disreputable or controversial ancestors? Don't be shy.
Who doesn't have disreputable or controversial ancestors? Country boundaries and wealth disparities are the products of shameless and brutal self-preservation and tribalism, all the way back to when we were swinging in trees, red in tooth and claw.
-
1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:
10 tests. In the screenshot the vehicle traveling at Fast arrived at the endpoint about 5 seconds before the Fast & Slow vehicle. I just snapped the screenshot after both vehicles had come to a complete stop.
Thank you IanL for your making us aware of your controlled and reliable experiment. It seems that moving slow has the same bogging probability as moving fast, which is quite stupid and needs to be changed.
MOS, I request that you repeat the test for wooden fences. I hypothesize that the unit moving slow over wooden fences will not take track damage, whereas the unit moving fast will. I base this on my experience with track damage in CMBS.
-
6 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:
In the game you are no more likely to bog on Fast than you are on Slow.
That's crazy talk.
-
37 minutes ago, Erwin said:
I haven't tested it, but am pretty sure that when crossing fences, bushes (thanks that can be destroyed) etc that there is a higher probability of damage to the tracks at higher speeds. I always cross damageable terrain at SLOW.
But, yes, once bogged, there is nothing you can do except wait for it to free itself or be permanently immobilized.
For same reason I move vehicles SLOW when on "boggy" terrain. It would be very surprising if higher speed doesn't worsen the probability of bogging. Am pretty sure it does.
So it appears that Erwin and Pericles (Team 1) are up against MOS:96B2P and Euri (Team 2).
Team 1 believes that bogging probability is higher for "fast" than for "quick".
Team 2 believes that bogging probability is not higher for "fast" than for "quick".
Perhaps we could resolve this via consensus.
All those supporting Team 1, please write "1". All those for Team 2, write "2".
-
1 hour ago, Euri said:
For everything there is a reason. Can you please elaborate what do you think is the reason for having a "fast" command? I could give a few reasons (for example prioritise advance to accurate targeting and countermeasures, move at fast pace etc). But I would never list as a reason to increase the probablilities of immobilisation on dry roads. In your mind, is the latter the reason for the fast command? That is what I understand from your post
PS I gues by "reason" you mean "purpose" in the aristotelean sense (i.e telos)
I have always interpreted the "fast" command as being included in the game so that the player can maximize movement speed at the expense of spotting ability and increased chance of bogging. However, after reading your reply and that of MOS, I recognize that my assumption could be incorrect.
But I still think that the proposition that bogging likelihood is higher for "fast" compared to "quick" is a sound one, in part because it seems to reflect what would happen in reality (moving at maximum speed, not paying attention to intra-tile terrain anomalies) and because bogging likelihood is empirically higher for "quick" compared to "slow". Pending a controlled test of the proposition (a repeated experiment of the kind MOS divulged), the proposition remains contingently falsified.
-
11 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:
The second question is: If burning bodies are added, what next? Should the game show soldiers hit by HE shells and being blown to bits? Are they to be shown dying in agony with their guts hanging out? That's something else I already know happens, but don't yearn to see.
Michael
I don't yearn to see that. As long as infantry fall lifeless, the realism spell is not broken. But seeing infantry hosed down in flame or spilling out of flaming tanks without any flame on them is a considerable spell break.
-
There is a reason the developers gave us the option of "fast" and "quick" movement. Stop being greedy and go with "quick" unless there is serious urgency.
-
The character animations in the Combat Mission series haven't changed since CMx2 was first introduced in 2007.
If you had to choose one additional character animation, what would it be?
My choice = characters on fire, included those hapless pixeltruppen unlucky enough to have been "affected" by a flamethrower, and those vehicle crewmen spilling out of a flaming tank, IFV, etc. In addition to having characters on fire, the animation would include the requisite stop-drop-and-rolling and jerky arm movements.
-
-
If the evil powers of social media have indeed beset me, I am grateful that their influence has been largely constrained to this "b/w" abbreviation, rather than emoticons and lmao's and the like.
I have suffered for this grievance, reputationally, as evidenced by the critiques from "senior members", and physically, as I have written over 100 words in an attempt to explain the absence of five letters. Never again.
Between.
-
1 hour ago, IanL said:
Sigh, it's time to just give up guys. We are talking across each other.
Agreed. I will end by thanking all those who contributed to this discussion, as I have learned something about the differences b/w CMSF and CMBS from it. To constructive discourse, and decimation of pixeltroppen in modern combat environments!
Has anyone heard from Bud?
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
On a similar note, Paper Tiger - a seasoned veteran of CM and this forum (and maker of the Scottish Corridor campaign) - has not been heard of on the forum for 367 days.