CarlXII
-
Posts
147 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by CarlXII
-
-
1 hour ago, RMM said:
Doesn't it do this already? When I split up squads per their specific teams, I get different icons according to what their team is, at least for AT or LMG teams. On the other hand, is it the 'iron' setting or some such that restricts display of team icons?
I do not see that...When i split a squad all i get is the same infantry icon for every typ of split-of part.
Playing on elite difficulty.
Are you using some kind of incon mod ?
-
Perhaps give the player the option to change the floating incon graphics of desired units.
In somewhat larger battles, atleast when you start splitting the squads, it could be a handy feature to be able to designate varios teams as brech teams, AT teams, fire support teams, recon teams etc instead of simply having them displayed as a regular infantry incons.
-
11 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:
I seem to recall that LOF to the upper floors of buildings will show as blocked when the ground floor is obstructed.
Correct.
but IIRC BFC made some improvements to this a few years ago. It used to be far worse than it is today.
-
12 minutes ago, Kevin2k said:
isn't that just like saying: very, very easy to do?
That's what it sounds like to me
-
19 minutes ago, kohlenklau said:
We are not asking that BFC's TOE attention to detail would be lowered. This was part of a one-sided beg and argue with BFC to try and get then to produce some dang version of an early war module.
I understand now
26 minutes ago, wadepm said:I am not a stickler for TOE's because, as has been stated by others in this thread, after a couple of months in combat the TOE is by the board...
What i like about the way that BFC does their TOEs is that it will allow you to use a more or less 'correct' force structure when designing a scenario even if you don't really know all that much about how it was/is set up IRL.
Simularelly other designers will have a nice base to start with when designing their scenarios. Hopefully leading to fairly realistic force structures in the community scenarios.
I originally did not like the way it worked with you as the designer having to delete the parts of a formation that you do not want to use in a particular scenario. Today however...I really like this design and i find it really easy to use...It still has its limitations but i find it to be good.
A do not in any way want to prevent a player (QB) or scenario designer to tweak the original formations as desired to fit their needs but as i said...i like the current design with having to start with a 'realistic' base and tweak it from there...
29 minutes ago, kohlenklau said:Then we are told how that is too much time/cost/lost opportunity to do the 3D modelling and for Charles to code in each bogey wheel's movement in the z dimension/etc.
If only BFC was not this tiny little company...How wonderful it would have been if they could do more, faster...
-
10 minutes ago, Artkin said:
How's that the TOE with less attention to detail? Why don't you look up TOE's yourself and see just how much they can differ from the game, lol.
?
-
I'm one of the guys who would NOT like to see a lowering of TOE attention to detail. IMO it ups the immersion when playing and it is also helpful when designing scenarios on my own.
-
1 hour ago, Bearstronaut said:
If I won the billion dollar powerball I'd definitely contact Steve about funding a Korean War Combat Mission game.
Let's keep our fingers crossed
...
-
Yeah...where's all the friendly rich guys when you need them. Some are willing to spend 5-10 billion dollars on a soccerteam....How about throwing BFC their fair share ?
-
21 minutes ago, PEB14 said:
Sure, they're not done by the same people (not even by BF people?) and don't require hardcoding...
There you have it....Unfortunatelly the others guys can't make any campaigns or scenarios if they don't have the neccesary units
...
-
2 minutes ago, wadepm said:
All we really need is a Vehicle Pack like the one for CMBN. We can take it from there...
I would buy such a pack day 1 but this has been requested before and i think BFC have rejected the idea stating that it is the development of the TOEs that is the main timesink when it comes to their workload.
Scenarios and campaigns are not the problem.
-
12 minutes ago, Artkin said:
Lets gooooo Fall Blau
That's the spirit ! go, go ,go
-
2 hours ago, Freyberg said:
I sometimes wonder if the frequent critics, who focus on what isn't there, have ever played the game
To put your mind at ease....YES ! they have.
If they did not like the game why then would they ask for more.
-
3 hours ago, Flibby said:
I do not remember which poster used to espouse these ideas, some years ago now, but what really helped me was to think of firepower and how best to implement that firepower. Rather than just moving men around, what you are actually doing is moving men in order to position somewhere else to deploy more firepower.
In practice that took me away from forlorn infantry attacks to rather congregating firepower effects on a single area, overwhelming the enemy, and then moving in thereafter. Infantry attacks without significant fire superiority, even through covered areas, seldom work out for me.
JasonC made a whole bunch of postings on CM tactics back in the CM1 days...It might have been him.
I belive he got thrown out the CM forum a few years ago...For what reason i don't know.
His posts are still intresting readings though for anyone intrested.
I remember he had lenthy discussions about fire and movement...among other things.
-
At the risk of sounding tedious...
The campaignscript is yet another detail in the scenario editor that BFC would be most welcomed to have a look at and provide us with an updated version.
The campaignscript is unneccesarely complicated and limited in several ways hampering flexibility, varaity and ease of use.
Updating the campaignscript would just like many other potential editor changes be possible without impacting gameperformance or of putting a higher demand on the AI.
More intresting, fun and variable campaigns could be made if we are provided with an updated campaignscript function.
-
3 hours ago, kohlenklau said:
I have had fun with changing the touch objective completed/reinforcement arrival sound effect "chat squawk.wav" modtagged to be "other things"...
In a Kasserine Pass scenario it was changed to a short sound clip of the French national anthem because your reinforcements were French.
Lets see, in an Italian attack on free French at Bir Hakeim, it was changed to something Italian sounding as they got their touch objectives.
Ina Barbarossa scenario involving a bridge demolition, it was changed to an explosion sound I got from a video of The West Virginia Department of Transportation blowing up an old bridge. The arrival of a certain time triggered the sound clip as reinforcement with honor system scoring being that you had to have taken the bridge before the sound effect. Not quite the best way but all I gots to work with. Come on POWERBALL!
Clever man !
But this comes with limits i'm guessing...It will not really work with larger scenarios with multiple objectives will it ?...Neat trick though
22 minutes ago, Erwin said:Really like the pop up messages in the KG Von Schroif campaign. Am assuming that when one reaches a location it activates an enemy response and "intel" warns one that enemy units are on their way. And then again when they actually arrive.
Yepp...having a feature in the editor that would allow us to do this more easily and in a bigger way would allow for some cool things. Perhaps not a thing for every scenario but it would give the scenario designers some added flexibility to do different things.
-
I belive these tricks are the best options avaliable currently. Sadly the textstring we can add in these messages is fairly short.
Having a simple way off adding in-game messages is one of many request for improvements to the editor. Perhaps even include an option to add a soundfile instead of a text message.
Many of these small improvements ought to be doable within a fairly short time frame as they require pretty much nothing else than a slight remake of the editor UI. In some cases also a remake of the ingame UI.
But a whole number of these small suggestions will have no impact at all on FPS or put higher demands on the AI. An updated UI is all that is reuired.
Hopefully we will see atleast some of these suggestions included some day soon. They could add quite alot to the enjoyment and flexibility of the game.
-
10 hours ago, Blackhorse15A said:
Set a sector of fire or targeting *at* a waypoint that doesn't take effect until you reach the waypoint.
You can do this already.
Simply click on any waypoint in the string and asign target or target arc orders as you please for that waypoint.
-
10 minutes ago, PEB14 said:
If they want to keep the WW2 fan club satisfied, they will have to find something else. Like CMRT modules back in time (Kursk comes to mind, next Stalingrad…).
Yes !
Or release a new game engine (CM3)
-
3 minutes ago, PEB14 said:
Never heard of a CM3 project.
Rumors/ speculations of an entirely new CM gameengine have been floating around on these forums for several years....
CM2 is starting to show its age and it seems to be quite hard to upgrade in any significant way.
BFC have never confirmed or denied actually working on a CM3 game as far as i know but an updated game engine have been asked for for several years now by several comunity members.
If you search for CM3 i belive you will get quite a few hits...
-
Unless BFC have scrapped the plans for releasing a CM3 game (if they ever planned to) i don't think we will see much in the way of new theatres in CM2.
They still have some work left to do with the current projects (CMFB module, CMCW module and possibly CMBS module) it seems.
I kind of doubt that they will develop an entirely new theatre with entirely new units and timeframe unless they feel that they will be able to release a bunch of additional modules for such a theatre. That would mean sticking with CM2 for another 5 years atleast i'm guessing.
-
8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
It is labor intensive, but there's no alternative because such things are specific to each vehicle. There is no such thing as a standard smoke launcher, for example. So either each one has to be coded to work as the real world one does, or we'd have to just say "one size fits all" and stick with that. You know, like what all the other games out there do that are criticized for not being realistic.
When i'm not busy complaining
i can jump in here and confirm that this is actually one of the things that most CM players absolutely like about your games i belive. Your efforts to get things as realistic as possible. Thats part of what makes CM...CM and the reason we play this game year after year...
Don't stop !
-
An updated version of this campaign is something i have wanted for a long time...More AI groups, triggers, flamethrowers, Indoor AT fire possibility, more AI orders, area fire, reverse command, facing command and a whole bunch of additional vehicles.
Having this campaign updated to 2023 standards will make for an intresting playthrough indeed. I hope you will be able to pull it off.
I have more then ones contemplated updating this campaign myself to see how it would play out with all the new toys/features but i soon realiced that i probably would not manage it (time wise) and it would also be sad ruin such an impressive campaign
...
Best of luck with the project !
-
53 minutes ago, semmes said:
What authenticity?
That of an ammo lorry carrying 6 ammo boxes or that of a LMG 42 only firing 50 rounds drums?
Vietnam, in terms of the UN Charter, was a war of American aggression. D. Ellsberg.
Some details here and there might be wrong or missing but compared to the competition CM is miles above the rest when it comes to authenticity and realism.
The next project
in Combat Mission Shock Force 2
Posted
Thanks for all you work. Much apprisated.
Personally i think i would scrap the GEBIRGS part of the campaign title and only go with JAEGERS, VORWARTS !