NCrawler Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 During setup, tried to use alt-a(abort scenario) and the game locked up tight. First lock-up ever with CM so I'm assuming it's a bug... ------------------ Jon Johnson Steel Lightning Productions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Hi Jon, a few people have reported this too. We are looking into it. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Some comments: I studied a lot of posts now, but I have yet to read an answer from BTS regarding this "jumping waypoint" thing (bug ?), which makes it very hard to drag and place waypoints, since they do not stick to the cursor sometimes. Will this issue be addressed ?Another thing: waypoint cubes can be highlighted. I think it would be very useful to be able to use the L.O.S. function [L] from the waypoint cube, e.g. to see if a forward observer or a MG are able to establish line of sight from the waypoint to the target.Next suggestion: It would be great to have the required movement time displayed when plotting movement paths (like the distance and the terrain type). Even if this would be a rough estimation, I would like to know whether a given movement will take 30 sec. or 2 minutes (C&C delays should of course be included). And something else: It would be nice to get a quick overview head count by a vertical stack of counters (empty counter for combat ineffective, filled counter for healthy). This would be more efficient than having to click on every single unit. And as counters vanish, one can quickly tell which unit is taking casualties. And lastly: Enable an even higher tree density, for high-quality "snap shots" or ... just for the fun of it. Combat Mission is a very interesting game ! I realized fast that it offers a lot of possibilities, but at the same time requires a lot of attention. Undoubtedly CM is a very sophisticated game. What I still have to figure out for myself is: is World War II (gaming) fun ? But this is a different story ... Thank you for your consideration, Thomm [This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 11-02-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCrawler Posted November 2, 1999 Author Share Posted November 2, 1999 BTS: Thanks for the reply. It seems to be a random thing as I tried again last night and it worked just fine. When I originally locked up, I had not moved any of the units from the original setup locations. When I did it last night, I had moved one of the 88's in Riesberg to a different location and it aborted just fine... ------------------ Jon Johnson Steel Lightning Productions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 "2.Another thing: waypoint cubes can be highlighted. I think it would be very useful to be able to use the L.O.S. function [L] from the waypoint cube, e.g. to see if a forward observer or a MG are able to establish line of sight from the waypoint to the target." Thomm, With all respect, I don't think this has any place in the game whatsoever. CM is supposed to be about modeling real combat battle situations realistically. If the unit can't see something in real life then it can't see it in CM. And since there is no way a unit in real life can magically project itself forward to a position along its line of intended movement in order to check out LOS from that position before ever even moving there; doing what you suggest would be highly unrealilstic in my view. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Dear Mike ! But it is not realistically either that *I* can float there and "have a look". Now, if the woods would not be abstracted, but individual trees, I could find the exact place where my squad would first see the enemy ! Now why should this not be possible with the abstracted woods ? As long as I cannot give a complex, yet valid order like "Move along this path until you establish line-of-sight to any/the enemy unit, but without being spotted yourself" I think I should have a tool to at least find the waypoint for which this rule would apply. Possible solution: BTS introduces a new command: Movement to (visual) contact ! Should work great for recon, forward observers and MGs. A consequence of your statement would be: Restrict camera movement to areas which are controlled by friendluy forces. Otherwise one could focus on an enemy unit and do "manual" L.O.S. checks from there ... unrealistically ! Do you see the dilemma ? Regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But it is not realistically either that *I* can float there and "have a look<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This points out a contradiction in the game because you then state: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>if the woods would not be abstracted, but individual trees, I could find the exact place where my squad would first see the enemy<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because you are first saying you can go have a look and then suggesting that the look your having is misleading(oh my god, was that what Oscar was trying to tell us?,Quick, lets find out where we buried him and do an autopsy ). I would like to see an LOS tool like in Steel Panthers. Have the map highlight what is visible as if a squad was at your curser.Then move your curser where you want. Have that calculation calculated as the curser is moved around. ie don't force the player to click to get los info.(this is exactly what you are doing when you 'float' around in 3D anyways.) I know the response to this will be ...oh but that would be unrealistic cause a b c.. but like Thomm said, then why can we float there and watch in 3D anyways? Are we coming back to the arguement that the information is there *and* we must find it *only* if we take steps a b c? I see the 3D as an aid, a tool to help you visualise slopes and relative positions. It is not the end all tool though because the camera positions are fixed and images,(trees), are approximated. I throw my hat in for a sidebar where you can click and go immeadiatly to that unit. I know about tab but since this game is 3D, I might not have the unit I want to go to in view at the moment. You should be transported to the new unit in the same view orientaion. Is it possible to have the zoom stay constant when you change units? You should also be able to double click on a point on the map to be taken there. This would help navigation. [This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 11-02-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 ***** BUG ***** I posted this before but it got buried. I have been able to see foxholes during setup as the attacker, thus giving me knowledge of the defenders location. They are very hard to see, but I have stumbled on two by plotting long movement paths. I REALLY thinks its a bug because these foxholes disappear after play starts...until I get close enough for the shooting to start that is! ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Thomm, But it is not realistically either that *I* can float there and "have a look". Perhaps not, but the game has to have some means of functioning. I simply look at this as the commander having a map that they can look at. But just like a looking at a map, you shouldn't be able to trace exact lines of LOS from any point A to point B on that map when you are not actually standing at point A attempting to sight point B. Now, if the woods would not be abstracted, but individual trees, I could find the exact place where my squad would first see the enemy ! Now why should this not be possible with the abstracted woods ? Errr, your original suggestion said nothing about the woods. So I'm not sure what to say to this. As long as I cannot give a complex, yet valid order like "Move along this path until you establish line-of-sight to any/the enemy unit, but without being spotted yourself" I think I should have a tool to at least find the waypoint for which this rule would apply. How can you say such an order is "valid" when your unit(s) have absolutely NO idea of whether, or when, they've been spotted or not???????? 6.Restrict camera movement to areas which are controlled by friendluy forces. Otherwise one could focus on an enemy unit and do "manual" L.O.S. checks from there ... unrealistically! I don't believe restriction of camera movement to friendly sighted areas is necessary. This may not be totally realistic, but again I simply view it as an agrandized map function for the commander to use. As far as being able to use enemy units to trace LOS's from I don't think the game allows you to do this. If it does, it is a "functionality" that should be removed. Regards, Mike D aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 11-02-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 So Mike, you are saying that in allowing the player to roam in the 3D view adds playability without giving the player too much power to affect realism. ie the player gets a good idea of the layout of the land but not a perfect picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TangoYankee Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 First let me say that this is the best BETA release I've ever seen. I've worked with all types of software for over 10 years and have never seen a first release as bug free as this. The graphics are perfect, no unexplained lock-ups, no mysterious magical rebooting in the middle of a turn. No effect on other programs. Heck, it didn't even modify the registry! You guys should sell your methodologies to MS and IBM and make a bundle of money! Now on with the nitpicky stuff... BUG: After doing a save, there is a flashing outline of the left and top of where the file dialog box used to be after it closes. In other words, I get this: ______________________________________ | | | | | | | | | in the top left hand corner of the screen, flashing at me after the file dialog window closes. Not major, but worth mentioning. (BTW, hardware happening on: 19in mon., 32MB NVidia TNT2, 1600x1200 res.) Another BUG: It's been mentioned before, but I think it's worth another mention. The "jumping" of the LOS lines, Targeting lines, etc. It's really annoying. TY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 John, Yes. It isn't totally realistic in the sense that real WWII battlefield commanders couldn't see the battlefield on a 3D map. But it is a basic functionality of the game as a result of how they are doing things, so I don't really see a problem with it. Mike D aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 11-02-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Dear Mike ! "But just like a looking at a map, you shouldn't be able to trace exact lines of LOS" <font color=#FFFFFF> ... but you are able to do this by floating there. The exception to this are the various kinds of vegetation, where you would have to use the LOS tool to see where the LOS is broken.</font> "How can you say such an order is "valid" when your unit(s) have absolutely NO idea of whether, or when, they've been spotted or not??" <font color=#FFFFFF>... Please remove the last part and consider the command to be "Move along this path until you establish line-of-sight to any/the enemy unit". That is what I meant and what I am missing !</font> "I don't believe restriction of camera movement to friendly sighted areas is necessary" <font color=#FFFFFF>... From your point of view it is necessary ! Compromise: Restrict views to high levels (> 3 ?) over enemy held territory</font> By the way: headcounter example: Does not look too good in my opinion. Maybe I should have made the red "chips" transparent ?! [This message has been edited by Thomm (edited 11-02-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Compromise: Restrict views to high levels (> 3 ?) over enemy held territory<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ahh but that would mean you know the territory is enemy if you can only get a >3 view from there. Perhaps you should say: Compromise: Restrict views to high levels (> 3 ?) when viewing from outside a certain radius of friendly positions. [This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 11-02-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Very well, John ! I agree ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Not meaning to go full circle but the area could have been reconed the day before so that the forces could have a good idea of the terrain. But then again, maybe not. Should this be part of the scenario editor? ie Retreating troops would have better knowledge of the terrain than advancing troops so maybe the >3 restriction should only apply to the attacking troops?Knowledge is a weapon as much as a rifle squad and could be used to balance a scenario. Although I can see how it would apply more to human players than to the cpu. [This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 11-02-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 I believe Ken Tally or Michael Emrys had post on that a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Tango Yankee, Thanks for the reports. Both are known bugs and are being/have been fixed. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts