Improvement suggestions

[A Canadian Cat]

3 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

Would like having an additional feature for iron (or additional) mode. Locking the cam to friendlies in first person view, as well as an automatic zoom (6x) for units having a binoc with just one key press. Maybe adding a special view for AFV gunners would be equally nice.

That would be fun - I agree.

3 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

Would be nice if such a mode could be enforced by a scenario maker, maybe with the addition of a bonus to victory points.

Yuck and Yuck But that's just my opinion.

[Frenchy56]

Yeah, the point of difficulties is that you have a choice.

[Ultradave]

13 hours ago, IanL said:

That would be fun - I agree.

Yuck and Yuck But that's just my opinion.

There was a scenario (CMBN or one of it's variants, maybe it was back in CMBO days) where the scenario designer recommended only using first person view and tabbing between units. It was a paratroop unit scattered on landing and tasked with taking a small village. It was incredibly hard to keep oriented and accomplish the task. Fun for a change. Obviously there was no way to enforce it except your own willpower.

[RockinHarry]

35 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

There was a scenario (CMBN or one of it's variants, maybe it was back in CMBO days) where the scenario designer recommended only using first person view and tabbing between units. It was a paratroop unit scattered on landing and tasked with taking a small village. It was incredibly hard to keep oriented and accomplish the task. Fun for a change. Obviously there was no way to enforce it except your own willpower.

Didn´t mean to actually take away options from the player. Like in your example, certain missions only "work" by recommending and applying sort of house rules. But that´s from the POV of the scenario maker off course.

With regard to the ever present FOW issues in the game, I´d personally find this to be a better solution than allowing free cam all the time, particularly with regard to trenches ala CMSF1 or similar suspicious terrain alterations that wouldn´t be as easily seen by the player if the cam would be locked in sort of a first person shooter mode. I understand this wouldn´t be of everybody´s taste, but it would be mine and I´d like to have it as option.

Same for various realism decreasing features like tracers and small arms impact explosions. Off course it helps players for situational awareness better, but it changes the feel of the game considerably when tracer, some impact explosions and unit icon setup would be different than now. I´ve already modded tracers away (opaque alpha layers), but the impact explosions are one for all unfortunately. A further unit icon mode would be nice as well. Just show friendly unit icons in any case. In my current test plays I found it quite interesting to play without unit icons, tracers and bullet impact explosions, when it just comes to small arms battles. While the AI does its job (spotting, shooting) as always, as a player I find it raises tension and realism quite noticable as I have to watch out more for tiny muzzle flashes, dusty and smoke impacts and enemy movements generally. So while I can mod various things to my taste in the game (also counts for infantry stances like non suspicious cowering, first aid and mag/belt reloading), off course I´d rather have things like that configurable from the options screen (or via press).

Edited January 25, 2019 by RockinHarry

[Frenchy56]

About the tracers, I wish Battlefront made it so only machine guns fire them. When you think about it, there's quite a few things that detract from authenticity in these games.

Of course, the rest is top notch, it's only brought down by minor things that could have a very simple solution or things that require more thought and/or are difficult to implement with the current engine.

Edited January 26, 2019 by Frenchy56

[Zveroboy1]

Maybe you're talking about Franko's true combat rules :

 

 

[Heirloom_Tomato]

On 1/25/2019 at 7:42 AM, RockinHarry said:

A further unit icon mode would be nice as well. Just show friendly unit icons in any case. In my current test plays I found it quite interesting to play without unit icons, tracers and bullet impact explosions, when it just comes to small arms battles. While the AI does its job (spotting, shooting) as always, as a player I find it raises tension and realism quite noticable as I have to watch out more for tiny muzzle flashes, dusty and smoke impacts and enemy movements generally. So while I can mod various things to my taste in the game (also counts for infantry stances like non suspicious cowering, first aid and mag/belt reloading), off course I´d rather have things like that configurable from the options screen (or via press).

I will second the friendly icons only option request. It takes away so much information from you the player, yet changes nothing in how any units react in battle. In my opinion, icons off adds the much sought after command delays many seem to be after. With the option to have friendly icons only on, it will help the player not to lose his forces in deep woods or urban settings.

[RockinHarry]

On 1/26/2019 at 6:43 PM, Heirloom_Tomato said:

I will second the friendly icons only option request. It takes away so much information from you the player, yet changes nothing in how any units react in battle. In my opinion, icons off adds the much sought after command delays many seem to be after. With the option to have friendly icons only on, it will help the player not to lose his forces in deep woods or urban settings.

Yes and as we speak of configurable options, anybody can switch things on or off to their liking. Thus far I came to mod my "version" of CM to my personal desires in the following ways:

1. Buddy Aid/Medic stance animation changed to a simple prone (to avoid completely unnecessary medic casualties) CMMODs III

2. Cowering animation changed to something less suspicious (idle prone). (More/better FOW, as indication for enemy and friendly units suppression state should rather be expressed by their inability to move or shoot and not by showing a fetal curl). CMMODs III

3. Changing infantry animation for rifle mag or belt reload to either full prone or next lower footprint stance. (reducing infantry vulnerability situation, when it neither spots, nor shoots at the enemy). Unreleased mod.

Another unreleased animation mod changes idle non moving infantry to always kneel, with exception when having/using binocs (leaders in most cases). 

4. Removing tracers for above mentioned reasons. Would be nice if it could be refined to a different than all or nothing state (only certain units/weapon systems using tracer rounds). The file to be unrared to data/z works for all CMX2 games I think:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/90clyc4vn4r5qdz/no tracer.rar?dl=0

5. Just experimented with icons some and these files also using alpha layers lead to the following file set (icons invisible). Should work in CMFB and CMBN. US and germans only. Contacts and shared icons are not affected. From USA and german sub folders unrar the file you want invisible icons. IE if you´re playing US and like german opponent icons becoming invisible, unpack invisible.rar in german sub folder. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rwwrx17842offty/no icons.rar?dl=0

Maybe some of you like to experiment with the files, so it is less of theory to talk about. 

Edited January 28, 2019 by RockinHarry

[Heirloom_Tomato]

4 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

5. Just experimented with icons some and these files also using alpha layers lead to the following file set (icons invisible). Should work in CMFB and CMBN. US and germans only. Contacts and shared icons are not affected. From USA and german sub folders unrar the file you want invisible icons. IE if you´re playing US and like german opponent icons becoming invisible, unpack invisible.rar in german sub folder. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rwwrx17842offty/no icons.rar?dl=0

Maybe some of you like to experiment with the files, so it is less of theory to talk about. 

These are EXACTLY what I have been looking for! I have been waiting for exams to end before asking my oldest to use her photoshop skills to do this same idea. Do you by chance have them the other nations/ WW2 titles?

[Michael Emrys]

10 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

Cowering animation changed to something less suspicious (idle prone). (More/better FOW, as indication for enemy and friendly units suppression state should rather be expressed by their inability to move or shoot and not by showing a fetal curl)

+1. The "fetal curl" has always turned me off esthetically. And calling it something else, like "taking cover" would be an improvement too. Save the curl for units that are broken.

Michael

 

[Bulletpoint]

13 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

Thus far I came to mod my "version" of CM to my personal desires in the following ways:

1. Buddy Aid/Medic stance animation changed to a simple prone (to avoid completely unnecessary medic casualties) CMMODs III

2. Cowering animation changed to something less suspicious (idle prone). (More/better FOW, as indication for enemy and friendly units suppression state should rather be expressed by their inability to move or shoot and not by showing a fetal curl). CMMODs III

3. Changing infantry animation for rifle mag or belt reload to either full prone or next lower footprint stance. (reducing infantry vulnerability situation, when it neither spots, nor shoots at the enemy). Unreleased mod.

Another unreleased animation mod changes idle non moving infantry to always kneel, with exception when having/using binocs (leaders in most cases). 

Did you do any testing to find out if changing the animations actually has a gameplay effect? And what happens if you play against someone who has not modded his game? Do you gain an (unfair) advantage?

Not saying you did the mods to cheat or anything. Just wondering how this works.

[RockinHarry]

55 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Did you do any testing to find out if changing the animations actually has a gameplay effect? And what happens if you play against someone who has not modded his game? Do you gain an (unfair) advantage?

Not saying you did the mods to cheat or anything. Just wondering how this works.

In fact it was among the first questions I asked myself when I started tinkering with the ani files and unfortunately there wasn´t a concluding answer yet. Only "Buddy Aid" and "Cowering" animation change has been released (and these have the desired game play effect for sure) and I won´t release any more stuff unless these have been tested by PBEM/human vs. human players more. The mod is and always was intended for play vs. the AI only and the files affect both sides forces equally. Since I´ve very little interest in PBEM, I didn´t investigate in potential issues other than listening to other players feedbacks. Here´s the old thread where it all startet btw. 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120405-question-about-infantry-animation-files/

[RockinHarry]

3 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

+1. The "fetal curl" has always turned me off esthetically. And calling it something else, like "taking cover" would be an improvement too. Save the curl for units that are broken.

Michael

 

same here. Off course lots of the features I tend to mod away are great help for novice players, or those who prefer the given comfort. Thus I´d consider these things beeing more of a iron+ mode or when desiring more realism in certain parts of the game. 

[RockinHarry]

9 hours ago, Heirloom_Tomato said:

These are EXACTLY what I have been looking for! I have been waiting for exams to end before asking my oldest to use her photoshop skills to do this same idea. Do you by chance have them the other nations/ WW2 titles?

Doing this conversion for CW (CMBN) will be a matter of minutes. I´ll add these later this day. It´s sufficient to blacken the alpha layer just for a single file and then save over the remaining files while preserving original file names each time. I´ll have a look at CMSF2 demo, but I suspect file naming conventions remain "red" and "blue", meaning files should be widely compatible across most the CMX2 games. I´ll see.

Edit: Ok, CMSF2 has seperate icon sets for Brits, Canadian, Dutch, German, Syria, USA and shared, so this will be slightly more work. I guess it´s probably the same for CMFI, CMRT ect. having more individual icon sets.

Edited January 29, 2019 by RockinHarry

[RockinHarry]

Started a seperate topic in CMBN Maps & Mods section (Invisible floating unit icons)

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/134532-cmbn-invisible-floating-unit-icons-mod/

[A Canadian Cat]

6 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Did you do any testing to find out if changing the animations actually has a gameplay effect? And what happens if you play against someone who has not modded his game? Do you gain an (unfair) advantage?

Not saying you did the mods to cheat or anything. Just wondering how this works.

I think this was discussed in the linked thread... Summary: the way the game works is the models are used to determine hits therefore changes to the animation will have an effect. But there should be no unfair advantage in PBEM because one machine calculates the events of a turn and that machine's model and animation will be used for those calculations so both players will either get the benefit or neither will depending on who's machine has the mod and who's machine is calculating the turn.

[RockinHarry]

34 minutes ago, IanL said:

I think this was discussed in the linked thread... Summary: the way the game works is the models are used to determine hits therefore changes to the animation will have an effect. But there should be no unfair advantage in PBEM because one machine calculates the events of a turn and that machine's model and animation will be used for those calculations so both players will either get the benefit or neither will depending on who's machine has the mod and who's machine is calculating the turn.

That´s quite interesting! Thanks Ian! So it seems we´re on the safe side then with regard to potential misuse.  Still confuses me thinking about what someone actually sees when an opponent is using the buddy aid mod in example. The mod user sees his "medic" in prone position and in circumstances he will be safe from enemy spotting and fire (behind a low wall i.e). Will his opponent (no mod) still see this medic in standard/kneel position and beeing able to spot and shoot at him normally? I think I want to test and resolve it now. Anybody using the medic mod, please PM me for a small PBEM game (small map, Plt sized forces at max). CMBN (all modules) or CMFB. I´ll be the one not using the mod.

It´s also still to be found here:

http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=713

[A Canadian Cat]

Only one machine will calculate the actions so that machine will determine if the medic is spotted or hit. The other player will see the kneeling animation. If the medic is spotted.

[RockinHarry]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

Only one machine will calculate the actions so that machine will determine if the medic is spotted or hit. The other player will see the kneeling animation. If the medic is spotted.

Hm... I suspect it would be the starting player sending the first PBEM file deciding on the calculating machine then? Would make sense.

I just figured out I can actually PBEM myself through pushing files from outgoing to ingoing.  Not sure If I can do a reasonable test by swapping the mod in and out at certain steps. I´ll investigate, but still would prefer some real PBEM test on two different machines. So clearing the question on potential misuse should be very close now.

[Heirloom_Tomato]

3 minutes ago, RockinHarry said:

Hm... I suspect it would be the starting player sending the first PBEM file deciding on the calculating machine then? Would make sense.

I just figured out I can actually PBEM myself through pushing files from outgoing to ingoing.  Not sure If I can do a reasonable test by swapping the mod in and out at certain steps. I´ll investigate, but still would prefer some real PBEM test on two different machines. So clearing the question on potential misuse should be very close now.

Pm sent.

[RockinHarry]

23 minutes ago, Heirloom_Tomato said:

Pm sent.

..and back. Thanks!

[JoMac]

1 hour ago, RockinHarry said:

..and back. Thanks!

 

2 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

Hm... I suspect it would be the starting player sending the first PBEM file deciding on the calculating machine then? Would make sense.

I just figured out I can actually PBEM myself through pushing files from outgoing to ingoing.  Not sure If I can do a reasonable test by swapping the mod in and out at certain steps. I´ll investigate, but still would prefer some real PBEM test on two different machines. So clearing the question on potential misuse should be very close now.

Interesting enough, me & Heirloom (along with couple other of my PBEM opponents) are using your Full Mod (not just Medic, or Cowering), but all the others you gave me awhile ago), RockinHarry...It would be interesting to see the results between you and Heirloom.

[RockinHarry]

48 minutes ago, JoMc67 said:

 

Interesting enough, me & Heirloom (along with couple other of my PBEM opponents) are using your Full Mod (not just Medic, or Cowering), but all the others you gave me awhile ago), RockinHarry...It would be interesting to see the results between you and Heirloom.

Thanks, it´s quite some time ago since I shared the files for some dedicated testing. So I assume the animation mod (full package) didn´t raise any major problems or something indicating unwanted advantage (or disadvantage) for any the PBEM opponents involved? In the meantime I´ve limited myself to only using parts of the package as a number of animations do not play well together, particularly those that are (re-)used by the game in different situations for different animation sequences. With buddy aid as an example, you have always an intermediate animation step, with the wannabe medic first going to kneel and then down to prone (again). This is even when the medic is already prone before. But you can´t change the going to kneel transition, as it´s beeing used elsewhere too. There´s also bits of "unrest" with the "idle stand to kneel" sequence as there is lots of popping up and down when the pixeltroopers start shooting at somebody. But this is for the lack of a slowmo transition animation between "idle kneel" to "stand shooting" and vice versa. Normally the pixeltrooper starts the shooting from it´s current idle stance, though not always. Anyway... all that info and experiences better go to the original thread here I think. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120405-question-about-infantry-animation-files/

Once I got started with Heirloom, I´ll post any results and further findings there.

[JoMac]

Well, there are a couple things, which you are already aware and noted:

First: 1-2 Crew members inside Opened-Topped SP will have one or two crew members in prone position (instead of sitting), but I don't think it effects spotting. Second; I'm not sure, but I noticed some troops go from prone to kneel about every 10 seconds or so (but not sure if that was the case before the Mod, but I still like it)...In any case, overall I like the popping up-down stances in many animations (firing, re-loading, etc), because for me it represents the more fluent body motions that RL troops would take in any given moment (when firing or ducking in-out in a quick self-preservation moment when shot at, etc), which in turn can slightly reduce casualties. 

Other then that, I don't really notice any gameplay issues...

Thou, I wonder about the stock 'Cower' to your Mod 'Cower'. Your Mod will have troops Cower in the exact location he is facing, and that is Ok if being facing the enemy front (less exposure along with FOW), but if the enemy is on his flank, then more of the body will be exposed, this compared to the stock 'Cower' that gives a 360 degree 'Curling up in a Ball effect (about same protection all around...which I believe is what CM has intended). I'm also wondering how CM models the 'Cower' animation...Does it have the same cover properties as 'Prone' (and we don't know), or does 'Cower' have its own cover properties (I guess, IanL, would know').

Anyways, it doesn't matter to me, because I really like the Mod 'Cower' over the Stock 'Cower, especially for the FOW effect.

I was going to Playtest each and every Mod at one point last year and give you some results, but I was just happy enough to throw it into Z Folder and be done with it.

Edited January 30, 2019 by JoMc67

[RockinHarry]

7 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

Well, there are a couple things, which you are already aware and noted:

First: 1-2 Crew members inside Opened-Topped SP will have one or two crew members in prone position (instead of sitting), but I don't think it effects spotting. Second; I'm not sure, but I noticed some troops go from prone to kneel about every 10 seconds or so (but not sure if that was the case before the Mod, but I still like it)...In any case, overall I like the popping up-down stances in many animations (firing, re-loading, etc), because for me it represents the more fluent body motions that RL troops would take in any given moment (when firing or ducking in-out in a quick self-preservation moment when shot at, etc), which in turn can slightly reduce casualties.

Yes, the OT SPG (Marder, M10 ect.) issue was serious enough for me to not use that anymore. IIRC it was the "idle, one stance lower" thingie. My theory yet remains that stance animations matter for spotting purposes greatly as I believe the games spotting routines use the exact eye/head position for beaming the line of sight rays across the map. The trade off though was intended (showing less of a targetable footprint at the expense of a somewhat decreased spotting abilities).

Yes, if taking the popping up and down behavior this way, then it appears more realistic despite the increased unrest in the animation sequences. As said the main purpose for all parts of the mod was to "enforce" more of a self preservance behavior for all the pixeltroopers. One the main tactical doctrines for german small unit actions was: "If you do not move (attack), spot for the enemy, nor shoot....go or remain in full cover". Surely wasn´t any different for US, Brits ect. Going always to full prone when reloading was one measure. Also not everybody in a squad was to constantly watch for the enemy, when not directly in combat. Usually the (german) squad leader did the main spotting job with his binocs, or gave it to another squad member for exactly this job. So when an infantry unit is not moving (idle) and not about to enter combat immediately, there´s no need for everybody in the squad to kneel or stand upright (idle, doing nothing animation) just for spotting purposes. "Hide" mode doesn´t do the purpose as it limits the whole squads spotting abilities. The mod allows the guy with binocs to fully stand upright when he wants to, while the remaining squad members either us prone or kneel at max. This reduces the squads overall targetable footprint, while making the squad leader somewhat more vulnerable. Shooting animations are not affected. A pixeltrooper can always go fully upright for shooting if he needs to, but dives down back to kneel (or prone) if not. This is independent from suppression effetcs.

Other then that, I don't really notice any gameplay issues...

Great  I neither did see any thus far.

Thou, I wonder about the stock 'Cower' to your Mod 'Cower'. Your Mod will have troops Cower in the exact location he is facing, and that is Ok if being facing the enemy front (less exposure along with FOW), but if the enemy is on his flank, then more of the body will be exposed, this compared to the stock 'Cower' that gives a 360 degree 'Curling up in a Ball effect (about same protection all around...which I believe is what CM has intended). I'm also wondering how CM models the 'Cower' animation...Does it have the same cover properties as 'Prone' (and we don't know), or does 'Cower' have its own cover properties (I guess, IanL, would know').

Interesting observation. Yes that´s likely what the fetal curl is meant for. But one can take it also this way: A fully supressed pixeltrooper won´t likely know (exactly) where all that lead is coming from so the main instinct would remain just at pressing flat onto the ground (or run away and get killed even quicker. Where´s the V4 patch btw ?  ). I do even raise this overall impression for myself by using the latest "no tracers" and "no enemy floating icons" mods. The player with all the convenient game clues obviously has the better battlefield awareness, but when taken away, one feels more immersed to the single pixeltroopers view of his surroundings.

Concerning cover properties for cower or the substitute animation I believe just the targetable footpring (probable "hitbox" tied to the 3D object) does matter and nothing else. Yet I as well hope for IanL or anybody from the BFC staff to provide some clearing answers. 

Anyways, it doesn't matter to me, because I really like the Mod 'Cower' over the Stock 'Cower, especially for the FOW effect.

Yep, I disliked the fetal curl since I saw it first time in the game. One the game clues for those who want it, but my personal preference is better/more FOW as well. In the meantime I´ve even went that far, removing the "goaway casualty" marker (the red coss popping up, when a pixeltrooper is disabled) for same purpose.

I was going to Playtest each and every Mod at one point last year and give you some results, but I was just happy enough to throw it into Z Folder and be done with it.

I´m glad you and others like it enough for frequent use.  Though it all started just to "improve" my personal game, I also very much like any related discussions. Maybe some the concepts make it even into the next game engine version, who knows...