Jump to content

Battle Packs, Vehicle Packs?


Recommended Posts

I think the game itself is already very good.  The main challenge now is streamlining the UI requirements to make it faster and easier to accomplish tasks - speeding up the actual play of the game so that larger scenarios are easier to play.  eg:  It's wonderful that there will be a "Follow" convoy system - that will definitely speed up play when one has many vehicles that have to get from A to B.  Happy about that addition.

Another major time-waster that needs to be addressed is the current ACQUIRE process for resupply from a vehicle.  An ability to SHARE/ACQUIRE ammo from adjacent units would be a great time-saver.  Currently the efficient method to resupply multiple units is very click intensive and unnecessarily play-time wasting: One has to split every unit into teams, then mount, then acquire and dismount, and finally recombine.   (There should probably be a time penalty for SHARE/ACQUIRE while units do nothing else - similar to what happens when a unit mounts a vehicle, but longer).  At the same time, the amount of small-arms ammo that a person can carry should also be examined.  It doesn't seem right that a two man team can go QUICK or FAST while carrying thousands of rounds plus support weapons.

Finally, a single key to get instant 180 degree arcs for armor (like we had in CM1).  When one has a number of tanks moving in one direction, and they need to cover for danger from a flank, one wants to have the turrets face the threat direction.  The current system of getting 180 degree arcs in a desired direction takes too many clicks and wastes time.

Along with the FOLLOW command, the additional 2 features will greatly speed up the play of larger scenarios and make the game more playable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, Erwin said:

Finally, a single key to get instant 180 degree arcs for armor (like we had in CM1).  When one has a number of tanks moving in one direction, and they need to cover for danger from a flank, one wants to have the turrets face the threat direction.  The current system of getting 180 degree arcs in a desired direction takes too many clicks and wastes time.

Or just give us a "turret facing" command. 99 pct. of times I use target arcs for armour is when I want them to turn the turret in some direction, not to prevent them from firing at targets outside an arc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upgrade 4.0 will require Upgrade 3.0, unlike Upgrade 3.0 not necessarily requiring Upgrade 2.0.  The latter was due to a limitation of our licensing software at the time.  That's all been straightened out since.

Upgrade 4.0 is required for all new content being released, Modules and Packs, but not retroactively required for content that was previously released.  Yes, new content is making use of the new AI features and so far the scenario designers and players are equating it to the leap forward of AI Triggers fond in Upgrade 3.0.

We will continue to refine the UI as we go and there a couple of UI improvements that I have not listed.  However, we decided to put the emphasis on Upgrade 4.0 on gameplay.  The new AI scripting improvements are definitely a part of that, but there's a couple of major things which I've not mentioned yet.  Some involve new TacAI behaviors that people have been wanting to see since CMSF or, in one case, CMBO.

I envision that Upgrade 5.0 will be focused on UI improvements.

Steve

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 7:19 PM, Battlefront.com said:

 However, we decided to put the emphasis on Upgrade 4.0 on gameplay.  The new AI scripting improvements are definitely a part of that, but there's a couple of major things which I've not mentioned yet.  Some involve new TacAI behaviors that people have been wanting to see since CMSF or, in one case, CMBO.

Steve

 

 

Intrigued to know what those TacAI enhancements are; all sorts of possibilities spring to mind!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/17/2016 at 6:05 AM, Battlefront.com said:

Here are some things are a bit better than hints :)  As you can see from this partial list of features, there's a little bit of everything in Upgrade 4.0 as there was in the previous Upgrades:

*  New vehicle follow capability.  Yes, yes, I can hear the CMBO customers saying “FINALLY!” since they were the first to ask for it’s inclusion nearly 20 years ago.  While this is not an all encompassing “Follow Command” as we wanted (sorry, we tried… it proved unwieldy) it does allow vehicles to follow each other in a column with appropriate “traffic control” behavior.  The UI is very simple. You select Vehicle 1, plot a path, select Vehicle 2, hover the mouse over Vehicle 1 (similar to embarking infantry) then click to associate Vehicle 2 to Vehicle 1's movement.  Vehicle 2 will now follow Vehicle 1 as best it can.

* Consolidate (Squad) Command.  This allows a Squad to internally reorganize from two or three Teams into one or two Teams, depending on conditions.  No more will Squads be forced to live with depleted Teams which could better function if consolidated.  Personnel is reassigned by the game (not player controlled), however it is voluntary and therefore Squads don't spontaneously Consolidate all on their own.

*  New tracer and muzzle special effects.  The old system was designed in a different era of graphics card capabilities. We’ve long been requested to bring things up to more current standards.

*  Ability to place Flavor Objects in the 3D environment more directly.  The clunky UI that exists currently made many map makers opt out of using many, if any, Flavor Objects.  The new feature works by letting the map maker "clone" a placed Flavor Object while in 3D mode, then place that cloned object anywhere.  This is especially helpful when placing lots of the same things, like telephone poles, gravestones, etc.  That in turn means more atmospheric environments for people to play in with a lot less time and energy.

* AI Orders now includes an option to “Withdraw”, which means it moves backwards and ends its move by facing the direction it came instead of the direction it traveled. This might not seem like a big deal, but it is :D

* AI Facing can now be specified.  Similar to “Withdraw”, this allows the scenario designer to be sure what direction AI Groups pay attention to instead of leaving it up to the TacAI to decide on a case by case basis.  This improves awareness, responsiveness, and defensive capabilities.

* AI can now be ordered to perform Area Fire in its AI Plan.  This allows the AI to place fire on particular spots on the assumption that the enemy might be there.  Woodlines, reverse ridges, buildings, etc.  This is a compromise between the current system (absolutely no AI area fire) and everybody's fantasy system (the AI is smart enough to know when and where to apply Area Fire all on its own).  Preliminary results indicate that this will be a rather nasty surprise for single player types :)

Steve

Would love to see a form of "follow" command available to infantry too (5.0?). Dangerous if misused if course, but handy for route marching / advance to contact. Perhaps it simply discontinues once an infantry unit becomes Alerted (receives incoming). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really an issue of 4.0 or CMFB, but how about a little tool to transfer maps between the CMx2 titles? It already works for simple scenarios, as I have proven, but the bigger the map/scenario, the more likely it will not work. I would do it on my own, but it's a bit tedious, since the internal structure of a map/scenario file is not really obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Scipio said:

Not really an issue of 4.0 or CMFB, but how about a little tool to transfer maps between the CMx2 titles?

Oh I totally understand the desire. I am sure you are not alone.

4 hours ago, Scipio said:

It already works for simple scenarios, as I have proven, but the bigger the map/scenario, the more likely it will not work. 

And that is the rub. There are enough differences between the available terrain and objects etc. That there would be a fair amount of work. And then such a feature needs to be tested and maintained. I think the calculus is that BFC would like to spend their time on other things.

It would be nice though I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Erwin said:

Ian - I have responded to your PM's but am not sure if you received ok.  (And I will be away from computer till end of the week.)

Oh that's messed up.  I do not see your responses since I asked my last question. Dang it I'm not sure what is causing that.  Can you send me email (once you are back) ian dot leslie at lesliesoftware dot com.  Please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/09/2016 at 11:02 PM, Battlefront.com said:

Each Engine Upgrade has something in it for everybody.  What's fun for us is to see which features people really go nuts over.  Sometimes it's the little things, like being able to turn off the music :)

Steve

I'm one of those nutcases :) Easily fixed of course; created fake music intro.wav, music splash.wav and music end of battle.wav files (renamed zero byte text files), dropped them in the z (or Mods) folder and no more distracting music. Still, I hope the currently missing/broken music splash.wav is fixed in CMFB 1.02 for those who want it :)

 

On 16/09/2016 at 11:05 PM, Battlefront.com said:

*  New tracer and muzzle special effects.

Sounds good!! Looking forward to how the new FX lighting looks during a night skirmish! Now I'm really going Nuts! (re: Lt. Gen. Harry W.O. Kinnard's BotB message) :)

Take care and all the best to you sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, IanL said:

Oh I totally understand the desire. I am sure you are not alone.

And that is the rub. There are enough differences between the available terrain and objects etc. That there would be a fair amount of work. And then such a feature needs to be tested and maintained. I think the calculus is that BFC would like to spend their time on other things.

It would be nice though I agree.

I don't think that the problem are the differences.  Sometimes it isn't possible to transfer a fresh, empty map. As far as I can say are the scenario files encrypted or more likely compressed except a header with some basic scenario infos. Some of the special buildings like churches have different hardcoding for the floors, but a tree is a tree, a small building is a small building and so on. I think 95% or more of the map infos could be simply reassigned. Would be helpful if a scenario/map could be decrypted and/or unpacked to find and solve the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is for sure desirable to allow you guys to move maps (i.e. the terrain based part of a scenario) back and forth between the various games.  In theory this is possible, with certain caveats (Flavor Objects are often unique to a specific game, for example), but Charles just confirmed it's impractical because each game exists on its own.  Therefore, the data for each is unique, even if a large amount of it overlaps.

Yes, the next CMFI Module will require upgrading to Engine 4.0 as the battles and campaigns are made/tested with that version.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a couple of features with still unknown needs (i.e. testers are asking for tweaks), but we should be able to finalize it internally fairly soon.  Then it's a matter of making sure everything installs correctly.  This process is taking a bit longer now because there's five CM Families getting Upgraded this time vs. Upgrade 3.0's two families, and Upgrade 2.0's one (CMBN).

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27.9.2016 at 6:01 PM, Battlefront.com said:

It is for sure desirable to allow you guys to move maps (i.e. the terrain based part of a scenario) back and forth between the various games.  In theory this is possible, with certain caveats (Flavor Objects are often unique to a specific game, for example), but Charles just confirmed it's impractical because each game exists on its own.  Therefore, the data for each is unique, even if a large amount of it overlaps.

...

Steve

I would really like to proof that it can be done anyway. Unfortunately I'm at a point where I can't continue without help. But well, it's your game. :)

Edited by Scipio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...