Jump to content

Engine upgrade 4.0


Reiter

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Ok. So no one knows what the 4 will be. So let's be silly then. I prefer napalm or nuclear weapons. Seriously I want fire to work in this game . Also soldiers moonwalking issue should be corrected. Also, soldiers moving animation should be corrected. Maybe we have God game version 10.0.  Sometimes I think that I am just beta tester. So much things what need to be corrected . Still , best game in this genre,. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Needs a command for M1A2 commander to use stadia rectangle for range finding instead of LRF to not spook enemy tanks.

Upside is that no laser = no alarm

Downside - alive commander is needed and takes a much longer time as well as results in slightly lowered precision

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Reiter said:

Ok. So no one knows what the 4 will be. So let's be silly then. I prefer napalm or nuclear weapons. Seriously I want fire to work in this game . Also soldiers moonwalking issue should be corrected. Also, soldiers moving animation should be corrected. Maybe we have God game version 10.0.  Sometimes I think that I am just beta tester. So much things what need to be corrected . Still , best game in this genre,. 

Moonwalking, or as I called it "the cow pie slide" is from what I was told not a CM specific issue. It is more a synchronization of what occurs in the game with the graphical representation. I have seen the same effect in other games as well.  And yes we are all beta testers :D. That is essentially true of anyone who plays any computer game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this on the wiki article about Battlefront:

"On July 1, 2010, battlefront hired Phillip Culliton as a "First Second Programmer" after operating for 13 years with a single coder. "

ONE coder and now TWO?  I'm going to cut Battlefront a ton of slack, and I'm now more impressed with the work they have done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hattori said:

ONE coder and now TWO?  I'm going to cut Battlefront a ton of slack, and I'm now more impressed with the work they have done.

Welcome to the party. For those of us who have been around a while, this has been a known fact since forever. And yes, I cut them a ton of slack on that account. Bugs can certainly be aggravating, but sometimes—quite often in fact—patience is the only way to get through them.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Reiter said:

Hi all, 

I am just curious, what will the upgrade include?  Have tried to find information about it, but did not find anything or I am blind.  Any release schedule ? 

-Reiter

See the post below.  It was buried in the CMFB forum.  All kinds of cool stuff.  @Michael Emrys and @Euri just thought you two might be interested if you had not already seen the below post.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the ratio of the number of programmers to the game quality is the best in the industry, IMO. (There are some very talented artists, as well.) I don't keep count of these things, but I'd be amazed if BFC has more than a dozen folks on payroll (either employees or contracted). 

It's amazing (from the Beta side of things) how rapidly issues get corrected, once identified and verified. (The fix may not get released right away due to the desire to have fewer but better patches to keep the number of game versions down.) I cannot imagine the daily work schedule going on behind the scenes.

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, things that I would like to see in 4.0 are:

- be able to synchronise waypoints (i.e a unit does not execute order to next WP until and unless certain other designated units have completed order to certain designated WP)

- be able to set crouch stance for spotters / jav teams and snipers (they tend to go prone in high folliage or weat fields negating themselves LOS)

- option to activate "blue on blue" casulaties for small arms as well

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another very easy feature to introduce (for Iron mode) is the following: any squad or vehicle that is out of command and control of its platoon leader should be unable to initiate area fire anywhere (maybe except to last know contacts of this unit)

A more hard feature to intoduce (for Iron mode): any squad or vehicle that is out of command and control of its platoon leader should be out of control of the human player. Only TACAI decisions. There can be one possible excpetiont to this (probablyevent more hard to implement) : Movement orders will be valid if only towards the last known direction of the company Platoon HQ

Link to post
Share on other sites

That last one could easily result in AI clumping. . . Not convinced it would be useful . 

But the underlying concept, where the C3 system expresses human control/direction of AI units,  is not bad. It could be very useful in RT games, and would mean destruction of a battalion HQ could have a (time constrained) delay effect on units responding to you orders. Currently ,  HQs are really only necessary for morale and, in a pinch,  Fire Support calls. 

It's drifting into Command style interface, though. And an appropriately built order ladder will take care of unit maneuvering, regardless of C3 status . 

I do like the idea of losing a HQ directly affecting if/when cut-off units receive orders. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am writting this from PBEM experience. The player has god like control over all troops (as if they are schyzophrenic and he is talking in their heads) irrespective of whether they are in CC or not. And if one can bring fire indiscriminately on suspected positions, spotting efficiency becomes less relevant than it should be)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/2/2016 at 9:57 PM, c3k said:

Yes, the ratio of the number of programmers to the game quality is the best in the industry, IMO. (There are some very talented artists, as well.) I don't keep count of these things, but I'd be amazed if BFC has more than a dozen folks on payroll (either employees or contracted). 

It's amazing (from the Beta side of things) how rapidly issues get corrected, once identified and verified. (The fix may not get released right away due to the desire to have fewer but better patches to keep the number of game versions down.) I cannot imagine the daily work schedule going on behind the scenes.

Ken

: D

Link to post
Share on other sites
On November 12, 2016 at 0:38 PM, Euri said:

The player has god like control over all troops (as if they are schyzophrenic and he is talking in their heads) irrespective of whether they are in CC or not. And if one can bring fire indiscriminately on suspected positions, spotting efficiency becomes less relevant than it should be)

This is also responsible in part for the time compression that has been observed and commented on in CM. Operations which in real life might take hours to get organized and underway happen almost instantly in CM. And I don't refer to pre-planning that takes place before the battle gets underway, but responses, both offensive and defensive, to enemy actions happen with breath taking alacrity. This is especially evident in the WW II titles.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/11/2016 at 0:37 AM, Reiter said:

 Seriously I want fire to work in this game .

I think @Battlefront.com have made it very clear that ain't gonna happen. Do a search for Battlefront as the user, and either 'light fire' or 'tinder'.

Most recently:

 

On 10/11/2016 at 1:57 PM, Battlefront.com said:

........

Since the days before CMBO was released we've used the ASL "tinder" factor as an example of how "corner case" features can ruin a game.  In ASL you can light fires pretty much whenever and wherever you want.  Because there's no rules to reflect the reasons why soldiers don't go around torching everything the feature allowed gamers to do something without suffering consequences.  It allowed players to do something that was disproportional to the real world's battlefields.  The result was something supposedly designed to make the game more realistic which instead made it less realistic.

......

Steve

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, kinophile said:

It would be nice though to at least enlarge the fires . . . . Those piddly little candle flames on burning IFVs are very... unimpressive . . . . 

Yeah, I may have misinterpreted @Reiter's request. Not sure if he is referring to better/more spectacular/realistic vehicle fires (which are often improved by modders), or if he is requesting the (I believe in original CM series?) implementation of grass/building fires?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...