The good folks over at Battlefront have released their 2.0 patch for CMBN. $10 Gets you all the CMFI stuff for your Normandy game. Who's going to rush right over and buy?
me
Me
I did and the install went fine this time.
me
bought and downloading as we speak.
Well - I bought it...as I always do
But these games are a bit of an enigma for me.
On the one hand, I love the graphics, gameplay, brutality
On the other, they kind of leave me cold - and I can only think it's because of the time limits. They always seem to make you keep a pace that perhaps you wouldn't. Take risks where perhaps you wouldn't. They seem to make you move at a faster rate than you'd want to - then put you through choke points and all hell breaks loose.
I nearly always end up running out of time - or making a ridiculous last 20 minute dash for my final onjective...and all because I'm going slow and methodical - the way I want to play - but the timer wants a different kind of game!
So - yeah, I bought it...but whether I fire it up is another thing. I do wish they'd get rid of the time limits. I wouldn't even care that they enemy had superior numbers - just so I could scout and attack at a decent pace.
Or I'm just crap.
Me.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 11, 2012, 04:54:14 PM
Well - I bought it...as I always do
But these games are a bit of an enigma for me.
On the one hand, I love the graphics, gameplay, brutality
On the other, they kind of leave me cold - and I can only think it's because of the time limits. They always seem to make you keep a pace that perhaps you wouldn't. Take risks where perhaps you wouldn't. They seem to make you move at a faster rate than you'd want to - then put you through choke points and all hell breaks loose.
I nearly always end up running out of time - or making a ridiculous last 20 minute dash for my final onjective...and all because I'm going slow and methodical - the way I want to play - but the timer wants a different kind of game!
So - yeah, I bought it...but whether I fire it up is another thing. I do wish they'd get rid of the time limits. I wouldn't even care that they enemy had superior numbers - just so I could scout and attack at a decent pace.
Or I'm just crap.
you know its a 1 minute job to extend the times in the editor?
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 11, 2012, 04:54:14 PM
Well - I bought it...as I always do
But these games are a bit of an enigma for me.
On the one hand, I love the graphics, gameplay, brutality
On the other, they kind of leave me cold - and I can only think it's because of the time limits. They always seem to make you keep a pace that perhaps you wouldn't. Take risks where perhaps you wouldn't. They seem to make you move at a faster rate than you'd want to - then put you through choke points and all hell breaks loose.
I nearly always end up running out of time - or making a ridiculous last 20 minute dash for my final onjective...and all because I'm going slow and methodical - the way I want to play - but the timer wants a different kind of game!
So - yeah, I bought it...but whether I fire it up is another thing. I do wish they'd get rid of the time limits. I wouldn't even care that they enemy had superior numbers - just so I could scout and attack at a decent pace.
Or I'm just crap.
Yes - I agree with that. Whilst I can see in some real life situations there would have been pressure of time mostly the guys doing the fighting would have taken as long as it needed to keep themselves alive. Personally I always open up the scenario and edit it to increase the time to the maximum. Unfortunate you cant do that with the campaign scenarios but I find 4+ hours long enough for most of the situations represented. Why battlefront cant just add a "no time limit" setting is a mystery to me
Oh oh!! Ten dollar patch time! :P
Quote from: Zulu1966 on December 11, 2012, 04:58:11 PM
Why battlefront cant just add a "no time limit" setting is a mystery to me
its the scenario editors choice and many an arguement has been added with the designers about it! The conclusion generally is the more time you give yourself to beat the AI the more chance there is that you will and therefore its unfair, similarly the more time you give an attacker over a defender the more unfair it is.
Me personally? the 3 i have designed ive put 4 hours on
Quote from: undercovergeek on December 11, 2012, 05:08:31 PM
Quote from: Zulu1966 on December 11, 2012, 04:58:11 PM
Why battlefront cant just add a "no time limit" setting is a mystery to me
its the scenario editors choice and many an arguement has been added with the designers about it! The conclusion generally is the more time you give yourself to beat the AI the more chance there is that you will and therefore its unfair, similarly the more time you give an attacker over a defender the more unfair it is.
Me personally? the 3 i have designed ive put 4 hours on
Yes I have read the arguments... but I dont see why it cant be an
option then people can use it if they want ... the scenario design doesnt have to change. For me CMBN is not really about winning - its more about the experience of the game ... which is what I think the point being made earlier was.
Well I've never gone into the editor...but as Zulu said - a limitless scenario could be an option. If I run about the internet bitching about how easy the AI is because I beat it in a 12 hour scenario - then I think alot of people would understand there isn't really a problem.
Besides - like I said, there could be more defenders to balance it...give me an extra hour or two and throw in another company or two or armoured support or artillery. I don't really care how they balance it - but imo forcing the player to meet a deadline is pants...some people like it - I don't. If I did, I'd probably play alot more RTS games. I don't like pressure in real life and I definitely don't like it in my gaming.
I didn't know you could edit the scenarios and I will do that - thanks. Pity about the campaigns though.
you need a hand let me know
No thanks.
Well in the real War the sides couldn't take their leisurely time either.
The time constraits give a sense of urgency apart from keeping the balance as discussed before.
Still, I find that you mostly have more than enough time to be patient with your maneuvering. But just camping somewhere or playing the turtle doesn't work in CM games, just like it wouldn't have worked in real life.
If you look at the excellent Armchair General hosted videos here (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/combat-mission-video-tutorial-5-conducting-a-defense.htm) you can see how well the game actually works using real life tactics.
This, at the same time, is also the thing that makes CM a hard game. You really need to know what you're doing and most Command and Conquer RTS game tactical won't work. :)
It has been a hurdle to take for quite some time for me as well, so I can identify with your sentiments. But I am making progress.
It just is a different type of game.
With all due respect Yskonyn - it is a game. I'm not really that bothered if it really mimics real life or not...I just want to play a game and I don't want to be forced to play it "their way".
I've never liked time limits in games...ANY genre of game.
I'm not asking for it to be dumbed down for all the die hards that want time constraints and for it to reflect the pressures commanders were under back in the day - I just want the option to NOT have the time constraint forced onto me - I want to play it my way - not their way.
Nuff said...you enjoy it your way and I guess in the end I'll do what I normally do - play at a pace I'm comfortable with, realise I've got less time than required to take the objectives and fail...only to try again then quit and look at the icon longlingly for months on end.
And thanks for the link. I have seen those videos - they are excellent but I lost the link sometime past.
Do you play RT or Turn based? You can save a lot of time doing RT. I never played CMBN but CMSF seems time have more time. And you can actually win by inflicting casualties instead the enemy will hand over the objectives to you when the game ends via surrender.
I always play real time.
I used to love WEGO in the original games but CMx2 changed all that and it's totally suited imo to real time.
What Yskonyn said has alot of truth in it - I don't play the games well...but I as Zulu said - it's not really about winning either...I just don't like time constraints.
I didn't mean it in a disrespectful way, but I am sure many of us are playing CM 'the wrong way'. In light of this discussion.
CM is just a hard core game which punishes you brutally when you fail to command properly.
I loose more battles than I win and the ones I do win are mostly not in a pretty way.
The point I am trying to make though, is that CM is not a game for the casual RTS crowd but a game for people enjoying realism to its fullest.
It's no shame that it might not be for everyone, but if you're getting fed up with it time and again then perhaps you should just accept this might not be in your alley.
Again with all due respect.
Having that said, or written more like, I see no problem with at least giving to option for unlimited time to those who might want it. Good point.
I didn't think you meant it disrespectfully
Maybe in it's current format it isn't the game for me...but everything about the game (how it plays, how it looks, the scale) is right up my alley and suggests to me the game IS for me - I just do not want to be forced to play it a way in which I don't feel comfortable playing it. As you say - and option wouldn't hurt anyone - everyone would be a winner.
I haven't ever bought Witp:AE because it's a theatre I'm unfamiliar with and therefore not really one I like to game in, it's way too in depth, the scale is too big, it's a micro managers dream and the UI is not pleasant. Totally polar opposite to Combat Mission - there's a slight niggle with CMx2 - and unfortunately that niggle stops me playing it as often as I'd like.
I guess if I'm throwing good money after bad (by buying their next iteration/patch/mod) and then not playing because the same thing is there - then I'm not really sending them the message I want them to get. So I only have myself to blame...
But I love the games and just about everything about the games - I hate the time element.
Upping the time limit to 4 hours in the scenario editor might alleviate your problem.
As noted above, it won't work with the Campaign, but in regular scenarios it does. And who knows, perhaps you'll find it becomes much more enjoyable because you can take your time, as a result become a better player and as a secondary result don't mind the time limit as much anymore afterwards! :P ;D
That does seem the way to go - I hadn't known about editing the scenarios before undercovergeek had mentioned it.
I'm not sure upping the time limit in scenarios is going to teach me to play well...as I'd likely go in the campaign wanting to play the way I did in the edited scenarios - but still at least I'd get some play time.
Yes, but what I meant was that perhaps by not feeling the time constraint in the regular scenarios you are more at ease, resulting in more focus on your gameplay, making you a better player over time in turn.
;D
Highly theoretical of course, but hey, you already paid for the game, no? :)
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 11, 2012, 05:30:08 PM
Well I've never gone into the editor...but as Zulu said - a limitless scenario could be an option. If I run about the internet bitching about how easy the AI is because I beat it in a 12 hour scenario - then I think alot of people would understand there isn't really a problem.
Besides - like I said, there could be more defenders to balance it...give me an extra hour or two and throw in another company or two or armoured support or artillery. I don't really care how they balance it - but imo forcing the player to meet a deadline is pants...some people like it - I don't. If I did, I'd probably play alot more RTS games. I don't like pressure in real life and I definitely don't like it in my gaming.
I didn't know you could edit the scenarios and I will do that - thanks. Pity about the campaigns though.
You can take the campaigns apart and edit them too.
Lately I've just been taking quick battle maps and doing small battles on those. Ie using the map with its objectives and what not and then editting in whatever I want.
The thing I would like to see is being that you score vic. points for inflicting losses on the enemy and avoiding your own losses in many scenarios, a running tally of losses as the scenario progresses so you know where you stand. Maybe beyond the game's capability and totally unrealistic at least for your enemy but even a message that you've incurred more than the 10% limit or whatever would be a help. It's impossible for me to try to count up my losses as I play and I could know if it's worth it to try to "Medic" my wounded or not. On a related note, the OTHER site(Wargamer) has an AAR video of the CMFI American campaign that's pretty interesting. If only the narrator would shut-up about the war and talk about the game some. 8)
Quote from: Zulu1966 on December 11, 2012, 04:58:11 PM
Whilst I can see in some real life situations there would have been pressure of time mostly the guys doing the fighting would have taken as long as it needed to keep themselves alive. Personally I always open up the scenario and edit it to increase the time to the maximum. Unfortunate you cant do that with the campaign scenarios but I find 4+ hours long enough for most of the situations represented. Why battlefront cant just add a "no time limit" setting is a mystery to me
It's an interesting idea. I can think of some battles when I could have done with that option. Have you suggested it to Battlefront? I reckon it would be a good feature.
One of the features I'd like to see is a shorter turn. Maybe a 30 second option in addition to the 60 second turn.
Quote from: Bison on December 12, 2012, 07:54:25 PM
One of the features I'd like to see is a shorter turn. Maybe a 30 second option in addition to the 60 second turn.
I'd like that too. One of the downsides of the 60s turn is that when moving troops under artillery fire tend to run to their destination point rather than hit the deck. This is more annoying if they then run into an artillery barrage going on in front of them rather than avoid it. I can't see people doing that in reality. I wouldn't.
With a 30s turn you have more chance to stop. That said if you go realtime it's not a problem. I like realtime, but I find it harder to keep tabs on stuff in a bigger scenario.
I'll play real time once in awhile, but I prefer turned based moves. Mostly because it gives you a chance to review the action, plan moves, and enjoy the battle from multiple angles.
Quote from: Bison on December 12, 2012, 08:10:02 PM
I'll play real time once in awhile, but I prefer turned based moves. Mostly because it gives you a chance to review the action, plan moves, and enjoy the battle from multiple angles.
I'm take exactly the same view. I think your 30s move option is a good idea though. In some ways the "briefly target" feature in update 2 addresses part of the problem, but I still prefer your idea.
Have you tried playing real-time using pause? I find it, to be the best of both (turn/RT), just pause anytime you need to look things over and adjust your orders. It felt like I was too late to react in turned based mode.
Quote from: SgtRock on December 12, 2012, 11:32:31 PM
Have you tried playing real-time using pause? I find it, to be the best of both (turn/RT), just pause anytime you need to look things over and adjust your orders. It felt like I was too late to react in turned based mode.
That is my view. Alot of people wanted turn based put back in as per the old game and they got it - and rightly so - if they preferred it that way, then the game was essentially lost to them.
But I took to the real time mode very quickly and prefer it that way.
So revisiting this - and an old problem I've always seen and not understood...so here (sorry for the pics - I had the LOS showing but that was dropped in the process)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FMisc%2FSnap1-6.jpg&hash=280efc355a35d66831eec9dcc5d4400cae583268)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FMisc%2FSnap2-1.jpg&hash=887e122f0ffc1ad8fcdd9743a931ad3af93f7135)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FMisc%2FSnap4-1.jpg&hash=a13fec3ad028f758977b555335fc82f2f490bab5)
Can I ask why my tank has no LOS to any of these targets? I have went down to ground level and zoomed to "see" what your unit sees (as described in the Armchair General How To videos), and apparently my unit can't see what I see.
From "my" perspective, there's no reason why my unit cannot see any of these structures - and yet the game decides it can't.
Any ideas?
Is it nighttime? Is the weather foggy?
These do not really show well on the map visually but they do affect range of LOS.
Day and just wet. (I think it was day - I'll have to check when I get home but I'm sure it's about 3 or 4 in the afternoon
And sorry about the pics...not everything I was seeing in game showed on the screen dump (like LoS) and where it stopped.
I did look at the tank to the tower - and checked top down and LoS seemed to stop half way across the field - but there was no rise in that field...at no time did the line "break" to show LoS was blocked by any other terrain...it just seemed to lose LoS half way to the target
It could be a distance thing...bit bizarre I'd have though though - it my be 700m away (which I think was the distance) but I thought a tank would be able to engage a visible target at that distance.
IIRC and i always seem to run into the same issue - you have to be able to see the base of the building, or at least some part of the base based on the action point in the square - obviously if there was a target on top of the tower youd be ok
ah - so in order to target a building, you need to be able to see the base - but if a target is in the top of the building I could target the target.
That's kind of weird - and ever so slightly not accurately modelled. I guess it's no big deal now I know - why waste ammo on a building? I was just doing what one of the Armchair General videos suggested - it was some time ago I watched the one I'm speaking of but iirc it was suppression of possible infantry locations. I thought that nice big building was a nice place to put a spotter or sniper and so I wanted to "suppress" anything in there.
The same with the other two buildings. I thought they may be places containing enemy ambush troops...oh well.
Back to the discussion of "reality" and commanders abilities/restraints back in the day - this doesn't help enforce that argument really. :P
Still love the games.
I've posted at Battlefront and I'll let you know if there's an official answer - and thanks to you both
It seems you may be right UGC. Someone posted something very similar at BF forums (wasn't you was it :-P )
I would like to see that changed - but I expect as it must have been in all iterations of the CMx2 engine then if it's not "fixed" by now then it's likely too difficult a job and therefore not likely to be addressed.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 13, 2012, 06:36:58 AM
It seems you may be right UGC. Someone posted something very similar at BF forums (wasn't you was it :-P )
I would like to see that changed - but I expect as it must have been in all iterations of the CMx2 engine then if it's not "fixed" by now then it's likely too difficult a job and therefore not likely to be addressed.
lol, no not me, but im glad to see i was right - wouldnt want to give duff info - it has caused some big arguements as you can imagine, a tank in a street cant blow the last building because it cant see the base or all of it until the enemy reveal themselves and thats usually with a bazooka!! still, enforces the RL tactic of leading with infantry supported by tanks, but yes its a pain in the arse
Quite a heated thread over there about the cost of the upgrade.
Whilst Steve is right in my opinion and has a point - he doesn't half put it across in a rather derogatory manner...though I haven't read the posts about the price so perhaps it's the straw that broke the camels back.
But it's that kind of thread and the "fanboy" attitude over there that reminded me I don't really like hanging out over there or posting (though I should mention that the people who replied to my post were more than helpful). Reminds me a wee bit of the Derek Smart days (only slightly though - his sight was on a whole other level!)
Aaaaaanyway - thanks UCK and Yskonyn for your help...it seems to be a feature of the game.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 13, 2012, 05:40:14 AM
ah - so in order to target a building, you need to be able to see the base - but if a target is in the top of the building I could target the target.
That has been my experience. Doesn't work out well for indirect fire into higher stories.
I noticed a bit of the bug with the shadows in your first screenshot, on the backside of the tank turret and hull. It's not as easy to see from that angle/distance but it's there:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FMisc%2FSnap1-6.jpg&hash=280efc355a35d66831eec9dcc5d4400cae583268)
See how the banded shadow lines are displayed across it? I've had that issue since CMSF. Those lines will also move, as a whole, too even just sitting there. Have you not noticed that weirdness before? I often end up turning shadows off because of the "shadow grill" effect that gets displayed over tank textures. I wonder if they fixed that in CMI? It's most pronounced when you have multiple vehicles near each other, with a bunch of the shadow bands moving across their surface, then stopping, rinse/repeat.
I had noticed it - as you from CMSF - but I put it down to video card/drivers/game - I'm not sure I ever messed about trying to get rid of it by tinkering as it's pretty much the only game I have that kind of graphical issue with.
It was VERY pronounced when I went to zoom to look at the buildings in the distance - looked very ugly.
Someone at BF noticed there were no trees and asked if I had turned trees off. I doubt I did - but it's possible. I'll check when I get home. I will be embarrassed if I did!
I've noticed that when a tank is "Buttoned-up" the LOS is very limited often and when CMFI first came-out, they seemed almost blind. Also the AFV crews often won't open-up again and continue to drive around not able to see much. This was less so in CMBN but seems to be more so now the new patch is out. Any time you need for your tank crews to really see what's around them, open them up. And if ordered to "Hunt", they will often stop at the first enemy spotted even if it's an abonded bunker or vehicle. Still a fantastic game though.
I know that about buttoned and unbuttoned. Another minor irritation for me...same with the hunt - I seldom use it. Doesn't HUNT stop everything - even though it isn't your unit that sees the enemy but some other unit - or does that only happen for units in the same "group"?
However, I'm pretty sure I tried buttoned and other wise.
Someone at Battlefront reckoned I do have trees switched off and he could see the stumps...I can't see any stumps and I'm pretty sure I'd have noticed stumps when I tried the scenario this morning...butI didn't post yet as I really want to see if I have been a daft bugger and switched trees off!
I think he was seeing fences and gates, not tree stumps
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 13, 2012, 10:31:09 AM
I had noticed it - as you from CMSF - but I put it down to video card/drivers/game - I'm not sure I ever messed about trying to get rid of it by tinkering as it's pretty much the only game I have that kind of graphical issue with.
It was VERY pronounced when I went to zoom to look at the buildings in the distance - looked very ugly.
Someone at BF noticed there were no trees and asked if I had turned trees off. I doubt I did - but it's possible. I'll check when I get home. I will be embarrassed if I did!
I've had it happen even with no trees around. The very first campaign mission in CMSF being a good example of where I had them on many vehicles, and no trees around at all on that desert map.
I, too, figured it was due to my video card drivers not playing well with the CMx2 engine but it's been the same on both my older Nvidia card and my newer AMD one. Kinda sucks because the shadows kinda bring things to life ( a little too much! :P ) and the scene doesn't look as good without the properly working ones. :-[
Oh dear - I feel incredibly dumb right now!
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FMisc%2FSnap6.jpg&hash=36baad915bf56d6e72d64dddcfdd3393bec4a723)
LOL :) Well I suppose it happens to everyone.
It still doesn't make the LOS issue any more obvious, I suppose.
The shadows have been wacky for me as well. Since CMSF onwards. It doesn't bother me anymore though. I just live with it.
Turning shadows off isn't an option for me personally, because I find I loose too much sense of depth.
<<snigger>>
easily done mate
On the plus side, I've discovered I have places to conceal my troop movements! :-)
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 13, 2012, 02:33:24 PM
On the plus side, I've discovered I have places to conceal my troop movements! :-)
This sounds like code for some kind of deviant threat! :P
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 13, 2012, 02:33:24 PM
On the plus side, I've discovered I have places to conceal my troop movements! :-)
LOL!
Yeah and then imagine the mysterious cover and concealment your troops magically had while moving through seemingly empty land...
Like a warm magical blanket
Quote from: JudgeDredd on December 13, 2012, 10:31:09 AM
I had noticed it - as you from CMSF - but I put it down to video card/drivers/game - I'm not sure I ever messed about trying to get rid of it by tinkering as it's pretty much the only game I have that kind of graphical issue with.
It was VERY pronounced when I went to zoom to look at the buildings in the distance - looked very ugly.
Someone at BF noticed there were no trees and asked if I had turned trees off. I doubt I did - but it's possible. I'll check when I get home. I will be embarrassed if I did!
Judge - BF released some alternative shaders for CMFI. One thing they did was eliminate the jagged shadows issue. they also work in CMBN now its upgraded to 2.0 - just one of the many things the upgrade bought. I had the issue in CMBN with 2.0 but after applying the new shaders it disappered completely - and performance improves also. All you have to do is drop the two files in your Z folder.
Thanks Zulu - I'll give that a try...the shading has always been a bit of an enigma - wanting the shading on but hating it being on!