Search found 39 matches

Excellent! Thank you! Whenever you have time to post the list is good for us. Much appreciated.

Sorry Stalky for not being more clear. I was agreeing with you that your suggestion was a legitimate solution. I was just saying that there were no perfect answers or one way to solve the problem as every conceiveable solution has drawbacks. I wasn't trying disprove what you're saying.

Our intent was to follow Schreckens coding style guide which is nearly identical to the solution you're outlining. We felt it was the lesser of all evils. We also agree we didn't always follow that style guide. Which was a mistake we're acknowledging. So we're agreeing with you Also it is very generous of you to recode the maps you have and we appreciate any and all help you're willing to give.

Also my apologies if I came across as glib. Wasn't my intention. I was being sincere in my reply and we're truly grateful to have such passionate, scrutinizing peers who love the same game we love.

I hope this clears up my earlier points. Again my apologies for not being more careful in my last post.

First off thank you for your offer to recode the maps.

Actually there is no right or wrong answer to this problem since with every solution any of us viewing this thread can possibly come up with there is a trade-off. I accept that your presentation is viewed as right in your mind because you are willing to accept the consequences of the trade-offs. Fair enough. We all have different standards. We too are concerned with the LOS issues you point out. That can be agreed upon. You make some good points that were considered early in the WaR development process hence the coding style guide Schrecken created for map coders. Which I'd mention his style guide is not that far off your proposed solution. As Schrecken said, yes some mistakes were made and that style guide was not always followed for whatever reason. And I'd add that no amount of testing would uncover every last bug in the game. Even seemingly obvious bugs. There'll always be some that slip by despite our best efforts. That's why patches are made. We'll definitely take your suggestions to heart and factor them into the decision making process as we go.

To address your solution directly:
First the problem with tiles meeting at corners allowing clear LOS between them is inherent to the game engine and has always been there. It's an issue with nearly every game system that utilizes a cell based system. Even hex based games have the same issues. Sure there are work arounds and we feel the style guide Schrecken made was an acceptable solution when it was followed. I'll react to your suggested workaround and why it's not ideal or pefect or even the only solution.

The problem with coding walls double tile elements thick is that they now do not match up with the BGM graphics. Since the BGM is the only decent feedback the player gets about the coding environment in my mind that's a negative trade-off with your solution. Sure a player can right-click an element to see why they can't see through what looks like an unimpeded area but not reasonable to expect in the heat of battle. Agreed, it's just as much problem as being able to see through buildings. Yes maps can be drawn larger but that leads to my next point.

Game scale. I'll admit it's less of a concern since it's aesthetic and not about game function but it does appear as a mistake when coding is done as you're suggesting. If walls are coded double element tiles wide they now 4m thick by game scale (5px/m if one is to draw an LOS line you'll recall the distance in meters is displayed next to it. If you do a test you'll see that is 5px/meter). So now instead of walls being closer to reality (8" thick is architectural standard nowdays back then it was likely wider. We can round up to 30.55cm) they are now out of scale with game engine scale. To accomodate the larger map scale to accomodate your thicker walls soldier animations would have to be redrawn so they are 18 element tiles tall, vehicles would have to be made to be the same scale (10px=13cm < that's centimeters not meters) and so on down the line. This would mean, if my math is correct, that a 4800px square map would represent an area 624m square. Far too small. Making larger maps would tax computer system resources on slower computers. Not to mention the game engine scale would have to be reprogrammed likely causing an entirely new set of problems that would take years to debug. Not a reasonable expectation within the scope of a rerelease project.

So as you can see there are trade-offs to every issue, ones we thoughtfully considered and no perfect, absolute answers.

If any of this needs further clarification I'll be glad to. Please ask.

Wow modded before the release. Cool! LMAO

Re: palms naming - yeah that was more a logistical issue than anything else. I really hate seeing patterns in maps and try to avoid them as much as humanly possible. So I tried to mix up the trees so identical looking trees are not directly next to each other. The only way to do this in 3C map editor is to have your tree elements named something you can remember. Since I had 5 big palm trees and 5 medium ones I wanted to name them something that I'd know what they were without visual reference.

So I suppose in the end you could say it's a lack of attention to detail by not having gone back and renamed them. I didn't think it was a big deal but now that you bring it up maybe I should have. Something to consider for future updates I guess. Thanks for raising the issue. All feedback is much appreciated.

Sorry for the slow response kweniston.

Thanks for pointing out the issue. We'll look into it.

@ronson - we must be posting at the exact same moment.

RE: 3in mortar min. range - Might be an interesting conecpt for CC. I would imagine the tubes elevation angle was a limitation since the front support legs would not be able to work at a near vertical angle. i.e. support leg and tube cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Physically impossible the way they were designed. Not that you'd want to fire a mortar anywhere close to your firing position. LOL Hmmm *thinks maniacal thoughts* I wonder how folks would react at that change for the mod. I'm sure some would be pissed and confused. Although 100m in CC isn't too bad a restriction in most cases.

Thanks for the great feedback and kudos Offog.

Re: 37mm - This is a problem with the weapons file which I did not do. Although I supported the concept for it the concept is not working in practice. The idea was that many of the weapons would be given shorter effective ranges to introduce a new style of play to CC that was more similar to real life tactics in the desert during WWII. Use armor and arty to buy time to allow the troops to get close enough to be effective. Along those same lines the weapons effectiveness was reduced to be more in scale with CC map sizes. Simulating loss of effectiveness over longer real life ranges. The result was that several of the weapons do not react at all and some only react at close quarters. This "bug" will be fixed in subsequent updates.

RE: 2 in mortar - some good points. I would imagine thost mortars were used in a variety of ways. As they say necessity is the mother of invention. However due to the fact that the 2 in mortars did in fact exist within some command teams making them available only in direct fire would work better for the CC engine and be more in line with how they were likely used. i.e. as you outlined.

RE: snipers - I've yet to read accounts about actual snipers used in the desert during this time period and for that matter at all. They simply did not play that large a role. Mortars however were a staple and used much more often than in any other theater. They were very effective in the desert due to the terrain and lack of cover and served the purpose they were made for. To provide direct and suppressive fire as well as smoke screens. At least the research I've done shows that. I'd be open to reading other accounts if you can find them. I'd need to see a copy tho in order to understand the nature of the account.

Re: air attack failure - RAF: lol no wasn't my intention. It's a bug that was overlooked. My apologies for missing this one. It'll be fixed in the next update.

Tell your wife she should learn to play CC and you guys will be able to spend countless hours beating the crap out of each other without ever laying a hand on each other. Then later you can lay hands on each other and the real life make up sex will be outstanding! Very Happy

I'm doleing out relationship advice like friggin' doctor Phil now. LOL Sorry couldn't resist the opportunity for a joke. Wasn't intended to be at your expense. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity. Smile

Thanks for the compliment Tacloban. Glad you're enjoying it.

And yes there are lots of changes that need to be made to the next update. Trucks being one. Funny enough tho the scale of those trucks is only off by three pixels. Hardly noticeable really. In reality they were just that big. Weird eh?

RE: GJS and Stalingrad - Not at all surprising.

Thanks for the info. Interesting.

It's something that will be addressed in subsequent versions.

Currently the reason for the black LOS circles is one or all of several factors. Weapon effectiveness, settings for "primary target" and "valid target" and supply settings. For now we'll have to grin and bear it until I have time to get to the first upgrade for the mod.

Glad you guys are liking the mod despite it's minor, temporary shortcomings.

These are going to be some kick-ass mods. Given the person in charge (BC) you know they will be.

BTW Buck you need to give yourself more credit mate. I did very little to help you. A few tips and a few waves here and there but you're the one who took the time to do the maps and make the mods. Hats off to you mate. I can't wait until you can experience the pleasure of handing the mods over for everyone to use. Truly rewarding.

Good to know. So in the grand scheme how does this compare to others? I would assume that's somewhat light?

I think Cob is in the process of putting the finishing touches on his version of this map. I've updated my master PSD but figured I'd let Cob post his since he went through the effort of doing it already. Mooxe if time is tight for you, you might want to wait for Cob to post his map. It's up to you.

Thanks Squadleader! That'll help a lot. I'll be sure to include it in the update.

BTW love the banner for your mod. Reminds me of a 70's era movie poster. Very cool. Did you do the illustration?

Hey Cob as I mentioned at RD I have a strat map that I created when QM and I were planning VL point values for the GC. It's based on a different point system than the one you use but it tells the same story. If you guys want to use it I could make it available to both forums.

Sorry 333 for taking so long to find this thread. Thanks for being patient.

As L4W said you'll have to make them up. I was in a hurry to get the mod out and only made the battles I did in order to test the single battle play. Sorry. Embarassed

The next version will have a full set of battles based on historical accounts. Not sure when I'll have time to get to it tho.

@ Ronson - Thanks for posting the pic. That is the exact one I was talking about. I have a few pics of this gun in action but I'm not allowed to publish them on this site without the AusWarMus permission. So to any folks not so sure, trust what we're saying. The gun was in action and pressed into service. Albiet not in huge numbers but nonetheless there. IIRC I didn't include huge numbers of these guns in the mod. Also they're rather under powered. You'd be better off either using them at close quarters in the city maps or taking a 2pdr or 6pdr instead if they're available.

BTW I just remembered. There was a pic of this gun being used portee in an Osprey Campaign book about Operation Compass. Here it is. See attachement.

Also for those who had questions about the size of the Chevy '32 truck the LRDG used this is a pretty good example of just how big it was. Pretty large as far as flatbed trucks go. However the graphic was three pixels too large and CSO_Linebacker (njnjr23) is fixing it for the subsequent release.

@ AT Scout - Thanks for the compliments and kudos. Yes playing as British is pretty easy against the AI. H2H play is a little better for the Italians. I'd suggest giving Salhexe's vetmod a try against the AI. The Italians should perform slightly better when controlled by the AI. IMH experience the AI is never difficult to beat even on the mods where the AI controlled side is given all the teeth a modder can give them. A simple Blitzkreig or Shock and Awe type strategy (ignoring your casualties) usually results in a VERY quick victory.[img][/img][img][/img]


	Login or Register	Home · Downloads · Forums · Combat Camera · Help