Search found 56 matches

Bumping. I added a download link to the program in original post

Because I suck at photoshop and want a method to create a lot quality looking maps I created a program that will [try to] generate them automatically.
The method is simple, hence the 'lazy' part of the name.

find a good looking map.

create a mask image in paint or photoshop.

create a new mask of whatever you like.

after running the program, it spits out a new map image.

Bigger image here

I consider the experiment a failure because once you consider map-items, debris, terrain shading ect, the quality will not be up to par of a painted map.
Back to the drawing board.

I'll put up a download link later for anyone who wants to experiment with the program.

Update: Here Is the link to the test program. There is an INI file that can be used to change the settings. remember that this is just a proof of concept program, not a feature rich application.

my question still stands.
Where in the last few years have they(Matrix) said there was gonna be a cc6?

I haven't played cc online for about 6 years.. Here are a few reasons..

1) lazy..
2) don't want to download another lobby client.. (see #1)
3) Too many versions of CC. There is like 10 versions now? LSA is hot right now and I'm not interested at all, I don't imagine there are many people waiting in the original CC4 lobby.
4) Burned out by all the bad experiences. Not with other players, but with disconnects, warping units. mismatched patch versions, mismatched units between opponent and me. (I see a Tiger, he sees a pzII )
5) I play CCSS Razz

The combat is brutal and fast paced. I can control way more than 15 full sized squads, I don't know ahead of time how many teams the enemy has, and the AI is smart.
6) I don't win very often..

If I knew there were people online during the day or night ready to play, I might jump back into it...

I agree with 90% of what you said. I don't have LSA, but I have the others and its the same.
Some of that rant can be corrected with the data files but there really is no excuse for not addressing the others. If not fixing them at least giving an overview/Comment of why it can't be corrected with the old game engine.
There are 2 other things I would point out..
1) They psych model is one of the bullet point features of close combat. If everything is fair 'n square then for all the times that you rejoice In breaking the enemies moral then there are times it's gonna happen to you too. Part of the game is that you never have 100% control over your teams..

2) There has been a huge rant lately over at the Matrix forums about how the AI wont attack or generally behave properly. IMO it basically boils down to the fact that the maps are too big and the number of teams are too small. You cannot properly attack with 10 to 15 half-teams and you cant properly defend either. For example, if the AI is set to attack you, They have to put enough teams into the fight to make dent in your line, at the same time, keep some in reserve so that your counter attack isn't a cake walk. Its just not possible, and atrocious AI performance is the result of trying to balance it (among other things).

Tactical pathfinding in an rts is not rocket science, but it is very expensive computationally. The size of CC maps are at and beyond the upper limit of sane performance.
I don't know why the S3t devs can't improve the pathfinding. I don't doubt they have the skills to do it. Rather I imagine the way the game was designed/written creates an intractable situation.

In CCSS I have no problem pathfinding 800+ soldiers in realtime. Vehicle pathfinding is a non issue as well. A tank can travel back and forth across a map of any complexity all day long. [See my blog for an example].
I have the blessing/curse of starting from scratch, something the s3t guys don't (appear to) have. They're dealing with a codebase that was written back when 133mz processor was state of the art and most computers only had 32 megs of ram.

The only way CC will enter the 21st century is with a project like CCSS or similar effort. (I never did like the design of 'Open Combat' )

In regards to MS or other major publisher: When has a bigtime publisher like activision or thq ever recently released a great tactical combat game?
They're more likely to turn it into something like 'First to fight' The guys at Matrix are the ones that try to publish wargames with a bit of purity.

S3t/ Matrix should create a patch to all the new versions of CC that implements and external programming interface (dll, or scripting) giving the users the option of using a secondary pathfinder. In that case I would consider porting some of my code to it.

Who honestly expected the AI to be any better??

All the re-releases so far have basically just been a mod of a previous version. If there were any significant improvements that could be made to the gameplay, it would have already happened.
I don't have LSA, but If i do get it, i'm going in eyes wide open that its more or less cc5 with the cc2 mod.
Kudos to Matrix for still generating revenue from an old (and seemingly intractable) pile of sourcecode.

I've implemented a feature into CCSS that allows the chance of buildings to be partially or completely destroyed by heavy weapons. Any soldiers inside at the time get an unpleasant and fatal surprise.
This could theoretically have a major impact on the way fights play out.
What do you guys think?
Any feedback is appreciated.

Yes, Things a progressing nicely. I've been buried under work for a while so the rate of new features has slowed a bit.
I hope to have an update soon.

The shameful history of the CC vehicle path finding should be thing of the past.
In just 2 days worth of work, CCSS gets a rock-solid vehicle pathing system that doesn't make you want to smash your keyboard.

Link to post and video

any feedback is appreciated

The small maps are always the most fun, when both sides are forced to bring their troops through choke point is when the action gets good.
Map size is the biggest reason IMO that RTB was crap.

with only 15 teams and no reserves to bring up, you can't really blame the A.I. for being conservative.
After the loss of a few teams the A.I. is at risk of losing the territory it already holds.
What's needed most of all is reserve teams if the A.I. tactics are going to improve.

I believe 'type 2' means uncompressed.

Perhaps the new one needs to be 'type 2' uncompressed


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