Angriff
Select messages from
# through # Forum FAQ
[/[Print]\]
Goto page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  :| |:
Close Combat Series -> CC5 Stalingrad

#21: Re: Angriff Author: Dima PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:20 pm
    —
Tejszd wrote (View Post):
Dima wrote (View Post):
GTC is the best CC so far. as far as I heard The Bloody First will not be a success...


So the added features in PiTF/GTC outweigh the lost features of LSA?
- ability to change individual teams?
- ability to attack from 2 VL's when you have 2 BG's on a map
- ability for a 2nd BG to lend units to the frontline BG
- ability to play H2H without going through a Matrix/Slitherine forum/server

yes, LSA sux.

#22: Re: Angriff Author: ManoiLocation: Brussels PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:31 pm
    —
[quote="Nomada_Firefox";p="79244"]
Stwa wrote (View Post):


For the record, the addition from buildings at CC made at first place at 3D is not new. I used some like this at my Star Wars mod years ago. Even I used a 3D map editor for the maps........


It was even already done in CC3 but for the Stalingrad mod and me , it's a new way of working....

And I'm very happy with the result so far, the maps are more "understandable"

#23: Re: Angriff Author: TejszdLocation: Canada PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:03 pm
    —
Dima wrote (View Post):
Tejszd wrote (View Post):
Dima wrote (View Post):
GTC is the best CC so far. as far as I heard The Bloody First will not be a success...


So the added features in PiTF/GTC outweigh the lost features of LSA?
- ability to change individual teams?
- ability to attack from 2 VL's when you have 2 BG's on a map
- ability for a 2nd BG to lend units to the frontline BG
- ability to play H2H without going through a Matrix/Slitherine forum/server

yes, LSA sux.


One thing you can say about you Dima, is that people know where you stand on things as there is no middle ground.

LSA is in a tough spot I will admit.

WAR/TLD are more compatible with CC5 mods thus are better targets for CC5 mod conversion
GtC does have some newer features that put it ahead of LSA; camouflage, mortar targeting, vehicles carrying troops, towing guns, and some do consider the ability to not change individual units a plus

But in addition to the features lost from LSA I don't know if I'm a fan of the larger scale maps (I thought I would be in favour 1 scale or less different scales) but I do no like how you see less of the map. Maybe I just need a higher res monitor??

#24: Re: Angriff Author: ManoiLocation: Brussels PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:14 pm
    —
Tejszd wrote (View Post):
. Maybe I just need a higher res monitor??


With which resolution are you playing?

#25: Re: Angriff Author: Dima PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:39 pm
    —
Tejszd wrote (View Post):

GtC does have some newer features that put it ahead of LSA; camouflage, mortar targeting, vehicles carrying troops, towing guns, and some do consider the ability to not change individual units a plus

not enough? :)

Quote:
But in addition to the features lost from LSA I don't know if I'm a fan of the larger scale maps (I thought I would be in favour 1 scale or less different scales) but I do no like how you see less of the map. Maybe I just need a higher res monitor??

1920x1080 here, but yes I like when ATGs can engage targets at 700m.

#26: Re: Angriff Author: Pzt_CrackwiseLocation: Switzerland PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:43 pm
    —
Sorry to say, but GtC has a very messed up multiplayer. Start an operation with a human opponent and come back and report here your crash ratio to the battles launched.  

We started testing my custom GC with xlegione today and had 2 crashes in 4 battles launched in total.  (No airstrike, no artillery, no truce etc.  were random crashes. You can see my post regarding that on Matrix forums)

I would say under these circumstances, TLD is probably the best among the new releases in terms of stability.

#27: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:58 pm
    —
I have 1360 x 768 LCD monitor. I got the first one in 2001, and it cost me through the wazoo.

It lasted about 8 years, and I replaced it with another 1360x768, even though the sales guys kept saying I should get higher res.

But 1360x768 would work with CC5 back then, and just the flat screen itself made CC5 look awesome.

#28: Re: Angriff Author: Nomada_Firefox PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:26 am
    —
Pzt_Crackwise wrote (View Post):
Sorry to say, but GtC has a very messed up multiplayer. Start an operation with a human opponent and come back and report here your crash ratio to the battles launched.  

I agree. Clearly Manoi, Dima and some people more are telling wonderful things about the game because they are interested at this and they are not telling the true. One true which if you take a small look around the world, you can see clearly.

Multiplayer---------------------> A piece of shit.

IA--------------------------------->Another piece of shit.

Big maps------------------------->I see a lot of people lately telling how they would like smaller maps and clearly the IA would be better in them.

People playing the game---->Very few.

#29: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 6:46 am
    —
Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):


Multiplayer---------------------> A piece of shit.

IA--------------------------------->Another piece of shit.

Big maps------------------------->I see a lot of people lately telling how they would like smaller maps and clearly the IA would be better in them.

People playing the game---->Very few.



Yes, of course.

The FEW, the PROUD, the GOOBERS!

Hey Firefox; I am sorry, but its over, its in the record book. You can lead the horses to water but you can't make them drink. The map size thingy was so obvious.  

Some of these guys are probably getting a nickel, every time Matrix sells another download! That is probably what is really going on.

But, if these guys wanna make a new mod, then go for it. Sounds great!

#30: Re: Angriff Author: ManoiLocation: Brussels PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 10:45 am
    —
This topic is about the Stalingrad mod, not on the best choice of CC version for a mod. If nobody will play it, too bad for us but we assume this choice.

And please Stwa and Nomada : don't presume or assert any things that you are not sure only for the pleasure of teasing some conflicts.

Thanks

#31: Re: Angriff Author: Nomada_Firefox PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:20 am
    —
Are you a moderator now? just I was answering answers from other people. You speak from GTC, how great it was and I have told you how wrong you are. Nothing more. You can mod all you want, at least you can be how nobody go to pay you as you tried at a first moment......

I can not speak about Stwa but I do not presume nothing. I have not told any lie. GTC has a bad IA, a bad multiplayer and the maps are too big.

If you do not like these trues, very well, but do not call us liers with "presume nothing" because it is not true and you do not help a shit ignoring the true. I know many people which they liked CC games but they do not play them more because the multiplayer is very bad.

#32: Re: Angriff Author: ManoiLocation: Brussels PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:54 am
    —
Nomada : I have never said GTC was great or show me where I have made this assertion! Personaly, I have choiced this version for some reasons : size of 8 pixels by meter makes it easier for me to draw the maps, last 2D version with few bugs (except the problem of the multiplayer) but I don't deny there are for the moment some big flaws.
I know that a patch is coming for the multiplayer (only thing here is to hope but I trust Cathartes) and I note that I have to do the maps smaller!- (although as modder I like to draw big maps! Wink
For the AI, I think it is not better or worse than the previous version (personal opinion) but I'm not a good player enough for this Smile
For Angriff, I draw the maps with the VLs already predifined (and mainly the exit VL) so there will be no more (or at least) less AI deployement in open areas, it's one of the little thiings that we can do to make the game more challenging.

I was opening this topic to receive feedbacks, suggestions on our work, not to begin a perennial discussion over the low quality of work from games producers... Wink

#33: Re: Angriff Author: ManoiLocation: Brussels PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:07 pm
    —
Nomada_Firefox wrote (View Post):
You can mod all you want, at least you can be how nobody go to pay you as you tried at a first moment......

I.


  Smile  every work deserves salary but I  have understood now that my best reward will be the satisfaction of the (eventual) players... Smile

#34: Re: Angriff Author: Drizzt PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:20 pm
    —
Manoi, I'm glad you have included in your work vision also the single player: I agree with you that GtC IA is not better or worse than previous versions, and I agree that the main problem about it are the maps too big: medium map size I think it's a good compromise between "strategy" (big maps = more strategy to use, particularly in multiplayer, I suppose) and a "decent" IA (small maps are the best). Keep up the good work.

Drizzt

#35: Re: Angriff Author: ManoiLocation: Brussels PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:52 pm
    —
now the question : which sizes of maps are considered as bigs or small (also regarding that the scale is different (8 pixels by meter instead of 5 pixels by meter)?

Maps in GTC have size with multiple of 192 pixels (24 meters). Do you think that the placement of VLs and the shape of the map may influence the AI behaviour? As sample ,is it possible that an elongated rectangular map with concentrated exit VLs at each end, will influence the AI to rush trough the map (I'm thinking here at the first map of the LSA campaign)?

I'm drawing my maps in this way :

the stratmap is an elongated (North - South) rectangle. Germans attack from the western side and their objectives is to take all the maps at the eastern border of the stratmap. So I have to make maps where germans are forced to rush to the east so I gather all the exit VLs on the right side of the maps. I was thinking to keep this shape (more or less) for every maps.



VL layout.jpg
 Description:
 Filesize:  33.52 KB
 Viewed:  251 Time(s)

VL layout.jpg



#36: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:59 pm
    —
Manoi wrote (View Post):
This topic is about the Stalingrad mod, not on the best choice of CC version for a mod. If nobody will play it, too bad for us but we assume this choice.

And please Stwa and Nomada : don't presume or assert any things that you are not sure only for the pleasure of teasing some conflicts.

Thanks


Yup, and I ASSERT you made an inquiry about monitor sizes. I answered that. Were you only speaking to TJ?

I also ASSERT, that you think all work (mods?) are entitled to salary. I disagree, but suggested a possible method of payment, PRESUMABLY by Matrix.

And, one of the THINGS that are messing THINGS up, are the map sizes. I PRESUME that Firefox and Drizzt concur.

Finally, I can only PRESUME that you will consider these remarks as the FEEDBACK you were seeking?

#37: Re: Angriff Author: ManoiLocation: Brussels PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:03 pm
    —
Stwa wrote (View Post):

I also ASSERT, that you think all work (mods?) are entitled to salary. I disagree, but suggested a possible method of payment, PRESUMABLY by Matrix.



I have tried it... not interesting!  Laughing

#38: Re: Angriff Author: Drizzt PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:34 pm
    —
About pixel/meter I should check Tga files (in this moment I can't), but, about size, I can say that maps like Belyy Koldez or Balakleia in Kharkov mod are the medium size I have in mind (I like also the shape). Probably they are more medium-small than medium-big, but I think they can work (don't see the Vls, just the size).

About Vls: in CC5 I would say bad idea, but in re-releases I think it can work (setting also campaign.txt and BGs.txt in a certain way). But to be honest, I see the following main problem: when russians will win some battles (total victory in the map) will go to the next having alredy conquered a great part of it only for the fact to enter on it. My suggestion is to set some Vls in the center (for the IA it's always a good thing). I think also that some of exit Vls must be in the border central part considering the "logical" design of every map in stratmap (many maps have some other maps at north, south, east, west so exits should not be all in the east point of a map): in few words my vision is more like a "railway" from west to east with the center well occupied, but I think that your idea it's excellent for the "invasion maps" (the starting german maps in GC). Of course, it's just my vision.

Drizzt

#39: Re: Angriff Author: Stwa PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:47 pm
    —
Then they are creeps!

OK, it has been awile for me. But here goes the map size thing again. I have spoke on this many times in the past. For WW2 ...

In deployment tiles (which I believe equate to 24m square) even in the pevious scale.

18x18 - 20x20 = large map
15x15 - 17x17 = medium map
12x12 - 14x14 = small map

For CCMT I initially used 25x25 = large map = 600 meters square. An original CCMT map being 4800x4800 pixels / 40 deployment tiles per side = 120 pixels square per deployment tile. An element being 40 pixels square?

600 meters square would be a goodly size for any infantry only conflict, and considered very large for any map containing plenty of obstructions found in a city like Stalingrad.

The main conflict is large maps could be needed to satisfy the needs of the campaign game, which could be in direct conflict with using the same map for a single battle, and of course, single battles are used many times for multiplayer.

The fact that you cannot have 2 sets of VL (one for campaign games) and (one for single battle and multi player) presents the most formidable challenge.

#40: Re: Angriff Author: ManoiLocation: Brussels PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 2:08 pm
    —
Maps size in Stalingrad should not be a problem as the amount of covers and obstacles is high enough to make a small map interesting. However I think I will go rather to medium maps.

Thanks Drizzt I was indeed speaking of the exit VL's. Important VLs will be placed in the center of the maps (central station, Pavlov house, Mamayev Kurgan etc...). My idea was mainly for the exit VLs and to shift them more to the right side of the maps to force the Germans to cross the maps to seize them. I'm afraid that on a square map the AI will scatter his units and with exit VLs in the central border, AI would take them and camp on it regardless these VLs are less important that the east one that leads to the Volga.  In terms of Stratmap and maps the Russians will be clearly advantaged (Russian campaign may be unfortunately more boring, but in every case I think that 2 separated grand campaigns are necessary), but it was also the case in the reality.



Close Combat Series -> CC5 Stalingrad


output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Goto page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  :| |:
Page 2 of 6