Close Combat Series :: View topic

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat The Longest Day

#1: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 7:18 pm
—
For the few who might be interested...

GJS is getting a small overhaul and is now working in tLD. With a little more spit, polish, and tinkering I may have a beta for uploading/testing soon. It plays MUCH better than in CCV.

Why not for LSA? Well, LSA has a lot of new features which would essentially require a whole new GJS --the mod was not designed for so many battle/turns, static BGs, stacking of BGs, etc. --would require major renovation. Starting with something doable.

#2: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 7:36 pm
—
Awesome news Cathartes!

Meuse is in a similar spot and would benefit from LSA features but the amount of work of moving to it is more than I can put in now....

One benefit of TLD and or WAR is that mods can now be made to work on both because of the last round of updates....

Can you PM your estimated date? Might have to release Meuse first as GJS is seen as one of the best mods....

#3: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Priapus,

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 9:04 pm
—
I still play TLD, although it seems fewer and fewer people do. Hopefully these mods being ported over will stimulate some interest. Thanks for your efforts!

#4: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:14 pm
—

Quote:

Can you PM your estimated date? Might have to release Meuse first as GJS is seen as one of the best mods....

LOL...

Cat your putting Tejszd under pressure!!

#5: Re: GJS for tLD Author: mooxe,

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:38 pm
—
Whats going to be different in the TLD GJS in terms of vehicle and troop data?

I would say the gameplay will be a complete turn around. Mainly because of the disband penalties and supply rules all in effect (and most people will not play with morale on btw). To know if this turn around is good would require the GC to be tested and changed if it needs to be. Lets not rush to any GJS is better because its on TLD conclusions without looking into it.

#6: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 10:53 pm
—
yeh... I've always loved the end of Battle crashes on CCV/GJS... it would spoil it if you could play properly and supply rules worked correctly and The paras landed at night and you could play in a window and they will never make anything as good as my Ford Pinto.

#7: Re: GJS for tLD Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:07 pm
—

Cathartes wrote (View Post):

For the few who might be interested...

GJS is getting a small overhaul and is now working in tLD. With a little more spit, polish, and tinkering I may have a beta for uploading/testing soon. It plays MUCH better than in CCV.

Why not for LSA? Well, LSA has a lot of new features which would essentially require a whole new GJS --the mod was not designed for so many battle/turns, static BGs, stacking of BGs, etc. --would require major renovation. Starting with something doable.

Great news! ... really looking forward to it.

Thanks Cathartes Smile

Last edited by davidssfx on Sat Oct 09, 2010 12:33 am; edited 2 times in total

#8: My body is ready Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:25 pm
—
Oh wow this got me pretty excited as GJS is my favorite mod, what CC5 should have been IMO. Got some stuff I would like to share/ask:

For one, I hope that reinforcements are working properly now, with TLD it is now not necessary to have the FP full since the beginning and for it to be awkwardly reinforced by random units depending on the day like in CC5 when you used that malfunctioning button, the Germans could then be set as weak with few troops for the first day or two and then receiving reinforcements through out the campaign.

-More room for new BGs too and teams Wink

-Locked slots for BGs representing smaller units maybe? kinda like LSA. I actually liked the way the beach BGs from CC5 were just a minor formation allowing for them to be overwhelmed rather easy and letting the campaign to progress inland instead of being stagnated on the first few rows of maps, I guess you guys needed all the BG slots so that's why we had full BGs defending the beaches in GJS, but now I think you could spare at least 3 german BGs to be weak so the allies don't get bogged down for too long?

-On the same vein of reinforcements, I don't know much specific details about the battle but the same, if some BG's were fighting already then received x quantity of some weapon/vehicle/team later on it can be accurately represented with out said BG be at full force since day 1, so you could have weak BG's that get stronger later on.

-Will you be upgrading any other stuff like sounds, tank graphics, unit compositions etc?

Looking forward the final stage of the mod.

#9: Re: GJS for tLD Author: mooxe,

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:44 pm
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

yeh... I've always loved the end of Battle crashes on CCV/GJS... it would spoil it if you could play properly and supply rules worked correctly and The paras landed at night and you could play in a window and they will never make anything as good as my Ford Pinto.

Thats absolutely not the point I was making. With the implementation of the supply and disband rules, it could greatly effect the balance of the GC.

#10: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:51 pm
—
I thought I would make it for you

#11: Re: GJS for tLD Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 12:18 am
—
Great news...with GJS getting ported...I'm hoping it won't take long for Dima (and team) to port TRSM...best of both worlds! Very Happy

#12: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Priapus,

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 12:58 am
—

squadleader_id wrote (View Post):

Great news...with GJS getting ported...I'm hoping it won't take long for Dima (and team) to port TRSM...best of both worlds! Very Happy

Yup, would love to see that!

#13: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Amgot,

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 12:45 pm
—
Great news!

#14: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:13 pm
—
Tejszd- can't estimate a date right now. I'm amazed I'm up and running, and as you know there's a lot of subtlety to sort out. My feeling is that there's been solid improvements to the series, and porting this mod over has really highlighted this to me. I'm still deciding where I draw the line in terms of "leaving as is" or modifying slightly to embrace/blend with the new features. Crux of problem is that the grand campaign was thoroughly tested and tinkered with for h2h balance, and the more I modify, the more I potentially destabilize it. Hence, may release as 'beta' and let everyone have at it.

#15: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:43 pm
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

Whats going to be different in the TLD GJS in terms of vehicle and troop data?

I would say the gameplay will be a complete turn around. Mainly because of the disband penalties and supply rules all in effect (and most people will not play with morale on btw). To know if this turn around is good would require the GC to be tested and changed if it needs to be. Lets not rush to any GJS is better because its on TLD conclusions without looking into it.

Vehicle and troop data-- I'm inclined to leave as is if it continues to make sense with tLD exe. Minor inaccuracies will get fixed.

Can you clarify what you mean by disband penalties and supply rules? Supply is actually working here so far, never did 100% of time in old GJS.

No one has to rush to make their own conclusions, and it remains to be seen how the GC will turn out in the end, but for single battles-- no question GJS on tLD is a SIGNIFICANT improvement.

#16: Re: My body is ready Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:00 pm
—

Pzt_Kanov wrote (View Post):

Oh wow this got me pretty excited as GJS is my favorite mod, what CC5 should have been IMO. Got some stuff I would like to share/ask:

... the Germans could then be set as weak with few troops for the first day or two and then receiving reinforcements through out the campaign.

-More room for new BGs too and teams Wink

-Locked slots for BGs representing smaller units maybe? ...I think you could spare at least 3 german BGs to be weak so the allies don't get bogged down for too long?

-On the same vein of reinforcements, ... said BG be at full force since day 1, so you could have weak BG's that get stronger later on.

-Will you be upgrading any other stuff like sounds, tank graphics, unit compositions etc?

So many options. Haven't decided on any of this yet. I'm not even sure how many turns/per day to have. Yep, could be a whole new game. But what to do? If I had the time and money, would develop a whole new set of 64 maps, new BGs, etc. Life is short.

Might brush up a couple tank graphics, definitely new plane graphics and shadows. Sounds and some voice cues will be upgraded.

#17: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:39 pm
—
Assuming that the GC stays the same, how many turns per day do people want?

Keep it at 2 turns per day with a night round on the first day only?

Or...more? GC was designed with two turns per day.

#18: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:03 pm
—
Yeh that sounds good... throw in the night turn for the para drop then go with what you know works.

#19: Re: GJS for tLD Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:34 pm
—
I vote for more night turns...not just the para drop opening turn.
IIRC there were night actions/battles around Caen.
Some predetermined limited night battles in the campaign should be fun...

#20: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:00 pm
—

squadleader_id wrote (View Post):

I vote for more night turns...not just the para drop opening turn.
IIRC there were night actions/battles around Caen.
Some predetermined limited night battles in the campaign should be fun...

Can you assign night turns to specific days? I thought it was all days have night turns or neither has.

#21: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:31 pm
—
Yes you can

From campaaign txt

# Night turn? 0 or 1 (for yes or no), one entry per day
1,1,1,1

#22: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:32 pm
—

Quote:

I vote for more night turns...not just the para drop opening turn.
IIRC there were night actions/battles around Caen.
Some predetermined limited night battles in the campaign should be fun...

if you can guarantee that the BG's will be in the right place at the right time.

#23: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:12 pm
—
Hey schrecken, you think that a "night" flag would be too difficult to implement? kinda like winter flag, except if true, night teams perform as if it was day or something like that or rather make night fighting fright soldiers more and night teams may be exempted of that penalty.

Night has no use if you can't take advantage of it.

PS. winter affecting vehicles will be enabled again? different skins for different weather?

#24: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:37 pm
—
As it is now you can move your teams around with less chance of discovery and when seen weapon accuracy is reduced.

#25: Re: GJS for tLD Author: buuface, Location: Thailand

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:52 am
—
Wow...so happy to hear this is up and running Very Happy

I also think it would be cool to implement night battles if possible and somewhat historically accurate.

With regards to the troop and vehicle data. This is a winning formula already and no need to change it unless you must (except to correct any previous inaccuracies as you mentioned).

Although one thing i feel about the original GJS is that vehicles such as halftracks are extremely vulnerable to mortar fire. Does anyone else agree?

Good luck Cathartes and thank you i think from the whole CC5 community!

#26: Re: GJS for tLD Author: buuface, Location: Thailand

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:57 am
—
TLD can also allow the British para troops to start at random locations on the Merville battery and Pegasus bridge maps during the first night turn, right?

Is this something you will make use of?

#27: Re: GJS for tLD Author: southern_land,

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 5:05 am
—
More maps, more maps, more masp, mor empas!

#28: Re: GJS for tLD Author: stiener, Location: Gibsons B.C. canada

Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 7:46 am
—
GJS for TLD Very Happy

when its ready ..will it load like GT with its own executable and shortcut???

#29: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:38 am
—
At the moment there is two ways to Load mods.

1. Using Berndt's Brilliant Installer which installs the files to a sub-folder and not altering the stock game .. this doesn't change the exe. .... H2H can be played if you swap IP addresses

2. using modswap which works similarly to config manager.. this can change the exe but is not compulsory.. This also allows games to be launched on GameRanger for H2H play

3. of course if there are two ways , then there is a third... you can manually copy in mod files.. Fraught with danger and may corrupt your installation... H2H can be launched on GameRanger.

#30: Re: GJS for tLD Author: stiener, Location: Gibsons B.C. canada

Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:08 pm
—
thanks schrecken..........so im guessing that GT1.6 used to use method one and now uses method 2 becuase of GR. i have to get the mod swap program i guess.

gone are the days of the config manager and plugins i take it. Confused

#31: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:16 am
—
Config manager doesn't work and unfortunately is no longer supported

#32: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:37 pm
—

buuface wrote (View Post):

TLD can also allow the British para troops to start at random locations on the Merville battery and Pegasus bridge maps during the first night turn, right?

Is this something you will make use of?

Si! Happens by default, feature of TLD.

#33: Re: GJS for tLD Author: BerndN, Location: Outer space

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:09 pm
—
Good news indeed!

#34: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 7:55 pm
—
Don't you need to edit the VL's to allow for random deployments to occur? I think David had to do it for GT mod, not sure though.

#35: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:01 pm
—
I think David had to Un-edit the VL's as they were coded as fixed not random.

#36: Re: GJS for tLD Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:05 pm
—
Random drops at Merville and Pegasus may not be a good idea ... since Allies sometimes deploy in German positions (for example: in Merville bunkers and in Pegasus buildings. There is no way to have Allies never land in certain zones (where you wouldn't want them to) ... with random drops enabled.
It does work well for other AB maps though, that don't have areas specific to one side.

For Ground Tactics ... I just moved the single fixed deployment zone (for the Allies) to another nearby location, for a bit of variety compared to the stock version of TLD.

#37: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:18 pm
—
That would be a nice feature wouldn't it ... A "don't land here VL" marker

#38: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:54 pm
—
still tinkering away trying to get some of the art files to properly match up. lots of other small loose ends in the data that affect how force morale is calculated. If this is too tedious, may just release with other loose ends as "beta"status. hopefully before Xmas.

#39: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Hoogley, Location: Brisbane

Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:35 pm
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

schrecken, you are a funny bastard. Laughing

#40: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:55 pm
—
What are those "loose ends" you're talking about Cathartes? maybe they have been solved by other people.

#41: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:32 pm
—
Time has shown that there were a handful of minor errors in v4.4-- mismatched name entries, a forcepool error misplacing a unit or two in the wrong BG, vehicle smoke launchers not working, etc. Not show-stoppers, but worth fixing. Also, a few historical inaccuracies that have since come to light.

Also, don't assume that GJS works seemlessly and identical in tLD. TLD is not the same CC animal as CCV (for the better I might add). If you want the same old mod on newer model engine, you have to take on some new changes or live with GJS on CCV.

Also: changing all the BG unit icons--no more hard-to-see photographs. Going with the new style. Those that don't like change can switch/mod back to the old GJS --I spent way too many hours making the original ones but I personally prefer the quick info and clarity of new system.

Also: instituting "effective" range for 3 inch mortars and 8cm grwrfer. Players will only be able to use them on maps where they have room to use them.

#42: Re: GJS for tLD Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:12 am
—

Cathartes wrote (View Post):

Time has shown that there were a handful of minor errors in v4.4-- mismatched name entries, a forcepool error misplacing a unit or two in the wrong BG, vehicle smoke launchers not working, etc. Not show-stoppers, but worth fixing. Also, a few historical inaccuracies that have since come to light.

Also, don't assume that GJS works seemlessly and identical in tLD. TLD is not the same CC animal as CCV (for the better I might add). If you want the same old mod on newer model engine, you have to take on some new changes or live with GJS on CCV.

Also: changing all the BG unit icons--no more hard-to-see photographs. Going with the new style. Those that don't like change can switch/mod back to the old GJS --I spent way too many hours making the original ones but I personally prefer the quick info and clarity of new system.

Also: instituting "effective" range for 3 inch mortars and 8cm grwrfer. Players will only be able to use them on maps where they have room to use them.

Thanks for the update ... looking forward to the TLD version Smile

#43: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 1:59 am
—
Very good!

Regarding Unit icons in battle, I much preferred the 4.3 ones, reminiscent from CC5. I think they are clearer than an even smaller photograph than the BG selection pics, it gives you a better understanding of the unit you're selecting with out looking for the name.

But for personal taste I like better the CC2-CC3 unit icons.

#44: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:23 pm
—
Here's a peak at an airstrike--new aircraft, new shadows, sound of Napier Sabre engine:

Link

#45: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Dundradal,

Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 5:01 pm
—
Looks great!

#46: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 7:02 pm
—
Thank you for the update Cathartes!

#47: Re: GJS for tLD Author: lamurt,

Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 11:27 pm
—
what's with the size of typhoon, it looks more like a transatlantic than a fighter plane.... Twisted Evil

#48: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 12:15 am
—
The lower the resolution the larger vehicles look (including planes). For the video the game was probably being played at a low resolution....

#49: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Firefrost,

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 1:04 am
—
Thanks for the update, definitely looking forward to this release Very Happy

#50: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Andreus,

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 11:38 am
—
Amazing!
Is it possible though to start the sound of the engine sooner? That way the opponent can start to frighten...

#51: Re: GJS for tLD Author: karlmortar, Location: Falköping,Sweden

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 12:01 pm
—
I like what Im seeing, keep up the good work! Very Happy

Btw, how come that the plane flies over the soldier detail box, something to do with Fraps recording?

#52: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Stwa,

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 3:34 pm
—
I dont have TLD and it has been years since I tried GJS.

But last year I "converted" a few GJS maps to CCMT for fun. In doing so, I remembered that most of the map structures did not have doors and windows coded appropriately.

Has that been changed with TLD and/or GJS/TLD mod?

#53: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 8:11 pm
—
you can run through walls in tLD... not so with CCMT.

desirable but not a necessary requirement for a mod conversion

#54: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:10 am
—

Quote:

what's with the size of typhoon, it looks more like a transatlantic than a fighter plane....

It's big on purpose. I want airstrikes to have a more realistic, visual impact. I can't have all the sound I want, so this is part of my personal fix. The aircraft is closer to the player and not flying at the exact altitude of the ground combat. The aircraft shadow is approximately the scale to the soldiers as you would expect.

Quote:

Is it possible though to start the sound of the engine sooner? That way the opponent can start to frighten...

I wish. It would be more realistic than yellow smoke. Unfortunately would take some code rewrite. You can delay it, but not start it sooner.

Quote:

Btw, how come that the plane flies over the soldier detail box, something to do with Fraps recording?

Noticed that too. No idea.

Quote:

But last year I "converted" a few GJS maps to CCMT for fun. In doing so, I remembered that most of the map structures did not have doors and windows coded appropriately.
Has that been changed with TLD and/or GJS/TLD mod?

Memory is hazy, but some of that was done on purpose b/c it was so easy to spot and kill infantry in bldgs. with CCV, or that's what we believed --or-- put it down to inconsistent, free-for-the-user map coding. Doubt this will be fixed for the "beta" release.

#55: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:16 pm
—
multi storey walls in tLD have a movement reduction for infantry that makes the sodliers go out and run by the street and get massacred instead of following a path of a row of buildings. I much preferred 'normal' CC buildings, yeah the soldiers go through walls, but the AI currently isn't that advanced that they can learn to use doors, so if you code walls impassable or have them reduce movement, it becomes a huge mess in urban maps.

I used CC2Redux elements instead, much more enjoyable for myself.

Also, can't wait for GJS on tLD!

Still want winter flag to work properly on vehicles so I can have unreliable panthers that brake down starting the battle and more uniforms.

#56: Re: GJS for tLD Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:11 pm
—

Pzt_Kanov wrote (View Post):

multi storey walls in tLD have a movement reduction for infantry that makes the sodliers go out and run by the street and get massacred instead of following a path of a row of buildings. I much preferred 'normal' CC buildings, yeah the soldiers go through walls, but the AI currently isn't that advanced that they can learn to use doors, so if you code walls impassable or have them reduce movement, it becomes a huge mess in urban maps.

I used CC2Redux elements instead, much more enjoyable for myself.

Also, can't wait for GJS on tLD!

Still want winter flag to work properly on vehicles so I can have unreliable panthers that brake down starting the battle and more uniforms.

Just took a look at TLD elements

Soldier Move: Low, Med, High

Wood Floor: 25, 15, 10
Dirt: 25, 15, 10
Grass Field 25, 15, 10

Doors: 25, 15, 10

Wood, Brick, Stone Walls ... all levels: 40, 35, 30

All windows:
level 1: 160, 120, 80
level 2: 320, 240, 160
level 3: 640, 480, 320

It doesn't seem right that windows would be harder to pass through than walls ... so I changed the window coding to make windows easier to pass through than walls, but increasingly more difficult as levels progress up ... the limit being the wall value
It seems to have corrected the problems you mentioned Pzt_Kanov ... thanks for pointing this out.
Also, soldiers now move through doors and windows ... most of the time.

All windows edited:
level 1: 30, 25, 20
level 2: 35, 30, 25
level 3: 40, 35, 30
level 4: 40, 35, 30

I'll attach the elements file

note for Cathartes: please review this file for these changes, as well as others that were done for GT
Other Elements changes:

1-Fixed Sandbags and Sandbag Barrier: now crush to Debris( 221)
2-Leaves 92,93,94,95:
Hindrance: L,M,N ... was "0", now is "200"
Protection: G,H,I,J ... now is "0"
3-Large Hedgerow: vehicles can not enter this terrain
4-Small Hedgerow: changed to "block Line of Sight"

I'm also going to edit "bocage" to have "Large Hedgerow" values (for GT 1.8 ) ... so any hedge with a large shadow will have equal results, when acted upon.

Elements.zip

Description:

fixed windows

Download

Filename:

Elements.zip

Filesize:

6.79 KB

Downloaded:

324 Time(s)

#57: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:04 pm
—
I can just see these guys shimmering up 4 stories and slipping elegantly through an open window.

#58: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:10 pm
—
Yeah well, they had brains, our little sprites don't.

#59: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:11 pm
—
I guess their comraders got to see their brains when they attempted to climb 4 story buildings.

#60: Re: GJS for tLD Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 12:19 am
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

I can just see these guys shimmering up 4 stories and slipping elegantly through an open window.

not sure what your point is ... stock TLD has them walking through walls with ease, but passing very slowly through windows. The only way windows coded that way, would have made sense ... would be to have the walls so soldiers could not pass through.

In my opinion ... the above posted elements file (that was just edited) is a pretty good CC representation of walls, windows, doors in relation to soldier movement.

I've experimented with having walls that can't be passed through ... and although it's interesting to see soldiers be restricted to windows and doors ... it is not practical in CC, especially in city maps with lots of buildings. Teams get separated very easily, and have other problems as well.

Last edited by davidssfx on Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:19 am; edited 6 times in total

#61: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Stwa,

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 12:24 am
—

Pzt_Kanov wrote (View Post):

Perhaps, its a matter of taste. But I still use CCMT elements, and of course, the points you mention sound like game FEATURES to me.

In old CC5 you could run down the row of buildings, not good. Now, they correctly leave the building and re-enter somewhere else. Its a blast to play on the small CC4 maps, nowdays, because of this feature alone.

Also, I have basically one modern urban map (its Desert), and my observations do not account for this massacre you describe, and in particular I do not see the AI having any difficulty at all entereing or leaving buildings or setting up machine guns, etc...

#62: Re: GJS for tLD Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 12:50 am
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

Pzt_Kanov wrote (View Post):

The problem Pzt_Kanov was talking about was in TLD, and caused by windows coded with high values (in the hundreds), and walls being coded below 40. When soldiers moved down streets ... they would pass through doors, and walls but would get stuck moving through these hard to pass through windows. Thus making them seemingly confused, separated, and less protected.

As for CCMT elements ... try moving teams through a map like Bayeux, with that elements file.

Last edited by davidssfx on Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:32 am; edited 1 time in total

#63: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:06 am
—
walls take 3 x longer to go through than doors... so the men usually choose doors

#64: Re: GJS for tLD Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:36 am
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

walls take 3 x longer to go through than doors... so the men usually choose doors

yes, because of the way they are coded

Soldier Move: Low, Med, High

Doors: 25, 15, 10

Wood, Brick, Stone Walls ... all levels: 40, 35, 30

#65: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 3:22 pm
—
davidssfx: currently testing with your elements. Seems to be playing pretty well. Thanks.

#66: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Stwa,

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 7:21 am
—

davidssfx wrote (View Post):

As for CCMT elements ... try moving teams through a map like Bayeux, with that elements file.

Well, I am not trying to tell anyone what elements they should use or like.

Also, the map coding itself can be the issue much of the time. Custom maps from CC2-CC5 era alwasy seemed to be the main culprits. Thats one of the reasons why I wanted to collect original CC maps first for my CCMT map collection.

But, I have played on many URBAN type maps. Or village maps. That was the point I was making. Many, many, CC4, CC5, and I have a nice thread in CCMT forum on a really nice CCMT Urban map that works flawlessly IMHO.

#67: Re: GJS for tLD Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:25 pm
—

Stwa wrote (View Post):

davidssfx wrote (View Post):

As for CCMT elements ... try moving teams through a map like Bayeux, with that elements file.

Hi Stwa,
I don't have CCMT ... so am not sure what results you get when using the elements file from that version of CC.
When I said:
"As for CCMT elements ... try moving teams through a map like Bayeux, with that elements file"
... I was wondering if you could do this and relate what results you get.

From what I've heard (thanks to explanations from Neil) about CCMT ... it is based on modern combat, and so was coded to represent a high level of realism regarding movement through buildings.

Last year when I first got TLD, I wanted to change the wall code so that soldiers couldn't pass through walls ... but only through windows and doors. At this time I learned about the various levels of hindrance to movement through windows that can be portrayed in CC. If you make it harder to pass through a window (equals slower soldier speed) then in effect you can simulate a soldier taking more time to climb out of a higher story building (although the soldiers animation is still the same ... walking, not climbing).
I was able to code the walls solid, and was content with the results. I realized this may cause teams to get separated, but figured a player just needed to manage these teams more closely in order to adapt to this new realism.
It was then brought to my attention that, with walls being solid (and coded to block all Line of Sight), ... only soldiers in windows and doors could get Line of Sight. This is a considerable set back in CC, due to MG teams not setting up in these limited window and door spaces in priority of fire power. So, you may have one rifle man (of a five man team) shooting out of a window ... and the MG and the rest of the team doing nothing. CC isn't smart enough to have the team divide itself up and each take a window.
But CC does allow Line of Sight through a wall (kind of), when soldiers are adjacent (directly beside). This allows more Line of Sight out of a building, when a team is gathered at a wall window. This can also be helped by making MG teams smaller, so they have an easier time of getting the MG into firing position (but still requires repositioning).
I modded solid walls and smaller MG teams into TLD and gave it a try. It seemed better to me, even though more care was needed to keep teams from getting separated. This could be dealt with by using more detailed way points and shorter routes ... as well as checking back frequently.
But then I tried it on the Bayeux map. And that's when I realized it was not going to work well enough for what most players would accept. With so many walls and buildings close together ... teams got all messed up, real fast.
So I went back to the stock wall, door, and window code for TLD ... coming to realize that the developers made the best decision for coding them ... for best game play results.
I didn't notice the windows were coded with high hindrance levels though (much higher than walls even) ... and so just recently changed that, so it makes better logical sense ... which results in better game play (imo).

That being said ... I think solid walls and high levels of hindrance (moving slow through) windows are best for demonstrating higher realism. So, in a modern setting, or in a mod where realism is top priority ... this may be preferred.

I personally like the elements (in TLD) that I just made minor changes to.
Until CC is able to represent different stories in a building ... then I think this is best.
As it is now in CC ... soldiers automatically are on the highest level (story) of a building, upon entry. This works well for Line of Sight ... but it doesn't represent lower level entry/exit points that a soldier can move through. So, with this limitation ... when a soldier enters/exits a building ... it just makes sense to think of it as if he/she has done so on ground level.
Therefore it makes logical sense for soldiers to move through these lower level entry/exit points at a relative real world ground level speeds ... rather than ultra slow speeds representing higher levels.
As for soldiers being able to sometimes move through walls ... it is a compromise, due to the games limited abilities. But, as coded now ... soldiers mostly move through windows and doors, but if a soldier in forced (for whatever reason) to pass through a wall element ... then it is at a reduced speed (simulating a small penalty). Coded this way also allows for better group Line of Sight (when adjacent), as mentioned above.
Having walls coded for a soldier to pass through (although rarely) and windows with highest levels maxed at the wall value, I believe is a decent compromise ... since a soldier will lag back a bit from his team when encountering these slightly higher hindrance walls and windows ... but for the most part a team won't become completely separated.

#68: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:18 am
—
Interesting hearing about your testing davidssfx.

If/when Matrix release the next TLD patch with the LSA path finding improvements it might be worth testing again....

#69: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:40 am
—

davidssfx wrote (View Post):

Well, this is the TLD/GJS thread and I am sure you are on the right track.

But I will take you up on your suggestion and I will post some stuff over in the CCMT forum that I think might surprise a few people.

#70: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:16 pm
—
davidssfx-- great post.

Your element file is working great. It feels like soldiers are taking a reasonable amount of time to move through and take positions in buildings. It slows movement down a tad in dense urban areas and it seems much more reasonable as a result.

GJS 4.4 many of the maps where there are clustered areas of dense buildings, there are few if any windows--just walls and few doors. This was intentionally done at the time to give soldiers better cover, and more realistic combat results (more certain of this as memory is jerked back by focused thought on this issue). It made Atilla and I crazy that soldiers and tanks were firing through entire multi-story buildings(windows) as if they were empty, open warehouses. Multiple windows and doors just get funny with the tiny buildings of GJS and old CC (compared to LSA which is a new ballgame).

Different players see/experience/want different things, but this approach will be preserved for the beta release, with your elements file, with your permission and proper credit, of course.

#71: Re: GJS for tLD Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:07 am
—

Cathartes wrote (View Post):

davidssfx-- great post.

Your element file is working great. It feels like soldiers are taking a reasonable amount of time to move through and take positions in buildings. It slows movement down a tad in dense urban areas and it seems much more reasonable as a result.

GJS 4.4 many of the maps where there are clustered areas of dense buildings, there are few if any windows--just walls and few doors. This was intentionally done at the time to give soldiers better cover, and more realistic combat results (more certain of this as memory is jerked back by focused thought on this issue). It made Atilla and I crazy that soldiers and tanks were firing through entire multi-story buildings(windows) as if they were empty, open warehouses. Multiple windows and doors just get funny with the tiny buildings of GJS and old CC (compared to LSA which is a new ballgame).

Different players see/experience/want different things, but this approach will be preserved for the beta release, with your elements file, with your permission and proper credit, of course.

Hi Cathartes,
Thanks for your comments and extra GJS info.
Glad to hear you're thinking of using it for GJS Smile

I've attached the latest version, that has "Bocage" changed to "Large Hedgerow" values.
This way, any large type looking hedge will produce the same results when acted upon. And also allows ATG's to be deployed in Bocage

Last edited by davidssfx on Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:17 am; edited 1 time in total

#72: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:33 pm
—
Any updates Cathartes? a couple of screenshots to ease the waiting would be cool.

#73: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:36 pm
—

Pzt_Kanov wrote (View Post):

Any updates Cathartes? a couple of screenshots to ease the waiting would be cool.

here's the new main screen. progress continues.

newsplash.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

102.75 KB

Viewed:

7703 Time(s)

#74: Re: GJS for tLD Author: mooxe,

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:38 pm
—
Mainscreen changes will affect online play at Gameranger. I think Schrecken and Davidssfx figured this out.

#75: Re: GJS for tLD Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:51 pm
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

Mainscreen changes will affect online play at Gameranger. I think Schrecken and Davidssfx figured this out.

Seems to be true.
I had to abandon my new main screen theme for the Ground Tactics mod, in order for the mod to work with Game Ranger (GR).
If you change any TLD screens that GR has to go through, in the connection process ... then GR won't connect.
The screens GR uses are ... Intro, Main, Multi Player.
After reaching the limit of time I was willing to put into this ... it was determined that replacing just one of those three screens would cause GR not to connect.
If you unpack the CCImages file and keep the original, and then repack ... it still worked ... so that ruled out the unpack/repack process as the culprit.
Put in one new screen and it wouldn't work
Add text to the original ... and it still worked

It's a real head scratcher

After hours and hours of trying to figure out why ... with no definite answer ... I had to surrender, and go back to TLD original screens.
I was able to add "Ground Tactics" text to both the Main and Multi Player screens (for mod identification) ... and still have Game Ranger work.

I would prefer to have the ease of Game Ranger connection without new screens ... than have no Game Ranger, with new screens.
Kind of choked me, after all the effort that was put into the new screens ... but, oh well ...
Game Ranger also requires the ModSwap Plugin version.

Another option would be to have a Game Ranger edition of the mod using ModSwap without new screens, and a ModInstaller version with new screens ... that doesn't work with GR.

Unless, of course, someone can figure out why GR jams up with new screens ...
If you do try and figure out the problem ... you may want to first start by replacing just the Main screen of TLD's CCImages file, and see if it connects.
Apparently mafi's program was used for TLD to unpack/repack ... so it may be best to use it.

In testing ... always try twice, if first time stalls. Sometimes the very first time after a mod is installed ... it stalls, but works fine thereafter.

#76: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:21 am
—
mooxe

haven't you had any contact with the GR guy regarding a fix?

or at least an explanation why it isn't working... so we can work around that.

thanks

#77: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:56 am
—
Maybe it has to do with the Main menu buttons? like if you change them a little bit they probably don't work or something.

Any ways, that's a good looking screen Cathartes, hope you got a few surprises for us!

#78: Re: GJS for tLD Author: mooxe,

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 1:31 am
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

mooxe

haven't you had any contact with the GR guy regarding a fix?

or at least an explanation why it isn't working... so we can work around that.

thanks

I have not. I am happy with the current state of it and do not wish to spend anymore time asking him about it. If all that needs to be done is to leave the main screen and multiplayer screen alone to have this work, that is the easiest solution.

#79: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 3:22 am
—
But a not very Graphically or Mod friendly solution.

#80: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:49 pm
—
Would be nice Mooxe if you used your contact/influence to get a fix as losing mod specific background graphics is not a good solution (makes it much less apparent to newbies what they are running).

Without a fix, email and or messenger will be what I continue to use when playing online. Though nobody else will see those who play that way thinking CC is dead for online play....

GameRanger comments/discussion is probably best in another thread as this thread is for GJS on TLD! Thank you for the updates Cathartes and for coming back to move/update the mod for the newer CC version!!!!

#81: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:38 pm
—
My 2 cents: annoying, obscure, gameranger limitation that takes the polish, atmosphere, and fun from present and future mods. Once finished I may try and contact the man behind gameranger myself--I've seen him post on some other forums.

#82: Re: GJS for tLD Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:54 pm
—

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

GameRanger comments/discussion is probably best in another thread as this thread is for GJS on TLD! Thank you for the updates Cathartes and for coming back to move/update the mod for the newer CC version!!!!

Game Ranger with TLD mods discussion moved to:
http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=57290#57290

#83: Re: GJS for tLD Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 4:15 am
—

Cathartes wrote (View Post):

ThX just what i am waiting for great new indeed...how close are you now? THE best all time Mod ever.

#84: Re: GJS for tLD Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:53 am
—

Cathartes wrote (View Post):

Assuming that the GC stays the same, how many turns per day do people want?

Keep it at 2 turns per day with a night round on the first day only?

Or...more? GC was designed with two turns per day.

That would be my vote....the less changes the better but keep in mind the campaign is in favour of an allied win the Germans are very hard pressed to win this one....i have played both sides against the same player swapping at the end of each day and we both say the same thing the Allied are the Winners.

Tigercub

#85: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:12 am
—
I would vote to just add single night turn for the night drop before the landings.

#86: Re: GJS for tLD Author: buuface, Location: Thailand

Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 9:33 am
—
I have met more people who say that the compaign is more in favour of the germans.

Personally i think its pretty eveni n v44

#87: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Amgot,

Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 9:45 am
—

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

I would vote to just add single night turn for the night drop before the landings.

Same here.

#88: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Pzt_Serk,

Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:20 pm
—

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

I would vote to just add single night turn for the night drop before the landings.

I'm also in favor of a single night turn on first day only. And please, if possible, avoid the random drop thingy Wink

#89: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Dundradal,

Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:21 pm
—
I'd also vote for a single night turn on the first day.

#90: Re: GJS for tLD Author: MarkM,

Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:02 am
—

tigercub wrote (View Post):

Cathartes wrote (View Post):

Assuming that the GC stays the same, how many turns per day do people want?

Keep it at 2 turns per day with a night round on the first day only?

Or...more? GC was designed with two turns per day.

Von you are comparing apples to oranges. We played a heavily modified game in terms of the data, thus changing the balance compared to the vanilla or TRSM versions. One big factor alone was the lethality of the 6 pounder with special ammo.

Thus whilst we found the allies in favour, others will not when using a different data set.

Cheers,

Mark

#91: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:17 pm
—

Pzt_Serk wrote (View Post):

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

I would vote to just add single night turn for the night drop before the landings.

I'm also in favor of a single night turn on first day only. And please, if possible, avoid the random drop thingy Wink

The random drop on the Merville Batteries and Pegasus Bridge is difficult to avoid unless more neutral maps are added for airborne drops with movement to follow, or you want to forget about a night turn and fight the airborne battles after the beach battles.

#92: Re: GJS for tLD Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:42 pm
—
Please consider using a larger grenade explosion size ... as done in GT.
Since grenades don't leave a small crater anymore, and the explosion graphic is so tiny ... it's hard to tell where the grenade went off.
With a one larger size explosion ... you can better see the grenade explosion location. I can't remember for sure but I may have done the same for rifle grenades.
The rifle grenades also work best with a specific sound associated to them ... so you know when one has been fired. Stock TLD used just the rifle sound.

just thinking of preferences for your consideration

thanks

#93: Re: GJS for tLD Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 3:04 am
—

Cathartes wrote (View Post):

Pzt_Serk wrote (View Post):

Tejszd wrote (View Post):

I would vote to just add single night turn for the night drop before the landings.

I'm also in favor of a single night turn on first day only. And please, if possible, avoid the random drop thingy Wink

I would keep in the random drops then save the pain...

Tigercub

#94: Re: GJS for tLD Author: MarkM,

Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:15 am
—
I agree with tigercub.

KISS guys. keep It Simple Stupid.

We don't need to change things are are not a major problem and then adding in more problems consequently and also lengthening the time till this mod is released.

cheers,

Mark

#95: Re: GJS for tLD Author: buuface, Location: Thailand

Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:06 am
—
Hello Cathartes

Just want to say thank you again for picking up this project> You are making many an old CC player very happy and exited.

I was just wondering what your process is regarding correcting the discrepancies you mentioned in some of the unit data (armor penetration values ect.)

Is there a list of reported errors you are reviewing? Or are you going through the whole list again to look for mistakes?

And which source(s) of information are you taking the values from?

I am sure there are people (veteran players of GJS) who would be willing to help by sharing their opinions or observations about the current data set.

I have recently started a GJS3.5 GC with a friend of mine using a slightly altered unit data which uses more historically accurate values for some weapons and armour. Would it help you to have a list of the major changes he has made to the data?

I am sure you probably have already the behind the scenes help you need but i just thought i'd ask ;)

RD_Overkenshin

#96: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:42 pm
—

buuface wrote (View Post):

Just want to say thank you again for picking up this project> You are making many an old CC player very happy and exited.

I was just wondering what your process is regarding correcting the discrepancies you mentioned in some of the unit data (armor penetration values ect.)

Is there a list of reported errors you are reviewing? Or are you going through the whole list again to look for mistakes?

And which source(s) of information are you taking the values from?

I am sure there are people (veteran players of GJS) who would be willing to help by sharing their opinions or observations about the current data set.

I have recently started a GJS3.5 GC with a friend of mine using a slightly altered unit data which uses more historically accurate values for some weapons and armour. Would it help you to have a list of the major changes he has made to the data?

I am sure you probably have already the behind the scenes help you need but i just thought i'd ask ;)

RD_Overkenshin

Thanks for the comments and good questions.

I've been sitting on this mod for a bit trying to figure out which path to take given my time and RL.
1. The biggest thing I've done to date is to get the mod functioning without errors, crashes, or graphical problems in tLD platform using GJS 4.4 as the template so that the stratmap is working as intended.
2. The second biggest thing I've done is to make some major updates to sound.
3. The third thing I've begun, but not completed, is to update some of the graphics (new aircraft art & shadows, new unit icons consistent with tLD/LSA, 2-3 new German HT types used by 21st Pz, and some color correction on some of the allied vehicles).
4. The fourth thing I've done, in terms of time and effort, is to make some corrections to the data.
5. The final thing I've begun, but haven't completed, is a new map for Lebisey.

I haven't touched tanks, HTs, penetration values, etc. I have fiddled with open-topped AFV top armor and gun top armor and mortar data. This is related to the perpetual issue of mortars taking out guns and HTs. I think I have as good as solution as is possible with the game engine, and I'm satisfied with what I've seen so far. It makes HTs and guns more difficult to kill with mortars, while it makes mortars a little more effective against infantry compared to GJS 4.4. Usually AT crew will be killed/wounded before a gun is destroyed by a round. Other than this, the only significant change to data is the ability to use 3pdr/81mm mortars under 450m. Simply put, that ability is gone, and it changes the way and when these mortars can be used tactically. I like it better, but others may not and may not agree. Doctrinally speaking, there's a fair and strong argument for the change. Gameplay-wise you can argue from any position and have a point. I'm still evaluating.

I'm uncertain how much more data to evaluate or change. There are some good decisions in the TRSM, but there are also some questionable ones. My inclination is to get this out sooner than later and release as a beta and make incremental changes based on discussion and testing from that release point forward.

#97: Re: GJS for tLD Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:08 am
—
Hi Cathartes,

Sounds like u are on the path and thx with the good work , mortars the min range issue still in the old GJS it is set to 60m , but in WW2 the M1 mortar had a min range of 180m (with the exception of air burst ammo) , I feel an in-between would better suited for game play.

Tigercub

#98: Re: GJS for tLD Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:16 am
—
useful links for data

http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/index.html

http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_penetration_adv.php

Tigercub

#99: Re: GJS for tLD Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:02 pm
—

Cathartes wrote (View Post):

buuface wrote (View Post):

Hi,
All five points sound excellent ... glad to hear you have the GJS strat working in TLD!
thanks for the update Smile

Good idea about releasing a beta in order to get feedback ... before more data changes are made

#100: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Wittmann81,

Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:32 am
—
This is wonderful news! I bought CCTLD some time ago but never played it more than once. So for almost ten years I and my friends have been playing CCV GJS. The 00.00-time bug in CCV was more than depressing.

Will this GJS mod use the same battle group pictures as the old mod? I loved the old WWII photographs of tanks and infantrymen. For some reason they made the whole game come alive.

#101: Re: GJS for tLD Author: buuface, Location: Thailand

Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:07 am
—
Hi Cathartes,

Hows it going?

Any update?

#102: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 6:48 am
—
UPDATE:

1. The biggest thing I've done to date is to get the mod functioning without errors, crashes, or graphical problems in tLD platform using GJS 4.4 as the template so that the stratmap is working as intended.
Think I'm done with this. Found a couple of errors in the stratmap from GJS 4.4, including one that RD_Overkenshen (sorry, sp?) pointed out (skipping two maps involving Rauray and another)--all fixed and working as far as I know.

2. The second biggest thing I've done is to make some major updates to sound.
85% done, many Brit voices updated. If I do a new Canadian voice file (somehow my Canadian friends speaking with a British accent is not quite right) it may delay things a bit.

3. The third thing I've begun, but not completed, is to update some of the graphics (new aircraft art & shadows, new unit icons consistent with tLD/LSA, 2-3 new German HT types for 21st Pz, and some color correction on some of the allied vehicles).
All aircraft completed. One or two final HTs for 21 Pz and one new unit for 12th SS to replace the Jagdpanzer IVs that are historically out of place as Dima correctly pointed out to me.

4. The fourth thing I've done, in terms of time and effort, is to make some corrections to the data.
Not much has changed here. I did streamline the rifle data. Snipers were uber and better than MGs--brought them back to earth. If there's a storm of protest, I can compromise.

5. The final thing I've begun, but haven't completed, is a new map for Lebisey.
Nothing here. Instead I've been rewriting some of the map .btds, repositioning some VLs. Also, I'm liking some of the recoding that AT_Stalky did on some of the maps. He's fixed some the minor inconsistencies that existed in some of the map coding. Some and perhaps all of his map codings will be in the beta release. David's elements file is also in place.

This mod is very much in progress. It took a while to get it right the first time, and there was plenty wrong then (GJS 4.3). I would rather be late and more polished on TLD CC platform than premature and too many headaches. I'm sure there will be plenty of mistakes by me as it is. Thanks to all who have kept up with things and have sent messages of inquiry and support.

#103: Re: GJS for tLD Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:41 am
—
Thanks for the update Cathartes ... looking forward to the release Smile

#104: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Dundradal,

Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:03 am
—
Same here! Great news on all fronts! Very Happy

#105: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:54 am
—
Thanks for the update Cathartes!

#106: Re: GJS for tLD Author: buuface, Location: Thailand

Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 11:11 am
—
Thanks Cathartes

Me and all my clan mates are really looking forward to this.

RD_Overkenshin

#107: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Atilla,

Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:58 am
—
Aye Bartshe,

Nice to see you around!

I might actually give this game another go Wink

#108: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:15 pm
—

Atilla wrote (View Post):

Aye Bartshe,

Nice to see you around!

I might actually give this game another go Wink

Ha! There is no escape!

Ditto old friend, nice to cya about here.

#109: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 6:42 pm
—
Looks like a reunion Wink

#110: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Wittmann81,

Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:17 am
—
Thank you for the update. Great news!

Don´t overdo it. There are probably many errors in GJS 4.4 for CCV. If you start to correct minor mistakes, your project will probably turn into a never ending story.

Can´t wait for the release. Your work is highly appreciated.

#111: Re: GJS for tLD Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:12 am
—
After it's in tLD what would it take to get it in WAR?
I would love to play it.

#112: Re: GJS for tLD Author: pagskier,

Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 8:56 pm
—

platoon_michael wrote (View Post):

After it's in tLD what would it take to get it in WAR?
I would love to play it.

I would like LSA for crossing each unit line and not losing ground when moving up a new unit...
BUt having it on TLD will be awsome!

#113: Re: GJS for tLD Author: mooxe,

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:20 am
—

platoon_michael wrote (View Post):

After it's in tLD what would it take to get it in WAR?
I would love to play it.

Lets end the porting mods to every zombie version now. Confusing, more bugs, less support etc etc.

#114: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:40 am
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

Lets end the porting mods to every zombie version now. Confusing, more bugs, less support etc etc.

Don't listen to him Cathartes, there are many benefits to moving the mod to TLD over CC5! But then again since you are testing you already know this....

Does sorta make you wonder why you bother porting though with the nay sayers out there....

platoon_michael,

Any TLD mod will run on the newest version of WAR unchanged now, though there will be 1 graphical problem with the commander pictures. Classic CC4 has the commander pics in a different spot than TLD so a TLD mod unchanged on WAR will have the commander pics over top of the extended slots of the BG force pool. If the pics are removed from the graphics file everything else will work fine....

#115: Re: GJS for tLD Author: buuface, Location: Thailand

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:46 am
—
I think once compatible with TLD, porting to WaR should be a piece of cake.

The focus should now be on using the new LSA engine, as the new strategic features it provides are a'real' step forward for CC.

Porting a mod like GJS to LSA would require an absolutely huge amount of work though (rebalancing the GC, for starters) I certainly would understand if thats a job Cathartes is not willing to undertake. He would need a team of five just to get it finished before 2015.

Last edited by buuface on Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:17 am; edited 1 time in total

#116: Re: GJS for tLD Author: mooxe,

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:01 am
—
Its like you guys are always chasing something else. Convert to WaR... no no now TLD...oh wait heres LSA.. and none of these are even finished!

People were happy with GJS4.4 on CC5, and are still playing it 11 years later. Thats goes for a bunch more mods as well. I am sure one ported version to a zombie release is enough. Who needs the same mod for more than two versions of CC?

The bottom line is anyone here would be happy with a completed product.

#117: Re: GJS for tLD Author: LostTemple,

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:54 am
—
Agree with mooxe. GJS on CC5 is perfect.

Sorry, but I find this entire endeavor an absolute waste. Yup, it's completely a waste. Just encouraging Matrix to continue spitting out the same regurgitated trash.

#118: Re: GJS for tLD Author: buuface, Location: Thailand

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:09 am
—
GJS 4.4 on CC5 is NOT perfect because CC5 is a highly UNSTABLE game where many features do not work as intended.

People still play it because GJS is so good, it has nothing to do with the platform

- disband and supply rules do not work correctly
- crashes caused by airstrike
- the infamous and highly annoying '00:00' crash

These problems, which are only a few of the problems in CC5, have lost as many fans of the series as GJS has gained

All of these major issues are fixed in TLD, that alone is reason enough to port GJS to TLD.

TLD also provides multiple new features such as larger BGs, Night battles, supply drops, multiple turns per day. All of which can be used to improve the GJS experience.

And LostTemple, have you played LSA?, if you have, you must know that despite the tag-line "CC2 remake" the game its self is about as far from 'regurgitated' as can be.

(As well as the above features from LTD)

- All the maps are new (afaik)
- Merging and swapping BGs
- Req points AND force pool
- Allowing two BGs on a map and also to enter from different locations

Granted some of these features do not yet work as intended, but any true fan of CC series and anyone with eyes and brain must see the potential here.

#119: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:08 am
—
Good luck Cathartes, stock TLD has been screaming for a mod.

Last edited by Troger on Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:36 am; edited 1 time in total

#120: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:15 am
—
trogs... you just need to learn how to play.

I assault all day and all night... ask my battered opponents.

#121: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Stwa,

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:33 am
—

mooxe wrote (View Post):

Who needs the same mod for more than two versions of CC?

The UNDERSTATEMENT of the DECADE Exclamation

#122: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:02 am
—

Quote:

People were happy with GJS4.4 on CC5, and are still playing it 11 years later

i'm not , along with a lot of others.

i don't even have the bug ridden joke that was CC5 installed on my PC anymore now that there are versions that actually work.

The last version of WaR i played the GC on was with the 07b retail patch.

very solid and behaved as I expected.

Once tLd patch comes out of beta it should be ok too.... if anyone tests it.

LSA.... another year and it will be ready for a re-release that will delight us all with it's expanded feature llist. (Although I played a nice stable H2H GC with 21b patch.. it was just not representative of the market garden battle I've read about and had a few gameplay quirks)

#123: Re: GJS for tLD Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:00 am
—
While I am not very happy with everything Re-release related.I am happy playing WAR.
Will be even Happier Once/If they fix everything.
That being said a New GJS is a good thing.

Will this update take advantage of the expanded 64 slots for Maps with a new Strategic map?

#124: Re: GJS for tLD Author: buuface, Location: Thailand

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:41 pm
—
Creating a new strategy map with 64 maps would also require a complete overhaul of the campaign.

Of course it would be amazing but its not feasible (if we want to see this mod released within the current millennium, that is).

#125: Re: GJS for tLD Author: mooxe,

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 1:55 pm
—
My point of view is to only convert it to one zombie, not two or three.

Quote:

- disband and supply rules do not work correctly

The way it works now in CC4/CC5, actually works. In the zombies its basically a new element not a fixed one. If it was never mentioned in the CC4/5 manuals it may have never been implemented in the zombies.

I don't think supply is broken in the vanilla version. There are supply rules broken in some mods though, like single barrel depots not functioning.

Quote:

TLD also provides multiple new features such as larger BGs, Night battles, supply drops, multiple turns per day. All of which can be used to improve the GJS experience.

Any one of these new elements, the new disband rules, anything new from LSA will make GJS a new game. The experience and balance will change immensely. The maps and unit data are probably the only thing that can stay the same in a conversion. I suppose there is much more work than meets the eye here.

#126: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Atilla,

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:09 pm
—
Just to put a bit of oil on the flames... Wink

GJS on LSA would be a major project. Just wondering: would this be worth the time needed to do this?
If so, why would it be worth it? What features of LSA would benefit GJS, and why?

#127: Re: GJS for tLD Author: 0202243,

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:28 pm
—

Atilla wrote (View Post):

Just to put a bit of oil on the flames... Wink

GJS on LSA would be a major project. Just wondering: would this be worth the time needed to do this?
If so, why would it be worth it? What features of LSA would benefit GJS, and why?

Blowing up Pegasus bridge...??? Twisted Evil

#128: Re: GJS for tLD Author: pagskier,

Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:05 pm
—

Atilla wrote (View Post):

Just to put a bit of oil on the flames... Wink

GJS on LSA would be a major project. Just wondering: would this be worth the time needed to do this?
If so, why would it be worth it? What features of LSA would benefit GJS, and why?

the damn overlap of each unit! that's the big thing I always hated about CC lol
other than that... not much...

#129: Re: GJS for tLD Author: buuface, Location: Thailand

Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:29 am
—
The new strategic features of LSA would add a whole new level of depth to GJS-

-Merging, swaping and stacking BGs

-Being able to enter a map from two different locations with 2 different BGs

The supply and reinforcement rules in LSA are also much more well developed.

#130: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Atilla,

Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:45 am
—

Quote:

Blowing up Pegasus bridge...???

I Like blowing up things Twisted Evil

Quote:

The new strategic features of LSA would add a whole new level of depth to GJS-

-Merging, swaping and stacking BGs

-Being able to enter a map from two different locations with 2 different BGs

The supply and reinforcement rules in LSA are also much more well developed.

Quess that's the kind of features I'd like to see very much in GJS. I'm new to LSA so I'll first check out what's possible, and what not. ATM, TLD seems to be more finished than LSA for sure.

Cathartes; what's the status of your work? Should I re-install TLD already? Wink

#131: Re: GJS for tLD Author: stiener, Location: Gibsons B.C. canada

Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:42 am
—

Quote:

LSA.... another year and it will be ready for a re-release that will delight us all with it's expanded feature llist. (Although I played a nice stable H2H GC with 21b patch.. it was just not representative of the market garden battle I've read about and had a few gameplay quirks)

im at a loss for words andrew.....and for me thats saying alot.

thanks for the update Carthartes....i can hardly wait.
Atilla....nice to hear from you Very Happy

i think GJS for TLD will be great. i think as some say that the game WILL be a bit different, because the retreat, supply and disband rules will work. i dont think this is a bad thing for GJS.

Davidss's GT 2.0 mod [ the Caen to bauyeux sub mod ] is very similar to GJS.........it lacks the strat map, which is its biggest down fall, but the weapon and vehicle data is really good, like GJS [ thanks Dima Very Happy

..i believe? ] and the retreat and supply and disband all work. you pretty much have to play with morale on to get the retreats to work as they should. with it off you will get disbanded in allot of cases and thats not really good.
because the retreats work, what you have to be carefull of is that you either dont have a BG directly behind your fighting BG or that you have an escape VL to a map that is empty, other wise you could get disbanded. thats what will be different in GJS TLD and is one of the things that LSA has over TLD and WAR..the ability to stack BG"s.

#132: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Wittmann81,

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:40 am
—
TLD was a big disappointment, since it could not compare to CCV GJS 4.4. But a (more) stable version of GJS 4.4 for TLD will be heaven on earth. Simply the best think that has happened since bread and butter.

#133: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:09 pm
—

Quote:

but the weapon and vehicle data is really good, like GJS [ thanks Dima ..i believe? ]

IIRC stock TLD data from CW sector is in fact GJS 4.4 data Smile

.
GT uses TRSM data Wink

#134: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 4:51 pm
—

Quote:

IIRC stock TLD data from CW sector is in fact GJS 4.4 data.

maybe they started with it, but they are fairly different.

#135: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 4:55 pm
—
Lebisey Woods map in progress:

leb1.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

164.69 KB

Viewed:

8562 Time(s)

#136: Re: GJS for tLD Author: tripwire, Location: Florida - USA

Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 7:24 pm
—
REALLY looking great, Cathartes!!! Keep up the awesome work, man.

#137: Re: GJS for tLD Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:36 am
—
RD_overkenshin and i have our hands up for testing when u are ready Cathartes hope its going ok?

#138: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 3:20 pm
—
progress slow recently due to day job. still alive & working on mod. new Leb map has taken bulk of time, but think it will be worth it.

here's a quick peak at one of 21 Pz's captured French halftracks:

frogtrack.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

70.07 KB

Viewed:

8745 Time(s)

#139: Re: GJS for tLD Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:19 am
—
Thx for the update, day job....Hell people work still.... Smile

. is the 105mm SP in the 21pz still.....

Tigercub

#140: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:28 pm
—

Quote:

is the 105mm SP in the 21pz still.....

ya mon!

105.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

50.9 KB

Viewed:

8699 Time(s)

#141: Re: GJS for tLD Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:06 am
—
i am not asking u to do it ,but i do like combat pics far more than the icons... Cool

Tigercub

#142: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:56 am
—
I much prefer icons

Most combat pics are of poor quality and thus hard to determine their meaning.

:)

#143: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Amgot,

Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:55 am
—
I'm all for icons too. Great job Cathartes, very much looking forward to the release!

#144: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Wittmann81,

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:08 am
—
I loved the combat pics of GJS 4.4. They made the whole game come alive. The poor quality of the photographs, gave the game a more historical flavor.

The icons somehow take away all of that. It feels more like a 2011 war game with modern icons. They fit for a game portraying Desert Storm or any other modern conflict, but if you are making GJS 4.4 it almost has to be low quality photographs instead of modern, cartoonish icons.

But my guess is it will be easy to make a mod for the mod, with the authentic photographs. So probably not a big deal :)

Edit: tigercub´s avatar makes me want to install and play CCV GJS again. I want the game to look more like tigercub´s avatar and less like schrecken´s avatar Smile

#145: Re: GJS for tLD Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:03 am
—
I agree with using Photos also.
It's just time consuming to find all the ones you need and require a LOT more graphic editing.
But the end result is well worth it inmho.

UO0039.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

145.85 KB

Viewed:

9988 Time(s)

#146: Re: GJS for tLD Author: mooxe,

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:38 pm
—
I can see schreckens point, but its shortsighted. If you play the game for awhile, you shouldnt have trouble recognizing whats what. Most of us could probably correctly identify many units from classic CC5 and GJS just by thier photo still. Michaels reasoning is the truth on using photos which is why icons are used. The map symbols on the other hand, I think are just a way of filling up the box with candy and serve no other purpose. Theres already enough ways to identify a unit, icon/picture, visual in game, overview map and name, does a map symbol really add anything?

#147: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:08 pm
—

Quote:

If you play the game for awhile, you shouldnt have trouble recognizing whats what.

true even a lousy set of pictures becomes familiar after 100's of games.

The icons are recognisable first time.

There is no question which system conveys the information better.

#148: Re: GJS for tLD Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:12 pm
—
@ Charities:
Maybe if you changed the background color,
Go with something other than that ugly arse green.
It just doesn't fit in with the CCV blue.

Still a lot of work I know,but it just doesn't fit,kind of an eye sore to be honest.

The 2nd biggest problem with real pictures for Icons for me is trying to find snow camo tanks for the Veteran Teams.
Nothing pisses me off more than seeing the same Olive Drab Tank being used for all Tanks.
And that doesn't help at all when viewing your BG.
also applies to just about any other Tank/Vehicle as well.
Don't show me a Tan Vehicle Icon when the Vehicle in game has a Winter Camo."THAT SUCKS"!

Mostly that applies to me but you get the point.

#149: Re: GJS for tLD Author: mooxe,

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:06 am
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

Quote:

If you play the game for awhile, you shouldnt have trouble recognizing whats what.

true even a lousy set of pictures becomes familiar after 100's of games.

The icons are recognisable first time.

There is no question which system conveys the information better.

I'll agree that a good system of conveying what a unit is to the player is needed. Game art vs icons is debatable further though. Theres a ton of games that use art and convey the message very accurately and probably vice versa. The icons and map symbols seem to be more prevailant in hex and turn based games.

With all the different types of infantry teams, icons will remain as obscure as game art. You will just go by the name of the unit at the bottom team display portion of the screen, or the "historical" name when you click on the unit.

The photos used in GJS added some history to the game, to see them replaced with icons really doesnt serve much advantage.

Maybe someone whos new to the game can explain how the team data overlay actually helps identify units. I don't use it to identify units such as types of tanks and support weapons (not types of infantry), I can see them on screen and I know where they are.

#150: Re: GJS for tLD Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:55 am
—
"IF" Cathartes
wanted to add photos i would be more than happy to help him get the images,I am a photographer and can size them and edit them.
it maybe 2011, but it was set in 1944 icons dont have the feel of the time.

Tigercub

#151: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:14 am
—
Icons were used in WWII

#152: Re: GJS for tLD Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:36 am
—
Ill keep my Tiger pic thx.

Tigercub

#153: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Wittmann81,

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:07 pm
—
I mostly play CC with a friend who normally doesn´t play computer games at all. Most people still playing CC are WWII nerds and not gamers, so things like small poor quality photographs are important to us Smile

. We don´t need good graphics to enjoy the game, but we need those photographs, since they add all the flavor and historical feeling.

#154: Re: GJS for tLD Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:17 am
—
I think the best of both worlds would be to have historical photos for the Battle Group screen ... and TLD style icons for in game.
The small black silhouette icons work well for identifying Teams in game (F5).

#155: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Amgot,

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:34 am
—

davidssfx wrote (View Post):

I think the best of both worlds would be to have historical photos for the Battle Group screen ... and TLD style icons for in game.
The small black silhouette icons work well for identifying Teams in game (F5).

I think the best of both world would be to have a choice between two versions - one with historical photos and one with TLD style icons. Smile

That way, players will be able to choose whatever they prefer.

#156: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:04 am
—
latest update on Lebisey map below, so we're nearly approaching the home stretch for beta

GJS mod update on Matrix site

#157: Re: GJS for tLD Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:19 am
—
wow ... lookin great!

#158: Re: GJS for tLD Author: diggin.robat, Location: Land of the krauts

Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:53 pm
—
Gawd! Another ATG nest and tank cemetary!

Keep up the good work!

#159: Re: GJS for tLD Author: papa_whisky,

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:37 am
—
Wow those fields are something else.

#160: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Pzt_Kevin_dtn, Location: USA

Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:19 pm
—
So I haven't weighed in on anything for some time but being a long time cc'er I much more prefer the historical photos for units. That was one of the things that I liked abot GJS when I started playing in way back when.

#161: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Pzt_Kanov, Location: México

Posted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 4:33 pm
—

davidssfx wrote (View Post):

I think this is the best, and I think it was used in GJS 4.3, with photos on the BG screen and small but easily identifiable icons on the team info panel.

#162: Re: GJS for tLD Author: US_Brake, Location: USA

Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 10:33 pm
—
Best of Luck on this project. And Fun !

Private H_1.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

56.66 KB

Viewed:

8372 Time(s)

#163: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:43 pm
—
Lebisey Woods, a monster of a map. This is now working in game. Latest view here:

see end of thread

#164: Re: GJS for tLD Author: pagskier,

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2011 9:10 pm
—
looking damn nice! can't wait!

#165: Re: GJS for tLD Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:04 am
—
take a look at the pics on the squads in the Stalingrad mod! they arer sweet! poor ...images my ass..

#166: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:09 pm
—
a gander at mortar behavior:

Link

and another round:

Link

#167: Re: GJS for tLD Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 12:20 am
—
Thx again Cathartes but the only round that got close killed the gun thats a worry in it self...in both vids

nice sounds firing and landing of the rounds sweet.

IMHO a min range of 450m! even with large maps is way to big...i am always barking about WW2 data accuracy but in this case there needs to be a balance.

a more realistic approach to mortar behavior sure but 450m worth?

i dont want to be a bad guy here your doing a Fantastic job...just 2 cents

#168: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:56 am
—
2 cents are what forums are for.

Why should a player always be able to use mortars to instantly fire on almost anything/everything?

You missed the round that landed close and killed a crew member. Also, gun crew/ infantry on ambush and/or prone= less vulnerable to mortars/shrapnel. AT guns operating in the open get their crews killed more often by nearby rounds.

Two narrow examples here don't tell the whole story, but was hoping it would spark some comment.

Universal truth in CC: universal agreement on mortars is impossible.

#169: Re: GJS for tLD Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 6:31 am
—

Cathartes wrote (View Post):

a gander at mortar behavior:

Link

and another round:

Link

excellent work

#170: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Amgot,

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:22 am
—
Looks good to me - maybe decrease the shells flight time a tad. With GJS, Meuse and probably Stalingrad coming to TLD, I'm gonna be a very very happy CC player in the next few ~~months~~ years.

#171: Re: GJS for tLD Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 11:19 am
—
Many of newer CC games Mortars have been a problem mostly over powered knocking out open top AC and AT guns in a few rounds, anyone who knows anything about these weapons knows without Line of sight your just shooting in the dark (unless you had a spotter with a Radio)and killing of Halftracks and Armored Cars ....was very few indeed...Mortars were a surpressing weapon mostly only useful with LOS.

The US 81mm M1 mortar Minimum range 200 yards German and Russian much the same

German 50mm Minimum range 55 yards

US 60mm Minimum range 100 yards

so i dont why you are going for 450m Cathartes

#172: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:11 pm
—
for medium mortars:

capable, stated range of a mortar in no way equals practical employment and effective range in combat, and misinformation abounds.

terrain, tube and ammunition logistics, spotting & fire control, all required employing medium to heavy mortars dug-in from an un-obstructed position. British/Canadian 3" mortars employed in NW Europe were typically kept 500-2500m behind intended targets. Flight time of the shell was realistically between 10 and 20 seconds. Minimum range of mortars was rarely employed unless a desperate, last-ditch attempt to defend a position was required.

#173: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Priapus,

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:17 pm
—
Is the flight time decreasing the longer the mortar is firing on a single target?

#174: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:23 pm
—

Priapus wrote (View Post):

Is the flight time decreasing the longer the mortar is firing on a single target?

no, might just be confusing because of the tubes joining in the fire at different times. Flight time is fixed in data regardless of target range or acquisition. But if there could ever be a CC engine that could better incorporate indirect mortar and arty... (we can wish).

#175: Re: Mortars Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 6:08 pm
—
regarding mortars:
Dima's mortar data is GT2.0 works very well in my opinion ... please give it a try for comparison. It's effect on Infantry, ATG, HT, AC, and Tanks seems very reasonable.

As for min range ... 200 yards for Medium Mortars and 100 yards for Light Mortars seems to work well too.
Mortars also provide smoke cover, so that needs to be considered. An attacking BG sometimes has a very small deployment zone, which limits the ability to deploy mortars far enough back to provide suppression fire and smoke cover for an attack.
In my opinion ... if you can limit the accuracy and damage of Mortars at min firing range of 200 yards for Medium and 100 yards for Light ... then that is the best solution. This way further distances will be less accurate, but smoke and suppression are still capable at 200 (med) and 100 yards (Light).

Also limiting mortar selection quantities is important. I've put together a selection rules overlay based on Platoon formation. You are welcome to use it as an extra option for players to use.

Last edited by davidssfx on Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:05 am; edited 1 time in total

PlatoonOverlayRules.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

279.44 KB

Viewed:

8203 Time(s)

PlatoonOverlayRulesFinal.zip

Description:

PSD layer

Download

Filename:

PlatoonOverlayRulesFinal.zip

Filesize:

1.01 MB

Downloaded:

262 Time(s)

#176: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:30 pm
—

Quote:

Flight time of the shell was realistically between 10 and 20 seconds.

Flight time is just a "Fake" in CC but is incorporated to add to the feel of realism.

Hitting the target is calculated at firing time.

#177: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:35 pm
—

Quote:

Dima's mortar data is GT2.0 works very well in my opinion ... please give it a try for comparison. It's effect on Infantry, ATG, HT, AC, and Tanks seems very reasonable.

As for min range ... 200 yards for Medium Mortars and 100 yards for Light Mortars seems to work well too.
Mortars also provide smoke cover, so that needs to be considered. An attacking BG sometimes has a very small deployment zone, which limits the ability to deploy mortars far enough back to provide suppression fire and smoke cover for an attack.
In my opinion ... if you can limit the accuracy and damage of Mortars at min firing range or 200 yards for Medium and 100 yards for Light ... then that is the best solution. This way further distances will be less accurate, but smoke and suppression are still capable at 200 (med) and 100 yards (Light).

Also limiting mortar selection quantities is important. I've put together a selection rules overlay based on Platoon formation. You are welcome to use it as an extra option for players to use.

I like how GT2.0 and Dima have employed mortars--I will take another look. I recall them being fairly benign against infantry in the open, and this is where mortars should shine. There are many ways to skin this cat considering a CC engine that significantly abstracts the use of mortars. I think that limiting mortar selection is one way to go, but I like to option to gamble in certain tactical situations/battles and trade out BG slots with more mortar tubes in order to deliver an unexpected, old-fashioned "stonk".

My criteria for finding a solution to the "mortar problem" have been the following:

1. preserve the impressive power they could deliver against infantry.
2. eliminate their ability to consistently, quickly, and accurately destroy open-topped AFVs and ATGs
3. make their effective employment cost something.
4. limit universal convenience without eliminating threat.

#178: Re: GJS for tLD Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 11:16 pm
—

Cathartes wrote (View Post):

My criteria for finding a solution to the "mortar problem" have been the following:

1. preserve the impressive power they could deliver against infantry.
2. eliminate their ability to consistently, quickly, and accurately destroy open-topped AFVs and ATGs
3. make their effective employment cost something.
4. limit universal convenience without eliminating threat.

Sounds well thought out. I've of course commented without knowing exactly how your mortars work, but since I think mortars need special attention in CC ... I'll add some more.
* = comments

1. preserve the impressive power they could deliver against infantry.
*
in GT2.0, mortars are powerful against infantry in the open and when upright, but much less affected when prone

2. eliminate their ability to consistently, quickly, and accurately destroy open-topped AFVs and ATGs
*
two med mortars should:
a. very rarely disable Tanks, rarely wound crew, low morale loss
b. rarely destroy HT/AC, occasionally disable vehicle and wound crew, medium morale loss
c. rarely destroy ATG, occasionally kill but consistently wound crew, high morale loss
d. always kill/wound moving infantry, occasionally wound prone, high morale loss

3. make their effective employment cost something.
*
a. no paired mortars for one slot
b. limit of three, and available only in slots where higher value assets are selected from (as in Platoon overlay). Forces a player to consider their use via trade off reasoning ... rather than just replacing infantry teams with mortars, while at the same time keeping Tanks, ATG's, HT/AC, MG's .

4. limit universal convenience without eliminating threat.
*
a. limit accuracy and damage, so at least two are needed to be effective
b. min firing range

I understand if you don't want to include the Platoon overlay ... some players don't want to have limits and most aren't familiar with the active roster representing one (real life numbers) Infantry Platoon with weapons platoon ... supported by tank platoon assets. But I prefer using the overlay, and have found it to be effective at generating what I believe is more realistic and balanced game play. Although I realize why the CC active roster is designed as it is ... it could be argued, that with the inherent limits of CC (soldiers per team and 15 slot max) that CC should have been from the start portrayed as a single rifle platoon with weapons platoon assets supported by Company/Battalion assets (Tank Platoon or combination of other support ... Med Mortar, ATG, HT/AC).
just a suggestion anyway ... but will be glad to play without it too Very Happy

Thanks again for TLD GJS Smile

Last edited by davidssfx on Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:12 am; edited 2 times in total

#179: Re: GJS for tLD Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:11 am
—
now were getting somewere Cool

Illumintion rounds for the night?

still just one night turn?

#180: Re: GJS for tLD Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:13 am
—
3. make their effective employment cost something.

Consider giving new personal weapons to the teams.

Short range and innacurate to increse that cost.

#181: Re: GJS for tLD Author: buuface, Location: Thailand

Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:20 am
—
Personally i think mortars in GJSv44 were just right, and how i imagine they should be in CC, except of course for how easily they destroy H/T and open-tops.

#182: Re: GJS for tLD Author: savage1987swb,

Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 8:54 pm
—
Whilst I admit this may not be the best question to ask, is there a download for this out yet? I'd love to play GJS on the longest day engine...

#183: Re: GJS for tLD Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Fri May 13, 2011 8:48 am
—
So how it going Cathartes you have gone quite on us!

#184: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Mon May 16, 2011 3:42 pm
—
A heavy, real-life workload has kept work on GJS-tLD to a minimum.

I'm currently revising all the map VLs and map descriptions. One of the benefits of this is that more VLs are out of reach from vehicles/armor and can only be taken with infantry.

#185: Re: GJS for tLD Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 4:19 am
—
Cathartes...yar must be getting close to uploading! any new info or news!

#186: Re: GJS for tLD Author: buuface, Location: Thailand

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:03 am
—
Carthartes have you got any further on this mate??

Dying to test this baby out.

#187: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:16 pm
—
still here, mod is still alive. finally have some time to resume work.

#188: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:19 am
—
Thanks for the update Cathartes!

#189: Re: GJS for tLD Author: QM, Location: Australia

Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 am
—
Great news Cathartes! Thanks.

#190: RM Commandos have their own uniforms Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:34 am
—
... and Canadians now have their own voice file

RMs on the move to take Port en Bessin:

RM_Commandos.jpg

Description:

the original green berets

Filesize:

588.21 KB

Viewed:

12288 Time(s)

#191: Re: GJS for tLD Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:32 am
—
Thanks for the update Chathartes ... we're all sure looking forward to this.
... nice going regarding the unique Canadian voice file

#192: Re: GJS for tLD Author: buuface, Location: Thailand

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:53 am
—
brilliant Cathartes!

good work mate

many players checking this forum every day now for news of this mod!!

#193: Re: GJS for tLD Author: ErwinSp,

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 12:12 pm
—
Looks impressive.

Keep up the good work!!

good luck with the Mod.

#194: Re: GJS for tLD Author: ke_mechial,

Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:18 pm
—
Nowadays I have been playing very much GJS Mod, although I have got a lot to do. But it is hard to stop! I was actually impressed by the DeathSound Mod of RD_DeathDealer from Red Devils Clan. Today I logged into the Community and noticed at Forum titels, that a new GJS Mod for TLS is to come. My Dreams came true... Good Work and Good Luck Catharles... I can have Patience, if we will all able to eat a delicious pie at the end... If GJS was a retail product, I think it would be a market success allover the world...

#195: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Wittmann81,

Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:19 pm
—
Although I am not posting very often, I am actually visiting this forum more or less every day to see if Cathartes has made any progress with the GJS mod Smile

#196: Re: GJS for tLD Author: US_Brake, Location: USA

Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:22 am
—

Link

#197: Re: GJS for tLD Author: ErwinSp,

Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:35 am
—
I am also aware of what's new in GJS Port.

#198: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Cathartes,

Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:55 pm
—
2269 Canadian names, all era-specific, many actual names of those that served.

#199: Re: GJS for tLD Author: davidssfx,

Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:19 pm
—

wow ... nice details Smile

#200: Re: GJS for tLD Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:55 am