RE: Combined Arms??????? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [In Development] >> Combined Arms: World War II (formerly Battlefields!)



Message


Ludovic Coval -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (8/18/2016 1:50:19 PM)

Here is a small screenshot from Surpercharge 1942 showing British 154th Infantry Brigade HQ and some attached units (shown with a green unit countour). The green pattern show HQ close band, the normal band is partially visible in yellow at left of image.

[image]local://upfiles/2186/6F706FFAB6DF49AC9F8F39FEB592140E.jpg[/image]




Ludovic Coval -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (8/18/2016 1:54:19 PM)

In order to reduce file size, I have to use a JPEG compression. Actual screens are much more readable (they have to, I used them everyday : )




zakblood -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (8/18/2016 1:55:19 PM)

will there be none nato counters as well? for idiots like me who still doesn't understand the Nato format ones[8|][:D][;)]




Ludovic Coval -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (8/18/2016 2:06:12 PM)

Game make use of NATO symbols for most units, or at least commonly used symbol in wargames. There are however exceptions for HQ which can either use the letter 'HQ' or German symbol. Depot use the now standard symbol while Dump now use US FM 100-10/1943 symbol (IIRC of FM number).




zakblood -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (8/18/2016 2:12:27 PM)

looks like i'll be asking someone to mod me some then when it's ready for beta [;)][:'(]




Ludovic Coval -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (8/18/2016 2:13:28 PM)

Part of Depot/Dump Editor which allow designer to set capacity, reload and logictical bands.

[image]local://upfiles/2186/46CD41DE6AD3474CAA946A703E28911D.gif[/image]




Alan Sharif -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (8/18/2016 2:16:21 PM)

Great to see some signs of life. I am still really looking forward to this game.




Ludovic Coval -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (8/18/2016 2:17:50 PM)

Symbols can be altered but don't expect too much from any modification I'd say. In order to use designer color setting, code has to create symbol shown as a combination of a white/grey/black mask and a blending treatment to create final surface (DS jargon). This mean that symbols will never be as clear that those availbale in other games like TAOW for example.




Ludovic Coval -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (8/18/2016 2:32:22 PM)

Some part of main screen using Aachen 1944. Game make use of a main terrain to be shown as a vignette in upper left part of screen under the micro map.



[image]local://upfiles/2186/B1CC7200F63D46D4A1D1140C79497525.gif[/image]




Ludovic Coval -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (8/18/2016 2:33:38 PM)

Note the cursor position in the above image which ask game to show terrain in sector 3 of the hex occupied by the German unit

[image]local://upfiles/2186/1DF5A1260D95469AB3C688C7B31D8AC7.gif[/image]




Ludovic Coval -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (8/18/2016 2:34:11 PM)

Now the main terrain vignette

[image]local://upfiles/2186/3524917B8A334669B317C14CDB420E87.gif[/image]




Ludovic Coval -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (8/18/2016 2:44:19 PM)

Some part of an attack planning, Salerno 1943

[image]local://upfiles/2186/FF729759C3AE4A308AC810FBC9BA1030.gif[/image]




Ludovic Coval -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (8/18/2016 2:45:07 PM)

Part of the Attack screen :

[image]local://upfiles/2186/AC7C5722C04548D096FBBB24B4AE0CB9.gif[/image]




Ludovic Coval -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (8/18/2016 2:46:29 PM)

A look at the terrain modifier (actual screen is called trough the Attack Screen)

[image]local://upfiles/2186/61C8055421B2455F915EBF11D4ABED9B.gif[/image]




Ludovic Coval -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (8/18/2016 3:00:28 PM)

Combat Result (part of Attack Report)

[image]local://upfiles/2186/B05943F953524CA3833BDDB5BBA0968D.gif[/image]




Ludovic Coval -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (8/18/2016 3:02:57 PM)

Attack Report use a visual organisation similar to Attack Planning to simplify reading

[image]local://upfiles/2186/89A9DFE270504443861A45999DFA0092.gif[/image]




Ludovic Coval -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (8/18/2016 3:04:00 PM)

Details on Attacker parameters :

[image]local://upfiles/2186/48C93916715F4D7DBCDAAFCCCA85875A.gif[/image]




Ludovic Coval -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (8/18/2016 3:04:32 PM)

Details on Defender parameters :

[image]local://upfiles/2186/2BC34F51EBFE45E284C851FDF09C4EB2.gif[/image]




Deathtreader -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (8/18/2016 10:54:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alan Sharif

Great to see some signs of life. I am still really looking forward to this game.


Me too! [:)]

Rob.




gionpeters -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (9/5/2016 11:31:20 PM)

Great Googly Moogly ! Is it true ! After so many years, there is progress ! Keep us informed !

Tom




jamespcrowley -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (9/18/2016 8:02:55 PM)

[X(] Can this be real?

I'm frightened to even start getting excited about this. It has just been such a long time.

I shall watch this forum with great interest.




Lobster -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (9/22/2016 4:49:00 AM)

[sm=00000958.gif] Oh my. [X(]




Fred98 -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (9/22/2016 11:07:00 PM)

The screen shots in this thread show the effectiveness of camouflage.

Please change the camouflage so we can read the screens.

Thanks!




Deathtreader -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (9/22/2016 11:10:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

The screen shots in this thread show the effectiveness of camouflage.

Please change the camouflage so we can read the screens.

Thanks!



[:D][:D]




solops -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (9/29/2016 5:53:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

The screen shots in this thread show the effectiveness of camouflage.

Please change the camouflage so we can read the screens.

Thanks!


+1

While I appreciate the thought and effort of the "camo" background, it is one of the most user hostile UI features I have ever seen! The most amazing part is that it is totally passive.




Lobster -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (10/31/2016 12:38:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

The screen shots in this thread show the effectiveness of camouflage.

Please change the camouflage so we can read the screens.

Thanks!


Post #46 says it can be changed by players.




Ludovic Coval -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (12/8/2016 12:36:52 PM)

Gents,

Few words about CA revamp which run slowly but smoothly. Basically Game is completed safe for Minefields attacks. Yet it remain a lot to do before A.I re-coding mainly Multi Player and Replay. No screenshots this time as Multi Player screens would make few sense without a full explanation of pocedure used. Let's say that MP allow team to play in parallel, that is Players receive the game file from their CiC, issue theirs orders and then sent back their orders file to their CiC which consolidate all files in the master file. Most of code work but Detachment call for complex separate handling on which I'm currently working.




jmlima -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (12/8/2016 1:00:46 PM)

*sigh*

Must say, and I apologize in advance but... what friggin use is team-play on a battalion level game? Short of the sort of campaign that is played by about 10 people in 10 years in things like the PzC series, cannot see why this would be a priority, or even hold the game release. But hey-ho, 23 days to go until the new tumbleweed thread.




Ludovic Coval -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (12/9/2016 6:13:02 PM)

Fair question.

There are several reasons for which players may wish to use team play. The first and most important being fun :)

It also introduce some kind of realism as a single player got a limited knowledge of what others players will do and how they perceive the situation. I think that command junction will become as much critical spots that they turned to be in real battles.

Finally CA use an order system, which mean that planning is more time consumming than in an alternate system. This also introduce a level of uncertainty about enemy intentions. If memory serve me correctly in a Narvik game played by Georges and John, one player planned an all out assault taking time to use a mode change in order to maximize his attack chance of success. His opponent had planned a withdrawal and had time to truck out of area.

What I mean is that contrary to an alternate system, a player will have to design a plan which encompass as much as possible actions of his opponent. And such a process take time. Even a single US ID advance in Cherbourg can lead to some heavy brain activity.






geozero -> RE: Combined Arms??????? (12/13/2016 3:04:41 AM)

IN a WEGO system it is possible (as it did for me in the Narvik scenario which I co-designed and the actual playtest) to withdraw to avoid an assault that would have destroyed me. There is some arguments for "dancing around" in a WEGO system where the two sides avoid each other. This can be eliminated by limiting number of turns, enough victory points or occupy zones required that need to be held or occupied, and a solid system of zone of control or "friction" rules. Add to this some unit based OR random "initiative" rules, and the result will be that even when withdrawing the forces may not completely get out before the attack hits.

So for example mechanized units will always move faster than infantry in open terrain (you can't out-run a tank or AFV). So even if you order a withdrawal and the attacker is attacking the hex you occupied your units may or may not entirely get out unscathed.

The same could hold true for mortar/artillery barrages, naval or air attack, and even some terrain situations where the defender may get cornered. Therefore, this forces the player to think ahead several turns rather than just move/react as you would a standard IGOUGO system. It becomes more RTS but with the ability to think and plan through the turns and not be a clickfest.

With CA there was always the ability to plan an entire attack along a wide front, only to discover that supplies, counter attacks, terrain or other factors created issues along the line for attacker as well as defender.

I still believe that this game system will give gamers a whole new experience.






Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.546875