Jump to content

hellfish

Members
  • Content Count

    1,877
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About hellfish

  • Rank
    CMSF Beta Tester

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm interested. CMMC (for CMBO - 12 years ago?) was one of the best gaming experiences I've ever had. Given that lots of people tend to drop out as games like this drag on (CMMC was something like 9-12 months?) maybe there should be a more dedicated staff pool (the core players) and then just let anybody drop in if they just want to fight. This way they don't have to worry about being dual hatted as a battle player and a planning player. IIRC in CMMC I wore three different hats at one point.
  2. M48s (or, hell, M60A1s) vs T-64s would be extremely painful...
  3. I always though Northeast Asia (Korean peninsula) would be interesting. Base game = ROK + US vs DPRK. Expansions for PLA, JGSDF, USMC (and maybe ANZAC?) and Russia.
  4. I have pdf copies of all the manuals. Fond memories. One of the first books I remember buying was the Soviet Vehicle Handbook. Loved those color plates.
  5. Ah, OK. CMFI is the one getting module'd up to 1945, not CMBN.
  6. Yeah, IIRC BN is getting another module that covers the Bulge up to May 45? I expect the 3.0 will come along at the same time the Bulge module comes out, with the Bulge including the flamers. I kinda need my Pershing fix.
  7. Your rig is pretty close to mine. I have an MSI notebook as well, i7-3610QM, GTX 670M and 12 megs of RAM.
  8. Same result. The single story house SE of the two story house can be entered, the others cannot.
  9. I'm straight up default with all my settings, install locations, etc. To clarify, I can place a waypoint on a building, get asked which level of the building I want my squad to go into, and a second later the waypoint gets cancelled. So the game does recognize the buildings, it just doesn't seem to recognize a valid path for my troops to enter these specific modular buildings.
  10. Basically getting ground truth in engineerese (as opposed to cavalryspeak). Doing stuff like identifying the kinds of vehicles the river ford's bed will support, identify local sources of raw materiel, do an actual eyes-on recon of enemy obstacles, etc. It's about as wide and varied as you can imagine. Cavalry and infantry can (and do) do it too, but engineers have the kind of expertise that's sometimes required. The Army/Marine manual: http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-34-170.pdf
  11. Engineering is a hugely specific task that involves a lot of programming for relatively limited payoff. I worked on an infantry sim years ago and we were asked by an engineering schoolhouse (can't remember if it was Leonard Wood or the Marines) to do engineering tasks - placing and removing minefields, breaching obstacles, combat earthmoving, etc. Some of it we could do with little effort (engineer recon, emplacing some obstacles) but doing many of the tasks in a realistic way would have been exceedingly difficult to do and extremely expensive. So it'd be all that work for a group of features that would be very specific and often so mind-numbingly dull and/or complex that - in a game - might very well not be worth the effort. You can expect people to play with tanks and ATGMs and infantry nearly 100% of the time. Engineers doing engineery things - especially if you do semi-realistic timelines? Not so much. I think the Russian automatic trenching machines would be pretty cool, though.
  12. I'm on a laptop with an Intel Core i7-3610QM. 12 gigs of DDR3, Nvidia Geforce GTX 670M (3gb GDDR5). Win7 SP1.
×
×
  • Create New...