Jump to content

TBlaster

Members
  • Content Count

    103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TBlaster

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • Location
    Cape Canaveral, FL
  • Interests
    Wargaming/Sims
  • Occupation
    PC Systems Specialist
  1. Thanks SLIM - VASSAL will work for us. I tried it last night and loaded the Ardenne 44 module - perfect for us. My friend who I play with is a programmer, if he does decide to make Unity based version of an operational layer I'll let you know.
  2. My friend and I have been playing CM since the first release. We don't like the newer versions, I won't go into details as it's not relevant for this topic. What I am looking for is a Operational type game that doesn't auto-resolve combat I know - all do. I want to be able to move pieces on a map and when enemy forces meet provide me with a list of equipment and men for both players so I can create a CM based tactical battle. After the battle the new values would be plugged back into the operational layer (manually of course as there's no way to automate this) Long term we are looking at using the Unity engine to create our own Operational layer but we want to use a 3rd party program first. Many years ago I used Aide de Camp 2 (board game converter) - but it's so old now I can't even make it run anymore. Is there anything out there that doesn't auto-resolve combat and allows values to be entered? Thanks - TB
  3. Just to clarify - the platoon didn't move into the village after the bombardment ended. This game was played in Realtime and my opponent and I were using voice comms and discussed the bombardment. The map started out with damaged buildings but none of the buildings were destroyed during the shelling. Now to be fair, I didn't look to see if any of the shells actually hit any of the buildings, but I saw impact craters all around the village area. The QB map we played on was the one containing 2 village objective areas. A river seperated the two areas and there were rather large hills. The village I was hitting was the center objective.
  4. I've noticed that there is a lot less "splash" damage with artillery compared to CM1. I was playing one match where I pre-plotted a 240m radius area that contained a village using 2 american 240mm artillery guns that pounded the area for 15 minutes using the "medium" intensity setting. When I then assaulted the position my opponents infantry platoon was virtually unscathed within the buildings. Even exposed units in close proximity of the blast survived the impact (about 10 meters from the crater) During the same barrage one of the explosions wounded a mortar team that was 320 meters away from the impact area. (We confirmed that no other unit shot the mortar team and the casualty had to come from the arty shell) So I guess I don't understand how the damage is calculated. Angle of impact determines the path of the shrapnel?
  5. TBlaster

    Gamma options, seriously

    On night missions I have to turn my desktop gamma all the way up or I can't see anything.
  6. I've been playing 1-2 multiplayer games a day since release and I don't know if it's just bad luck, but I've seen Bazookas and Schreck's miss stationary tanks at 100-150 meter range quite frequently. This is using highly motivated veteran schreck teams that are unsurpressed and not spotted by the enemy. In my games so far I've only run into 3 kills by a zook/schreck team (again, all multiplayer). What have your experiences been? I miss the % chance to hit indicator from CM1.
  7. TBlaster

    BF, You Blew It

    No I'm not. I do know about Network Engineering. When I bought the game no one asked me if I was going to play Multiplayer, and what modes I would use. I have not heard of anyone else post that they were received any kind of survey asking them about that either. Hence the only possible way of Battlefront knowing how many players use multiplayer is by means of IT. And that will be easy enough to test with a packet sniffer.
  8. TBlaster

    BF, You Blew It

    The only way to my knowledge how this could be possible is if CM would send that information to a battlefront server everytime someone initiated a multiplayer session. If this is the case, then yes, they have good data.
  9. TBlaster

    BF, You Blew It

    Do you have numbers to back this up? Does Battlefront have numbers to back up their usage statistics? How can they tell who is playing multiplayer?
  10. TBlaster

    BF, You Blew It

    Answer: Simultaneous Turns! While I'm working on doing my turn, my opponent is working on his. If we play via PBEM one of us is always waiting on the other player. This not only makes the game last a lot longer but is actually boring for the player that's waiting for the other player to finish their turn!
  11. TBlaster

    BF, You Blew It

    Put up an official poll - ask how important TCP/IP WEGO is for your user base compared to things like moveable waypoints, flamethrowers, etc. I think there is more interest in multiplayer than you may think.
  12. TBlaster

    BF, You Blew It

    You know - I tried that a few days ago in a thread titled "Multiplayer Issues" (or similar) and i had 3-4 responses to basically the same issue. Chances are Battlefront didn't even see it. There's a much better chance getting attention using a controverisal title.
  13. TBlaster

    BF, You Blew It

    Was the decision not to add a pause feature in RT play a technical one or by design? If it is game engine related, then that's a huge oversight when programming it. If it's by design, then that's rather arrogant. I would respectfully request an update on Battlefront's road map in regrads to multiplayer.
  14. I'm going to have to agree here. I play Multiplayer most of the time, and managing real time without pause makes it non-enjoyable. Short term fix: Please enable a pause option Long term: TCPIP WEGO!
  15. <Disclaimer - I bought but didn't really play Shock Force> Am I missing something, or is it really not possible to pause the game in multiplayer while using real time mode? This is crucial - wives, pets, all kinds of hazzards! Is TCP/IP WEGO still on the table for future implementation? Other than that my first Real Time multiplayer game was rock solid, but when you are dealing with a company + worth of units it really is too difficult to manage - I'm really missing TCP/IP WEGO.
×