Jump to content

Sitting Duck

Members
  • Posts

    328
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sitting Duck

  • Birthday 05/31/1963

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    WhatIsAIM
  • Website URL
    http://Yes
  • ICQ
    WhatIsICQ

Converted

  • Location
    Certain Assbackwards State
  • Interests
    None
  • Occupation
    Software Development Manager

Sitting Duck's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Battle of the Bulge - in miniature: http://vimeo.com/85204639 Tank Brake Test (a bit unnerving): http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b4f_1390833010
  2. You'll probably get better answers from Google than this lot...
  3. I like it. Some additional items to consider: - Vertical scroll bar - Include icons for off-map arty/air - Perhaps use "twisties" at leader level to collapse/expand formation elements. This control could also be leveraged for split squads and units that are being transported.
  4. That would be an awesome hear the German tank commander say when getting plinked by small arms fire from a Ami Bazooka team from a (formerly) nice ambush position... Just as he rotates the main gun and eliminates "that man."
  5. My jeep can't turn for sh!t. In fact it has a warning...something like this: Perhaps CMBN roads should get these installed to avoid convoy problems:
  6. I guess spalling would result in similar complaints.
  7. Point-to-Point LOS Tool Details... Perhaps the default should be motionless (but not hiding) infantry. Another option would be to require the selection of a unit, first - just avoid placing the false movement point. Point-to-All-Points LOS Tool In most cases, I would agree. But it seems fairly realistic for the defender in prepared defense battles. The observer height complication would need to be addressed, too.
  8. Nice to have features... Movable Waypoints. I personally think this is more important than nice to have, but some think moveable waypoints are convenience only, so I'll put it on the nice to have list, too. More than one pre-plotted indirect fire mission per asset. When I tackle a battle, I would like the ability to pre-plot indirect fire more than just 1 mission per asset. As it is now, I think I can only pre-plot one mission for each asset. For example, I'd like to pre-plot a smoke mission to cover an advance on Turn 1. Then I'd like to bring down some death and destruction on suspected enemy battle positions when the smoke clears on turn 5. Unconnected LOS tool Because plotting a spurious movement point first is just inconvenient. There could be different tools for LOS depending on how "omniscient" terrain spotting should be. Point-to-Point LOS Tool Pretty much what we have now w/o the bother of first plotting a movement point. Could be easily initiated using key stroke (ctrl+alt+left-click?). Point-to-All-Points LOS Tool Another solution is to allow selection of a spot on the map (ctrl+alt+left-click?) and then show the player what other terrain spots on the map have obstructed (dark), partially obstructed (less dark) or unobstructed (bright) view to/from that spot. This would be a pretty powerful tool for a defender - but probably mimics what would happen in a prepared defense scenario where the defender selects choke/ambush targets and then looks around to figure out out where to position defensive assets. Non-Omniscient Terrain Spotting Other than the defender in a prepared defense scenario, players shouldn't be able see terrain detail that their units cannot see. Even defenders should not be able to see changes in terrain caused by unit action that their units cannot see. Expected Movement Path Information It's kind of frustrating to plot a movement only to discover that the actual path the unit takes is silly or worse suicidal. Even worse for the WEGO player, being unable to do anything about it for 60 seconds except scream "STOP!" at the monitor. There might be a couple of ways to tackle this... Unit Cannot Enter/Unit Cannot Cross It seems most of the movement issues occur when a unit cannot cross a terrain type. The movement pointer does show when a unit cannot enter a terrain. But as far as I can tell, the movement pointer does not show when a unit cannot cross a terrain. So perhaps one solution would be to have the movement pointer show when a unit cannot cross a terrain. Another possible solution along these lines is to change the color of terrain that a unit cannot enter or cannot cross when plotting movement orders. Show Expected Movement Path Once movement is plotted, allow the player to see the path the unit expects to take to reach the various waypoints. That would allow players to easily spot anticipated silliness. Maybe this could even help with vehicle congestion since units can interfere with each others movement path. Copy Movement Commands Select a unit and have the option to copy the movement path of another unit beginning at a selected waypoint. For example, the player has plotted movement for Unit1. When plotting movement for Unit2, the player has the option to "copy" the movement commands of Unit1, beginning at a selected waypoint. Combined with moveable waypoints (described above), this would be extremely powerful.
  9. I am another WEGO player that would like to see the return of movable waypoints as a high priority. Yes, I guess it may only be a matter of convenience. But the same could be said for the mouse...
  10. I'm still learning the ropes with CMBN and I'm looking for recommendations on which files I should download from the Repository. I prefer smaller combined arms battles vs the AI - no easy way to tell this with the current repository interface, so I'm asking here. Thank you! If this isn't the right forum to ask, please let me know and I'll re-ask in the right place.
  11. I think I would rephrase this... If I understand correctly, the game already handles constant LOS checks from every unit to every other unit. I think what's is being discussed is a LOS check from each unit to every terrain tile. This could probably be handled in the way you suggest, but rather than use 100% real-time calculations, it might be faster to figure out terrain LOS and store it in a table. When "compiling" a map, a table is produced indicating LOS from each terrain tile to every other terrain tile. As play ensues, spotting rules can be applied that leverage the baseline terrain LOS data in the table to determine if a given unit can spot terrain/changes. If I understand the point correctly, currently "terrain spotting" is instantly known to all units and players. We all know every detail of the maps we play on - including changes due to unit activity - before our units have LOS. We might call the current situation Omniscient Borg Terrain Spotting. One possible implementation of less omniscient terrain spotting would be to implement 2 additional maps, for a total of 3 maps for each battle: the "real" terrain map with full detail and then one terrain map for each player that is changed as the player develops LOS to individual terrain tiles. Note that the respective player terrain maps would need to updated as a player's units develop LOS to individual terrain tiles that have been changed since they were last observed. [bTW - Since there is only one terrain map for each side, I guess this would really be like Borg Terrain Spotting, but it does get away from omniscient spotting since there must be some unit with LOS to view the terrain/change.] Another possible implementation of relativistic terrain spotting would be to implement an additional map for each unit. I'd guess fully relativistic terrain spotting would be too taxing. Furthermore, I don't think fully relativistic terrain spotting is really too different from the previous idea.
  12. "It is a game engine limitation (right now)." For grins, what would be needed to model Upper Gun Elevation Limits (UGEL) and Lower Gun Elevation Limits (LGEL)? Vehicle Data Upper and Lower Gun Elevation Limits. For AFVs with rotating turrets, would the LGEL vary as the turret swings around? I presume this data is available with some research, but not tracked in the game. Situation Data Shooter Vehicle Attitude (pitch, yaw - probably derived from terrain data) Shooter Vehicle Altitude Target Altitude Target Attitude (pitch, yaw - not strictly needed for this calc, but important for determining impact zone) Target Distance How much of this data is already tracked in the game? Base line gun elevation can be determined from the Target Distance and difference between the altitude of the Shooter and Target. That part seems pretty simple. Base line gun elevation would then need to be modified based on the Shooter attitude (pitch, yaw) - and perhaps for turret angle of the shooter. This part seems a lot less simple...consider. Shooter Vehicle Attitude would probably have to be determined from the terrain ("lay of the land" so-to-speak, say 5% grade @ 90d) and further modified by position of the AFV on the terrain (are you behind the low wall, climbing the low wall or coming down off the low wall?)...and then Shooter Weapon orientation on the terrain (for turreted AFVs). And probably more besides... For my own part, I think I'd be OK just leaving this abstracted as it is.
  13. There must be some criteria used by scenario creators now, yes? How do they decide how many "soldiers" to show when you select a scenario in the Battle interface?
  14. That doesn't seem like a problem to me. Pick something arbitrary - it doesn't matter because it would be better than the current state.
×
×
  • Create New...