Jump to content

slysniper

Members
  • Content Count

    2,822
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

slysniper last won the day on February 8

slysniper had the most liked content!

About slysniper

  • Rank
    Who Needs Titles

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Converted

  • Location
    Louisville, Ky USA
  • Occupation
    Structural Eng.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,565 profile views
  1. All true, But they were also are doing something never done before, so I am sure that they did not get everything as stream lined as maybe possible. But they have likely learned a lot about what works well and what did not work well in the CMX2 engine design. Now I figure that when the time comes for the CMX3 engine, they will be doing many thing different that will improve and hopefully help them with their production. They are talented people and they give us something no one else seems willing to do, so I can be patient as they do what they feel best as to making a living doing what they like to do.
  2. Or you all are not accounting for the fact that BF has been producing and the reason it seems like there is a slow down is that they are producing products that are not us. With the fact that we now know they have a couple of government projects is likely a big part of why we see the amount of finished projects we now have. BF is actively producing, we just are not the beneficiary's of it.
  3. Very well said Vet 0369 That is basically how I looked at this thread. We live at a time where there is people that have no patience and all of their thoughts are self centered. So this thread is a perfect example of that. Person likes the game, wants more of the game and is not getting more of the game fast enough for their personal wants. - Thus there must be a problem and that problem must be from the source of who makes the game. They need and must do it faster. Never in the process of their thinking is there a care or concern about that source or how it would impact that, the thought is focused on getting more faster, nothing else. Never does the thought cross their mind that the method presently being used is what is already creating the thing they enjoy so much. They have no respect for the efforts of others if it does not meet their perceived needs. The sad thing is, their view does impact things and how people view this company. But what is even more sad, I am sure this trait is impacting their life in more aspects than what we see here. I am sure their frustration with life is constant.
  4. Aurelius is correct and he has it down to perfection on his times as to how to get a shot off and then run back into cover. And his proof was how he managed to keep one ATGM team alive after multiple firings on my American force that I could not get a lock on him with.
  5. Yes, and letting the player know that certain decisions lead to negative results is a good concept. I think a campaign that lets you know there is 10 battles to play if you do well but then shuts you down in earlier battles and stops you because you have not made certain requirements representing commands expectations for your force is a good concept. I don't remember which campaign used that concept but I remember playing one battle poorly so it ended me a couple of battles from the full campaign and not being able to complete the full mission felt correct since my one battle performance was not good.
  6. Well, it all depends on what is wanted from the design. For those here that are wanting a feel in the game that seems realistic. Then any design done with that 3 to 1 ratio, will likely get it. No matter the size. For no real life commander is going to order a attack with infantry unless he believes he has at least that type of a advantage. ( but as to the challenge of game play, there is hardly any at that ratio unless there is some great defensive terrain advantages.) thus boring to many players. Where as, to create a battle in CM that gives the chance of the battle to swing either way in its outcome generally requires that ratio to be 3 to 2 and limiting the time so that the offence cannot take its time to dismantle the defense piecemeal. (which none of these things are realistic to as to situations that commanders would want to commit there troops to.) But when the goal of the design is not to portray history as much as it is to create a situations where a player decisions will either bring a victory of defeat type results. Then that is where the design for a single scenario goes. (So I would not expect that to change in many of the scenario's that get created) Just feel fortunate that you do have campaigns that you can have as one sided battles as you like and that there is interest in the fact in that you are wondering if the losses you do suffer will cost you down the road as battle upon battle adds up. (That is how the interest is created) But no matter what you design, there has to be a way to create a interest as to your decisions making a outcome as to the results. I personally hate most campaigns, why, because after investing way too many hours into them , I find most, even when making poor decisions allow me to go on from map to map, continuing to give me the impression I am doing a good job and rewarding me. Where as in truth, there is no real punishment towards me for bad choices. I don't care how the designer creates the battles, what I care about is has the designer made a situation that I feel my decisions matters - that is the key to a good design.
  7. Had not played much CMFI lately so decided to mess around. Set up a QB against the AI on a very small map and selected Italian infantry as my force against a AI attack using forces of its choice. Normally I hate these things as to what they create. So the battle starts and I quickly see I am against Canadians with Sherman V's and a little bit of supporting infantry. I have MMG's and 45 MM mortars, well perfect stuff to take on Armor, oh I did have two tanks, if you want to call them that. But hey, at least they had a chance of taking out the armor. But I started this thing , so lets see what I can do with infantry and having to use them in close assaults verse armor. It came out it had 8 Shermans, and about 20 men in brems and such. I started hiding all my men behind walls, hedges and in grape vines. Since the map was very small the AI kept the armor together as it moved to its objectives. Thus doing a good job of covering its own units if and when I let the infantry attack. But this turned into one of the funniest battles I have played in a long time. . My armor only accounted for one enemy tank. My infantry destroyed 3 Shermans and immobilized 4. The MMg's kept what little infantry there was at bay. I used the mortars on the tanks trying to help immobilize them. they accounted for one immobilization and maybe aided in one or 2 others. In came down to swarming infantry on the armor and close assaulting (Too bad there is no graphics other than HG's flying. but they were busy doing that.) It cost me 110 Italians, literally using ammo support troops on the mmg's as part of my attacks. Bloody and fun - sometimes this game really delivers. When I was done, It was like I started thinking, this would make a great scenario. What a mismatch . (and amazed that what is or should be the weak side did have strength in only one thing, numbers, the number of men I had to throw at those tanks).
  8. As mentioned, I have seen night and fog conditions that were so bad that I could not see 10 feet and make anything clear out of what I was looking at. a no moon night with clouds or under a tree canopy makes it very hard to see any distance. Fog can get so thick that shining a light makes it worse. Either situation is really bad The problem is, the game reflects that type of vision all the time in settings it should not. Where as, those type of conditions are very rare even in the middle of no-where.
  9. Someone did a series of battles for it but I am pretty sure it was in CMx1 I just remember playing them after I had created one battle of my own. So I am thinking it was back in that time frame
  10. Well a new one on the top of my list is. Sleeping troops. I was playing some different night scenarios at one point and I was trying to infiltrate enemy lines with elite units that were unknown to the enemy. It dawned on me how unrealistic it was, every enemy unit on the alert , all watching and waiting to ambush my men. Where as, this is the farthest from the truth.. If no enemy are known to be in a area, most men are in a state of sleep. listening post are set, a percentage of men are on watch and the rest are either trying to get needed task done or needed rest. (And this is not just at night, even in the day, during down times, commanders are trying to make sure their men are getting rest.) So it crossed my mind, the designer should have a feature to put a certain percentage of men to sleep at the start of the battle, providing only a small portion of each squad to be active. This is the state they remain in til enemy gun fire is heard or friendly troops spot enemy units or things along these lines. Then they awake depending on how close they are to the event and then a little time of not full ability as they get their act together to be able to fight and figure out what is going on. Anyway, as someone that has done this for real, I know for a fact its only because of this that we were able to do such feats. Literally were able to get right inside enemy camps. I knew of one sniper team which actually waited in some scrubs for hours near a commanders tent for them to go to sleep and snuck in and obtained planning documents right of the tables in there and then managed to get out of there in time before it was noticed, which was at about 4:00am, then it was like a ant bed. that has been stomped on. They had every troop on that mountain side patrolling and searching, their commander was pissed and he was willing to risk his men to try and catch who did it.
  11. I like your thinking. I agree with you on all three areas. ( I construct 3d models for a living and that is exactly how you can improve the map making ability for the game) what could be a easy start to that is providing the ability to split screen, meaning two views, one for the 3d view and one for their present 2d systems. Then they could take their time getting abilities to do thing directly in the 3d environment. I love your concept to programming battle plans for item 2. I think AI scripting is very unnatural in its present forms. But a system of memory that repeats moves of what a person shows for each unit would be a interesting way of approaching it. (still would need trigger overrides and such) but I would love to just show how I want the units to move and where to exactly locate and have the machine try to carry out the plan. Freedom to create is always on the top of my list also. (any restrictions is always a negative in my book) So I don't even like it when they try to limit it to just the historical units present at only certain times (that's great when you want a historical set up but why not allow for a button option where that can be removed. basically any unit available for any time or any army). It would allow crazy stuff but also some interesting things that are historical also.Like use of captured equipment .
  12. Blame the Scenario designers, you are correct as to how seldom some units are used. But blame yourself also, I am not afraid to make my own set ups with those units that you claim are never used. So I have enjoyed them included in the game, where as I am so sick of Tiger tanks that I could not play with one for years and still be happy. But in general, don't expect someone else to create and meet your needs, CM gives you the ability to set up and create what you want . (That's the best part about the game, So removing options as to units would be a poor decision in my book.) But hey, I would still be playing CMX1 because of having so many units to choose from, but game play in CMX2 was so much more realistic and graphics that were not outdated made me accept the fact I am limited as to time periods I can now only play in. (So CM3 would have to be a massive improvement in play before I would accept the fact I was limited even more by fewer units to being able to create different match ups with.
  13. Actually, hard to ever know how accurate it is to real life. but I think they have it about right for what I have read on accounts. But it never hurts to have different opinions
  14. ok, I have a test map. I just ran a few quick test to see what I could get I have 5 tanks on a reverse slope that drops one elev for each action square. for two squares I have 4 gills, each firing from a different distance, I counted hits vs misses. only on tanks that have not moved FROM THE REVERSE SLOPE for one minute of play RAN THREE TIMES. 2 HITS , 5 MISSES. 2 HITS, 5 MISSES. 4 HITS, 4 MISSES. So here is the real question, should the gill have a problem with this type of target. I don't know the answer to that. But the game does show its a challenge, not a impossibility. If it was a game computing problem, it would never hit. If you want the test scenario, I can make it available. I also assume I could get a certain position to be very hard to hit if I just went one location vs one location and kept making fine adjustments. But from what I am seeing, the game shows me gills have a problem dropping on hulled down position units?, the question is should they???
  15. yes, normally the action square just behind the one the unit is in. I will try and set up a test map and see if I can create what we are discussing
×
×
  • Create New...