Jump to content

Sedak

Members
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sedak

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Converted

  • Location
    Czech Republic, Brno

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hi all, I thought that my Macbook 12" with Core m7 will run CMFB, albeit not on max settings of course. I have activated the app successfully, but then it will not launch, jumps once in the Dock and quits itself. Graphics card (HD 515) should not be an issue as this engine shall be running even on much older HD4000. Is the processor the problem? It is certainly faster then the minimal 2.2 C2D, only the base clock speed is slower. Or am I missing something else? Thanks, Sedak
  2. How does the 5K iMac work with CM? Can you run it in 5K and max quality smoothly? I'm about to receive riMac in top configuration and I'm surely gonna play CM on it.
  3. Hi. Few days ago I read a great article from famous Czech historian Jiri Rajlich (focused on WWII) regarding Lend-Lease and it's impact on Soviet Union. All with numbers and nice information. I'm away next four days, but I'd like to translate it and post here. Without Lend-Lease, USSR may not necessarily lose the war, but the should be very lucky to be on eastern Ukraine in summer 1945... The amount of trucks, clothes, food, steel and other stuff was enormous! They could build 80k T-34 tanks from US steel if they used it just for that.
  4. Keep such screenshots coming, Umlaut! Do vehicles have difficulty to navigate in such heavy urban terrain?
  5. Hi all, I wanted to check whether their functionality is modelled in the game and how to use them properly. I'm talking about 250/3 and 250/3 versions. They should have extra long range radios. Their inherent crew is minimal (one or two guys counting driver in). Do they need a HQ team in order to make communication better? Would the expected effect be that radio-equipped units (tank, other HQs) will have better information on enemy force sightings by that HT? Does it make any effect on other units behavior? Thanks, Ondrej
  6. Hi I noticed (and heard in some other threat) that "gunners" target the centre of the mass of the opponent vehicle. While this is alright when the vehicle can be likely penetrated anywhere or particular distance and inherent inaccuracy of AT guns cannot support other behaviour. But then, on smaller maps often (or closer distances), opponents could be targetted more "smartly" by higher experience units. I mean either targeted smartly or act quickly to get out of the scene. (this I believe I saw much often in old CMBO - nowdays 20mm halftrack keeps firing on the T-34 when it is on the edge of the slope and could just fire once and retreat, not to stand and die like a noob! It was a veteran unit.) Smart fire can mean PZIV targetting lower hull of JS-2 (or retreat if possible). Of course, some shots will be short, but the overall change of inflicting decising damage is higher then by targeting a center of the mass and bounce everything. Or 50mm AT gun targeting turret of T-34(76) instead of hull on reasonable distances. Or AA guns can target trackes on shorter distances, trying to immobile enemy tanks and then even abandon their station and run away like hell when the enemy unit start targetting them. This could be random, more likely for higher experience units. Is this difficult to code or was this "thinking" too rare in the real combat? Thanks
  7. I'm wondering why Germans didn't make Tiger I frontal armor thicker in later variants. 130 mm in front could save them (us) a lot of trouble from US 76mm and Soviet 85mm guns.
  8. Michael, it is about the first experience(s). Confusion in difficulty levels certaily doesn't help here. Maybe it is a minor thing, maybe not that much...
  9. Kieme: I havent' realized that any such action could have big impact on game code (at least in the way it delays development for certain time). I play CM since CMBO as well (I just skipped CMSF series). And I can read manual. Still there are (hopefully) promising newcomers and every single unclear or complicated thing drives them off this game. I wanted to suggest that two basic modes "Beginner" (possible merge of Basic Training and Veteran) and "Realistic" mode with in game swith between former Elite and Iron (little difference really) might serve the purpose much better then current 5 options. Which are, without reading the manual, confusing! I mean newcomer can think that playing in Elite means opponent gets 30 % more units or bigger (alpha damage) in general I do not want to drive option down, not in general way. I just feel some things (in UI) work better when there are fewer and clear then more and confusing option.
  10. Hi I noticed that when the German infantry in mounted on Sonder Kraftzeug, their heads are popping up. When I run even by accident too close to russian infantry with plenty of automatic weapons, they open fire and achieve many "head shots". I know from personal experience that german halftrack is surprisingly small. But there is still some room for infanty to shring so their heads are not above vehicle's surface in emergency. Could this be (easily) coded? I would do exactly this being a soldier Soviet SMGs cannot penetrate HT armor and it would save me few pixeltruppen by realistic way. Thanks
  11. This is purely rhetorical question. Why not have 30 levels instead to suit everyone? More options are better, right? Maybe even more then that? The "Beginner" mode is more then understandable and Elite/Iron modes could both be called "realistic" and user could be able to togle between those during the game for instance. I can understand and imagine that very well. The "Beginner" mode could be a merge between "Basic Training" and "veteran". Still, five or six difficulty levels seem to me like too confusing and not self-understanding, especially the way they are called and presented (how many people do really read manual?). Hey, but such decision is not on me, no stress
  12. umlaut Solomon Short: Nothing exceeds like excess My only point was that more options is not always the right strategy and for newcomer it might be very confusing. Beginner and Realistic (today Iron) modes would be much more understandable. I have no internal data, maybe plenty of people like to play easy difficulties even if they understand what makes them easy. But, somehow, judging all world be my experience, it is likely not the case I may be wrong though.
  13. Hi I'm wandering, based on this forum, most of the players choose eaither Iron modeor the level below. Forum users are not a representative group of user, but given the realism of the simulation it makes kinda sense. There are imho too many (two too many:) options. New player may think that more difficult mode may add some tricks like Tigers I with 150mm frontal armor or anything I'm sort of "Apple-thinking" guy. I believe that more is less (beside money). How about to leave only the most realistic Iron mode and then some beginner mode, but only one. It can be chosen in QBs, on some maps, but possibly not in all of them, or not in scenarios (except tutorials). BF can choose things that make it easier with new player, yet he will be pushed to realistic Iron mode (at that case Iron would be discouraging name. "Realistic" and "Beginner" modes should sound fine and not to scare anyone.). And they will be simple to grab even without reading a manual or more explanation! Just my 2c. Cheers, Sedak
  14. Hi guys, If you cannot wait for CM:Normandy and would like to revive some knowledge and share it with your frinds in a funny way, you can check my memory concentration game with WWII armored vehicles I "home-made" in few pieces for my frinds. All three main campaigns from CMx1 are available. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320453979445&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT#ht_500wt_1182 Cheers, Sedak
  15. Any word on Mac OS X version, Steve? Is it still on the agenda?
×
×
  • Create New...