Jump to content

IanL

Members
  • Content Count

    13,071
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

IanL last won the day on April 11

IanL had the most liked content!

About IanL

  • Rank
    Defender of the faith

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.lesliesoftware.com/mods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Ontario, Canada
  • Interests
    Photography, programming

Converted

  • Location
    Ontario, Canada
  • Interests
    Photography
  • Occupation
    Software Development

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. You won - take the victory. Down play the casualties talk up your bravery and brilliant tactical decision to the upper brass. That's how you get ahead!
  2. I grew up in Canada in the 80s so when I think of sunglasses at night I think of this:
  3. You have your sun rise and set question answered so all that is left is to tell you the limitation that you will no doubt discover: The troops will not remove or set their NV goggles. Sadly when a scenario starts in day light and gets dark troops will not engage their NV goggles. Same as the other way around, if he game starts in darkness they will not disengage their googles when daylight makes its appearance.
  4. The description called it a mortar but that didn't seem right. It looked like a 105. When I looked at the listed artillery pieces used by Ukraine it didn't list anything smaller than 122 except for mortars. I looked at mortars anyway and found there is a thing called a gun mortar. WTF - I had no idea. Check out the 2B9 Vasilek 82 mm gun mortar in the section called Gun mortars here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortar_(weapon) I don't think that is the exact gun mortar but it sure has similarities like the auto loader and the recoil mechanism.
  5. I totally get that. And I agree. I was just saying that given the environment - little to no feedback - we might just be out of luck. Yep. It's confusing. It's an issue. Basic coaching 100 is to make sure beginners get some feedback - focusing on some encouragement and gradually getting more specific and challenging as the beginner gets more proficient. And around here - crickets. If you end up a tester and design scenarios the feedback is great. I wish I had more time to do more outside of that. My first scenario ( http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-fortress-italy/cm-fortress-italy-add-ons/pathfinders/ ) didn't garner any feedback. My next two - created for the game - got lots. Thankfully I enjoyed creating the map and scenarios but honestly I prefer to play the game. I'm going to do more scenarios but I am certain it will remain a secondary thing for me. I'm glad there are others that spend more time designing though. I should buck up and do more to give feedback.
  6. Closing the loop on this - I didn't realize I never included the link to the actual scenario on the scenario depot: http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-fortress-italy/cm-fortress-italy-add-ons/pathfinders/
  7. First of all this is awesome! I'm out of upvotes today (I'm always running out it seems) but I'll be back... You get one for free. So, after using three you now have four. I'm just asking why not use group one? If you are planning something else the I apologize for jumping the gun but from what you have said so far you could leave the infantry as group one. Assign the strikers to group two and the mortar teams to group three. There is nothing to fear from group one.
  8. Yeah it would be nice to allow for the ability to escape by going up and thus forcing the enemy to relocate or find a different solution. We just have to design around that in scenarios.
  9. Yes. They are units - cost points - and therefore stripped out as well.
  10. Yep. On the subject of quick battles and some of the cool things you can do I'll plug a really old post: Which included instructions on how to create really big QB battles. Those same instructions could be used for this exact scenario: http://www.lesliesoftware.com/forforumposts/2012/Force Selection Instructions.pdf
  11. It has to do with the AI's inability to manoeuvre for the shot. Similarly, AI controlled vehicles cannot pull back to hit high targets that the gun cannot elevate to target, so they are allowed to shoot at targets to high for the gun. They also cannot make minor adjustments - backup some and move forward so they are 10m to the left - in order to get at enemy vehicles behind already wrecked vehicles. So, limitation for a reason.
  12. That's likely normal. While in scenario author mode you are supposed to be able to see everything that does not quite extend to vehicle occupants. Except for the mortar teams but they are visible because the vehicles are open. If the teams appear when the dismount then all is right with the world. Now if you never see the infantry once they dismount then we have something to log.
  13. Except that it is Ooops is my bias showing I believe correct - and it would incur costs on top of not actually giving real benefits - to BFC. I get that people think there are benefits to us consumers. Yep +1
  14. Steve does - it's his soul. I am not surprised BFC have chosen to work this way. It's about focusing on priorities. If you are trying create a new module or game and you stop 5 times a year to build a patch that is very taxing on getting other things actually done. So, when you work on a patch you want there to be a number of things getting fixed not just one - even one as important as the one everyone seems to be waiting for.
  15. Yeah the artillery thing is a big issue that lots of people care about but that is usually typically there are a bunch of similar priority issues to fix. BFC tries to tackle a handful at at time not on at a time. More on why I agree with that later...
×
×
  • Create New...