Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by IanL

  1. My PBEM partner's machine specs are: Vista 64. Intel i7 Quad Core 12 GB memory Radeon HD 4600 2.67GHz
  2. Update: We tried it again - this time with him starting the game and sending me turns. Same problem. Turns out it was the US setup that is failing to load. So if I start the game as the Germans I get to setup fine and then send it to him and he cannot load the game. If he starts the game, as the US, then when it gets to his setup it fails to start. Just to be sure it is not his machine I tried to setup his turn on my machine. No luck. Here is what happens: The loading screen comes up and the progress bar goes to 29% and sits there like normal. After a while it makes progress and gets to 32% and sits there for a long time (this is unusual) then it makes more progress and gets to some where in the 50% range and sits there again for a long time (again never seen that before). Then it makes more progress and gets to somewhere in the 60% range and sits again for a long time (again never seen that before either). Finally is finishes and asks for the password. I enter the password and it shows the busy cursor except it never comes back. I wanted 5min to see if it would before I had to kill it. My friend and I are happily playing Huzzar! right now, which is bigger so it seems like something specific to this scenario is causing the game fits. My machine specs are thus: Windows Vista Home Premium SP2 (64 bit) HP model a6500f AMD Phenom 9150e Quad-Core Processor 1.8GHz 4 Gb RAM with and upgraded video card: Radeon HD 6770 with 1Gb memory
  3. I would love to hear that story:D Were they trying to push the tree over?
  4. Sounds interesting. I would like to participate. I can turn over, on average, one PBEM turn per day. Over the holidays (from about the 24th to new years) things will get a bit sluggish. Hopefully that will not be any different from anyone else.
  5. Wow those are significant results. 100 times more likely just because of the road grass interface. That explains that there are many people posting about becoming immobilized on the edge of roads. The test you created is pretty much like the one I was working on except I was not planning to drive perpendicular across road tiles - good idea. To me that seems wrong I suppose I could be convinced that it is a risky moment with ditches involved but 100 times more risky that does not seem right. Even if the number was 10 times more risky I would still think it seemed high.
  6. I am playing yet another game with a friend of mine. We have had three previous games that were successful but we just ran into a problem. We are playing the scenario "The Crossroads at Monthardrou". I started the game, entering my new pw and sending him turn 001. He created a new pw and sent me back turn 002. I setup my forces (I'm playing the Germans) and sent him turn 003. When my friend opens the file he is prompted for "New Password" again, which is odd, no matter what he enters the game locks up. I have all the turns and both our passwords if you would like them for testing or bug investigation. We are running the patched game.
  7. Right your teams cannot see the HMGs because there are no windows. Doesn't that seem right? Or were you just sharing your frustration of finding out you can flank them but cannot hit them. Two things you can do: 1) HE area fired at the second floor still might cause casualties to the HMG teams - if you have HE that is. 2) If you cannot see them they cannot see you - depending on what else is going on it might work to assault the building from the blind sides. Executing #2 while applying #1 would be even better:-)
  8. Broadsword56, sounds like an interesting scenario. I would suggest not using an HQ unit - given how the FOW works in the game HQ units stand out too much. How about if you include scout teams in your force mix and have one of them with a reduced % so it only has one man, then use that for Nissenthal. That way when playing H2H, multiple times, people who know the scenario will still not really be sure which unit is the important one.
  9. I was talking about this just this morning with a friend I play a lot of PBEM games with. He was commenting that he was doing crazy stuff with a HT and that in real life he would probably not do that. He can get away with doing that because there is no long term consequence. However if we could do a campaign H2H via PBEM then he would not be so careless because he would know he might need that HT in a later battle. I would love to see PBEM campaigns. And, no, a long game does not concern me. I have been playing the same guy via PBEM since before CMBN came out (CMBB while we waited). So if we played a single campaign in that time it would have been just great.
  10. As a Canadian. I am looking forward to commanding some Canadian troops. I am also curious to see how well the PIAT works in the new environment. I also think it will be fun to have some different tanks for the allies (i.e. Churchill).
  11. This is so true. I am OK with this uber information being available at some of the playing modes, say from Warrior and down. When I read the mode descriptions it sounded like Elite was a good place to play. But there are two problems: First, as you pointed, out while it is nice that contacts only show the generic infantry icon you can still select them and see way to many details. The second problem is that some non infantry contacts show up as infantry and you don't realize it until you select them. For example once you spot an AT gun it will show the infantry icon. You will only know it is an AT gun if you click on the infantry icon to see (or get a good look with the camera because you can see the gun). BTW I think it would be good that if you spot one crew member you only see an generic infantry icon. I am talking about when your guys spot the gun it self, I should know it is a gun by looking at the icon. I would really like to see Elite (and Iron) tweaked to get rid of this extra squad / vehicle / type / number details but make sure the infantry icon is not used for guns. MGs and HQs should also just use the generic infantry icon too. It would take a long time of good spotting before you could tell the difference between a squad, platoon HQ and an MG team (unless the MG starts firing of course). This would make a significant positive change to the immersion and FOW. Right now it bothers me every time I see an enemy platoon setup on the opposite hedge row and I can see the three squads, the HQ and the MG position. I should not have that much information.
  12. +1. I have not got to the point of working with AI plans but the first thing I will want (after undo) will be copy and paste. That is what I want my map editor to look like when I am working. I am sad to say that all my map making plans are on hold because it is just too painful to create an historical map. I do not have a a lot of game hours so I need to be productive when I am working on a map. Trying to guesstimate off a print out to get the contours right is just not working for me. Amen to that!
  13. Hey was that our recent game? I did not know it was a 76 gun he was facing - lucky. I am glad I backed him off into the woods. I really like those stug IIIs i have seen that happen so many times from the US point of view it sure was nice to be on the other end of that big ricochet for once. I never try to face those guys now, always try to out flank them or come at the from two directions... Working like a charm in Huzzar right now against another opponent.
  14. Oops that is not what I meant to say. I was trying to say that I was not trying to measure the bogging /km but instead trying to create a way to compare different vehicles' immobilization chances by running different vehicles over the same course.
  15. We lived in the States for four years. Those were great years for Thanks Giving be cause we celebrated *both*. We always had a special meal for the Canadian Thanks giving because we, well, were Canadian. Then we also had a special meal for the US Thanks giving too, well, because everyone else was. I was just reminded of that a few days ago when I was in the butcher shop and the woman in front of me was inquiring about ordering a turkey for US Thanks Giving. Good times. I hope our US friends had a good meal and are enjoying the long weekend.
  16. I don't disagree. My goal here was to get things started. My personal in game experience did not indicate to me what terrain type would be a problem (other than Mud and Fords - I knew those could be a problem). So I was trying to find out how vehicles would perform on different terrain types. I have lost Shermans to immobilization multiple times on good sold ground so to start I was trying to find out which terrain types were the biggest problem. My idea was simply to offer a standard cross country course and try various vehicles out. I was not trying to get a km / immobilization number. My idea was to see if one vehicle was noticeably worse than others and see if that made sense. I applaud the other testing that has been done - keep up the good work. I do not intend to find km / immobilization number so I look forward to more info from your tests. I am going to start looking at roads and see if there are any issues with going on / off roads. I am doing that because I have experienced and have read others' accounts off immobilization around roads that seemed odd. Hopefully my tests will be able to show a clear problem that can be fixed or show that there is no problem and we are just experiencing the luck of the draw. As I said earlier I had no idea how the different terrain types would influence immobilization so my first tests helped shed some light. The biggest issue with running tests with one type of terrain is not that it is a bad idea (note: I think it is a good idea) it is that it will take n times longer than a multi terrain course. I realize that my tests will never yield a kms / immobilization number. Your testing contributions are welcome - good luck and have fun
  17. Thanks for your perspective. You are right the percentage is very low. It will be interesting to see how other tank types compare.
  18. I completed the fast dry tests with wheeled vehicles. Here are the updated results (some of it repeats the first post data): Percentage of operational vehicles when traveling 7km over the test course [B]Vehicle Conditions / Speed Dry Fast Slow[/B] Sherman 22.67% 30.67% Panther 44.00% 37.33% PzIV 36.00% 29.33% Puma 25.33% M8 17.33% Looks like in general the wheeled vehicles did worse (Puma about the same as the Sherman) Puma [B] Fast[/B] Mud 30.67% Sand 0.00% Rocky 0.00% GrassXT 1.33% Ford 42.67% M8 [B] Fast[/B] Mud 30.67% Sand 0.00% Rocky 0.00% GrassXT 1.33% Ford 50.67%
  19. Excellent, taking out the high risk areas shows that there is a chance to become immobilized even on good ground. So, my thoughts on this are that something is not correct. As I said before I have no evidence so it could be that this just happens Shermans IRL. But it does not feel right to me. Now under wet conditions I can see there being issues but when it is all dry grass it just seems odd. Does anyone have any WWII sources about immobilization issues that would indicate this is OK or that it is not?
  20. I started this testing because based on my own experience that Shermans seemed to become immobilized in safe areas often. I have played several scenarios where I have lost 1/3 or a 1/2 of my tanks well away from enemy action and it has effected the outcome of the game. Then in Huzzar my main attack force was severely hampered and cut in half by trouble in a ford. So, far my testing has convinced me that Fords and Mud are not a safe place to go. I did not expect them to be that bad but it seems they are. It is still not clear if that is realistic or not. I fear it is not but I have no evidence. All I can offer is some test on how the game operates. Again I am interested in how the vehicles behave in the game. If showing that combined with some external evidence that I don't have indicates there is a problem then it will get fixed. If there is no problem then we all know what to be careful of. My plan now is to get ride of the high risk areas on the course and focus on normal terrain and roads. My own experience plus some other anecdotal evidence suggests that looking at roads would be worth while. My plan is to check how roads compare to off road and how transitioning from road to off road factors in. My text test course will include space for 10 tanks to run cross country, 10 to run on dirt roads, 10 to run on gravel roads, 10 to drive on a mix of dirt road and off road, 10 to run on a mix of gravel road and off road. I am interested in seeing if there are issues with the transition between road and off road and if being on a road makes a difference or not (the roads will go over the same terrain as the cross country tanks).
  21. Yes, those are the high risk areas - as they should be. It is interesting that the Sherman bogged in other places in dry conditions more than the other tanks. Sounds like you are suggesting I should consider retooling the course to remove the high risk terrain and see what happens then. That might be reasonable. The other thing I am seeing is people reporting bogging on the edge of roads. So, perhaps my test course should be tweaked to remove the wet stuff add roads and drive on and off roads and see what happens. I'll think about that - while I am pressing the big red button for the wheeled vehicles' tests:-)
  22. Excellent thread. How about adding pubs / bars / night clubs. Wouldn't it be great if the guys in the reserve platoon found a pub in that urban battle and got pissed and were rendered combat infective for the rest of the scenario.
  23. I realized I did not link to the saved games for slow so here they are: http://lesliesoftware.com/forforumposts/Bogging%20Test%20Dry%20Slow%20Shermans%20001.bts http://lesliesoftware.com/forforumposts/Bogging%20Test%20Dry%20Slow%20Panthers%20001.bts http://lesliesoftware.com/forforumposts/Bogging%20Test%20Dry%20Slow%20PzIVs.bts and as a bonus here is the results spread sheet (created with Open Office Calc, first tab shows summary, second tab shows results for each trial etc.): http://lesliesoftware.com/forforumposts/Bogging%20Results.ods
  24. I have had that happen as well. I'll have to think how to test for that. Sure, each number is based on 75 vehicles running over a 1.2Km course 6 times. I created a course map and then added 15 vehicles and ran the test 5 times for each. The saved games and map are linked in the original message. Not yet. I want to but each of these tests takes time away from play:-). I'll get to it at some point. I am concerned that the amount of immobilization is to high. So, I am trying to get some data to start the discussion. I see what you are saying and why, but I do not agree. I want an accurate experience. If bogging and immobilization was a serious problem in WWII I want to experience that problem too. However, and this is why I brought it up and devised some kind of test, I am concerned that immobilization is happening too often.
  • Create New...