A Canadian Cat
-
Posts
16,497 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
55
Posts posted by A Canadian Cat
-
-
3 hours ago, Centurian52 said:
that comment was gold, if only I could find it so I would know who to credit it to).
Found it - @MikeyD
On 1/2/2024 at 6:15 PM, MikeyD said:I recall an anecdote. At some point following operation Cobra Patton's advancing army lost contact with the Germans. So he turned to his subordinate and told him 'Take that jeep and drive down the road til someone shoots you, then report their location back to me', or words to that effect. Patton's troops didn't like him much because he tended to conduct his battles like a CM player.
-
7 hours ago, The_Capt said:
When I am looking at the “winning/losing” equation I am using the following objectives.
For Ukraine:
- the survival of the state as independent and sovereign.
- the creation of a narrative of effective resolve and resistance that draws in international support.
- shape and set the conditions for enduring security integrity at wars end (this one is key to effective reconstruction and recovery).
Thanks for laying this out so succinctly. You have said them before but with more words and over more than one post :-). I have even pointed out what I am about to before too.
I would add
- restore territorial integrity to the 1991 borders.
Yes, I was paying attention to you when you said the Ukraine might have to settle for less. Yes, I agree you could even be right. Likely right even. I just think it is unfair to leave it off the list. There is a non trivial number of Ukrainians who want that on the list of victory. Outside Ukraine too.
I realize it doesn't mean they can necessarily get it but I think it needs to be there. As you, and others, pointed out they might be better off with some of those regions festering under control of Russia and no longer a drain nor a problem for Kyiv but there is no denying that Ukraine feels aggrieved after the invasion of 2014 and would like to have that restored too.
-
Just now, Centurian52 said:
I have to echo @PEB14's point that the fewer house rules you have, the better. One or two rules might be necessary from time to time (no turn 1 fire into known or obvious setup-zones in meeting engagements makes sense to me).
Yes, agreed 100%. Keep it tight and simple. Preferably so simple there are none. A way more interesting and fun thing to do is introduce a few rules on how you manage C2 - for example the Hard Cat rules (https://community.battlefront.com/topic/135087-hard-cat-rules-v2i-simple-to-use-command-control-rules-updated-01-june-2022/ ) Those don't create expectations that opponents will not do things to hurt you it just limits some of the god view flexibility.
Just now, Centurian52 said:But the more rules you add the more it feels like a sport and the less it feels like a battle. I can see it easily getting to the point where you'd be walking on eggshells the entire time and unable to have any fun.
Yep, for me if someone reaches out with a bunch of rules it's a major red flag they are going to be no fun to play against. Not to mention I would hate to accidentally break a rule I agreed to because I simply forgot - I usually have a few games on the go after all. So hard pass if a new player starts saying "oh and do not this... and don't forget not to that...".
Now having said that, a long time playing partner who wants to experiment with something, that's a different kettle of fish I'm all in on trying something interesting. That's not what we are talking about though.
One of the great things about CM is rules lawyers are not successful because a truly impartial judge is keeping the game rules - the computer. One that you cannot wear down and befuddle. I suspect there are people here who have played war games with the people I call rules lawyers and don't want to repeat the experience. It used to be you were required to play with who showed up. Not any more
-
1 hour ago, Artkin said:1 hour ago, Jackal2100 said:
Do you consider sound contacts a good enough spot for area fire? If I see an atgm fired from a position and hear the crew there, but don't see the crew itself, would you consider it wrong to fire at the area? I would imagine the area fire would be quite logical.
No lol in no universe is a running vehicle getting an accurate sound location and pinpointong the exact location of the enemy.
I know it is common for us to call them sound contacts but they are not all sound contacts. They are unclear or unestablished contacts. Sound is one way but just spotting something but not being sure what it is exactly is also depicted by the same symbol.
-
1 hour ago, Brille said:
Well so it was not the backblast that hurt them, more so the fallen planks that were coming down on their heads.
I suppose that's true.
I didn't think something else was going on at the time but the building could have been damaged by other things I suppose. I really should see if I can do it again I suppose
-
5 hours ago, Brille said:18 hours ago, Artkin said:
Dont area target your enemies infantry with vehicles that dont have a spot.
Remove the area target command for MP.
In general I like that one but in my opinion it would be wrong to cancel area fire all together.
Try this:
@Bil Hardenberger created them and I helped refine them.
-
5 hours ago, Brille said:
My rules are as follows and agree to most of the Community, I guess:
- No artillery or air raids in the setup zones or close to it for the first turns (except on defenders setup zone)
- No preplanned arty or air raids for meeting engagements.
Just 2 simple ones Id like to have for every engagement. The last one can be discussed with the oponent, so it is not set in stone.
I agree 100 percent. So much I'm replaying instead of just upvoting
-
16 hours ago, Brille said:17 hours ago, A Canadian Cat - was IanL said:
They will. Roof top will be not too bad but inside they usually suppress themselves. I once had a team fire from a small shed and lightly wound themselves. Basically the back blast has an effect if they are in an enclosed space.
No offense but I call this a myth or maybe it was patched out as well some time ago... I don´t know.
In all my matches I never had a wounded soldier because of the backblast of those weapons. They get pinned or even panic but I doubt that they can be wounded this way (even though it would be realistic in some cases).
Well I do not have the save or a screen shot. I was surprised too. It happened in a small shed in RT. One of those 4x8m sheds. They fired and the shed came down around them. I forget if one or both of them were lightly wounded.
-
They will. Roof top will be not too bad but inside they usually suppress themselves. I once had a team fire from a small shed and lightly wound themselves. Basically the back blast has an effect if they are in an enclosed space.
-
On 3/21/2024 at 10:30 PM, Artkin said:
Dude you think this is my first game? The ground conditions are set to very dry.
Dude you think missing super important information means I can read your mind
Ah I see your fuller explanation. So delete this:
I still don't see the kinds of issues you are experiencing. So my mind reading is stumped
-
LOL stop driving your stuff in mucky places. I am unaware of any bugs related to bogging so I do not think there is anything to fix man.
-
1 hour ago, Anthony P. said:
That... doesn't make much sense. Or rather, it's quite skewed statistics.
Optics and different kinds of sensors are modelled. A T-64 definitely has better optics than a Tiger 1, so it's not as though they're competing on an equal footing.
Even with enhanced optics and IR and and and.. there is still a chance things will not be spotted. It's just human nature to miss stuff or pay attention to one thing and miss something else. More importantly that is modeled in the game. So, I agree there is more testing that needs to happen for sure. Just starting with a statistically significant set of runs. That would be a starting point though. All the other factors would then need to be considered. First one I can think of is what happens if the T64 is on a slightly higher elevation does that change things - especially for the guy in the grass.
Feel free to conduct the tests. I would, personally, not even weigh in until that part gets done. If you try to chase every anecdote down you will get tired of running pretty quick. Having said that we should all pursue the issues we think look interesting / problematic.
-
The main problem with road travel is; there are no roads as we experience them in the game. What there are. in the game. are a series of tiles that look like a small patch of road and can be assembled in to a series that looks just like a road. So, there isn't anything for the computer to travel along that is contiguous and identifiable. That means creating code that allows units to travel along a road is a lot harder and more prone to issues. Solutions that worked around that didn't really create the ability to travel along a road. They did other things that may or may not have been useful or matched the expectations of the name.
-
23 hours ago, Vacillator said:
does your Whose Turn Is It utility have this info in it?
That tool does not. But I do have:
https://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/RedThunder/Scenarios/index.html
Which you can sort by Date and it is updated with the latest information. The whole site is getting updated slowly but Red Thunder has been done. I'll make a formal announcement once the whole thing is up to date.
-
-
46 minutes ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:
1) ... not really necessary to hide especially as tanks don't spot that well.
Don't hide your team when you want them to act. Hiding greatly reduces the team's spotting ability.
46 minutes ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:2) Yes a panzerfaust team with a Target Armour Arc will only shoot the rocket at armour.
Unless the armour is unbuttoned. Then they team members will fire small arms at the TC
46 minutes ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:I can't remember exactly but I think armoured cars and such don't count as armour but half-tracks and tanks do.
I am fairly sure that armoured cars count in the armour arc.
46 minutes ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:3) Yes if the team is hiding and a target comes into the arc and they have a good shot they will unhide and attack.
Maybe. The risk is they will fail to spot the tank.
46 minutes ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:Target arcs are a good way to make sure supporting assets such as HMGs or rifle squads don't open fire and give away the positions either, just set a small target arc of a few metres and they will not fire at anything outside the arc.
Target arcs are meant to prevent your men from firing. So, use them carefully and sparing.
-
Brad is that you?
Funny story, in a team I was on we changed our source control rules and made it mandatory to enter a description when checking code into the source control repository. We did this because some people were checking in code without any mention of why.
Our troublesome team mate just entered '.' as his description.
Sigh
-
Second possibility is you have font scaling set on windows. You can fix that by selecting the comparability tab for the properties of the .exe. Let the game control the scaling and it should fix it.
Those instructions are from memory.
-
Yes, that sometimes happens. It should resolve it self in a turn or two. That has always been my experience anyway.
-
46 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:
I'll be sure to remind you of that when Jar Jar Binks is a unit in CM Minus 3.
32 minutes ago, Probus said:I wouldn't mind being able to level some 155mm artillery at Jar Jar.
Yeah I was going to say people will be keen to frag Jar Jar.
-
7 hours ago, The_Capt said:
I am honestly amazed that anything I write causes anyone to think about anything “all day”, but that must be the pressure of Canadian culture.
Yeah, it must be because that post is going to have me thinking all day too.
Dude you have to write a book at some point.
-
1 hour ago, JM Stuff said:
this is why I stop the discussion.
Sounds good. I will join you in stopping. We are all friends here and we want to remain that way - cheers.
-
20 hours ago, Artkin said:
The only problem people have is a lack of communication. That's it.
I just don't by that.
20 hours ago, Artkin said:Other developers share their progress
Like what? Weekly statements "we have 8 scenarios started for the new module and 5 new models" and later "we still have 8 scenarios started and no no models". Or monthly the same. And again and again. I think it would start a whole new area of complaint "why aren't they working on <insert favourite project> nothing is changing what are they doing. They are just wasting time.
LOL
19 hours ago, JM Stuff said:I dare to hope that you yourself will one day be in this undecided situation and that you will ask yourself what stage a project is at, just to inform yourself, just to know and perhaps have the information you are looking for, like everyone does.
LOL every damn day man. I have several photo and video editing tools I use and have zero visibility into what they are actually working on until they release something new. I hit the odd bug. Some are annoying some bloody inconvenient. I never have any clue if or when they are going to be fixed. Hell only some of the time can I tell they have been confirmed.
I follow this advice - sound familiar?
21 hours ago, A Canadian Cat - was IanL said:buy the products that are available that fits your needs. If non are available you have to wait.
Exactly and I do and I use them to edit my photos and videos and get work done as best I can.
21 hours ago, A Canadian Cat - was IanL said:Wouldn't you rather have a working product in some future time than crap now?
Hell yes I would rather have working product when it's ready.
-
As a Canadian I would vote Canadian.
On 3/2/2024 at 11:05 AM, MOS:96B2P said:opening scenario be a "choice" scenario where the player chooses if he wants to use Canadian forces or the US 82ND Airborne.
Wow that would be cool though. It's a lot of work. I suppose you can cut that work down by setting up the forces for one formation and play testing and tweaking. Then creating a roughly equivalent force from the other formation. That would at least cut down the play testing required to less than double.
On 3/2/2024 at 3:34 PM, dragonwynn said:the map size is large I may cut it down for each scenario
A very good idea. Plus map damage does not get preserved between fights so fighting on different parts of the map helps any continuity issues that can create.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
I suppose but wan't it an objective / desire even after the 2014 invasion?
Yep, makes sense.