Jump to content

A Canadian Cat - was IanL

Members
  • Posts

    16,457
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    55

Posts posted by A Canadian Cat - was IanL

  1. Friggin awesome. You guys add so much value to the game it's hard to express the appreciation. Can't wait to see these on the repository.

    +1 to that

    I hope I'm not putting in any spoilers, but the more observant among you will notice Tanks has found a way to circumvent/eliminate the dreaded building 'base.' How cool is that?!

    The looked sooo nice I did not even notice the absence of the building bases. Very cool!

  2. Something I think I noticed since the 1.1 patch: I see this when positioning infantry in buildings. While at view level 3 (approx, I scroll up and down with the mouse wheel as I see fit) I click on the building I want them to enter and they actually end up in the building closer to the camera even though that building is off camera. I have to delete the last way point and reposition the camera away from the other building and try again.

    Could this be the same thing? I try to click on the woods near the end of the bridge and instead it thinks I am clicking on the ford under the camera. The suggestion offered by @Barrage works because now you are clicking to place way points more under the camera.

  3. Interesting suggestions. What you *can* do now is select the entire company and give move orders to it. Once you have the entire unit selected pay attention to which icon is flashing because it is the one you are plotting the move orders for. Plot your series of move orders where you would like that unit to go and all the rest of the selected units will plot parallel moves.

    I have done this with platoon sized units often and company sized units rarely never with more than that but the game does not care how many units there are.

    It helps especially during setup.

  4. I don't know if this will help... I had trouble placing waypoints along the bank of a river. The problem was solved by rotating the view point until I could look almost straight down on the bank.

    That worked perfectly! Thanks. I usually work at view 1, 2 or 3 and when I do that with these bridges I can repeat it. But go to view 7 and it works. I don't have to go that high for t to work. I am so pleased. Thanks - a new trick for the tool box.

  5. One of my squads heading into the smoke:

    Heading%20Into%20The%20Smoke.jpg

    I thought I was being clever heading into the side of my opponent's smoke screen. My hope was that when the smoke cleared they would be right on his flank or better yet behind his advance across a near by open field. Boy was I wrong. His tank and HTs did not go through the field at all but instead they turned and came right towards these poor guys. Once the smoke cleared they were totally surrounded and did not last long.

  6. That was my first concern too. I assure you that my way points were placed in locations that were not inaccessible. There is plenty of space around the bridge that is accessible to tanks and I cannot select those as way points. Or more accurately it looks like I can place a way point at the cursor but instead the way point jumps back into the water.

  7. A friend and I are currently about to embark on a really large battle using Pete Wenman's recently posted 2km by 2km map. I quite like the map but during testing I had trouble getting stuff to cross the bridges sensibility. I could not plot way points to just the other side of the bridge and then move left or right into the woods the way points would drop into the water. I cracked open Huzzar! and looked at the way the bridges were mapped and compared.

    Based on what I saw I tweaked the bridges in Pete's map and things improved slightly. With the vanilla map I had to set way points 100m away from the bridge to prevent the odd double back into the water problem. With my tweaks now I can get the tanks to cross the bridge with way point much closer < 30m or so. But for the life of me I cannot get tanks to cross the bridge and then fan out left and right. What ends up happening is the way point I click in the woods doubles back and drops in the water.

    I set a way point on my side of the bridge. Then one on the other side of the bridge - which ends up in the middle of the bridge. I can fiddle and get one near the other side of the bridge. Then I set a way point in the woods at the place where the green arrow is located. That way point ends up in the water (but I cannot even see it):

    Setting%20Way%20points.jpg

    The tank ends up swimming:

    Where%20the%20tank%20goes.jpg

    Here is what the map looks like (tweaked from Pete's original):

    BridgeMap.jpg

    I also though that the fords could be causing the confusion but the same problems happen at the other bridges too - where there are no fords next to the bridge. In the area about 60m around the bridge ends I cannot get my tanks to do sensible things - they keep being drawn back to the water.

    I am looking for help - any advice on how to tweak the map to solve this problem?

    Pete's original map can be found in the repository here: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=1921

  8. You set your lone BS arc, as there is no more armored covered arc's and hope for the best as they plop AT rifle grenades at Panthers at 100m.

    One thing I do is split off the AT team and give them a tighter cover arc so they don't go shooting at targets to far away. It helps.

  9. BTW, next is the Churchill VII, and then,...the Jagdpanther!

    Awesome work - I cannot wait to play with the Churchil. Is the King Tiger up there on your list. A friend of mine and I are about to start a huge PBEM battle which will feature Churchills and King Tigers prominently. I would love to capture screen shots featuring you mods:)

    I know you work on your own schedule - which is good. Never hurts to ask though:D

  10. I didn't set any objectives - it was up to them to determine victory - *except* for making each sides entire force a 1000pt DESTROY obj. That way they'd get at least some objective sense of how much damage they'd inflicted on each other.

    Interest peaked. I thought a destroy unit objective was an all or nothing thing based on destroying a specific target unit. Do I have that wrong? Must read manual - oh the pain, the pain. ;)

  11. I assume you would need a 3rd party to set up the scenario, correct? Unless you and your opponent are ok with knowing each other's purchases. I recall people doing this with the CMx1 games too.

    In general I could see a 3rd party being used but we will not be. If the German player chooses first then the allied player will not accidentally see the German force selection. We are working with a high level of trust. I have known my opponent for over 15 years. Plus, as the saying goes I can punch him I real life:)

  12. "we are custom creating a QB with 12 000 points"

    How do you do that?

    Well we are planning to write an aar and post our experiences plus instructions. In a nut shell we used the QB screen to choose 12000 points. Then we recorded each unit's stats and what we bought. Then we used a large map to create a scenario were we each recreated our force selection. Then we will play it.

    Right now we are still testing that our machines can handle a game this size.

  13. I would be cautious making judgements about how typical that is in the game based on personal experience. We would need scores of hits at least, probably more than a hundred, and compare that to a similar amount of hits on other tanks to get a solid basis.

    I am about to start a huge battle (we are custom creating a QB with 12 000 points) with 14 Tiger IIs and 12 Panthers. I hope my luck is better:-)

    I have not commanded Tigers before - killed one and it cost me 7 shermans to do it. I have had command of Panthers before. One battle I lost three and the main gun on a forth. I have also had a 75mm sherman take out an opponent Panther's main gun. So it happens to the wonderful Panther as well.

    @phil stanbridge

    I think you are just experiencing a string of bad luck. Get a Tiger next time and go shred some enemy tanks - you will feel better:-)

  14. I agree. Huzzar! is a classic. My friend and I really enjoined it. In the end I won as the Americans. In my case my plan was to move my forces to the right side via a ford. After loosing 5 vehicles including 3 Shermans I changed gears and attacked on two flanks (my force was split) my initial scout forces played havoc with my opponent's stugs as they moved up (I put all my recon deep in his rear area). That coupled with a hero green crew that took out a bunch of stugs. Allowed me to get through on my left and roll across the map.

    Awesome scenario. Nice job only loosing one Sherman!

  15. I agree that nosing into the bocage is a good thing to do. I am not so sure that it has the effect of preventing the enemy from seeing your tank - at least not all the time. I used it to good advantage recently in Huzzar! I had a 76 Sherman at a higher elevation nosed into the bocage and it dueled with a Panther. I checked with my opponent and his Panther could certainly see my Sherman - when it was there. What I did was nose in take a few shots and back off. I repeated that two or three times. Then I had the HQ crew dismount and crawl up to call in some artillery. While the artillery was falling they remounted and nosed in again. Once the dust settled the two tanks took more shots at each other. The hits on the Panther deflected over and over. The "hits" on the Sherman were mostly absorbed by the bocage and a few managed to get to the Sherman but did not damage it. Finally the Sherman connected and KO'ed the Panther.

    My opponent says that when the Sherman was firing (which was when it was nosed into the bocage) his Panther could see it - and target it.

    Using this tactic certainly allowed my Sherman to come out on top. Several other (burning) Shermans that were not behind the bocage were a testament to that.

  16. I was speaking about the shooting out of sync with the turret. I am pretty sure I read a post from someone from BF saying that it was a quirk of the animation. Clearly you see it lots I guess what I should have said was that only a few people seem to be effected by it. The lucky few of course :)

    I was not making any comment on the speed of firing or target acquisition.

  17. No, obviously you don't.

    Interesting - I think I went out of my way to point out that I do understand (and accept) that compromises need to be made. I'll add that the current vehicle speeds have never actually bothered me.

    I simply think that, in the spirit of an accurate as possible game, it is a reasonable request that the speed that vehicles travel on different terrain be modeled. I further think that BF will do a good job of placing request on its prioritized backlog.

  18. A tank can shoot straight up and straight down without the gun being able to depress or elevate to those angles. Can the tank also shoot in a different direction than what the tank gun is pointing without changing the turret position?

    No. But you might see a shot get fired before the turret finishes its moment. That is just an animation synchronization issue. It has been reported but most people have never seen it - it happens rarely.

  19. What is the speed of every vehicle in CMBN and CMBN:CW? On every type of terrain. In every weather condition. On every ground condition. By day and by night. Oh, and don't forget to tabulate it by driver experience and motivation. You might as well throw ground inclination into the mix as well. And vehicle age along with maintenance state.

    Aaaaaah yes trying to get to that is a reasonable request. I think it is reasonable to model armor thickness, armor angle, vehicle orientation and track individual shells too. :D

    We get that its hard and that some compromises need to be made. BF clearly has done some work on vehicle speeds because they do vary based on terrain type. He was pointing out that reverse speeds don't very from vehicle to vehicle. Pointing this out seems reasonable to me.

    And just so I don't get jumped on - I also agree that not everything can be modeled perfectly out of the gate. I would like to be able to point out areas that can be made better. That is the whole point of this forum. I trust that BF will make good decisions about priorities. They have clearly demonstrated that they can do that.

  20. Don't know where you get the idea that iPad games are only "twitchy." There are a lot of pretty cool "non-twitchy" games out there for iOS of various flavors, including some very well done turn-based strategy games.

    There you go I stand corrected. Shows little time I play games on my phone / tablet.

    My main point still stands - my assumption would be that a game BF created would be good, not bad.

×
×
  • Create New...