Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


BletchleyGeek last won the day on April 28 2018

BletchleyGeek had the most liked content!


About BletchleyGeek

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
  • Interests
    Computer Science, AI, History, Wargaming

Recent Profile Visitors

2,020 profile views
  1. Good one, no idea there was a mortar carrier with the same designation.
  2. The first one is the halftrack mounted mortar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M21_Mortar_Motor_Carriage the M4A1 is an early variant of the M4 Sherman tank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman_variants from Wikipedia for the M4A1
  3. I can still see the anti-aliasing being switched off on a NVIDIA GTX 1080 😞
  4. All modules have come to date with substantial numbers of QB maps. From the product page for GL The GL ones came with a distinct "mountainous" feeling, what I would expect from the Apennines/Abruzzi highlands, and other maps covering areas like Anzio, Cisterna and Santa Maria Infante (check out the 2nd DAR by BilHardenberger for GL IIRC was happening on the later).
  5. The product website doesn't say anything about QB maps, but I guess that is an oversight. GL QB maps are amongst my favourites across all games. FWIW, GL came with very strong huge scenarios based on Anzio which I count amongst my all time favourites, too.
  6. Some of the most mysterious "logical" or "physical" bugs that in CM2 - bridge crossing, units unable to leave or enter buildings - were traced back to graphics card/drivers updates. As potentially relevant stuff to consider there's also the issue of squad elements getting separated when going through hedgerows under certain conditions. I sent two bug reports through the helpdesk each time I have found them over the past three years and probably were as random as this issue seems to be. Just for reference, I hope it is useful, here's the ticket numbers with the reports Ticket ID: 20187570 Date: 2018-08-08 Ticket ID: 14570189 Date: 2017-05-02 The issue was first discussed in Christmas 2016 in both cases I have seen it happening, it happened on bocage maps with intricate elevantion changes. The most recent instance was in a test game with @HeirloomTomato on a huge map by Ithikial.
  7. I have known Harry for a very long time so there is context to this which, of course, is none of your business. Take care of yourself and recover soon.
  8. That wasn't very helpful or very informative. You obviously have more time to go and take a picture of your collection of books (or dig that picture up from wherever, who cares) than to provide a short explanation that would provide some learning or enlightenment. Don't bother "elaborating" as you are ignored from now on. THANKS FOR NOTHING.
  9. I am not sure that they were used mostly for indirect fires in the offense - these are weapons optimised for busting fortifications and trenches (it could pretty much fire almost verticall. They also carried out quite sophisticated sights. I guess that as a very specialised piece of equipment it eventually found its niche as an indirect fire weapon, since the German Army was more commonly found defending fixed positions that on the offensive.
  10. I don't like wasting my time either, Harry. I still appreciate coming here and having the odd exchange when I think I can contribute or learn something. Maybe I was wrong in this instance and it is better that I invested my time elsewhere. Take care.
  11. Accuracy of fires around TRPs is greatly increased provided that you have LOS - that's what I meant when I said a "similar effect" to pre-registering HMGs. I have personally never tried to fire directly with weapons on a TRP I felt like I had no LOS to at night - I have kind of assumed I wouldn't be able to. You can most definitely plot indirect fires at TRPs your spotter has no LOS to. What you request is a quite specific form of fieldcraft that I agree it is not very faithfully captured by this (or any other) engine. Night combat and fortifications aren't really the forte of CMx2 either.
  12. You can get a similar effect to that with TRPs, Harry.
  13. Leaving value judgements on coding quality aside, you are right that in cmx2 the concept of cover (or more generally, being "safe" from observation or fires) is a static attribute of map tiles, it does not seem to change during the game as units positions, orientation or stance changes. They react to incoming fires on map tiles, though. In other games we faked situational awareness by keeping, per side, "anti personnel fire power" and "anti armour fire power" layers on the map. This was updated every tick of the simulation, as units spot enemy units and identified their equipment and composition. Of course, this introduces potential instantaneous communication between units, an analogue of borg spotting. Keeping such a layer on a per unit basis is quite ridiculous imho, feasible for games happening on a space the size of a football pitch and not too many guys moving around. Having said that, on a WW2 or earlier game, I can't see how the nonlocal comms that such a device could enable could be exploited - like to call artillery strikes - as long as it wasn't visible to players and only to the TacAI.
  14. Excellent point Harry, it looks better from afar as it gives an unmistakable visual cue of a firefight happening.
  • Create New...