Jump to content

Talespin Jim

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Thanks for the ideas guys. Yes changing to orange would help, if I knew how to do that. Can it be done? I agree that the size of the mouse and it's innocuous color of green help maintain the look of the the battlefield, but I'm getting old and I don't see so well. I'm wearing tri-focals and I'm having a really hard time finding the thing, even when I move it around to look at it. I don't think I'm the only old fart here. I got a big 28" ultra high density monitor because I figured I could see things crisper with the fine resolution, but that worsened the pointer size problem. Now that I see the game on this monitor I really don't want to go back to a lower resolution, I just need a bigger mouse pointer. I guess if it can't be done, I'll try turning on trails and see if that helps. Or if no one has any other ideas, I'll have to go back to a lower rez. With Google, Windows and my desktop items I was able to increase the size of the mouse pointer and the size of letters, so I could still keep the nice crisp lettering from the ultra high resolution and yet have them all big enough to read. But the pointer size settings are overridden by the game. Now that I can see my mouse and read what's on my monitor I'm getting spoiled and want to be able to do that in game too.
  2. Is there a way to increase the size of the mouse pointer in the games? I have this tiny green pointer on green landscape and I often can't see it even when I move it. I'm old and my eyes aren't as sharp as they used to be. I'd like to double it's size, but I like the fine resolution on the map.
  3. I have no problems with my antivirus program with using version 2.12 or any of the other games, just the 3.0 version of CMFI. When I attempt to start CMFI 3.0, I get the message, "The application was unable to start correctly (0xc000018)." I checked my anti virus program and it was indeed blocking the CMFI execute file, but even when I made an exception in the anti virus program, the file still seems to be blocked, because I get the same message. If I turn off the AV and start it, it works fine. It continues to work after I have started it, even if I turn the AV back on. By the way, the anti-virus program is Webroot. If I turn off the firewall and all the other parts of the program, the game will start up, it is only if the Shield is on that the program will not start. The Webroot people are supposed to be looking into it and see if they can figure out what the problem is and allegedly will contact me when they figure it out. I half expect them to tell me there is something wrong with the game that causes the problem. I was wondering if it might be something to do with the programming itself. What makes me most curious is that I have no problem with the other games or the other versions of this game. Why is it only this one version of this one game that has a problem? Does anyone have any ideas?
  4. I played as the U.S. I'm still new to the game, but it was the most fun I've had yet on defense. Personally, I don't think the Germans have a fair shake.
  5. This has to do with all three games. I have BN+all expansion mods, FI+GL, and RT. All were working just fine. Then I bought BN 3.0, and installed it in a separate instance and folder with a completely new install so that I could play with people who have 3.0 and still play with people who have 2.0. Everything still worked fine. Then I bought FI 3.0 and also installed it as a separate instance in its own folder, so that I could still play 2.0 as well. Only I couldn't figure out how to make it make a separate folder for the game files, but I figured it would probably work fine. Well it didn't work with CM Helper so I ended up uninstalling 3.0 and then 2.0 wouldn't work right so I uninstalled that and went into my file search, found any remaining files left behind after the uninstall and wiped them all out. So I took FI completely off. Then I did a fresh installation of 2.0 and at first it seemed to work fine. I did not install FI 3.0 A day or two later, I'm playing a scenario with it, and every time I start the game and open a saved scenario, once I get into the scenario, the map zooms out to an aerial view as far as it will go--meaning as if looking from the map really high up, really fast, and then it moves to the downward position, in other words as if I were pressing the "S" key. When I zoom back in or try to move around the map it immediately zooms me back out and moves me to the bottom of the map or what would be South if the map were oriented toward the North. Now here's the weird part. It has started doing that with all installations of all games, BN 2.0, BN 3.0, and RT as well. I think I have now found out that prolonged fiddling with the "R" key seems to stop the behavior temporarily, but I haven't messed with it long enough to be sure it always works. Does anyone know what causes this or how to fix it? Have I created my own new sort of Hell that is just for me? Also, I've always had a problem with the screen going black randomly and coming back on eventually when I am saving a game and looking at the screen where you see the name of the saved game file name and you can alter the file name if you want to. But now it has suddenly gotten to where I have about three seconds, then it goes black and won't come back on. The only way I've found to get it back on is to alt-tab out of the game and then go back in and then I get about 3 more seconds before it goes black again. Any suggestions?
  6. Sergei's last point accentuates what I was going to say. Being a marketer by trade, getting a very public lashing about the game would only be a bonanza for BF, helping them attract new gamers through free publicity, that otherwise would never have heard about this wonderful game. On a moral level, it may seem odd, but I feel greater respect and admiration for those who fight in the wars these games are about, so I feel that playing such a game while the war in progress will actually help me to understand what is going on better and revere, appreciate and be more generous to those who have needs created by the conflicts. I would appreciate timely games for such a reason, even if I might feel a little weird about playing it.
  7. You guys are too much. lol. I was wondering if anybody would even notice the cigar in the ear. But seriously, for those who don't know, the panzerfaust is a very short range weapon and it's my understanding that to help players out, on this one weapon, the designers put the approximate effective range, which is what the 30 is for--30 meter range. This is the stock user interface that the game comes with, so a lot of you guys probably don't even recognize the 30 because you have loaded up some mod or other that doesn't show it. Anyway, thanks for the explanations of why he has so many grenades. I've lost several night's sleep wondering about that. (snort) Womble's answer makes the most sense, as usual. The team may very well have been an assault team, in fact, I bet it was. So as he says, they would have had more grenades. Then he says the trooper probably picked up extra grenades off of his fallen comrades, as he can do that even without rendering buddy aid, as Womble said. But the idea that he might have gotten them from ammo sharing doesn't seem right (not said by Womble), because my understanding is that ammo sharing tends to average the ammo each party has, not concentrate it. I could be wrong there. If so, I'd like to know, because that means I don't understand ammo sharing correctly. I was also trying to figure out why all he had was a panzerfaust, but I realized the answer to that when I was posting the picture: Like others have said, if he is using his rifle, it will show up with every other soldier's weapon in the UI portion that shows all of the unit's 'weapons in use' together. If he is using the panzerfaust, obviously, since that is his weapon in use, it will show there instead. To expound on that a little, when the rifle is in use, the panzerfaust being a special weapon will still show in the special weapon's inventory section of the UI, but the rifle will not show when the panzerfaust is in use, because it is not a special weapon. (That's the part that had me stumped.) Therefore, the only way to see the rifle when the panzerfaust is in use is to see it on the silhouette. But when I looked at the soldier prior to this picture, he was laying on it or something and I couldn't see it, even though he had it. Ironically, he never switched to his rifle when I told him to attack an enemy nearby, he just hucked grenades at them. He's one grenade huckin fiend, which notably makes sense, because when ammo is plentiful troops use it more generously. The only mystery left to me really, is why he had selected his panzerfaust as an active weapon when I first took notice of him prior to this picture. He was in a large field without an enemy vehicle in sight. But I doubt it matters, it seems that when a trooper decides to change weapons it is done in an instant and doesn't seem to hurt his time firing at the target much if at all. I've watched them several times switch weapons during a firefight, it seems to take less than a second, if any time at all. Again, thanks for the help.
  8. Several turns have passed and it was deleted on my home computer so it's probably now in the trash on that puter. But now I'm on vacation on my laptop, so I can't give you the exact pic from the turn I am talking about. But here's a pic of him several turns later. as you can see, he has used some of his grenades. He was inspecting a bunch of row houses and there were a lot of explosions there, but I didn't pay attention to what was going on. He must have been throwing grenades at something. Now you can see he has shouldered his panzerfaust and is bearing a rifle, but when I was looking at him earlier, he was bearing the panzerfaust and I couldn't see the rifle. It doesn't show up in the unit munitions roster, probably because it is a personal weapon. He still has 12 grenades left.
  9. It's getting late in this scenario. One fire-team had lost all of its men but one, but I figured he would be useful to help lay down a little extra suppressing fire on an enemy team that was suppressed and being overrun. So I clicked on him. That's when I noticed his weapon was a panzerfaust and nothing else--nothing except 19 HAND GRENADES. I could just imagine this guy back at the weapons locker, "Maybe I should choose this rifle. No, all I need is the panzerfaust and a box of grenades." I should mention that this unit had not rendered any buddy aid. I had some tank crews that lost their tanks and I had them following right behind the front line and rendering aid so that they could pick up some good weapons to use. So I was being very careful to only have them doing buddy aid. As funny as I thought that was, it made me wonder, how this guy wound up with 19 grenades. His fire team started off with between two and four men. If he took everybody's grenades, he still wouldn't have had that many normally. Also I've noticed that once in a while a pixeltroop carrying a bazooka, panzerfaust or panzershreck will need to shoot at infantry and will switch from his anti-tank weapon to his secondary weapon. Usually it's a pistol, but I'm pretty sure I saw one pull out something other than that once, though I can't remember what. I'm thinking it was a grease gun of some kind, and I think it was an American. But these weapons don't show up on the weapons roster when you click on the unit. So I'm wondering how often a trooper has a secondary weapon and is there a way we can see what it is? Incidentally, my pixeltroopen with the 19 grenades successfully threw one the next turn and killed the enemy he was supposed to suppress. So he was right, that was all he needed in that entire battle.
  10. I just wish state of the art was better than it is. I mean, according to 2001 A Space Odyssey, we were supposed to achieve self aware AI 13 years ago. Where did we go wrong? Oh, I know, it was those stupid kids and their cursed rap music. They threw the whole culture out of kilter. I can hear the first self aware computer now, "Ptew, ptew ptew ptew... My name's Hal and I'm your pal, got a question? I'll show you how. Ptew ptew ptew Will I sleep? Will I bleep? Am I a creep? You're in deep..."
  11. Thanks Mark Ezra. That is truly a big feat. I've been thinking about how redundant it must have been for someone to create all of those different maps, for each terrain type and map size and that's what got me to wondering if someone had to set up a strategy for each map and various force types for both sides and maybe varying force selections or different nation's armies. I think I would have had to kill myself before I finished. I'm sure there are a lot of those monumental tasks in this game that requires a novel strain of heroism to complete.
  12. That brings up something I was wondering about. When I do a quick battle against the AI, is there some pre-programmed AI for the quick battle or is the AI left entirely to its own to figure out a battle plan?
  13. I believe you, when you say the AI is far more advanced than HOI3--though admittedly, as you say, they are not comparable. I did not mean to insult this game by mentioning a feature of HOI. Sorry. I simply meant that if they did decide to allow players to give missions to commanders, the system HOI came up with where you designate theaters of action for leaders actually works, whereas a bunch of other things they tried did not, and some time and effort could be saved by looking at how they did that one thing and roughly modeling it--should they decide it's worthwhile, not that this would extend to any programming, just the general concept. I apologize for mentioning it and withdraw the thought.
  14. It would be kinder if you did not besmirch me for stupid questions. Previously your comments have been enlightening and I thank you. I went to school for systems analysis before there were things like hard drives or color--I'm admittedly out of date with programming. At least I know enough to realize that I was comparing apples and oranges. But the actual programming is not what I was talking about. You see, Paradox tried all sorts of approaches to making this general idea work and they put up with years of embarrassing failures. Then they finally hit on an approach that shows some promise, though even last I knew they were bungling it--but at least the units were doing more than just sitting there, they would carry out their missions with seeming intelligence. I was simply pointing out that a company could look at the "approach" they are using to avoid trying all the ones that didn't work. And I know it would be hard.
  15. I had mistakenly assumed that discipline would be better maintained if all the C2 lights were on. I think I also understand from the 3.0 manual that spotting stays pretty much within platoon level C2, or at most company level, because it says that spotting information is useless at battalion level and would not be communicated and it seems like it is saying the same for company level. And the third reason to maintain C2, indirect fire, is kind of out of the picture because Soviets don't usually have radios below battalion level unless it is with a designated spotter such as a forward observer, and for that reason, I think the indirect fire assets are generally attached to battalion, not company or platoon. So indirect fire is not an issue with C2 at lower levels. Lack of radios makes it rare or nearly impossible to maintain C2 between the Company Commander and more than one platoon commander. And even harder to maintain C2 between Battalion and more than one company command. It would seem from the above factors, that there is no reason to keep a platoon near to the rest of its company. Therefore, there is no reason not to run each platoon like its own independent fighting unit, not worrying about C2 upline from platoon, just using upline HQ's to fill in for lost leaders or babysit squads that are otherwise out of C2 with the platoon leader. This is assuming there are no attached indirect fire assets, because that would give a reason to maintain C2. It seems like the game would be more realistic if you give units missions with objectives and lines of effort (or whatever they're called) and should they wander out of C2 with battalion or they lose their radio, putting them out of C2, you lose control of them and they just go about autonomously performing their last mission. But I suppose since the AI can't be all that great, we would all scream about how harsh that is on the Soviets and forces with similar C2 challenges. On the other hand, having them act as a cohesive, intelligent fighting unit is hardly realistic either. And before anybody says, "Do you know how hard that would be to program?" Let me point out that last I knew, Hearts of Iron 3 does that on a strategic level, where you can assign groups of units missions and the programming carries them out fairly well (at least with ground units) so perhaps that could serve as a rough model and save a lot of time and effort, should Battlefront actually ever consider such an idea.
  • Create New...