Jump to content

Other Means

Members
  • Posts

    4,319
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Other Means

  1. Ironic that the “he planned the campaign and the war was won” argument for Monash could be applied to Montgomery.

    Blackcat – threads like this are what the forum was made for :)

    For what it’s worth, I think the main tactical innovations for the Allies in WWI was the use of tanks, first used 1915, and the rolling barrage, which was in effect by the end of 1916. Neither they nor their deployment were affected much by Monash.

  2. You are correct in your observations. The pixeltroops do bunch together too tight. Closer than one would expect. But this is due to inherent limitations to the game. Im not as well versed, but it has something to do with the tiles and how the troops are tied to them.

    One side effect of this is the arty is toned down. If a 155mm HE shell explodes in an airburst directly overhead and all troopers do not die, it is, in effect, an attempt to simulate how the troops are suppose to be properly dispersed. (As I have seen in CMSF)

    Yep, it keeps the overheads to something manageable. The more action spots a unit covers the more it affects the spotting calculations.

    As you say, other effects have been tuned to allow for this.

  3. A word on viruses (viri?). There's a difference between CM mods, maps, scenarios etc and mods for different games.

    CM content doesn't get installed - it's never ran, it's interpreted by the game. Scenarios are loaded etc. Just make sure if they are zipped/RAR'd they get unpacked by the correct software.

    Other games mods are installed - therefore they are ran by the PC, therefore they have a chance to install cack.

    Operator vs operand. Different thing, different potential for naughtyness.

  4. I disagree with this disagreement! Battlefront, please be very careful before ruining CM by turning it into an arcade game of suicidal armies and adolescent one-upmanship. Make this sort of gameplay an option, if you need to do it for commercial reasons. But please make sure all the work you've put into realism isn't ruined by forcing us into some gamey way of playing.

    It's a QB. QB's aren't realistic. Besides, as noted above, it IS an option already.

  5. Re-processing waste can take the dangerous life of it down to 50 years apparently and LFTRs don’t produce any. Of course if you really, really want to get rid of it just bury it in a tectonic subduction zone and watch it return to the mantle.

    Your first quote there is factually wrong in at least one respect – the earthquake that hit Japan was a one in a thousand year occurrence. TBH, I wouldn’t give the vox-pop from any article any credence, it will just get us into tit-for-tat cross posting and reference checking, e.g. I've read that particular comment countered on something like p24 where it gives completely different figures for decommissioning.

    I don't have time to do that unfortunately.

  6. The editor will allow you to create any battle with any of the units you desire, even US vs US, or German vs German (or any combination). Map size is limited to 4km x 4km (I think... It MAY be 2km x 2km).

    The mod comment above: visuals and sounds can be modded, but unit abilities cannot be modded.

    I think it's 10x10km.

  7. The argument was put forward several months ago by a number of people including myself that force preservation is a very realistic consideration and should be rewarded accordingly. This doesn't have to be an automatic mechanism, it can be left to the discretion of the scenario designer to allow for the occasional "do-or-die" situation. BFC has made no comment on this that I am aware of so they may not have gotten around to it, I don't know.

    Michael

    That's because that's how it already works in CM2.

    Haven't seen the balance in practice with the CMx2 QBs but it would be a shame if too much emphasis is on the victory locations. I can't see how this wouldn't result in even more suicidal attacks for the sake of the VL.

    More importantly in the two players PBs I think it is important the battle loser gets credit with a lower victory condition than Total loss.

    I have played a squillion QB MEs PBEM and I don't think I ever saw a Total Victory.

    Hopefully in the next month it will be a squillion and one.

    PS I saw that my preorder amount in AU$ was less than the full amount US$. Whoever is in charge of your economy keep up the good work.

    I disagree - I want a QB to be a ding-dong, all out slugfest. The higher the VL points, the more energetic the players are going to be to get them. The dullest type of QB is when there's two evenly matched VLs and the player camps theirs and recces forward.

    As a Liverpool fan it reminds me too much of the Houllier years *shudder*.

×
×
  • Create New...