Elmar Bijlsma
-
Posts
3,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Elmar Bijlsma
-
-
In an effort to *bump* I'll ask a stupid question for wich speed reading couldn't find an answer. When is the deadline? I have finished one, well on the way with another, and as luck would have it, hardly started with the longest. Should I be worried?
-
Wargamer Project Napoleon 1813, by any chance? Gods, that was criminal.Originally posted by Screaming Flea:No WAY would I buy LGAA without first playing a demo....... I have spent altogether too much mullah on complete Napoleonic turkeys to do so again without a demo.... gotta have a DEMO.
-
I have a soft spot for the Churchill too. It looks just like a tank should look:
A big, heavy armoured box for killing people. Nothing sleek just function. It's WW I like appearnce adds to the charm.
Panther is the opposite and I like it for that reason. Sleek and radiating a lethal purpose it is well named indeed.
-
Thanks for clearing that up.
You don't happen to have hard numbers for it, have you? On occasion I go a bit OTT and micro manage things to extract the last bit of advantage I can from the game, and this one question has always been a bit clear.
For example is regular +1 equal to veteran 0? If not, to what extend?
-
Just save the game and surrender/ceasefire, then load and continue. Wouldn't that be pretty much the same?
But I agree, it's better to remain in the dark until the end on how well you are doing.
-
Well I know that I started doing better with T-34s by not letting them go hull down. Might be a coincidence but I feel their survivebility went up, rather then down.
-
During design place a vehicle in terrain it can't move through. Et voila! Immobile units. It's that easy.Originally posted by Richie:I have a couple of Questions:
Given the scale of some Desert Operations, will 'design your own' encompass low fuel or enable vehicles to be set up Immobile or Out of Gas?
How do I best replicate 'Out of Gas' if not?
-
I will leave details to better minds then mine but I like the basic you set out. Add to that the better ammo tracking that would be required for such a model and this could make infantry combat much more satisfying.
Perhaps then the Vickers MG will be better. I never thought it's ability for coninuous firing was accuratly portrayed.
-
No no no no.
A true newby should first make wild inaccurate statements without having even the slightest clue. Preferably whilst being rude, preferably to BFC.
-
Lightly armoured or not, losing all six of them in the first twenty seconds of a game is pretty bad. :eek:
{edited: poor chpellink}
[ June 08, 2003, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: Tweety ]
-
I thought that they would, eventually. They hinted that they might do some ealier campaigns and post war conflict before returning to Normandy et al. But CMAK would let you do most battles of Europe anyway, and that's without too much modding, let alone when those moders get their paws on it.
And in the meantime you can de-antiquate CMBO by modding the hell out of it.
-
Unless your troops had a psychic attached, I think most would bring along enough ammo of each type to deal with any situation likely to arise. Loading up with 90%HE is not a good move. 70% not much better.
But while we are on ammo levels. With the ammo levels adjustable, I notice an absence of an option along the lines of:"as much as you can haul" That would be grand. As it is now you run out of ammo with inf. mortars and FOs just when you start to really hurt the other guy.
For once Hollywood has the right idea: Explosions=Good. More Explosions=Better.
-
I particularly like:
1) Why oh why are my platoons so scattered. In > Battalion sized battles I spend 5 minutes placing platoons together. VERY annoying. Why not dump units closer together.
2)I would like the options of being able to deploy re-enforcements in exact locations in the editing of scenarios. This jumbled stuff is unneccesary. This allows designers much greater historical accuracy, not to mention common sense.
5)Always nice, setting the AI agression level. I know that in wargames AI has never been able to put a good attack together, but I somehow fail to understand why on an 800x800 map with an entire brigade attacking my company, the AI only makes a half hearted attack in the last 10 minutes of a 30 turn game, with about 2 platoons.
Smarter AI is a tall order but allowing the player to set an AI level to probe, advance, attack or all out assault would be great.
-
I dunno, what kind of ball is it?
-
An UberFinn doesn't need to have a working link to show you a picture.
-
It's been a few months back but IIRC that they just left to another publisher. No agro just a business opportunity. All sides wished each other well.Originally posted by Michael emrys:Okay, thanks. But that doesn't tell me anything about why it was dropped from BFC's lineup.
Michael
Do a search on it, there were two threads on it when it happened.
-
In the context of my whole CMBB/Allied General campaign I just had my heaviest and most embarrasing defeat ever.
I had 6 BT-5s attack 4 Finnish pilboxes + 4 Boys AT rifles with 5 105mm FOs in support. I placed my tanks tread to tread and wanted to fast move across the 2400 meter neutral ground as quickly as possible. Arty hadn't been neither remotely accurate or effective before and should easily be avoided by moving along. Besides that, the AI only throws smoke at large tank formations. Well yes, they would if they had any. Amazingly, a few hours earlier I had read on a thread around here that the Fins didn't use any smoke shells. I just wasn't thinking about it when setting up.
So I press go and imidiately rounds start coming in. The first shell takes out TWO BT-5s, the second shell another. Another one BT dies later in the same volley. One dies a volley later while one manages to hold on till the third volley. The BT-5s never even had a chance to move! The barrage then kills every single tank crew. In the first turn. That's right, not a single survivor. Turns out 4 FOs had LOS to my setup zone from about 3 kilometers.
Ow.
I think I'll cry myself to sleep. Damn Uber-Finns!
-
Here are the games stil gracing my desktop.
Morrowind
Seadogs
Medal of Honour:Allied Assault
Medieval Total War
Jagged Aliance 2
X-COM Enemy Unknown
CombatFlight Simulator
and rather bizarly: Cripple Mister Onion.
Future buys this year are likely to be:
UFO Aftermath
CM:AK (duh)
Pirates of the Carribean (Seadogs 2)
anyone got any more games we need to be aware of?
-
What I would find great as an identifier between KO-ed tanks and those still running would be radio antennas on those not running. Especially Brit ones with those cute banners on them. Not as intrucive as most even if the disappearance of antennas makes no RL sense. Anything better then unit bases.
Guess will have to wait till the new engine. Goodness me, CMX2 is becoming more and more a sort of holy grail.
-
Hotseat is a problem, because no-one at my end would be interested. Not sure if Pbem would be do-able, in view of continual editing of save game files, I'll try it out later. But as the PG section of the game is in it's infancy I'd rather hold off on that.
I could already do the CMBB battles multiplayer(minus the bombardment and air attack only battles, obviously) if people wouldn't mind the freakish forces involved. Could be a bit troublesome to find people willing to tackle 10 KV-1s with 10 PzKW IIs. Ouch!
You can only multi-play the individual scenarios, not the campaigns, but adjusting the scenarios to represent the campaign is easy enough. At the end of the scenario edit the campaign to match the result as in the scenario played, go to next map and repeat. That Brass editing tool is pretty good.
-
Yesterday I started a campaign of sorts where I play Allied General but rather then letting the computer calculate outcomes I play them in CMBB.
Has anyone ever tried this before?
It isn't perfect and I'll be doing a lot of improvising in the future. Especially the AIs turn will be giving me a major headache. I have no hard rules as yet, trying to be a bit reasonable about coping with engine limitations of both games. It's hugely gamey but fun nonetheless!
So far I only did 6 battles, of wich 4 were artillery shelling. Using 1 FO per strength point has much reduced effictiveness. Much more 'realistic' results then the AI where 6 Strength points is a common loss. Now I'm lucky to get 2! And bombarding a much reduced force is even less efective. An attack with inf/tanks is mandatory to finish of units is now mandatory.
Another pleasant result is that I now get much better use of poor quality infantry. If you use them properly your conscripts can actually do well, wich was impossible with Allied General battle results.
A few headaches so far: The T28. The first battle (winter war) has two of these beast. I use two T26s joined at the hip as replacement, imperfect but the best I can do.
The AIs turn will be nightmare to do fairly because I can't interrupt the AI to imput battle results before it fights another thus it might have a succesfull attack in PG while the CMBB battle is lost. In a subsequent attack the AI will rely on the PG results and plot an attack wich would be impossible going by the CMBB results.
Playing against a human would negate this major problem but at this point I'm making up rules as I go along even if I can find anyone insane enough to play against me.(experience and a recent thread/test on the General Discussion Area seem to indicate finding the nutters here wouldn't be a problem)
Am I the first to try this? Surely not, but I can't remember a thread on this.
-
I think it is best left as it is now anyway. If my tank is focusing on a tank and directly poining the hull at that opponent there is less chance of being embarressed by another enemy showing up and getting you in the flank. I hate to have my Panther get a nice 30 degree angle on a target only for an enemy tank being presented with a flank shot wich it wouldn't have had, had my Pather faced the inital enemy tank dead on.
-
Sure, sign me up if there is still room for me. Not getting utterly trounced as a replacement was a surprise and a joy for me.Originally posted by Kingfish:Section 1-6 is now underway, and I have two more signed up. I still need two more players to get section 1-7 up and running. Any volunteers from the regular tourney that would like to try out the finals scenarios?
E-mail is in the profile.
Thanks.
-
A while back i started a simple CMBO campaign and to get any kind of joy from it I needed to switch to limited FOW to have atleast have moderately accurate kill info. And I must say I enjoy it vey much. The added information allows you to more effectively give orders and fine tune them for maximum effect. Nothing quite like nailing the one squad that carries arround a faust.
I enjoy the uncertainty and mistaken IDs of ful/extreme FOW too. But I wouldn't say it's better or more/less fun, just different. Both modes of play add to the game, though I too am inclined towards putting FOW to max most of the time, especially when playin a new scenario. As they say, fear of the unknown is worst fear of all.
Steuart
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
Wich leads me to the following, how would they be employ the 3 hul MGs? I mean one for the driver, the radio man takes one of the sides, but the other two crewmembers I would asume would be busy in the turret.
Can you imagine this modeled in CMAK? 5 MGs would make it a real killer.
Though I expect those side MGs would be be limited like the rear turret MGs are in CMBB.