Brian Rock
-
Posts
528 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Brian Rock
-
-
As one might expect, coming into this on page 11 means most of the good ideas have been posted, and re-posted. The upside of this is that I basically agree with all the recurring suggestions.
I only have three ideas on my wish list that I don't believe have been posted (although I may have missed them),
1) Asymetrical victory conditions: I'd like to able to set one set of flags for one side, and a different set of flats, or different values on the flags, or exit conditions, or whatever for the other side.
2) Friendly AI to control complete units - eg a company defending on my right flank that I have no control over. This adds another level of frustration that I find appealing ("those morons in Company D are pulling out already?!?!?")
3) The ability to create buildings at odd angles, like you'd find in European cities. The buildings are always too orderly with overlarge gaps to properly simulate WWII urban warfare.
I'll still chuck in five things on my "keep" list:
1) QBs. I don't play very often anymore, but when I do 95% of my games are against the AI, and I prefer QBs to scenarios because I like the unpredictability.
2) UI: Another vote to keep it simple.
3) Realism: gameplay balance as per the later games.
4) Fuzzy logic: have the guys do dumb things (although the modeling of those dumb things can be refined).
5) Mac OSX as well as PC versions: last month I added an iBook to my computer inventory, and it'd be great to have a decent game for business trips.
-
Movement change:
1) I would like infantry to be able to attack it is adjacent to and then be able to move one hex.
2) I would dearly love for armor to either be able to attack and then move it's full movement.
This would allow ground units to punch through defences without the need for massive air fleets. It would also add an additional strategic element of needing to concentrate the offensive forces, while trying not to tip off to the defender where the attack will occur.
-
From a game tactics/balance point of view Terif's right. But for those of us who like the aesthetics of trying to game WWII we'd still like to see air power weakened a bit and armor upgraded.
It's one of those "both sides are right" discussions - it just depends on your perspective.
-
Particularly nice idea for coping with one of my complaints.Originally posted by Bill Macon:Experience:
I agree. The current algorithm is too linear, but could be more exponential. Make it easy to gain experience at low levels but harder to gain at higher levels; easy to lose experience at high levels but harder to lose at lower levels. Over time, this would tend to keep most units around the midpoint rather than at the extremes.
-
Just a reminder that the visual representation of an infantry unit doesn't exactly correspond to its in-game location.
Think of the figures as representing the centre of the "real" unit's footprint, with the men in the unit spread over a larger area. So while on average your men are 100 meters away, some of them will be further and others closer.
That's not to say there isn't a bug - just that there may not be a bug. The only way to be sure is to send a turn file with a 100m hurl to BTS for checking.
[ February 20, 2003, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Brian Rock ]
-
Old Man - it's not that you are penalised for being further along in research. It's that it is easier for others who aren't as advanced to copy/reverse engineer/steal ideas after somebody else has done the groundwork.
JerseyJohn, I agree with tac aircraft being better ship killers than bombers. A lot more ships were sunk by dive bombers and torpedo bombers than by their bigger brothers.
-
I'm guessing this has something to do with research.Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:3) BIGGEST MISTAKE PEOPLE MAKE AS BRITAIN: Sorry, can't tell you. This is for people who are part of my "Member's Club". I'll give you a hint: They are still playing Britain like it's 1.05, not 1.06!
If I'm right do I win a Kewpie Doll?
-
I'm disappointed. With that subject line I expected Ninjas flying the Henschels. Then, after they killed everybody, to wail away on guitars.
That would be awesome, and by awesome I mean totally sweet.
-
This should be ported to the General Forum as it really has nothing to do with SC. Since it's here I'll pitch in briefly.
Mind you, I don't believe the poster is being sincere at all. I smell troll. Are you perchance the former Stalinist poster putting on another persona?
You and everybody else. What made the Germans special? Perhaps the French should use their Napoleonic heritage to justify stomping Germany flat all over again.Originally posted by Emil Seibold:We Germans were and still are a proud race, with a proud history.
Perhaps the Germans didn't notice somebody else was living there, living in caves as they were, without televisions or newspapers or anything.We did not want to wipe out races of peoples, but we did want our living space.I guess all those people shooting back from the supposedly unlived in parts of Europe surprised the hell out of the invading army.
Versaille was a bad peace. This bit I won't even argue with.The versailles treaty after WW1 had deeply shamed our nation, and after the wall street crash and during the great depression, crippled out nation as well.
Yeah, taking back former glory should be all the rage I figure. Let's bring back the Pharoahs and Chinese Emperors while we're at it. Anyone else figure the Incas should stage a comeback? And I can't even begin to tell you how much I miss the Mongol Empire.The nazi's gave us a radical chance to take back our former glory and to go and take what was ours for the taking.
I did enjoy the "ours for the taking" comment - if you can take something you are entitled to it. Elevating thievery to a philosophy is such a simple alternative to civilisation.
Uh, right. Sure. And "damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead" or "Tippicanoe and Tyler too" to you. Or whatever.Sieg Heil.I hope you get a good mark on your psych experiment.
-
I think the closest thing to Conquistadore (which I agree was a classic) I can think of is EU and EU2. There was some other game called "Conquest of the New World" or somesuch but I believe it wasn't very good, nor quite early enough to compare with Conquistadore.
-
More Aussie trivia: "The Russian Campaign" was designed by John Edwards in Melbourne and originally published by his company Jedco.Originally posted by Henri:An opinion poll a few years ago (I forget where) on the all-time best wargame of all time showed "The Russian Campaign" was number one by a considerable margin.
I played the original version with Mace (from the CM boards) back in the 1970s. He kicked my ass in TRC then as easily as he does in other wargames now.
-
I haven't had any use for bombers either. While it may be true that they pick up in effectiveness at level 2, I always have plenty of other stuff higher on the research priority list.
Maybe I'll mod the game to give everybody +1 to their bombers to see if that makes a difference.
-
Panther Games is still in business. They did Airborne Assault, also sold by Battlefront.Originally posted by Hueristic:Went down cellar looking for an old european theatre game from an austrialian company. Think it The Company was called Panther. Be damned if i can remember the games name
AA is a great game, by the way, with a use of real-time that works very well with the concept.
-
While I understand your frustration, your maths are out.Originally posted by Lou Wigman:So tell me. If there is a 5% chance of getting a an advance and you have 5 level 1 research chits then simple mathematics says that you can expect an advance every 4 turns or so. Clearly this is not the case.
Look at it like this: a 25% chance of breakthrough is a 75% chance of no breakthrough.
The chance of getting no breakthroughs after two turns is 75% (odd for failing turn 1) x 75% (odds for failing turn 2) = 56.3% chance of no breakthroughs.
After three turns it's 75% x 75% x 75% = 42.2% (rounded).
After four turns it's 31.6% of no breakthroughs. QED by turn 4 the chance of at least one breakthrough is 100%-31.6% = 68.4%, or about two out of three. Not bad, but not 100%.
-
Yeah, but the Finns used flamethrowers as hand-to-hand weapons, so I figure that's 24m more then they needed. Besides which since they were only a secondary weapon they were held in the left hand, freeing up the right for their tank destroying MGs.Originally posted by Nippy:Flame throwers - The Soviet man portable type has the longest range in the game (45m) with the Germans at a far second (32m) and the Finns dead last (24m).
-
The new research system sounds excellent. Looking forward to giving this one a try.
Can any of the beta testers say if the changes to Suez help to put the desert war back in the game? It may be a sideshow, but it's one of myfavourite side shows.
-
I like it, although I'd drop the "Ground HQs can control one air unit" bit.Originally posted by Valadictum:Have Air HQ's, Ground HQ's (like now) and Sea HQ's. Ground HQ's would be able to control no more than one air unit and no sea units, air HQ's would be all air and sea HQ's all sea.
I actually think it would simplify things for players, not complicate them.
-
I would guess there would be a great deal of code rewriting to add a turret-popping animation. As cool as it is, given Charles can recode CMBB or start on the engine re-write, I'd prefer it to wait for the former.
Incidentally if you like popping turrets I'd recommend the excellent Steel Beasts. It's a modern armored warfare tank sim, so we aren't comparing like with like, but it's outstanding, especially in multi-player.
-
Haven't played HOI, but the RTS aspect of EU wasn't a problem because you can vary it from fast to very slow.
Most of the time I'd play on 1 minute = 1 year, but when a war broke out I'd drop to 1 minute = 1 month. Once the initial burst of orders went in I could usually go back to 1 minute = 1 year until something major happened.
I manage to make lots of mistakes, never due to time pressure.
-
I agree with those who say that the luck factor is a major feature of the game. For deterministic outcomes I play chess. Just as badly as I do CMBB.
-
I understand your concern about posting a first scenario. I've been building them since the beta test days on CMBO and I still haven't publicly posted one.Originally posted by redwolf:It would be my first scenario and it is avoidable that I screw something up, unrelated to the discussion here. Looking at the style of argumentation in this thread this will lead to people bashing the scenario and by inappropriate extension of unrelated scenario mistakes take it as proof that my original point was wrong.
Here's another suggestion: I'll create a "Manstein at Perekop" inspired scenario and send it to you. Then you can pick the flaws in it.
That's quite genuine, incidentally. I know bugger-all about the battle, the terrain, the forces, etc, so I'd be surprised if it didn't take a few passes before the scenario captures the nature of battle.
-
What kind of sandwich was it? If it was so great why didn't you have two? And will you have a great sandwich tomorrow?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:I didn't mention what a great sandwitch I had for lunch today, so perhaps you should try to not mention things that you yourself understand are irrelevant.
This raises a number of serious questions about BFC's sandwich modelling.
-
I've been trying really, really hard not to buy into this thread, but I have to respond to this:
Hard to answer without looking at the specific terrain. I can make a series of sweeping generalisations that may or may not apply - eg:Originally posted by redwolf:If you want to make me happy then you point out to me how I can move a HMG into effective range in an infantry-only attack with only spots of cover, without getting it out of business for 15+ turns on minimal fire which should be good for 3-4 turns of slackery.
1) Don't move them. If LOS is open, fire from range.
2) If you are out of range, move forward behind whatever cover you have until you are in range.
3) If there is absolutely no cover at the point you begin taking fire, have your lead elements begin returning fire while your rear elements come forward.
And so on.
Whether or not these work depends on the particular map, so my suggestion is: create a map that simulates a situation such as you describe. Then let a bunch of us play with your "Manstein at Perekop" map and see if we can make it work.
What do you think?
-
I'd argue tech sharing between the US and England makes sense, and that's it. I also like the ev's idea of only allowing sharing one level down, which would represent lag effects.
Command Delay. Love it? Hate it? Should it ever return.
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I also liked it. Yes it was flawed, but I find the alternative of instant-response is also flawed.
For all of the pain-in-the-assness when it did weird things it still did a much better job of making plans fall apart under fire, which is normally absent in most wargames.
Still, I can see why it was dropped. I appreciate I've always been a minority on this sort of issue.