Conscript Bagger
-
Posts
475 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Conscript Bagger
-
-
Nah, I bet the beta posts are 90 percent stuff like this:Originally posted by The_Capt:Gentlemen, Gentlemen..
I suggest you watch the CMBB Beta Forum.
Here is how it works.
Normal traffic from Beta Testers...
"Last call for input before we go Gold"!
Huge influx of traffic on board.
"Ok Shut up so we can finish this thing"
Board falls very quiet.
Somebody get out some graph paper and watch the number of posts and date and you may just get a clue or two..
"Ha ha, Moon is out of the WC pool because all his teams lost in the Group of 16!"
"Pepperoni or sausage?"
"Look how busy the main forum is tonight... don't those guys ever get any?"
"The .wav files are almost done - but how do you say 'It didn't hurt' in Finnish?"
-
I'm just as happy to let my troops spot on their own, and let the borg effect show me whatever they see. When relative spotting happens, then there might be more use for extra spotting commands (binoculars, etc.).
Good point about "ZOC" considerations; you don't want to shell out the points for a sniper and the AI sets him up 20m from an enemy SMG platoon. There would probably have to be a minimum distance requirement for his initial position, with variations due to terrain, like you said.
-
Wow, it appears I have fulfilled my purpose in life
Seriously, thanks for the positive responses; I'm surprised it hasn't been suggested before (though maybe it's because sniper discussions have been taboo for a while).Doodlebug - I agree, the AI's ability to handle the sniper is a point of question. I'm not sure which of the three(?) AIs in the game would do this. However, the AI does control sharpshooters in human vs. computer games, which could be a starting point for sniper-control code.
Jagdratt - Right now, I'm inclined to worry that having the sniper revert to player control once "discovered" is potentially gamey. Having the AI control the sniper throughout the game maintains his independence from the regular command structure (IOW, the player), which seems more like the way I've seen snipers described as operating by board members who know a lot about them. If the higher-ups have gone to the trouble of assigning an elite sniper to a given sector, I doubt they want every Lt. Tom, Dick, or Harry coming along and giving him new orders. I can't see snipers being too eager to leave their carefully concealed position to join an infantry attack, either. Or am I reading too much into the "sniper mystique"?
Michael - yes, ASL's SAN was the basis of this idea, since it's another example of a sniper operating independently of player control. I hadn't ever considered a sniper check as part of the system; in fact, I never played enough ASL to even remember the details of the check. Do you think it would be a good inclusion? And relative spotting (or the lack thereof at present) is the reason I suggested NOT providing spotting info from the sniper - certainly not during the battle, anyway.
I do like the idea of maybe getting a peek at enemy units that set up in view of the sniper, although it raises the question of how long before Turn 1 they actually moved into position, and would the sniper have had time to assess and report the threat? Maybe only let the sniper report dug-in units and fortifications, and assume that AFVs, etc. have arrived too recently?
-
In view of the examples posted, I'll amend my previous statement:
Bazookas can accomplish extraordinary feats against infantry, but with their low blast value, you're playing the lottery if you expect them to.
-
Fionn said
So did snipers also operate within enemy lines during battles, so as to justify being represented separately for CM battles? Or could that role still be represented with a Crack or Elite sharpshooter unit?OTOH there IS a case to be made for starting a whole new thread arguing for the inclusion of SNIPERS (proper) in CM:BB in ADDITION to sharpshooters.Anyway, here are my embryonic thoughts on how snipers (the "real" kind) might be treated: Like fighter-bombers, they would be purchased as a "presence" and not a unit the player controls. The AI would place and control the sniper (within a setup zone, maybe the enemy's setup zone in a QB, or the author's choice in a scenario) and would remain hidden from both sides until revealing himself through fire or movement (or they stumble on him). It would also seem that the friendly player shouldn't receive spotting info from the sniper (again, like FB's).
Your thoughts?
-
Sorry Andreas, I'm going to prolong the misery...
Just wanted to mention some other things we might keep in mind about forum newcomers -
Many of them have only very recently become interested enough in WWII to discuss it on a Web board.
Many of them have only very recently begun using Web boards.
Many of them have only very recently begun playing CMBO.
Often more than one of these conditions applies, which means newcomers are often coming here with mistaken assumptions about WWII, Web boards, and/or CMBO.
Often they express these mistaken assumptions rather bluntly. True, it's off-putting, but I'd suggest that such bluntness is often the result of overeagerness - remember, the stuff we talk about here is not what we're likely to be able to talk to our friends, parents, significant others, coworkers, etc. about, simply because most of them don't share our interest in the topic. But one day, our friend the newcomer fires up his browser and finds himself here, where everyone is talking about the kind of stuff he likes (except, of course, the Cesspudlians
). So his exuberance leads him to post in such a way that exhibits varying levels of ignorance of WWII, Web board etiquette, and/or CMBO. Those of us have been around WWII study, Web boards, and/or CMBO for quite a while might give him the benefit of the doubt before we smack him down and make fun of his posting style (in some cases waiting to do so until the second or third page of the thread when the precedent's already well set). Correct his errors in knowledge, sure. Explain the value of honey vs. vinegar in discussion, definitely. Those who are nothing more than trolls will make that obvious pretty quickly, and the forum admins know how to deal with that. But those who are simply thrilled to be amongst others of like interest in the game and the history, and who perhaps don't realize (a) the holes in their own knowledge or (
the depth of knowledge present in the forum community, ought to be given the chance to temper their initial overzealousness without being verbally drawn and quartered (and obviously, they also have the responsibility of learning to post with the same general courtesy that is usually exhibited on this board).In short, it's too bad this thread couldn't have gone straight from the first post to the more considered comments that have appeared on page three.
PS - Fionn said "OTOH there IS a case to be made for starting a whole new thread arguing for the inclusion of SNIPERS (proper) in CM:BB in ADDITION to sharpshooters." I think I'll go do just that, because it intrigues me.
-
If you look at the unit stats (select the bazooka and hit Enter) I think it lists the blast value. It's pretty low, however, so don't expect a single bazooka to have much effect.
-
Well, nobody can say your priorities ain't straight!
P.S. Sylvan never struck me as the do-rag type - now I have to harass him for it.
-
Sheesh, what a selfish b_____d. People like you do such a disservice to the mod and player communities.Originally posted by kump:this time around I want to be more self centered and play the game.
No no no, I absolutely loved your efforts on that site. I'm just jealous of your HDTV setup!
-
I was sitting in about the third row at midfield, but I had to leave early in the second half. Otherwise I would've come down to say hi. Considering they scored their three while I was there and you guys scored when I wasn't, I guess I shoulda left with the jinx earlier, eh?
-
Folks, Ted is one of the most vocal athletes I've ever seen (heard). Not at all what one would expect, given his succinct updates to the board.
It's worth mentioning that even when they went down 0-3, he stayed just as loud, and just as positive. -
Rats, I was expecting a figure skating joke from someone. As for not being able to skate - that's no excuse; I've never let it stop me
Best o'luck tomorrow.
-
Ted, I used to be a Far-West-Sider, but now I live north of the airport a ways. Just a few short blocks from the loony bin; I figured it'll make that move easier when it comes! Just let me keep my CM, doc...
It's pretty cool to hear you play with Sylvan. I might be able to swing by the game on my way to Capitol Ice to play a real sport.
-
Wow Ted, all this time I've been reading your updates and never noticed we're in the same town. Ever play with a guy named Sylvan Esh? I used to work with him and I know he was in a 30+ league.
Congrats on your rehab too, and I know exactly what you mean about that sound a collapsing joint makes (mine was an ankle, but hey).
-
Aha, the South Park mod reappears! Now I'll be humming "Reminiscing" all day...
-
Remember? I wish I could forget... it is a truly awful movie, laughable even by early-80s Hollywood standards.Originally posted by aka_tom_w:Anyone remember the movie ...
I think it was called the last Star Fighter..
-
At least they're not claiming it's FAT-FREEOriginally posted by DrAlimantado:But what I do not like is how they have capitalized 'HOT' in the ad.
-
Just ran a quick test on time in bocage at various speeds -
Fast: 0:24
Move: 0:52
Sneak: 1:25
Didn't try crawling or withdrawing.
I almost exclusively run my infantry through bocage for two reasons - first, I don't want to wait an entire turn for them to cross; second, if they come under fire, they get out of the bushes more quickly and into the "better" protection of open ground (where they usually have a Move order plotted). Crossing one bocage line doesn't tire a squad very badly, especially if you're taking time to set up your overwatch element before crossing the next field.
-
Here ya go, ya whiners!
Direct link if the pic doesn't show:
http://www.geocities.com/traveling_circus17/index.htm
Text on CMBB section reads:
* 3D graphics* 3D sound
* Play 1941-1945
* 900+ historical units
* Full featured editor
* Unparalleled realism
* Endless replayability
Experience combat in a full 3D battlefield as tracers arc overhead and exploding shells shake the earth! Feel the tremendous power of the feared Russian Katyusha rocket barrage! Order a tank hunter team to assault a heavy KV-1 with Panzerfausts and magnetic mines in the ruins of a shattered city! A modern hybrid turn-based/realtime system combines with 3D lines of sight, misidentification of targets, location by sound, advanced armor penetration systems, morale and leadership, fire and smoke, wind and weather - and much more to bring you unprecedented realism from the people who revolutionized the wargaming genre!
[ June 03, 2002, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Offwhite ]
-
I think the very first game I played was Riesburg as the US. What a relief it was to finally get a foothold in that first row of houses!
The first time I played Last Defense, I happened to have my Tiger selected during playback when the Hellcats showed up - I'll never forget the skipped heartbeat when those yellow targeting lines popped up one-two-three like so many spotlights (followed closely by the killing shot).
-
Just happened to run across this; I don't remember it being posted here before so maybe it's news to others as well:
http://www.terraserver.com/ww2_images.asp
Maybe not especially useful for scenario design, but certainly cool.
-
Are you sure the first several hits were killing penetrations? If you're playing without detailed hit info, it can be hard to tell sometimes.
Either way, it sounds like an interesting sequence. Still got the file, by any chance?
-
The search function can be exasperating, particularly if you don't have very specific keywords in mind. However, a large number of the questions that garner "Do a Search" responses are ones that have been discussed pretty recently, with answers that could be found simply by scanning the topics on the first few pages of the board.
And there's always the FAQ:
http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=022118
-
I wasn't clear enough. That's exactly the point I was trying to make: in CMBO, vehicles have one set of characteristics (such as discrete location, binary dead/alive status, transport capacity) and infantry have a completely different set of characteristics (such as area footprint, incremental casualties, no transport capacity).Originally posted by tero:Funnily enough infantry units do both.
No unit in the game blends these attributes now, and my guess (yes, just a guess) is that vehicles and infantry are coded so fundamentally different in the program that a unit like horses, which would require combining some infantry attributes with some vehicle attributes, cannot "relative[ly] easy be modeled."
Seriously, thanks for the positive responses; I'm surprised it hasn't been suggested before (though maybe it's because sniper discussions have been taboo for a while).
the depth of knowledge present in the forum community, ought to be given the chance to temper their initial overzealousness without being verbally drawn and quartered (and obviously, they also have the responsibility of learning to post with the same general courtesy that is usually exhibited on this board).
Hey Panzer Leader, did you know....
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
1 : guarding from or preventing disease
2 : tending to prevent or ward off : PREVENTIVE
However, to me at least, "prophylactic" does convey a sense of intent. Assuming Michael is not willfully avoiding intercourse, a useful alternative word in this case might be repellent (which, incidentally, refers to another type of prophylactic).
(just doing my bit to get this thing safely relegated to General
)