jim crowley
-
Posts
222 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by jim crowley
-
-
Originally posted by Hunter:
Auto-resolve does not play out the battle in CMBB. It resolves the battle very quickly just using factors like the troops involved, the terrain, the orders, their readiness, the weather and time of day, etc.
What would be nice is to turn this into a more fully featured 'mini-battle' feature. Maybe for a future version
Hunter
-
-
I'd like to know a bit more about this as well.
I can imagine some of the larger campaigns being very time intensive if every single "encounter" has to fought-out in CMBB.
It may be nice to off load a few battles to the auto-resolve but only if it is robust enough to produce a variety of results based on a variety of factors and not just a simplistic odds comparison.
-
.....it's just the placeOriginally posted by Sergei:Yes, it is safe. Of course, if you like to wear clothes made out of dollar bills and a fun holiday for you is to get drunk and go harass prostitutes in dark alleys at midnight...
-
Any closer yet?
I'm sure a short AAR, with plenty of screenshots, will answer a lot of questions.
-
Some sort of fantasy-based medieval Total War could be interesting.
Strategic/operational level with armies etc, then down to tactical wego turn-based battles.
This would use a more quasi-historical approach than sci-fi.
CMSF is sci-fi enough for me.
-
You've obviously missed the "insightful" posts from neo-Nazis we occasionally see on this ForumOriginally posted by Battlefront.com:Hi Jim,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />None of this politico nonsensense with WW2
Steve </font>
-
None of this politico nonsensense with WW2
-
My understanding is that Air Support and some supply related issues may not/will not be included in the first release but will be patched-in later? Presumably if sales warrant it.
Given that supply issues and, to a lesser extent, air support are fairly crucial factors, might not their exclusion at the outset tend to colour the way in which campaigns are designed; which will then be adversely affected when these features are added in at a later date.
-
Excellent!Originally posted by Hunter:Yes, that will be possible.
Thanks for the rapid response.
-
If you have "surrounded" an ME in a tile, by having Enemy MEs on 2,3 or 4 of the target tile sides, will it be possible to execute attacks simultaneously into that tile?
Currently CMBB does not allow, AFAIK, for an attack to be set up from opposite ends of a map, at the same time.
-
Bumping this one 'cause it seems quite important.
-
Is that games room ready yet? And will a weekend be long enoughOriginally posted by Holien:I am really looking forward to this a weekend gaming events where you get some mates together and can play a proper campaign.
H
-
Oops, meant Schlock Force.
Alright, Shock Force
-
Wow. That high!Originally posted by Moon:Sergei is correct. While it's possible that some super-serious bug gets a fix (and super-serious means that it has to affect CMC specifically), it is very unlikely. To quote Charles: "0.0001% chance in hell"
Martin
I'm sure the Shck Force brigade wouldn't mind waiting a few weeks longer while BFC polish up CMBB
-
Looking at the third page of screenshots, there are two captures showing who can see the German platoon (highlighted in red squares.)
In both, but more exagerated in the second, it seems that squares on the diagonal to the unit do not have LoS to the unit. Therefore an enemy unit in some locations can spot up three squares away, whereas on the diagonal,sometimes this is only one square away.
Given that the unit appears to be in the open does this not give some potentially bizarre spotting results i.e. dependant on compass location some units can spot 3Km away while others can only spot 1 Km. In board games this problem, I assume, led to the dreaded Hex.
In this case would it not be better to have a 3x3 box around the unit so that the spotting distance is equal from all angles?
-
On the first map in the overview there are, what appears to be, Z's above some of the units, some small, some big.
Units resting/sleeping?
-
Previously, BFC have always said that they had drawn a line under CMX1 development and would issue no further patches because all resources were being directed at CMX2. Perfectly sound commercial logic.
But there would seem to be a reasonably strong possibility of CMC generating newfound interest in CMBB and, therefore, potentially more sales.
On that basis, could it be a commercially viable idea to patch CMBB; adding dust from CMAK and addressing any outstanding bug issues that have been mentioned in other threads?
-
If I didn't know better, I would say the mischievous little imps deliberately held this one back, awaiting the inevitable fall-out from the CMX2 announcement so they could say "told you so"
But they wouldn't stoop to that would they
Seriously, this is a briliant bit of news for us WW2 bigots and mirrors some vague hopes I held for CMX2. Great stuff!
-
I don't have a problem with that; in fact I applaud the notion. In life you generally get what you pay for.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:We don't expect the shelf life to be measured in years like CMx1. If we did we'd jack the price up to $200 a copy
Steve
If the WW2 CMX2 "experience" is one, two or three games and x number of modules, so much the better. Perhaps the grand scope of CMX1 can be recaptured, with all the improvements and gizmos of CMX2 included.
How much is that worth?
I would certainly be up for it, whatever the cost
-
Disappointed; massively.
Surprised: not in the least.
To look forward to: a very narrow slice of WW2 in maybe two years time.
Mood:
-
From my selfish point of view, don't bother, not if CMX2 is going to have anything to do with the stuff discussed in this threadOriginally posted by gibsonm:Steve,
Shouldn't you be coding somewhere or maybe generating screenshots / bones?
Might be time to go back to WW2 boardgaming - Lock 'n Load band of Heroes looks interesting.
-
Oops, forgot this bit:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hoolaman:
Another issue would be to target sound contacts and partial contacts directly. I'm not entirely sure why you can't do this now, especially knowing that the position may be unreliable.
This seems like a very good idea; using those sound and partial contacts as another form of TRP.
-
Originally posted by Hoolaman:
Another issue would be to target sound contacts and partial contacts directly. I'm not entirely sure why you can't do this now, especially knowing that the position may be unreliable.
Questions on Auto Resolution Battles
in Combat Mission Campaigns
Posted
DoH!
Meant to say that the "mini-battle" sounds like a good idea for a future version.