Jump to content

kb9sog

Members
  • Posts

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    63849872

Converted

  • Location
    Indiana
  • Interests
    Wargaming, Simulations, Amateur Radio
  • Occupation
    Production Manager

kb9sog's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Son of a gun! That makes two times this week that I was betting on the sex change for Matt and was wrong. Gotta take out a second mortgage on the house. Congrats to both Dan and Matt. Hip Hip Hooray! 21 smiley salute ------------------ BJ Simpson Visit www.arrl.org for information about Ham Radio. IN HOC SIGNO VINCES ******************** I'm still a psychophant...err sickophant...err elephant...err Nahvawhatsitsdamnnameagainwaffe...err (where's my meds?) sychophant...yeah, that's the ticket.
  2. I used to have the same problem as well. It was my video card. My problems with that went away by switching to a higher resolution in the game. But updating the drivers is a good idea too. Try this first: (For the PC)-- Goto your cmbo folder and delete the file called combat mission preferences. Then adjust your screen resolution from your desktop. (I went from 800x600 to 1024x768.) Reboot. Then load the game. The game will prompt you to verify your video settings. Confirm that option. (This will create a new combat mission preferences file in your cmbo folder.) Load a mission and look at the sky. If that doesn't work. Delete the preference file again from your cmbo folder. Then go get the latest video driver update from the manufacturer, install it, reboot, reinstall the version of direct x that you are currently using now, reboot, start the game, confirm your video card selection, load a scenario and look for the sky. Outside of that advice, I am at a loss for more suggestions. I hope that one of those ideas work for you. ------------------ BJ Simpson Visit www.arrl.org for information about Ham Radio. IN HOC SIGNO VINCES ******************** I'm still a psychophant...err sickophant...err elephant...err Nahvawhatsitsdamnnameagainwaffe...err (where's my meds?) sychophant...yeah, that's the ticket.
  3. Good replies so far. Here are some more thoughts. David: I agree with what you are saying on your situation with the meeting engagement map that you are building. I understand the need to put a little bit of clarity into the picture to allow for some play balance. I know the last thing that a scenario author wants to hear is that one side or the other of the conflict has an impossible task to win. Let me ask you this: Is the flag placement on your scenario to help the AI make a decision in its advance (the computer will do strange things that you don't want it do without the flags) or is it because you want to provide human players with clear objectives to help the scenario's "replayability." In other words, do you feel that the scenario would be spoiled for two double blind human opponents trying to outwit each other in a meeting engagement? Perhaps it is both. I agree that unless you put down something on a battlefield for the AI, it will do things that you do not want it to do. And thus, we put the carrot out there for the HAL 9000 to use. Without the flags, the clarity of the scenario author's vision would be lost. I'm not entirely sold on the thought that without the flags, human opponents would cause a loss of clarity in a double blind situation. To some extent, I do see a need for it (to keep in line with the scenario author's vision) but mostly I wouldn't necessarily think it would be mandatory. Human opponents can weigh the pros and cons, unlike our buddy the computer AI. In essence, I'm saying that in the example of your scenario, a human opponent's reaction to your scenario would more than likely follow the vision of the author even without the carrot. I don't think that your vision of how the scenario should be played (between humans) would be lost if the objectives of the scenario were not spelled out for them? In fact, the flags under the hood would be for the computer's benefit but would not generate points towards the final victory scores. (Meeting engagements only.) I only wish that dynamic flags could be an option in the QB Generator for Assault, Attack, Probe, Defend scenarios. Just thinking out loud. I enjoy hearing your thoughts and everyone else's too. ------------------ BJ Simpson Visit www.arrl.org for information about Ham Radio. IN HOC SIGNO VINCES ******************** I'm still a psychophant...err sickophant...err elephant...err Nahvawhatsitsdamnnameagainwaffe...err (where's my meds?) sychophant...yeah, that's the ticket.
  4. Pak40: I know what you're talking about and I agree with you. Except that I'm not really saying that we should remove the one thing (the flags) that provide the AI with the logic to conduct its attack. What I am saying is to keep the knowledge "hidden" from the human opponent. Areas of high value will still be stipulated in a map's design..just under the hood of the map editor. What I am thinking is to have a map designer specify the areas of victory by "painting" them onto the battlefield in much the same way that we "paint" the elevations for a map. That way, I think, will provide just a bit more uncertainty in playing a battle. David: I hear you. quote: If it's up to the players to pick the map feature of greatest value, they'll go for the most prominent object – the same place that the scenario designer would put a flag. So why not a flag? end quote My idea on terrain values goes something like this: All terrain has a value to it. Ranging from 0-15. (Not just the key features having a value.) Although, in doing that, the scoring methods and terms of victory would be vastly different than what we have now. To be perfectly honest, I really don't know if the terrain value vs. flags would be worth it. I was really hoping to bring up an idea that would spark a better one from someone else. Sort of a "if we could design it differently, how could we make it better?" type of theme. quote: Moreover, if different terrain types have different values, players will soon learn which is best. So you can take away the flags, but I don't think it will change the way people play a given scenario one bit. end quote That is true. And it is the major flaw in my logic with taking out the flags. But perhaps, if we think about it just a bit more, perhaps something could be done in the way of improving it? I would almost settle for Combat Mission scenarios to be set up with entirely all dynamic flags as an alternative to terrain values. Attack, Assault, Probe scenarios would always allow the Attacker to choose which flag is the real one at the scenario start. Meeting Egagements (IMHO) should be set to something like a "destroy" type of mission--just as in some of the operations now. I dislike flags in meeting engagements because of the tendency to rush to them quickly and defend them until time runs out. A meeting engagement without flags would make the encounter far more interesting. It would take the need to focus on terrain objectives to win away and allow two opponents to focus on maneuver and destroying the enemy. I know that victorious generals in this game should in fact use maneuver to full advantage to thwart his/her opponent. But really, as I see it, flags in a meeting engagement offer little value to the game other than the points that you may receive if you hold the ground when time runs out. Dynamic flags in the other types of scenarios will allow for just a bit more uncertainty than we already have. In the end, I think that I could go with dynamic flags every time in scenarios of Attack, Assault, Defend and zero in meeting engagements. What do you think of that option? ------------------ BJ Simpson Visit www.arrl.org for information about Ham Radio. IN HOC SIGNO VINCES ******************** I'm still a psychophant...err sickophant...err elephant...err Nahvawhatsitsdamnnameagainwaffe...err (where's my meds?) sychophant...yeah, that's the ticket. [This message has been edited by kb9sog (edited 09-20-2000).]
  5. Let me just say that I love the game and the guys and gals on the forum as well. I even love using the search engine. That being said: I propose an idea to kick around to help improve an already great game. I haven't thought it all through so let me give you all the bare bones of the idea and maybe we can come up with a way that would work in implementation. I biggest quibble with the game has to be with victory flags/locations. It is true that each scenario has to have a purpose and a goal. I realize this point. However, I hate the "definitetiveness" about them. I don't like that the defender and the attacker have equal knowledge of what the objectives will be over a given battleground. I do love the addition of "dynamic flags" that were included in the map editor. I am currently in the design process of several scenarios that have them in it. However, there are not enough scenarios and no option in the QB generator to use these to (IMHO) their full potential. The goal for the combatants on the battlefield is to seize ground that is in some way has intrinsic value to it. (High ground, a bridge, a cross roads, etc.) The victory flags in canned scenarios usually reflect that premise. However, I think that it would be interesting to remove flags altogether and use the following idea for a substitute/replacement for the current system. I propose that victory flags be eliminated and replaced with a hidden feature. One that determines the worth of terrain (in terms of points, as in the victory flags) but done so deep inside the engine of the game. This could be done in much the same manner as the way elevations are "painted" on the map in the editor. You would paint point values on the map. At the end of a battle, players would receive the points for holding control of the territory. Point values would be different for different types of terrain. The idea behind all of this is to have the players in a game make up their own minds on what is a significant piece of terrain and not just be "defenders of the flags." What would this do? 1. Add a more FOW element to each and every battle. It would also change the idea of fighting for "flags" to fighting for key ground. 2. As an attacker, I pretty much know the areas that a defender will be lurking based on where the flags are located. The defender can't win without that territory that is CLEARLY marked. 3. As a defender, you won't be able to just set up a defense network that will prevent an attacker's progress to the desired victory flag. The defender will have to determine what is it that "we control" that an attacker would want and set it up accordingly. I don't know if it is feasible to do this in the current scope of CM but it is fodder to kick around for the next installment. It would add a creative element to the game. It would make battles a bit more dynamic in nature too. I think that the AI could work with this type of scheme because it uses victory flags now as a means to determine what is important. However, now the point values for terrain will be hidden within the context of the map editor. I don't know if I am expressing my thoughts well enough and I'm sure that others will be able to add commentary to this discussion that I have not thought of beforehand. ------------------ BJ Simpson Visit www.arrl.org for information about Ham Radio. IN HOC SIGNO VINCES ******************** I'm still a psychophant...err sickophant...err elephant...err Nahvawhatsitsdamnnameagainwaffe...err (where's my meds?) sychophant...yeah, that's the ticket.
  6. That would be a good idea except for the fact that unless you have two computers, you'd never get to use the wive's forum. OOO...I better press the submit button for this post now and close the web browser before my wife sees this. hehe ------------------ BJ Simpson Visit www.arrl.org for information about Ham Radio. IN HOC SIGNO VINCES ******************** I'm still a psychophant...err sickophant...err elephant...err Nahvawhatsitsdamnnameagainwaffe...err (where's my meds?) sychophant...yeah, that's the ticket.
  7. Actor, Just scroll down on the screen for the news of the day. It's in the message at the end of the discussion about the Mods and AAR, etc. ------------------ BJ Simpson Visit www.arrl.org for information about Ham Radio. IN HOC SIGNO VINCES ******************** I'm still a psychophant...err sickophant...err elephant...err Nahvawhatsitsdamnnameagainwaffe...err (where's my meds?) sychophant...yeah, that's the ticket.
  8. ROTFLMAO Me too. I lost a ton of money based on Matt's estoteric statement on his future plans in both his "personal and professional life." And now my kids won't be able to go to college now... I'm still a psychophant...err sickophant...err elephant...err Nahvawhatsitsdamnnameagainwaffe...err (where's my meds?) sychophant...yeah, that's the ticket. ------------------ BJ Simpson Visit www.arrl.org for information about Ham Radio. IN HOC SIGNO VINCES
  9. You might not always see it. This can happen when you have your squad running. They are focused on getting to the destination and not looking for the enemy. One other possibibility could be a sharpshooter or two or three from 200 meters or greater. One rifle shot is hard to detect. ------------------ BJ Simpson Visit www.arrl.org for information about Ham Radio. IN HOC SIGNO VINCES
  10. No problem. I've seen the thread and it cracks me up. HAL doesn't always do such a terrible job. I've been fairly pleased by his picking for me lately. Although, I have run into a rotten job of picking by HAL in my past as well. "Open the pod bay doors, Hal." ------------------ BJ Simpson Visit www.arrl.org for information about Ham Radio. IN HOC SIGNO VINCES
  11. In terms of points, an attacker will get 1.5-1.7 times the number of the defender. (1000 points for the defender and 1700 for the attacker) Assault will get 2.0-2.2 times the number of the defender. I can't remember off the top of my head what the point spread is for a probe. And now my humble opinion: I think that the best options for a quick battle set of parameters are attack/defend for a village/farmland scenario, assault for a town setting. I've never played a probe scenario except against the computer and wasn't really intrigued by it. Also, here is some more of my thoughts on play balancing: I think that the defender should always get the option for choosing their defensive force in private. In other words, the defender would get his/her choice of Armor, Combined Arms, Infantry, or Mechanized without the Attacker having any knowledge of what he is to face. That little bit gives the defender a more balanced share of his/her defending duties. (In other words, the defender would provide the setup file for the game.) It adds spice to the game. Also, computer generated picks for units aren't a bad thing and would greatly enhance the situation. You wouldn't get an uber force of tanks supported by Fallchirmjagers. The computer does a fairly good job of keeping it decent for both sides. I think using the above techniques would get you the most bag for your buck. ------------------ BJ Simpson Visit www.arrl.org for information about Ham Radio. IN HOC SIGNO VINCES
  12. I think that I understand what you are trying to ask. Here is what I use and my suggestion: I use the standard Windows 95 Notepad. You really can't apply any special formatting in the briefings (like tables) as far as I can tell. What I do is hit return (enter) whenever I want to start a new paragraph. If I want to list units (an OOB), I have to hit enter after each entry if I want it to appear like it is organized. Since the briefings won't allow special formatting, this is the best way to go. I hope that helps. ------------------ BJ Simpson Visit www.arrl.org for information about Ham Radio. IN HOC SIGNO VINCES
  13. Beer wasn't allowed in our dorms and I don't remember that stopping us from bringing it in. It's ok to be bad once in a while. That is, unless, it is an offense punishable by expulsion or something? Back on topic, sounds interesting. I'd like to hear of your concoction once you've weathered the storm concerning the hot plate issue. ------------------ BJ Simpson Visit www.arrl.org for information about Ham Radio. IN HOC SIGNO VINCES
  14. I think it is more accessible for the casual wargamer than most. Everything is in 3D. You actually see what is going on and what you need to do. In time, you will get a good feel for how you need to be successful. I think that most of us went through the same problems in the demo that you describe. I know that I did! AI was smacking me all around the place. If you listen closely to the board and do some searches you will find people talking about tactics that work and some that don't. The best place to learn (compare and contrast) tactics is at Combat Mission HQ. http://combathq.thegamers.net/ Go to the section containing AAR's and you will find some excellent advice from a first hand account on how to be successful. They are excellent reading! You will be sorry to have passed this game up if you don't buy it. It is an instant classic. You must learn to crawl before you can walk. This game does have a learning curve but it is nothing that you can't overcome with a few PBEM battles from the people on the board and some minor research into tactics. What will work in real life will work in this game. ------------------ BJ Simpson Visit www.arrl.org for information about Ham Radio. IN HOC SIGNO VINCES [This message has been edited by kb9sog (edited 09-11-2000).]
  15. I am super impressed with the color scheme in your mod. The look is quite right to my eye. It's somewhat similar to Falcon 4's color set? In any event, I've been enjoying the combination of everyone's mods--touched by and added to by yourself. This one is NOT leaving the hard drive. I've even been shutting off the unit bases during movie playback to enjoy it in all of its glory. I only wish I had a stronger system to put in the vehicle mods. It really hits my frame rate badly when I put them in with battles over 1500 points. Awesome! 21 smiley salute! ------------------ BJ Simpson Visit www.arrl.org for information about Ham Radio. IN HOC SIGNO VINCES
×
×
  • Create New...