Maastrictian
-
Posts
374 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Maastrictian
-
-
OBG wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Homosexuality just happens to be against my religion, so if you don't like it...you can kiss my Catholic Ass!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is just so off topic I shouldn't even bother... but isn't swearing against your religion to OBG? Listen, if someone wants to go around proclaiming their sexual preference, let 'em! That takes a lot of courage as evidenced by the 40 posts that have appeared inresponce to what was a very inoccous question.
As for whether they were a troll or not, I guess we will never know. If they weren't they were certainly scared off by some of the intolerant responces to their username.
I don't know why any of us are bothering, I've found that polerized views like this (both the tollerant and intollerant responces) tend to be almost impossible to change. I strongly sugest a lock. Sorry for wasting bandwidth.
--Chris
[This message has been edited by Maastrictian (edited 05-27-2000).]
-
Mannheim Tanker wrote
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
JWorthing: While it's not broke, it still needs fixing...the current system is entirely too awkward if you feel you don't need the security.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I still haven't heard a reason why the system that I proposed (well, actually just restated) is not secure.
--Chris
-
I've seen Gun Damaged tanks fire their MGs. Quite effectively actually.
--Chris
-
PeterK wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
When A sends his turn after viewing 9 and doing 10, that saved file would have to contain both the movie for 9 _and_ the moves for 10. The way things are done now is that a saved game file contains either moves or a movie but never both. It's the simplest way of doing it. The old way forces the game to hold on to too much old info that you would, as a programmer, rather get rid of as soon as possible.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok, I can understand the issue as a technical problem. Legacy code can be hard to overcome and noone can get everything right on the first try. CM is an amazing product, this e-mail thing is the first real grip I've had with it. I was confused, I had the impression that the PBEM issue (in this specific case) was a security issue. If it is a technical one this makes more sence. Thanks.
--Chris
-
Resurecting a dead post:
Zot and Jarmo bring up a good point that was not (at least as I could find) refuted. PBEM currently works like this (ignoring setup and the like):
A--view action9, turn10
B--turn10, process
A--view action10
B--view action10, turn11
A--turn11, process
B--view action11
A--view action11, turn12
B--turn12, process
A--view action12
B--view action12, turn13
A--turn13, process
B--view action13
A--view action13, turn14
B--turn14, process
etc
The suggested new method
A--view action9, turn10
B--view action9, turn10, process
A--view action10, turn11
B--view action10, turn11, process
A--view action11, turn12
B--view action11, turn12, process
A--view action12, turn13
B--view action12, turn13, process
A--view action13, turn14
B--view action13, turn14, process
etc
The newly proposed method is about 1/3 faster (10 emails vs 14 for the given example). Because B always processes and A always sees the movie first there is no way B can proccess again and again from a saved file. Is there a problem with having the same person process repeatedly? If the processing process can be "cracked" then PBEM is insecure anyway, with BTS's method it is about half as insecure, but still. Could someone explain why my logic is faulty. Thanks!
--Chris
-
Are minimum range issues dealt with? There is perhaps a 20 foot radius around a tank where the tank can't shoot at infantry with the main gun because it can't depress it enough. This is the reason for nablawhatsithingysthatthegermanshad. Is this in CM?
--Chris
-
Am moving to NYC in the fall. I have this strange feeling I'll still be playing CM then.
--Chris
-
Looking for someone willing to exchange 1-3 e-mails a day. Also would love to set up some blind games when the final version comes out!! Send me a file. I'd rather play Allied, either scenario. (go ahead, give the germans +25% on VOT).
--Chris
-
Wow, didn't expect to get so violently disagreed with
. Here are some clarifications.Fred wrote:
-----
"CM is not a role playing game about impersonating a CO in WWII, but it is a wargame and the player is just this; a player in front of a computer screen.
So the point that a "real CO couldn't do it" is not a valid one IMO, cause I'm no CO.
"Punishing" players to repeatedly hitting a key to see all the units in order to keep the "realism über alles" people happy, is possibly not the right way to do in a wargame that should appeal to all kinds of wargamers."
-----
That's fair. I agree that such a feature would be an enhancement, but I really would not find it useful and would not use it. That's all I was trying to say. For me, part of the enjoyment of playing the game is to put myself in the place of the CO. As such I maintain a mental map of where everybody is. Its an important skill for a real life commander and a skill I pride myself on. Does this mean its wrong to cycle through your units every turn? Certainly not! But I would probably rather play a timed sort of TCP/IP game such as was being discussed on another thread. I think that sort of "fast and loose" play is more enjoyable.
pcelt wrote:
-----
"Maastrictian I must say I find your argument rather ambiguous. On the one hand you are saying "turn on bases and turn off trees" and then click on each unit with a mouse --all of which are totally artificial and game playing devices ----but it is unacceptable to use any further game aids to help locate and identify units."
-----
Actually, I was sugesting the "turning the bases on and trees off" as a helpful playing aid to the person asking the question, its not a technique I use. Sorry for the confusion.
pcelt then wrote:
-----
"After all, the purpose of the game is not to make unit identification tricky and time consuming but to have to make a series of tactical decisions to achieve victory conditions with the units you have."
-----
Well the question in my view is how you make those tactical decisions. I enjoy making them in an improvised, fast sort of way. This is not the only way to make these decisions, but it happens to be the one I enjoy and I would rather play with people who find this playing style atractive.
after that pcelt wrote:
-----
"I would also add that ,in the field, commanders would be receiving a range of information via unit radio and runner etc re positions and situations which we ,as gamers do not get."
-----
Actually, in WWII combat radio was not used at this tactical level (each company commander might have a radio). Runner, as you can imagine, was a tough job under MG fire. Mostly (as I understand it) commands were carried by voice and hand signals. If the .50 cal was left behind it is very likely the team leader would decide to stay put either because the CO must have wanted us to be here or because they frankley were a lot happier there than under fire. The CO could not ask for a show of hands if anyone was missing. The CO must have maintained a mental map of the terrain and the positions of his squads on that terrain, similarly to the mental picture a fighter piolt has to keep in a dogfight. I like being forced to keep such a map. As I have said, I'm not saying everyone must adopt this playing style, just that I enjoy it.
finally pcelt wrote:
-----
"It is not possible to equate our position precisely with that of a live C.O.
Finally , if you as a player feel you do not want to avail youself of any of the game mechanisms you can just not use it----as happens with "fog of war"
I am not convinced that this argument is a valid one against this sort of enhancement."
-----
I did not mean to argue against this enhancement, mearly that it is not as vital as some think and that it does not suit my particular brand of game play.
--Chris
[This message has been edited by Maastrictian (edited 05-24-2000).]
-
The squads actually do have icons for rifle grenades. Satchel charges are the squarish tan things while rifle grenades are green and look a bit like a bomb. As a side note, I find that using infantry as a distraction to the enemy tank while a friendly tank takes it out from affar is pretty effective. Is there a minimum range for the tank weapons? I've noticed shermans don't tend to engage infantry that is with in 20m or so. I know there was a minimum range historically (because of inability to depress the barrel to far), but it could also be that the sherman is too busy freaking out and reversing.
--Chris
-
I think it would be really dumb and childish of someone to post both the put themselves that much closer to being a member and to push us over 50,000.
--Chris
[This message has been edited by Maastrictian (edited 05-24-2000).]
-
I find that by going to a high overheard view turning on bases and turning off trees I can easily locate everything I own. Its also not that hard to keep track of your units just mentally. Keep in mind that this is what a CO would have to do a lot quicker than any of us are playing, and under fire! (what a great idea... I'm going to have someone shoot at me while I play speed CM <g>)
--Chris
-
I'm looking for information (websites or books) on the "test" of Overlord done by a Canadian unit in (I belive) spring 1943. I'm probably misremembering, but it was a bloody "reconisance in force." Thanks!
--Chris
-
My question relates to the British use of "x pounder" to describe their gun sizes. How does this relate to conventional mm? And what does the pound refer to? Does a six pounder fire a six lb shell? Thanks!
--Chris
-
"Can the 105 arty take out the pillboxes?"
Actually yes, though I would guess the odds are pretty low. I had a direct hit in my first VOT game that took out the 75mm. Admitedly I had two batteries fireing at the thing for about three turns. Oh yea, and there was a Panther and a platoon of inf on the hill too <g>.
--Chris
-
With my philosophy of play I actually don't like to know exactally how many casulties each squad has taken. I just look at how many yellow lines are comming into them, weather they are under HE fire. I mean, a comander isn't going to have time to take a census every minute. I try to hold myself to similar restrictions as a CO would have. I can't get orders off in 1 minute, but I try for 5 or 10.
--Chris
-
FOW is fog of war, that's another biggie. While we're at it, what does IIRC mean?
Oh yea, and when do I stop being a "junior member?" And does that mean I'm not old enough to imbibe alchohol and play CM? <g>
--Chris
-
I toasted an wooden MG bunker by setting the building behind it on fire. I already posted about that one, but I'm really proud of myself <g>.
--Chris
-
Don't know if this has been covered (I searched). Will there be a "medic" unit in CM? I have no idea, but my impression is that every company had at least one guy with a red cross on his helmet running around. I'm not so sure what use he would be, and perhaps I should just imagine him there in my company commander unit (which will make me doubly mad when those Krauts wipe out the company commander, violate the Geneva convention will you??). But if there were an independent unit that would be cool. Perhaps it would increase the moral of units near it (it would sure make me a lot happier about charging that MG). Yes yes yes, I know that its far to late to change the game. Just wondering if this was included.
--Chris
-
<sigh> Ok, enough toying with the AI. VOT Allies setup comming your way. Good luck!
--Chris
-
One question, one really cool thing:
In VOT, was moving into town as the Americans, the AI had placed a wooden MG bunker in town between two buildings, not a bad place, I couldn't really get tanks in position to shoot at it for fear of 'shrecks and AT guns. I did manage to get a platoon of inf and a flamethrower to the otherside of the building the MG was behind.:
<-- North
| |-------------
|
| |-------------
| | /--\ ---- ----
| | |bu| |bu| |bu|
| | \--/ ---- ----
| | MG
| | /--\
| | |bu|
| | \--/
platoon +
flame
("bu" is "building")
Now, I guess I could have charged the MG, but my flame had already taken one casulty, didn't want it to get dead. So, on a whim, I flamed the building behind the MG, hoping if it caught fire the fire would spread. It did! I knocked out the MG by setting the building behind it on fire. How cool is that?? I love this game!
Sorry.
My question is regarding the 105 gun. As I recall reading somewhere (an article by Fionn on CMHQ?) the size of a shell is only one factor in its effectiveness. The angle of attack matters too. A shell comming in at 90 degrees should be more effective than one comming in at 30. This is what makes mortors so effective. But, the 105 sherman gun has the same blast rating at the 105 arty. They are the same gun, but the sherman, which is direct fire with a low tragtory should do less damage. Is this modled? Is it just not in the blast rating? Is it just too nit-picky for anyone to care about? Thanks!
--Chris
--edited for ascii graphics
[This message has been edited by Maastrictian (edited 05-16-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Maastrictian (edited 05-16-2000).]
-
Yes, I did search
So I have two questions.
First of all, a question to help my skeeeels: Any advice on using on board artillery. I do fine in LD as the allies, but generally my mortor crews are too far from the enemy (and out of LOS) or too close to the enemy and get shot forcing them to take cover (and not fire). I just won RB as the germans without fireing a shot from my 81mms. I would rather have had their help.
Second, a question on game mechanics. What signifigance does "LOW" ammo have? I've gotten the impression that troops in this state will only fire when they are under preasure to do so. Does this represent troops with a few rounds left in their guns and their commander saying: "Don't fire untill the whites of their eyes?" Do troops ever run out of ammo?
Thanks for your help!!
------------------
--Chris
[This message has been edited by Maastrictian (edited 05-03-2000).]
-
What is the difference between the various types of "big gun" AFVs? ie Tanks, Tank Destroyers, Assault Guns. They all seem to be used for the same purpose (killing other versions of themselves). They seem to be used in different proportions by different sides (the Soviets had 1000 tanks at Kursk and 10,000 assault guns (or something, I'm just making these numbers up)). Was one cheeper to produce but less effective? And what was the tactical difference. Thanks!
--Chris
BTS: KingTiger and JagdTiger on display soon?
in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)
Posted
Check out the POTD archives at http://combathq.thegamers.net for pics like that.
--Chris