Jump to content

kunzler

Members
  • Posts

    71
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by kunzler

  1. Send me a setup too you hack. You too PanzerKeller, if you want to that is. Brian
  2. I had a similar problem playing the game on a laptop. In the end, it turned out that my comp was overheating. Strangely enough, setting the computer on a tray of ice seemed to help the problem. Blowing an external fan on it also helped somewhat. Getting a new 1Ghz desktop with a Geforce II finally solved the problem Try opening the computer and feel the components to see if they are hot to the touch after you lock up. If so, you will need to add some cooling capabilities in order to play the game. Also, try posting this in the tech support forum. There are some quite knowledgable people that hang out there.
  3. Yes, a gamey response to not having victory flags would be to just pick a nice defensive position close to your setup zone and wait for the opponent to come to you. Even more gamey would be to pick lots of artillery observers and shower him with artillery then hide them or bail from the map. I am wondering if maybe putting several victory flags in or near the setup zones of each opponent would not help. That way, it would be more of a challenge to eliminate the other player's forces so that you could get to his flags, rather than game just being a rush to be the first one to the middle.
  4. Just wondering what frame rates people are getting and if they make a difference in the appearance of the game after about 30 or so. I downloaded FRAPS, (great little program) and I am only getting 25 FPS in view 8 with a new high end system. The lower the view I go, however, the higher the FPS go. I get between 35 and 50 in the lower views. I wonder if resolution makes a difference also, as I am running in 1600 x 1200 resolution. What results are others seeing with high end systems?
  5. Oh thou (oops) great fonts of wisdom and knowledge, hear my pleas for illumination on the following subjects. What is the most cost effective type of artillery for Germans, British, and Americans? Is it better and more cost effective to select regular or expert infantry? Tanks? When given the option, in most situations, would you spend more points than the average player on infantry, on tanks, on artillery, or on support units? Have you found a good (and cost effective) use for German half-tracks against American forces that likely have .50 caliber MGs? How do you beat a strategy under the rule of 76s in a meeting engagement where your opponent pushes forward to the objectives with an infantry screen with Panthers behind them in an overwatch position and hidden guns or hull-down tanks guarding the flanks? Berli has mentioned Fionn, Tomcat, and Sgt Morgue as great CM players. Do the rest of you agree, and what other players do the Cesspool denizens consider to be the toughest CM opponents? Finally, does anyone know a really good Italian restaurant in Salt Lake City? [This message has been edited by kunzler (edited 12-28-2000).]
  6. Jeff, In the case of our PBEM, the answere is.... back your tanks slowly into the middle of the map. That should clear the way for your infantry to come later. It works. Really. Trust me.
  7. Ok, count me in. I keep losing PBEM partners by attrition. This sounds like a good way to pick up games.
  8. This is a very good question, that as far as I can tell has never been definitively answered. I conducted searches on "victory condition(s)" and on "score(s)" and while I did find instances of these questions being asked, I did not find the answers. In fact, in one post, Steve said that he would have to ask Charles when he got back from vacation. The thread ended there. IMO it is quite important to know exactly how victory points are allotted. How much is taking that last victory flag worh, for instance, if it costs an entire platoon or company to take it? Personally, I generally just duke it out until I am sure that I can gain nothing more, without considering the cost in terms of loss of units. I am sure that I am losing points in some instances with this approach by sacrificing more in loss of troops than the victory points are worth. This has particular bearing now, as one of my esteemed and very experienced opponents(whose name shall remain undisclosed to save Berli embarassment) seems to be vacating the map to me and running his troops for the edges rather than stick around and fight for the victory flags. It is quite possible that it is worth it to do so in terms of the final outcome. What say ye Charles, is this to remain a mystery or not?
  9. Actually, with German troops and their panzerfausts, it is quite successful, if you can get in close (Right Chris?). With allied troops, the results are mixed, but if you can get a lot of troops up close, they sometimes disable the tank with grenades and cause it to be abandoned. Engineers with satchel charges can often take a tank out also.
  10. I don't know that I want to see the price of light vehicles increased, as I think it would one-sidedly affect the U.S. forces, and I tend to agree with the camp that believes the U.S. forces to be more costly for their effectiveness than the German forces (slightly). How about just taking the .50 Jeep out of the quick battle selection menu? I would leave it in the scenario editor, but take out of the quick battles. IMO, the regular jeep makes a more realistic recon unit, as it is able to dash a scout such as a sharpshooter out to a forward position and then rush to cover. This is a more acceptable recon technique to me. Another solution might be to quickly erode the morale of thin-skinned vehicles when they get out of sight of their buddies. Thus, when a jeep or light armored car gets too far ahead of the bulk of a player's force and starts taking fire, there would be a high chance of it turning tail and running. A further fix might be to use the rarity factor as discussed by Steve in the Cherry Picking thread (preferably in the manner suggested by yours truly and use a high rarity factor for vehicles that have a tendency to be abused, whether truly rare or not. As the rarity factors can be toggled on and off, you would not need it for trusted opponents and the rarity of vehicles would not affect normal pricing. BTW BT, can we expect to see rarity pricing in a patch before the release of CM2?
  11. Well, do a search. No, I mean it. Search for certain banned words and when you find a post with his name on it, you have it. Or search users for Fionn, and when you get to his last post or two... I say leave him banned until he gives me the game he originally challenged me to. Then only unban him if he beats me. Ok, I guess that would mean unban him. By the way, I would like to see him back here, as long as he is civil. I think he added a lot to the forum. But that is between him, Steve and Charles. I do not think it is a pollable matter. [This message has been edited by kunzler (edited 09-26-2000).]
  12. Well, if use of historical forces is something that can be toggled on in CM2, could it not be handled just like current costing is done, but be calculated in addition to but independent of current points cost? For example, a player who gets 2000 points allotted could also get, say 100 rarity points. The player could expend the entire 100 points on one King Tiger, which would also cost the usual points from the standard points pool, or the player could purchase two Panthers, which have a rarity cost of 40 each, for instance, and then have to select all Stugs, which have a rarity cost of say, 5. Standard infantry would have no rarity points, for instance. Once the allotted rarity points are used up, the player would have the option to select only no-rarity-cost units such as standard infantry. CM would have to keep track of another list in addition to infantry points, support points, etc., and would simply keep another column on the force selection screen. Again, though, the one difference would be that rarity points would be independant of regular points. In fact, maybe rarity points could be adjustable in increments, from totally ahistorical, with unlimited rarity points, to semi-historical, to tight historical, with a descending allotment of points for each selection. This could be a setup option in quick battles, like weather, date, etc. Again, the rarity points would not be part of the standard calculation, but would be an additional parameter. Players who find rarity points too tedious or difficult, or what not would simply default to the totally ahistorical category. Any comments, questions, flames? Edited because attorneys should know better than to leave typos. [This message has been edited by kunzler (edited 09-26-2000).]
  13. Actually, that would be a semi- sly backhanded slam at all of the cess poolers. But, as they say, if the shoe fits, wear it. I would post more here about how your reinforcements are arriving just in time to find nothing more than a battalion of burned out hulks and dead bodies, but that sort of thing belongs in the cess pool, which I try to avoid like the plague that it is.
  14. Sure Seanachi, trying to get a thread with your name on it over 2000 posts again aren't you? Well, in that case, you cesspooler you, er, uh, let me help you. I have room for a few more PBEM opponents. I am registered at tournament house, but it doesn't matter whether my opponents are or not. No cesspoolers though, the quality of my last cess pooler opponent's play has made a marked decline since he started posting in that hive of filth.
  15. BK6583, One solution to your disatisfaction with the AI is to play a human in a PBEM. Actually, play several PBEMs, that way you are not always waiting for your opponent's file to come. I am still accepting opponents, by the way. I keep losing mine to attrition. That and the cess pool After you have started playing PBEMs, you will not want to go back to playing the AI. For instance, it is no fun to taunt and berate the AI when you win and to give it lame excuses when you lose Other than that, as has been said before, the AI is better at attacking than defending, so play defending battles against the AI. Also, it is not the optimal solution, but there mechanisms such as adding points to the AI to even things up a bit.
  16. What, a map are you kidding?! That would take away the seat of the pants feel! OK, I was just kidding. I almost always sketch out a map when I play a scenario. I map out my strategy and update it in different colors as matters progress. It would be great if CM would a tool for doing this as part of the game, and it would be even greater if broad brush commands could be given through it. I also hate having to turn those flags on and off all the time, so I like the goose egg overlay suggestion.
  17. Ummm, this thread is not heading in a good direction. Time to lock it up methinks. Use of certain words is offensive to some and is prohibited here. Bottom line. There may be certain times where minor usages of profanity gets missed or ignored, but the fact is, arguing that prohibited use of profanity is ok in certain instances is a slippery slope, and once it is allowed at all, then BTS has to spend even more time to police and decide when it is ok and when it is not. I think we all agree we would rather they spend their time on CM2. Peng should break in here. Heavy reliance on profanity is IMO similar to the the reliance on smileys that he originally objected to. Literate idividuals should not have to rely on profanity to get their point across. Obviously, profanity is a custom in some circles, and is accepted there. Message boards, however, are by their nature global, and when one is exposed to it, we all are. Unfortunately, when those who do not want to be exposed to such language read the post, it is too late to "unread" it. [This message has been edited by kunzler (edited 09-20-2000).]
  18. "1. The ability to generate "deep" maps." I for one would like to echo this suggestion. One area of disappointment with the larger battles, now that we are allowed more units, is that the maps when high units numbers are used, tend to be wide and shallow. Longer maps would be more campaign-like, IMO, and would allow a greater area for defense in depth, for instance. Allowing for square maps in larger points battles would be nice, at least. Let me interject the standard disclaimer here, that CM is the best game I have ever played, and I am just making a suggestion that might possibley make a great game better. That said, I am wondering if putting a map shape option in the QB setup generator would be desirable? For instance, allowing players to select longer maps, or deeper maps, or more square maps, together with the option to let the generator make the selection. As with the solution to being able to see the map beforehand, one available solution is to just make the map with the generator, but doing so is time consuming, and I personally like having the surprise of what the map is going to look like. Also, using the map generator does not allow for somewhat "double blind" QBs.
  19. Well, I did my own test, unwittingly, in a PBEM. My esteemed opponent and I agreed to the rule of 76s, and I took it as a challenge to use the Allies and still win under the rule, as Fionn reported to me that he regularly does. Disclaimer: I am not anywhere near the player Fionn is, but I do consider myself to be at least as good as my opponent(at the moment anyway). I selected a nice valley at one side of the map to advance through in hopes of getting in his rear and for taking a hill from behind that dominated the town with the Victory flags (thatknowing him is likely to have multiple Flak 88s on it). It is a meetng engagement, 5000 points medium size - which turned out to be huge. I lost four tanks and TDs to a Panther sitting on a hill in a corner at the rear of the valley. It was in a hull down position, as attested to by the 32+ shell holes in front of it. I am still not sure how I got it, but I do believe that at around 600 meters or so, one of my 8+ 76-armed tanks charging it finally decided to use a tungsten shell. In retrospect, I probably should have used artillery on it, but part of my plan of attack was speed and getting into his rear areas quickly. And I had to do something, I didn't expect it to be there(in a corner), and several of my tanks were exposed to it right from the start. My opponent also dominated most of the rest of the map with similarly located Panthers on hills. I am having more success now that the ranges are closer and he is usually not able to get in a hull-down position to all my tanks who are trying to flank him, but which are having trouble due to the fact that I can not expose them for long to his Panthers on other hills at long ranges. My point is, I believe, had my tanks selected Tungsten from the start, the 8 to 10 tanks firing on the Panther on the hill should have put him out of action before he took out almost half their number. Now a question. When targeting an enemy tank, does a tank gunner purposely target weaker spots, like lower hull or shot traps? If not, around 1/3 to half of all shots are going to go into the turret and mantlet, which should increase the need for using tungsten at long ranges, even if the enemy tanks is not hull down. I am somewhat anxious for this issue to be resolved, as I would like to see some (at least informal) standards established for being able to play on an equal footing. As I mentioned in a post in another thread, as it stands, I would choose the Germans every time in an armor engagement where I really wanted to win. [This message has been edited by kunzler (edited 09-19-2000).]
  20. This may sound like a dumb question, but when using flamethrowers on pillboxes, can they take the pillbox out from the rear, or do they have to get the flame through the slit? If it has to go through the slit, how to keep them from getting shot? If they can get the pillbox from the rear, how would that happen? Pillboxes usually have steel doors, as I recall, and I am pretty sure that those doors would usually be shut when under assault.
  21. It seems I did Fionn's rule of 75 somewhat of an injustice with my last post. yes, Fionn did contact me. His comments were to the effect that he does play allies and has had some stellar victories using these rules. It is nice to see that he is still part of the CM community. Hopefully some day he will be able to post here again. Anyway, after reading the comments in his E-mail, I did some more firing range tests. I first took a flat map at 2000 yards and placed units on both ends and started them towards the other side using the hunt command. I also did this with a 500 yard firing range. I tried to use four similarly priced units at the upper ends of the two rules, the 75 rule and the 76 rule. For instance, I used Panthers and half Easy 8s and Half Easy 8W+s to get the points equal. For the 75 rule I used PZIVHs and 1/2 Sherman M4s and 1/2 Sherman M4E3s. In each case, the German tanks dominated up until around the 500 yard range. After that, the U.S. tanks began to have the upper hand, and at 300 yards seemed to clearly have the upper hand. This echoed one of Fionn's comments to me, that a skillful commander can get in close and then dominate with the quick turrets and fast allied tanks. I noticed that the allied tanks reported a slightly higher chance of hitting at close range also, at least for the 76 rule, possibly due to the Panther's larger size.
  22. I am just wondering how many people would accept either of the 75 or 76 rules when playing the allied side? (those that don't enjoy being the underdogs that is) The Germans have at least equal armor and better guns in both cases. Granted, the allies may get more tanks for the money, but a couple of Panthers can be death to take out with just 76 guns. It is interesting that the rule was promulgated by someone (Fionn) who has a stated preference for playing the axis side. (Sure, I can say that now that Fionn is banned - I did post my E-mail though) The 76 rule isn't too bad if you choose the British with the Fireflies, but I would probably want to include Sherman Jumboes and Jacksons in the mix for the U.S. Try Jumbo76es against Panthers on a firing range sometime. From my tests, it was pretty close, with the Panthers maybe even coming out ahead. Equal points of E8s and Panthers I have not tried yet, but I am betting the E8s get slaughtered. As for the 75 rule, I think I would want to see some TDs in the mix. Otherwise, I would choose Germans every time. Just putting my $.02 in before these become the defacto standards for QBs.
  23. I lost a heroic Stuart to my own air support that way. The Stuart had just taken out two Mark IVs (ok, ok, Joe, I know one had a disabled gun) and a Stug. The flyboys seemed to be trying to kill the dead Mark IVs over and over again. They overshot and got the Stuart, disabling it. The Mark IV was in my line of advance and the continued strafing did more damage to my troops than to my esteemed opponents (sucking up now so he will be nice in our present game - even though he is a cesspool dweller and therefore not entitled to any respect) My asessment of the battle was that if you are expecting air support and have dead or disabled enemy tanks in the vicinity of your own, keep pumping the dead enemy tanks full of shells until you brew them up. The flyboys ought to be able to see that. What enraged me is that on the other side of the map, a small gun kept terrorizing my troops and holding up their advance. The planes had just taken out my last tank, I used up my last artillery on it unsuccessfully, and I had no way to take out the gun, as it was commanding a bridge that I had to cross. How I cursed the flyboys for hitting my position instead of the gun that I severely needed it to hit and that was out in the open. Basically, my planes took away what could have been a significant victory for me. One suggestion I have for CM2 is to allow us to pop smoke to direct the planes to some degree. In my reading this was done in the Western Theater. See A Fine Night for Tanks for one source. Had I been able to pop smoke on the gun (maybe one color for the enemy, one color for where _not_ to attack) my air power would have been much more effective. As it is, I am so traumatized by the incident, I never select air support if I have the choice.
  24. My laptop used to lock up just like your computer did. That is, locked up completely and required a reboot to get going again. Once in a while the picture would tweak just slightly when it did this. I finally figured out that my video card was overheating my system - the bottom of the lap top was blazing hot. Bizarre yes. It only does it on CM also. I now run a house fan on the back of my laptop, a Dell Inspiron 3900. Placing the lap top on a tray of ice cubes works also. When I run the fan (or the ice cubes) I do not lockup. When I do not run the fan, I lockup. It's a longshot, but it worked for me. [This message has been edited by kunzler (edited 09-11-2000).]
  25. I am having trouble getting my tanks to stay on target when I give them an area target and tell them to lay smoke. Two tanks in the same scenario immediately gave up the command when the movie started and targeted machine guns that were far away from them and absolutely no threat to them. Is there a secret to making tanks persistantly lay smoke?
×
×
  • Create New...