Epée
-
Posts
296 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Epée
-
-
he ruined my day
-
JP,
you USED this. You PROVOKED us. And you MADE me feel SICK.
Please BTS, not only ban him, but erase this topic.
Epee
-
Already is dawn...
my soldiers awake for battle
me, no sleep and work.
When is Madmatt going to add a Combaiku section to the CMHQ?
Epée
-
Already is dawn...
my soldiers awake for battle
me, no sleep and work.
When is someone going to do a Combaiku homepage?
Epée
-
I just finished a blind PBEM game of Elsdorf, and drew as the Americans. It was very balanced (and it was version 1.00)! It has been the most fun in a PBEM game I have had so far!
One complaint: The briefing says this is a "Meeting Engagment" so I decided to rush forward with some of my bazoocas and arty, and wait for the germans...
MINOR SPOILER
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And how surprised I was to find german pillboxes, AT guns and bunkers waiting for me in the village! What the hell, wasnt this an ME?
In the AAR, it says "Allied Attacker" and "Axis Defender". I suspect the briefing should mention this scenario as an assault or allied attack...version 2.0 didnt correct this either.
Epée
-
Wako,
ASL is a lot of fun, I truly love the game. But let me warn you...the rules are very complex and hard to learn. I took about 6 months to learn them, and teach them to my buddy, on my own. And I can safely say that I have never played a game making no rules mistake...and I have played more than 100 times, no exagerating. It is probably the most complex wargame out there.
Another word of caution is that it is expensive. You pay US$50 just for the rule books, and another $50 for Beyond Valor (the german and russian pieces). And there are many other modules, some slightly cheaper. ASL is also out of print, I think, you should wait for the new Hasbro edition of the rules.
If you are prepared to deal with all this, and you find somebody to play with you, it is well worth it.
On another note, if you like multiplayer wargames, I cant recommend "World in Flames" enough. I played one whle campaign, and it was the best gaming experience I ever had.
Epée
-
I got ASL in 1998, and I am currently 24, so I am not your average old grognard. And actuallyit was ASL that got me interested in WW2, and not the other way around! And it was looking for ASL web-based information that I stumbled on CM. In the last 2 years I must have played more than 100 matches of ASL, but now that CM is here, havent played ASL again yet.
My ASL buddy has played some hotseat games with me, but I dont think CM can quite substitute the feel of a board game. And I too am eagerly awaiting the release of CM2....How I envy you that were able to actually play a whole Red Barricades campaign!!
Other great wargames:
World in Flames
Empire in Arms
Epée
Brazil
-
When I ordered CM, I told my girlfriend that when the game arrived I would have to break up with her for about a month, then we could get together again, in weekends, for a couple of hours.
Since I am very forgiving and have a gentle heart, I let her come to my house and watch me play. I tried to spark her interest by showing 155mm arty rounds blow up a whole village, but she didnt seem very excited.
She likes it though when I go catch some sleep in between CM matches and let her play The Sims of Rollercoaster Tycoon also.
But there is hope, she did seem more interested in learning CM then when I tried to teach her ASL!
Epée
[This message has been edited by Epée (edited 07-24-2000).]
-
I feel the same way as Germanboy. The AI should make HT reverse if they are being fired upon by mortars or artillery.
Lost two HT yesterday, in one minute, to one mortar.
Epée
-
I would like a further FOW option - call it "First Person View" FOW or something similar. The idea is to lock all camera views except view #1, and #8 for setup.
There has been a long thread about playing in frist person view only, and it would be nice to have an option to do it in PBEM.
Epée
-
about
Dont know about other portuguese players, but I am from Brazil, and naturally, sepak portuguese.
Epée
-
>I just think the battlefront line system in >operation is quite a few rigid...
This is my only complaint. The setup zones could improved a great deal. I hate it when I take territory and I am pushed back nevertheless.
It would be also very nice to see a new Pegasus Bridge campaign, but with objectives, rather than just "advance" or "destroy" goals. The campaign system in ASL is very nice, for example in Red Barricades and Pegasus Bridge: You win if you control a number of buildings or if you take the Bridge (in PB).
Epée
-
nice scenario, I recommend it for "FPS fog of war".
Epée
-
(quote) "The control system is optimised for third-person - in first-person it is tricky and inaccurate. The graphics are optimised for third-person - to make them comparable quality to first-person games would (1) be a collossal waste of time, and (2) be totally impractical in terms of hardware requirements."
David,
there is no need to change the graphics to make them "comparable to a first-person game". We dont want BTS to code new graphics to make CM look like Quake. There is already a first person feature coded in the game, it is camera view #1. To make a game options that locks the game in this camera angle, IMHO, is something very easy to code.
(quote) "Moreover, first-person play takes a ridiculous amount of time - for a game which was already very time-consuming. It also makes battles very confusing, which may be realistic - but only from the individual soldiers' point-of-view. CM simulates an overview of the battlefield - you lose many of the best aspects of the game by playing first-person. It's a tactical game, not a shoot-em-up."
We dont want to force players to use first-person only. It would be an option for those who are willing to spend extra time. Others have already expressed their satisfaction in the same manner. I dont like to play with no FOW, I think that it takes away the tactical elements, and you lose many of the best aspects of the game. But I dont mind at all that the option is there, maybe there are those who like it. Just like the option we are proposing to BTS. Only "extra icing on the cake". If you dont like it, dont use it. Like no FOW.
Epée
-
I also think it is reallya great idea, and doesnt seem to hard to implement. Make it an "Extreme FOW" option.
I hope BTS reads this and gives their opinion.
Christian
-
I just replicated the bug, with two tanks...I will send the file in.
Epée
-
Unfourtunately I dont have the saved file...
But I dont think it is too hard to duplicate.
Christian
-
I was playing a game against the AI, and had a Marder III on the extreme left of the map, sideways, hiding in ambush. At one point in the game, I ordered it to hunt forward (across the map). The Marder was just on the edge of some woods. Instead of moving directly forward, the AI decided to back up and maneuver around this tiny spot of woods. What happened was that it reversed, and exited the map! I lost the Marder and the game! The Marded wasnt even in the LOS of the enemy, and hadnt been shot at.
I think this could be fixed - no unit should leave the map unless directly ordered to do so, or broken/routed.
Epee
-
Damn innacurate rockets...I hope that plane is caring a pair of 500 pound bombs with it.
Is that possible? It has already made two runs and only used rockets...
Epée
-
Excellent job on the maps, I will surely use them for many scenarios.
Right now I am finishing "Gavin Take" - ASL Scenario T1.
It justs need some play testing before it is ready!
Ánybody else working on ASL scenarios?
Epée
-
What is the penetration of aircraft rockets?
I am playing a PBEM where I (amis) am being thrashed by a KingTiger. I my air support showed up, although late, and during two turns fired rockets on the KT....but no damage was done...oh boy, was I dissapointed.
Can rockets actually harm a KT? Are there any figures for their penetration capability?
Thanks,
Epée
-
The manual says that if a unit is eligible for exit, the defending side scores points if that unit fails to leave the map (in a scenario with an exit zone). Does the defender still score points if the attacking unit is eliminated?
I am creating ASL scenario T1 (Gavin Take), where the allied attacker must exit the map for points, and so do the germans. It is unfourtunate that CM cant create a scenario where both sides must exit, and I think that would be a nice addition to a future patch. Then we could make scenarios of "fighting withdrawls", where one side is advancing and the other is withdrawing (like the ASL scenario 1).
Epée
-
and what is the difference between 1.01 and 1.02??
Epée
-
I have played VoT (and CE) many, many times, be it single player, hotseat or PBEM.
I would say that against a human opponent, VoT should have at least +25% to the Germans (and so should CE, for that matter). In VoT the Germans depend too much on the 75mm. If it is knocked out early (and it frequently is), the Shermans rule the day and there is not much to be done.
I would like to see a new version of VoT which is more balanced, because it is a very good scenario. Maybe less arty, less Shermans, or an extra panther for the Germans will do the trick.
Epée
Ban Jochen Peiper please...
in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)
Posted
I have no doubt JP will be banned, but I sort of regret posting this thread in first place. I dont like to judge people, and meddle in the affairs of others. Our moderators, who have shown themselves to be very sensible so far, are the ones for the job.
But I must say I was disgusted, and outraged when I saw the picture. I am quite sensitive, and it made me truly very angry and depressed.
I want to forget all this garbage now.
Epee