Holman
-
Posts
2,212 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Holman
-
-
It feels a little weird, but only because the old forums were stable for such a long time.
Looking forward to the new improved Repository!
-
Gulag for you, comrade!
-
Perhaps the commander has LOS when outside the turret but loses it when he drops down to fire the gun?
-
December 20 because that's my birthday and BTS loves me.
I don't care that it's a Saturday.
-
If all of your units are gone, just press surrender.
This will (I believe) automatically give control of all objectives to the enemy, which might result in a slightly different score from the status quo (if he hasn't physically occupied certain objectives, for instance). But you'll still get to see the casualty count, etc.
-
See the Tech Support forum for threads about crashes. There's something going on where games will be fine for a few turns but then completely fail to load on the next.
-
I imagine the future of drone design, at least for anti-tank purposes, is to move away from the drone as remote-control aircraft and towards the drone as loitering guided missile. Drones designed as shaped-charge kamikazes could be smaller and cheaper than drones designed to haul missiles and then return to base.
-
Drones are countered by any kind of AA on the field.
I think that the "Electronic Warfare" option will also impact the use of drones.
What counts as AA? Just dedicated AA units (ZSU's, etc) or any vehicle with a roof-mounted MG?
Are man-portable AA missiles in the game?
-
The tech is moving fast, and there's a lot to speculate about.
But I'm actually wondering how it works in CMBS as I haven't seen any mention of anti-drone measures in the previews. What counters drones in the game?
-
This discussion makes me wonder what (in CMBS) a heavy mechanized force can actually do against an enemy with a large number of Hellfire-carrying drones. Can tanks and supporting infantry bring down a flying drone? What happens when a swarm of thirty or so drones takes to the sky above a mechanized battalion?
-
Small text size is my only serious complaint about the CM interface. Text in some parts of the game (such as the unit lists in the QB or scenario maker) is nearly too small for me to read without pressing my face to my monitor.
-
I would never eliminate tracers. They're more than eye candy as they indicate your soldiers' sense of where the firing is coming from.
In fact, when your troops are ambushed and really don't know where the firer is, the game doesn't present a tracer at all.
-
Hooray! So glad to see a pre-release AAR.
-
Tell yourself "February" and then be happy if it's early.
-
I'm not entirely sure I understand the question(s) in the OP, but it seems to be asking whether forthcoming patches will add 3.0-developed fixes to older versions of the CMBN engine (1.0 and 2.0). I believe the answer is no; BTS has made it clear that older engines are retired and no longer supported with patches.
However, the poster also brings Red Thunder (currently at 1.02) into the discussion. This makes me think that it's worth pointing out that all three WW2 games are independent for patching purposes. Red Thunder at 1.02 is basically equivalent (in engine and patching terms) to CMBN at 3.11.
-
Sorry, but this is wrong. If there is a new command which should have a hotkey the patch could check the hotkeys.txt if the letter has been taken or not. If taken add new command without hotkey, if not add hotkey. Leave the rest as is in both cases.
That patches break things for the player is annoying.
I don't think hotkeys.txt is the only file involved.
With recent patches, I notice that trying to use an outdated Vinnart mod (which doesn't touch hotkeys.txt) actually shifts the locations of the hotkeys in the in-game options menu. So, for example, "Target" shows up under the movement commands rather than combat. Obviously the game's use of text strings connected to hotkeys involves more than just reading the hotkeys.txt file.
-
Patches alter all the text strings in the game. Resetting hotkeys to account for this is probably unavoidable.
This is why using an outdated version of Vin's animated text mod will show you text from other CM titles: now your riflemen are named "T-72" and your Panthers are labeled as if they are Javelins or AK-74's.
-
Question about Vehicle Pack and 3.11 patch:
I don't have the vehicle pack yet.
Am I right in thinking that, if I install patch 3.11 today and buy the VP later, I should install the VP and then re-install the 3.11 patch?
-
What a strange thing. How could a UI mod affect mouse interaction with units in play?
In any case, I'm playing with Juju's, and I have no trouble selecting the units mentioned whether I'm in the command phase or the replay phase. I can get them by clicking on either the vehicle or the icon.
-
I'm using Juju's, and I do not have this problem.
-
Thank you for the patch!
-
I hope nobody is going to ask about nukes. There is always one. Please don't do it!
HEY, WILL THERE BE NUKE plantS powering the TVs, radios, and computers people use to follow the news of sudden hot-war developments in the Black Sea region??
-
Oooh yes. The AAR is the only good part about waiting.
-
CMSF modeled civilians abstractly with a scenario setting that penalized the Blue player for destruction of buildings. It was possible to eliminate all enemy units but still lose the scenario if you caused indiscriminate damage to inhabited areas. IIRC, this setting was a variable with a range of values, so that designers could model densely populated civilian areas vs lighter or mostly evacuated ones.
It worked well in making the Western player pick his targets with care, and it gave the Red player the ability to hide effectively inside and near buildings. The U.S. couldn't just flatten the village with artillery like we all do in WW2.
I assume we'll see a return of this feature in CMBS.
Combat Mission: Red Thunder v1.03 patch (PC/Mac)
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
Wonderful! Thanks!