Jump to content

Bertram

Members
  • Posts

    475
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bertram

  1. The best wargame? It has to be made yet, as they keep getting better with computer resources and programming languages developing. I loved TOAW, but now it is really dated. I played V4Victory a lot, but for todays standards they are lacking. At that level I now play DBWWII and Battlefront, which series gets better with each new version (though it seems that user build scenarios are slower coming for the last version, probably because it is so close to the previous ones). The game I play most is CMBB though. It has all I want from a game, good PBEM, tension, new challenges each time I play it, and enough realism not to marr the experience. An other game I like is AACW. But for me playing against the computer is, after mastering the essentials, just boring. And playing real time is just to difficult to arrange.
  2. Seriously, this seems another plce where CMSF needs a bit of work. I wass playing CMBB a few days ago, and my Germans were holding of the Ruskies nicely. Then I noticed they were getting low on ammo... Right at that moment one of the digital squads yelled "Scheisse, wir brauchen Munition". A real "wow" moment, even after all those years.... In contrast those modern soldiers keep yelling that they see enemies. Especially irritating due to the real time play, I keep rushing over, only to discover no enemies in sight. Very frustrating..... Bertram
  3. Seems the guys at Battlefront are either taking some time off, or are working on version 1.05 with exclusion of everything else. Since octobver the 4th there have been just 2 posts by Battlefront (Steve), and Matt only popped up in the tech forum with a series of posts on the 18th.
  4. It is (of course) no waste of computing time.....otherwise it would not be done this way . If you check LOS from unit to unit, you need to compute that LOS each time increment. That is, for each unit you would have to check the coordinates, same for each other each other unit, then computed the line to each other unit, then look up the terrain between them, then check if that blocks LOS. This times the square of the number of units. And longer lines of sight make for more terain crossed, so for more blocking checks. The other way, you start by building a LOS table for the map, just noting which terrain tile can see which other terrain tiles. The terrain tiles dont move (in contrast to the units) so this is a feature of the map, and stays the same. Now you can use this table for a unit to check which tiles it can see from its current tile. Then you check if there are untis in those tiles. This is one check for each unit, uses no calculations, and does not go up squared for the number of units. Only if this check reveals a *potential* LOS (that is, a unit in a tile that the unit being checked has LOS to) you need to calculate if there is an actual LOS (a more fine grained check if you want, what BF calls a LOF). So, instead of a large umber of calculations you get a table to check, and do the calculations only if that check shows it necesairy. A huge safe of computing time.
  5. Not me, selecting and deselecting/deleting way points work as expected for me.
  6. This was a long post about how good the patch is, but that verhicles now seem to have some difficulty spotting each other (Al Hacq, 65 mtrs apart, in the middle of the street, and in ful daylight. The Bradley blew up the BTR after several minutes, the wreck immediatly reverted to a question mar. Opening up the Bradley helped). But the board told me I put in some short html marks that were not allowed, and deleted the post .
  7. There is a setting, right upper corner, where you can "show topics from the last xx days". Longest time period is a year, but there is a "show all messages" option... Bertram
  8. No that is an easy one, the mousepads are user customizable to, they just have to add some crayons
  9. Played version 1.01a, and it is a definite improvement on the standard scenario. The TacAI shortcomings and the LOS problems still make it easy against the AI, but at least it is doing something, and not bad either. Good work
  10. I would like that, but I would settle for a mode in the scenario builder where you could let the troops run through their AI plan, without the enemy present. That way you could see if all trops had orders, and if the plan did what you intended for it to do.
  11. You *want* him to promote the top view only battle???
  12. Yes, I had actually expected a hardcopy by now.... I had expected them to be shipped the same day the downloads got available. Somewhere on the forum I saw a post by one of the devs that implicated that they were now working on shipping (or rather the firm they hired for them was doing it). It wasnt actually stated, but you could infer that hardcopies were now (this was wensday 1st of august) in the proces of being shipped. How fast all of them will be shipped, and how long it will take after that....
  13. I dont think it is so much the stopping power of the walls, but the fact that yuo can not be seen inside that is the thing that should save the soldiers inside. As it is the tacai is pretty much non existent, so it is a safe bet that the soldiers all stay where they are, and spraying the house with .50 is a good thing (I often find my opponents killed squad wise on a heap after the battle). In reality it is of course often unclear if anyone is staying inside, or if they are moving over to the next house to pop up there and squeze of a couple of shot (or move out of the neighbourhood entirely)
  14. You have to make a scenario. If you want to play against a person you can just make the map, declare it fit for all kind of troops and operations (like assault, meeting, etc.)(the map can only be selected if it is fitting the kind of battle you choose in the QB selection). You then safe it as QB map. All not relevant data from the scenario will be ignored. If you want to play (a quick battle) on it against the AI you need to build an AI in the scenario builder before you safe it to the quick battle maps folder. edit: obviously you also need to define objectives, if you want to decalre a winner at the end of the battle.
  15. In addition on this, it would be very helpfull for the scenario designer if there was some kind of God mode. After setting up the scenario AI I would very much like to run the game with all units visible, to see if my little digital men do what I intended them to do. As it is I can only infer that on info collected using the opposing side in a real battle.... and with the Fow that intel might be not really reliable (or complete).
  16. Depending on what setting you are playing. If playing veteran or higher (elite?) you see only what the unit you have selected sees. So if you did not have selected the BMP in question, you would not know the threat it saw, unless the unit you did have selected saw it also (or had communication with the BMP and was told about it). If you kept the BMP selected though the move, you shouls see the same threat it saw.
  17. I played the battle Al Amara as US. Objective of the the Battle is to get to 6 places, and exit (according to the briefing). I managed to visit 4 of the objectives, before I decided that my men had enough. One Stryker (which is, by the way, the name we in the Netherlands give to a piece of firework that goes with a bang) got totalled, and 30 infantry got killed or wounded (out of 90). I killed/wounded about 40 enemy soldiers. The score was 6400 (me) against 200. I got 5000 points for the friendly casualties. The other points were for visiting the objectives (700 each). The enemy got 200 points for the Stryker, and no points for enemy casualties. No other points were given. Had I known this I would have send my men forward on sucide attacks, to win even more decisive!!. Serious, I could have got the points for conserving my forces, but that would seem strange, as I lost 30% of my men. So I suspect the scoring is off in this battle.
  18. My first battle played. Thought I was doing pretty bad, not getting my objectives, and a Stryker burning. The result was a victory - I like those asymetric victory conditions!!
  19. Working for me, jumped into battle <name deleted for security reasons>. Had trouble finding out how to place the units in the setup (yes, I did not read the manul - real men dont). Started the game, had my Strykers advancing in good order, till the Syrians fired some ATGM or something, and they went boom. Now reading the manual.
  20. Because I am downloading at 600kB/sec
  21. 6:51 here, 4:51 GMT, it is the 27th already for almost 5 hours. No download yet!!
  22. Blue Angels C130 still used JATO's in the show as of about one year ago when I saw them in Leeuwarden (the Netherlands). Definitly more smoke. Sound would have really made it easy to make sure - very impressive (Phantoms on low pass with afterburners and F-16's going just below sound on afterburners came close second)
  23. Redwolf: Abbot wrote theat the 512 MB that 'went into the 3th slot" was laying around. I took it that he actually filled 3 slots, instead of 2 or 4... I *think* that might slow down memory acces (if it does not stop it altogether in some MB's), but it has been a long time I have actually been working with things like that, and now only follow it in a theoretical sense. I *do* have seen several instances in which memory acces was slowed or the system became instable because the memory sticks didnt match close enough. That should not happen according to the manual, but it does happen in reality. So I prefer to check real world effects.
×
×
  • Create New...