securityguard

freak accidents do happen, thats what he's implying.

woops

I'd also like to know this. I know that it's too early to ask these questions - especially such a specific one - but the curiousity kills me. You guys mentioned before that you couldn't model frequenet misbehaviours. I understand that it is impossible to model a man jumping over a wall, throwing a grenade in a window or being a rambo but 1:1 representation will seperate each mans status, right? The visuals don't have to be complicated but the statistics behind it hopefully are. Something like (I dare say it) Close Combat (but not GI combat!).

its coming out tomorrow Combat Mission: 2050 its about inter planterary we-go turn based action

Anyone who thinks 1:1 is a bad idea is being silly - the current CM model works great with the technology they used, but 1:1 is infinitely better and is totally the right direction. I personally loathe the way morale is handled in CM. Having a 12 man squad panic and every man panicking is incredibly bad - understandable, but unrealistic. 1:1 allows for people who just can't take the heat to run, while the others continue to fight. It allows for way more plausible situations and tones down the abstractness by a lot. It will be interesting to see how they implement all this though. I have high hopes, considering how good Combat Mission was I don't doubt they can pull through with anything less.

1:1 man representation has me sold and was my only beef with the original CM. Thanks for the confirmations battlefront.com

that return fire couldve very possibly saved you, but it was still total chance thanks for the update

Is VT in the game? I haven't noticed any labeling between VT and normal artillery.

Spotters that is, not infantry guns. It seems like four 75mm spotters are actually more effective than one 150mm spotter. Big shells just bounce around the trenches and occupants inside don't evem budge. What's a good medium? My guess is 105mm or 81mm, but I'm sure someone here has done more testing.

It would be cool if there was a 'reinforce' point set for QB's. Such as, getting 1000 points for reinforcements. You could spent 1000 points on a smaller reinforcement that is gauranteed to come, or spent 1000 points on a larger reinforcement that comes by chance or in parts.

If you're talking about tank, I think the Renault is the slowest. I think it has an on-road top speed of 25mph, but I could be wrong.

I personally feel infantry and infantry based weapons (AT guns) are more fragile in CMAK. Also surrendering seems more frequent. Everything else feels exactly the same.

I think they have a limited amount of tiles they can use or something. They had to replace them with other tiles.

Operational boundries are full of 'what ifs' in some ways. It's tough to gauge your situation completely but I've had similar incidents. If one platoon squeeze behind you, what would prevent the others from doing the same? The game generate boundries on what it think would happen afterwards according to where you positioned at the moment. That is what I've always assumed when the game generates boundries behind me - however sometimes it can allow the AI or player to put things places he shouldn't due to different colored deployment zones. It can require an imagination or player cooperation to make the operation feel sane. Operations are flawed in this regard.

Operational boundries are full of 'what ifs' in some ways. It's tough to gauge your situation completely but I've had similar incidents. If one platoon squeeze behind you, what would prevent the others from doing the same? The game generate boundries on what it think would happen afterwards according to where you positioned at the moment. That is what I've always assumed when the game generates boundries behind me - however sometimes it can allow the AI or player to put things places he shouldn't due to different colored deployment zones. It can require an imagination or player cooperation to make the operation feel sane. Operations are flawed in this regard.

Operational boundries are full of 'what ifs' in some ways. It's tough to gauge your situation completely but I've had similar incidents. If one platoon squeeze behind you, what would prevent the others from doing the same? The game generate boundries on what it think would happen afterwards according to where you positioned at the moment. That is what I've always assumed when the game generates boundries behind me - however sometimes it can allow the AI or player to put things places he shouldn't due to different colored deployment zones. It can require an imagination or player cooperation to make the operation feel sane. Operations are flawed in this regard.

I had a sniper shoot at squads from 100m or so. He was crack, didn't get detected. He hesistated a ton though from what I remember, kept having to manually give him targets each turn. He would fire the start of a turn then untarget.

Theres a hail of bullets flying at you from people who have witnessed you firing back at them. Would you really risk standing up and surrendering? Infact in CMAK a good majority of my guys who surrender while underfire get taken down. I recently had a MG42 team put their hands up only to be greated by a flame thrower team. It's one reason why you see guys surrender when they're not directly threatened. Such as losing a 8 man squad when they haven't even fired a round, or losing a bazooka team in 100% concealment. They usually opt to give up when they know they can get away with it.

cant you just use the boats? theyre abstract enough to simulate landing craft

I'd love a dynamic flag scenario for a QB. Those are always interesting.

The best maps are the ones with subtle choke points, varying elevation and most importantly organized terrain. A bad map is one where the terrain is skewed all over the place randomly. Real terrain almost never looks like that, it usually has some sort of pattern to it.

Anyone try to use these .xls files in openoffice.org? I can't seem to get them running.

pretty

currently playing a game where my opponent road blocked one area, so i took the road beside it. mine took my half-track out. so I take my other half-track around the mine, and another mind destroys that half-track. so i take my TANK around THAT mine, who wouldve guessed? another mine. I really don't think he thought i'd fall for it three times in a row but apparently im that dumb. i say its crafty gambling in my opinion.

bored and eagerly wait results / screenshots i recommend reversing two and keeping the other two still, that way you'll lose half at most