cyrano01
-
Posts
220 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by cyrano01
-
-
Just a few comments.
Firstly, a big thank you to JasonC for an entertaining and educational. set of scenarios. I am currently working my way through steadily.
Secondly, scenario 110 proved particularly 'instructive,' got there in the end once I realised that putting the HQ on hide in an attempt to keep him intact was particularly unproductive given that they are the only unit with binoculars. Thereafter the clear spots of the HMG came a bit earlier and all was well.
Thirdly, if you are to win 200 sight unseen you have to make a good choice for your line of attack. As you will probably guess from this I did not! I managed to spot the low fold to the right leading through the successive small woods. For some reason I decided that was a line to be avoided on the basis that it provided plenty of defensive positions and was bound to be stuffed with bad guys
My addled brain concluded that it would be better to go up the centre and left and that the terrain would screen me from defenders on the right. I cunningly positioned my T34s well back in the set up zone to provide overwatch and hit 'Go.' About 20 seconds into turn 1 the AT gun opened up from German rear areas and killed 2 T34s in 3 shots. The 3rd T34 died 10 seconds into Turn 2 as he tried to break LOS
Thereafter the attack made some progress but eventually ground to a halt short of the second objective as lack of DF HE began to tell. Second try at the scenario I went up the right and all was well, major victory. Right, onwards and upwards.
-
Had the 109s started using extra tanks by 1941 (the date of the document)? I am fairly sure that most of the sources I have seen indicate that they didn;t have them during the Battle Of Britain.
-
Hmm, looks like the screenshot is indeed defunct. I'll repost it when I get home......
Duly done
//img524.imageshack.us/img524/9970/difoscar3km.jpg
[ December 03, 2005, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: cyrano01 ]
-
I am probably missing something really obvious here but can anyone explain this to me. Playing the Singapore campaign I had the misfortune to encounter a pair of Oscars who massacred my Hurricanes. While being shot down I noticed that the Oscar leader was showing a performance value of 8. Now his basic performance, I believe, is 6. He gets 1 extra for the 'High Performance' skill making 7. His other skills were 'Stay With Him' and a couple of 'Draw Extra Cards.' His wingman just has a 'Draw Extra Card,' and we were at medium altitude. So where is that 8th performance point coming from? If someone could just point out to me what I have missed that would be jolly helpful. :confused:
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/9970/difoscar3km.jpg
[ December 03, 2005, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: cyrano01 ]
-
Ah yes, found it now, RTFM.
Cheers
-
My wingman, in a Gladiator, was unfortunate enough to find himself taking over as a solo leader. The enemy played a scissors card and my Gladiator pilot wasn't given the option to use agility to generate a scissors response..........is this a problem or have I missed something somewhere in the manual?
Cheers
Rob
-
Following timing adjustments to the game start provess recommended by Brian I am pleased to report that my DirectX issues have been vanquished (or at least made smoke and retired). Thanks for such high class support.
-
Just a quick update on this one to confirm what I have already emailed to Brian. Following the recent update things have improved considerably from my perspective.
I find that I am able to play campaign missions without any problems and am only getting the DirectX error for single on-line missions about 50% of the time i.e.It has become intermittent. I guess it may be the case that the campaign missions could have an intermittent fault too but at a low enough percentage that I haven't had one yet.
Either way things seem to be going forward - keep up the good work.
-
And you should also have one of mine for comparison.
-
Thanks for the quick response. In answer to your questions:
(1) Just checked a regular dogfight online against the AI and I get the same error.
(2) Never actually got around to the campaign with the demo following your sorting out the initial connection problems with campaigns so I don't know. Don't have the demo installed any more - mea culpa.
-
Running the newly installed full version I get the following error log when attempting to play a mission from the campaign (versus the AI).
Running WinME and no obvious errors apparant in DXDiag. Any thoughts?
03/10/2005 19:02:11 Microsoft.DirectX.DirectPlay Error in the application. at Microsoft.DirectX.DirectPlay.Lobby.Client.ConnectApplication(ConnectInformation connectInformation, Int32 timeOut, Object applicationContext)
at bartbert.games.difo.client.forms.LobbyClientForm.JoinGame(SessionInfoStruct SessionInfo)
03/10/2005 19:02:51 Microsoft.DirectX.DirectPlay Error in the application. at Microsoft.DirectX.DirectPlay.Lobby.Client.ConnectApplication(ConnectInformation connectInformation, Int32 timeOut, Object applicationContext)
at bartbert.games.difo.client.forms.LobbyClientForm.JoinGame(SessionInfoStruct SessionInfo)
03/10/2005 19:07:42 Microsoft.DirectX.DirectPlay Error in the application. at Microsoft.DirectX.DirectPlay.Lobby.Client.ConnectApplication(ConnectInformation connectInformation, Int32 timeOut, Object applicationContext)
at bartbert.games.difo.client.forms.LobbyClientForm.JoinGame(SessionInfoStruct SessionInfo)
-
5 to change.
(1) Artillery Support. Both the mechanics of firing (shape of beaten zone, number/type of rounds etc.)and the mechanisms for calling and allocating fire. Ideally this latter should reflect the artillery doctrines of the various nations (Yoke target anyone?), distinguish between guns in direct/general support, under command etc. Need to be careful here to reflect what tended to happen in reality rather than the theoretical advantages of one system over another.
(2) Suppression mechanisms. I'm with John Salt here, at times suppression just doesn't quite seem ring true, more inertia under fire needed.
(3)Which leads nicely to - Command,control, communications. Possibly more inertia here. It is just to easy to set up and co-ordinate complex attacks in a single minute or so. Obviously there is a need for care here, if the real world difficulties in C3 were reflected it might make for a far less entertaining game, as well as stressing the issue of which level does the player really command at.
(4)Dismounting. Ability of crews/weapons to dismount to reconnoitre or fight dismounted.
(5) Scripting. Possibly the ability to issue some form of scripted instructions to one side in a scenario for solo play.
5 tok keep the same
(1) The User Interface. It remains a model of its type in terms of cleanliness and elegance.
(2) Easy to use editor.
(3) Company/battalion level focus.
(4) Fog Of War
(5) WEGO
-
I am still geting the "Fight with own division problem" despite having downloaded 1.00c, am I doing something foolish somehow?Originally posted by Robert Olesen:.
The "Fight with own division problem" is known - I have just uploaded a version that fixes it: http://www.roqc.cdgroup.org/files/ROQC_CMAK_Sheets_1_00c.zip
IIRC it's otherwise identical to 1.00b
-
I must confess that I have always felt that the argument that Wellington was saved from defeat by Blucher and Waterloo was a Prussian victory to be no more true than the one that says Waterloo was a victory for the Anglo-Dutch army with the Prussians getting an honourable mention for a walk on cameo role at the end.Originally posted by OZ77:As for Waterloo I think it is a stolen victory. It was stolen from Blucher, because BLUCHER had saved Wellington from total defeat when he came to Waterloo with his 30.000 Corp.
I have always felt you have to see both the battle and the campaign as a whole as an Allied victory. Wellington would not have stood at Mont St. Jean unless he had been pretty sure that the Prussians were going to arrive on his flank before close of play. Similarly Blucher would not have arrived there if the Anglo-Dutch army hadn't fought the bulk of the French to a stand-still (or more accurately Gneisenau would not have so arranged the arrival).
The whole thrust of the Allied operational concept for the campaign was a battlefield concentration of the two armies to trap and destroy the French. Having failed to achieve this at Quatre Bras/Ligny for various reasons (British perfidy or run of the mill cock-up and misunderstanding depending on your point of view) they did so at Waterloo with the desired result.
-
Matt
Many thanks for that - I will give it a whirl.
-
BritishBulldog.
Is there any chance you could post a quick breakdown of how you went about getting round the download problem i.e. One that I can shamelessly follow. I am having exactly the same issues (Your ISP isn't Freeserve is it by any chance?)
CDV certainly don't believe in making life easy do they?
Many Thanks
-
Bravo Zulu Battlefront.
-
Don't knock the paper CD envelope in the manual. Her Majesty's ever vigilant Customs And Excise took it to be a book which, I believe enjoys a more favourable duty/VAT position than game software would.
-
Might this be a reference to the old Stokes trench mortar of WW1 vintage? I don't have my sources to hand but have a feeling that might have been 3".
------------------
The British Army always fights its battles uphill, in the pouring rain, at the junction of two map-sheets. (Field Marshal W. Slim)
-
Nathan B. Forrest?
------------------
The British Army always fights its battles uphill, in the pouring rain, at the junction of two map-sheets. (Field Marshal W. Slim)
-
Old story to underline KwazyDog's point about the need for the files, apologies to all in the IT business who have heard it before.
3 people in a car going down a mountain road, a scientist, an engineer and a programmer. The brakes fail and the car almost runs off the road and over the edge of a precipice but, by a mixture of luck and skill, the driver gets it back under control and brings it to a stop.
All 3 get occupants take a while to recover their nerves but then fall to discussing what they should do next.
The scientist suggests examining the brake mechanism so they can determine the phenomenon that caused the failure.
The engineer suggests fixing the brakes and adding a back up system for future use.
The programmer disagrees saying, 'Hang on chaps, what we need to do first is take the car back to the top of the mountain and reproduce the fault!'
-
Certainly possible.
SPOILER SPACE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Playing the Marechal's Mill scenario from Wild Bill's pages my US Squads destroyed a King Tiger by close assault to win the scenario. The fog may have helped here, as did the fact that it was against the AI, but it was still good to see.
[This message has been edited by cyrano01 (edited 01-11-2001).]
[This message has been edited by cyrano01 (edited 01-11-2001).]
-
Simon
Thanks for the confirmation. Following on from your thoughts; If it is possible to carry a half-section in a Universal Carrier then we could represent the carrier platoon by spreading an infantry platoon across 4 carrier sections and padding out with PIATS. That would give some dismounted capability although it understates small arms and overstates A/T power. Like everyone else, in practise, I tend to use the Universal Carrier as a run around for teams and the MMG carrier as a handy mobile fire support weapon. I have a feeling that real life commanders of MMG platoons might be horrified with using them the way we all do.
------------------
The British Army always fights its battles uphill, in the pouring rain, at the junction of two map-sheets. (Field Marshal W. Slim)
-
Quite a few of the bigger bookshops in the UK stock some of the 1:25000 French maps, usually for the more popular tourist areas. Happily Normandy is in this category and I picked up the sheets covering the British beaches and Caen in Waterstones Manchester branch some while ago.
------------------
The British Army always fights its battles uphill, in the pouring rain, at the junction of two map-sheets. (Field Marshal W. Slim)
Thereafter the attack made some progress but eventually ground to a halt short of the second objective as lack of DF HE began to tell. 
In the works
in Down In Flames
Posted
Thought I might as well thrown in my two penn'orth.
(1)Sounds good, do it on Monday!
(2)I actually rather like this. I sometimes feel that the uniqueness of pilots provided by skills just gets lost in a tidal wave of additions and deductions coming from everyone who is anyone having 6 or 8 skills in a broadly similar composition. Greater pilot uniqueness seems to me to offer better opportunities for tactical sharpness.
(3) Sounds OK to me. Follows on pretty directly from (2).
(4) Hmm. Not sure about this. My more experienced pilots really have their work cut out against AI fighters which go into the fray with enough Draw Extra Cards to be pulling 1 per turn in any case. If (1) above reduces this then some reduction might be OK. I am ambivalent about this one.
(5) I can see the thrust behind this. Given that skill costs increase dramatically at the higher levels anyway, even now, the net effect will pretty well be to stop leader progression in its tracks until the wingman catches up. I am not sure whether that is a good thing or not.