Jump to content
Battlefront is now Slitherine ×

Banshee

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    418

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Banshee

    Gamey Recon Technique?

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smoker1:

    How does the CM community feel about plotting extensive movement paths (several minutes of movement) for fast moving vehicles that weave all over the enemy side of the map? I've found that even an unarmed jeep can often survive for quite a spell and gather valuable information as to the whereabouts of enemy armor and vehicles as long as it does not suffer from the new orders delay while exposed. Is this a gamey tactic?

    Smoker out.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    IMHO,

    A) The tactic is very effective.

    B) The tactic is very gamey.

    ------------------

    Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

    0

    Germany First Policy?

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wesy:

    One word...Economics...Look at this website for a very good reason why Germany was the first priority...To paraphrase, Japan was fighting the economic equivalent of Godzilla...This is why they lost the war.

    http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Just a side note on the Japanese policy. IIRC their strategy to win was to hit the US very hard in the naval arm, to forestall the US long enough for them to make and consolidate all their gains so they could become an economic force equal to the US and able to fight us to a draw. Their "win" was just not to lose. This is why you see the initial US strategy of just trying to limit the amount of Japanese expansion and going after the "real" threat of the Axis powers (for the most part centerd in Europe). IMHO, us winning against the Japanese was a foregone conclusion (it was just a matter of how many losses we would take before winning), but the tenuous foothold (Britain) we had in Europe didn't look nearly so sure, and the main bulk of the Axis forces were in Europe, why not fight there first?

    ------------------

    Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

    0

    What does "Gun Damaged" really mean?

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    Just some useless blathering by myself,

    A) Gun hits in CM are a rare thing from my playing experience.

    B) Although I only slightly read the Jentz Panzer Truppe's books I do remember a story of one tank getting a gun pushed back into the turret of the tank (it was in the Italy section if IIRC).

    C) The went out of my to try and get gun hits in a scenario I created, having Jumbo's vs KT's @ 1500m's , they were bouncing shots off each other like crazy, finally got a gun hit on a KT. IMHO the tougher the tank (or the weaker the gun?) the more likely it will be that the tank might suffer a gun hit (since it suffers a lot more hits). Uber-tank syndrome will be the most likely cause of getting yourself a gun hit.

    ------------------

    Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

    0

    What to do?

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian Rock:

    Some of them do. My ex-girlfriend was an EverQuest addict. One of the main reasons she's an "ex", so be careful what you wish for...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Man oh man, I was an EQ addict, whew, glad I'm "clean and sober" from that one.

    CM is a different flavor of addiction, and it's easier for me to moderate =).

    ------------------

    Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

    0

    Manual Needs To Be Proofread

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

    but one point is valid, and I have stated support for this before: why not have the summary of option choices sent to the PBEM partner (erm...enemy) with the first file? this would eliminate the need to manually explain/confirm in the email...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I agree. But in the whole big scheme of things, BTS has done so wonderfully programming (with 2 people!! And the countless people helping design the scnarios and write the manual), it's a very minor point which I'm sure they will address with CM2.

    Keep up the great work BTS!

    ------------------

    Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

    0

    Points In CM That Need To Be Addressed

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

    Yeah, humble my ass. Banshee... rolleyes.gif ...it says right there in the manual on p.108 that for med. quality, only green or regular units can be purchased. So....obviously when I found out he had all vet units to my reg, I jumped to conclusions. Obviously, I was a little disturbed by this and wanted to question him further. Understand now...?

    It's not my fault that BTS didn't do a good job of reading over the manual to make sure it was error free. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    You know if something like this happened to me and I happened to have actually read the manual. First thing I would have done is played a hotseat game against myself with the same settings (except let a human pick the forces) to see if the force levels could have been re-created.

    IMHO, STILL, it seems like your ego just can't accept being beat in a piddly little video game, so it MUST be someone cheated. Again I don't know you from nothin, the words your typing here (and in that new post you just put up, "riddled with mistakes" puuh-leeaseeee) just show me that you seem to be a very sore loser, again IMHO. This isn't a flame, i'm just saying this is a mountain out of a mole hill. Abbot won, you lost, game over.

    ------------------

    Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

    0

    Points In CM That Need To Be Addressed

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

    Ok, I suppose I'm convinced that there was no deception going on. I will report to the house ladder today.

    This will be the last time though I let the computer choose my units for me.

    I'm still disgusted with the lack of points and choice of units I was awarded. No shreck?!!!!

    As for the amount of pts the person assaulting, attacking, or probing gets, I'd like to hear the others thoughts on if these pts are fair or not.

    Anyone?

    P.S.--Thanks to those posting the ratios...if they are indeed correct.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I always thought the attacking/assaulting ratio was too low for the attacker.

    I still don't see the issue here, you had some bad luck or bad positioning and lost, it happens. In the AAR you can go count every body on the field and count the exact points if you think there is cheating. But it really just sounds to me like you think there was cheating because you lost, just MHO.

    ------------------

    Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

    0

    Points In CM That Need To Be Addressed

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbott:

    Axis (regulars) (as close as I could see)

    1 x smg Plt.

    1 x pioneer Plt.

    1 x flamethrower

    1 x 81mm mortar

    1 x pak40 75mm ATG

    1 x Panther G

    105mm artillery obs.( maybe 120mm mortar?)

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    To the main point about the thread:

    Yes I believe that all points/operations stats(weather, turns, attack defend, terrain etc.) should be provided before the start of play by the game. But it doesn't and it isn't a game killer so imho no big deal..

    On to a side point. The above forces were MORE than adequate to defend against the american forces described. I don't see the problem, maybe FOW was off? *shrug* Sounds a lil like sour grapes to me.

    ------------------

    Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

    0

    The Case for Repair/Recovery

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    Not sure what the big deal is here. Repair/Recovery/Towing etc is outside the scope of what happens during the small battles that happen in CM. The 30 or 40 turns represent 30 to 40 minutes, you'll be lucky if a tank would even have gotten hooked up to both trucks in that short of time (oh and btw I would be VERY surprised if those 2 sdkfz7 could have budge the dang thing). Guns are designed to be rapidly limbered to a truck, while tanks aren't.. But tell you what let's say it takes 20 minutes (very generous) AND those 2 tractors could tow it (very generous). You're saying that you actually want all these people to be jumping and crawling around out in the open while arty, machine gun fire, and airplanes are all out there trying to kill them?

    Repair/Recovery/Towing right at the front lines during the middle of a firefight would very much be the exception. The fact that you have ONE picture or anectdote of it happening (and failing, serving as a reminder as to why it wasn't done) proves nothing, it is an aberration.

    As for the "gamey" thing, the reason why so many people like the game is because it strives to be so accurate. Thus the term "gamey" evolved to mean anything that was ahistorical. So "gamey" being applied to a game isn't as weird as one might think.

    Just some of my thoughts. Think of it this way, would you rather them work on CM2 and get it out the door sooner, or do you want them to waste time coding in the ability to tow a vehicle (limber time 30 minutes)?

    ------------------

    Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

    0

    M/F

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

    All except temperature. I'll never figure that one out...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Go live someplace where it's -40 degrees all the time then you won't have to worry about it!

    (in case this is too obscure put -40 in the F/C formula smile.gif )

    0

    Team Yankee?

    in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)

    Posted

    I enjoyed the book, but it was obviously his first book writing effort and extremely (imho) optimistic. His other books got better, the one with the invasion of iran by russia was great the libya vs egypt book. the US vs Mexico (unique premise, very good). As well as the Ten Thousand.

    As for modern war type books, "Red Army" by (IIRC) Ralph Peters, was exceptional. Far above any i've read before or since, I believe he wrote "War in 2020" which was also great. The realism and human emotion just shine through.

    I also enjoyed "38 North Yankee" and "Firefall" , both by the same author whose name I forget.

    ------------------

    Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

    [This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 09-07-2000).]

    0
×
×
  • Create New...