Banshee
-
Posts
418 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Banshee
-
-
What do you call a person who fails medical school?
A Dentist!
-
I've always thought that CM QB maps should be much deeper. Right now the only way to get deep maps is play canned scenarios
. So let's hope this one makes it in to CM2 (and maybe any future patch of CM! :eek: ) -
This end up!
-
Very curious as to which one stopped sending turns back. That is bad form. Must have been a whippin.
------------------
Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki
-
Originally posted by M Hofbauer:
There is oxygene in the wick's components. (There is also oxygene in water but that is not he issue in this case).
To compare: Where does a bomb's explosive charge, enclosed in a massive iron shell, get all the oxygene from?
->It's part of it's explosive element.
I have a slight pyrotechnic background (was a test tech at an pyrotechnic and explosives plant, I tested mostly the pyrotechnic stuff), the oxygen is derived from the OXIDIZER (makes sense!) which is mixed in with the fuel which you want to explode/burn. Usually when making a pyrotechnic compound you would have 3 things, 1) Fuel 2) Oxidizer 3) Binder, the binder basically sticks the oxidizer to the fuel. Then things go boom!
btw there was a more technical term for "FUEL" which escapes me at the moment. It has been a few years since I did any of that stuff.
p.s. Trivia: What is the difference between an explosive and a pyrotechnic?
Answer: An explosive DETONATES (the shockwave is in front of the flame front) but a pyrotechnic DEFLAGRATES (Shock wave is behind the flame front).
------------------
Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki
-
I just think the allied airman wanted to take out 7% of Germany's production of Puma's in one sortie
Just look at the airpower as an Anti-gamey feature
------------------
Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki
-
Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:
There is a fair amount of evidence to suggest that tankers would "shoot till it burns" to ensure their victim was in fact dead.
I think the gunners probably knew when a target was no longer a threat (people bailing, etc). The reason why so many tanks were blasted until they burned was it made the tanks unrecoverable. The heat from the fire would soften the tanks armor. Belton Cooper (author of Death Traps) writing on this seemed to suggest it was a common German tactic if they had the time. I'm sure they first neutralized all the threats, then if they had time and ammo they would make the targets unrecoverable.
------------------
Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki
-
Originally posted by ciks:
I wanted to play a Quickie as Defending 600pt Unrestricted force Germans, against Unrestricted Allies.
Guess what did CM buy for me?
Haa!
3 roadblocks
3 barbed vires
2 Vet 251/1 Halftracks
2 DaisyChain Mines
1 Anti-Tank mine patch
1 Anti Personell
2 Vet 81mm Mortars
1 Vet Stug III
1 Vet 75mm AT Gun
AND NOT A SINGLE INFANTRY UNIT!!!!
How I am supposed to fight with these?
Anyhow, I'll try and maybe post some results later...
Actually when I get a crappy purchase selection and terrain I always just use my imagination and pretend i'm a rear guard trying to do as much damage as possible to the enemy before I have to leave the map (trying to lose little to nothing in the process). It usually turns into a fun game.
------------------
Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
I'd be interested in your source for this.
In the book SOLDAT the author speaks of Hitler Youths running around with Panzerfausts trying to bag a tank so that they could collect an Iron Cross. It was in the closing days of the war though, so it definetly wasnt a the norm. I have heard about the 2 week vacation being issued as well, but I am trying to remember the book. I think these were different awards for different times in the war (and different fronts, the Iron Cross story was in Berlin, so only vs Russians).
------------------
Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki
-
Should have purchased the ELITE mines, they know how to hide better
------------------
Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki
-
I vote for the Skink!
http://www.inf.upol.cz/~stepanos/museum/skink.html
Beat that!
------------------
Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki
-
-
yeah i've noticed this too, if you hit the EXIT button instead of ALT-F4 it exits fine. It just doesnt seem to exit cleanly when you hit ALT-F4.
------------------
Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki
-
Originally posted by Tiger:
Simply allowing a player to add a movement order, to begin once the ambush is sprung, would be cool, but it should be kept simple so the computer AI can handle it w/o breaking other rules conventions already in the game.
I think it could be kept simple, I might restart this topic under a "Modify AMBUSH command request" (as opposed to a new command) with a link to this topic to show what has been previously discussed.
------------------
Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki
-
Originally posted by Tiger:
Try and keep it more simple possibly i.e., none of this "go to spot, target pre-arranged ambush point, hide, wait for enemy to trigger ambush, move to pre-designated spot.... etc etc.;
SirOscar is asking for orders to be followed chronologically. Which would be a nice feature, but I was asking for a much smaller change.
Originally posted by Tiger:make it when the ambush occurs, begin command-delay count-down to one of the regular "move-type" commands set like normal by the player, w/o waiting till beginning of next turn before issuing a command.
Yep! This is what I am asking for, once the ambush is triggered the movement commands go into effect. A combination of command delays and the use of PAUSE would actually give it all the flexibility a player would need.
------------------
Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki
-
Originally posted by SirOscar:
Banshee
I think it's even easier then adding a new command or modifying current ones. If I set an order to move then hide, the AI does NOT hide then move, it's a sequential order. the unit will move to where I told it to then hide. I just can't see why we can't set a series of orders to be carried out in the order we give them. Thus I would select the unit set move to a certain point, hide, set ambush at certain point(all of this we can do now) then add a move command. At which point the unit(barring exp and battlefield conditions) would move to a point, hide, ambush THEN move. These are BASIC orders that any commander on a battlefield could realistically give and expect to be carried out.
I think we just need a weigh in from BTS on the feasability of the option. SInce they are close to the code they could give us a feel as to what is possible with the smallest amount of coding. I am trying to get the effect I want with as little change as possible.
------------------
Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki
-
Originally posted by Slapdragon:
EGAD scripting would be hell:
//start: script name- infantrytakesdump.srt
if armor(val<171, rng>60) then execute "runlikehell.sop"
if armor(val<171) and (atw<0) then execute "shootgrenade.sop" else execute "runlikehell.sop"
if infantry(fpval<80) then ambush else execute "runlikehell.sop"
......
Take you 12 hours to do a turn.
To reiterate, at no point did I ask for scripting! this isnt about scripting!!
------------------
Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki
-
Originally posted by Tiger:
This is scripting. If "x" happens then "a".
If "y" happens then "b"
i.e. if pause(x seconds) then fire (y number of times) then reverse (a) or stay put (
.At no point did I ask for scripting. Right now the AMBUSH command allows you to :
1) Set an Ambush point
2) add pauses
3) move to a new point with the ambush point still set (i.e. dont fire unless something is in your ambush zone)
All I am asking for is that the pauses and move commands dont go into effect until the ambush is sprung. I proposed it in a new command rather than a modified AMBUSH command because some people might still like the way the AMBUSH command works (since it is a way to make vehicles and men move without wasting your ammo on distant targets, more of a kludge to get around the AI's tendency for shooting ammo at ineffective distances).
Originally posted by Tiger:However I still say you're going to run into problems that the ai will not be able to account for, such as backing away from your ambush point right into the line of fire of something else. And I don't think this could be handled by the ai until the next engine rewrite.
I dont understand how this is a problem, the AI would handle "backing into the line of fire of something else" the way it would noremally. i.e. if you had a hunt command it would stop and fire, if you had a fast move command it would get the hell out of their, etc.. This is NOT an issue that would count against the command itself.
You could make the SAME argument against the MOVE, FAST MOVE, HUNT, and REVERSE commands. "Oh there is situations in FAST MOVE where the AI wont react the way we want, so we shouldnt have FAST MOVE until the AI is tweaked"
------------------
Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki
-
I believe BTS has stated that trenchworks and the like will be fortifications you could purchase in CM2. So you could just add trenches in places where there are no people and it might have the same effect.
------------------
Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki
-
OT: I know what SOP's are in the military but what games implemented them, and how did they do so ?
------------------
Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki
-
No this isnt a pro-scripting thread. I was asking for a small change to the existing system to improve realism and playability (which are both already excellent).
Scripting is not going to happen (already said by BTS), so I dont want this thread to turn into a scripting argument.
------------------
Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki
-
The more I am thinking about it, the more I think a slight modification (actually 2)to the ambush command would work.
Change 1) If you have an ambush command set, AND have movement orders, then the movement orders (and it's command delay). Wont go into effect until the ambush is triggered. You can add the pause command in to have a unit hang around for a longer periond of time if you wish.
Change 2) Ambush points should be able to be set at long ranges than 300 meters. For the obvious reasons that you would want an engagement for thin skinned armor to be as far away as possible (I doubt Marders got very close to the enemy if they could avoid it!).
Keep the feedback coming! I hope BTS could provide some guidance (i.e. is it possible, and if so when could it be put in (patch, cm2, etc))
------------------
Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki
[This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 01-26-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 01-26-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Tiger:
And I think it would be perhaps too powerful an addtion to defensive battles. You'd have to make it so it is useable both ways. If ambushed then shoot x then follow my previous set up move routine(s).
It would be as useful both ways as the AMBUSH command is at present.
------------------
Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki
-
Originally posted by Pillar:
Have you seen the latest AAR Fionn is doing over at combathq?
The non updated, 5 turns in, 2 months old, AAR?
------------------
Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki
. So let's hope this one makes it in to CM2 (and maybe any future patch of CM! :eek: )
.
Refining the Ambush command
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:
So the answer for too much micromanagement is to add more micromanagement? I've come across this argument before, and the only way I can think of for its proponents to avoid its obvious illogic is that they are blinded by being heavily prejudiced in favor of micromanagement to begin with.
But that is contrary to the spirit and philosophy that CM is based on. It seems to me that the only solution consistent with CM's purpose is to improve the AI so that it doesn't do egregiously stupid things. For instance, a lot of different problems would be solved if the AI had an instruction along the lines of: "If there is a known high-threat or high-value target in the vicinity, withhold fire on lower threat or lower value targets". Granted that might not be exactly a snap to program and debug, but something along those lines would go a long way towards answering a number of complaints. A lot of other complaints, like the hull down question should be handled in the same way.
Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't agree that the better AI will preclude the need for micro-management. How do I tell the AI my strategy? I regularly use my AFV's as a screening force for my MLR, trying to seperate the enemy AFV's from the infantry . No AI in the world would know this is my strategy. Adding finer detailed commands would allow me to implement my tactics. IMHO what should be done is give finer detailed commands, but the default behavior would let the AI work it's magic.
I envision a menu system exactly as it is set up now. Small exception you would see a little arrow next to the command which would give you other options (think of Start->Programs->Accessories->etc in windows, sorry mac im not sure how it works on your systems)
Example menu item:
AMBUSH->Infantry
AFV's
TARGET-> x number of rounds
SMOKE->X number of rounds
MOVE->Until Enemy is spotted
Until Fired upon
So I could click AMBUSH and it would be the default ambush behavior, or fine tune it for Infantry or AFV's.
Too much micromanagement answer is not more micromanagement. AI deficiencies (both in game and ones where AI doesn't know your tactics (e.g. You can't "brief" the AI on what you want to do)) answer is more micromanagement. AI will never be very good (it is VERY hard to code) I have seen very few games where AI has been noteable. Plus it would be MUCH faster to write the above commands than a perfect the AI. The AI would still have to be modified to accomodate some changes (ex. A tank with Ambush->AFV command sees a zook coming within firing range might tend to break ambush command earlier, but a gun wouldnt)
Also experience level would affect how well a unit follows your commands (adding to realism). You may micromanage the heck out of your units, doesn't mean they will do it right.
I always wondered what BTS's thoughts on this type of stuff was.. maybe they will read this thread.
[ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: Banshee ]