Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Dr. Brian

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    446

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Dr. Brian

    V1.1 A MAJOR BUG ???

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    Thanks for clearing that up some gang. I'm still having a problem visualizing it, and I need to explain it better too. I'll see what I can come up with after playing the v1.1 a bit more.

    However, something doesn't feel right. Although this all makes sense for the slower turrets, it makes no sense when speed and fast turrets where used.

    More to come, I'm sure. wink.gif

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

    Doc

    God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

    0

    Infantry vs AFVs?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    This was posted by Madmatt in another thread. I want to get away from THAT thread, since this is somewhat different.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

    On the battlefield, other than a abandoned crew or unarmed vehicles there are NO non-threatening units. Every infantry unit including HQ's have the ability to kill ANY tank. How are those NOT threatening?

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Okay, I've had squads and HQ units behind AFVs and on the sides, less than 20-30 m. Sometimes much closer.

    The only time I've seen infantry take out an AFV was if the squad had AT ability (like PF).

    US units don't have PF, and I've never seen them take out an AFV. So, what is Madmatt talking about? Can a HQ unit take out a Tiger, or Churchill?

    Thanks in advance!

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

    Doc

    God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

    0

    V1.1 A MAJOR BUG ???

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    Okay, my turn to interject ... and give you a "gamey" players view.

    Yes, with this I'll definately throw out crews or some low value asset to turn that Panther around so my 57 AT Gun can whack it in the side.

    But, let me give you a "realist" or maybe a historical argument why almost ALL US AFVs didn't need to turn their hull.

    "I'm a Sherman Commander. I know I have a fast turret.

    "Opps, there is a Panther that I can get a side shot on! Cool.

    "They see me. Crap! They're turning their hull.

    "Let me be stupid, and not use my very fast turret to get off a few shots. I can place my best armor forward. The Panther can rip through the armor of the Sherman, front, rear, or side.

    Jumpin BeJezus Batman! Isn't it obvious the guy needs to get off as many shots off before the Panther turns his front?

    In conclusion, slow turret, heavily armored with respect to your enemy's assets are of course, going to turn their hull fronts.

    But when their weapon, be it a PF, a Psk, a Tiger's 88mm or Panther's 75mm, it doesn't matter. It'll rip through ANY facing. I'd rather shoot first, shot fast, and hope I hit before he shoots at me.

    I don't think that's far off.

    It puts the "realism" out of window, by weakening the smaller tanks, like the Sherman and Pz IV.

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

    Doc

    God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

    0

    Too Much Information About Enemy Troop Quality?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    Realistically, you may be going to far into this, and looking for something that is not really important.

    Let me explain.

    The scenarios are not random chance. They are designed. The troops knew who they were up against very very often. BTS (and others) have specifically stated that forward recon has been done, etc.

    When the engagement we play in CM occurs, the troops already know if they're up against a veteran unit, or a bunch of conscripts.

    Sure, there may be slight variants in each squads experience level, but for the most part, the troops have a general idea as to the quality that they will be up against.

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

    Doc

    God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

    0

    How Do I ACTUALLY Upgrade to v1.1?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    Okay,

    I've d/l'd the upgrade file. When I open up the self-extracting archive, what will happen? Will it overwrite my existing v1.05?

    But more importantly, will I be able to play my existing v1.05 PBEM games that are still underway, or do I have to do some other hocus pocus install?

    Not very clear on this, since there was no read me file without doing the self extraction (i.e., I don't want to open the upgrade since it may overwrite everything and then my existing PBEM game is screwed).

    Thanks in advance!

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

    Doc

    God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

    0

    How Do I ACTUALLY Upgrade to v1.1?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    After going through the BTS v1.1 announcement, this wasn't covered. Since I'm certain there are people here that have never done an upgrade while in the middle of a PBEM game (and are worried about losing data), let me ask the question for all of us.

    How do I upgrade from v1.05 to v1.1? Anything special?

    Thanks in advance!

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

    Doc

    God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

    0

    V1.1 PATCH IS READY!

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

    Enemy units targeting an ambush marker are no longer displayed as doing so.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I don't understand this.

    My opponents units could actually target my Ambush Marker?

    Or, are my target lines no longer seen?

    Basically, what was this about?

    Thanks in advance!

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

    Doc

    God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

    0

    How to play the game most realistically?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

    If you are going to do that, just go out and buy a tank sim.

    Why try to turn a tactical wargame into a tank sim?

    Jeff Heidman

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Jeff,

    The question was posed how to play Combat Mission more "realistic." Nothing said about other games.

    I guess this is what a "gamer" like me gets, when they try to answer a "realist" question. smile.gif

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

    Doc

    God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

    0

    How to play the game most realistically?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    I heard a great way to play CM realistically, and i think I'm going to give this a try one day.

    Make a scenario, where all you get is ONE AFV. Give the computer oppoenent some low value assets, and maybe 1 or 2 AFVs.

    When your AFV dies, you die.

    (Plus, turn everything off. And NEVER use any view except locked to unit, ground level).

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

    Doc

    God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

    0

    Gamey tactics, post the whys & therefores here

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    WOW! What a lot of reading. Man, such a verbose group of lads! wink.gif

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

    And with the implementation of all three of these things (and others)...

    [snip]

    ... On the contrary, we expect it will introduce a whole new level of challenges and tactical variety. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Steve,

    I'm sure the "gamer" crowd will find something else that will cause another 1000+-post thread. Therefore, you have something to look forward too. wink.gif

    I actually welcome the changes. It'll just give me more opportunities to try different, unorthodox, and innovative ways to win. Should be fun!

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

    Doc

    God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

    0

    Please disarm all crews

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

    Some sort of dialog will probably come up and say "Such and such a side has been declared the winner. Do you wish to fight on to the last man?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Steve,

    I see where you're coming from, and I think it's a start for a "good" compromise to meet the needs to both the "simulators" and the "gamers."

    However, I know that I get enjoyment by pulling a win out of almost utter defeat. For example, in the case you mentioned, where due to some "auto surrender" one player is "declared" the winner.

    Let's say we both agree to fight on. However, by some true, innovative play, the "original" loser manages to become the new "winner." I'd like to request that you just make sure CM will be able to actually re-determine the new winner. That's part of the fun, of being a "gamer" as opposed to being someone that is a straight "simulator."

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

    Doc

    God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

    0

    Gamey tactics, post the whys & therefores here

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

    Dr. Brian wrote

    quote:

    "I think this is what gets the "game" crowd peeved. You're telling them to play a certain way, or to accept a style of play that you prefer. It seems to me you're presenting an argument that says, "You guys have to accept this point of view." If I'm wrong , I'm sure you'll let me know, but, it does seem that way."

    I am sure this is not what he meant, and it gets back to the heart of the matter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Steve, I'm with you here, and i hope no one, including you or Banshee got an impression that I was being aggressive in this.

    It just seemed like Banshee's comments could serve as a good jump off point for how some "gamers" (this one, in particular) feel and perceive what is happening.

    I'm really an easy going guy, and if you want to play a certain way, I'm really fine with it. I'll play anyway you want. Just as long as we're playing by the same rules, that challenge I crave for is still there. And I'm going to work within whatever is established (either engine or a code of conduct) to pummel that opponent into submission. wink.gif

    Again, hope I didn't ruffle anyone, and I did clear things up a bit more!

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

    Doc

    God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

    0

    Gamey tactics, post the whys & therefores here

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

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

    For all of you people who want crews to fight try this: Get in your car, go crash into another car ... [snip]

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I think this is what gets the "game" crowd peeved. You're telling them to play a certain way, or to accept a style of play that you prefer. It seems to me you're presenting an argument that says, "You guys have to accept this point of view." If I'm wrong , I'm sure you'll let me know, but, it does seem that way.

    No one in the "game" crowd is saying that crew usage and rushes were a common occurrence. The "game" crowd just doesn't want to be told how to play (at least me). It's like you're taking away from the "game" crowds fun (at least, that's what I'm perceiving). I know that what you say, or what anyone says, should just be "ignored" if it bothers me. But, as a fellow grognard, there is a respect that I have (as well as others) of your opinion. Hence, the diatribes being thrown around by many others. frown.gif

    Banshee, for me, I know crew rushes and some tactics are not historical. If BTS changes the game engine, that's okay with me. In fact Banshee, I welcome it. Nevertheless, I'm not going to worry about playing "historically." That's not the way I like to enjoy the $50 or so that I spent on the game.

    Perhaps that can help some of the "simulator" crowd understand this "game" persons mentality better. Hope that some of that helps. smile.gif

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

    Doc

    God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

    0

    Gamey tactics, post the whys & therefores here

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99:

    I could continue, but I think my point is clear. One man's gamey tactic is another man's tactical revolution.

    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    That's how I feel in a sense. It's trying to develop new tactics to win and use. There is nothing more enjoyable (for me) to develop a creative plan, and actually watch it work. Something that has never been tried before... something totally unorthodox, when possible.. But that's the difference between the "simulator" and the "gamer." (both are tm)

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

    Doc

    God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

    0
×
×
  • Create New...