Col Deadmarsh
-
Posts
1,495 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Col Deadmarsh
-
-
This happened to me in one of the canned scenarios. Russian tanks backing into my flamethrower only to get scorched. I'll try to find the turn if I saved it and send it in for review.
-
I played "Morning at the Zoo" for my first scenario and thought it was pretty good. No long LOS, but at the same time smoke must be used to advance men in some spots. Good scenario to learn how to use infantry correctly.
-
My opponent took out my HMC in our CMBO battle because I had him too close to a patch of trees where his heavy arty hit.
-
I believe the intention is to keep your units from stopping if you have a cover arc and they see a unit outside of the arc.Originally posted by Harv:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ligur:
Someone explain about the modification to the "move to contact" command? You need a covering arc now for the command to work like it used to? Why?
Without an arc I think it would work as it is now, such as when they see an enemy crew 1500m away and put on the brakes.
Harv</font>
-
Wear your SS uniform on the date--it'll impress her.
-
I'd be interested in something like this.
-
Well I never thought it would happen but I'm really starting to like CMBB. I played one scenario and I think I'm hooked. I love the new graphics (especially the doodads), the new orders, the other little things like dirt kicking up on tank shots, the effectiveness of mg's, and so on.
The shockwaves I still miss a bit but I think I can get used to it. I just keep repeating to myself, "It's more realistic without them. "It's more realistic without them..."
-
I take it there's a driver, a commander, and at least one gunner. I assume this is correct for the 3-man vehicles. What about the AFV's that have 4-5 men in them? Another gunner who mans the mg's? What about the other guy? Is he a loader for the main gun? Do the mg's need to be re-loaded during battle like a support team's mg?
I'd specifically like to know how many guns can be fired at once in CMBB on a tank and who's job it is to do what.
-
Are the CMBO hi-res sky mods transferable to CMBB? If not, can someone make some new ones, preferably for overcast skies?
-
I think that's a great idea!
-
I totally agree. The view 1 right now doesn't make sense. What you gain is sight in back of your tank...and who needs that? By hitting Shif-A once, you are back to what CMBO used to be which is a better 1st person perspective. Not only does it allow you a better view of things in front of you, it brings the player back into the action a bit more. The way it is now, I feel slightly "distanced" from the battle when watching in what should be 1st person.Originally posted by Panzer Leader:And I have to say that the angle +1 (hitting shift-a one time) seems to be a much better angle at all elevations. You are not starting down so much, can always see the line of the horizon, and elevation differences seem more pronounced.
I know it has been discussed a bit, but I'd really like to see the angle +1 either the standard view, or else have the angle be lockable.
How was it in CMBO? Was the angle just a tad more like CMBB's with angle +1? If so, what was the reason for the change? I am not trying to argue, but I can't think of a good reason for the more downward looking camera, especially since maps and contact distances seem to be greater than in CMBO.
Thoughts?
(Oh and BTS! Fix or do somefink!)
-
Oh man, don't even get me started on CC. CC2 was such a great game but it could've been so much more if not for those crazy tank drivers...
-
True. Makes me wonder exactly how much it was tweaked given that it came under all those other minor changes.
I think my worst fear here is that the infantry's role in QB battles will be reduced. I'm sure this wasn't the case in real life and I would like to see this reflected in the game. If tanks and mg's rule the battlefield, it would make for some dull fighting--like playing chess without using pawns. Ladder games would result in everyone choosing armor...unless it's a heavily-treed map.
[ November 09, 2002, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]
-
Have fun soldier!
-
You've been eating retard sandwiches again...
-
LOL, hidden under some fix for a rare Finn unit, are the two most important fixes of the entire patch! They should be at the top of the list!* The suppression thresholds for panicking, breaking and routing are a bit higher.* Fatigue rate for sneak movement is moderately reduced.
"Oh yeah, I almost forgot...we fixed that problem...lemme jog your memory here...you know...the problem with the infantry breaking and tiring out too quickly...that itsy-bitsy teeny-weeny little problem that made infantry completely useless...
Well, I'm glad to see that "little problem" made it in the patch. -
Forget about CM3 which isn't coming out until at least 2 years from now. I'm only concerned with CMBB and this needs a fix now.
Heavy weapon units shouldn't go into crawl mode with that type of equipment. They should instead try to "move" away with a greater chance of sustaining casualties than their infantry squads counterparts who can sneak (crawl) away with less gear. This is the only way to prevent gaminess on the part of the opposition who would normally try to specifically target Heavy Weapons units with the gamey plan to eliminate them due to a weakness in the gameplay.
-
I agree with Redwolf. There comes a point where you have to sacrafice realism for good gameplay. This is one of those times.
-
I didn't see it on there but what about the problem with infantry breaking too easy and sneaking out into the open to get shot?
-
Someone with more patience and time than myself should make a summary list right about now so people don't keep posting the same stuff and BTS has a checklist to work from. Just a thought...
-
Obviously this IS a problem and needs to be fixed.No matter, even if we discount global moral, should a unit panic when not under fire just because you tell him to withdraw? (Read get the hell outta there if you so wish) The spotter in question quickly panicked, turned to run downstairs but due to his panicked state he began to sneak (Crawl), by the time he reached the ground floor he was exhausted and had turned to "Broken" state. It is now turn 5 of that PBEM, he is still exhausted, still on the ground floor of that building and in a state of panic, yet not a single shot has been fired in the entire battle. All the time he is in command of a HQ unit.In MHO, i think this is not correct.
Like i said before, units under fire? No problem, i can accept that. But it looks like there are some circumstances where the new withdraw command needs a wee tweak.
All the best
CDIC
-
Always with the negative waves, Deadmarsh!Originally posted by Seanachai:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:
Is this your idea of playfulness, Seanachai? Or are you just being a jerk?
I could, of course, answer that being a jerk is my idea of playfulness.
But mainly, I'm just trying to sort out where you're coming from these days. You seem so uptight, so bitter. So unwilling to actually learn.
It's so unlike you. I worry about you, lad.</font>
-
You may be misinterpreting what that state is intended to model, at least in this case. I don't think that "panicked" means that the troops are in a state of hysteria so much as that due to the hastiness of the order and their execution of it, they are presently in a disorganized condition and it will take a minute or two to get them straightened out and functioning as a unit again. Which would seem quite reasonable to me.Originally posted by Seanachai:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:
If me and my comrades are getting suppressed by enemy fire and things are looking bleak, having my superior tell me to withdraw would be music to my ears. Why would I suddenly go into a panic or break?
Michael</font>
-
Nice pic laxx. I was beginning to think Steve was right about the proportion being off but that pic seems to disprove that theory.
Well, I'm glad to see that "little problem" made it in the patch.
Next Combat Mission game
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
Battles in Africa...I can see it now.
"Sir, is that a Tiger in the distance or a mirage?"
Tank battles galore with infantry playing zero part in your success. How fun!
And what's with CM4--The Early War? I mean, we now have the entire Eastern Front in one game. Going back to do just the early years of the Western Front doesn't make sense. Do the whole thing--especially since you have half the unit data now for both sides.
[ November 11, 2002, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]