Col Deadmarsh
-
Posts
1,495 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Col Deadmarsh
-
-
How many hit points does a Tiger have? I've been shooting at it all day with my infantry squads but it won't die!
-
I gotta admit, I liked reading it too...except for the sexual parts about Madmatt. That grossed me out. Bukowski...lol, yeah he comes to mind alright. Frankly, I had no idea the good Captain was such a good writer. I believe that boy has promise...
[ November 04, 2002, 03:00 AM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]
-
Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:
Very educational Andrew. I wonder though about those tanks who have exposed drivers--could it be that they, like commanders, are exposed to rifle fire, mortars, arty, and other such things? Could a tank driver be killed by one of these methods, thus rendering the tank useless, causing abandonment? -
Looks like this reviewer actually took the time to throughly compare it to the last one. He mentioned all the changes I've noticed myself in CMBB.
-
So Andrew, are you saying that the driver is exposed on some vehicles and not on others, as witnessed by what we see in this game?
If some of them drove by looking through the firing slit, then weren't they considered buttoned up--as they are inside?
-
Well then, as Gilda Radner would say..."Never mind..."
-
Ever since the days of CMBO, it's been a problem finding out where your off-board arty can fire directly to using the HQ as its eyes.
As it is right now, no matter whether or not you're using your HQ to line up the spot or having your arty team guess where it's going, the line always says "Area Fire." Can we have the fire line turn a different color when your off-board arty team is using the HQ as its eyes so we know if we lined it up right or not? That way I can move my line of fire around and seeing it go from a brown "area fire" to a different colored "direct fire." I think this would make things a lot easier and eliminate the guesswork.
Secondly, I'd like to see some text or a different colored line indicating whether or not the fire mission is regular or "target wide."
[ November 03, 2002, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]
-
You have a 1200 mhz CPU with only 16mb of RAM? That's like driving a Porsche on 4 spare tires.Originally posted by Zarquon:[QB]I have a 1200 Mhz CPU, a TNT2-M64 card with only 16 MB and it's fine.[QB]
-
I'm looking at an IS-2 right now in the game and all I see is the tank commander up top when the tank is unbuttoned. So, where is the driver?
On the KV-8S Flamethrower tank, you can see the driver in front. When you button up the tank, both him and the commander go back inside.
So where are the drivers for the other tanks like the IS-2's? If the tank is unbuttoned, shouldn't they be in view?
-
That's what the original "shockwave" effect was done in...shockwave. Correct?
How about a link to this, por favor?
-
I went a little overboard in my last post. I think I'm angry that such drastic changes were made to this game. Maybe some more playing will help.
I still don't like the fact that units panic/break and also tire too easily and I'm hoping for a patch that will tone this down.
I'm also bummed about the new camera views. I feel distanced from the action and I'm wondering why they were changed in the first place.
On a happier note, I'm enjoying the scenario "A Morning At the Zoo" much more than the tutorial battle.
[ November 02, 2002, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]
-
~post deleted~
[ November 02, 2002, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]
-
Abbott, you make up the .00000000000001 percent of people who like playing this kind of ultra-realistic game. If you're a casual gamer or a ladder player who plays to win, these new changes ruin the game. Most wargamers still want what is essentially a game. The keyword there is "game." It's supposed to be fun to play. More realism (if that's true with the effect we have in CMBB now) doesn't always translate into a better game. It can actually detract from the game's playability.
I predict a lot of unhappy customers stuck with a game they don't want and can't return due to BTS's no-return policy. This will translate into much lower sales when the next version comes out.
I don't disagree with what they're trying to do but they went way, way, way too far in implementing this new realism to the point where they've taken the fun out of the game.
-
BTS needs to completely tone down both the fatigue and the infantry morale in this game to a point where it's more than CMBO but much less than it is now.
As of right now, we have a slow, frustrating game that no one wants to play.
-
With the limited number of shots a flamethrower gets, he SHOULD stop firing after a building or area begins to burn.
-
I think Steve said something to the effect that it was a problem with your infantry not having a memory of where they came from or something to that effect.
It would seem to me that it should be a simple case of having the infantry go towards the nearest cover, as long as the threat doesn't occupy that space. Why can't this be coded as so? Help me understand.
-
I can't understand why there isn't a box for us to enter a modifier for the variable turn ending. That's what the BADCO program offered for CMBO and that was somebody's side project done on a zero budget. How long would this take to code into CMBB? Answer: Not long at all.
So why isn't it in there?
-
Good suggestion. I wonder if it's doable in terms of time to code this in? If so, I say do it.Making troop morale adjustable variable? Might be a good solution, so those that want to can play with reduced chance of breaking (for example, halving the current chance; there would still be plenty of breaking and routing), and those that want to have a more simulationary approach can play at current normal setting.The fact is, this game has been changed so much that it borders on not being fun to play anymore. I'm not against this new, more realistic way of playing but what we have here is a complete turn around from what CMBO was. Am I to assume that CMBO was completely coded wrong? That's the statement that BTS is making here. "We f*cked up."
Now somebody tell me how 2 guys who spent all this time researching this stuff can come up with 2 completely opposing theories on effectiveness of fire against a soldier.
[ October 31, 2002, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]
-
I agree. I don't like the new implementations. Your sneaking units get tired to easily and there's no move command now to sneak up on other troops without firing once you get into LOS...
-
Yes, he used to get his own page. Slowly, I believe they are trying to squeeze him out...or one would think.
-
Good review...and that's great for BTS. But they're also right about the Table of Contents in the back which for some unknown reason is called an Index.
If I remember correctly, I volunteered my services to check this kind of stuff for free. I assumed that when I was told my services were not needed, that a professional was on the job. Apparently not...
-
Sitting Duck,
Yeah, I think I said on-board mortar team but I actually meant off-board. It's a 76mm or something. Unfortunately, it was panicking at the time so I couldn't use it for smoke. Thought I could get across the open ground without it...not so.
Does anybody have the answer to the tank driver question I posed before? Why do you see them on some tanks and not others?
-
No, the driver is the driver.Originally posted by Michael emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:
Yeah, the driver was exposed but he's not the driver, right?
No, the commander is the commander. Sheesh, sometimes this place is like kindergarten.</font>He's the commander. -
Thanks for the tips. I'll have to throw out my CMBO tactics and try to slow things up. I can't imagine how frustrating it must be though for some N00b coming over from Sudden Strike or other twitch-fest game. Imagine the tactical culture shock they must go through. They probably want their money back after one ass-kicking by the AI.
Good thing BTS has that no-return policy...
Withdraw Behaviour Tested
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
You see, that doesn't make sense. I can understand that withdrawn troops aren't going to be in good morale after running away but to have them panic or break makes no sense.
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?
Furthermore, if I'm withdrawing my soldiers to fight again another day, it doesn't make sense that they would then break from that command. Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of the command? If I just wanted them to break, I'd leave them there to take more fire.