Sitzkrieg
-
Posts
516 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Sitzkrieg
-
-
Originally posted by Pak_43:
"RTS tank-rush...can I have some more Sunny D mom?"
I also agree with everything else you posted. Less twitchers the better as far as the forum and community are concerned. Though it would be nice to set some of them straight on what strategy really means.
Keith
-
Didn't we already go through this with the Tiger and Panther tanks in CM:BO? We found out they weren't nearly as "Uber" as the history books made them out to be.
Guess the same can be said about the T-34. No one vehicle is ever going to completely dominate the battlefield. It has to have a weakness somewhere. I think with the T-34 more often than not it is the crew.
Keith
-
Pingu, got a link to that? I need a good laugh.
Keith
-
-
WOW! This is outstanding! You mean you are going to write a "mod" that will allow us to debug a release version of an EXE? And you are going to hack a program and change the hex code to modify how it functions? Why are you wasting your time here? You should go work for Microsoft or somefink. Or hack a bank with those kind of l33t skilz. wOOt!Originally posted by Wild Bill:I have been talking with my teacher from YGI (Youth Gaming International) and he has agreed to help me create a downloadable mod for CMBB. This mod allows for total de-bugging, and adds a few surprises, such as my very own fear effect. This allows the soldiers to have emotions ie: If a soldier is hit but keeps on going, he will slow down, and show pain by screaming whenever the wounded spot is in motion.
Another example is: Say a squad is running forward, only to see a tank heading straight for them. You may order them to keep on running, but they probably won't because of fear.
In total there are 11 emotions ranging from rage to lust.
" Every soldier carried a wound. Not physical, but the emotions of war bottled up in their head." :eek:
Who does this little twiwt remind everyone of? Hint: he was from Australia and was banned for some pretty nasty stuff.
Keith
[ October 15, 2002, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: sitzkrieg ]
-
No doubt! :eek:Originally posted by Nippy:Fun fact: The Soviet 57mm L/73 is almost identical in preformance to the American 76mm up to ranges of 1000 meters and it seems to work better against sloped armor.
Fear this little sucker! I just tried a QB against a mixed Soviet force of T-34/76 and T-34/57.
I saw this in earlier today and had to try these out.
First off, in Oct '43 the T-34/57 is cheap (using variable rarity anyway). 22 T-34s vs. 4 Tigers. Soviets were Medium quality, Germans High quality (no one higher than Vet though). Rural, gentle slopes, light trees. However, not a "billard table" as there were far more trees than I expected and enough elevation changes to restrict full map LOS. Plus lots of marsh and soft ground (this was in the South). The tree cover enabled the Soviets to get within about 150 to 200 meters.
To the T-34/57s I lost one Tiger, another gun damaged with crew casualty and another took several partial or full penetrations from one of these. Luckily no crew casualities or damage but the guy almost paniced or routed a couple of times when he was getting hammered on.
I still was able to destroy all the Russian tanks but if I had mixed in more of the T-34/57s, I think I would have lost all my Tigers with as many shots as I took at close range (damn turret is SO SLOW!).
Definately a giant killer and not a "picked cherry" as rarity will attest too. Also, I never knew the Soviets mounted anything but a 76mm or 85mm gun in the T-34. Time to brush up on my Eastern Front knowledge I guess.
Keith
-
Sorry if I offended you. I was just making a very wild example not to be taken seriously.Originally posted by JPSeiler:Uhm i reallyhave the feeling that
a.) my engish is that bad that noone understand me
or
b.)noone understand what i mean.
I just want to replace the GRAFIKS of
a.) shared models that will be not replaced from BTS
and
b.) the models with errors.
With models i mean the GRAFIKS the thing you see in game the lil tanks, infantrie, the 251/17 wich is actually showed as a 251/1 in game to bring a example.
Again i just want to make new historical accurate models wich replace the models in game wich are shared or wich are not correct, i DONT want to change the vehicles stats, the armour or make new vehicles, no f*cking (excuse me) Abrahms, no bunnies with guns, no fantasy orcs ...
Im sorry for my "bad behaivor" its not the way i normaly write, but i just get angry when guys telling here that some idiots want to include Abrahms or Orcs ...
Jean-Pierre
Spleen in the opening post of this thread stated he wanted to expand the game through mods (Vietnam, Modern Battles, etc.) and that is more who some of the respones were directed to.
Again, I would like to see correct models for all of the "spaceholders" in CM:BB as well. If the community can help speed this up, I'm all for it. But it is for BTS to decide and I don't think they are going to go for the idea.
I think correcting models might be problematic for some of the reasons people have already mentioned in this thread, incompatible games being number one. No one, outside of BTS, knows what changing models or data will do to program execution.
BTW, what models do you think have errors? Just curious. Even if you can't correct these yourself you might want to mention something to BTS so they can and everyone will benefit.
Keith
-
None that I've seen. I'm pretty sure every one that does come out will eventually have a link posted here, though.
Keith
-
In the case of the "spaceholder" models in CM:BB, yes. However, what Spleen and others are asking is the ability to stretch the game engine beyond WWII and the current models and data.Originally posted by akdavis:Yet vehicles in the game right now share other vehicles' models, yet have their own distinct data. Seems in these cases that it really is a case of just needing to drop in a new model.
I guess if it would help BTS get all the models finished that are currently in CM:BB, I would love to see some community support. I too was a bit disappointed by the "spaceholders" but figured BTS would get to them all in a patch (which I still hope). However, I just don't see them going for it.
-
Actually, this is a pretty accurate statement in some quick tests I did to check this "generalization" out. T-34/85s are deadly to Tigers and Panthers (especially Tigers) up to around 750m, like the Sherman 76 in CMBO. After that range, the Tiger and Panther have the advantage with their optics.Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:The analogy I've heard is:
Soviet 76.2mm is nearly as good as US 75mm
Soviet 85mm AA is nearly as good as US 76mm
This is a bit of a generalization, given the diff.caliber Soviet 76's, but it's probably close.
In similar tests, the T-34/76 is completely outclassed at all but shorter ranges, even by the PzIV(l).
BTW, these tests were at 3-to-1 or greater odds in favor of the Soviets.
Keith
-
BTS got raked over the coals for not including some models in CM:BO (US M-16 Quad .50 AA Halftrack for example). They didn't have time to include it so it was dropped. At least with CM:BB the placeholders allow for BTS to quickly add the correct models in a patch.Originally posted by akdavis:My only gripe would be that if they're not going to correct all the shared models, then they should allow the community to do so. If you're not going to include the model for an object, just don't include it at all. Placeholders are, in my opinion, very unprofessional and reflect an unfinished product.
-
Try adjusting you monitor brightness, contrast and/or the gamma correction in the game. Maybe your monitor is too dark?
Keith
-
Unfortunately you would also need the data associated with that model in order for the game engine to use it correctly (i.e. armor penetration, hit calcs, etc.).Originally posted by JPSeiler:They point im talking about is only the 3D models not less not more!
This would defently dont change the game itself just the grafiks.
One other thing to consider is compatibility. How can you play PBEM or TCP/IP with incompatible versions of the EXE. You have such and such a model that has been added or altered that your opponent may not but he does have this other model plus the Magic Orcs that can defeat King Tigers with one blow and so on.
Keith
[ October 14, 2002, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: sitzkrieg ]
-
Big difference between using a hex editor to modify a couple of strings and altering the 3D models, which are embedded in binary form into the EXE.Originally posted by JPSeiler:But with the next patch they replace shared models with new ones, so it is maybe not that "hardcode" than we think.
Look at schoerners SS-Loader and Dienstgradpatch,
no incompatibely with other versions and it works fine.
-
With the current game engine, no. The work on this engine started in 1998 or 1999, when computers were not nearly as powerful as they are now so some abstractions were made. 1 "man" equaling 3 in a squad was one of those abstractions for performance considerations.Originally posted by haido:Of course this must be possible.
It can't really be taking upp that much amount of CPU.
Just look at some other games.
For example Medieval Total War (Though it uses sprites).
I think its fully possible
Perhaps in the engine rewrite for CM3, whatever and whenever that might be. That plus taking into consideration what the "average" computer's performance will be at that time, not the "bleeding edge" performance of an FPS or hardcore gamers machine.
Also, unit data and 3D models cannot be modded in any way (added, deleted or changed) as they are locked away in the EXE. Only the graphical textures (BMPs) that wrap around the 3D models and sound files can be modded. These only change the appearance of a unit or the sound something makes but do not alter performance in any way.
Keith
[ October 12, 2002, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: sitzkrieg ]
-
:confused:Originally posted by Panzer Leader:I get "Page cannot be displayed."
It worked just a few minutes ago. Now I get a "permission denied" message too.
Keith
-
Stingray,
I'm just havin' a little fun. I get answers like that at work all the time were someone tells me they are running Office 2000 as their operating system and so on. Comes from Microsoft having too damn many versions out with the whole year thing being very confusing to a lot of people.
I just downloaded some stuff from Tom's site and had no trouble using IE 6. Any who is having trouble using something like ZoneAlarm or another personal firewall? Those might give you trouble with FTP access. Could try disabling this and see if it makes a difference.
You could also try changing your FTP access mode in Internet Explorer to passive and seeing if that makes a difference.
Here's how:
- Go to the Tools->Internet Options menu in Internet Explorer.
- Click on the Advanced tab. Scroll down the list. Under the "Browser" category in this list should be an option labeled "Passive FTP". Check this, then click Apply, then OK.
- Try again and see what happens.
jeffsmith,
Try here for the new German armor stuff. Looks like the 37mm dunkelgelb/tri-color 37mm Flak is missing from the ZIP file.
Keith
-
Maybe the problem is people are using an email program to download mods and not a web browser? Or do you guys mean Internet Explorer 6?
Keith
-
I would also like the ability to sort by date. Not looking to play the scenarios in order. I would just like to be able to find a battle for a particular time period quicker, especially after I've hit the Scenario Depot a few dozen times.Originally posted by Canuck:I just wish the scenarios were in chronological order so I could play the game through from the start of the war to the end (doesn't this make sense?)
Maybe they should have included an option to Sort by Date or Sort Alphabetically
or maybe this is already included I dont know
Keith
-
illo,
Thanks for the "thin line" mod. That was something I had installed in CMBO and was missing in CMBB.
Keith
-
-
Why? You're doing such a good job of looking stupid yourself. And defining an a-hole as well.Originally posted by AnonymousOxide:Feel free to look stupid now, a-hole.
[ October 07, 2002, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: sitzkrieg ]
-
As someone who is a programmer by trade, I love it when someone who has never written a line of code tells me "that shouldn't be too hard to do". I'm sure BTS does as well.Originally posted by AnonymousOxide:Anyway the reason I'm suggesting this so much is that I somehow doubt it would take "a bunch of time" to do it. Then again, I don't know anything about hard coding and programming, so maybe it's not even possible.
Until the telepathic user interface is developed, the one that guesses everything you wanted in a piece of software and performs it exactly in the manner you invisioned, not everyone will be satisfied with what a piece of software can and can't do. Some will like what it can do, some won't.
Apparently you don't. Sucks to be you.
[ October 07, 2002, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: sitzkrieg ]
-
It's one of the 3D models that is using another "vehicels" 3D model as a space holder. They wanted to include the "vehicels" but did not have time to do the correct 3D modeling for all variants (probably because of all the time they wasted replying to all of the CDV and "Waffengrenadier" complaint threads).
BTS is hoping to get some of these models corrected in the upcoming patch (or patches).
[ October 05, 2002, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: sitzkrieg ]
CMBB review at gamezone
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
Well, he definately got one thing right:
"While Combat Mission has enough battle scenarios and juicy extras, this game is still an acquired taste and it’s definitely not for everyone."
Thank God for that! If this game tried to be for everyone we would have something like GI Combat, which still only appeals (right now anyway) to the twitch crowd.
It does piss me off when a site reviews something completely out of their genre or area of expertise.
I'm waiting to hear what Trotter and some more reputable reviewers have to say. Not that it's gonna change mine or anyone elses opinion here.
If it's anything less than a 90, light the torches.
Keith