Jump to content

Redwolf

Members
  • Posts

    8,866
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.cons.org/redwolf/armorrules/

Converted

  • Location
    Boston, MA, USA
  • Occupation
    Programmer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Redwolf's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

90

Reputation

  1. @BFCElvisElvis, is it still the case that PBEM++ is a standalone patch with no other fixes (for CMCW)?
  2. I agree that the infantry running toward the enemy has been reset to good levels. I am talking about AFVs taking evasive action (even without panic) that brings them closer to the enemy and/or exposes side or rear. When I brought up turns in the past it was rebuked like "there's the map edge right there, where is it supposed to go but forward?". Well, the automatic evasive move should only be issued when the destination is actually safer or at least further away. For non-panic units. So if it has its back to an obstacle or the map edge then just don't do automatically ordered moves. It is an easy check - is the distance to the enemy in the target location less than in the departure location? If yes, then take no action against the player's orders unless the unit is paniced.
  3. I agree that the original post points out something that shouldn't happen. It isn't so much one of the two issues, but the combination. It is (slightly) debatable whether the infantry should have spotted the tanks. But the buttoned up tanks in turn spotting them under the conditions present, and from the rear, spotting the infantry in the same game is not OK. One of the Panthers spots at 90 degrees right, one from the rear. Buttoned up in what looks like night or at least twilight. I don't have a quick solution suggestion to fix the tank spotting, that would make things even more complicated. However, the infantry should have been subject to less random spotting. Making that one less complicated would lead to a better game. IMHO. It really is short-range spotting (or lack thereof) that I experience and find off. Like tank1 spots tank2, but tank3 which is right between 1 and 2 is not spotted (and then hit by tank1's shot). The current complicated mechanism is going overboard. IMHO.
  4. There was an early 4.x version that made it much worse. That particular one has been fixed and now it is back to the 3.x state. Which never was free from the phenomenon and still isn't. I agree that with the current code I see way too much auto-ordered movement that is either going in the direction of the enemy, or showing side or rear to the enemy, or both. Simply not issuing those orders if they go toward the enemy would be an improvement.
  5. There was just a competition in a former USSR republic. All the top scorers used heavily modified Mosin-Nagant rifles. I lost the reference, it was on Twitter, maybe @CalibreObscura.
  6. I decided that I don't like having my CMx2 games in Steam: - no MacOS version - single login across devices. I do PBEM moves on my laptop and general gaming on my desktop. If I open a Steam game on the laptop (e.g. to answer PBEM) and I have the desktop's Steam open with -say- DCS, then the other Steam session will be logged out. With non-Steam CMx2 I can just freely open either one at any time - even if a MacOS version was there - my Mac is a semi-secure machine where I tolerate/trust BFC games, but I wouldn't want to have the Steam client on there The patching for BFC isn't that bad anymore since I could always download a complete installer from my BFC account. Wastes some download bandwidth, but for me that's OK.
  7. Attaching test scenario as zip file in case there are download problems. 9spott3485.zip
  8. So here is a test scenario maybe showing whether giving tanks an infantry sidekick improves spotting. Both sides have 10 T-34/85. Allied side also has one sharpshooter team per tank (see screenshot). Axis tanks spot for themselves only. I don't have this automated, my sample size is rather small. So I want you suckers to also run the scenario (either side or hotseat) and report back - does the infantry sidekick appear to make a difference for you? For me, the side with the extra spotters wins every time with something between 10:3 to 10:7 losses. 9spott3485.btt
  9. I don't think they are smallarms safe, except that you can order the French one with armored cabin. The weight still seems to be 30 tons against a stryker's 20 tons.
  10. Interesting that they are seeking an unarmored system. The Germans went through a lot of trouble to put some armor around their Panzerhaubitze 2000. Iraq style random incoming mortar fire, single 122mm rockets and in the future suicide drones might make armor around your combat pieces desirable - even if they are away from deliberate enemy contact.
  11. FWIW the running-on-single-core issue does of course affect Intel machines equally. So buying an Intel Mac with many cores is not necessary. That can drive the price for a used Mac down quite a bit. Just make sure it has a dedicated graphics chip.
×
×
  • Create New...