Jump to content

Redwolf

Members
  • Posts

    8,866
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Redwolf

  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.
  12. Range is not involved in the spotting artifacts that some find odd. When I curse the spotting it is usually at point black range. As in just fire the gun you can't miss. Or viewing "through" an unspotted unit that is between the spotter and another AVF that is spotted. That kind of thing. There is no range related issue and that is easy to test.
  13. Full agreement, but I don't think the latter should apply to straight to the front spotting. Looking straight ahead on open hatch tank should spot equally to an open top AFV, because the guys without binoculars looking to the sides don't contribute to that. And both still have the gun sight looking to the front in addition to the commander.
  14. That's a mistake. It is good and as you say, the spotting is complicated. Sometimes the Soviet tanks don't see anything, and then I am in a PBEM where my TTS M-60s are losing badly to T-64Bs at 2000 meters. At the very least the focus on range for spotting issues is misguided IMHO.
  15. Well, one thing is for sure - I only "buy" closed top AFVs with a sidekick of recon, sniper or LMG team until I run more tests. Maybe in WW2 you can also pair off open top and closed top to increase spotting for both. But Marders, Nashorns and SU-76s are pretty expensive... Hm.
  16. Well, the (map) editor would be one way to open up a little and get a lot of help to the user. If maps could be imported and exported in XML format (or whatever known format), we could: - write a program to move that village on the map 200m to the north - convert maps between different games without too much guesswork - if people are enterprising enough we might get automatically generated Quickbattle maps back (don't forget to put ponds on hills)
  17. Those are awesome measurements. Do you have an idea how this compares to infantry with/without binocolars? The advantage of the open top vehicles is unexpectedly large. This could be highly influential on choices in Quickbattles.
  18. Sf2 is on there if you dont need MacOS.
  19. I don't have an M1 Mac, but my understanding is "no" at this time. If you want to run better on Mac a used Intel mac with ATI graphics chip is the better option at this time.
  20. Right. CPU-wise all M1 Macs are the same for CM, even the biggest 16" (except that the Air with no fan might slow down after a while). But of course the added GPU cores do make a difference.
×
×
  • Create New...