SteveS

Yellow 4 and Blue 4 (Sandy) are on turn 6 and are involved in a great scrap for the strategically vital hill (and flag) which overlooks our entire map. Unfortunately for the Blue forces, the map contours were a bit more favourable for the Yellows and I was able to get into position before his infantry came over the top. Consequently they're having a bit of a hard time at the moment. It's early days yet though, and there's been no significant clash of armour which is often the deciding factor in combined arms MEs.

I've come across this a few times in some recent battles and decided to do some testing by placing a target (a trench) near the crest of a hill and position an AFV below it so it had LOS to the trench. I can confirm that the co-ax MG can always hit the target in these cicumstances but that the main gun almost always smacks its shells into the hill side well before the trench. Distance between target and AFV was around 150 metres. As a sanity check I also placed the target on the side of the hill facing the AFV and the AFV hit it with no problem. Unless the MG fire is signficantly more arced than the HE fire (are MG bullets modelled ballistically or do they travel in straight lines ?), what I would have expected to see based on the geometry of the situation was the HE shells fall on a very wide pattern in front of and BEHIND the target as the shells travel near parallel to the ground. This is only a wild guess, but I wonder if what is happening is that the collision detection distance between the HE shells and the ground is simply too coarse, i.e. the shells always explode in front of the trench because the distance from the ground to shell is less than some minimum distance as the shell crosses the crest. Seems too simple a bug, but you never know.

ssss....crackle...crackle...ssss...crackle...They're coming....They're com.....sssssssssss

Here's the view of our battlefield, possibly taken from a camera on a Stuka divebomber as it speeds across the map. Sandyorivich's forces are currently streaming down from the hill opposite and I've taken a few pot shots at them.

Blue 4 versus Yellow 4 is off and running. No action yet. I'll post a screenshot of the map, which is quite a pretty one, once I figure out how to do it.

Ok, Sandy has been sent his setup for when he get's back on Friday. I see we're replaying that classic Blue versus Yellow match from "Bedknobs and Broomsticks". I'll be the Hyena.

Thought that I would just mention that this problem had nothing to do with memory limitations after all. I've just installed the official Nvidia drivers to cure the transparent white graphics problem and, lo and behold, this problem was cured as well. I should have guessed they were linked. S.

Hi Chaps, It's extremely gratifying that you're enjoying this. As far as the game length, map size and ammo levels are concerned, I wanted to introduce an element of resource management and also a sense of urgency, especially for the attacker in the latter case. However, there is rather a fine line between a challenging experience and a frustrating experience. The number of turns will probably need some tuning. One thing I've already changed is converting the minor flags to major flags. There are some interesting threads on this currently in the forum and I realised that the total VL points I'd put in originally was rather too small. Cheers Steve

KNAC and Mark...it's in the post, but I think that'll be the last pre-release version I'll send out. I'll probably be sending a revised version to the scenario depot in a couple of weeks or so. Stoffers and Deerslayer...glad you're having fun with it...despite the size. And DS, and I'm not actually sure I've given you enough Arty Steve [ March 28, 2002, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: SteveS ]

Thanks for the comments about the map. Hopefully it won't just look pretty but also be tactically challenging. I did get a bit carried away with though

FM. I tried emailing you the scenario, but I got a delivery error. I'll try again tomorrow unless you have an alternative address I can send it to. Steve

I have a new scenario that I would appreciate some feedback on before I release it. It's a bit of a monster...a huge map with 12,000 pts worth of units and fortifications. The battle is fictional, but is set during the exploitation phase of Operation Plunder after the crossing of the Rhine. It deals with an assault by elements of the British 7th AD backed up by units from 79th AD ("Hobo's Funnies"). The inspiration for the scenario was Robin Neillands book, "The Desert Rats: 7th Armoured Division 1940-1945", and "79th Armoured Division: Hobo's Funnies" by Nigel Duncan. If you'd like a copy let me know. Cheers Steve

I guess you're right, although I find it surprising given that the typical size of a scenario .cmb file is less than 40 Kb.

Hi Folks, I've recently been working on a scenario on my Athlon XP1700+, 256Mb DDR Ram, NVIDIA chipset PC. Moving the 2D Map around in the editor is painfully slow. The map is huge (maximum area in fact) and it takes about 4 seconds to shift the map one position after clicking on the NSEW navigational buttons. I compared the same map on my Dell Inspiron 5000 laptop (650 Mhz, 512 Mb RAM) and it takes about half the time. Comparing various map sizes, my laptop turns out to be about twice as fast as the PC.I find it hard to believe the difference is due to the extra memory on my laptop. In fact, even on the small maps, the response time of the editor seems very slow for what is being required of it. Incidentally, I've not yet updated the PC video drivers to cure the transparent white problem. Any ideas ?

Sorry. I have no idea why this appeared in the forum twice, two hours apart ! Hi Folks, I've recently been working on a scenario on my Athlon XP1700+, 256Mb DDR Ram, NVIDIA chipset PC. Moving the 2D Map around in the editor is painfully slow. The map is huge (maximum area in fact) and it takes about 4 seconds to shift the map one position after clicking on the NSEW navigational buttons. I compared the same map on my Dell Inspiron 5000 laptop (650 Mhz, 512 Mb RAM) and it takes about half the time. Comparing various map sizes, my laptop turns out to be about twice as fast as the PC.I find it hard to believe the difference is due to the extra memory on my laptop. In fact, even on the small maps, the response time of the editor seems very slow for what is being required of it. Incidentally, I've not yet updated the PC video drivers to cure the transparent white problem. Any ideas ? [ March 13, 2002, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: SteveS ]

I'm working on my 1st Scenario, which is almost more fun that playing the game. "Jerboa" ... a fictional battle, but inspired by a history of the British 7th AD that I've just finished reading. It involves elements of the 7th AD in action in Germany, March 1945, and is set on a fairly large map and involves a wide variety of units.

One other factor that you might want to look at is that the Polish reinforcements arrived quite early in the scenario, around turn 8 or 9 so as I recall. You might consider tweaking it so that they tend to arrive a bit later. As it turned out they caught most of the AI's infantry out in the open and gave them a right mauling. As I said though, great fun to play. Cheers Steve

I've just finished August Bank Holiday, playing as the Allies v the AI. I really enjoyed playing it, but it was easier to gain a good victory than some scenarios for the following reason... x x x x x x Spoiler Space x x x x x x I moved over a dozen of my tanks into the large orchard (scattered trees) beside the main town. I placed them near the edges in a line just outside the LOS limit to the edge of the trees. As the German tanks lumbered past in groups of 4-6 I'd move my tanks on masse to the edge of the trees with a hunt command followed by an immediate reverse back to their original position. The result was that the German armour were slaughtered. No German units, infantry or armour, attempted to enter the trees. The scenario could probably be made more challenging for the Allies v the AI if this was somehow adjusted. One other point which didn't help the AI was that there was bottleneck through which a lot of the German armour tried to pass and a single well placed AT gun covering this destroyed 9 tanks. I guess the point is that the AI is better on the defence as usual, so the scenario is probably better played as the Germans.

I guess you've probably designed this primarily for PBEM games, but I've played the first few battles of this operation as the Brits against the AI. I really like the map and it has a lot of interesting features. I also like the balance of forces because I enjoy having a variety of units at my disposal. My only negative comment is that I'd much prefer to play it as a single 50-70 turn scenario than an operation. I find the semi-random placement of units between battles in most operations an irritating feature of an otherwise brilliant game. Mainly because restablishing the identity of your units and then repositioning them can be quite tedious if you have a lot of units. For this reason I generally much prefer to download user-designed scenarios than operations. Your efforts are much appreciated, however.