CMplayer
-
Posts
2,333 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by CMplayer
-
-
But what about red on red! Like Speedy said. And besides, even in blue on red it would be great to see them turned into toast.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:We're not doing very much with technicals. Against light forces, such as the conflicts in Africa, they can be somewhat effective. But against even a dismounted US infantry force they're pretty much toast as soon as they show up. It's tough for us to justify putting the time into things which are effectively useless.
There are so many possibilities for great gameplay for scenarios within the lighter infantry category. Red on red will probably be more fun than having a bunch of guys hunkered down waiting for the airstrike to come in.
Seriously, AS A GAME, people can have a lot of fun with mobile infantry operations between relatively balanced forces in urban areas. Technicals are perfect support there.
btw those guys on the technical in the first pic should really wear seatbelts. Looks dangerous
[ March 31, 2007, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]
-
Is that just because you guys say everything backwards in France?Originally posted by Glukx Ouglouk:It's Mac mini, not Minimac, and Core duo, not duo core !
Seriously tho thanks for the info, and thanks too to Redwolf. As you all said, I guess the chip is okay but the video card will probably be too sucky.
-
how about a minimac 1.66ghz intel duo core ? Will that do it? anyone care to venture a guess?
(I found this thread by using the "search" function. This "search" function enables us to find information without asking the same question for the umpteenth time. I was going to ask in the "peng ladder thread", but they're so grumpy. Anywat seeing as the "search" function gave me no answers, here I am)
-
I want to be able to buy them in a QB.Originally posted by Soddball:I find the idea that a Cold War game should model nukes as ridiculous.
-
Okay, good point then.Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:If you read my quote in context, you will note that I hold that up as an example as to why the "what about communications and EW on the cold war battlefield"-argument doesnt really hold water.
In any event the only way to marry squad level gaming with company or battalion sized battles without some degree of borg effect would be to go multiplayer. Higher level commanders would play one game, on a more abstracted map with FOW, issue orders to lower level commanders who would implement the orders on a more detailed map. This structure could be repeated on several levels.
-
TacOps isn't boring, in fact it can be fun as hell, and it's full of Fulda Gap type scenarios. So I don't see any reason to take for granted that a period CM would be boring.Originally posted by GreenAsJade:I just hope it won't be Cold War 'cause I don't find that very interesting! Hardly relate to it at all, in fact. Guess I haven't seen enough Cold War movies. Or played enough Cold Ware board games. I wonder why that is? Maybe they'd be as boring as the idea of Cold War CM?
-
Since when was anyone still labouring under the delusion that the player in CM is supposed to be identified with the highest ranking local "combat leader"? It's been thoroughly demonstrated in this forum that the player takes on a variety of roles when issuing commands. In particular, in the case of vehicles, he is often issuing orders at the level of the vehicle commander and even the driver. Similarly the orders given to squads are often at the level of the squad leader, not anything coming from the company or battalion commander.Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:Ive heard no complaints that the player can order some isolated, radioless T-26 platoon on the other side of the map at all when in reality that platoon would have been completely impossible to influence for the combat leader.
-
It can be modelled, but can it be gamed in a useful (and fun) way at the CM scale?Originally posted by c3k:Gents,
Why would there be any inherent difficulty in modelling tactical nukes?
Overpressure is understood.
Radiation is understood.
Model the resistance to both into the units portrayed in the game. I'd think it'd be better to be in a tank than not. Etc.
I like Major H's comment somewhere in the TacOps documentation, when he explained why he left nukes and chemical weapons out of the game. It was something like "If one side has them, they win. If both sides have them, flip a coin".
-
So you leave all these variables open to the scenario designer, and you get an ideal toolkit for asking, and answering, these sorts of questions.Originally posted by Michael Emrys:There are so many possible wild cards in the NATO/WARPAC environment that trying to predict how combat would go is virtually impossible. Consider the effect of tactical nukes and nuclear demolitions, for instance. Just how do you factor that into a CM-type game? What is the air/ground interaction going to look like in a Central Front environment? How about comms disruption? Theater ammunition exhaustion and the necessity for resupply?
-
If the vehicle is for scouting, the main drill is probably to slam it into reverse after a frontal contact, while firing the twin Vickers K's. So the positioning of the armor makes sense.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:Reckon that armour plate is only good from one aspect, eh....
They need to be more aware than the baddies and dominate the situation. Speed is their armor, and more armor on the vehicle would just slow them down.
-
Here's the uparmoured one, at least according to this site. I misrembered; instead of a viewing slit, the driver has bulletproof glass above the steel plate. The only uparmouring appears to be forward.
By late 1944 the SAS were operating behind German lines in Europe. Further modifications to the jeeps included the use of armour plate with bullet-proof glass screen at the front and a wire cutter fitted to the front bumper of some vehicles.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jeep_man/sasjeep.htm
-
I could swear I saw a photo of an SAS armored jeep on one the sites someone linked to here. It was patrolling ahead of the front, i.e. behind German lines in Italy, iirc, and the armor consisted of an iron or steel plate attached to the windscreen. The driver had to look through a viewing slit.
-
I thought it was CapitalistDogInChina.
-
Yeah that's the one. It was also at night, despite the Vaagso fighting mostly being in the daytime. Still I noticed how you put your heart and soul into your stubborn defence, but finally fell to the awesome power of my twin Vickers K sporting jeeps (cleverly modelled by Stuarts).Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:Was that the one ...that purported to be the Vaagso Raid but looked nothing like the terrain, had nothing like a correct order of battle, and required the Germans to manage huge fleets of trucks while you got all kinds of Stuarts running around in my rear area?
-
Who else would it have been? Yeah, I think it was you. It was a while ago. Last CMBO game I played iirc.
-
You're just still holding a grudge after that commando coastal raid in Norway scenario we played...Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:CM wasn't designed to simulate commando operations,
(you know, the one where the commados had Stuart tanks and the ROE allowed, nay encouraged, us to fire Her Majesty's naval artillery right into the Norwegian city)
-
Sherry is a girlie drink.
-
Berli's blog. Charming.Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:http://darthside.blogspot.com/
-
Actually, the 20x20 resolution of the tiles doesn't matter that much, because the tiles can and do contain features at a finer grain, such as buildings, roads etc. The problem is just that there isn't a proper 'bocage' tile.Originally posted by dalem:Here is a link to a rough sketch of a "standard" bocage cross section.
You can see from that why it's impossible to do correctly with 20x20m resolution - the best we can do is a rough approximation.
Based on your drawing, bocage tiles ought to resemble forested road tiles, with LOS, hindrance and cover properties appropriate to what bocage looks like. The terrain feature titled 'bocage' in CMBO actually was nothing but a tall hedge that obstructed LOS and movement but provided zero cover, meaning that troops behind the bocage would think they were in the open and would boogie when fired upon.
-
He sneakily edited that in after I posted, the bastiche. One of his ways of making me look bad.
-
This is perfect for Steve! Read for yourself from the job description:Originally posted by Joe Shaw:Okay they CLAIM you need 3-4 years experience but ALL lawyers lie.
The associates who practice at this firm all seem to get along fairly well; however, there is no forced socializing. Wall flowers and social misfits seem equally at home in this firm with more outgoing sorts. -
Go for it. The extra fingers could help with future modelling.
-
I'm not really the groundskeeper either. But I knew that all along.Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:Dear Everyone
I have recently discovered that I am indeed not a Catholic schoolgirl.
Yours faithfully
Hortlund
-
The wife's place is in the home. Stand up and lose your house like a man. It's social Darwinism, the beauty of the free market. You were a toothbrush fish living off a sick whale that finally went belly up. You obviously weren't fit.Originally posted by MrSpkr:We'll be okay when the wife's salary kicks in around September 1, but until then . . .
Now I'll go put on the choral bit at the end of Beethoven's ninth, the Ode to Schadenfreude. Headphones... ahhh....
System requirements
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
(not meaning to imply that this board isn't a life)