Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Slyss

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    33

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Slyss

    QB Armor pts CM1.1

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    Well we got something finally out of this post. It proves Cavscout and Slapdragon are both experts at avoiding the issue. Hmm. The Clintons are prolly not far down the family tree. "It depends on what you mean by the use of <insert words or phrases or lies or valid points>".

    Would anyone find it unfair if this was just put back the way it was? BTW Slappy, you said you played one battle and one. Damn. A whole battle. I guess that make you an expert. tongue.gif

    Not everyone has to agree with BTS as if they are the final authority on everything, either. I think its a mistake. Last time I checked we are not living in a country where we are ruled by socialists and not entitled to our own opinions. rolleyes.gif

    People that can't prove their arguments usally change the subject. You two are the best example of that. Go to the slapping machine without out delay right now smile.gif

    ------------------

    Play me, and I'll make yah wear your arse for a hat...

    0

    QB Armor pts CM1.1

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    I'm with Jeff on this stuff. In fact Jeff, read my postings and I think that we are definately right.

    Most everyone is missing the point altogether. Duh... tongue.gif

    When I'm german, I don't buy all KTs. I'm a player that goes for quantity, not quality. In the last battle, I just had StuHs. Hmm.

    The whole complaint is WHY are my points restricted with no reason FOR a battle that NEVER happened.

    So someone please tell me why the allied motivated players are so scared about it going back to the even point total way. Its not about whos gonna win or lose, its a question about the godamn point change and the reasoning for it.

    I bet anything that the allied players would be crying FOUL if this was changed back.

    cool.gifcool.gifcool.gif

    ------------------

    Play me, and I'll make yah wear your arse for a hat...

    0

    Has the new v1.1 use of Tungsten tipped the scales too much towards the Allies?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    German players rejoice smile.gif

    In patch 1.2 not only will our armor points for MEs go from on third less then the allies to one half better simulating the german defeat, but also a far greater historical patch that whacks our points in half for everything.

    As for the tungsten, let them have twice as much as they have now for all I care. This will better simulate the experience of being defeated hopelessly. Hmmmph.

    ------------------

    Play me, and I'll make yah wear your arse for a hat...

    0

    QB Armor pts CM1.1

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    OK. One more add to this post and I'm gonna shuddup wink.gif

    I am not happy with the point change, especially after the fact that I had no idea that this was going on. The germans obivously had less armor (OK fine), but they had less of everything else, too. Like I said, why not just alter the system even more to ensure the germans lose. Kept those allied players happy I guess mad.gif

    I don't care that the germans get more vehicle points. Yippee. I get a couple more HT throw aways. Big deal. What if I dont feel like buying them? Well, I cant spend em on tanks so I guess my arm is twisted.

    This reminds me of the Clintons Socialized Health Care System. Take all my choice away. I'm so happy rolleyes.gif

    Jeez this post just gets my drawers in a bunch. I hope a new patch puts it back to being fair. Hmmm. Better yet. I read somewhere that Jumbos were produced in small numbers (the german puma was like this too), make them more costly to buy. Hmm. Since I just got screwed by a third, make the jumbos cost that much more then.

    ------------------

    Play me, and I'll make yah wear your arse for a hat...

    0

    QB Armor pts CM1.1

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    Ok so I said days. Well, Its been enough days for me to get familiar enough with the game to understand it. Like I need to go to school for 4 years to understand or even qualify to express my viewpoints for a game thats still relatively new.

    Forgive me. I meant a couple weeks ok?

    Is it my imagination or do people just want to win the arguement and refuse to get to the point. Please don't twist my words against me to start another invalid concept. Off to the slapping machine with you smile.gif

    ------------------

    Play me, and I'll make yah wear your arse for a hat...

    0

    is it gamy to bring up a gun damaged tang for inf support?

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    this is someone elses comment.. I dont know how to do quotes sorry...

    "As a former tanker (still in contact with several guys that still are tankers), I can tell you that we'd tell any commander to get *&%$#ed if he ordered us into a tank battle without a main gun!"

    Ummm. In WWII if you told any commander to get *&%$#ed, they'd shoot you. After careful evaluation I would say "sir yes sir!" and figure I would at least be obeying orders.

    You are so full of it.

    [This message has been edited by Slyss (edited 01-17-2001).]

    0

    Improved Mod

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    I would like to thank the people that pointed me in the right direction first of all. I tried out your suggested paint program Paint Shop Pro, and had some success.

    Now I have another question...

    DD's Hi Res Grass and DD's new snow are my favorites. But when I looked for the gridded versions, they dont exist from what I can tell.

    So I added low visability grids to these sets. Is there anywhere I can Upload them so everyone has a chance to enjoy these?

    0

    The Total Solution(heh)

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    There sure are a lotta posts about making the game more balanced and house rules concerning how to spend points in quick battle mode.

    To see what I mean, take a look at or revisit the thread concerning the point spread of armor for meeting engagements to refresh your mind how nasty these discussions can get.

    You want a real quick game? Take a 700 point battle and let the computer pick your stuff. I find it a very fun alternative to all these house rules and suggestions. You dont have much, and you're stuck with whatever the higher ups (the computer smile.gif) give you.

    Honestly, whether people want realism or historical sense isn't the point at all. People want to win. Thats the bottom line. I don't like it at all when more rules and stuff are forced upon you when all you want is a FAIR game. Life ain't fair, but this aint RL...

    0

    The Slapping Machine

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    Description:

    A Rube Golberg kind of device. Three cylindrical devices are vertically attached in a triangular pattern to an assortment of clockwork gears. The gears are concealed stylishly by either an oaken or pine platform. A crank is located in a convenient nearby loaction that operates the gears, which in turn, spin the cylinders at RPMs relative to the speed of the crank operation.

    Attached to each of the cylinders is 32 plastic wiffle ball bats.

    Purpose:

    To teach many different forms of whiners a lesson. Insert whiner in the middle of the cylinders and turn the crank at desired speed. Be sure to purchase add on benches or lawn chairs for audience. (best used outside)

    Whiner types:

    Rules lawyers, poor sports, gamey players, people with uninventive internet handles, people that hash someone just for asking a question, and everyone else that needs a good slapping up.

    So if people are pissing you off, send em to me and I'll throw em into the slapping machine. Someday I'll have it available for purchase (online only smile.gif). But first I need some Beta testers...

    biggrin.gif

    0

    Artillery and gameplay...also sharpshooter blues

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    This isn't intended to be a complaint smile.gif (I know this post is gonna get roasted now)

    Offboard artillery and realism...

    Here's the example: I ordered my spotter to call for artillery. A few shots rain down, and he gets shot at. Now the bombardment stops.

    ehhh. Huh???

    eek.gif

    Maybe I'm thinking wrong but I thought he called the strike. I dont remember him canceling it. In my mind, the spotter said "lettem have it and dont stop until you're out of ammo." In the game, he's saying "Stop firing because I really wanna watch."

    Why cant I just call for and indirect fire mission and get out of dodge. Would seem logical.

    Is this just a game balance issue or can someone point this out in a believable reply that pestering my spotter would abort the entire fire mission?

    Also...

    I made a battle with a bunch (50 plus) sharpshooters in a town and wanted to see how many halftracks would make it to the objective flag. Yes this isn't really realistic, but I wanted to see what happened. Well, something unexpected altogether did. The sharpshooters never fired a shot. confused.gif

    0

    QB Armor pts CM1.1

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    ROFLMAO;p

    I've been playing this game QB for days now and never noticed the new "forced" point differential. BTW, I play the axis and still win smile.gif

    I was also kind of wondering how the allied player managed to purchase a jumbo and 2 greyhounds while I only had 2 99 point StuHs. Now right there, not the 2000 point battle, but the meager 1000 point battle I played shows even a greater disadvantage for the axis. (theoretic)

    So do I feel at a disadvantage? I'll say yes to that. Does this add to the historic value of the game? I'll say yes to that, too.

    Do I think its fair? No...

    OK. So if everyone wants this game so historical, then just halve the german points altogether? What everyone is saying here that speaks for the allies says they should lose. So screw them every chance you get.

    Well I got news, this is a game. We are gamers. Gamers are people. People like to play a FAIR game.

    This entire post almost makes me wanna puke just like going over to someones house and playing monopoly, when suddenly, they come up with a new house rule and screw yah when the game was fair.

    Honestly, I really dont care. When I win my next QB, I'll just enjoy the victory even more.

    0

    Meeting engagements how CMBO sets it up is not historical

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    I agree completely with Theron. Even if this so called meeting engagement is historical, The flags at least give you an idea that you are fighting for something. Otherwise, I might as well play a click fest RTS game like Total Annihilation(the thought makes me wanna puke frown.gif)

    I totally disagree that everyone just jumps the flags. Maybe if you want to lose vehicles in a hurry in a mad rush. I find it is easy to cream someone that rushes to the flags without properly supporting their suicide units up front. Do that against someone that knows what they are doing and you'll be crying over you KT more often then not.

    Unless I am also mistaken, the game lasts more then 3 turns. In any timed game, like football and hockey, managing the clock is important. Its not a tank rush game. I seen a couple of postings mentioning vehicles knocked out early. Umm. I learned not to do that and had much nicer games.

    Also, moving quickly and everything at once leaves you open to all kinds of heartache. Most notably you will get spotted easier. Its easier to react to an attack IF YOU SEE IT COMING!

    No victory flags will just lead to either gamey tactics (like the mentioned and highly dreaded camping tactic), and more importantly, IMHO, the feeling that you are not fighting over anything.

    Campers. Hmm. I really hated Campers. <cringe>

    0

    Ambush areas

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    I think the ambush markers aren't exactly the greatest thing either. But I did manage to set up a fantastic weiner roast with a flamethrower.

    I think perhaps there should be a "cone" or something similar that tells a unit to only fire in that direction and not to do otherwise. Of course, greenies may decide otherwise.

    A good example of this function is in Jagged Alliance 2. In that game, you could burst and area by drawing a box with the mouse. So I think strongly that the mouse can be used to set up "fields of fire" to draw them.

    There. How does that sound?

    0

    E-mail games

    in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)

    Posted

    So if you have kids why can't you play IP? Well, I've been raising twin daughters that are now almost 6 months old and I still find the time. Especially when they are sleepin smile.gif

    Even more so, I'm Mr. Mom and have a 3rd kid as well.

    So I guess I'll be moving from crack to elite status very soon:P

    Anyway, I still got time for one more game...

    0
×
×
  • Create New...