Kwacker
-
Posts
56 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Kwacker
-
-
Good point. Seems to me to be two things confused. For the attacker I agree that pre-planned bombardments, planned during turn 1, is pretty realistic - as mentioned the scouts could have determined obvious (static) defender positions and arranged a synchronized strike to occur as the attack began.
For the defender though I would have thought it more realistic to have any pre-planned strike setup during the setup phase - it is unlikely that the attacker would have telegraphed his attack plan and then remain static enough within LOS to allow a bombardment to be brought down right on him.
Hence I suggest defender sets up preplaned bombardment during the setup phase (no prior knowledge), attacker sets up bombardmnts during turn 1 - with knowledge of the location of any clearly visible defender.
For meeting engagements the point is irrelevant as pre-planned ombardments are not allowed - for similar reasons to those above.
-
Bump to see if any of the Battlefront gods have a comment - should setup of pre-planned bombardments be during setup rather than 1st turn?
-
Planned strikes are definately not allowed in MEs - per the new features list.
What I am getting at though is that I have no problem if someone with tactical genius guesses which way the bad guys are gonna come and sets up a pre-planned strike. However the keyword here is "pre" - it should not be possible to wait to you see them (i.e. orders for turn 1) and then plan and immediately execute a strike. These things by definition take time to arrange and therefore enemy position at some time in the future can only be guessed at.
-
Minor quibble:
I'm playing the Yelnia battle PBEM as the krauts and was pleasantly surprised to find that my opponent had setup his tank platoon with mounted infantry within line of sight and all bunched together. Realistically he probably did not have much choice on this relatively small map. What else could I do but run a pre-planned artillery strike and lo and behold within seconds I had the mounted platoon scattering in all directions and was unlucky not to get some serious damage inflicted on the tanks.
This is all cool except that I'm guessing it is not what was intended from the pre-planned strike feature. As I understand it the idea is to simulate previously laid-in artillery reference points for immediate use when a hapless enemy wanders in from the direction you expect the attack to come. Unfortunately the present implementation allows us to spot the enemy after setup and then call in a precise pre-planned strike whereever they might be. This seems to be having ones cake and scoffing it. A better idea might be to require pe-planned strikes to be called during the setup phase not the 1st turn - i.e. when you can't see your opponents setup.
Am I missing something or is this a little sub-optimal? Maybe the implementation I suggest is limited by the software in which case I can certainly live with it - if not it might be worth changing for the full CMBB release.
Otherwise this game is everything I hoped for - and the rest.
-
I'm an old git myself.
Lcm said it all.
-
OK I did a few quick tests. Crawl, Move and Fast all seem to do what you would expect - the AI keeps advancing as instructed unless there is some incoming heavy fire or the chance to shoot at something juicy.
The exception seems to be sneak whereby the AI will only shoot back if it comes under fire - hence the anomaly that 2 sneaking squads may pass right by one another.
I guess sneak really does mean sneak - i.e. don't fire unless you really have to!
-
I'm amazed!
I've played CM for a good chunk of the time since it came out and use sneak as my preferred advance mode particularly when I think the enemy is at hand. I never realised that 2 platoons will sneak straight past each other - even if they target one another. That's crazy! I could understand it if they did not spot one another (not the case - I just tested it) but when they do see one another surely they'd shoot - what are they pacifists or something?
Yours confused.
P.S. Does anyone know what I should do e.g. use crawl, move etc etc ?
-
English soccer fan song (best applied when intoxicated):
We love you BTS, we do,
We love you BTS, we do,
We love you BTS, we do,
Oh BTS we love you (repeat)
-
I don't need a copy - already read it.
Just thought I'd say take the guy with the weird name up on his offer as it's a good read - some interesting insights into the work of the armored division workshop units in supporting the poor gits in the kettles. Judging from this book you would think the workshop guys won the war - and in some ways they did.
Anyway.... a very generous offer.
-
I really like your road and sky mods - which ones are you using?
-
I bought these:
I forked out the extra $30 for the wireless variant for convenience - I play mostly with wireless headphones also.
Everything is in 3D except the trees - doodads I guess using the new CMBB lingo. These are not coded as 3D objects for computing power reasons and so don't show as such. This does not detract anything.
The only minor niggle is that the unit selection box gets duplicated. The casualty / status info is still there but there are 2 offset boxes on screen. No big deal - I often scroll around normally in 3D mode and can still select units from close in when needed. It is also instantaneous to toggle between 2D and 3D modes as needed using a hotkey.
-
Just got a set of 3D stereoscopic glasses for CM. They work extremely well and increase the eye-candy quotient of CM substantially.
On a tactical level they really help to appreciate the lie of the land, every dip and hollow becomes as apparent as they are in the real world & close up to a tank is just plain cool. You really get to see the effort BTS put into their unit models in a way you just don't see in 2D.
I have not had any eye strain problem & setup was a breeze with a little adjustment to taste. You will need a high end processor/graphics card - I have a 1.4Hz Athlon and Geforce 3 video card but this runs very large battles (e.g. Big Valley) just fine. Regular size battles would probably be OK on a middle of the road setup.
Highly recommended if you can afford the $70 or so. Should keep you thoroughly engaged in CM until CMBB arrives!
-
Thanks Moon. Are the software drivers stable & do you see any unintended graphics corruption - 2D or 3D?
Also any idea if these can be found in stores so I can check them out before buying - and perhaps return them if they don't run on my system.
Finally do you find the glasses fatiguing to your eyes or can they be adequately adjusted to your vision?
-
A little while ago a couple of people posted some comments on the new 3D glasses that are becoming available for PC games (link below). Opinions were mixed on the value for CM - well there were only 2 opinions. Has anyone else begun playing with these things? As an adicted CM gamer (don't play much else apart from the odd flight sim) should I cough up my hard earned dough to acquire some or will I be tired of them after a couple of days?
As far as I know 2 companies are offering these units for $70-100:
On a final note, whether or not they work for CM, how well do they "work" for the 3D version of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition?
-
Thanks guys - don't know why I could not reach COMBAT MISSIONS earlier
-
There used to be one at COMBAT MISSIONS but that is no longer accessible.
-
Here, here, I couldn't have put it better myself....
-
Don't let it die!!!!
pledge: $5
total pledged: $85
remaining: $1115
-
Hi Franko,
Love your historical scenarios!
What size is this battle? Unit size and map size?
Keep it up, your efforts are enjoyed enormously by others -I hope you get the same fun putting the things together!
-
Great stuff - thanks!
It is a pleasure to play these carefully researched and constructed historical scenarios - it really is the icing on the CM cake for me!
Your efforts are truely appreciated - I look forward to seeing how it plays out!
-
Following on from my last topic posted "Reckless Abandon - Montrevel : does anyone know the historical outcome", I'm also playing "First Clash at Cambes" by e-mail. The same questions :
1) How close is the scenario to the historical action in terms of terrain and order of battle?
2) If the scenario is close to the historical event, what was the outcome?
Any info much appreciated.
-
I'm playing "Reckless Abandon - Montrevel" by e-mail. A couple of questions:
1) How close is the scenario to the historical action in terms of terrain and order of battle?
2) If the scenario is close to the historical event, what was the outcome?
I love playing historical battles and it's even more facinating if they are closely modelled on the real action. One of my other PBEM games - August Bank Holiday is a great example of such a scenario. It would be really cool if one of the web wizards out there put together a site listing scenarios simulating real battles with input from their authors - does such a site exist?
-
We'll I usually play the Brits. All you have to do with them is stop for tea & fags every 1/2 hour and they just keep right on going.
Similarly with the Yanks - a couple of rousing choruses of "God Bless America" and you're away.
Can't figure out how to motivate the squareheads.
-
CM2 should include the ability to import poorly performing German CM1 troops.
After their performance in my PBEM this morning the Eastern front is all they deserve.
New 'Thinline' mod created.
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
Can't help you out but please find somewhere to host as I think your mod is likely a real improvement. If you can't could you e-mail them to me at the e-mail in my profile?