Jump to content

Barleyman

Members
  • Content Count

    343
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Barleyman

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    ollittm@gmail.com

Converted

  • Location
    Finland
  • Occupation
    HW Design Engineer
  1. With regards to ram and multithreading. Multithreading helps, can't be real discussion about it. What's interesting is that the more punishing the game is for CPU, the less likely it appears to have multithreading support. This is generally the AI-intensive number crunching strategy titles as well as simulator LOS stuff. Single threading is most obnoxious if the GUI runs in the same thread, some paradox titles were bad about this. New CPUs are even re-optimized for single threading performance, which is a bit silly in the 21st century but there you are. WRT PPC, you gotta bear in mind inte
  2. I have another idea that comes to mind in-between screen-cluttering lines and icon shapes. You could have an arrow/caret/line pointing towards the command unit. Going in that direction you could easily change the arrow shape to indicate level of contact if any. As an anecdote, long time ago in eurofighter 2000 simulation the tactical display was uninformative for much the same reason as here. Someone suggested making the sperm (plane location + direction vector) colored according to the mission group. Devs loved the idea and fast-tracked it into the game. Small change technically but impr
  3. They asked what info we'd like to see in game.
  4. If you (BFC) don't like lines on-screen, it could be implemented using the floating icon(s). Click on unit and the unit and HQ light up. Throw in color coding or whatnot to show how and if they're in contact.
  5. Finally we get to the real decisive theatre of WW2, Ostfront. Normandy was just a mop-up operation in strategy game terms.
  6. C2 lines would be kinda nice. Click on unit and you see what it's connected, or is supposed to be connected to.
  7. Interesting how BFC now serves games on such small slices. Ostfront game would be something like 4 titles by the same logic, from initial blitzkrieg all the way to götterdämmerung.. Althought I do understand we'll get the titles in reverse order due to late war German stuff already being ready.. In any case, I suppose move-able waypoints we might see in a patch, unit hierarchy list + decent c2 representation will likely only appear in next title. If we're lucky, that is.
  8. Just because there is criticism doesn't mean it's baseless and without merit. (Something for you to consider as well, MikeyD) I pointed out issues that came to mind right away which are not camera specific incidentally. Others have issues with camera especially. Somehow it indeed does feel awkward, I guess because where the camera is oriented and/or rotation speed/acceleration relation. In any case, improvements are coming, good! "Bulge game" = next module?
  9. I could make a list of most annoying interface features of CMBN but many of those have already been covered here. So the main point, we've been promised UI improvements when BFC gets around to he "other stuff" in future release. Future release means CMx3 engine with release date out there? Do we have a chance to see something in the CM:Ostfront game? If I had to pick one personal pet hate, It'd be a tight match between missing list representation of units on the battlefield with their C2 relations and much more mundane "cannot move existing waypoint" issue. I quess I'd pick the la
  10. Hopefully this will get sorted out in a patch. 5min delivery time for 81mm on map mortars incidentally with HQ giving directions from a small hill and tubes in a defilade little bit back. You lose linear targeting with direct fire but I think much faster fire delivery trumps that.
  11. I wrote about the same issue with CMSF in general when it came out. The official answer is that you can make scenario where the syrians will overrun US. Why not give them a couple of dragons while you're at it? The whole setting is heavily lopsided and it's more of "management of war" where you have mountains of firepower but only a handful of men. You then manage your assets to win as efficiently as possible, losing is not really possible, except in abstract "victory condition" sense. Only way to make interesting scenarios without going into fantasyland is to do red-on-red scenarios t
  12. I gave this thing a shot. It seems there is a problem with W7 x64 - Specifically the access database comes up as READ ONLY.. So nothing works. There's a button to "save as" the database somewhere else, which does work. The problem is that this is installed to program files and the database wants to write to the same folder. This is big no no in W7 (and vista) .. Workaround is to give full control permissions to the zbee folder for yourself.
  13. Does that really work? At least there's no such mechanism according to the manual.. Does this apply to infantry mortars only or also the mortar carriers? Is there a proximity requirement by the infantry to the mortar?
  14. Yeah. And the problem is you cannot have another unit act as a spotter. Mortar firing with LOS to enemy is fairly easily spotted.. Forward observer or mortar team officer guiding fire and keeping low profile is not. The way it worked in Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin was perfect for on-map and off-map artillery. The problem is compounded by the fact you cannot call in smoke from off-board artillery.
  15. AT guns are/were fine in CMBB, thought, because you had several ways to deal with them - Humble 81mm mortar team can take AT gun out, which is not happening in TOW because you cannot have spotter keeping a low profile and the mortars behind in a defilade. Try to use mortars against AT guns in TOW and they'll fire only with direct LOS, which will naturally give the AT gun(s) advantage as they can fire back with greater accuracy.. Similarly using MGs teams to suppress the guns does not work like it should.
×
×
  • Create New...