sfhand
-
Posts
1,008 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by sfhand
-
-
I read the PC Gamer CMBO article (I remember a picture of a Greyhound with its movement path flanking a Stug?). As one who has delighted in pc games I had to order it asap. I knew nothing about wargames and was getting my @$$ handed to me. I quickly found my way to the forums and started reading AAR's, which helped a little. I then "manned-up" and made my way to the opponent finder forum where I found a few really good players who were willing to not only beat me but offer critiques of my non-existent playing style. (I have always tried to play against players who are better at the game than I am, that way I get better and when/if I win I can see my progress as a player.)
So, for me, while finding the game was important, finding you guys was the icing on the cake (with my pbem opponents being the cherries on top - don't take the visuals on that too seriously fellas, it helps keep me in the fight against clearly superior players).
-
Tagged files work if they are in the data/Z folder.
This is good to know, thanks for the information...
-
CMx3 might introduce some of those changes, but isn't likely to appear in less than a couple of years at the soonest. I am not aware that BFC has released even any hints as to what can be expected from x3. They may not know much themselves, and any changes will have to take into account changes in computer operating systems, and at this stage those are probably huge unknowns.
Michael
Michael, we're not talking about CMx3... we're talking about CMBN v. 3 on windows machines.
The reason for my asking is because according to the Mod Tag thread in the RT forum one puts their tagged mods in the "Mod" folder. CMBN doesn't have a "Mod" folder (I know about data/z).
-
I was just reading about Mod Tags in the RT forum which got me to wondering, will the v. 3 upgrade alter the CMBN directory structure to match that of CMFI and CMRT?
-
Thanks for clarifying this sburke... I will adjust my expectations accordingly
-
I respectfully submit, from a player's point of view, having 2 misaligned doors is better than having a wall with and a wall without... Seriously, it never entered my mind that soldiers could run through walls without doors (in CMx2). Is it really supposed to be this way?
-
So I'm playing a pbem with a mate and there is a small L-shaped cluster of 3 buildings. Each of the adjoining wall pairs has only one door, i.e., each pair consists of a wall with no door and a wall with a door. I did not think a soldier could pass through a solid wall to use a door in an adjoining wall and I was quite surprised when they did. So, my question is two-fold, are door/solid-wall combinations supposed to work this way, and if so, should they work this way?
-
From my perspective (not the perspective of a scenario designer), it makes sense to me that the AI would have to wait until the next turn for the post-trigger orders to take place since a human player has the same limitation. Have you tested in RT?
-
Ken, was the building you ran to on the edge of the map? I thought so... I'm glad no one got hurt and I hope the insurance company pays for the rehabilitation of the car. And yes, I am still hopeful of playing a game with you at some point
-
A thing of beauty, thanks for the peek Chris!
-
You can start to walk a gun forward to the next tile. Then halt it immediately and give a facing when you think they have reached the minimal zenith of LOS. This works especially well for berms as well when you want a hull down effect with longer range for your paks. Not ideal, but it is possible to achieve with craters too is what I am saying.
The downside to this method is it negates the unmoved gun concealment bonus...
-
I'm sure any human being on the planet, when asked about anything, would say things could always be better. That said, I react to this the same way I reacted to the recent thread about the scenarios shipped with the game.
You don't like them or think they should be different you are free to crack open the editor and make the ones you want to play. If you are like JasonC you will not share them with the rest of the community (his words not mine). If you are truly a community minded person you will post them in the Repository or over at GAJ's place or anywhere else that people wanting to enrich the CM experience for everyone posts them.
The one thing I can predict with great confidence, as one who has tried his hand at scenario making on multiple occasions, is, after seeing the amount of work that goes into scenario making, you will most likely never take shots at someone else's labor of love (it takes a special kind of person to do that knowing the amount of work put into a scenario... and I don't mean that in a good way).
edit: after re-reading I felt I should point out that just because I have tried my hand at scenario making on multiple occasions doesn't mean there was ever a finished product, like I said, I found it to be a very taxing ordeal
-
Wow Ken, this is making the School of Hard Knocks entreaty I sent you look downright inviting...
-
The problem with area fire in forests is you give away your position to non-suppressed units and LOS is usually within grenade range
-
My take, based on earlier CM forest fires, is that area firing is not the way to go. At least in my experience troops with LOS are much more likely to throw grenades at the enemy, and most of the casualties I have suffered in these battles has been first by grenades, the losses from which give fire superiority to the grenade lobbing side allowing for bullets doing the mop up. Area firing also gives one's position away to other enemy in LOS who hadn't spotted one's troops, leaving them free to make use of their grenades. And because LOS is so short in most forests it is almost always in grenade range.
-
We typically don't plan for a specific release date. We're currently estimating late summer as a window for release.
Chris, thanks for this info. It is nice to know it is most likely coming in the not-to-distant future.
-
Well Oddball remains sensible. As for the suggestion to roll my own and share, how about yes on one and no on two? You all are such swell people, I would love working to make scenarios for you - oh right, no, you aren't.
Well, my notion that you were due any respect at all just flew out the window...
-
George Mc - The 20th Panzer was in theater from the start, in reserve in the southern sector. It had Panzer IVs. There were 2 Panzergrenadier divisions in the sector from the start. They had StuGs and a small number of Panzer IVs. There were StuG brigades in the theater from the start, including one that intervened very early up north, as well as companies of them scattered throughout the infantry divisions that made up the bulk of the army group. All told there were 500 StuGs in theater from the get-go.
We ought to be seeing StuGs in nearly every scenario in which the Germans have armor (which incidentally should not be in all scenarios, nor in all scenarios in which the Russians have armor), and Panthers in just a few of them. In the first week or so of the fighting, StuGs should outnumber Panthers 8 to 1, Panzer IVs should outnumber them at least 3 to 2. If you include a handful of Tiger Is, then those and the Panthers combined should be about as common as a Panzer IV, making up only half the turreted tanks. And the turreted tanks, all of them combined, should be outnumbered 3-4 to 1 by the turretless stuff, mostly StuGs.
The reason this isn't what we see in RT scenarios is not history, it is the designers having a German uber armor fetish, and a cartoon view of history base on it, that has very little contact with reality.
Bro, with all due respect, and I personally feel you are due quite a bit of respect, why not make a scenario the way you think it should be and then post it in the Repository?
-
GaJ, the Install->Edit solution solved the problem for me. Thanks!
-
Hmmm... when checking the CM installs tab the game still doesn't recognize the Gustav Line module as present. It reports "(latest is 1.10, not installed)" which is partly untrue and partly true; v1.10 is not installed, however the latest is v1.12 which is installed
Also, under Red Thunder is reports (version not known).
Both of these titles were installed in the My Documents folder of a Win 7 x64 system (I have found it is simpler in the long run to not install CM titles in the Program Files folder). Both are working with CM Helper so this is just an FYI post. Thanks for making this support application, it has really made pbem (in name only) a breeze!
-
Every time this topic comes up I think of the Japanese in WWII. I don't have any numbers but I am assuming many more died than were wounded based on depictions of them in film (including documentaries). It is my understanding that they did not surrender and they also didn't retreat very often (kind of hard to retreat when you're fighting on an island anyway). I have yet to play against an opponent who surrenders because he has suffered casualties and most maps don't allow for retreat exit zones (which would forfeit the battle). I think we, mostly, fight like the Japanese - to the last man: no retreat, no surrender - when we play this game.
-
If you have CMFI it is basically the same type of setup. It definitely works.
-
I feel extremely fortunate... I like the interface! I didn't like the transition from CMx1 to CMSF in part because the camera controls didn't seem smooth in comparison, which is as close as I've come to not liking the interface (and that was fixed a while back). Btw, I never used the relative keys, it was always easier just to click the tabs, in fact, I usually don't use many keyboard commands.
So I am for keeping the interface as is and putting the programming hours into refining the fidelity of the game.
-
I don't really see a need for a los tool... I play wego and I use targeting information from waypoints at times e.g., to find hull down positions for tanks.
I'd rather see the current targeting tool get improved in the following ways:
Have the targeting tool-line originate from the waypoint rather than the current unit position.
Give the tool to units without weapons too (think CMSF spotting humvee).
Support Units - Fighting as Front Line Inf
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
My understanding is that a few patches ago weapons teams were tweaked to inhibit their use of small arms. In my experience this holds true after the crew served weapon is knocked out, i.e., they are much more reluctant to fire than regular infantry.
Also, after watching the Pacific, based in part on Eugene Sledge's book, it was not uncommon to ask mortar team members to leave their mortars behind and go on patrol with regular infantry.