Jump to content

sfhand

Members
  • Posts

    1,008
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sfhand

  1. Considering the quite incredible work many modders do and have done for Combat Mission, I can't see the point of getting BFC to do more on their end.

    They provide the basics and if you want more/better, it will only take you a few minutes to improve the basics : flames, tracers etc.

    HD Terrain may be a larger download, but nothing compared to the skins for each vehicle and/or uniforms.

    But if you go to the trouble of getting all those, it looks pretty cinematic to me - check out some of the really top screenshots in the screenies thread...

    Animations could maybe be better, but again, it's a diminishing return - BFC could add 3 or 4 new animations and chances are, it would be several games before you even noticed.

    And, for me, 3 little Lego-esque guys was good enough in CM1, so CM2 is all gravy :)

    This right here...

    I just discovered a game (different genre) with graphics directly ported from consoles (inferior IMHO) but with stellar game play. I'll take stellar game play every time over graphics, which means, e.g., I'll take beta flame throwers over no flame throwers, I'll take above ground foxholes over FOW destroying fox holes or no fox holes at all, and I'll take infrastructure improvements that allow our great modding community greater flexibility over BF having to do all the art all the time.

    Maybe I should look into graphical mods for the effects and environment, right now I'm stock. For a while I was using Rambler's tree and bocage mod in CMBN but I never put it back after installing a patch/upgrade. But the bottom line for me is I'm very pleased with the game as it came out of the box.

    My personal preference for actual graphical changes would be to allow different color tracers (one of those infrastructure changes I think). By this point it should be clear that I'm a function over form guy (which is one reason I think decals are an excellent improvement). So thanks BF, in my eyes we all win!

  2. As one who basically plays pbem exclusively I'd like to add to this discussion. I am not advocating sp players drop sp gaming.

    One of the main advantages of playing against another person is I don't get to quit the battle and start over when things start going pear shaped. I really believe this has helped me become a better player. I recently played a major battle and was ready to quit multiple times yet I wound up with a victory. Also, playing against really good players gives me the opportunity to learn by example (and most of my opponents are really good players) Another advantage is I've met some cool people from this forum and am always open to meeting more (gotta be a cool person though ;) ). The biggest advantage, for me, has been learning about grace in defeat and in victory.

    Then there is what I consider the flexibility of it. The people I play with understand I'm doing my best and I understand they are doing theirs to keep the game going and yet still have a life. I play multiple games at a time. So, if I have 4 games and spend 15 minutes per turn I've just spent an hour playing the game. If, by chance, one of my partners is free I have found another turn waiting in H2HH for my attention. There have been many times where I've spent a couple hours, when I had the time and when a gaming partner had the time, playing the game (or even multiple games when the stars are so aligned).

    If I am challenged for time those same 4 turns could be a 20 minute investment. So, I urge you to at least give mp a shot.

  3. I find it kind of amazing that many of the people who want the game to do more expect it to happen on antiquated tech. I am very pleased to hear Windows 64 bit support is being considered and I hope it arrives in the near future. I would wager that most 64 bit Windows platforms can hold at least 8GB of RAM. I know my 6 year old laptop *which I consider to be antiquated in its own right* can. I am not surprised the 4GB limit is being run into as the game continues to evolve.

  4. It's still there. I wear it like a badge of honor. The last one was a bit weird and I'm not crying our grapes but I was playing a scenario that was designed by my opponent. He had far more working knowledge of the thing than I did. Also, if you remember, (unknown to me but not to Jon) we have different VLs. I thought I had almost all of mine secure....secure the point of spending the last few turns mopping up and doing things because I thought I had it wrapped up. At the time I had assumed that I had won the battle and at worst had a draw. It taght me the lesson to make sure to secure ALL of your victory conditions because your opponent may have different ones. Again, not sour grapes...just giving some insight to how thought I had played the last one.

    Elvis... I just want to be clear, I wasn't taking any shots at your performance in that AAR. I've posted one AAR here and it wasn't my finest hour, so the last thing I would do is take you to task for that game; just having the stones to post an AAR, against Bil and his reputation to boot, wins you lots of street cred in my book. Plus, that Bois scenario is brutal. As a BoB fan I remember Lt. Dykes master plan at Foy (per the miniseries, I don't recall if it was outlined that way in the book), that memory is the basis for my comment about taking your plans seriously - not your performance.

    About hiding infantry... I have a very vivid memory of leaving my troops hidden one turn too long and having c3k's boys gun them down where they lay, target arcs be damned.

  5. I have been reading peoples comments here about Bils style of play and offering suggestions on being more aggressive in my defense. Looking over my set up, it seems that it is well suited to do that. I don't know how far back his set up area is, so moving forward now may put me in the same position of having a static defense...just more forward. Right now, I am thinking that I will let my 4 teams continue and then hide until I have spotted him and maybe even engage him. Then pull them back and begin advancing the section to the east that is spread out and one of the sections in OBJ BLAU.

    Elvis, thanks for doing another AAR. As one who remembers how you got your sig line I wish you well in this endeavor. I must say, though, that the sig line makes any plan you put forward immediately suspect :). Good hunting!

    edit: Hmmm... immediately after posting this the sig line disappeared

  6. If tcp/ip wego was the only improvement, or one of just a few, I would be disappointed because I will probably never use that feature. However, I am pleased to report that I continue to be amazed at the number of new features being introduced in v3 and I can't help but think there is something for just about everyone in it (with most of us being ecstatic about 99% of it).

  7. Bil... I know I keep bugging you about this :), but wouldn't a player usually perform a battlefield analysis prior to selecting their force? Is there any chance of you posting a fly-over video of the battlefield? If you could provide analysis commentary as well it would be a plus... I know it is a lot to ask. The thing of it is, the more opportunities we have to see your analysis in action the more opportunities we will have to learn, which is why I keep bugging you about it.

  8. sf, mind if I call you sf? ;)

    I hope this suffices:

    Basically when I am the German player on defense in bocage or even close terrain (urban, woods, etc.) I am looking for long engagement ranges, I want to keep the US player at arms length as his close in firepower can be overwhelming. With almost every German team fielding an LMG it will not take many units to provide an effective defense, and I planned on being flexible and giving ground as required.

    In this map you can see that I have every opening in the hedgerow covered by long range fire, sometimes by multiple teams. The teams on my left do not have LMGs, but I wasn't planning on them holding out so much as being an early warning asset.

    Team Y in the center is the hinge pin.. if he falls then Field 1 (F1), F3, F2, and probably F4 will have to be abandoned and those units will have to pull back.. the reason? Because then the US player can use the hedgerows in F1 to attack my units on the F4 hedge (teams C and A) with concentrated short range fire. He doesn't need to kill them, just pin them and follow that up with an assault. Also if Y team falls then the teams covering F2 will be in trouble as he can engage them with enfilade fire. That path through the trees that team Y is covering is a dangerous approach as it allows the US player to avoid those long range exchanges of fire.. I have an answer for that approach but I don't want to share it yet. ;)

    If I was the US player I would look for the angles that give me the closest approach to a potentially defended hedgerow so the long range firepower of the MG-42s is nullified.

    Bil, thank you so much! This is exactly what I was hoping for when I made the request. I am fine with being called sf, but you good sir, can call me anything you want. If you keep this up you may even find me openly rooting for you in your next AAR against c3k :)

  9. Bil, thanks for yet another excellent AAR (and for your Battle Drill blog). Is there any chance you can delve into a terrain assessment of this map? I know you're a busy guy and so I was/am somewhat reluctant to ask, perhaps you could comment on terrain features using your deployment images rather than new content (I'm hoping there is a way you can do this that wouldn't require a ton of effort on your part). Or maybe there are specific things an attacker or defender looks for that are unique to bocage? Regardless of where you come down on this request thank you for your seemingly tireless efforts to help us all better understand the complexities of the game.

  10. “School of Hard Knocks”. Perhaps I will try playing it again, but it would mean having to play the campaign again to get to it...

    You don't have to play the campaign again to get to it... look for:

    CMBN_Scen_Organiser_v0.22 (I don't know if there is an updated version but this will work with the campaigns shipped with the base game at least, I suspect it will work with later campaigns but I haven't tried)

    in the Repository.

    Again, kudos and thanks to Mad Mike for this little beauty :)

    edit: I guess I should have read the entire thread prior to posting... good call mjkerner :)

  11. ... Unless you are giving orders in a training scenario, the conscripts will stop following the orders on the first sign of trouble. The end result is that de facto you can only give the simplest of orders to them.

    This... and even with the simplest of orders they will be ineffective.

  12. When I play I play in iron mode. I don't have units area fire known enemy positions without contact icons. I use area fire on suspected enemy positions on occasion (by suspected I mean there has been no enemy contact). If I am advancing to a position, with or without contact icon, I will use target light on that position regardless of contact icons. No one else has to play the way I do, which is a very good thing, and which is why I am against the idea of hard-coding additional targeting restrictions.

    I am also very much against command delays. I, too, played and loved CMx1. Having been tasked to defend with conscript Italians I feel command delays are very unnecessary when using lesser quality troops. If you have CMFI you can download this scenario and try it for yourself (my game was h2h).

    http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=2768

    If they were any less capable there would be no point in having them modeled in game, IMHO.

  13. I don't know, German units with (how much more?) flexibility reacting instantly is just as unrealistic. In CMSF where the in the new game engine the NATO allies have vastly superior C2 compared to the relatively blind Syrians, the Syrians are at huge disadvantage and expect to see the same in new Russian game. Would be interesting to see what to decide to add on top of that though :)

    After having recently tried to hold off British para's (I don't know their ratings but am guessing veteran at minimum) with conscript Italian troops in fortified positions I feel the idea of command delays to reflect the units' deficiencies is totally unnecessary...

  14. Thanks guys! A couple of quick comments:

    1. No plans to go to 64 bit any time soon. Not sure it's worth the development hit for the performance gain. Partly because we're dubious the gain would be that big of a deal.

    ...

    Steve

    I would be remiss if I didn't start by saying thanks for the bones. There is a lot to be excited about in them bones.

    As far as 64 bit goes... I'd hate to see a situation where Mac players can play on larger maps while the rest are denied by being OOM. I'm sure you guys are not going to let that happen, or if it does you will reconsider 64 bit support across all OS platforms.

    Thanks again for the great bone!

  15. It is not that I don't appreciate your efforts, VaB, and not just in this instance. Your testing has uncovered a lot and I believe important changes have resulted, at least in part, because of it. So kudos to you there.

    Earlier you replied to me:

    "... Second, while it would be fair to say there is no proof that a change would be more realistic, to claim there is no evidence to that effect is not. Unless you don't consider two US tests that produced shot trap ricochets to be evidence?"

    I consider those tests as valid as I consider pistol shooting range results when it comes to dismounted tank crew pistol performance. In the discussions about dismounted tank crews and their pistols of death almost everyone said that in a combat situation excellent pistol range results don't matter. Were I sitting in a Sherman, or any other tank that couldn't normally penetrate a panther, facing down a panther frontally I would give my eye teeth to have everyone get out of the tanks and have a shoot out with our pistols. The thought that I, on my very best day, might get a lucky shot after 8 because the best guy on a test range did would be bad news because that test range tank wasn't moving to save its skin after each shot nor was it subject to return fire. Or should the pistols, which I believe have recently been made less accurate, be made more accurate because of range results?

  16. BTW, all this talk about it being "rare" is missing the point. No one is disputing that it was rare, just not that rare. To put it into perspective, if the incidence of ricochet penetrations in the game were increased by a factor of 100 it would still be more than twice as rare as it was in the CMx1 games.

    Haven't you already said no one knows how rare it was? If no one knows how rare it was how do you know CMx1 got it right?

    AFAIK, CMx1 didn't use a physics engine to model the shot trap and CMx2 does. This is leading back to the "design for effect" vs "design by what ever the physics engine model is called" discussion. For me, your tests have shown the shot trap hit is possible, which we know matches reality. What we don't know is the probability of a shot trap hit which is what you seem to want to change.

    In essence, you seem to be advocating for a change to the game without providing any evidence that the change would make the situation more realistic. Compare this to the CMFI Italian MG's where someone presented videos of the guns firing and reloading, after which the firing and reloading characteristics of those MG's were changed.

×
×
  • Create New...