Jump to content
Battlefront is now Slitherine ×

Soddball

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,497

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Soddball

    Locked Threads

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Palantir:

    Geech, and here I was thinking it was something more involved than "because"...

    Threads are locked when they reach the 300 post limit because the board software is a bit cranky and can crash if threads go over that.

    I think it's also because some subjects have been discussed to death and BFC want more than just the same rehashed threads here.

    There are always alot of locked threads in the General Forum, because Dorosh has alot of interweb stalkers.

    0

    TCP/IP chat - any plans?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I was playing a TCP/IP game today, and the following things vexed me:

    1) I'd like to be able to continue to chat to my opponent whilst the turn is being processed, rather than just whilst I'm carrying out my move and whilst the turn is playing. On games where turn procesing time is quite substantial it'd be a real bonus.

    2) I'd like a chat window which can be toggled on and off and which retains the entire conversation (so you can scroll up and down).

    3) My own 105mm barrage struck my F Company as they reached their start line - 400m out of place (no LOS for spotter).

    Please could 1 and 2 be considered for TCP/IP play?

    And if there is a 'remove suckage' upgrade for players to solve 3, I will buy it.

    0

    TCP/IP chat - any plans?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I was playing a TCP/IP game today, and the following things vexed me:

    1) I'd like to be able to continue to chat to my opponent whilst the turn is being processed, rather than just whilst I'm carrying out my move and whilst the turn is playing. On games where turn procesing time is quite substantial it'd be a real bonus.

    2) I'd like a chat window which can be toggled on and off and which retains the entire conversation (so you can scroll up and down).

    3) My own 105mm barrage struck my F Company as they reached their start line - 400m out of place (no LOS for spotter).

    Please could 1 and 2 be considered for TCP/IP play?

    And if there is a 'remove suckage' upgrade for players to solve 3, I will buy it.

    0

    TCP/IP chat - any plans?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I was playing a TCP/IP game today, and the following things vexed me:

    1) I'd like to be able to continue to chat to my opponent whilst the turn is being processed, rather than just whilst I'm carrying out my move and whilst the turn is playing. On games where turn procesing time is quite substantial it'd be a real bonus.

    2) I'd like a chat window which can be toggled on and off and which retains the entire conversation (so you can scroll up and down).

    3) My own 105mm barrage struck my F Company as they reached their start line - 400m out of place (no LOS for spotter).

    Please could 1 and 2 be considered for TCP/IP play?

    And if there is a 'remove suckage' upgrade for players to solve 3, I will buy it.

    0

    Play-Them-Where-They-Lay

    in Combat Mission - Scenario Talk

    Posted

    I include a modified 'Play where they lay' set of rules for the big operations I create. My latest, Alpine Summer, is 40,000 points per side on an 8km x 3.6km map, 15 battles of 40 turns apiece. The scale of the map and the additional rules mean that the further one side advances, the further away their reinforcements are and the more work they will have to do to hold their position.

    I only allow setup anywhere on the field if both players have chosen to skip a night action.

    I find it works very well, forcing players to preserve their transport assets and pool them, and forcing them to provide AA cover against air attacks against their vulnerable supply lines.

    0

    Armour penetration and repeated hits.

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by YankeeDog:

    Thanks, guys. Good info.

    The stuff in re: FH plate especially makes a lot of sense, and may be another piece of the puzzle as to why certain German AFVs, like the StuGs, seem to be nearly impenetrable by contemporary Soviet weaponry, when RL evidence suggests that this was not the case.

    Playing CMx1, it seems like FH plate is the ideal armor, and it seems illogical that even the Germans were leaving the idea by the end of the war.

    The oft-debated T-34/76 vs. StuG matchup would be very different in CM if the "weak point" hit % for a given facing increased by, say 1-2% for every substantial hit the Stug took on that facing. . .

    Yes, I remember reading something (somewhere) about the StuG battalions pulling back their SPGs for repair after they had received several hits. there had been no armour penetrations but the armour damage from the big Russian shells meant they were out of commission untiul repairs were complete.
    0

    Armour penetration and repeated hits.

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by YankeeDog:

    How much did plate cracking really happen?

    I only hear it talked about much with late-war Panthers, which CMX1 already kind of models with the "frequent flaws in front glacis" thing. . .

    But maybe there's other AFVs that also had this problem? I'm kind of out of my element here, but IIRC plate cracking happens when the armor is too brittle. . . *sigh* where's Rexford when you need him??

    If plate cracking is an event limited to certain AFV in certain time periods, it might be completely irrelevant to the initial CMXs release (or not. . .).

    I have a photo in my "Alamein" book (Steven Bungay) which shows an Italian SP Gun in the desert with a hole the size of a dinner plate. The side hull plate has cracked like ceramic. Apparently Italian tanks were notorious for this poor armour quality.
    0

    Battle Scope

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    One of my requests in the thread at the top of the page was for CMX2 to retain its scalability - that is, the ability to scale up.

    As we've seen, CM:AK offers the chance to play on a 32sqkm map. I've built one of these, and there's room for a division on each side. It's very time consuming to play, and setups are a exhausting, but it's great to know that the CM engine, designed at the company scale, is capable of offering play at such a large scale.

    I love it.

    0

    Terrain modeling in CMx2

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    By focusing on a smaller slice of a larger setting we can do things like have 10 different types of sand and 5 different types of sand dunes :D But in order to do that we would no be doing something like winter time in a deep forest. With CMx2 it is an either or sort of thing per release.

    Steve

    Aaaahhhh!!! Steve has told us all that the next game will be set under water!
    0

    How about more Profanity?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeyD:

    I don't know if this is related to the topic at all, but I recall when Churchill first started flashing the "V for Victory" hand sign he was making the V gesture palm-in. Someone eventually whispered in his ear that in some parts of the north that hand gesture usually meant "up yours, Jack!", so the victory hand sign thereupon changed to the now familiar palm-out V sign (later termed the 'peace' sign by 60's hippies). :D

    The two finger salute reportedly dates back to Agincourt, but I think snopes.com debunked it. Too bad, it's a great story. Apparently, so the fiction goes, the French threatened to cut off the bow string fingers of any English archers they captured. When the English won the battle, the archers marched past the French prisoners and flashed their bowstring fingers. So the story goes. One of those stories you wish were true but probably aren't. </font>
    0
×
×
  • Create New...