tecumseh
-
Posts
260 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by tecumseh
-
-
:confused:Originally posted by Captain Wacky:I wish one of the guys would stop in here and give us some info on a fix to this. It probably won't get fixed in time for the shipping version, but it should be patched in 1.01 or whatever
If I have completely spotted a squad of three germans and so I know they have 2 LMGs and a rifle, then that squad runs into cover, the game puts a marker there that says "here's where the three axis guys with the 2 LMGs and 1 rifle disappeared". It's helpful! It's not a bug.
If you are sure that this weapon list updates when the hidden squad takes casualities, then post the results of your test here. Then I'm sure BFC will reply.
-
I don't think this is a bug, just a bit weird. All it is doing is reminding you of information you already know. What's strange is the other information in the status bar is removed.
It IS a bug if - unseen - the squad loses men and then this weapons list is updated. But that's a pretty rare type of loophole to take advantage of.
-
I have a peice of the Rainbow Warrior in my desk drawer.Originally posted by daveiw:Kick ass special forces, yup did a greeeaat job on the armed & dangerous
Rainbow Warrior huh?Some things are simply unforgivable.
[ September 16, 2002, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]
-
It is an old "bug". The same thing happens in CMBO. When a unit you've fully spotted dissapears, you can see how many men are left by selecting the "lost contact" icon, hitting return, and counting the number of guns.Originally posted by tar:The weapons graphic continues to show the NUMBER and type of gun even when the other information about the size of the formation is not shown. See screenshot below:
-
Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:
An HQ unit in cover, kneeling, will not be spotted except from close range, as long as it doesn't fire. To stop it firing use the cover arc command, or ambush in CMBO. It will then use it's binoculars to spot, and can direct mortar fire.There are not many situations that require a unit to hide. In most cases a kneeling (ie. waiting) unit that is prevented from firing by a cover arc is better, because it spots properly. If it is in woods, rough or a building it will not be spotted, except at very close range. Behind walls is an exception though! You need to hide there.
-
Yeah, it's like a rotten Genesis concert when the lighters come outOriginally posted by Old&Slow:Don`t ya just love those little Bonfires across your front
-
Yes. This will not change until the CM engine is rewritten. There's a screenshot of the CMBB scenario editor on gamespot:Originally posted by David Stone:I have been out of circulation for a while...
Is CMBB Scenario Editor based on 20x20 meter tiles like CMBO was?
-
Ahh, in the south island of NZ they would be called a "crib". Good for firewood in the winter.Originally posted by Moon:Yes, the small buildings are peasent huts. Like "ultra-light buildings"
Thanks Martin!
-
BFC sent me an email saying that the two games could be shipped together, normal postage for CMBB, +$1 to add TacOps 4 to the order. The instructions were to "order them at the same time"Originally posted by MajorH:> Could my order be shipped out when CMBB is ready.
> This would save BTS some money.
I don't know how that is supposed to work. I am not in the loop with the orders and sales folks at Battlefront - <sales@battlefront.com
hope this helps
-
In the scenrio editor screenshot, there are extra-small building tiles. But I can't see any examples of what they look like in the game. What are they? Peasant cottages?
Also, are the bigger fords for vehicles to cross rivers?
thanks
tec
-
I just finished the first demo scenario, and had a blast. The AI grouped itself together quite tightly above the centre and stalled as it hit a wall of TOW and Javelin. Ended up with 17736 vs 1210. I have played this map so many times now I know all the good spots!
My favourite weapon of v2, the MK19, seems to be less effective now? But I might have just had bad luck.
Here's a screenshot
-
Yeah I can imagine that would be the problem with making an eastern front computer game that doesn't end on June 23. My plan was to always give the less experienced player the soviet side! But your way is OK too.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:The thing about the Eastern Front is that some of the units portrayed are, technically, very good in terms of headcount, firepower, and support weapons. Early war Soviets, Italians, and some Romanian units come to mind as being rather "powerful" when their basic stats are examined. However, realistically they were generally undertrained, poorly lead, and badly motivated. They were also saddled with doctrine and other factors that just didn't work in practice.
Thanks for the replys. Oh yeah, and 18 months of fun. And counting.
-
Hi Steve. I understand there must have been a lot of thought gone into this change. The pros and cons list is very long, and you're right - coz the overall effect seems (in the demo) more realistic. It is related to the question asked on this forum a long time ago: "Why will I use the soviets in an historically accurate way (human waves, clumsy stuff etc..) when I can continue to use the careful, intelligent combined arms approach I use in CMBO?" The answer: because you've simulated the clumsiness for us!Originally posted by Battlefront.com:We beat ourselves to death trying to come up with a way to simulate what is basically not possible to simulate. This was by far the best system we came up with. I don't think you guys would like some of the reject ideas, one of which was actually coded (and stunk
).So far I seem to be the only person bothered (mildly) by having my control taken away, so I'll concede it's better for CM as a whole and I'm a gamey gamey gamey bastard.
[ September 11, 2002, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]
-
Yep. Nice attitude for a tourney player! I would like to join the next RD tournament if players experiment and have fun like this. Are they open to all RD players? I have about 8 games on that ladder.Originally posted by jKMkIII:But it was fun, and isn't that what counts.
I reckon Vandal decided that the 12 pdr was such a weak AT gun, that Hobo would use panther HE against them, and so fall into his trap. If he'd used the cheap 75mm pack (a better gun IMO), maybe Hobo would have been nervous of the C rounds and gone with arty. That's my AAR on his behalf anyway!
-
I do too. If the order type is the same (ie. two reverses, or two moves) there is no delay between them, otherwise there is a "rallying delay" or something. This would give travelling down roads or using curves no delay, and would delay other mixed-orders in a more realistic way than currently.Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:Oh, I think you're right.
That's too bad; I kind of like my idea. 
[ September 10, 2002, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]
-
No player gives a huge long series of orders to cover a number of turns that results in "troops just marching mechanically into a potentially disasterous situation". No one who has played CMBO longer than a week uses lots of waypoints for this purpose. Lots of waypoints are used in CMBO for the opposite reason, to keep your units safe. Hence the extra sneak command near the edge of woods, or "curve-reversing" to keep tanks safe, or the mixing of move/sneak in woods so the infantry behave realistically when they meet something. Players who just use sneak will see their infantry wander past enemy without firing. Players who just use move will find their infantry keep marching into heavy fire.
Nor is there a very strong relationship, IMHO, between the complexity of the order, and the number of waypoints required to carry it out.
I just gave an extrememly complex order to my soviet forces in yelina. It involved platoons moving out at evenly staggered intervals, smoke dropped at the same time, tanks moving at the same time, MGs providing covering fire, certain squads stopping early for covering fire, HQs held back, units aiming for single craters in a sea of other "non-protective' ones etc... It would have taken me a long time in RL to co-ordinate this with soviet green troops. However because each unit had one or two waypoints, I got a very small delay.
On the other hand, If I told some green soviets in RL "move carefully up to those trees, following the valley" and to the tanks "loop behind the infantry and wait between those two buildings", these are simple orders, but would require a large number of waypoints to re-create realistically in the game. They would also take the same time to come out my mouth if I was talking to greens or veterans.
I am happy with steve's reply that it is an imperfect fudge to make eastern front combat on the whole more real. Also because of the great new order types in CMBB and arcs and things, waypoint overkill is not so necessary. I just wanted to clarify why lots of waypoints are used in practice, which has nothing to do with complicated orders or planning far in advance.
[ September 10, 2002, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]
-
Me neither. An example: an infantry platoon leaves the cover of thick trees, crosses a small open area containing a couple of light buildings, and assaults a heavy buidling. The distance is 75m or so. A tank moves carefully around the heavy trees to provide cover.Originally posted by Cameroon:Well, from where I sit it won't make much of a difference. I don't give long series of orders because the tactical situation usually changes much too quickly (for me anyway).
For me I would use A LOT of waypoints for that. But this is not planning far in advance, this is just one or two turns max. Small sections of sneak, run, move for the infantry, and hunt and fast for the tank.
The real life order I would have given the troops is "attack that big building, but be careful!!"
Of course if I said that to green soviets - which is Steve's point - they would human wave with one waypoint. So it takes time to explain to them how to do it right.
[ September 10, 2002, 02:17 AM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]
-
Yeah, I prided myself on them! Any eventuality was taken care of. My turns looked like a scorsese movie.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Also, we do feel that people overuse waypoints. I have seen some of the paths you guys make and they are unnecessarily complex sometimes
Thanks for the reply Steve. I post a query to BFC and Major H on the TacOps forum and in both cases I get a verbose reply straight away.
-
In CMBB, the more waypoints you give a unit the greater the initial delay.
This means that intelligent and responsible infantry ordering (using combinations of move, run and sneak as the terrain and LOS changes - aka redwolf style) is being punished. Also vehicles using curves or following a road are equally punished. I assume now it will not be possible to order a tank to follow a long winding road without getting a 100 second + delay (despite the real-life order being simply "drive down that road, now").
Similarly does "run over to the town" really take a lot less time to say than "run over to the town, but be careful going through all the clumps of trees"? Or "Go around the swamp but avoid the open terrain". Or "move carefully behind those tanks and attack them from the rear" To get this type of simple, common-sense behaviour in CM you need to use a lot of waypoints. The orders themselves are not complex though.
Most good players don't use lots of waypoints to give complicated orders - ie. long-winded descriptions of what that unit should do over the next 15 turns. Most good players just use lots of waypoints to make sure the unit's behaviour over the next few turns is responsible and realistic. A jeep would nervously slow down as it rounds a corner, then move around the corner in a smooth curve, speed up and race for the next bit of cover. This is not a complicated real-life order IMO that warrarnts a big delay.
Am I getting this right? Do you folks think it will make CM more realistic? I am going to wait until I've played the full version a bit before passing judgement, but I am skeptical at the moment.
Not whining, just curious.
-
Thanks Rob, I have enjoyed these AARs very much.
Well it sure is a very strange game. Hodo's picks are bizarre - realistic but very tought to win with.
It is a pity there is no ARR from Vandal, because I would be interested to know why he grouped his guns closely together. If he knew that Hodo had limited arty and would try and engage the howitzers with HE, then having a big 17 pdr in the same clump of trees is smart. But he wouldn't have known this. Also, why he grouped all his spotters together, so they share the same LOS and why 12 pdr howitzers instead of cheap 75mm packs.
Anyway interesting game on a great map. I look foward to the final results of the tourney.
-
Absolutely! Thanks for the reply Major. I hope v4 sells well and you are inspired to add some new maps with AI for version 5.Originally posted by MajorH:I have to stop once in a while and sell something
. -
Yes, I get this too. I think there is a bug in Yelnia Stare and BFC know already.Originally posted by Cameroon:Has anyone else seen this? I can post a screenshot if need be. This is in the total casualities and # of men killed sections, not the points section.
-
I have a version of TacOps from what feels like over 10 years ago. I used to play it a lot on my mac LC, and even made up new markers for all the units. I only played against the AI, but had a ball.
I remember Major H announcing on the newsgroup he was working on a new engine that would allow proper map contours, and some other cool stuff. I think this was about six years ago? He worked on it for ages. I emailed him once a year for a while to ask how it was coming, and it appeared he was having trouble with the coding, and having trouble with publishers. I drifted off to other games.
Now I just downloaded the v4 demo, and it's got the same map as the old version I've got! :eek:
This is not a complaint because I am grateful for the years of fun, I am just wondering what happened!? Was all that coding Major H did for the new engine just discarded? Are there plans for a new engine still?
[ September 08, 2002, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]
-
Remember the Soviet spotter can fire smoke on turn 1.
Rainbow Warrior huh?
CM 3
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
[edit] I'd better not discuss other computer games here.
[ September 16, 2002, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]