Jump to content

Tuomas

Members
  • Posts

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    49735657

Converted

  • Location
    Esbo, Finland
  • Occupation
    Student

Tuomas's Achievements

Member

Member (2/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Great stuff gyus! If only one day I could see AMV or a Pasi running around in this game engine... Now where did I put those M05 desert trousers... -Tuomas
  2. In reference to the thread title, I began to ponder about momentum per se. To what extent is it included? Obviously acceleration is as it was in CMx1 and I seem to recall that slope affected the acceleration also, but what about stopping? And collisions? And perhaps sliding sideways as your tracks lose grip? To what extent are you guys modelling these? Small detail, I know! But atleast for me, the apparent lack of momentum and abrubt stops have always seemed strange in CMx1. -Tuomas
  3. Hi! I think both the limitations and strongpoints of RTS and WeGo have been brought up and discussed quite throughly during this thread. I will try to be constructive and bring out a concrete scenario decipting possible problems and maybe come up with possible solutions for discussion. Consider a case where a squad is advancing on a city street when suddently it comes under moderate small arms fire. The squad leader decides to scramble the squad to cover. After securing that everyone got out of harms way he propably is concidering how to counter the threat to complete his original mission. I think everybody agrees until now the TacAi will do a decent job, but after this the unit needs player input weather to circle around the threat, advance through houses or weather to charge straight for the enemy. This all depends on circumstances wich are out of reach for TacAi atleast for few years still! Now in WeGo-mode human player should notice this during the playback phase and give new orders to the unit on the next turn. As many here have pointed out, in RTS-mode however the player might or might not happen to see this. If the player is "wearing the wrong hat" i.e. as the company commander pondering where to hide his Strykers or telling a squad on the other flank to clear that house from insurregants anyway doing a task that prevents him observing this and as a consequence knowing that he should issue further orders to the squad under fire. There have been suggestions ranging from text messages to audio ques to notify the player that there is something going on. Realisticaly how soon should the squad react? Well that really depends on the original order. If the order was such one that the unit is unable to fulfill anymore, the squad should report this and await further orders from up. But if the unit was completing a task which can still be fulfilled, the squad leader should be the one who decides what to do. So in the first case a notifiable delay is realistic but in the second case, atleast with more expirienced leaders, the decision should be fast or even instant (gut instinct). As the player hast to put the squadleaders hat on and make that decision, atleast in more complicated situations, he should be alerted and made available to decide for that unit. Now what are the UI-related problems? First consider that there are several of this kind of situations occuring the same time, and now the player has to be able to making multiple decisions simultaniesly. (Remember the scenario is that squadleaders are the ones deciding (simultaniesly), not the CO!) This problem can be overcome by slowing gamespeed down. (In the other case the player obviosly should not be able to decide the case for everyone instantly. Form the game designers POV these situations are unforunatedly difficult or impossible to distinquish.) Secondly there is the problem that while making these decisions the squadleader is aware what has just happened. On the contrary the player alerted to the scene just now has only some knowlidge what has just happened. Maybe this is enough to deduct a reasonable reaction for the squad, maybe not. If there is a squad covering and being supressed and a enemy unit is nearby the first thing coming to mind would be that this squad has come under fire. What if there was a IED that went off on the street? The readtion to these situations could be wildly different. For the player to "roleplay" his role as a squadleader should be also aware what has happened. The suggested short replay is a way overcoming this aspect, unfortunatedly Steve said it was not possible to do. Another possible way to solve this would be a window inside the main screen showing the happenigs of that unfortunate unit. The window might appear when the firing starts, or if it is hard to decide wich action is worth showing, player could be able to split he's screen showing different locations before hand or according to reports he is getting from he's units. Or there even might be several of these smaller windows decipting various places in the battlefield that the player could suffle through. Or even multiple screens on different monitors! So in short my idea is to allow the player to follow the events on the battlefield in more than one place simultaniesly. Of course this is just a work around to allow the player to (even try) control more units simultaniesly and the real answer would be multi-multiplayer where each player controls only a platoon or so! But your comments anyway? -TNT-
  4. Just incase poor old Soddy wanders by this thread again I might suggest to check out this site: http://www.boohbah.com/zone.html Gets your mind off CMAK mighty well! -TNT-
  5. A lot of us Finns have been concentrating on eastern front after CMBB came out so I am not so surprised to see only so few of us responding to your thread. BTW. I enjoyed your preview report on CMBB before the release. Thanks. -TNT-
  6. Well seems that my section is quite active. I feel that I must contribute to the cause also. Rear Guard Action against Grog Dorosh 7 files exchanged. Hosszupalyi against Bertram 5 files exchanged. The Beast against Kanonier Reichmann 6 files exchanged. The Christmas Battle against Cpl Carrot This one is the only one a bit further, but only 14 files have been exchanged. King of Debrecen against Holien Holien! I would be more than happy to send you UNZIPPED files. It is just I haven't received anything from you I could return! Well that about wraps it up. -TNT-
  7. They wanted to end the war so Finland could still harbour its dreams of occupying Eastern Karelia as well as have a grudge against themselves for taking the ground they took as a result of the war ? If this is true then they (Stalin) were in fact banking on Finland winding up in a conflict with them and they could (hope to) finish up the business (of occupying the entire country) at a later date. This is supported by the fact USSR continued to harrass and pressure the Finnish government in a very antagonistic fashion. And they did bug the Germans about the "Finnish issue" repeatedly. They could have been pushing us into the Germans lap and making sure the Germans knew they were doing that.[/QB]</font>
  8. I had noticed this too and even posted my findings directly to you. I would describe this as simply CMBB leaves contested flags out of the scoring calculation. It just counts all players points for both players and then adds these two numbers together and uses that as the maximum score. Wich way to divide the score then? I can think of situations where the contested score should count mostly for the loser and also many situations where the winning side should get most of the score. So basicly without knowing the situation I think the fairest way would be even distribution. -TNT-
  9. Are you talking about transformation diagrams for steel? I am a bit lost with the proper english terms. -TNT-
  10. Well I was playing CMBO until we ditched it in the Nordic tourney. So I am only playing CMBB now. What do you think about this: when CM3 comes out from Battlefront will there be these kind of polls in the CMBB forum? Maybe some diehard Finns will keep to CMBB but I think ther will be only few, if any, others sticking with the older game. -TNT-
  11. Few comments about my performance in the scenarios. First let us take Kriegstadt this one I fought against Mattias. When I saw this scenario I was a bit puzzled by the crack arborne company under my command. City has many places for ambush so I decided to advance with caution. My plan was to overwhelm the opposition by using heavy buildings and their better cover to kill more enemy than I would lose myself. No contact was made for many turns until one of my squads was almost completely annihilated. Quickly trying to gain local superiority I found a crack Gebirgsjäger squad. This did enforce my doubt that this would be the "balanced" one of these scenarios. Long story cut short I lost most of the opening firefights because I had spread my foces too thin, I could gain no local superiority. I did spread them mostly because I have had few disgusting friendly fire incidents with tightly packed units. (This would have propably not been the case in this scenario due to high experience of the forces.) And I wanted to have four manouvre groups. As it turned out this was allmost perfectly balanced scenario, only mirrored map could have made it more balanced, and should have resulted a draw. But night figts are allways quite random and can go either way. So what would have been the winning strategy? 1. Rushing the church. This is what Mattias did and the result speaks for itself. 2. Gather a hard punch and storm each station individualy. This strategy has a problem with friendly fire and if the opposition does the same luck has a high authority deciding the winner. Giving the nature of night battles (low visibility, danger of friendly fire) I think that night battles with fog can't reliably decide the better player. Second game Twin Valleys with Ari. I planned my defence on the assumption that I would face an mechanized opponent. When it truned out that I would be facing outflanking tactics and forrest fighting I knew I had lost. My defence was optimized to yeld the best result against a mechanized enemy. The rigid plan allowed much too little flexibility to counter the flexible tactics used by Ari. I think I did a good job minimizing the losses after hope of a victory was lost. (I can only think of a one platoon I could have saven had I retreated it before the mortars started blasting.) Also my hiding Hetzer was discovered too early unbeknownst to me. I thought all the time he was my Ace up the sleeve. Well what would have been a winnig strategy with this scenario? Well the control of central forrest was crucial to succes in my mind and I should have placed more troops there. Using quick hit and run tactics against infrantry trying to reach the forrest. This tactic would have not worked so good against a mechnized enemy, but I think it would have proven adequate should that have been the case. Also in a real world this tactic would have been too prone to encircelment of the whole company, atleast in my mind. Third battle Fluid against Cogust was dropped before I could clearly say which way the fight was going. I would be pleased if I could get the game files between Mattias and Ari to see how did they tacle the problems presented in this scenario. If my opponents like to share their side of the fight I would be glad to hear their comments. -TNT-
  12. Resolving the winner with CMBB is fine with me. However does everyone have CMBB? Everyone atleast should, but if you think that you are not familliar with CMBB yet please say so. So what do we need? We need a replacement for Cogust and three scenarios. Right? Not necessarily we can do away the fourth player by using the schedule I posted above. And we could do away the scenarios by making few quickbattle maps and use the map import function to get those games going. Allthough I think it would be better to use scenarios. Please, Mattias and Ari, tell us what you think. -TNT- ps. Could the Fog of War be lifted from these finalist scenarios? I would like to know all the passwords and discuss about these scenarios! [Edited because I can!] [ December 01, 2002, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Tuomas ]
  13. Yes I must admit that I don't know very much about artillery practice in other countries. And I too think that the article could described a bit cartoonish. So was the article right about brits not using any higher mathematics than the Pythagoras equation? I would find that bit odd if it were to be so. Anyway I still think that artillery is too swift. FO searches for the spotting rounds, decides the corrections, radios the observations (or corrections) to the battery, guns are adjusted and loaded and after that the shells need to travel to the target. Somewhere in between the observations need to be calculated to corrections too. Tell me, do you think that all this could be done in 30 seconds? Only when spotting rounds are right on this could be possible. -TNT-
  14. Would that have been "Paavo Iivari Kalle kerta ampukaa!" or was it customary to use just one spotting round? At least the modern practice is to shoot with all the guns and separately only if one of them is firing clearly off the mark. And I agree with you that the delays for Finnish artillery seem about right but the delays for other countries seem too short. And reading from that article you linked maybe artillery is too accurate to begin with. Brits used massive amount of tubes to cover areas just because most of the rounds were not hitting the target, roight? And ordering strikes to allmost out of LOS. How can you correct them if you can't see where the spotting round falls? (ie. though luck, it landed somewhere farside of that ridge...) -TNT-
×
×
  • Create New...