Jump to content

Erwin

Members
  • Posts

    17,464
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

Posts posted by Erwin

  1. Any era in which long range accurate weapons, ATGM's etc. are NOT present would make an xnt addition. (Hence Afghanistan could be terrific.)

    Because of CMSF's relatively small maps so many weapons systems are firing at essentially point blank range. It's the almost 100% accurate and frighteningly lethal weapons that make CMSF frustrating and maybe too hard for average players (non asperger people who have lives etc).

  2. Thanks for the note. I do understand re the mast issues. But, I wonder why effort is made for examle to give interiors and crew to bunkers. Would one realistically know how many guys are in the bunker. It seemed like just one of several items that could have been cut in favor of other cool stuff.

    Its not a big issue...

    BTW I find myself enjoying the Brits a lot. It seems like more of a challenge where one has to use a lot more skill than with the US with their ability to shoot the c*** out of everything before moving in. Looking forward to similarly balanced scenarios in Afghanistan.

  3. I appreciate that many potentially good ideas are not viable.

    However, in this mast case, how about designing for effect? So, yes, the "TacAI should keep the mast at optimal height as the vehicle moves" and how about having that as what the vehicle sees at all times. Why would a crew want to see less when they have a mast? So, there would only be one point of LOS generation.

    And visibility seems more a function of range. At longish distance, would the enemy really see the sensor box? Yes, it would be a compromise to only have one visibility factor for the vehicle. But there are many other compromises in CMSF, and when all is said and done, it is a GAME - no matter how brilliant.

    It would be VERY cool to have telescoping masts.

  4. It may also be something to do with your video card(?).

    After I deleted my prefs file and restarted any CM1 game, it automatically offered me the 2048x1536 resolution (as the max).

    However I suspect your 1280x1024 res may make the game look pretty good. On my 30" monitor, the image is just starting to break down into pixels etc.

  5. I didn't know CM1 required elicense these days. I recently bought a 2nd set of all three CM1 games as back-ups against the day the originals get lost or broken and all copies on my machines also mysteriously disappear (yes, I am paranoid).

    If I reinstall from the new disks I bought a month or so ago from BFC, will I need to elicense?? (God I hope not.)

  6. Afreu: I didn't have a problem with the early surrender on Mud Marines, as the Red had very little left at that point. (Although it is nice to cruise through the last turns.)

    But, I hope you add the reinforcements suggested for Joint Venture. It would make the game much better, as the early surrender was inappropriate given how much red had left. (One can kill a lot of red via lucky airstrikes.)

    PS: Re ammo. I thought there was sufficient ammo. One has to make sure one's inf trapped in the town have loaded up on everything that was in the vehicles.

  7. Just completed this large scenario. Along with Afreu's other excellent design, Royal Mud Marines, I thoroughly enjoyed this complex and challenging scenario - quite grueling at times.

    Joint Venture starts with a desperate last stand of Afghan, US and Brit forces (hence the "Joint" part) in a small town as they are assaulted by waves or Taliban types.

    Their fight for survival is heavily dependent on initial set-up and use of a single A-10 to hold back the enemy long enuff for a US Marine platoon to arrive and secure a landing site across the river so that a Brit Para company along with a LOT of airpower can arrive to attempt a rescue.

    Lots of tactical challenges and surprises. Afreu specializes in mounting challenging enemy counterattacks where and when one doesn't expect em.

    The first time I played I followed the scenario orders regarding defensive positions (big mistake) and my joint forces in the town got massacred in about 35 minutes - (when the US Marines arrive at the other side of the map).

    I saved at that point and then restarted using my own "common sense" placement of defensive positions in the town. This time, most of the besieged allies were alive and seemingly doing ok by the 35 minute mark. I then stopped and reloaded the first ('orrible massacre) game, and played on from there for the extra challenge - just to see if I could still win.

    I did win. But... the big disappointment - which I find common with CMSF, is that the game abruptly ended early with about 30 mins to spare, with a Major "US" victory (despite most of the troops being Brits - so like real life, heh).

    I really did not think I deserved this victory as I was pretty sure I would run out of time, plus I had 89 KIA and 89 WIA (5:1 KIA compared to the Taliban and 2:1 re WIA). Also, it seemed that the enemy still had plenty of units and strength in the town to make the end fight very hard to win for Blue. It felt like a real bias towards the Blue forces. I personally thought I was heading into a loss.

    I hope it's something designers need to keep in mind if there is a way to stop these early AI surrenders.

    Other than that, I loved Joint Venture. What else do you have Afreu?

  8. The challenge of CM scenarios is that you know that the enemy is there, so it forces you to dismount and advance cautiously with inf until something happens.

    It's annoying when a scenario designer for some reason expects one to drive down the road until ambushed. The problem there is that a careful player can spend a lot of time carefully reconning forward when the enemy ambush is in fact a long way off.

    But, CM1 taught us that some designers give misleading info in the briefings so even when they say "There are no enemy tanks..." etc. one is forced to disbelieve them.

×
×
  • Create New...