Mud
-
Posts
366 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Mud
-
-
*grumble*
Using MSFT Windows?
Start Menu -> Control Panel -> Display -> probably Advanced Properties, et al. Go find out what your video card is. Then you might want to search the Tech Forum for it (to save you some time: apparently, if it's an ATI, not seeing fog is normal due to driver issues).
Thick/thin fog will make a difference, and it seems likely that the game is fully aware of the fog since it's mentioning it in the info screen. You can also pick night if you want to cut down on LOS...
-
Speedy is correct in that mods only change appearance (visual or audio) and have no relevance with, say, the turn computation results, et al. One can safely ignore the jokes about high-density armor...
But... certain visibility-raising mods could be considered useful. A high-contrast grass, perhaps combined with a grid, might help you spot elevation changes easier -- and might help prevent silly LOS mistakes. The mine that assigns different colors to AT and AP mine signs saves you time since you don't have to go to view level 1 to read the warning message.
*scratches head*
I've never heard of it being done, but one could actually make "functional" non-realistic mods for a novice. For instance, color-coding units on the basis of average (over availability time) requisition cost. Or vehicles could be striped on the basis of AT power, et al.
-
It would seem relevant to ask -- what is the size of a 20mm FlaK burst; or more precisely, in CM how much fire does one fire point from a 20mm FlaK represent?
-
I doubt that they take into account exact engineering diagrams versus shell entry point, because vehicles are represented as point objects, anyway.
However, check your vehicles -- especially most Shermans, as MikeyD notes. Some have the 'Burns Easily' tag, which might account for anything such as how the ammunition is stored (e.g. if ammo is unusually likely to go off on a penetration hit). I can't tell you whether the 'Burns Easily' tag is binary (flag=on or off only) or whether it merely indicates the presence of an unknown quantity (e.g. different levels of 'Burns Easily').
-
A/V mods are easier, because they have zero gameplay effect. Allowing unit statistic mods could lead to unfair settings unless changes were *very* visibly highlighted by CM:BO itself -- e.g. somebody could change an obscure squad or vehicle, one that's rarely used, and massively increase its power -- e.g. massively-armored, 128mm-armed Lynx tanks. Or subtly decrease the firepower of the opponent's units. You'd want not only to guarantee that the two players had versions in sync with each other, but also that they were both very aware of the changes by, say, having the program explicitly list them ('Lynx main gun was changed from ... to ...').
-
Probably. I don't have any references on, er, WWII-era landmines and their triggering mechanisms, though.
Nowadays, what, maybe we could design largely plastic-shell mines with some kind of magnetic trigger for detecting the proximity of large quantities of ferrous metal. It'd surprise me if WWII-era landmines were that advanced (IOW, not just pressure-triggered), but *shrug*.
-
Another difference, if memory serves, is that engineers don't need demolition charges to clear daisy-chain mines -- only time.
Hrmmm. It's definitely a WAG, but does the detonation probability have anything to do with ground pressure or nature of vehicle (wheeled / tracked)? Just speculating that a wheeled vehicle should have much less contact area with the road, and perhaps the probability of it actually hitting a mine (especially one that's clearly visible and that might therefore be somewhat avoidable by an alert driver?) is reduced.
Might be relevant to know whether those HTs set off the mines, but were undamaged, or whether they managed to avoid 'em completely.
-
Did you enable transparent walls and visible roofs? With the first option on, walls will either be normal-looking (if building is not known to be occupied) or translucent (if somebody's there); without, the walls will either be normal-looking or completely invisible, which sounds like what you're seeing.
As long as your ATI card supports it, that is. That I wouldn't know (I've got an nVidia card, m'self, which has all its own issues).
-
Borg spotting, plus FTs being a very high-priority target, probably hurts them badly. Some guy 350m away spotting one might not mean immediate death, but when that spotting information gets telepathically relayed to the target 80m away and that'd been focusing their attention elsewhere, well, that's going to HURT. They also can't run in CM:BO, even for a very short distance.
-
Hrm. I *thought* FTs each had an FT, not an FT+assistant. Might be thinking of a different game. I'm not sure that "reloading" a flamethrower under battlefield conditions makes a whole lot of sense...
-
Er, why? I understand why integral MGers move faster in a squad -- they're bringing along less ammo and additional gear (tripod, extra barrels?). There's no assistant in an FT team carrying "extra" gear as far as I can tell, so the speed boost would make less sense. Maybe give them the ability to move fast but make it much more tiring than normal. *shrug*
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
i would assume that troops under fire, or at longer ranges (50-60m) either wont shoot or will let one fly far right! funny enough, i have now taken out more vehicles with rifle grenades than i have with panzerfausts! i have the hardest time getting my panzergrenaders shooting those at like 30m with a faust100!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hm. Maybe a Panzerfaust-type weapon is harder to fire for some reason? e.g. is there a backblast that risks setting the place on fire, or maybe the operator needs to stand up or otherwise expose himself to greater risk, or... ?
I've used the rifle grenades against light/medium German vehicles in towns, but that's against the AI, which isn't too good at screening its vehicles with infantry.
-
Not sure if this should be here, since it concerns performance and specs, or just the general CM forum.
I've got a 3-yr-old box (450MHz PII (Yes, I know. Maybe when the market recovers.), but partly updated, like the memory (384MB) and video card (MX400, but constrained by AGP1x SE440BX)). With large battlefields, would turning the camera to face off-map and disabling smoke, weather, et al help reduce turn computation time? Watching the replays is decent enough (Sherbrooke gets a bit slow), but the turn computations themselves can take a while for a large battle w/ numerous units and long LOS -- sometimes slow enough to wonder if an option to freeze rendering during computation would help.
-
A medal to the pair, even 'tho it was only a lightly-armored Hummel.
Ai-yi-yi. I curse at my AT infantry for taking such horribly unlikely shots -- in one AI QB, my FJ shrecks, even sneaking/hiding, seemed compelled to open up at outrageously unlikely ranges against a really irritating Jumbo on a tall hill with superb LOS (moderate hills, sparse trees, rural). That's "unlikely" as in "manually check w/ LOS tool and see 3% hit probability". Maybe unit experience has something to do with it.
-
How about flaming a building that you're about to abandon anyway? For instance, enemy troops are about to overwhelm one of your forward buildings, so you order whoever's inside (if anybody) to withdraw and order a waiting FT to fire the building and then (pause, say, 30sec) to reverse/fast-move out away. If whoever was defending didn't withdraw in time, well, they were probably dead anyway...
I figure that if you have to give ground, you might as well give the enemy just the streets, and fewer buildings if at all possible.
-
Sure, with consent of both players. Hrm. Preferably allowing consent to be granted after a game is over, which would mean that the last turn's ending would have to generate some sort of 2-part key. Players with both halves could then "unlock" the previous saved games and watch 'em.
That would allow players to analyze a game after it's over (to better learn from their mistakes), but doesn't require a change in tactics in-game (because the FOW is preserved until it's too late to do anything about it).
-
The fellow referring to players fighting on the Eastern Front soon meant the "Frontovik" mod, I think, not the release of CM:BB.
*shrug*
We'll find out eventually, eh? And knowing now won't put the game in your hands any faster...
[ 10-13-2001: Message edited by: Mud ]
-
Heh. Might it also have been due to a grenade blast? You don't mention how close the MGers were, but if it was hand-to-hand range, grenades don't take prisoners.
At least prisoners don't seem to retain telepathic LOS for their side, as they did in a certain other game of similar theme I once played. And you weren't deliberately doing something bizarre like moving prisoners in strange patterns away from your troops in order to generate spurious Infantry? contacts.
-
So, probably, they only list the AP muzzle velocity, the same way the single listed blast rating is very likely just for the HE shells.
How often is penetration an issue when you're firing HE? Perhaps against a soft-skinned vehicle, but... There's accuracy as well to consider, but again, firing into a mass of infantry in woods with HE probably does not need quite the same degree of precision as does trying to bounce an underpowered round off the shot trap of an early Panther turret and then through the top armor. So, eh, it seems plausible to me.
-
Yup. Win2KPro + GeForce 2 MX400 + Det 21.83, and I still see the transparent-white issue regardless of FSAA (forced off, application controls, 2x, 4x). 2x still causes Dance of the Whirling, Flashing Textures at end of game when switching back to map after reading AAR, so I normally use "application controls".
-
It might be nice, at least for a scenario designer, to be able to place fortifications for the attacker as well to simulate a battle at a static front line -- a siege, say. Another bit that would help so that the battlefield doesn't look quite as pristine would be pre-placed craters, already-damaged buildings (we can place burning ones, but I don't recall being able to place merely damaged ones), et al. Maybe in the engine rewrite. *shrug*
-
Aye. Whoever places the minefield could be covering it with a hidden HMG, or an arty spotter (TRP even) just hoping to pick off some nice, expensive engineers. If you're really paranoid about ambushes, it might be a good idea to smoke the area behind the minefield to give your engineers some concealment from DF at least.
-
Clipboard's one of the nifty mods at DeanCo's site. It'd been e-mailed, but just in case anybody else is interested.
-
Hmmm. I am using modded mine signs as well, come to think about it. So they might both be white in the original. As for visibility, did anybody ever make a test map? e.g. seeing if engineers spot better, or if experience / suppression helps, or... Hrm. Oh, one tangentially related bit of silliness I tried last night -- yes, minefields work in buildings (create minefield, drop building on it). With sufficient minefields and engineers to toss demo charges, the house can explode just like the one bridge demolition method. It's not terribly useful, perhaps, except for very strange scenarios (rear-guard unit in top-floor of a rigged building, and engineers with orders to blow it instead of letting it be captured?) but it does work.
Rarity System?
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
Figure that it'll penalize (through higher costs) particularly bizarre force allocations. For instance, CM:BO lets you pick an all-VG SMG force, or load up on Wasps or HMCs (think somebody posted about having 18 HMCs in one battle?), Wirbelwinds, et al. It should make it somewhat harder to have outrageously selective forces unless players agree to turn the rarity stuff off. I don't know of any details that have been mentioned, 'tho.