Cameroon
-
Posts
889 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Cameroon
-
-
Sure, but that doesn't tell you how fast its going while you're actually playing. Unless you're trying to lose.Originally posted by Michael emrys:If you don't mind going to the trouble, you can set up a test strip in the editor and put all your vehicles on it, then see how long it takes them to get to the end with various commands. Then with a little math, Bob's your uncle! there's your speed.
Michael
-
Well, I would definitely appreciate being able to get a PBEM turn out while in OS X.
I guess that's a vote for yes
-
You know, I've wished for just such an item almost every time I watch a vehicle move
-
Panzer Leader, if he's playing a game where he's carrying troops over from a previous battle that haven't been resupplied, then he'd have to create a map in the editor and those troops should be imported with the ammo loads as set in the editor.
I suppose one possibility would be to have the ammo load of a unit resupplied at every start, but limit the resupply to the "max ammount" the unit had to start with. So if a tank came in with 12 HE shells, every time it was re-imported it could only have 12 HE shells.
-
I think you're missing the point, we want to be able to give it HINTS through scripts (or whatever you want to call them). In fact, I think everyone here is quite impressed with what the AI in CM can do.Originally posted by Pingu:Jesus. You guys are so unhip it's a wonder your bums don't fall off.
The ability for the AI to play on any RANDOM map and have it surprise you every now and then is a brilliant achievement and this alone makes me doff my cap to the programmer.
Adding scripts would be banging the drum of defeat. Red alert was all scripted. How many played the same mission over and over again.
Yet in cmbb i have played Hill 312 a variety of times (especially when the patch came out to test the differences).
But then again if they brought out the perfect game, where would we all go to complain. The forums would be empty.
You can't please everyone. But BFC have done a fine job in trying.
What people are asking for is the ability to provide some external direction, not to gut the AI. My own personal suggestion is to be able to provide hints to the AI and set the strength of those hints. Thus providing a way for the AI to determine how important a given directive/hint is and if it should abandon or ignore a given hint.
Read the thread again, no one wants the AI to lose what it has now.
-
I'm with you and Emrys, that sounds like something I'd definitely get a kick out of. Given that there are hints of multi-multiplayer (i.e. more than one person on each side in control of a portion of the force), I would think we might have a fair shot at getting thisOriginally posted by Lou2000:Lastly .... I've said it before, but never seen much response either for or against.......
I'd like to see the option for a single player to just control a percentage of units on a side ... say 25%, 50% or 75% with the AI controlling the rest. Meaning the player would be cast in the role of 'helping' to achieve the objectives rather that in total control. Able to support the AI controlled units, but not issue individual orders.
Added commands for 'request support' 'request artillery' 'request armour' support could allow the player to call for assistance ... but the AI may not respond, leaving you to get on with it as best you can ........ All of which is not totally unrealistic !
I think that would certainly add something to single player games. Hell you could almost 'hotseat' a game against yourself without being confident of what side would win.
Any comments ?
Lou2000
They could even use the same interface, just allow us to substitue a computer player for a human.Oooh, now I'm excited.
-
Yeah, I've seen this, too. I posted a screenshot awhile back (awhile before 1.01) and was asking if it as a bug.
Since the unit is now using area target, I'm pretty sure it will keep firing unless you cancel it. It'd be super easy to overlook while playing and have a squad lose a ton of ammo.
-
Unlike Lt. Bull, I play almost exclusively vs the AI for various reasons. I play the occasional PBEM, but mostly I just like to play a quick game when I've got the time. I don't think there's any research concluding that there are more or less of either variety (that is, mostly solo or mostly multiplayer), thus there's every reason to believe I'd not purchase CM without its solo play
. Of course, I don't believe even for a second that BFC would head that direction.It seems that there is a focus on the AI being "one or the other" as either scripted or on its own. Personally I don't see why both can't be used together. Allow the designers to provide hints and set the flexibility of those hints (such as, "Might be a good idea" and "Do this or else!") but don't force the designers to do so.
Sure, one could build bad scenarios that way, but one could build bad scenarios anyway
-
The only time the 'wacky movement' lines thing bothers me is when the waypoints are underground, and thus unselectable.
I'm definitely going to remember the next time it happens so I can send a savegame.
-
Well, to be one of the guys who says "I don't think so"...
I don't think so
The new engine is NOT CM3, but CM3 will use the new engine. So re-writing the engine and creating CM3 can be done at the same time without it meaning that CM3 is being built on some other engine.Guess time, or BFC, will tell.
-
Well, I'm no where close to 100% positive, but I think it's a chance to surrender. If so, then it just kept "rolling" numbers that said don't surrender. I'd say consider it a fluke
On the other hand, could you have inflicted about 12% casualities on that last turn?
-
They are...{ahem}...burning with desire...</font>Originally posted by Ruthless:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pack Kuma:
I think that Russian tank is in love.
-
It isn't that LOS was reduced, it was that a bug that was NOT accounting for LOS through light terrain was fixed.
In other words, in 1.0 there is a bug that can allow light terrain to have no impact on LOS. This is contrary to the manual, even, which notes that even over open ground LOS is not infinite (well, it is in 1.0
). In 1.0.1 the above bug was fixed.And to actually post with relevance to the topic... I haven't a clue
[ November 23, 2002, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]
-
Cannister is a short-range ammo. Think of it like a shotgun, at ranges over 100 meters or so, it isn't very effective.Originally posted by Dr. Rosenrosen:Which tanks have canister? How do you get a tank with canister to fire? I've had platoons of T-34s, some with no canister and some with only 10 shots or so (lots more HE and AP). And even the ones with canister never seemed to use it.
Thanks,
Dr. Rosenrosen
-
Sounds like you are asking if the Advance command is quiet method of movement when no enemy is around. Since it makes better use of cover than Run or Move does (and thereby makes it harder to be seen by the enemy, it stands to reason), might Advance be a stealthy means of movement when enemy contact has not yet been made?Originally posted by Ace Pilot:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:
I've been wondering whether Advancing troops use their own cover fire with merely *suspected* enemy positions.
IOW, do they announce themselves sonically to an enemy who may be near, but not yet in sight, ( and vice versa! ).
Follow? IOW, do they fire their weapons when no enemy is yet seen, and are therefore loud and noticeable even out of LOS?
Eden
My understanding is that in CMBO, the Run command ignored the difficulty of putting rounds on target while sprinting. In short, it allowed all the men in a squad to sprint while simultaneously engaging the enemy. So, in CMBB, the firepower output of the Run command was toned down considerably, and the Advance command was introduced to simulate some members of the squad getting down in the dirt and firing while others moved. In short, the Advance command has a higher probability of engaging the enemy than the Run command does. I don’t believe this means that there is firing going on when there is no targeting line from the Advancing unit. Hopefully, someone can back me up on this.</font>
-
It depends largely on the unit's experience level. The more experienced, the less likely they'll do something like that. It seems that threat can sometimes cause that to happen as well.
-
I'm pretty sure that's fixed, check the Patch Update thread. Imported units aren't subject to the random experience fluctuation.Originally posted by SuperSulo:Then maybe you can fix a bug for me?
When I load a map with units on it into the QB, the same slight random changes happens. This is clearly a bug, that must be fixed... That would also happen to fix the problem with my campaign units, oh what a coincident...
-
I really like the way you've done the winterizing on this mod. I think I might have been someone, somewhere saying that less perfect whitewashes would be great, and I got my wish
Now I just have to play with some Hungarian forces, heh
-
Yes, you can save the map. Any saved game can be used to import the map. So save the game under the name you want to remember it by, move the file into the "Quick Battle Maps" folder and there you go
While you aren't concerned with importing troops at this time, the only time you'll have the option to import troops from a game is with the final autosave (when the AAR comes up).
-
Yes, you can save the map. Any saved game can be used to import the map. So save the game under the name you want to remember it by, move the file into the "Quick Battle Maps" folder and there you go
While you aren't concerned with importing troops at this time, the only time you'll have the option to import troops from a game is with the final autosave (when the AAR comes up).
-
Heh, this is a long and oft-discussed topic on this board. Check the both this forum and the CMBO forum, do a search for "Sniper" and you should find some rather long threads.Originally posted by Da Beginna:What is the difference between a sniper and a sharpshooter?
What it comes down to is the intention of BFC and the scale of CM. In both BO and BB, sharpshooters are, as Splinty said, intended to represent above average shooters who are just regular infantry.
-
Want to move to Melbourne, Australia? Big demand for Lotus Notes/Domino programmers/developers.Originally posted by Mace:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ColumbusOHGamer:
Anyone need a Lotus Notes Domino programming to do website work or database work??
Mace</font>
-
Joques,Originally posted by Lt. Kije:JonS wrote:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I would expect LOS to be reciprocal, but spotting will, in most cases, not be.
The quote above from JonS correctly summarizes a greatly complicated matter but is of no use to you unless you already understand that g.c. matter.
You might search using keyword 'spotting' on previous threads. A perfect example is the Mysterious Ostrich-Like Pillbox. A concealed enemy pillbox opens fire on you, continues tearing your guys apart for a couple of turns, then seems to stick its head in some magic sand and disappear! You cannot even trace an LOS to the generic unit marker it leaves behind! AT guns, infantry in foxholes, all kinds of nonmoving things (I know...they CAN move, but that's not how they are pulling off this magic trick) get to decloak, deliver substantial fire, then cloak again.
You think of this, quite reasonably, as an LOS issue. On this board it usually is referred to as a spotting issue. You will be amazed and astonished to discover it has many defenders! Or maybe you won't. I seem to be amazed and astonished at most everything that befalls me in this game.
-- Lt. Kije</font>
-
I'm picky, I want white-washed but not so perfectly. It has always seemed to me that repainting ends up being less than perfect, especially when done in the field. There was a post in a thread describing how the hasty repainting to sandy colors in Desert Storm looked... wish I could remember the thread or the poster.Originally posted by PEIPER#1:yea those are nice, but actually in the eastern front most of the vehicles where painted white, they where more prepare for winter
but stilll that will be nice
That's actually the reason I haven't installed any of the winter mods yet, they are too perfect. I wanna see the old camo colors beneath that coat of white-wash!
Trouble with CMBB demo
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
I also had no trouble (other than being on a 56k modem...) downloading and unpacking the Mac demo.
I don't think Stuffit 7.01 (which is the "latest") uses a different format, but you could give that a shot. It's a MUCH smaller download, at least