Cameroon
-
Posts
889 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Cameroon
-
-
The exact same question I've hadOriginally posted by General Tacticus:But what does "adjust or replot" mean?
If the arty rounds are falling 200m to the left of the target, does one then aim 200m to the right of the target in order to drag the rounds on the right place, or just replot at the same point?
I thought that it meant to replot to the same point. But playing a recent scenario, whenever I did that the rounds fell where they had been falling.So does that mean you have to plot to a new point that adjusts the off-target to be on-target?
Furthermore (let's assume you do have to plot to a new point that adjusts for the error), do you need LOS to this new point for the replot to be effective?
-
YupOriginally posted by AnonymousOxide:The future patch will have new 3D models with textures to boot, that's what BTS said. There are quite a number of minor nation tanks for example that aren't using the correct model.
Just so no one gets the wrong idea though, they have also repeatedly said they probably won't get to all the vehicles that share models.
-
Well that is odd, I usually just leave 'em next to the thing and they tend to target and destroy it on their own.
Yeah, I know that wasn't helpful.
[ November 02, 2002, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]
-
If I could find the thread, I would but...
Some of the actual 3D models and their textures, and some of the textures in general, are shared. The IS-3 is one such vehicle with a "shared" 3D model.
Note that this does not mean it shares any statistics, just its look.
And IIRC, the IS-3 was not an immediate priority to update its model (since not all models/textures are going "fixed"). Hopefully we'll get lucky
All this was, I believe, posted from Madmatt. A search on his member # might turn it up.
-
I'd like to know where you're coming up with "most of us" and "cut in half". I haven't seen 5000 posters (which would just be half this board) commenting on how they disliked it. And I've seen many posters saying how they DO like it.Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:Amen Steven! You've touched upon what I was saying in the other thread. The "fun" has been taken out of the game for most of us. Sure, there will be a group of players like Abbott who like the new ultr-realism, but the fact is, the rest of us don't want this kind of game.
BTS has just cut their customer base in half. Hope it was worth it...
I leave each to their own, if they don't like it they don't like it. But I hardly think that some people disliking it means that everyone else must also (or the other way around).
The only CMBO I play now is in PBEMs. Originally I thought I might be detached because of the front, but that's been proven false by my choice of play.
The sticking point seems to be infantry, and as much as there's people having much trouble with infantry, there are those -- like myself and Priest and Abbott -- who haven't had those difficulties.
-
Best you can do is print it and start the tedious rebuild procedure.
-
Units using MTC don't just stop when they can see an enemy. Under MTC, a wayward (or not so wayward
) artillery round, stray MG fire, spotting a unit and I think a sound contact will all stop the unit.That makes sense from the concept of what MTC is supposed to do. Move until you make contact with something. The next step is to stop and figure out what that something is. After reading this link that was given in the Tips & Tricks forum, I realized that CMBB's MTC is doing the "Right Thing" wrt what MTC should do.
Of course, I don't know if any of that is helping the original poster to figure out why those units aren't moving when they should be
[Edit]
And to address the Run v Advance command, yes Run is much faster than Advance. Advance represents the the squad leap-frogging internally (i.e. half of squad covers, half dashes forward to next cover). This means that Advance is tiring, I don't know if it is more tiring than Run. Anyway, I'm pretty sure it's in the manual
[ November 01, 2002, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]
-
At first glance I like the idea, always have in fact
If it does go this route, then I'd want to be able to purchase Section HQs in QBs even more than I do now.But dear me, could you just imagine what would happen to the AI's forces?
-
Priest, I'm with you manOriginally posted by Priest:Hmmmm
My experience so far is quite different. I ran rampant through an infantry line firing away with some T-34s last game. Of course there was six of them against one platoon but I always believe in concentration of firepower along a narrow band.
And so far it seems I have had a unique experience of having to do little more than I had to do in CMBO to play CMBB. The only added work I have seen so far is the Cover Arc command. And it is worth the extra effort.
Just my thoughts.
My CMBB gameplay is very similar to my CMBO play in style. I'm not sure if I should be pleased with that or not It's just now my play style actually works effectively against
As for loss/win. I just played a draw, 53 - 47 (damn the AI!
). I'll win big against the AI often enough, but when I don't win, I'm not getting slaughtered.Damn, I must sound like a fanboy or something. Ah well, can't help but tell the truth as I've been playing it
-
If I may... maybe you should add more time. I use 35 for 1000 point attacks on a Large map.Originally posted by OGSF:I was interested to read about the camera angles creating a feeling of detachment. I hadn't thought that it might be that.
I am having a hard time getting used to trying to fight a battle over 2km+ in 30 turns. I find I am rushing my moves and not getting down and dirty with the troops like in CMBO. Advancing in bounds, using available cover etc., is hardly an option when I need most of the available turns just to get within bayonet range of the defenders and have dozens of squads and AFVs' to manage. Half the time it's camera angle 4, hit "Go", and let the AI sort them out.
It's pissing me off actually. Like "variable" endings always equaling "5".
OGSF
It does seem that way about the variable endings, doesn't it. Unless your defending and it's turn 6, 7, 8...
-
Argh, I didn't think to look if it went away. During the game, doh!
I should also say that the squad COULD be put in-command during set-up. In order to be shown in command it couldn't be more than about 10m away.
And, while I've seen the "command status doesn't change during setup" thing with radio-less vehicles, I've not seen it with infantry.
Well, if I see it again I'll make sure to get the save game so you can all see
-
Wait, you're on the side of the fence saying that HE is ineffective against Infantry? Please, I mean no offense, but I'm seriously not sure if you're joking or not
From where I'm sitting Artillery has become a greater threat. Heck, 81mm now actually does something to infantry besides making them duck. And I certainly haven't noticed any loss of effect from direct fire HE on troops. Are we playing the same game?
Understand, this comes as a great surprise as I've seen all too many threads where the initial coment goes something like "My infantry don't perform like in CMBO". This is the first thread where I the opposite opinion seems to be expressed.
Be that as it may, I don't feel that I've experienced the same things you have
-
Well, for one because the AI does a generally poor-a$$ job of setting up compared to a human
At least the units are semi-sorted now.
-
To answer demoss' question, the two left-most squads were both Regular quality. That was the first thing I though too, but they are the same quality. No casualities or fatigue either, just to rule them out.
As for LOS, as I said, there is nothing in the way at all. Furthermore, when I initially saw the command oddity, I moved the squads/HQ all over the place. That ONE squad had a shorter command radius than the others.
You can also see that the squad deep in the woods is in command. And as I stated, there were not terrain changes between the HQ and the out of command unit. In fact, the only unit I don't know about the LOS for is the lower-right squad. But as you can see, LOS or not, that squad was in command.
-
Yes, the computer does seem to like to make immediate and ill-advised counter-attacks while on the defense.
I'll wait for the 1.01 patch before asking if there is anything to be done
-
Actually, since it was during setup, I moved everything around. The In-Command range for that one squad was shorter than every other squad and even the support units around.
I don't know how the distance could be exagerated by the camera angle there, the unit is closer
When I started doing the set-up of my units, the furthest were actually in that woods on the left and in command. -
And no, this is not a result of intervening terrain. The picture doesn't show it as well as it could, but there's no little "hill" getting in the way. Has anyone else seen this?
And damnit, I will remember to get a saved game next time. sigh
[ October 31, 2002, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]
-
This is where my thoughts are on the matter. The tile is not "on fire" yet enough for the FT to stop. It makes flaming a building much less attractive, since you FT fires off his 9 or so shots so fast.Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:Could be a bug; I recall that in CM:BO, flamethrower teams stopped "firing" if the terrain (usually a building) in their targeted area caught fire. Could this be about the multi-stage fires, i.e. "catching fire" to "ablaze"?
The only work around I have is to approach to just the edge of the FT's range. Give an area fire order, and then a move (perhaps with a pause) back out of range. Obviously not so great if you're under fire yourself, but it's the only way I could think of to get them to stop.
-
And I have to say, the fact that trench "units" and the like slow things down is highly unfortunate. There is one Op on the CD in particulare where the number of trench pieces make it impossible for me to play.Originally posted by wwb_99:Yeah, units in LOS is the biggie. I have one very evil op set above the arctic circle (read NO TREES WHATSOEVER). Not too huge (~3 bns plus support on map) but once things get rolling computations were taking 15-25 minutes on my trusty old celeron 800. Reason being all the LOS computations.
Also note that fortifications are included in LOS computations, and that map had 120+ trench units alone.
WWB
The actual number of "playable" units isn't that bad, nor is the terrain. But those trenches make my machine beg me for forgiveness. Here's to an engine re-write (some day) that doesn't do that
-
The attacking AI in CMBB is not as inept as it is in CMBO.
If you pay attention, the CMBB AI uses tanks (and all AFVs?) in bounding overwatch. Try it, only half the tanks will move at a given time. Additionally, the AFVs do not tend to outstrip their infantry support any more. And finally, spotters, mortars and HQs don't lead the attacks much.
Pay attention man, the changes are there!
Those things said, yes the AI tends to funnel through one particular area on attack. That being the case, identifying the one avenue of attack it will use (at least unless it gets fed up and chooses a new one) will pretty much win you the game without much effort.
-
Do you think it could have to do with that the game was programmed on a mac? Do macs have a mouse wheel?</font>Originally posted by Dirtweasle:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panzer Leader:
It is comforting to know that Deanco too wants the "mouse-wheel zoom" feature. I just don't understand why BTS doesn't take advantage of the mousewheel. I just don't understand...
-
Better German Ammo? I imagine that's the reason right there.Originally posted by Treeburst155:Interesting....a Soviet T-34 (1941 model) does not penetrate armor as well as a CAPTURED Soviet T-34 (1941 model) according to the charts. Everything else in the info screen is exactly the same. Just the penetration charts are different. Oh well, not to get sidetracked. BTW, I've very carefully avoided the cast turret T-34 since there is no captured units of this type available to the Germans. Continuing with the test setup.
Treeburst155 out.
-
After getting to page 3, I sorely wish we could give our AFVs a "MTC - Pop Smoke" command. Make contact and then break it instead of slugging it out. Sure, we wouldn't always want to use it, but we can't very well give them a MTC coupled with a Hide like we can infantry
-
Good link, hell, I've only read the beginning of it so far and it's been worth my time
) artillery round, stray MG fire, spotting a unit and I think a sound contact will all stop the unit.
Human Wave BUG ?
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
All three of those moves are a lot less globally applicable when the terrain is bad (wet or worse) and/or the troops are less than fit.
As for specific drawbacks I've seen...
Human wave has a longer command delay and I think the morale boost is minor and only good "at the beginning". And, of course, you can only use one waypoint.
Assault is not "just a little" fatiguing
Again has only one waypoint. I think it has a longer command delay, too.
Advance I use instead of Move when I'm in contact or soon will be. There's no morale boost with Advance that I know of, but it (or Assault) are almost required when under fire. Works for me
And I think it tires your troops only slightly less than Run. I can't remember the manual exactly on this one.
As for the pros for Move. Well, it isn't fatiguing over any type of terrain or fitness. It is also quiet like the CMBO-style sneak. I don't think it's exactly like it, but it isn't as noisey as Advance/Assault and of course HW is loud
Anyway, those are my opinions. I use move when a unit is not in contact, and won't be, unless I need to use run