Cameroon
-
Posts
889 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Cameroon
-
-
Sorry Rego, there is a lot of desire for this to happen. Unfortunately, it won't be coming until (hopefully) the engine re-write (2+ years away).
Basically it came down to a choice between choosing gameplay over extras (e.g. adding units or adding replay) and gameplay won. I'm happy that gameplay is there, but there are many who'd really like to have replay. But BFC knows, so here's to the re-write
-
Actually, he said completely random QBs aren't viable. By which, I believe, he meant that if you leave every QB setting random, you'll get too many lemons. If I'm wrong, then sorry RedwolfOriginally posted by PeterX:As a matter of fact, I think we're entering the Golden Age of the scenario desinger. Because, as Redwolf pointed out, QBs are no longer viable.
I play QBs literally all the time with a scenario here and there. Scenarios are fun, but I quite honestly have more lasting fun with QBs. Even if I play a human opponent, I'd play QBs over scenarios. I just wouldn't let ALL the parameters be random.
So, for me, QBs are entirely viable. I play as attacker, defender and MEs (though not many defense, too easy vs the AI) and with many different settings random.
Last night I played a 300 pt almost entirely random (set terrain features) QB. I had a low-quality Finnish platoon plus support weapons (3 LMGs, 1 ATR, 2 Tank hunters), a BT-7 and a BA-10 (I think) in a ME. And up pops a T-34. It was a challenge, not a hopeless situation.
So basically, I guess, as always, we all like different things
[ October 18, 2002, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]
-
Thanks Cpl Carrot, I've updated the listing. Musta been tired when I was doing the original
Am I correct in that the AAR linked is for the second Live QB and that you hadn't posted one for the first?
-
Well, I don't know why he wasn't engaging. Was LOS poor? In EFOW I've noticed that poor LOS, in which LOS exists but is "just barely there", often adversely affects the targeting ability of units.Originally posted by Fishu:Cameroon,
I did that at 170-230 meters, he the sniper ignored all the targets except the ones I gave :>
Those which I gave, ran off after first bullet landed..
Peterk,
...from where we get to unimportant targets.
How would it be able to find such important targets if at ~200 meters everything is 'infantry squad'?-)
As for the telling what's what... well it's funny, the only real good way with EFOW is to have other units closer ID them. Which is gamey since how would the sharp shooter know
Of course, really, most units that disappear from LOS (especially for any length of time) should be back to an ID level of nothing, but that's an entirely different topic. -
Sorry, link fixed (stupid when you mis-type your own name...)
[ October 18, 2002, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]
-
I think the most humorous (to me) bug fix was the M17 range being fixed to be 2500. It would appear to me that the 250 (?) max range was a typo
Don't get me wrong, I'm really glad the fix is in, it's just amusing what a small little typo can do. One does wonder now if the M17 will track incoming aircraft sooner (if tracking is based on max range, it should...).
-
Ryan, I definitely know where you're coming from here.
Its "the moment" when things either go your way, or don't. And usually to no one's plan
I had one happen just the other day. I had a platoon and 2/3s, 2 Maxims and a 12.7 HMG, one Churchill III and a M17 plus an absolute TON of fortifications (which was strange, but I maxed my points in all the other categories. I had to buy a lot of fortifications. On the other hand, it worked and was cool to lay out so much stuff
).I had placed the Churchill and M17 in a really out of the way place, but the only two tanks the AI had decided to take a route that took them into visual range (it sure LOOKED safe... sigh) and close. I destroyed both tanks, but both the churchill and the M17 were lost.
Which left me with my platoon and 2/3 plus those support weapons to hold off about a weakend battalion's worth of German regular infantry plus 3 halftracks and a 222 armored car. I loved that 12.7 HMG, it killed those pesky vehicles
In the end, I did manage a win, but I had so few useful troops remaining it could only have functioned as a holding action for some hypothetical larger force withdrawing.
I made a mistake with my deployment (had HMGs in trenches in front of the rifle squads, also in trenches), but it would only have bought a few more minutes.
-
I've posted a list of AARs culled from this forum (haven't hit the Tips & Tricks or Scenario forums yet).
I'm going to try to keep this updated, and if people e-mail me the URLs of AARs I'll add them to the list. If I get motivated, I might even make the page prettier
[ October 18, 2002, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]
-
The way I see it, seeing foxholes (units or no units) is entirely realistic. And units hiding is also realistic (ok, maybe guns are an exception here).
What is unrealistic is being able to see things that some unit does not see. Until we get that (relative spotting), it would be, IMHO, out of place for a permanent, non-moving object to appear and disappear off the map.
In other words, why should foxholes disappear "randomly" when other non-moving objects do not? Yes, it is perhaps more tactically significant than other things (like knocked out vehicles). However, I think it would be mismatched without relative spotting.
Hope that was clear and made sense, even if it isn't agreed with
-
Yes, it is 256 or 512. I can't recall which, though I feel it is likely 256 per side with 512 max.Originally posted by phil stanbridge:Isn't there a upper limit on the amount of units on the map at any one time?
-
Well, Stuffit (version 5 or better, at the least) will easily uncompress rar files. So if you've got stuffit you should be fine.
As for what rar is, it's a compression format. Apparently BFC found that rar compresses the BMPs better, they posted a note about this on the CMBB or CMBO forum.
[edit]
Well, after reading the thread which percipitated the start of this thread, I guess Stuffit isn't perfect, though it seems to be ok here.
On the other hand, if the program Shadow 1st Hussars pointed out is reliable, then it'd be kind of nice to have smaller downloads for those mods. Some of us on 56k modems sure would appreciate it
[ October 18, 2002, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]
-
Sharpshooters seem not to engage at under 100m and tend to do VERY much better at not getting shot if you let the TacAI target. If you set a target line, it is very likely that they will be spotted.Originally posted by John Kelly:So, what are the characteristics of the new sharpshooter? I've ordered a "cone of fire" and seen these guys ignore perfect targets of opportunity. Is there a range within which they will not fire? Is there a percentage of visability under which a fire command is ignored? Sharpshooters are virtually impossible to spot now unless you are right on top of them. That's not necessarily a bad thing, just different. I'm just trying to determine the sharpshooters attributes.
So if you really want to engage only one target, I think a covered arc that encompasses just that target would be the way to go. Or, target with a brief pause before scooting back out of LOS. Depends on the situation I guess.
-
Wait wait, I must have missed this. When did it come out that the Sherman was better off-road? Using CMBB alone as my sourceOriginally posted by busboy:Its much more useful to compare the T-34 with the Sherman. As it has been noted, the Sherman's guns (for AP) are equally or even more effective. It has been noted by some here that the Sherman actually had better off road performance than the T-34, its protection can be considered rather equal, and then the Sherman is a much more reliable vehicle to top it off.
, I would pick the T-34 for off-road capability over the Sherman every time....I looked back over this discussion and didn't see it, so I apologize if it was brought up and explained already in this thread.
-
The results wouldn't distinguish between minefield kills and off-board arty kills, would it? :confused: </font>Originally posted by Liebchen:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cameroon:
Re: Casualities by the minefields. Though tedious, you could figure it out. After the battle, go tally the kills for all the selectable units. Subtract that amount from the Casualities+Kills in the AAR screen. That should be casualities by the minefields.
-
The only CMBB AARs that I know of are currently on this particular forum. Unfortunately they don't all contain "AAR" in their subject so finding them all might be difficult.
Recently there were a couple of AAR-esque posts for the Live Quick Battles. Before that there were some beta and pre-release AARs. And there have been a few other AARs posted here and there.
It'd be kind of cool if there was a dedicated AAR site or something. Of course it'd need enough submissions to be worth it, and AARs seem a little scarce.
-
Just a tiny bump so it doesn't disappear altogether before some have a chance to see it.
-
Don't believe me? I've got a screenshot
Now, this wouldn't be that big of a deal, except that at the end of the turn that "area target of abandoned rilfe" will turn into a generic area target (originally it was targeting a specific unit) that must be manually cancled.
-
FWIW I've seen the AI exhibit exactly the behaviour you are after. Might have been a freak occurence, but it impressed the pus out of me when I saw it.Originally posted by JonS:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tontoman:
...Guess what I would like (against multiple targets) is that after a good penetration or two, if the enemy tank is NOT responding (firing back/moving) then have the AI switch to another target that is KNOWN to be still alive. If it's firing/moving sure keep punching hole in it my all means
. If both are stopped but not visably KO'd then keep pumping the shells into either one...Regards
JonS
P.S. Eden, I loved you 312 AAR
Friendly advice: never split your force like that </font> -
Yeah, but the problem is that you need to be a member of the group (or at least Yahoo! Groups?) to access the Files section.Originally posted by TheBigCheese:Try Downloading it here,it's in the files section
-
Well, since reposting all the mods that are already being hosted is probably not feasible (due to bandwidth, getting everyone's permissions, etc)... would a slightly different approach be more feasible?
In general I like visiting the different CM sites. They all have their different styles, layouts etc. But I never have ANY clue which one has what mods, and most of them have thumbnails that still strain the patience with a 56k modem.
Would a site that provided a highly searchable catalogue of Mods be a useful design? I'm not advocating providing direct links to the downloads, just links to the page where the Mod resides. Or to the site, if to the page with the mod is considered bad form (though I'm hoping the community is for the "to the page"
). Heh, then I'd be able to get Mods off of Tom's site even if he sticks with the evil Java nav bar (crashes Mac Mozilla almost every time).Take CMHQ for example. There are a TON of CMBO mods, but to find what you're looking for requires an extensive amount of hunting
Personally, being able to search for things like keywords "tiger" and "weathered" as well as author, game (CMBO/CMBB), etc would be invaluable.Of course, that would ALSO be a ton of work (all the categorization)... but I'd sing your praises
-
Just thought I'd say that the public QBs were pretty darn interesting. Even that amount of spectating was cool, so I'm definitely voting for spectators in the engine re-write
-
Addendum to Where can I buy the game from
If you're in Japan and own a PC, you will be able to buy the game through Micromouse, but not through Battlefront.com
-
**SPOILERS**
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That's pretty much how I went about it, though I used MTC and cleared the woods. About the time I was getting ready to wipe out the Soviet force back there, the reinforcements showed up. They finished the sandwich, and my assault went up the hill in good order.
Two platoons went up to wipe out the defenders while the third plus support elements (in default positions) provided suppressive area fire.
Regarding the comment about the placement of the bunkers... personally I think a more prudent approach would have been for the defenders to torch that obvious line of approach through the woods. I kept looking at that going, "Well of course no one is going to assault up that hill. There's a perfectly good stretch of woods to waltz through"
-
Well, it would be equally boring, IMHO, to have the units all equal. Then you'd see whatever people wanted to bring to the game, but there'd be little point.Originally posted by Voxman:The problem with allowing troops to run out of ammo to soon is that people will no longer select them and the game becomes a replay of the previous game as people select the same troops over and over.... BORING..
Gotta factor in everything!
As it is now, if I've got the points I'll often buy a platoon or two of SMGs for each rifle company. The SMGs follow on to provide awesome close range firepower against targets the rifle squads find.
Yes, The Proving Grounds failed the test
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
What if the site didn't do mods, but did continue the "proving ground" stuff for scenarios? Those are small, so maybe they'd not tax the bandwidth so much.