Cameroon
-
Posts
889 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Cameroon
-
-
You should also read the thread cm2. your map random force?. In it, we learn that we'll be able to import that last save (autosave) from the end of a battle into a new QB, including adding more points (i.e. reinforcements) and probably more (perhaps changing the time of day).
The general idea is this, while operations have changed (and apparently more are being made, thanks rune), you can do your own ad hoc linked battles with the above feature.
Personally I find it an exciting prospect and I imagine I'll fight quite a number of bloody battles back and forth over a bit of ground.
-
This is an interesting comment.Originally posted by aka_tom_w:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MajorTaktik:
Remove the HULLDOWN command, please. IMO, it should be a skill of the player and not be automated for someone. It is an artificial way of giving someone a skill that they might not be so good at. If they can't find a good HULLDOWN spot, then too bad. CM is the ultimate in rewarding good tactics and punishing bad. Will there now be no reward for finding superior HD spots with good LOS on your own? If the AI does this for you, then where is the sense of satisfaction when one or your tanks brews an enemy tank. I will think, "Damn, that wasn't me that found that spot, but the AI". And if an enemy tank, HD with great LOS brews one of my tanks, I will think, "Hmmm. It is nice that the AI found such great spot for my opponent. I wonder if he could have done that for himself?"
Just my take on the HD command.
Craig
While I do agree with your position, (somewhat) it should be pointed out that MANY many newer players had a great deal of difficulty getting hull down status and posted many long winded complaints that the "game" should do that for them as it was not their "job" as the player to "finesse" their AFV's into ideal HD positions. (you and I of course of course agree to disagree with this logic
)I would suggest that skilled players can and do manage to get their AFV's into good HD positions without computer aid.
I think this feature is going to "dumb down" the game a bit, BUT I suspect there will be plenty of other more complicated issues and concepts in CMBB to master that we may actually thank them now that we can "automate" the seek HD position order.
It is my guess this feature is IN for a reason (make things easiers for the player) and it will stay in.
-tom w</font>
-
Snipers/sharpshooters (whatever), well they're nice for buttoning tanks/vehicles and distracting units so that others can kill 'em, but I've never had a sniper kill anything. Certainly not panic or cause abandonment.
Then again, I play QBs mostly with regular troops so the best you can get is vet. Apparently they go from being bothersome to being lethal at crack+.
-
Is the maximum/minimum engagement range user-selectable?</font>Originally posted by JonS:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:
The covered arc command is going to replace the ambush command. For AT capable units (such as AT guns and vehicles) there's even a covered arc command specifically for armor. These arcs can be posted out as far as you can see. While none of these covered arcs is geared towards a weapon's specific capabilities, your longer range weapons will engage out to the range you set the covered arc for...
-
I'd never seen it until this post brought it up and like Papa Khann the page is now bookmarked. I don't play PBEM (way too slow for my tastes) but it works just fine for QBs against the AI too
In fact, I just finished a wet, night probe against the Canadians (they hadn't a chance really).
-
This brings up a question, of courseOriginally posted by Moon:Exactly Olle.
Obviously then there's no equivalent of the co-co for the infantry. But that might not be so big a deal. What I'm more curious about is, how do I (who knows very little about the eastern front) know what to purchase to get, say, a company of KV-1s? Will it be a matter of asking on the board?
-
I decided to give this a shot against the AI and dear lord is it effective. I played 3 games, two of which I absolutely decimated the AI (96/95 to 4/5 and forced autosurrender). The middle was a draw because I placed my equipment absolutely horribly.Originally posted by JasonC:A compromise force idea that includes a bit of both of the above is also possible, but involves even higher risks in the form of one key thin-skinned AFV. That is, you can go for a minefield block, several light guns, and a strong AT defense, and still keep the big vehicle HE idea. That would look like this -
1 Crack Hummel
2 Vet SS Motorized Pz Gdr Platoons
2 Crack Puppchens
2 Vet 37mm FLAK
5 AP Minefields
I mean the first time I tried it, I suffered 1 casualty, 0 kia and caused 150+ causalitys with 53 kia.
Obviously a different story vs a human, but I think it definitely has potential
-
"Ain't possible" simplely ain't trueOriginally posted by Doug Beman:This ain't possible, because the entire game and all its distances are ahrd-coded in metric. The "terrain resolution" is in metric, and can't be changed with the flick of a switch. If you did have some patch that gave weapon ranges or LOS in SAE, you'd then have to always be converting SAE to metric or vice versa.
DjB
A yards toggle would do NOTHING but perform a conversion before sending the text or number (however they are doing it) to be rendered. That is neither hard nor time consuming from a developers standpoint (unless the internals of the engine are have been horribly turned into sphaghetti) or a "cpu cycles consumption standpoint". I am a programmer, I do know what I'm talking about
That said, I doubt you'll see such a feature simply because I'm sure they're running around doing other things.
-
The procedure on a mac is similar to jwxspoon's suggestion. Just press Cmd-Shift-3. That saves a file on your hard drive called Picture # which you can of course print.
-
I don't know if IE lets you change the colors of a specific site, but every browser I've ever used lets you override the colors globally.Originally posted by Hiram Sedai:I already mentioned this, but you can change your own colors if you happen to be using Internet Explorer. No more pain.
-
Absolutely great new site design, way to go (finally
)! -
Oh a definite YES! I'm not the groggiest nor the most addicted (by ANY definition of the two
) but I have never ever kept a game on my HD... except CM. I've played, and play, tons of great games but they all "come and go" (and usually come again ) but only CM has stayed and looks to stay for the future. Even when CMBB comes out.So send 'em the wine. I'm sure this is blasphemy, but I'd even let the release slip on CMBB to give 'em time to party
-
Oh why not, here's my two cents as well...
I've never seen FF during clear conditions but definitely it happens in the fog or at night. I haven't fallen prey to my own troops decimating themselves (yet! though they have shot at each other some). On the other hand, the FF has kept a couple of my squads alive as some german units caught them in the open.... but then decided to fire at their nearby compatriots instead
And to answer Ligur's question, yeah that was just the faust. HE weapons will cause friendly casualities just as readily as against the enemy.
-
In addition to Jason's points, I believe that if the AI is on attack and its units are hidden, they tend to stay that way. Same with units on transports (like trucks). Moral of the story, don't hide the AI's units if it is attacking and don't put 'em on trucks.
-
What I've seen suggests that the AI can (and does) loose targetting that YOU assign if LOS to the targetted unit is poor. Though in this instance I hope it was fog that was causing low LOS
-
Well, speaking for myself, it sounds like Barleyman had a rough time of itOriginally posted by Buckeye:Gee, no comments? I'd certainly be interested in what people think of the game. Thanks, Rob, for all your hard work on this.
Those Hellcat's gave a good accounting of themselves. Given the outcome, I have to agree with Barleyman's assessment that not purchasing the expensive Panther's would have been a good idea.
-
You might want to read the thread (or threads, really) on targets being hit out of LOS. Basically, whether or not the target is hit is determined AT THE MOMENT OF FIRING. So, you can't drive out of the way of an oncoming shell.
On the other hand, jinking might decrease the to-hit odds. You might have to play around with it to find out.
-
Played and reviewed and may I say *whew*. I'm no tactical expert, but I do ok. The AI can really press you on this one.
I need to hand out some medals (some posthumous unfortunately), one squad had 38 confirmed KIA and was DEFINITELY a strong point for the right side of the Allies' defense.
-
*Cheer! Cheer!*
Seriously though, we definitely all appreciate SuperTed's work.
-
I won't even try to give reasons for how HQs give their bonuses (other than moral -- see CMPlayer's post). I've always read the bonuses as "For whatever reason, this commander inspires those under his command to perform above and beyond their normal abilities."
Maybe because he keeps them more disciplined, so their fire control is better, their movement is stealthier and so on. Maybe the respect him so much they try harder. Whatever the reasons, the effect is exceptional performance from otherwise "normal" troops. So I don't have a problem with the HQ bonuses as they are.
-
Not if they are on the other side of the burning building (no LOS). But generally, yes it would probably be prudent to move the FT teams away once they've been spotted so they can ambush again.Originally posted by Sir Augustus:Great idea but once the building is burned can't they stand off and kill the ft's?
-
Actually, I just realized that I played a scenario where the Germans are issued a PaK40 and must secure an area. I guess it'd be a meeting engagement because both sides are "attacking".
I was glad to have it. It worried the AI, kept some forces tied up, scored a kill or two (can't remember how many) and survived the battle (the AI was busy using its arty as smoke to stop some incessant shelling). Oh, and it freed some tanks I would have otherwise had to deploy there.
On the other hand, they are a PITA to move around and conditions must be favorable to their use.
So, what conclusion have I come to with all that? Heh, none
-
Well, its either this forum or the Tips forum, but there have been previous discussions about using towed guns on the attack. A number of people report success with the tactic. Personally I'd be wary, but maybe some time I'll try it.
-
It'd be nice if we could get the distinction between relative spotting (aka Borg spotting) and the God's Eye View respected. The reason is that this thread purports to be about relative "borg" spotting. It's called borg because one guy (unit) knows, all the guys (units) know. What this thread has become, however, is largely about curtailing the God's Eye View "problem".
To offer one last comment about relative spotting (I'm less interested in the God's Eye View "problem"):
I believe it was tom (apologies if it wasn't) who asked what forcing the units to spot their targets gives you, since the player can still target something a unit hasn't seen yet. Apparently my earlier comment was ignored or missed
Even if you (Player) say "Target that Infantry Squad in those bushes", the unit would STILL have to spot it on its own (if so coded).So let's assume that Unit A is firing at Unit B. Some other unit spots Unit C (a higher priority target to the Player) during the turn, but Unit A doesn't. Unit A will not open fire on Unit C, obviously.
Now, let's say at the end of the turn, the Player tells Unit A to target Unit C. Ok, HOWEVER, Unit A still hasn't spotted Unit C. So Unit A is trying to acquire Unit C to fire at. Meanwhile, Unit A isn't firing at anything. You could carry this further, too. A unit trying to acquire a specific target (under orders) could be less likely to spot other targets.
That is not specifically designed to limit the God's Eye View, but it does make having the God's Eye View less powerful.
Running away!
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted