Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

kenfedoroff

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    452

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by kenfedoroff

    Too much CMBB?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by SFJaykey:

    Then last night, absolutely no kidding, I had a dream. A disembodied voice guided me around the map, saying things.........

    When that disembodied voice starts giving out the numbers for the next mega millions lottery, could you buy a ticket for me? (Ol' buddy, ol' pal, ol' friend).

    Sincerely,

    Private Poor House

    0

    Favorite Historical Resources

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

    Ok, I have a question for you.

    Have you ever wondered why certain nations thrived and others did not?

    Somewhat off topic but:

    "The Great Reckoning" by James Dale Davidson and Lord Rees Moog, studies the "cost of projecting power" and "the rise and fall of great nations".

    (Forgot to add: I prefer original, first edition as opposed to updated release.)

    Sincerely,

    Ken

    [ May 05, 2003, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: kenfedoroff ]

    0

    Solution for Bullying Airfleets.

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

    When you look at the suggestions we make you can see we are really asking for three (3) different things.

    </font>

    • changes to balance the current game.</font>
    • changes to make it more realistic/historical.</font>
    • changes to expand the theater of operations.</font>

    Dammit Man!... Where did you get those snappy doo-dads for your bullet points?

    I'm jealous.

    Sincerely,

    Ken

    0

    Solution for Bullying Airfleets.

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    gorber

    Good points, and many of us on the Forum would agree with you.

    However, would it make Economic sense for a game developer to head in this direction (more simulation than game, "micro management", etc.)

    Even if every original owner of SC buys the next edition plus two extra copies to give away as Christmas gifts, it still might sell better in the mass market if the game format is kept at the present level of simplicity.

    While we all post our wants and wishes for SC2 here at the Forum from a wargamer perspective, I would speculate that the game designer has to look at the mass market and include the economic perspective, (otherwise he might as well go do something else with his time).

    I am not familiar with the game (HiCom), of which you speak, but I would guess the present designer of SC does not want his creations to languish or "drop off the radar screen" like (HiCom) apparently did.

    (Again, this is pure speculation on my part), the game designer might want his game to appeal to the casual gamer as well as the hardcore wargamer.

    Does this make sense?

    (I did have fun with italics today though...)

    Ken

    0

    Solution for Bullying Airfleets.

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by arby:

    ...You buy a lot of them (air fleets) because that's the most successful strategy. And the reason it's the most successful strategy is because of the combat system....etc., etc.

    Exactly. It's a game. Not a simulation (Thanks Shaka).

    As it stands now, it can take 20-30 hours (or more) to finish a game that covers 1939-47. While I agree with many of the ideas that would move SC from a game to a simulation, I balk at anything that hints of "micro-management" (and adds even more time to complete a 1939 campaign).

    While we all look forward to improvements, we also expect them to be implemented in the same elegant style that makes SC so much fun to play. This will take time, and time is money.

    I would expect any game designer to get paid for his efforts, and implementing many of the improvements listed in this Forum is going to take a chunk of change.

    And there's the rub.

    Sincerely,

    Ken

    0

    Finding Opponents in the Finder Forum

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    I just stumbled across this thread that someone bumped to the top of the opponent finder forum. I post it here without the originators permission:

    "I don't know if this is blasphemy, but I'm willing to play Ladder PBEM if someone else is. I pledge not to cheat/replay turns and trust the other player to do the same.

    I thought TCP IP was faster, but its kind of lame sitting and waiting for your opponent. One good feature is that you can scroll around and think while the opponent moves. Ultimately I like TCP, but its hard to put together the 3 hours a nite to play when you have a family and other responsibilities.

    PBEM has the disadvantage of "getting you out of the groove" when you play several different games at a time, or if turns are played too far apart. But for a player that sends back 4-5 turns a day, I find it just as good as TCP."

    Speaking for myself:

    There are many competent SC players west of my time zone (USA est or Forum time) but it's difficult for me to get many tcp/ip turns in with those players as this old man has to be in bed by 11:00pm. They are just coming online when I am thinking about shutting down for the evening.

    Just another reason to consider pbem to keep things moving.

    Sincerely,

    Ken

    0

    Finding Opponents in the Finder Forum

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Iron Ranger:

    Is it me or are there alot less people heading to the Finder Forum these days?

    Speaking for myself:

    Most people don't care to continue a game pbem when they are not online, and I don't care to start anymore when I still have unfinished ones. If people were more agreeable to keeping it moving with pbem, then I would start more.

    I don't have a problem with the top-flight players like Terif, Rambo, Codename Condor, etc., (simply because they wipe me out early), but if I run into a low/intermediate player (like myself) and the war drags on with no clear-cut advantage into 1942-43, then some of my opponents seem to lose interest in continuing.

    Or perhaps they just forget. I am human and I forget too.

    I can't help but wonder if other players have backed off (from SC) for the same reason I have. (Not to mention work, family, other games/activities).

    Sincerely,

    Ken

    0

    CMAK or CMBB: Which you Gonna Play?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by securityguard:

    CMBB

    besides the front changes, CMBO is pretty obsolete and pointless to play otherwise. the changes in CMBB make it a more balanced, and well designed game

    Amen Bro,

    I look forward to a West Front/CMBO Re-do.

    Can you imagine playing "Crown of Thorns" with the CMBB engine? Awesome.... Ugh..Agh...Uh oh, too much excitement...must calm down...Where are my heart pills?

    Sincerely,

    Captain Unconscious

    0

    Actual Vs. Basis

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    "Basis" means the thickness of armour "seen" by an armour-piercing round arriving roughly horizontally. It may be calculated using a simple cosine rule (which is in any case usually good enough for shaped charge or long-rod penetrators) or using an armour basis curve (the effect of slope against medium-velocity conventional projectiles is rather greater than a cosine rule would indicate).

    All the best,

    John.

    And my mother said I would never learn anything playing computer games. Ha! Welcome to the University of Combat Mission Online.

    Sincerely,

    Captain Unconscious

    0

    Editing waypoints

    in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks

    Posted

    Originally posted by lcm1947:

    Another quesion on this subject. Let's say you have two way points from a previous turn and you want to delete the second way point leaving the first one is there a command or hotkey to do this? I sure hope so. Anybody know?

    What happens when you hit the "backspace" key? Does it dump a way-point?
    0
×
×
  • Create New...