Jump to content

Tarquelne

Members
  • Content Count

    1,045
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tarquelne

  1. It's as if what we see during "abstracted" actions isn't an accurate, literal display of the game's reality.
  2. I suspect you're reading too much into the game's lack of facial animations or movement graphics to reflect an individual pixeltruppen's feelings. What we can actually see - rate of fire, say - is ambiguous with regard to the unit's simulated mental status. It's all a big, fuzzy ball of probabilities created by a host of variables that are difficult to determine from our end. You may be looking at one data point of a trend showing that suppression isn't strong enough in the game. But the game's got too much going on under the hood to demonstrate that from the behavior of a single pixeltr
  3. When things go wrong you can have a devil of a time determining whether it was due to skillful enemy action, you messing up, or simple bad luck. Ex: In my current PBEM my Bren gunners have been killed within moments of opening up just about every time, it seems. Most of the way through the scenario I'm still not sure if it was something about the buildings I was using for cover, better-than-I-thought weight of fire from my opponent, or bad luck. Heck, maybe Ive simply had *good* luck in the last few urban scenarios. Or maybe there's something about the game engine I don't understand
  4. I've been playing a lot of infantry-heavy scenarios set in towns lately. Well ... "a lot" for me. I haven't thought the troops too visible. As for entering buildings: I've sworn off using Hunt: Sneak for buildings that might be occupied (or when I'm, like, sneaking), or Quick if I think the building suppressed. Sneak seems to work as an "assault" mode. IME, at least, 'truppen have been pretty quick with the grenades and guns. Back when I sometimes kept squads together I'd occasionally use Assault. I should try it again sometime.
  5. I find the LOS tool invaluable in trying to suss out the way LOS works in the game, but I've started avoiding using it when attempting to determine LOS between arbitrary points. It's been misleading too often. In its place I'm working on being more aware of all the factors - tiny rises in terrain, long grass, trees, etc - that influence LOS, and just eyeball everything. I'm not sure if I'm actually more successful at judging LOS, but at least I've stopped committing to plans on the basis of the LOS tool and then getting a nasty surprise. I've often thought about how different hedge
  6. I agree. I played a PBEM quite awhile ago with a lot of foliage and trees, and finally came to the conclusion that you just can't count on foliage blocking LOS. If you can't see through it the units in the game can't either ... except sometimes they do. That strikes me as more or less realistic. CMBN is mostly WYSIWYG. Figuring out the areas that aren't can get frustrating. Come to think of it, most of those problems seem to be with LOS. I try to take the LOS-tool results with a grain of salt. Foliage of any sort - both ground cover and tree leaves - is especially problematical
  7. At some point BFC will want to shed some of its CM fanbase*. They'll ask us to vote for one of scenario replay, extra TCP/IP features including full replay for both WEGO and RT, and co-op. Then they'll sit back and watch the bloodletting. *Older machines, Peng-fatigue, and Soylent Green stock.
  8. I was using 2.5.4 - never updated because other than the seldom-used chat, it was fine. (EDIT: Not sure if it was 2.5.4, but it was certainly not the latest.) I just updated to 2.11.0. I'm not seeing the temp chat files appear. Or if they are I don't know where. Chat still doesn't work. At least, in the 30 seconds since I sent a message, no one has replied. (See, this is why I just use e-mail.)
  9. I don't use chat much... could very well be Dropbox. It's temp files, Windows... my assumption is sheer perversity on Microsoft's part. There are files in the directory older marked with last-modified times predating this PC, the hard drive, and the OS. Here's some actual data: When I open H2HH 2 new folders/files appear in the temp directory. FWIW, this happens even if the DB client isn't running. (Or, at least, I've exited and I don't see the DB icon anymore.) The last directory formed was named "tmpkklgzo" The file inside is named: "chat_36074243940227.h2hh" And the entire
  10. In Users/#account name#/AppData/Local/Temp I found about 1600 folders with chat_#numbers#.h2hh files (one each) in them. The few I checked were blank outside some stuff like ""current_seq":0,"local_daylight":1," It totals up to about 6 megs. Chat wasn't working with my H2HH install last time I checked, btw. (GaJ: Read my mind and dosomefink.)
  11. It sounds like there's nothing to interfere with a human player changing plans on the fly so long as the units involved have suffered very little damage. (Plus, I assume, changed-plans shouldn't involve arty.) But it's going to be tough to get scattered, rattled units into new positions. So... perhaps plan and prepare for one group to do the breakthrough, then another the exploitation, then have some reserves tasked with mop up? Hmm.
  12. I'll almost certainly use it quite a bit. With CMx1 most of my multiplayer games were TCP/IP. No replays is unfortunate, but with smaller battles it shouldn't make a huge difference. I tended to play smaller battles over TCP/IP anyway. Just out of curiosity, what makes TCP/IP replays such a headache with CMx2? Sheer amount of data? A matter of not being built into the engine from the beginning? Illuminati intimidation? (If it's the last one, if you deny it or don't say anything it's OK: We'll get the message.)
  13. That's what you think: I've successfully lured you into shooting all my Green troops. Unless you just happen to have more ammo than I have men, you're doomed. (Bwahaha: )
  14. Brain-in-jar technology has matured enough to greatly reduce the cost of Battlefront's payroll expenses and health plan.
  15. Great news. I'd be tempted to buy MG if all it offered were the changes/additions listed in the OP.
  16. It might be an improvement if we could express our displeasure with the game's ruling on a LOS with a little two-fisted persuasion. Perhaps a fighting mini-game? With cardboard you could try hammering something to become a little shorter/flatter when necessary. To clarify an issue.
  17. DB, in opening files to generate previews and coughing up files to the Feds on demand, is just as bad as a personal computer. (With the - sometimes important - exception of having no chance to smash your HD before the lab gets it.) Note DB will remove DB's encryption for the Law, to save the NSA the trouble. If you want to make the NSA earn their keep you'll need your own encryption. Whenever you put files in the "cloud" you'll be told your privacy is important and the files are secure. Maybe the service is run by liars or incompetents, maybe not. Either way, you'll be told the same
  18. Call it "Whose Turn is it anyway?" and, each time a new turn arrives, have it display an improvised joke based off a headline pulled from google news and a random noun. Heck, when I read the thread title I assumed that's what the program does.
  19. Statistics is useful in identifying what's garbage and what isn't. When you researching a messy subject with a lot of "garbage" statistics becomes a primary tool. It works even better than sneering. Yes, really. Note the "more" in my statement. I didn't say all the cross-checking transforms the ratings into Truth, or whatever. But it does allow you... well, others... to attach more confidence to the results. Both in the non-technical and, loosely-speaking, technical sense of "confidence." Duh. But you can get measures of the reliability of a subjective opinion.
  20. I'm not terribly interested in defending Dupuy. OTOH, I'm somewhat interested in explaining the difference between magic, guessing, and work in the social sciences. The overall point of may be: When you take a methodological description, then reject the relevant details and leave yourself with only a dismissive over-simplification, you're hardly looking at it "exactly." Yes. Most researchers have limited budgets and limited amounts of time. They have to replace asking everyone in the world, time machines, or god-like omniscience with DUM DUM DUM!.... statistics. T
  21. All factual claims about Dupuy's work are "IIRC": That's what statistics do, Sublime. They allow you to take an arbitrary number of different factors and scales and boil things down - if you want - to a single number. That doens't necessarily mean that number will be of any practical value, but - if you've set things up right - the number will accurately reflect whatever it's supposed to describe. (Heck - the Germans and Western Allies were also very different armies with different experiences and in different positions, and they came out only 20% different.) Dupuy basically had
  22. I am sure that operational ability - just like tactical performance - can and should be judged independently of numerical advantage. It's very easy to do a headcount and attribute the Allied victory to sheer quantity, but I'm not so comfortable with assuming that tactical ability - what Dupuy demonstrated - and numbers - rather obvious - were the only categories where the armies involved had significant differences. Especially if we want to seriously address "relative effectiveness."
  23. I thought his method measured performance in individual battles. So in addition to not taking overall-quantity into account, it doesn't account for many operational factors and no strategic factors at all. Which, IIRC, covers the factors JonS mentioned. (Though perhaps not logistics.) For instance: A terrible decision relating to *not* having a battle (Dunkirk is arguably an example of that.) wouldn't show up in the CEV at all. Hmm... and the Soviets were supposed to be hot-**** operationally late in the war, which wouldn't contradict the 2:1 German to Russian CEV at all, assuming
  24. I believe I know what you mean. I don't mind some one-solution puzzle-ness to a war or strategy game, so long it's reasonable to expect someone to come up with the solution the first time they play, and (thinking of your bazooka guy) if the solution isn't too finicky. If you need to figure it out via trial and error, or if the slightest error or bit of bad luck can turn things around, then I'd call it a more of a puzzle (a type of toy?) than a game. No matter how many AFVs there are.
×
×
  • Create New...