Tarquelne

You don't say... </font>

The 75mm gun on the T-34 is totally unrealistic. Do the developers have something against the Russians! I think they must. The Panzers fire so much faster, and their shots go faster too! What's with that? My favorite tactic from CM doesn't work either. And I know CM is realistic, so it must be a problem with ToW. I set up a scenario myself, for some scientific testing, and even 50! jeeps in a rush didn't win!

Yeah! Lets flame some noobs! Hmm... but there isn't a lot of action on the forum, and in fact the game isn't even out. I know...

If we ask very, very nicely maybe BFC will release an "alpha" demo that hangs during install. That way we can all go from not-having-the-demo to having-a-buggy-demo. I think that'd be a real crowd pleaser.

Hmm... should be possible, and not too hard, for someone to make a program that'll fiddle with the XML file and randomize the forces. Maybe even the map. Feed the utility a text file with the rules for a scenario and the scenario, and the program spits out the the new randomized scenario...

Well, OK. Then as long as you understand my being helpful now is just a fluke, the answer to your question is "Yes."

Rather than post a new thread you can edit the original post above. And, speaking of editing, you should probably edit the other post, too: Don't tell Sergi he's funny, even in jest. It only encourages him. But, more seriously, as long as there's some point to nit-pick about it's quite possible the only replies you get will be fundamentally off-topic and annoying.... Hey, like this one!

I think of it as part of your better class of Creation myth. The forums are currently in sort of a "shadow creation", or "raw chaos" state. They are populated by avatars of both the Good and Constructive, and the Evil and Destructive. And sometimes the Whiney. Many of these entities will be banished when game manifests itself, but some of the events will cause echoes, and shape events in the future. But, on the whole, all of this false-creation will cease to be, and the rantings of the demons and ghosts of the unborn will be replaced by, say, discussions of MG modeling or armor stats, and the details of scenario creation. So patience, please.

Oh yeah, "The Barrett". That explains why they'd have two different sniping rifles. Thanks. And thanks again! Ok. Now two hits from the same computer-game forum, with some additional info.

D'oh. I'm not familiar with guns... excuse me, "weapons", and wondered about those three. But a Google for "m4 m24 m107b" just turned up some stupid computer-game forum that didn't give me any additional info...

Nope. I think the features list on the TOW webpage is the closest this site has. The Russian site might have a FAQ. When there is one, though, look for a link in the FAQ.

Could you throw us a bone. How did this scenario play out? </font>

Please dont give anyone here any ideas. </font>

That may be the game's saving grace for me. I don't really care if the initial scenarios are too tank heavy if we... well, people here other than me... can make better (in that way) scenarios.

LOL. Don't forget to take your toys with you. </font>

And these limitations are? :confused: </font>

Smoke GRENADES....infantry grenades. Not artillery smoke rounds for big smoke screens. </font>

"Tiger tank" backwards sounds like "gnat regit," which could be taken as a cryptic claim on Hitler's part - if he was into cryptic English/Latin phrases - that tiny bugs rule the world. *COOL!* And that's not the sort of info you'll find anywhere else on the web.

I'm in denial. Ask again after I've discussed it with my therapist.

GS, I've got the answer to most of your questions, with some links to previous threads... ... ah, but never mind. I'm just some crumb-gatherer like M.H., and may be wrong. I wouldn't want to interrupt your wait for a dev. to stroll in and repeat himself (or your practice at using the "Search" function) with non-meaningful information. [ September 01, 2006, 02:15 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

Like that's a bad thing!?

I think he's just asking if it's possible to set up a game with year-bound equipment. (The "?" is the tip off.) The rest looks to be an attempt to clarify the question. ("I mean..." is the tip off.) So: Can you? It's likely that whatever you need to do for IL-2 is what you'll need to do for ToW. I don't know what that is exactly, but that's what I've read. Scenario data is apparently in XML, so you don't even really need an editor to change it. (And making an editor would be relatively easy, I think.) BFC has historically been uninterested in allowing players to change stats. (I'd rather, but I think they've got good reason to not put for the effort.) We may just be seeing an expression of that, or it may just be because the stats just aren't conviently placed for third-party mucking about. I'm not certain anyone's actually asked, though. Maybe it's all in XML, too. But I doubt it. Because developers (in general) have this irrational lust for stripping MP of features found in SP. That's the only reason I can see. Hopefully 1C aren't like that. Welcome to the forum, GS_W! I don't know how used to ToW-like games you are, but it isn't like the games a number of us are used to, either. Lots of dedicated wargamers. I know a lot of them still give the CM boxes a shake every once in awhile, looking for the cardboard counters. Don't worry about grogs like M. H. if you find him a bit testy. They're really rather adorable. Their bite is worse than their bark, but they generally live a long way away and only the bark is a factor. [ August 31, 2006, 08:51 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

Lets start at the beginning: What do you mean by "then"?

That sounds good to me, though the AFV + Inf. heavy one sounds fine too. OTOH, I hear the demo has been ready for a week now and hasn't been released simply because they hate us.

How about "beyond the scope of the game."? And limited application? ("Sammy, you are taking one Army and applying to the world, it just doesn't work that way.") Two answers "why not" given above. Be careful: There aren't as many rhetorical questions around as most people think. True. But with no FO system the "for artillery, airstrikes" part isn't operative. The game doesn't seem to let you call in re-inforcements, so that isn't operative. Given the examples from other posts, "other combat issues" are beyond the scope of the game. It appears you want FOs, some control over re-inforcements and a game with the scripting to handle "other combat issues." I think just about everyone does. Those are good suggestions and great wishes. OTOH, At the scale the game is set at, the tight focus on combat, and given the presence of an all-seeing, all-controlling player, and with the forces involved, the role of the radio isn't strong. I don't think M.H.'s dismissal of the initial suggestion needed to be so err... dismissive. OTOH, I believe you're mistaken about the relevance of individual radiomen to a game such as ToW (or CMx1). They were essential and important in RL, but you seem to be arguing that importance would translate rather directly into importance in the game. The examples you gave weren't well matched to the sort of fighting it seems the game will actually cover ("generic" main line combat and/or bumpercars), and the game also seems to lack the infrastructure needed to make radiomen worthwhile even if they are included. They'd just be some guys with "Radioman" somewhere in the GUI when you click on 'em. (Though CM does have FOs.)