Tarquelne
-
Posts
1,045 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tarquelne
-
-
Incoming vs. Outgoing trajectories ARE different. Rounds drop more at the end. It's not an arc, it's an arc with the far end smooshed in.
Yeah... and I'm not clear on what is shooting at the Sherman, but a German long-75 will often have a significantly different path from a Sherman's 75 at both ends of the shell's flight.
This battle has become a game of high slope to low slope shots with trees being sued to hide the "tanks"..
Bitter experience has taught me that the game effect of trees and foliage is very hard to predict.
A lot of that experience came from a scenario called "Gegenangriff Auf Huegel 382." One of my favorite scenarios, it involved a lot of shooting to-and-from tanks on a low, wooded hill. My take-away lesson from the longer-range tank engagements involving the hill is that you can't count on trees or foliage blocking LOS or shells, but you shouldn't be surprised when they do. It might be due to a "hole" in the game's engine, but I suspect the difference in elevation between a tank's hull and the gun may explain most of the seeming-discrepancies. And a certain amount of realistic unpredictability regarding foliage may cover the rest.
Erg... that scenario also saw my AT gun put shell after shell into a tree-trunk a few tens of meters away. (OTOH, one of my units scored a 200+ meter 'shrek kill on a Sherman, so all is forgiven.)
-
Opening up QB maps in the editor and looking at them in the top-down editable mode is much quicker than loading the 3D map, and gives you all the information on the map.
I can't actually interpret that view well enough to pick a map, but it helps narrow things down.
Maybe some obsessive soul will put together a map gallery and either put it online or make it available for download.
Wanna take a stab at that one?Civility prevents discussion of the most obvious possibilities.
-
As has been explained here more than once, this won't work satisfactorily due to the fact that LOS is dependent on the eye level of the unit in the AS, and that can vary dramatically with effects on whether the LOS is go or no-go.
If there's room for more than one toggle button - or something strange like a cycling button - we could have LOS overlays for several levels, a topo map, and a nearest-eatery or landmark guide.
What might be cool is, rather than the more-gamyg LOS overlay or even line, is an "adopt POV" mode. Here's what the gunner sees.... Here's what the commander sees... Here's what the third assistant ammo bearer sees...
People have suggested playing CM only from view level one. I can see the attraction but, personally: Nah. But "only from unit POVs" - that sounds like fun.
-
Having total freedom to fire these weapons where ever and whenever is much preferable and more realistic than what we have now.
I agree. I think the certainty with which tanks can often operate within CMx2 urban environments is the heart of the problem. Given the lack of clutter and the clean LoS common on CM maps absolutely ruling-out buildings as a rocket site means tank-safeing an area is vastly simpler.
The general lack of clutter and clean lines of sight in cities may be the fundamental cause of the problem, but AT-rocket/building issue aggravates it a great deal. OTOH, allowing the rockets to be fired from within buildings - at least occasionally - would encourage far more realistic tactics without putting such a huge burden on map makers.
-
FWIW after making it all the way through I think it's crap toward the end. I don't think it invalidates the whole production but there.
I agree completely. For some reason wargamers don't make the best disputants.
But what did you think of the TV show?
-
Maybe that's when you heard them, but assure you I knew them much earlier
Heck, when my buddy told me his fiance was French - this is well before the GW - I told French jokes for at least half an hour. And I *like* the French.
-
Not sure there was a huge fascist movement like in Germany..many where farmboys with little education.
Italy didn't even have a word for "fascism."
-
I've played played several scenarios with a lot of artillery, and a few that were arguably dominated by artillery, but outside of some QBs I've never had a battle spoiled by too much artillery. That includes Le Desert, which I've played from both sides. I spent a fair amount of time moving quickly in fear of artillery, or hiding from artillery... but that's WWII for you.
Hmm... I don't think I've ever been seriously screwed-over by arty in a game. I've had some teams or even squads get wiped out or suppressed-to-a-fair-the-well and AFVs get immobilized. Mostly, though, I have just either have to pull out or the few troops in the target zone hunker down and take some casualties. Then I say "Thank the FSM these are just pixeltruppen!" and move in the reserve platoon.
OTOH I can understand the desire to play a scenario that focuses a lot more on small-arms fire and maneuver. I like to play infantry only games sometimes. No tanks! (Occasionally battles were fought without armor. No, really!) And if the map isn't huge I'll likely want a house-rule limiting arty.
Sure enough, a few of the enemy survived
at least one of whom had an LMG.If that's the game with me you're talking about, it was a... wait...
Now I'm back to shelling the position while the wounded are patched up ...
...What!? Uh... when was that posted?
(And get my wounded why you're at it, please? There's those two guys by the house. The one that's still standing.)
-
"If the map is such that you want Big Cats, you can't have them." seems like an easy-to-remember rule. And one I've used. And it can be very fun to watch an opponent's few Fireflies cope with a wave of Marders.
But I'd rather work with my opponent some and make sure the situation - via the map, point adjustment, time limit, or something else, allows Panthers without having them dominate.
As much as I like QBs, I'm more and more inclined to treat them more like custom scenarios than true QBs. I don't know if CMx1 left me sort of QB-ed out, or if with CMx2 its much easier to inadvertently create poor matches.
Back in the day before CMBB was released I begged for the rarity system to be not based on points ... but would randomly not allowed units to be purchased at all based on their rarity.Heh. I remember requesting it too, though I don't know when.
And I didn't beg.
The only issue is that it is completely honor-based.Yeah. IIRC I only used it in LAN games.
-
I find it boring that every MP game I play you can count on the opponent to ALWAYS select Panthers if possible.
I'd like to see Variable Rarity return.
What I'd do sometimes in CMx1 was play QBs using Variable Rarity, and with the house rule allowing only units without an increased rarity cost. In a rough way it made the units in QBs about as rare as CM's OOB would have them, but without a cost penalty.
-
To summarize, BFC does not agree or disagree. They have a rather nihilistic view of QB unit pricing. To them there is no such thing as a correct value, which is fair enough, but they take it a step further by claiming any value is as good as any other value.
It's my impression the nihilism is a pose to hide a deeper apathy: The QB points system isn't something Battlefront really cares about, so they tossed us a working point-based system and now just want to get on with what they want to get on with.
The US rocket price might be some suppressed anger or resentment coming to the surface.
(In fact I'm working on a paper that puts forth a psychological profile for Steve based entirely on CMBN's engine and contents. It's provisionally titled "75mm is Big Enough." If anyone has other suggestions...?)
-
How do you review a turn?
I have a checklist printed out by my monitor.
1) Armor:
Skip to the end: Are there more columns of smoke and flame among my armored positions than at the beginning of the turn?
If "Yes": Drink.
For the enemy?
If "No": Drink
2) Go back to the beginning: FF through the turn. Are there a bunch of pretty orange lights blinking on and off among my unit icons?
If "Yes": Drink.
3) Arty:
Friendly fire casualties?
If "Yes": Drink.
On the third+ turn of "Spotting" for a mission?
If "Yes": Drink.
...
and so on.
I guess it's really more of a drinking game.
-
3:1 is a useful rule of thumb, but it's a very fuzzy one, and applying it usefully relies a lot on experience, intuition, and gut feel.
*Or* you add up all the combat factors printed on the little cardboard counters and consult the table provided.
-
@simast
I think the others mostly cleared that up - ME not A/D. And by "victory zone" I mean the objective area, not a defender's setup area.
In the ME I was talking about the TRP was the essential problem. That it resulted in a 105-prox barrage underlined it. Bringing in an on-time and on-target 105 strike on that map without a TRP would have been a laudable achievement. The TRP, btw, was placed toward the rear of the objective area toward my opponent: As we fought over the objective his half was taking 105 fire while mine wasn't.
(Isn't it nice that my pixeltruppen commander anticipated so exactly where his opposite would chose to make a stand!? I've one regular opponent who doesn't even like to play with objective areas. And I've come to see his point.)
I'd happily play 'with' or 'without' TRPs as an agreed rule in any QB ME.
Yeah - I've since played MEs with TRPs and big guns allowed. But only after agreeing first. I've also played US vs. German games on large open maps where the Germans had access to Big Cats - but after each side agreed.
Setup areas - along with objective zones - can vary quite a bit from map to map. And the larger the "battle size" - the more points each player gets - the smaller, relatively speaking, any given zone is.
Generally speaking hitting an attacker's set-up zone seems to lead to poor gameplay. They're often both rather small and easy for the defender to locate. Where historically the defender would likely only know the direction and time of an attack, in CM the defender often has it down almost exactly: That map edge over there, and *right now*.
Setup zone bombing is also a problem with MEs: Your opponent's set-up zone is probably no larger than your little area, and in the opposite corner.
The guidelines I usually use are:
The defender shouldn't use pre-prep arty. But TRPs are generally OK.
Pre-prep and TRPs are fine for the attacker.
Don't use pre-prep in a ME. TRPs are OK if both players agree.
Look at the size of the QB, the size of the map, and consider restricting arty.
A Medium-all infantry battle on a Small map could easily have the attacker win during his pre-prep barrage.
I'm leery about unrestricted arty in all-infantry games. While raining steel on your foe until you "break his will" is quite historical, it's not as much fun as games that revolve more around fire and maneuver.
-
House rules/pre-game negotiations exist because CM isn't a perfect game. The QB purchace rules aren't nearly sophisticated enough to ensure a fair (not one-sided) and interesting fight over every force/map combination. VAB mentions several key game-play reasons why house rules can give a better - more interesting, more fun, tougher - game if some restrictions are adopted. And that's without even considering realism. Just because CM isn't a perfect simulation is no reason to embrace the flaws.
I became interested in house rules when my first QBs were spoiled by gamy QB purchases. And by spoiled I don't mean the other guy beat me in a gamy way. I mean I beat the other guy in a gamy way. For example: Buying a TRP and having a 105-prox fuze barrage over the ME's single victory zone seemed like a clever idea during set up, but it made the match much easier for me and less interesting to-boot.
Of course my opponent could have anticipated that, or done it himself. That's a possible route: You can start by shelling the hell out of set-up zones for awhile, develop counters, move on to other purchase strategies and opening-tactics that leverage CM's flaws...
Or you can keep the game-play focused on the map and/or history rather than the purchace screen and the game-engine's quirks: Set a house rule banning the shelling of set-up zones if the map/scenario isn't suitable. Add rules restricting any other items that make for a less fun or interesting game. That allows you get on with playing tough battles rather than looking for, or accidentally stumbling across, the next gamy tactic.
It's not like this is a laborious process. Most of the dangerous things - purchases likely to lead to poor games - are pretty obvious once you have a little experience. It may not be worthwhile if you're playing quick RT games. But where a good PBEM might last months it's worth exchanging a few e-mails.
If trying to leverage the most out of what the game allows is what both you and your opponent enjoy then of course there's nothing wrong with it. I've done the same in other games. But I think it should be easy to understand why many players like house rules: It's not because they want to make things easier or want to reshape the game. It's because they desire tough battles and/or like to see a WWII simulation played as a WWII simulation.
-
poesel71:
I suspect 2/3s on defenses would be too much... but I dunno. Anyway, I'd be up for the trying out the sort of game you describe.
Though... err... sometime next month.
-
But sometimes I'm a little bit worried that we might forget how horrible real war is.
That seems like a reason to include them.
I still distinctly remember my feeling of horror watching an 81mm mortar barrage falling on a Russian infantry Co. trying to cross a field. It was one of the first times I played CMBB.
Sure, it's possible for someone with little imagination or knowledge, or no empathy, to become more hardened to war playing these games. I hope that most of the players come away from them with a better comprehension of just how much war sucks.
And, heck, if someone isn't playing CM what are they doing instead? Probably engaged some form of entertainment even less likely to have a constructive effect. IMO CM, as a game, is about as good as it gets for understanding the horrors of war. With flamethrowers it'd be that much better.
-
There are other, more in-depth resources out there. For U.S. vehicles., the AFV Database is fairly good. There are others; Google is your friend.
That's what I did, but recently the ALT and TAB keys on my keyboard were destroyed in a boating accident. So now I think the data should be presented in-game... functionality to be added by a free patch that also includes the correct Bren gun tripods!
-
Anybody for a scenario or even - if we don't get a crash - QB. If send a PM or e-mail.
To quote Dr. Zoidberg: I'm up for whatever.
-
BFC's real mistake was that they didn't add split the upgrade into half a dozen separate packages, each with a unique helmet, and charge $3 for each "DLC." That's almost twice the revenue for - other than some lame skins - the same product.
Then maybe we could generate some real outrage. What's the deal...? $10 now or $5 later for significant improvements to the basic game, where I'm already prepared to shell out about $50 for each installment? Ahh... nah. I tried, but I really can't work up any steam over it.
Hey, maybe they added *one* unique uniform to the 2.0 package out of a selection of 3, so you had to buy the upgrade three times to collect 'em all. If I gave a damn about the uniforms that might piss me off.
(Err... OTOH, I do like the new uniform selection feature in 2.0.)
-
This would be a very major change, and you would still have a truckload of editing to do, what scene now ?
(If you're responding to my post: The completed game is the war movie.)
-
I've really started jonesing for this feature since I've start primarily playing via PBEM. By the time the battle's over I've generally forgotten how much of it developed.
Plus: Make your own war movie! And with none of that bloody "character development" either!
-
Win 7
Sort of.
I've got CMBN, CW, 2.0.
When I try to launch from H2HH I first get a "CMN Commonwealth Module.exe - System Error" window that claimes "QtGui4.dll" is missing from my computer, then a window telling me it can't load "QtWebKit4.dll."
After than CMBN starts, but without the CW module. (Or, at least, without the second tank icon on the main screen that appears when you have CW.)
CMBN launches normally when I don't start it from H2HH.
-
I agree with LtBull. It would be much easier to plot longer movements if one could tell "walk towards this point and if enemy starts firing, hit the ground.
I think that'd be good - like HUNT in speed and hit-the-dirt-ness. But like MOVE in unwillingness to fire/return fire and fatigue. Or, essentially, like MOVE is currently but remove the zombie-like willingness to march calmly into fire.
OTOH, MOVE is fairly useful for vehicles. I like having a command that moves them along at a decent pace but allows them better maneuverability than QUICK, and yet doesn't leave them likely to stop.
at least one of whom had an LMG.
Fun and Games - challenge and the gamer
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Me too... though with Civ4 I suspect I've spent more time modding than playing.
I always quit (SP) Civ games once the game seemed to be won, and it puzzled me that so many people would continue. I finally realized, however, that they were treating Civ as much a toy as a game. It can be important to distinguish between the two modes: For a game the level of challenge is extremely important, but with a software toy you can easily have too much challenge.
I think some of the complaints about CMBN's difficulty come because, compared to most computer games, it doesn't have much value as a toy. It's far too realistic.
(BTW: What kept my interest up in Civ4 was a couple of mods. First the "Revolutions" mod, which added mechanics having to do with the stability and break-up of Civs, making the game far more dynamic and - so far as maintaining your own civ goes - challenging. Second, the FFH mod, which not only supplied hour after hour of time-consuming modding opportunities, but added scads of toy-ness to the game. I generally prefer a challenge, but running around with Ghastly Dragoons and Necromancers through the Haunted Lands while building Halls of the Covenant, Flesh Studios and the Dark Council while attempting to stop the Sheaim and allied worshipers of the Ashen Veil from starting Armageddon all adds a certain wizz-bang factor I find hard to resist.)
Yup. That's where you can get some toy-type play from CM. Or going into a scenario fully intending to just screw-around and reload if things go poorly. You can feel free to explore the system and/or make mistakes.
I generally prefer experimenting - or "playing" - with the AI, and getting challenge via PBEMs.