athkatla
-
Posts
718 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by athkatla
-
-
I just played Bravo Assault Ba Bado V2, a user made scenario by "The Phantom". It was a great scenario, all infantry battle with the AI on both sides doing remarkably well.
I observed my MG Team moving to a waypoint I had set, and when they came to the corner of a building, the gunner laid down with the MG, covering the rest of the team round the corner.
Another incident caught my eye when a squad I sent to a roof to lay down fire on a group of the enemy in a trench, came under heavy grenade attack from that group, killing all but two of my Infantry squad.
It's good to see your Infantry switching targets and engaging the enemy with grenades too.
I think there has been a massive improvement with 1.04, and btw, try this scenario, it's a whole lot of fun.
-
A big improvement as far as I am concerned, it just feels better all round and somehow appears to be easier to play.
One thing I did notice though is that in one of the scenarios the Red forces were still crawling between buildings out in the open instead of running across the open space, therefore making it easy for my Infantry on the roof to pick them off quite easily.
-
Ok, panic over. For some strange reason when I go to the Downloads page via the link there is no 1.04 patch, but when I refresh the page, magically the 1.04 patches show up.
-
Something very odd is happening here, when I click on the link for the patch it takes me to the correct page, the CMSF Downloads page, but the only patches there are the 1.03 patches!
Has the 1.04 patch been taken down for some reason?
-
I thought this was a game forum. :eek:Originally posted by Runyan99:I thought we were going to go to war with Iran...
-
^^Troll alert^^.
-
Where do you extract maps to? I know where to extract scenarios and QB maps, but not where to put these maps.
-
Ahh, ok thanks. Keep up the good work.Originally posted by MarkEzra:Meach has it exactly right: We use the setup "Attack" when designing the maps. We could have used probe or assault but felt the simplest description was Attack. When a player sets up a QB he can choose any of the modes. The game will choose force selection balance (just as it did in cmx1) which has no effect on the maps.
-
Superb maps, thanks very much. I may have missed something but I don't see any of your maps to replace the QBAssaultForest, QBAssaultRough or QBAssaultVillage2. Apologies if I have missed something, it's early and I'm old.
-
Ahh thanks for that, yes I did get the big pack from CMMODS.
-
I'm old, and probably stupid too, but how do you know if you're playing on one of your QB maps? I don't see any way to actually choose which map you play in QB, but as previously said, I'm old! :confused:
-
This isn't CMx1!Originally posted by SlowMotion:"not only is foliage as a whole taken into consideration when calculating the LOS, but density and more importantly (and frankly stunningly) the type of foliage also have a significant effect on the LOS depth."
It's really stunning if you must have 165 meters of trees between two units in order to have cover. In CMx1 I think two Woods tiles was enough, 2x20m.
-
British Army, 14 years (1969-83), Infantry Battalion, Mortar Fire Controller
Several tours in Northern Ireland during the 'Troubles'
Also saw service in Cyprus, West Germany(as it was then), Malta, Norway and Belize.
-
Absolute rubbish!!Originally posted by funkster319:I would suggest that they rethink there release strategy and not release clearly unfinished products
[/QB]
-
There was no personal attack on you by me, I just stated what is obvious. Ok, you have problems with the game, you stated them, but why do you have to jump on every thread and state them over and over again, I think the devs will have got the idea by now!Originally posted by Kieme(ITA):I'm sure I've helped more with my "whining" than you did with personal attacks!
If you can't get the difference between decisive, straight yet constructive criticism and pure whining I suggest you at least to keep from writing down such kind of unuseful replies.
I've kept posting because I've tried to make myself clearer, but english is not my native language and maybe I cannot express myself perfectly.
What I've wrote down has simply the aim of giving more help for future game improvements, it's not just "whining" and it's much better than a: "it's all soo good and ok" thread. Finally other people have expressed similar thinking as I did. [/QB]
-
You are the one being unclear what you want. Up to now in this thread you have asked for:Originally posted by Melnibone:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kieme(ITA):
For me instead its like talking with a brick wall...
1. A flawed command from CMX1
2. A version of a Hulldown command that already exists - Hunt
3. Another version of a Hulldown command that operates without sighting the enemy.
It's hard to discuss the options with somebody who keeps changing what they actually want and then accuses people who are trying to help with not listening. </font>
-
I'm no expert or grog but my former Battalion is currently serving in Afghanistan and of course I am keeping an eye out on how they are doing over there. There have been several occasions when they have been involved in battles lasting over 6 hours, as have other units serving out there too.Originally posted by Runyan99:However, I'm thinking that the volume of fire with modern weapons means that the firefights are deadlier, the firefights get resolved quicker, and therefore there might be even more movement in modern combat than there was in WW2.
-
Yes, but only if your soldiers stay in position, if I remember correctly. I am referring to a command which allows you to move and hold fire. </font>Originally posted by Garm:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> quote:Originally posted by Garm:
Well, a hold fire button would be a bit more comfortable, I think.
I'm not 100% sure, but doesn't the 'Hide' button do this?
-
I'm not 100% sure, but doesn't the 'Hide' button do this?Originally posted by Garm:Well, a hold fire button would be a bit more comfortable, I think.
-
...unless you using the Excalibur GPS-guided artillery shells. [/QB]Originally posted by jomni: -
Speaking from RL experience, mortar/arty fire is indirect fire, that is to say it would be very difficult to aim it for a particular vehicle and expect to hit it. The spread of arty and mortar rounds is quite large and some can drop short by many hundreds of yards,there are many variables that can affect the accuracy of these area weapons.Originally posted by Krinks:I also did find a bug where the artillery fell quite far from the target. Is this another known bug as well?
The other thing about ordering them to cease fire, there can be quite a time delay between the rounds being fired and their appearance on target, so although you may have ordered cease fire, rounds could be already on the way, and of course there is no way you can stop those.
-
Because it have to fear of Heavy Artillery Support? Because they have to do a HIt&Run Gurilla Tactic? </font>Originally posted by Taki:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Why would defending infantry move out of perfectly good trenches?
-
Agreed, really excellent looking maps, can't wait to try out your (forthcoming) scenarios.Originally posted by Melnibone:Great looking maps Sir!
-
Why would defending infantry move out of perfectly good trenches?Originally posted by Kieme(ITA):BigDork thanks for your report.
Did you notice that AI didn't do a single move while you were playing? Did you notice that those 2 tanks just stayied there waiting for you?
Didn't you feel like you were playing alone?
Your report seems to confirm what I've seen since now.
I refer to my discussion about AI performances.
Regards,Kieme
Er... correction... one small thing
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I thought I was in the Shock Force Forum! :confused: