Bruce70
-
Posts
394 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Bruce70
-
-
Hi,
Haven't played CM:BB in a while, but with CMC on the way I thought I'd dig it out again. Unfortunately I have lost all my scenarios and when I tried to download them again I find that half the listed sights are no longer active.
So where is the best place to download scenarios and ops these days?
Thanks.
-
I mentioned this in another thread, but I couldn't remember the name of the game. (actually I think something similar might have been used in a few games) Anyway, Steve said that they have already considered and dismissed this in favour of a better solution ("the new C&C system")... which I am very keen to hear about BTW!Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:I played a game once called "Space Hulk" (don't laugh) and in that they had a very ingenious way of dealing with the problems of planning and orders versus RT.
In SH you could pause to issue orders but you only had a certain amount of time available before it reverted automatically to RT. Whilst in RT, you accumulated time for use in giving orders when the game was paused. This encouraged you to try to manage in RT as much as possible, to accumulate pause time for when you really needed to make major changes to your battle plan.
I think this was a really clever way of doing a combination of RT and WeGo, and could be revisited in CMx2. The amount of pause time you have available could also be modified by relative force size, by having a larger force accumulate pause time whilst in RT at a faster rate than for a smaller force. This would ensure that, after a minute or so of RT, the player would have enough pause time to adequately give orders to a sizeable number of his units, regardless of how many he controlled.
-
Tuomas,
I'm guessing the response will be something along the lines of: "With CMx2's realistic C&C network that's not necessary."
Can't wait to get more details on this C&C network.... (hint)
-
I think it's great that the underlying engine is now RT. In single player games, when I can pause as often as I want, I will probably use the RT option (don't really know yet though). But, if you can't pause in multiplayer games (?), I would probably stick to WeGo for larger games.
-
Precious space? It's a few lines of text.
-
Don't be ridiculous, you can't do a search on everything before posting - only poeple who live on this forum ever suggest such nonsense. A polite comment that this has been recently discussed - possibly with a note about the outcome - is the appropriate way to deal with this IMO.Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:Why dont people search before posting? Just on page 2 this was discussed already under "Website"
SEARCH BEFORE POSTING PLEASE
-
That's only true if they think you need your military for a military purpose. China may, and probably does, believe they need it for diplomatic, economic, and social reasons, to name a few.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:China's massive spending program on its military is stupid since pretty much any scenario they think they need it for would most certainly mean the destruction of the Chinese state as it is known today.
[Edited because I'm a trigger happy idiot]
-
Some would argue that being able to pause and spend an infinite amount of time positioning every unit in minute detail is "artificial and gamey".Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Bruce,
That sort of stuff has been discussed before. None of that sort of stuff is planned for CMx2. It's artificial and "gamey". It's the sort of stuff that was required for turnbased games to simulate realtime issues having to do with communications. With CMx2's realistic C&C network that's not necessary. The realism issues are already dealt with using other means.
Now don't get me wrong, I think it is *essential* that you should be allowed to pause. Why? Because you do not have the same situational awareness and natural environment in which to give orders, and because you have to give additional orders that otherwise you would not have to because the AI can't handle all the situations that a real subordinate could.
However, I see nothing artificial and gamey about setting some limits on the amount of micromanagent that a player can engage in. I'm sorry I missed the earlier discussion, could you please point me in the right direction (I woudln't even know what to search for) or just give me the highlights.
Anyway, if the new C&C network solves this potential problem, then that's fine by me. Just because I think my idea would be an elegant solution, doesn't mean that I think it would be the only elegant solution.
-
Since there is now a RT option, I want to revisit an earlier question I had.
In CMx1, when you plot a move for your tank that would take it through heavy woods, the TacAI replots a course *after* the turn has started. I suggested that with faster computers, this could now be done on-the-fly, which would allow you to change this route before the turn started.
Since CMx2 has a RT option, this must now be the case for RT, but will it also be the case for the turn-based game? Will we be able to edit the AI's path *before* the turn starts?
-
A suggestion for RT (and possibly WeGo) play:
- Every second of real time you accumulate a number of command points.
- Every time you issue an order you use up command points. The more complex the order the more points you use.
I haven't thought this through (that's what the forum's for
), but it seems to me that this might:- be a way deal with players pausing every second
- be a viable alternative or complement to command delays.
- make it impossible to micromanage every unit all the time, but possible to micromanage some of the units all the time or all the units some of the time.
I beleive a system like this was used in some XXXX game, but I can't remember which one...
-
All of the great empires (and almost all of the modest ones) relied on combined arms. This included cavalry to a lesser or greater extent. Nothing much has changed...Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:and yet 2 of the 3 world-empires in the era were based upon foot soldiers that regularly defeated their horse-mounted opponents (Rome, China)
-
Well said General, I was just about to say the same thing. Like you I do not know how long the "battle" lasted, but I suspect that 200 tanks etc, were not all actively engaged within the space of one hour, and in CMC terms they probably did not enter the same 2x2 map simultaneously.
I'm not quite sure how it would work, but on the face of it, I do not think that a battle of this scale can immediately be dismissed as a possible CMC campaign.
-
This is a little off topic for this thread, but I didn't think it was worth starting another one.
Anyway I know the Stryker has "run-flats" (for at least 4 wheels?), so...
1. How well does it manouvre with 1,2,...8 tyres blown out?
2. How easy is it to puncture a tyre?
3. How many spares does it carry and how quickly can they be fitted?
I would have thought that all the tyres would be blown in the first 30 seconds of a battle, but this doesn't appear to be the case, what gives?
-
Yeah, but IMO it should still be based on how long you've been in situ. However, I really have no idea how long it took to set this up in WWII. Did they have to pace it out?
-
It would be nice if the # of TRPs are a (non-linear) function of how long you've been on the map and how long the arty has been located in it's current position. Not sure how realistic that would be though...
-
From the faq thread that I just bumped.
Reading between the lines, I assume that:How does artillery work which is not represented "on board" within CMBB--ie, how can my Soviet recon platoon attack that nebelwerfer battery?{-}
Artillery or other units which have no on board representation don't get to be played with. Nebelwerfers that get attacked might be represented only by their transport, so best to avoid getting attacked. -Hunter
- if it has an on-board representation in CMBB then it also does in CMC.
- the fact that it has an on-board rep. does not exclude it from being used as off map arty in CMC
- arty that is off map only in CMBB will not have an on map rep in CMC battles (transport units only) but may/will on the campaign map.
I know that is a lot of reading between the lines...
-
Yeah, needs a sticky.
-
FWIW, I think I remeber Hunter saying that big guns would be represented in a battle by their carrier vehicles only.
-
As for trenches, if a player "digs" these for one battle then they should still be there for (some number of?) subsequent battles.
So it's not just a campaign designer issue, it's something that needs to be part of gameplay as well.
-
Line up three quarts of gin and a gorilla suit, and I'm yours. </font>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Madmatt:
And sounds Steve! Don't forget the sounds! They are hard to make too!!!!
Oh forget it..us poor sound engineers, we never get no luvin...
Madmatt
-
I don't see any harm in raising it again, but if nobody wants to respond to it reasonably for the 50th time, who can blame them. You certainly shouldn't expect BFC to respond everytime someone raises the same point again, they've got much better things to do.
-
Probably be easier just to allow you to add a .jpg to your briefing, then you can use whatever tools you like to create it. Good idea though.
-
OMG!!Originally posted by mattwagner:programmed in Java!
Well at least it's something I can add to my Java lectures!
-
If/when bump mapping makes it into the engine, I imagine that will add a level of complexity for the modders. OTOH it will also add a lot of flexibility, you could probably add pretty realistic looking sandbags and such to vehicles with a good texture and bumpmap.
Weapons review from Iraq veteran
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
A few people have stated that it is the one person who deosn't go down immediately that will kill you. This is probably true (although I would have thought that you would have time to hit them again at CQ). Therefore, they have argued for a larger round, and/or for hollow points (which I do believe there are conventions against - don't know if the US is a signatory or not). But, if it only takes one person to kill you, what happens if that one person is wearing body armour? For CQ I think a combination of 12ga and 5.56 would be ideal. Incidentally, isn't that currently the norm?