Brent Pollock
-
Posts
953 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Brent Pollock
-
-
What do you mean by "assault team" and "fire team"? I ask because you mention assaulting with a platoon, but make it sound more like you tried it with a split squad.
-
I've always wondered who thought up the camo schemes...was there an actual Department of Camo or somesuch...or was it more, "hey, look what Schmidt just came up with!"
-
On May 21, I posted two "vs AI" versions of a battle on the SD site. It pits Guards Cav vs SS Cav.
Here are the current download stats:
WBRP - Company Town (vs Ad AI); 85 downloads
WBRP - Company Town (vs Ax AI); 64 downloads
Both are still on the Current Submission table, so the apparent bias in favour of donning SS uniforms can't be due to "Marketing".
I noted a similar bias in download rates when they were imultaneously available on The Proving Grounds site, although I didn't record the numbers.
Discuss...well, discuss things other than the fact that I am a lousy statistician...
-
Why don't we switch to it after our Keppeln match?
Originally posted by kenfedoroff:Without reading the spoilers above, I am willing to PBEM this if anybody needs an opponent. Can usually do a turn/file a day.
Ken
-
I thought that was just the natural outcome of having so much vodka spilled on them
Lookin' good
Originally posted by DEY:...from what I've read the Finn's dropped that 3-tone paint scheme in 44 and went back to a overall green base colour...
-
MrSpkr and I have been delayed by a fever that hit him mid-week. No news since Thursday night.
-
Foo - I can do one better. Check my CMAK battle, "WBRP - Charnel Wood", both versions at the SD. It covers the counter attack by the eight Panthers.
Originally posted by Xavier:There was two battles around this area...
The second one : one month later = Operation Charnwood (check scenario "Operation Charnwood" for CMBO)>> panthers...
-
Notice how CM continues to utterly fail at providing the walls required to make true Norman Clos towns...maybe in CMX2
-
...and the name is "What an Opportunity".
You are utterly insane for making this scenario...so I don't know what it says about me that I went ahead and downloaded it...other than I am a Canucklehead
-
MrSpkr and I have a TCP/IP playdate for tonight.
-
This is a more detailed version of the guess I'm going to put forth:
- it will have tanks (non-amphib)
I'll go even further out on a limb
- it will not have helicopters
Originally posted by Bigduke6:The BigDuke6 Theory of Wargame Developement Says: "Cool Armored Vehicles Sell Games".
The "How You Milk It" corrolary argues that if you want to maximize your computer wargame sales income, you split up the releases so that each new release contains a previously unreleased combat vehicle, because to impress wargamers you need either a really spiffy engine, or cool war vehicles to play with.
The biggest gamer market is ww2, and the coolest ww2 vehicles are Panther, TigerI, and TigerII; not necessarily in that order. TigerI and Panther are roughly the same time. TigerII isn't.
Panther and TigerI give us a time window, roughly, of late Spring 1943 to Fall 1944. There's two of them so that's double the cool factor, so that means the first game must fit that window.
That leaves BFI the options of Italy, Normandy, France '44 for the basic engine. I agree with the Tom Hanks factor: it's obvious they'll pick Normandy.
It is true the real Second World War was decided during the late Spring 1943 - Autumn 1944 time frame on the East Front, as that encompasses everything from Kursk through Bagratian. It would be great if CM2 developement went by historical importance.
But Tom Hanks never rode in a T-34, so tough tankies to that idea. It'll be Normandy and I am sure the hedgerows will be pretty.
-
Oooo - I don't know if I still have it my system, but Chuck Kibler and I played a QB using one of his buddy's maps - it was of a park from his childhood...somewhere in NJ, I think...hmmm...can't find anything that looks like it in my QB map folder...sorry.
-
I'm lazy so I won't chase it down, but I'm pretty sure someone posted a timing for different calibres of smoke.
Simple answer - bigger lasts longer.
-
Paris doesn't count as "crazy" unless you mean Paris, Texas, or somesuch.
Remember that in CMBO, there was a scenario depicting Free French street clearing.
-
Start of the turn 6 movie.
-
If you edit a unit to "PANICKED", the owner will not be able to do a thing with it during set up. If you hit the space bar to call up its orders options, nothing happens other than a CM error warning "beep". So, you can't even:
- dig in/out
- relocate
- rotate
- un/hide
- set an arc
Also, as I've mentioned elsewhere, this will prevent an artillery observer from plotting a pre-planned barrage.
[This is not mentioned on p. 170 (CMBB) nor p.152 (CMAK) of the manuals, nor did a previous mention of it come up with a forum search.]
[ June 04, 2005, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Brent Pollock ]
-
Think 3 times about wanting to win versus generating a smashing great movie (of course, nothing says you can't do both).
-
Amen - if they still have grenades bayonettes, fists & teeth, in they go.
-
With all this talk of additional modules, I can just see that I'll be using some sort of multi-CD changer to keep up with all of my PBEM matches
-
So, rather than relying on the swacking great legion of scenario designers and all their synergistic noggins, you'd rather rely on the handful of guys responsible for the Random Battle coding
Originally posted by jim crowley:[redacted by Brent] Irrespective of wonderful graphics, relative spotting, advanced ballistics or anything else, I really do not want my gaming experience to be entirely in the hands of scenario designers.
I want the freedom to be able to roll up a random (or otherwise) battle without designer bias or constraint.
-
...uh...yes...as I'm sure we all do...and would like to see dug outs & fallback dug outs that we can set up empty, then reposition into...but that's just a tad off-topic.
It seems that the width of the arc was causing the problem, as suggested by Kingfish's data. I narrowed the arcs on the StuGs down to something pretty close to their actual arc, and now they are holding the cover arc command quite well...I count this as a minor, minor, minor bug, that I am certain never popped up during playtesting (I mean really, ask yourself, just how often do you use dug in AFVs, let alone turretless ones?).
I continue to be baffled as to why the Wespen, [also turretless, for those who need reminding] which have the full 180 degree arc, have not experienced this problem..."issues" with restricted LOS, perhaps?
-
Don't forget to update the HOBBIES section of your CV with the results from this tourny
-
Kingfish's narrow arc seems like it is likely the answer, but I don't understand why his Wespe wouldn't keep its arc as it does not jibe with my results. In my PBEM match, both Wespen keep their arcs, but the StuGs lose it.
The StuGs losing their arcs in the PBEM match are not Green, nor Conscript (and wouldn't even show one in the first place if they were the latter, nor would it come up on their command list).
Ditto for the Wespen, which are also dug in.
All units were given the maximum arc (distance & width), centred on their dug in facing, so I don't know why each Wespe seems content to keep its arc.
-
How long will it be before we begin chanting, "Dutch Trucks Now! Dutch Trucks Now!"
Originally posted by dalem:Sounds to me a little like the ASL run.
ASL rulebook released with Beyond Valor - gave us the basic rules and 90% of what we needed to fight the Germans against the Russians. Then a series of modules that each added some rules or refined extant rules while bringing us a new "front", time period, and/or participant.
Seems familiar, seems reasonable, seems yummy.
-dale
There is no such thing as "Blitzkrieg"
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
...like "blockbuster", yes?