Eden Smallwood
-
Posts
504 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Eden Smallwood
-
-
I can tell you what I know for a fact- a couple times, I've had a tank get bogged, (in open ground, even), and I sent another one over there to *push* him out. It doesn't work worth twinkie.Originally posted by Maj. Battaglia:Are you sure that there cannot be traffic accidents in CM?
I zoom in till I'm at magnification 16 or whatever, get the pusher right exactly behind the bogged, and the push tank just drives right "through" the other one. I think they are mathematical points for some aspects of the game.
At the same time, I've witnessed one tank pushing a knocked out one off the road just to make way. That has always been without my intervention, so maybe it's something the AI can do, but we can't.
Eden
[ October 28, 2002, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Eden Smallwood ]
-
In the interest of efficiency, maybe we should add this list of interesting threads on this subject to the faq? Or not. Anyhow, Colonel, you may find these illuminating, if you haven't seen them:
http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=001228
http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=001875
http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=002463
Especially interesting for me personally is the somewhat unanswered question I'll call "Winterhawk's Conjecture", that perhaps the truth of the matter is somewhere between CMBO and CMBB.
Would there be no arguing then, or twice as much?
Eden
-
You mean like combining area fire with the lasso feature?</font>Originally posted by Michael emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem:
[qb]True Area Fire. I.e. designating an Area to fire into per weapon/unit, not simply a point to fire around.
-
Every Random which can be set, with the one exception that I buy my own stuff.
800pts, or so, really small, almost always play Allies and buy toys with only "no change" Rarity.
With these settings, I've had any number of QBs which could easily have been on the CD they were so... "interesting", or something.
Eden
-
(aw shucks)Originally posted by Mark Gallear:Many thanks to Eden Smallwood and Gary Krockover for inspiring me to do it.
Your welcome, good for you! Your Soviet Hidden Unit icon looks great; I'll get that innaminnit.
In terms of a real contribution, let me know if you'd like me to make you a background tile, in the style of:
http://www.angelfire.com/mac/programming/HTML_IconLink5.HTML
Not to everyone's taste, certainly, but if you'd like me to make one per your taste I will certainly try!
Eden
-
The Book Of All Wisdom clearly states that Split Squads will recombine if you get them to Snuggle Up next to each other at the end of a turn. ISTR that Snuggling occurs at less than ten meters.Originally posted by Halberdier:But I'm not sure if the AI is capable of recombining split squads that had been split. Has anyone seen it recombine?
Yes, it works too- I've made it happen. Useful.
Eden
-
????Originally posted by demoss:You could try giving a smaller arc, and hope they ignore it when they start coming under fire after popping the ambush, I guess. My preference would be to go for the infantry and then fall back, but that obviously won't be applicable to all situations.
Ist nicht. Something infantry this way comes. Something armor also this way comes, very close on something infantry's heels. Neither inf nor arm are guaranteed to walk a straight line- they haven't seen me yet, (I'm hiding, quite cleverly), and in fact they're just snooping around in the dark, looking for those evil paratroopers, (me!).
As soon as I fire up my Big Ol' Bronson, I have a very short time to live. For some reason, the enemy hates me more than any other unit. So I don't want to give away my position unless I can first get the drop on at least a halftrack. ( Halftrack-Party-Snacks! Yum!)
So in this case, with these desires, a Cover Armor Arc would be perfect insurance against travesty. Of course I will still defend myself against inf if he's so close he will discover me, but otherwise, he is not worth my precious bodily lighter fluids.
No, there is no "fall back" for the spitzensparkentruppen. There is flaming, and there is dying. And even if I could ever get these guys to survive the duration, that halftrack I wanted to toast is already plotting a very serious detour. So. There.
Eden
PS Have you tried _Directive 3_ again?
-
Notez Bien: It's not possible to give a unit a covered arc "behind" the unit; IOW, if you give a unit a tiny arc away from his facing, look at him again- he has turned around so he faces his arc. Units which come to rest will adjust themselves to point at the midpoint of their arcs.Originally posted by Renaud:In that case, try a tiny covered arc pointed AWAY from the enemy.
Eden
-
Anytime someone else is willing to post this "whine" I'll be willing to post my agreement. Yes, Redwolf, and in fact I think your description is the best yet. ( except that it's "separate"Originally posted by redwolf:I came not to like the new command structure, BTW. It already has too many commands and is still missing many. The reason for that is that CM tries to blend movement speed, forward/backward and SOP functions into combined commands. This can only leads to users demands for 20 or 30 commands, pretty much the crossproduct of speed*SOP*direction. Some use for any of these exist.
If you compare that with Tacops 4.0 which has seperate SOP settings and seperate "backwards" command modifiers the CM system looks extremly clumsy.
)Topic: I've wished for two related things- a Delay command, (waitaminnit- isn't what we're talking about called "delaying"- simply moving your front backwards. But that would be confusing?) I mean a command to Retreat-While-Firing, and second, an SOP for "Fallback to Second Position When..."
The way it is now, we can't differentiate between "Comrade, defend this hole with your life" and "Comrade, when it gets really heavy, fallback to your other foxhole". File under: Panic Avoidance
Eden
-
NOW YOU TELL ME????!?!?!?!?!?!?Originally posted by Harv:Just a quick note here...DO NOT follow the "Best Played As" or "Computer Should:" guidlines for most of the CD scenarios listed at the Depot.
ahem... Is there anything ELSE you might like to tell me about listings at SD?
OP: Said it before; complete agreement
Eden
-
Exactly where do you get that from?Originally posted by wwb_99:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:
It's simple: the troop AI has been turned into crap, in comparison to CM:BO.
And why are not you retreating that out of ammo shreck team off the map, or at least out of harm's way anyhow?
WWB</font>
-
A 'shreck which is out of ammo, and is commanded to Hide, will nonetheless come *out* of hiding when a tank is in his Armor Arc.
Dude- "A+" for following orders, yeah? But if you're out of ammo... you can stay hidden. Really... it's ok... the fuhrer would understand.
Cancel his arc and he'll hide fine, but still I would suppose this matters for those units told to hide, with arcs, who fire when they can, and then run out of ammo. Eh?
Eden
-
Not that I really care about the angle my flamethrowers will cover, but I definitely don't want them to give away their position by flaming inf when there is a halftrack just seconds behind the inf. Giving them a Cover Armor Arc would solve that, I would say, but it can't be done.
Survey sez?
Eden
-
The current briefings are being used for two purposes:
1) "Hi! My name is Bob, and I wrote this scenario for my cat Percy, who is a SturmTrupper fan..."
2) "Commander, I have the intel you requested..."
I'd like to see the Briefing separated from the "About Box", so that scenario designers can (if they wish) really focus on the esthetic of the briefing without meta-commenting pollution. The "About" info should indicate stuff like how the scenario is best played, (PBEM best, Axis vs AI second), what "semi-historical" means in this case, (pretty good OOB, but no map), et cetera.
Then the true Briefing will have access to the 3D rendering engine, so it can walk you through the textual commentary at the same time it shows you on the map what it's talking about. Just like in the briefing room!!
Why think small?
Eden
PS: In _A Deadly Affair_, when the convoy comes, the little window says, "You're reinforcements have arrived", or whatever. Wouldn't it be neat if the scenario designer could just put in his own string into that window, (almost what you're saying above), so it says "The convoy is here". A little thing, but requiring only one single string to be customizable, so maybe this one is even doable in less than two years time...?
[ October 25, 2002, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: Eden Smallwood ]
-
Dang that was a wild goose chase... it's a CMBO scenario. ** sigh **Originally posted by Louie the Toad:Have you checked out the scenario Fertile Fields?
Eden
-
No, he meant "T-72"... he's got the SUPREME fog of war edition.Originally posted by Ellros:T-72's? Combat Mission XIV, Back to the Future
I know you meant T-34's.Eden
-
Hey there, er Pak'- you might like the two scenarios I just played tonight. They're both excellent, and probably will tickle your particular fancy...
Ebelwerfers(?) Last Stand: Pretty crazy; up your crazy alley. Play as Axis.
Red Parachutes: Play Russian Paratroopers drop behind Axis lines; your airtroops get tons o' Molotovs and a few Satchels, too! I actually did the honorable thing and went and *reviewed* this one at Scenario Depot. Can't spoil it for ya, but I *think* you'll like this one too.
Eden
[ October 24, 2002, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: Eden Smallwood ]
-
Yes Professor Emrys, I know you did, because I remember you're having said so quite some time ago. Now I own this crazy program, and I have logged several bazillion QB hours, and I see that you were right.Originally posted by Michael emrys:Can't argue with that. In fact, that's substantially the same suggestion I made four years ago.
So that makes two, or a two-possible-three if we count "tar". We're making definite progress!
Eden
-
Yes Professor Emrys, I know you did, because I remember you're having said so quite some time ago. Now I own this crazy program, and I have logged several bazillion QB hours, and I see that you were right.Originally posted by Michael emrys:Can't argue with that. In fact, that's substantially the same suggestion I made four years ago.
So that makes two, or a two-possible-three if we count "tar". We're making definite progress!
Eden
-
Not when the target in question is a building in which an enemy lurks whom I can't quite see. Correct me but I think it's not the same.Originally posted by akdavis:Well, having an ATR area fire would be about like ordering a sniper to area fire.
It's not a waste when there are no tanks on the whole field and I'm surrounded by tons of enemy!!! Trust me, comrade, we'd better use these rounds now, or it won't matter if a tank DOES stop by later. Even if you just give the enemy a sore knee it will not be a 'waste'!!They aren't going to just waste ammo.Eden
-
I would classify an AT gun as armor for the above context; the desire is to get *some* use out of MTC when a tank is currently staring at nothing but a Routed Crew.Originally posted by tar:Of course then someone would complain when their tank get moving in the line of fire of some AT gun.
I don't think the commands as they are now are in any danger of being too clever, but if you prefer shaken not stirred that's fine- this seems a nitpicky detail to me in the face of the much larger issue:I think that there is some real danger in trying to make the commands too "clever".
Yes yes yes a million times yes. I've said this before- doesn't it strike you that when we consider the "realness" of the game, the armor penetration model which is mind-boggling, versus the graphics which seem to me as good as they would ever need to be, versus the ability to give your troops simple SOPs... Well, which one seems to you the weakest link in that chain?!?I'm thinking more of something like the TacOps SOP feature.
Exactly. Thank you. And many others, (Reverse on contact x meters, etc). THAT is where this program would most benefit from some growth, imho.That way one could combine a "Stop when enemy sighted" effect with any of the normal movement commands: Run, Walk, Sneak(Crawl), etc.Eden
-
I like that. I like it bigtime. In fact, be able to specify anyone who will be the trigger. In Citadel, I tried many times to do what Cameroon is describing, and it never really worked for me.Originally posted by Walpurgis Night:Or at least give the ambushing platoon HQ the ability to trigger the ENTIRE platoon!
When you consider the case of two trucks coming down the road, spaced 50m , and four guys hiding in the woods on either side, spaced 50m... then the arc thing REALLY doesn't work, but the trigger would. After all, isn't one guy triggering the ambush closer to what happens in reality?
Another day, another CMII wish,
Eden
-
If the Move To Contact command is gone next turn, and your unit hasn't gone anywhere, then very simply he is already in Contact. Ergo, the command really *was* completed.
I've said this before about tanks and MTC- if you give a tank an MTC command, and he is in sight of even so much as a Routed Crew, he won't proceed...
Many possibilites exist for adding to the functionality of this command, "MTC anyone I'm not already in Contact with", "MTC some specific unit", "MTC some specific *type* of unit", "MTC Armor..."
At a minimum, it would be helpful if adding a Cover *ARMOR* arc to a tank would cause the MTC command to proceed until Armor is Contacted.
Eden
-
I'm with Soddball- I can't even get them to do Area fire. If you've actually expended rounds on Inf, please share your secret *now*.
Eden
I know you meant T-34's.
This Is An Entirely Different Game!: My First CMBB Experience
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
Everything you described there sounds *exactly* like what I was *forced* to learn playing Yelnia as Russians a bazillion times.
First thing they teach at Westpoint- Always play the Demo!!
Eden