akdavis
-
Posts
155 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by akdavis
-
-
I wouldn't say you're getting an obstacle for "free." You are in fact, exchanging fallback positions for a minor slowdown of the enemy advance (and tearing up roads is entirely realistic). I'd rather have fallback positions.
-
Sweet Jesus! Where is this game? I will steal its code, create an army of unbeatable robots and CONQUER THE WORLD!Playing through the single player mode, you will come to discover that the computer-controlled opponent hardly ever makes a tactical mistake. In fact, it is near impossible to try to anticipate your opponent’s next move while the computer does a great job of anticipating yours. Seems unfair? It is. -
Hi there.Originally posted by Da Beginna:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by P5:
What I have read, the Germans threw everything that they had against the Russians. That means that it was a very mixed fighting force.
The last Battles were actually fougth by foreigners. They could not go home, while most Germans tried to put on their civilian clothes and get home somehow - many were hanged for corwardness in the last days. In Berlin itself, a lot of Beligium people (SS Wallonie) had the questionable honor of defending the center...
They did not dared to go home with a SS tatoo. Actually, a lot of guys like that get killed by their own people without a trial...</font>
-
There must be a Russian out there who knows what I'm talking about...
-
Frankly, if you want to see reviews, asking for them can't hurt. Publications are usually overjoyed when the readers tell them what they'd like to see. (Just don't turn around and thrash them if they fail to praise the game.)
-
Largely a Hollywood myth. If a tank doesn't want someone to open their hatches, then they're not going to be opened.Originally posted by Ant:Aren't they supposed to clamber up onto the engine decking and lob grenades down the hatches/ports, or is that all a bit of a Hollywood myth?
Don't expect too much from molotovs, as they are really just a weapon of harrasment when it comes to buttoned-up armor. I've had some success with molotovs, but it is very much a hit or miss thing. I wouldn't rush a full squad out into the open to assualt a tank with such poor AT assets. One nice thing though, tanks that see molotovs landing on or near them will often skedaddle right quick like. Oh, and immobilizations and gun hits are not uncommon from close in assualts with simple grenades. Damage will be done, just don't expect catastrophic explosions.
[ October 19, 2002, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: akdavis ]
-
Past the tutorial battles, definitely stick to playing defense for awhile. Playing defense will ease you into the gameplay and interface, as you will seldom have to coordinate the movement of multiple units at the same time. Then move on to the QB meeting engagements, this will give you a great taste of maneuvering your forces to engage the enemy, but without presenting you "a tough nut to crack." Move quickly to seize keypoints in the terrain, then switch to defense. Once you feel comfortable with the game, and feel like you stand a good chance against the AI in these circumstances, move on to attacks and assualts. This is where the AI will really give you a run for your money. Good luck!
-
It's a special mod that will change all Russian vehicles to hot air ballons that lift 4-story-high portraits of Stalin above the battlefield.
-
He has a good point. Men in bunkers aren't really crews, but parts of whatever infantry unit is fighting in the area. That is you don't have B Company manning the trenches while Special Bunker Detachment (I can only imagine what the word for this would be in German!) 90210 mans the pillboxes. I also wish that bunker "crews" were a bit more integrated into the battle, but I'm sure this is something we can expect to see worked on more in the rewrite. Sure works fine now and could only get better.
-
Sorry, I'd hate to make you clean a huge splooge stain off Panzer PeteOriginally posted by Captain Wacky:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Wacky, don't say "discharge" when Haver and I are in the same room - it might give him ideas, and you know how hard that stuff is to clean off.
</font>
-
That's no excuse for inaccuracies, illogical statements and overall poor writing. If this guy's totally unprofessional attempt at a review (are you not required to have writing experiece to write reviews for online publications?) causes one person not to buy the game, then he has cost a legimate, hard-working developer well-deserved income, all because he didn't take the time to really play the game, or even copy-edit his article for that matter. However, if a person actually took the time to seriously read this drivel (pray tell, how does an explosion render something obsolete? Perhaps it was an explosion of inventive genius?), then I suppose their taste and intellect would not be suited to a game like CM.The guy is entitled to his own opinion. Not everyone's going to fall madly in love with either CMBO or CMBB.[ October 17, 2002, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: akdavis ]
-
-
He didn't chicken out, he just practised a little bit of self-censorship. I saw what you wrote Madmatt...Originally posted by Captain Wacky:Aw, you chickened out
-
I wonder if perhaps tankhunter teams have some sort of internal close combat "bonus" to help them with close assualting tanks that might also make them unduly effective against other infantry?
-
Really just wanted to be the first to respond...
[ October 19, 2002, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: akdavis ]
-
I'm almost finished with The Fall of Berlin and I highly recommend it. Probably the most comprehensive history of the battle/last days of the Third Reich to date. Don't expect a detailed military history, though, as Beevor draws on many political and civilian perspectives as well. One of his central focuses seems to be the problem of rape in liberated territory. He can come off as somewhat biased towards the German people at times, but he does a better job of addressing German atrocities than he did in Stalingrad. Wherever possible, he makes use of first-hand accounts, making for a very compelling read. My only complaint would be that the fighting within Berlin is somewhat neglected, making the 300,000 Soviet casualties seem incredibly high for the small scale of fighting described in the book.
-
Yeah, it was McAuliffe, but from what I hear, "Nuts" was just the press friendly euphemism used for what he actually replied with.
-
Ideally, I would like to see the East Front plus the West Front from Sicily on. Just don't leave out the East Front! You already have me hooked and it'd suck to go back to the done-so-many-damn-times Normandy campaign. Perhaps it could be the war against Germany from 41 on, but I think there would be some serious limitations with depicting the Desert War.
Stay away from the Pacific! I don't want to fight a bloody, simple-minded war of brutal attrition! I want maneuver and tactical possibilities, not the slow eradication of an entrenched, stationary enemy through the use of overwhelmingly unbalanced firepower.
-
Very nice!
Question: are the slogans reversed on the opposite side?
Comment: tracks look more rusty than dirty.
-
I've noticed that tankhunter teams are suspiciously effective against other infantry, often racking up more kills than full squads. I've heard accounts of uber tankhunters from others also, but I have no idea how to check if there is something "wrong" here.
-
I recall reading somewhere that the Germans liked to setup MGs 6 inches off the ground and sweep back and forth across nice flat fields. This could make the standard MG response of duck and cover very troublesome. But this would have been area fire, rather than direct LOS targeting.
-
Attention to spelling reflects directly on attention to detail and accuracy. If I find a scenario with multiple spelling errors in the briefing, I tend to assume that it is an "amateur" undertaking, likely to lack polish around the edges.
If you are an English speaker, simply run your text through some sort of spellchecker.
If you are a non-native English speaker, simply run your text through some sort of spellchecker.
If you have a rough grasp on the English language, ask one of us English speakers to proofread your text. Post it here, e-mail someone, whatever.
If you can barely get by in English, just write your text in your own language and have someone translate. There is such an international community here, I don't think you'd have a tough time finding someone to translate.
If you speak some obscure language like Swahili or Canadian, you should probably just leave now before you cause intense linguistic suffering amongst your peers.
[Edit: see, I fix my mistakes
][ October 17, 2002, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: akdavis ]
-
Doesn't the penetration of tungsten core rounds degrade much faster over distance than standard AP? At 1000m + standard AP might actually be more effective. I'll double check, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.Originally posted by Tha_Field_Marshall:I haven't seen the AI use tungeston rounds properly yet either. At long range when there are needed my Mk IV will hold on to them. Usually not getting a second chance to use them, I might add.
-
I ran some test involving a couple of Stug IIIEs vs a company of partisans without AT weapons in wide open ground. I have to conclude that the AI's use of canister is pretty flawed. I determined that the AI will readily fire its first canister rounds out to 200m IF it has more than 3 rounds, but once it gets down to 2 or 3 rounds, it will unreasonably horde them, refusing to fire even at infantry squads less than 50m away.
Even more troublesome is the effect of canister at 200m. Practically nothing. Every once in awhile, a lucky kill would be scored, but in test after test the Stugs fired their first canister rounds out to 200m with no effect. Even at 100m, when the Stugs would more readily use their rounds, casualties were fairly light. When the infantry got in around 50m, the results were devastating, with entire squads being wiped out. Unfortunately, even when being close assualted by 3 or more squads of infantry, the Stugs refused to use their last 2 canister rounds, choosing instead to fire HE.
[ October 15, 2002, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: akdavis ]
</font>
Problem with arty smoke between turns
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
Yes, I've noticed that, but my real problem is with on-map smoke. I find that my mortars/inf. guns often refuse to respond to a smoke command if there is a target in LOS, and when they do, they are very reluctant to use up their few smoke rounds. So for example, if I try to lay down some smoke with a mortar, they will fire one of their smoke rounds, then discontinue the order. End up getting one smoke round per turn, which is basically useless. They treat the stuff like its Pzgr.40 or something.