Ant
-
Posts
404 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Ant
-
-
That's probably true but I'm not actually questioning how long it's taking, after all, as the saying goes, I'd rather have it right than early. I'm just asking for a little bit of feedback such as "The patch has been supplied to CDV for their quality control" or "We're still ironing out a couple of bugs" or "we feel a bit more testing is required" anything in fact, because at the moment I feel that we CDV customers are being forgotten........I'm sure that's not the case but the people who were allowed to buy this game directly from BFC have got a patch and we who were forced to buy CDVs version haven't. I would have thought that at least we could be given a little info on maybe when we could expect something.Originally posted by redwolf:It has to go through CDV quality assurance and the safedisk copy protection has to be applied.
I know BFC interviews in the past were very optimistic about the time this takes, but my experience with QA people and people who "just have to apply" something doesn't make me that optimistic.
-
Yes, I know "When it's ready"
OK So now that that answer is out of the way any feedback of a more constructive and/or, dare I say, precise nature.
I realise that this is the last patch and so it has to be right, but the beta release for the US market has been out for quite some time now and I haven't seen any recent posts about problems with it.....which may suggest that it seems to be ok and therefore possibly ready to be released for the CDV version.
My transformation from happy go lucky forum visitor to rabid refresh monkey has been accelerating at an unfortunately alarming rate recently and quite frankly my attention span has gone down the toilet as a result, so I'd like to know if I'm going to be thrown a bone to help me with this condition or should I just accept my fate and deal with it in as unobtrusive a manner as I can manage.
-
There was an excellent series on UK Television about a year ago entitled 'The second world war in colour'
It really is amazing how much more real it seems when you see colour film footage. I distinctly remember one scene in spring 1945 that showed a German officer desperately trying to organise a defensive position whilst anticipating the inevetable arrival of the Russians, one of those bits of film that really makes an impact.
-
The Hague convention does not specifically ban shotguns, and this claim that the British called them Trench rifles to get round the convention appears to be nothing more than a myth. The Germans complained about trench rifles during WW1 claiming that they breached article 23
Art. 23.
To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
The only other clause that I could find in both Hague and Geneva accords which may possibly refer to shotguns is
Hague II July 29 1899
The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.
Other (later) sections that I could find covering land weapons appear only to specifically refer to poisonous gas and biological weapons.
The trouble with the Geneva convention, and earlier Hague conventions is that, similarly to the US constitution, there's a lot of myth, heresay and confusion about what precisely is actually in it. You can read the conventions in full at the website of Yale university:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/20th.htm
As you might expect it's all very long winded and takes some getting through. I didn't find anything specifically banning shotguns but that's not to say that I didn't miss something. If anyone knows or finds the article that actually deals with this please feel free to correct me.
-
I don't think that shotguns themselves were banned by the Geneva convention, the home guard utilised them in Britain during the war, AFAIK the Geneva convention mainly applies to ammunition types. ie. no soft lead or dum dums.
-
Or German Quality controlOriginally posted by Sergei:Soviet quality control... :mad:
-
Well my theory is this (and it is only my theory so I could be wrong):
If a tank is happily driving down a clear and unobstructed road then, in real life, it still has a chance of becoming immobilised due to mechanical failure. Maybe a burnt out clutch, a broken engine piston, or even just a failure in the electrics etc. This essentially has nothing to do with terrain and is instead more of a function of inherant reliability of the vehicle. In CM this is not modelled, therefore BFC have not looked at different reliability data for different vehicles. In that sense you could say that mechanical breakdown is not modelled in this game.
On the other hand if the same tank was driving down a road that was scattered with rubble and maybe even the odd tree branch, then there is a chance of it becoming immobile due to foreign object damage of the running gear. You could say that having a track thrown due to driving over rubble could count as a mechanical failure, however, as this is the result of external terrain effects on the vehicle, and essentially has nothing to do with the mechanical reliability of the vehicle itself then you'd probably not count it as such.
In essence the only thing that will bog/immobilise a vehicle in CM is the effect of terrain. but that will cover a multitude of things from sinking into the mud on a wet October Russian steppe to driving over a tree branch and getting it stuck in the tracks. Bear in mind though that CM does not calculate all this exactly and only gives an approximation of all this.
-
And if you read my last post another BFC employee said something different.................I swear it's all some sort of conspiracy to confuse us allOriginally posted by JP Jones:"Did you bother to read what I posted above...both the quote from Moon, and the entire thread I referenced? Do you think that Moon doesn't "REALLY KNOW" what is going on in the game? What source can you suggest that would be better than one of the employees at BF.C?"
-----------------------------------------------
Lighten up Francis.
Of course I read what was above, but no, I didn't read the other thread since it seemed you already pulled out a quote, I took that as the most important/relevent part (assuming that is why you quoted it). I didn't realize that the "Moon" quoted was a BFC employee, the quote doesn't mention that. So since I don't know the Moon from the stars, I wanted to know the final answer from a reliable source. I never would have said that one of their employees doesn't know what is going on. They are an outstanding company.
Now, go have your coffee next time before you try to lecture me like a child.
-
In a recent thread about bogging Steve said
From that statement I'd assume that a certain amount of mechanical breakdown is modeled. So long as that mechanical breakdown has been the result of some type of impact of terrain on the vehicleYes, "bogging" is meant to cover throwing a track or otherwise having something go wrong with the mobility of the vehicle. This could simply be a build up of brush in the drive sprocket as much as it could be sinking in mud. -
Despite what has been said about not representing mechanical failures I have always understood bogging to include, not only getting stuck in mud, but getting tracks fouled or even thrown. Thus the H/T bogged on a road could represent a broken or damaged track.Originally posted by JP Jones:I had a 251/1 halftrack bog on a paved road on a clear dry day. What possibility to bog on a PAVED road is there???? I could not believe it was really bogged. I thought it must represent a mechanical failure, but if that is not possible, then what the hell????
-
AFAIK that only relates to early/mid-war Russian units.Originally posted by leakyD:Well, as hindsight *is* 20/20...
Aren't experience levels acting as one "level" lower in CMBB compared to CMBO?
so:
Green = Conscript
Regular = Green
Veteran = Regular
and so on.
So, in CMBO terms, you had a Green shreck team out of command trying to nail a tank. In my experience, Green AT teams are almost worthless.
Poor little fellers were prolly too busy crapping their pants to aim worth a damn!
-
Exactly. I love lifelike fog of war situations. There's nothing more satisfying than a half-arsed plan going t*ts up five minutes after contact
-
There was a topic on this a while ago and Matt said that the next patch had a fix in for thisSTAY BUTTONED UP FOR THIS ONE MINUTE BECAUSE I TOLD YOU TO AND I AM GOD AS FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED!
-
Depends on what you're used to I suppose. I've always played on realistic scale and I don't have many problems. Also occasionally 'mislaying' a unit and finding it later on, thus having it take no part in a battle is also a pretty good representation of real Fog of war. I've read several accounts of units that should have taken part in action but instead spent the whole time sitting around doing nothing because of screwed up orders etc.Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):You can fix it if you play at realistic scale. Then again you won't be able to find anything either.
-
I've got SC and I'm afraid it looks very unlikely to me. The counters that SC uses are very generic, bland you could say. They don't really represent anything that you could put your finger on as a specific real military unit, they're just concepts to represent forces really and I don't see how it could be tied in with CM at all.
-
No. Strategic command is so much larger in scope than CM that there's no relation. In order for something like your idea to work you'd need about four different games: Strategic command, A divisional level game to resolve those conflicts, A Regimental level game to resolve the divisional level game conflicts, and onto CM.
Not practical at all I'm afraid.
-
Did they really send out individuals on their own in real life? sounds a bit dodgy to me, unless you're talking about a sniper. CM has sharpshooters so you could probably use one of those. I think it's a bit more realistic to me to use a half squad than an individual.
-
Spook if you can give me a typical application for a PULSEJET engine used during WW2 I will name my first born "Spook" (if you know the difference between an APU and a propulsion engine you are 2/3rd's the way there). AND NO USING GOOGLE!Originally posted by Brigadier:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Spook:
The pictured APU above (the Garrett GTCP 85) isn't a propulsion (thrust) engine. It provides pneumatic air supply and mechanical power to drive some accessories. One such application is in the C-130 Hercules transport, though the 85 is used in a few other aircraft too. It's a late-1950's era design.
Most airliners have one version or another of an APU onboard. It's what is used to help start up the main engines on the ground.
I'm an AVIONIC's Engineer by trade but BGTE theory (WW2) gives me wood .
**edited for clarity** </font>
-
Using binocular equipped units to observe potential enemy positions can also be worthwhile. two or three turns spent observing with binoculars can sometimes reveal otherwise hidden enemy units.
[ May 01, 2003, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Ant ]
-
In CMBO once the AI buttoned up it would never unbutton itself, which lead to a severe handicap for AI AFVs which had buttoned: ie, visibility penalties.Originally posted by PlattCmdr:Not exactly a bug issue, but perhaps a playability issue: What about the incidence of tank commanders automatically unbuttoning in the minutes/turns that follow after having been instructed to button up? This obviously is an issue when sharpshooters are present.
There however doesn't seem to be an occurance of this in CMBO, and I was wondering, if in like fashion, the power could be taken away from the AI and placed back into the hands of the player for CMBB too?
AFAIK it was decided to implement an automatic AI unbuttoning in CMBB which removed the visibility penalties for the AI. Unfortunately this behaviour seems to have become part of the human player's side as well. I agree with you: A human controlled force should remain buttoned until the player instructs otherwise, don't know if it's possible to code into CMBB now though.
-
This one has been debated before:
http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=006464#000023
-
Thanks Andrew.
Only one small observation though: In all the pictures and illustrations I've seen the rain cape seems to have been worn exclusively over the left shoulder.
But apart from that minor niggle a very welcome mod.
-
Could this be just another case of the 'Murphy's law bug' in which the AI always seem to get better shots at close range than the human player. I've certainly noticed it occasionally. I know from the huge AI cheating thread a while ago that it isn't the case, and it's not a bug, when you analyse it properly; but the fact that that thread was started, and went on for so long in the first place suggests that it's a phenomenon that people sometimes see.
[ April 25, 2003, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Ant ]
-
AFAIK Guards units were created from standard red army units that had destinguished themselves in battle, so a certain 'esprit de corps' would seem to be a requirement. Once a Guards unit had been created then I think they'd have gotten primary consideration for equipment much as the SS did.
That's just what I seem to remember so I'm sure somebody else will come along and give a more comprehensive answer
So when do we Europeans get the patch then?
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
we Europeans were not allowed to purchase the game directly from BFC so I had to buy the CDV version
I understand that for CMAK we will be given a choice as to where we purchase it from. You can rest assured that I certainly won't be getting a CDV version then.