76mm
-
Posts
1,366 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by 76mm
-
-
Those pesky designers eh !
So what is a scenario designer to do ?
Well I think that his point was that designers should use more low quality troops if they are tryng to accurately reflect combat in this period on this front, which I think is rather different from most of the issues raised in your post, which are purely game-design issues (victory conditions, size of map, etc.).
-
Green, perhaps, but not conscript. Yes, on the whole the Red Army of WWII perhaps wasn't as well-trained as other armies, but right now we are dealing with 1944. This isn't 1941-42, with the Soviets throwing masses of badly-trained men into the fight.
Not necessarily true. Many of the replacements fed into the Red Army during late 43 and 44 were peasants, etc. from areas recently liberated by the Red Army. Many, if not most, of these replacements had virtually no military training, and often they were not even provided with uniforms or weapons. Of course they ended up being slaughtered in droves.
-
Not sure if it is 1393 or not but sienkewicz's "With Fire and Sword" trilogy is a good read.about poland
-
I just googled Michael Dorosh and found that during his 5 months stay on the battlefront.com forums he posted more than 13.000 times :eek:. LOL. If he hadnt been banned he would today probably have posted more than John Kettler and Michael Emrys togather.
IIRC he was on these boards for much longer than 5 months--more like several years.
-
Another good point...
I guess I'll just ignore the QB OOBs for this database...
-
You cant have the machines without the men. And tankdesantniki were kind of part of the crew, they just had a big crew and not all of them knew how to work a tank but they were a fighting unit.
Tankdesantniki weren't part of the crew, they were organic infantry, and you can certainly have tanks without tankodesantniki--for instance, if you buy a Cavalry Tank Regiment or any Tank Battalion, there are no tankodesantniki.
-
Not sure that I understand what you mean--of course you can bring tanks without tankdesantniki, I'm not talking about the crews!
-
That kinda makes sense, although if that is the logic, it seems to be applied inconsistently--for instance, I just checked the Soviet Tank Regiment, which has a company of tankodesantniki (ie, infantry), and they appear even if you select an "Armor Only" QB. Although maybe "Armor Only" is a bit softer than "Infantry Only"?
-
I'm in the process of creating a database that will include all of the units featured in CMRT, and will allow players to create units, and track the units' battles, casualties, etc. in meta-campaigns.
One question: can someone explain why there seem to be separate OOBs for scenarios and quick battles? For instance, some units have been left out of the QB OOB--even if the omissions were inadvertent, I'm just curious why the devs didn't just use the same OOB for scenarios and QBs?
Currently I'm thinking that this database will only cover the scenario OOB, but before I decide I would like to understand why there is a difference?
-
So how is Matrix' World in Flames for $108 with no AI? Did anyone buy it?
meh. I bought it, having never played the boardgame. I bought it mainly for multiplayer, but so far no multiplayer either. Overall, very disappointing...
-
Define "serious anime".
-
Question for all of you penetration grogs: one issue which has not come up is elevation differential, if any, eg, whether the T34 had an elevation advantage over the PIV--presumably that would also affect the penetration calculations by changing the angle of impact?
-
there will be moment and situations were you fire 100-200 rounds more or less continious and there will be situation were you fire only ocassionally some shorterbursts and the rest of the round not......in the game the average maximum you can produce is 200-250 rounds......and only with ONLY short bursts ....(and without swingmovement).
kauz, you might be right, but you've pointed out the essence of the problem--you really expect Battlefront to be able to devise an AI that would correctly determine when to fire 100-200 rounds and when to fire 7 rounds? Any attempt to do so would result in an instant flood of complaints about MG42s "running out of ammo too soon."
Or should BFC allow players to "hold the trigger" for as long as the want? For better or for worse, this is not that kind of game.
-
It still wouldn't be a bug, since it's working exactly as designed. Not everything that is wrong with a piece of computer code is a bug.
Just to clarify, if they meant to insert a 99% chance for damage to the engine but by mistake wrote 9.9%, it is a bug, but if they deliberately inserted 9.9% (for whatever reason), it is a "design decision"?
This is a gaming forum, not a computer programming forum, and I for one am OK with people calling flawed design decisions "bugs" even if it might not be completely accurate--especially because unless someone looks at the code, it might not be obvious if something is a "bug" or a "design decision".
-
I hear you, but to be fair you don't really have to plot it on a pixel by pixel basis, only AS by AS basis, which is a big difference.
I hear you, but many many times I try to plot movement along what appears to be a straight stretch of road, only to find that vehicles are driving in the woods or ditch running beside the road. Not to mention zig-zag roads...
-
The "long tail" seems to get longer every day...
-
Probably because you missed a bit where there was heavy forest on the ground... happens to me constantly when going through forests because they look very similar (light and heavy forest ground that is).
Exactly. Frankly I find this very tedious and frustrating and it has always mystified me why Battlefront forces players to plot moves on a pixel basis.
Should it really be that hard to command a vehicle to follow a road? I don't think so. I can deal with pausing/spacing issues, but to have to zoom in to ensure that every pixel is right for a company of T34s heading down a wooded road is extremely tedious, and in my opinion, unnecessary...
-
It is very difficult to browse through CMMODs, since you can only sort by date, downloads, and author, and as far as I can tell, doing a search brings up mods for ALL the games (I just did a search for "panther" and the first page of results was all from CMBB...).
Therefore, it would be great if in addition to date, downloads, and author, you could add additional categories such as Units, Structures, Terrain, FX, Sounds, and UI (or something like that), so that I could easily look at all of the CMRT building mods or UI mods, etc.
That would be a most welcome addition to me, along with additional preview shots (plus being able to view previews after you've selected the mod).
-
I have to agree with the OP, especially on heavily wooded maps...I'm playing a scenario now with lots of forest paths, and despite the fact that most vehicles go through them fine (after tediously adding lots of way-points), a few tanks have simply refused to enter the forest and instead break off to the right or left in search of a "better route".
-
Beginner
normal
hard
Elite
Iron <-- is a different color to denote that it is a little absurd.
Uh, OK, how do these words indicate anything more than the current ones? Why "normal"--what is normal supposed to indicate? And is "hard" really "hard"? I actually think it would be more confusing for players to choose some random difficulty level without having any understanding of what it is, rather than, you know, reading the manual (or a pop-up box) and selecting the play mode that appeals to them the most.
If all your looking for is an indication of the progression of difficulty, you can rely on the order in which they are presented.
-
I mean what is the difference between warrior and veteran? Is one better than the other, is one more difficult? They are just two arbitrarily chosen words. They have no meaning.
Sure, I agree that those particular words have no particular meaning, but I'm not sure that selecting different words would help at all. For these settings, I don't think that tooltips would really be adequate to convey all the necessary info.
While I agree that some sort of pop-up box could provide all of the necessary info, I guess I don't view it as a major issue if people have to crack open the manual, where everything is explained pretty well.
I'd be the first to agree that various improvements could be made to the interface, but this particular one would not be very high on my list, since I suspect that people choose one play mode and then change fairly rarely, whereas other interface improvements might be used on almost every turn.
-
The difficulty information should be included in the game. The current difficulty naming scheme doesn't clearly convey information and you cannot at a glance decide what difficulty is best for you.
What "naming scheme" would clearly convey such information? Some of us like games the rules for which cannot be reduced to tooltips. If this game is too complicated, there are plenty of other "simple" games to choose from, so rather than dumbing this game down maybe players should just choose a different game?
-
umlaut
Beginner and Realistic (today Iron) modes would be much more understandable.
****
I may be wrong though.
Yes, I think you're very wrong. You are seriously suggesting restricting play to either beginner or Iron mode? Because of some "appelesque" vision of simplicity?
If simplicity is what you're after why stop there? All of those different tanks and weapons are also probably confusing to players, why not just include one model of tank for each side? And really, the fact that the tanks have different strenghts/weaknesses is also confusing, why not give each side the same model of tank to make it easier?
And the whole C&C model is very confusing as well, might as well scrap that too. And so on...
-
...and on level IRON only.
As you wish, I won't be playing this one...
In Deadly Combat--How'd the Germans do what they did?
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
I think that they are distinct issues, although related to the extent that different players will have different preferences. But I think the point is that if designers are trying to recreate actual historical conditions/situations during Bagration, they should consider generally using more low-quality troops. The question of whether some people wouldn't like playing with low quality troops has nothing to do with whether that would be more historically accurate.
The other issues you raise, re victory conditions, map size, etc. are game design decisions which are purely a matter of player preference, not historical accuracy.