UberFunBunny
-
Posts
160 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by UberFunBunny
-
-
Arghhhhh!
Mod, anyone?
-
-
Good question....Originally posted by tooz:Well, CAN we have Allies vs Vichy French battles in CMAK?
-
Cassino.
-
No worries.Originally posted by WineCape:My apologies then.
Regards,
Charl Theron
I signed up with my nick without knowledge of this other poster; had I known of him I wouldn't have chosen a similar name. He seems to have caused a lot of grief!
-
I'm a little disappointed that it won't be in CMAK, but thanks for the comment Madmatt.Originally posted by Madmatt:Sorry, as we have said before, this isn't going to change, not until the engine rewrite.
Madmatt
-
...or it tells you that we've been around this block a few times already.Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UberFunBunny:
A tactic I used once to remove an "unwanted" HQ from my mortar was to send him out into open ground to be cut down by machine guns.
The lack of response to this thread tells me that using the above type of unrealistic tactic (another example being redwolf's area fire) is preferred to actually fixing the problem.
I independently thought up with the same fix you mention above; I see no problems with it; I agree with you complêtement.
The answer to MikeyD's objection is simple and natural: If a "better" HQ comes along, whom you WANT to "take over", then you simply move BetterHQ closer-- give Mortar Man an order to ceasefire-- in limbo, MM is by default under the closer, BetterHQ's command-- give a new Target command-- all is well.
IOW, the "stickiness" is only for the duration of the current Target command. It seems like an all-benefit-with-zero-cost fix to me.
Eden
[Edit: Oops-- need to update my sig file] </font>
-
A tactic I used once to remove an "unwanted" HQ from my mortar was to send him out into open ground to be cut down by machine guns.
The lack of response to this thread tells me that using the above type of unrealistic tactic (another example being redwolf's area fire) is preferred to actually fixing the problem.
-
Any comments on my "stick with HQ until it loses command range" tweak for teams (or mortars only)?
I think it would be better than the current situation, and shouldn't be too hard to code.
--------------------
UberFunBunny
[ August 28, 2003, 03:41 AM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]
-
A Company HQ won't grab command of a platoon from a Platoon HQ if the Platoon HQ has command range (even if the Company HQ is closer). As you can see there is already an exception to the "closest HQ takes command" feature.Originally posted by MikeyD:One unpleasant consequence of that would be when you've got a green platoon HQ with units in trenches and you move a crack company HQ in closer to reap the advantage... but the squads won't switched to the closer commander. Every time you nudge the AI in one direction something unwanted always pokes out someplace else, kind'a like a girdle.
I'm also really talking about teams, and in particular mortars.
--------------------
UberFunBunny
[ August 27, 2003, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]
-
How about this: Once a team has an HQ assigned by the AI, it will stick with that HQ until it loses command range. In other words, if another HQ comes within command range, that new HQ won't grab the team until the current HQ loses command range. This, hopefully, would be a relatively simple "behind the scenes" tweak (as opposed to a player assigning HQs which could be difficult to code).Originally posted by redwolf:I think the issue to deal with here is that you want to do what you suggest without complicating the interface.
If you would introduce a new menu to either the HQ or to the mortar your would confuse the hell out of new users for what BFC probably considers a pretty minor issue (personally I once ordered area fire on a HQ that got into my way, so I kinda understand your request).
A solution without mucking with the interface would be to always give a unit all the bonusses of all HQs in range, and/or use LOS of all HQs in range for mortars. But BFC is likely to reject that as in "uh, real world units were under control of only one HQ at a time". It would probably also complicated the code a lot, expanding the HQ connection from 1 to [n] is probably not going to be a cakewalk in the old codebase.
Edit: Possible consequences of this change?
--------------------
UberFunBunny
[ August 27, 2003, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]
-
Twat,Originally posted by WineCape:Son,
Are you related in anyway with another bunny which had a gun?
No.
-
There are some quirks in CMBB that are annoying, but none more so than the way teams grab an HQ. Any chance of allowing players to designate teams to an HQ in command range for CMAK?
As for the other quirks, I can put up with those....
[Edited to rephrase.]
--------------------
UberFunBunny
[ August 28, 2003, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]
-
A good idea would be to allow the option of extending the game at the end of "regular time" if both players agree to it.
I think *auto*-ceasefire should be a setup option or dropped completely.
-
YOU owe ME!!!! </font>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by UberFunBunny:
MD:
Any chance you could send me a turn??
-
MD:
Any chance you could send me a turn??
-
Seconded!Originally posted by PiggDogg:You presently possess the absolute best wargame to have ever graced a computer or a paper map.
-
This is obviously a bug.
-
Not sure if this has come up, but how about a "continue game" option if both players agree to it at the end of regular time?
-
Let's hope it's not a case of the "difficult second album"....Originally posted by MikeyD:Looks like there's some that want it to lean more towards a 'shooter' game (viewing through guner's sight, etc.) and others that want it to lean more towards a 'grand strategy' game (ability to set up a resupply system, etc.)
Whatever they do, and how ever they do it, I can almost guarantee that a large minority is going to scream that the game has gone off in the wrong direction. Hell, even if the game stays exactly the same someone's going to scream that it went in the wrong direction!
I don't know what I admire most about BFC, their cleverness, their dedication to accuracy, or their superhuman ability to take unwarranted abuse!
-
-
Fuerte:
Thank you!
What a wonderful program.
Again, thank you!
-
What he said. </font>Originally posted by Malakovski:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Banshee:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Slaghead:
It seems to me, that unless there is a time limit during the planning stage, then all this does it make things tedious
-
The main problem with the autoceasefire "feature" is that it exists at all.Originally posted by Visom:Otherwise, I think there's a problem with the autoceasefire feature.
Play/Pause button still backwards.......!!
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
Switching the files helps but isn't a complete solution.
There was an excellent mod that fixed this for CMBB. It left the ' > ' and ' " ' icons as is, but switched the words "Play" and "Pause". This allowed for normal behavior - eg, when playing, there is a flashing ' > ' icon and the word "Pause".
The way it is setup by default is nonsensical.
The button should have written on it the action if you were to push it, not the word for the action that it is currently doing. To *pause* the game, the user should push the "Pause" button, not the "Play" button !!