UberFunBunny
-
Posts
160 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by UberFunBunny
-
-
This is my experience too. In fact, when suppressing infantry I often don't use my main gun as I know this may result in wasted ammo.the bow machinegun is firing away and on target while the maingun seems to be continuously 50 to 100 meters short -
I have had this problem occur with 1.02. In one instance I wiped out a couple squads of my own men trying to hit an HMG further away. My tanks just kept hitting the ground (where my men happened to be) not seeming to notice after a dozen or so shots each that they were missing the target. Another time my tanks repeatedly missed a target by hitting just in front of it. In all cases my tanks had LOS to the intended target.
-
I have also encountered this "feature"....
-
Most likely.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:UberFunBunny,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Does this mean that the "Move to Contact" and "Seek Hull Down" orders are history for the new engine?
As I know I have stated before in other threads, and I think yours, there are probably dozens of "logical" orders that could be added to the game. The problem is that quantity is a killer even if each order is in its own rights perfect.My idea for a "Seek LOS" order is really just the logical equivalent of these new types of orders introduced in CMBB.
In some ways yes. The player will be able to better control the BEHAVIOR of their units. No in regards to how much exact control they can exercise over their unit's decisions. In other words, it might be possible to instruct a unit to "Sneak through this terrain until you can get a shot at that APC. If you get a shot, stop and take it". The difference is that in the new engine the unit will NOT be able to do this unless it has its own personal, first hand knowledge of where that APC is. This is the benefit of Relative Spotting vs. Absolute Spotting.And aren't SOPs (potentially in the CM new engine) much more precise than the current orders system?In short... control of the unit's behavior will be in many ways more exact, but control over the interaction of it with the environment will be far less exact than in CMBO/CMBB. The end result is more realistic control over unit behavior to stimuli, but less control over the conditions in which that stimuli is encountered. This will make the overall interaction of units and situations more realistic.
Steve </font>
-
Steve,
Does this mean that the "Move to Contact" and "Seek Hull Down" orders are history for the new engine? My idea for a "Seek LOS" order is really just the logical equivalent of these new types of orders introduced in CMBB.to yield unrealistically precise control over movement (which is inherently already too exact as it is)And aren't SOPs (potentially in the CM new engine) much more precise than the current orders system?
[ February 07, 2003, 05:56 AM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]
-
Steve,
I'm pretty sure my idea was original!generally when this happens the following elements exist:1. The idea being presented has already been brought up, and discussed to death, at least 2-3 times. Some cases, like your "Seek LOS" command, probably more like a dozen
I think the standard of stomping is subjective, and could be suffering from "grade inflation"....Very rarely ... have I ever seen a unique idea, expressed clearly and rationally, stompped on by anybody. I've seen it questioned and challenged (which is a GOOD thing to do), but never stompped on in and of itself.
-
Steve,
Your explanation made sense to me when I read it the first time (a few posts back now). I would be annoyed too if I had to keep repeating it. So I'm with you there. And I’m with the posters in this thread who have defended you guys: it’s plainly obvious that you are the ones with the code and therefore the best people to comment on any coding issues.
But I think what CeeBod might be saying is that the heavy artillery can come out a bit - how do I put it - prematurely from some of the less tolerant posters. A little like "You want what?! How dare you make any suggestion which goes against WHAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN...."
An example would be my suggestion for a "Seek LOS" command. Instead of some reasoned - and as you put it, intellectual – debate, there was basically a torrent of abuse from certain quarters. How dare someone make a suggestion for another order! And my response was basically that if I had suggested a "Seek Hull Down" order before it existed there would have been a similar response from THOSE WHO KNOW ALL....
Of course CeeBod might be saying something entirely different; but my reasoning still stands.
-
BFC:
Thank you!!
-
CeeBod:
Nice post.
-
Steve,
This is true.We are neither unresponsive to customer requests nor lazy. We also do not spin yarns in order to deflect criticism like other developers are known to do.
Well put and I agree. Wait a sec.... Multi-multi player?? Is that co-operative play?! Man I can't wait 2 years for THAT! Please put it in the 1.02 patch.With the new engine we will almost certainly be able to eliminate the extra file swap AND avoid having to settle for a "take your chances" mode. But honestly, if for some reason this extra file swapping issue remains an issue, I would not sacrifice more than a week of development time to address it. It simply is not that important when all things are looked at in relative worth. Having Relative Spotting, Multi-Multi-Player, more flexible scenario parameters, etc. are infintely more important.
-
Steve,Correct, there is no excuse at all. Just a trade off between 2-3 months rewriting the code simply to cut down on PBEM file swapping vs. 2-3 months spent on dozens of features that everybody will benefit from. Tradeoffs are what happens in the Real World.And I don't understand what all the fuss is about. I played against an Aussie a while back and we did more than a dozen turns in one day. And this is with extreme time differences. It isn't an issue of files but an issue of the player's willingness to devote time to the game
I understand about hard coding and the difficulty involved in changing things. The next engine is a couple years away. How about a hint whether "2 emails per turn" will be implemented?
Regarding a player's "willingness to devote time", some people can only plot one turn per day, and different time zones just makes this worse. It's not really about willingness; I would be willing to play this goddam game all day - but I can't....
-
Then there is NO excuse not to implement this! It would cut PBEM emails by 33%. Those of us that can only play "one email per day" would wrap up games a LOT quicker....No it wouldn't double file size - a plot file is usually 10-30 kb, while a movie file is often hundreds of kb (although I have sen some small ones down around 50 or 60).The actual amount of information beign sent would remain the same I think - it's just organised differently to be sent in fewer messages.
-
Fuerte:
This is a very good idea.The suggested new method is:1) plot #1
2) plot #1
3) view #1, plot #2
4) view #1, plot #2
5) view #2, plot #3
...
I'm wondering if it would double the file sizes. I would be in favor even if it made the files bigger.
-
Moon:
This may have happened to me again (though under different circumstances). I have sent you a saved game file.
-
This thread was started by MrSpkr bemoaning the fact that the number of scenario reviews is miniscule compared to the number of downloads. I came up with a suggestion that may actually increase the likelihood of reviews being posted to the Depot. You have not written one word in this thread that adds anything relevant to any specific way of increasing the number of reviews. If anyone has hijacked this thread it is you.UberWhatsis tried to hijack the thread -
If a zip file is the intended multiple download format, then yes of course the shortcuts would go into the zip file (as you oppose multiple downloads entirely I can see why you are heading into hissy fit territory again). I fail to see where you come up with these little side-tracks (pre-written reviews (!), unzipping to separate locations etc). The zip file (including scenarios and review shortcuts) would be unzipped into the scenarios folder. The idea is very straightforward.Included how? In the zip file?If reviews are so important (something you have stated over and over), then making access to reviews in any way easier surely is a good idea.
And like I said, those with a pathological hate for the shortcuts in the scenarios folder can delete them.
Wouldn't it be easier to:If the only way to get to these "shortcuts" is toa) click on program files
click on CMBBc) click on Scenarios
d) hunt through the files and click on the appropriate shortcut
isn't it just as easy to
a) click on SCENARIO DEPOT in your favourites folder
click on CMBB Indexc) click on the name of the scenario
d) click on the REVIEW THIS SCENARIO button?
a) click on the Scenarios folder shortcut in Favorites or Start menu
open the desired review shortcutI like the way you have to "hunt through the files" in your first example, yet just "click on the name" in your second. Not very honest really is it?
[Edited to make a) and
clearer.][ January 30, 2003, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]
-
So you are against multiple downloads from the Scenario Depot. This would mean that you went from being against them, to being for them, and now to being against them again. Well done!As for my 'hissy fit', I think it was directed at the slack and lazy who apparently not only need one mongo download to save them from thinking whilst downloading
What in God's name are you talking about??must have their review prewritten and stored on their hard drive for them to submitMy idea is quite straightforward (well at least I thought it was). I'll give an example for the simple-minded:
A person (neither slack nor lazy) chooses five PBEM scenarios from the Depot in a pack. Included with each scenario is a shortcut file pointing to its review page at the Depot. If the person chooses to make a review all he needs do is open the shortcut file and he'll be magically taken to that page. These shortcut files can be kept in the scenarios folder if desired. Those that have a pathological hate for them can put them in the trash.
-
Dorosh:
I thought you of all people would like to see suggestions that might facilitate better ways of encouraging people to write reviews. Remember your rather large hissy fit over this very subject? According to you, the download of scenarios one at a time from the Depot is in fact the ENTIRE point of that venerable site, and the reason for this - apparently - is to make people send in reviews. Obviously this isn't working so well. Now instead of you being so negative whenever someone makes a suggestion, why don't you follow the advice of mothers everywhere: If you don't have something constructive to say, don't say anything at all. (I'm thinking that if you did follow this advice you wouldn't write anything ever again, but that's another story.)
A shortcut to each scenario's review page would be very convenient for those who wish to send in a review. It would certainly be easier than the status quo.
And no more "dear boy" please - it's freakin' me out.
-
When downloading a scenario, a shortcut to that scenario's review page should be automatically downloaded with it.
This way a review is only a double click away.
Or am I making too much sense?
-
Krazy Canuck:
That is nothing but a personal attack.These forums had value for me long before you appointed yourself as *the defender of whatever it is you feels needs defending*, and still do for that matter.
And you ask others to "lighten up"?Why not lighten up and enjoy these forums and the game for what they are?[ January 18, 2003, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]
-
I wrote this as a side note in another thread:
Admiral Keth:... a good idea would be to include a shortcut to the actual review page for each scenario in the user’s multiple scenarios shopping basket. This way it would be easy for the user to go straight to the relevant review pages because the shortcut files would be downloaded to the same directory as the scenario files.If you implement multiple downloads, you should look into this idea. It may help get those review stats up!
-
This is what I wrote originally:
So in other words, you wrote that the Scenario Depot exists solely for the download of SINGLE scenarios, but now you support the download of MULTIPLE scenarios in a pack. Does this mean that the "ENTIRE POINT (duh)" of the Depot has changed?Michael Dorosh wrote: "[Admiral Keth wrote: it is designed is so that you HAVE to download each scenario seperately] That IS the entire point (duh) and I would suggest you are the one beyond help, since the reasoning for this has been stated several times over."And now you write that downloading multiple scenarios in a pack is an "excellent suggestion."
Or are you arguing that black is white and white is black?
And, as I have already mentioned in this thread, "download stats" were not deemed relevant by you until now. You are trying (very badly) to cover your tracks.
[ January 18, 2003, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]
-
GreenGriffon:
I think that when someone takes an aggressive stance in these forums and then cannot back it up with rational logic it is up to others to point this out -- otherwise these forums are of no use whatsoever.
Look at the title of this thread; I hope the way El Cid has been treated does not remain the norm.
[ January 18, 2003, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]
-
In your mind maybe, but you still haven't explained how you can be AGAINST users downloading multiple scenario packs and at the same time saying that downloading these packs is an EXCELLENT idea.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:No inconsistency exists.
Is it a case that you have changed your position 180 degrees, but are, for reasons unknown to us mere mortals, unable to admit this?
click on CMBB
"Un-hittable Gun" Game Bug?
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
I'm finding this bug in every game I play. I'm even starting to use it to my advantage on defense.... This needs a patch quick!