Jump to content

RSColonel_131st

Members
  • Posts

    660
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RSColonel_131st

  1. Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

    Seanachai has choked bigger men than you. dalem on the other hand, cheats, and Force-grips them. The result is the same. :mad:

    You forgot to mention that Seanachai needs a ladder to choke most anyone, so the immediate danger is rather small, unless you happened to drink his home-brewed moonshine and pass out next to him.

    Dalem on the other hand - last I heard he cut himself in a very special place with a self-made lightsaber and now wants to be refered too as "Dalemia". He likes pink, too.

  2. It would make a lot of sense for people who like to command from a 1st person view, without the unrealistic "gods eye terrain view" we currently enjoy.

    In the same way - how about a "binocs" view?

    Franko's Ironman Rules made a lot of sense because they really spiced up the recon & scouting aspect of the game.

  3. I know one shouldn't speak about those things easily, but...

    ...how hard could it be to create (or use code already avalable to make) a vector-based small drawing applet inside the briefing screen.

    All we need are a few different colors and a pen to scetch something up. The scenario designers could use this for briefings, and it may even be usefull in multiplayer.

    Vector lines do have the advantage that storing them requires less space than classic bitmap images, and it has become such a common technic, surely there are APIs out which could be used?

  4. As for "physic" tank commanders, this is not just for borg-spotting.

    I had enemy tanks move in and out of visible range, and I knew where they were. Then my Tiger turns 90° left to attack some basic infantry, the other tank comes into LOS again and scores a side penetration.

    That kind of thing is what I mean to avoid with a "lock hull to this direction" command.

  5. Something I found quite a problem in some recent quick battles...

    If you have a tank on the map, and you know there's another tank around, then it's quite prudent to rotate or give a fire arc for your tank, into the general direction of the enemy.

    Obviously you want your strongest armor to face the enemy gun.

    BUT with some recent games, in addition to enemy tanks there also was some enemy infantry closer. I wanted my tank to fire at them alright, but even with a covered arc, it not only turned it's turret but also turned it's hull towards the infantry (which never got a shot off, anyway).

    Then comes the other tank in sight and nails my tank with a side penetration on the hull. Hurray.

    In short, I'm questioning the wisdom of our tanks always rotating their hulls towards the nearest targets, even if for some infantry it shouldn't make much of a difference from which angle they attack. Obviously this is needed to get the Bow Mg into firing position, but I want an option to "lock" my hull facing towards the area I expect the next TANK to show up.

  6. I hope you'll give an option at battle creation to use units "exclusive" from one module?

    Like, people with "Brit Pack 44" and "Normany 44" could create PBEMs mixing units from both modules, or select the option to only use common data.

    Also, in theory, this was the approach intended by 1C and Forgotten Battles when they added new flyable planes. In practice, newer modules almost always changed the base code and could never be combined with older versions.

  7. Originally posted by eichenbaum:

    You find my opinions nonsense. I only see a market; potential-computer-game-buyers who want to spend their money on something new and original. WEGO, detailed graphics, 1:1 infantry... are these new concepts? For me new is Duke Nukem from sprites into 3d.

    You are being very, very unreasonable here.

    Sprites to 3D was because of an advance in technology - mainly because of graphic accelerated cards.

    As there hasn't been any significant technological change between CMAK and CMx2, what kind of entirely new concepts did you expect?

    Wargames have been sold for many years, there's nothing "new" about simulating land warfare. You can't suddenly introduce Space Lobbsters of Doom just because you want a new "concept".

    Look around everywhere in the computer game industry. Titles like FPS and Flightsims are constantly evolving - but not with "new concepts" just with more and more attention to detail as the hardware becomes faster.

    The next "new concept" will come with the new physic calculation cards which aren't even on the market yet.

    Sorry, you have done a lot of good for the community in the past, but right now you come across as someone who desperatly looks for a hair in his soup so he can complain.

×
×
  • Create New...