RSColonel_131st
-
Posts
660 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by RSColonel_131st
-
-
I agree with URC to a point.
Steve, the biggest problem I have with your way of presenting things (and I understand you are aiming at the "tempest crowd") is that you sometimes provide very little factual info, or only some info that conflicts with other stuff on this board.
We clashed last rather brutal over the Syrian's lack of ability to use windows as entry/exit points, or to do some other "insurgent" things. I have a good number of infantry-trained relations who saw that as a valid tactic and judge CM:SF as lacking for it. Your whole argument against it basically sounded to me like "the US wouldn't do it, and therefore the Syrians won't do it either".
If you could provide some background material for YOUR stance in these discussions (for example, some WW2 research that shows German trenches were regularly known about before battle) then it would make your design decisions much easier to understand and agree with. I was reminded in this foxhole discussion about the non-enterable buildings in TOW - a technical limitation of the game with very real implications for historical realism, but at that time in the TOW boards all we got was that historically, troops wouldn't have done this or that anyway so it didn't matter.
This is what I call "sugar-coating", and if you would extend the effort to share some of your research, it would avoid that appearance.
-
Steve at least listens and after he has been cornered good enough he will later do what needs to be done, if it can be done, even if he doesn't acknowledge it openly at the moment. or someone else gets it done, what do i know.
Yeah but why the need to "corner him" first? I don't remember BFC being that way when CMBB or CMAK came out - that's all I was saying. If something can't be done technically, then that's okay and has to be accepted - no need to try and gloss it over as unnecessary and the people asking for it as "nitpickers" or "not getting the full picture".
-
I saw my above post was a little late
One thing I'll say - and if I get eaten for it alive - is that I'm a little disappointed in BFC these days. I can perfectly well understand the problems of 3d Terrain and trenches (thanks for trying to hack foxholes). Similar abstractions exists in CM:SF (like the inability for the Syrians to split off the RPG Guy or crawl out a window or to blow up/scale a wall without being noticed).
What disappoints me is how quick Steve these days is to "explain away" these concerns by telling the players how the game should be played, and what we are to assume. In this case, we are to assume that the Germans were only cabable of creating monstrous wide badly camoflaged trenches that were uncovered before by aerial recce. In CM:SF we are to assume that no Syrian Commander ever would try to restrict his exposure by sending only the RPG-Guy on the roof.
Steve, I understand the tech problems and reasons behind doing things the way they are, but can't you just stop telling us "it's not a problem" because in your version of the war, every German trench was known about anyway? That is not the version of the war I want to be playing, not the one from my history books either. You give us detailed 3d guys and detailed ammo for each and all these improvements, it's an enormous detailed tactical sandbox, and then you restrict our tactical creativity in unrealistic ways while claiming "this wasn't done anyway" or "it's more real that way".
If it's a tech impossibility, then I can accept that, but the constant sugar coating and calling it "chicken little" is insulting. Same as in TOW people were told that maps the size of 2km x 2km square were large enough for tank battles because "they happened a lot closer as you think". This kind of arguments from BFC side have started back then with TOW, and continue today, and that is what I find disappointing.
To be more constructive, and to get from a question of style to substance: Many people have asked about the Iron mode already, and I know the problems (for example to get around a corner if your man are bunched on the wall and you can't see the place you actually want your men to go).
But obviously many people are willing to try an imperfect implementation of Iron Mode, so can't you just give us an "inofficial" (call it "beta") Ironman mode that basically restricts players to eyes on his unit, the first two zoom levels and the last two (to get an overhead view of the map and to give command that can not be given from 1st Person view).
If you can then add some kind of overhead visual camo to trenches as a flavor object or whatever (so they stick not out in color against the surrounding terrain), this would make them pretty well invisible to the Ironman players.
I'm really puzzled that you guys spent years designing the ultimate wargaming engine for past and future conflicts and didn't figure out a viable way of hiding fortifications yet. The whole "terrain has no FOW" design is terrible for tactical sneakieness.
I hope you get it solved eventually.
-
It looks damn weird.
-
I still think they noticed each other. And one of them was Cowboy enough to start stalking his contact, until they ran into each other.
A 100% "out of the blue" no-clue never seen accident I don't belive.
-
Small correction as far as I understand it: Crossfire is dual ATI cards, SLI is dual Nvidia cards. It's not related to the board chipsets.
As for the OS, as pointed out W7 would be preferable to Vista, but that means you will have to do a full reinstall in about 6 months, since you can't go from the Beta to the Retail version.
Home Premium Vista now (64bit) and a cheaper W7 upgrade option may work for you also, of course you can stick with Vista for the next years but you'd be missing some nice things.
-
I've seen it last weekend - not too bad. What Dietrich says is true - in the back of my mind I knew that at least some of the plotters were merely interesting in getting a cease-fire in the west so they could steamroll the russians - but once that is past, the movie is pretty thrilling. I did have a few "on the edge of seat" moments, but maybe I'm easily captured.
Cast for me was amazing, a long list of well recognized actors who all do quite well.
At the end it could have been a LOT worse in today's holywood - lfor example: "Stauffenberg in reality was an US spy and succeeded in killing Hitler upon which moment the Americans were able to capture Berlin..."
It wasn't that bad at all.
Trivia: The Ju-52 flight scenes were all shot for real, with the Deutsche Lufthansa D-Aqui and CASA/EADS Ju-52 (it's the green one) as well as with two 109 from the Messerschmitt Foundation in Manching. I've seen all those aircraft in person and it's really cool that they didn't go for CGI.
-
If I didn't have redundancy at home, and if I had to live or die on the reliability of my system, I'm still not sure I'd trust my machine to someone else. My power to affect my computer's performance may indeed be somewhat illusory, but I think I prefer to cling to the illusion for the sake of my ego.
Thanks for the feedback. The main thing for me (and this may be cultural, since shopping online is not as common yet in Europe as it is in USA) is the whole RMA procedure when a part goes tits up.
It's good to know that even when self-building you can get two to three years warranty (after which a new system is usually due, anyway) but I heard a lot of horror storys how hard it can be to get a replacement part sent in time. With FJSCs Esprimo (company desktop line), it's a business service level agreement that they can't afford not to hold up, so you have parts and repair guaranteed within two days.
-
Thanks OM. Always looking for quieter systems myself.
BTW (and hopefully, not to derail the topic) what do you guys think about building self versus buying a pre-built brand model?
I have all the skills and experience needed to build my own system, yet went with a Fujitsu Siemens in Feb. last year. Partly because they have a really nice and quite silent cooler design I couldn't find elsewhere, but mainly because I wanted the three-year warranty including a technician on-site within two business days.
It's also a question of "insurance" to me - if any part of this system breaks, it will be replaced for free within three years, so that means I don't have to budget for a possible loss of computer earlier than that (which is important to my work and my finances).
With a self-build system, can you actually get three or at least two year warranty on the parts? Or do you basically take your chances - and what if you damage something yourself when mounting everything together?
I know that it saves a ton of money that way, but I need a system that won't out of the blue require me to spend big $$$ on spare parts.
-
OM, what was your CPU again? A heatsink without fan would be heaven.
-
My two cents (european) as a gamer and network manager:
1) As pointed out, the graphics card is too weak. I'm running a 9600GT (64 Prozessor Units) with 512MB now, and that allows me to play STALKER, Fallout3, Silent Hunter IV all maxed out at 1920x1200 high res with 2xFSAA and 2xAniso. Armed Assault still kills it in forrests.
As I found out coming from an 8600GTS, the core speed these days seems pretty unimportant, what you need is a decent amount of shader units (128 at least I'd say) and a decent memory bandwidth. The performance in my games doubled upon my move, as the 8600GTS only had 32 shading units.
Not sure how that compares with ATI, but I know that the 4850 and 4870 are super fast for their price, yet I've not run ATI since 10 years, and my friend who went 4870x2 has a bunch of driver/Anti Aliasing problems. In Stalker for example you can't force AA (it uses defered shading) on an Ati card unless running DX10, with Nvidia it works on DX9.
I'd suggest you either go to the 280 or 260 Nvidia, or maybe consider an SLI-Setup with two 9600GTs which can be dirt cheap these days. Downside on the 280 and 260 is that I'm not sure how mature the drivers are yet, no problems with the 9s.
2) I've been on Nvidia chipset mobos for four years now, and not a problem to be seen. Okay, occasionally it will fail to power the mouse on boot, but that is super minor.
3) PSU: The 9600GT is one of the last cards to require less than 100W at load. I run it with a 300W PSU, most people would call me crazy (there are reasons for this PSU...)
I'm not a subscriper to the idea that you need 800W or something, but you want at least 600W with a lot of 12V amperage. There have been some on the market that share the 600W total load between 5v rails (unimportant since the card and CPU doesn't use it) and the 12v rail (on which most everthing hangs). You want most of the total peak power to be in 12v amperage - on the other hand I wouldn't oversize the PSU extremly, since that means heat and noise. Corsair makes a few nice PSUs along those lines I mentioned, with less overall wattage, but lots of 12v and little noise.
4) Operating system: I'm running the W7 beta at the office on a test system, and it seems far superior to Vista, and will replace my trusted XP in due time. You could run Vista with SP1 rather problem free these days (we avoided it at company and home mainly for the very bad release state), but if you don't mind the reinstall, then try the W7 beta first for free, and when it nears deactivation in summer, you'll have to decide. A lot of people at simhq.com are gaming on W7 already, Nvidia drivers are fine.
XP of course is also a good mature system, but when W7 comes out, trust me, you want that, so a reinstall it would be either way. On the other hand, Vista 64 bit could easily be upgraded to W7 without a total reinstall.
Just some pointers I hope to be helpfull.
RS
-
Microsoft had plans to disable the DRM servers for their old Music store - and warned users that they would lose the ability to copy their .WMA files to a new system (or more precisely, to license them there).
Only after much stink did they agree to run the servers a few more years, meanwhile users are advised to burn to disk and rip again their huge collections so they can have DRM-free MP3s.
This is what DRM is - the constant risk of losing your paid-for content. That's why I'm avoiding Black Shark and FSX so far, which also require online activation.
-
Supposedly images of the kid and various "decorations" in family home and on the car:
http://photos.lehighvalleylive.com/gallery/4424/Adolf%20Hitler%20Campbell
I'm sure the Swastikas are just coincidence.
-
The guy oughta buy a Glock. Doesn't go off, even when dropped.
-
Not at all. The primary GAME reason to set up ones own trenches is to set up a defensive strategy that is unique and customized to the overall defensive plan.
If the opponent can see my unique positioned trenches, then he can figure out my customized defense plan before it hits him hard. To try something "out of the box" it doesn't help when the other player knows about it immediatly.
True enough, it's an advantage to know about them before the game, but a good offensive plan will work no matter if this is the case or not. Therefore, practically speaking hidden trenches might not make any difference.
I find this reasoning funny. Yes, a good offensive plan will work no matter what. But if you are playing an opponent with a bad offensive plan, it will much more likely work if he knows your setup beforehand - so you are basically granting a handicap to less capable opponents, just because a good opponent would win either way?
The whole point of Human vs. Human play is that one of the two will likely have the less quality tactics. Assuming your opponent will have an infallible attack plan anyway and thus it doesn't matter how well hidden your defense is, is akin to saying you'll lose anyway.
-
In Oblivion you'd always have bandits respawning, outside in the world and inside dungeons/ruins. Hard to imagine it doesn't happen here?
-
Okay, I concede the point.
Well yes, then that obviously means I'm looking for that "different but equal" balance you call it. Cas Tolerances are nice to have, but during actual unfolding of a PBEM, neither the US Player nor Red Player will be aware of them very much. In the end you might have a Red victory, but you still see your units getting slaughtered like insects in the actual battle, no matter how hard you try to preserve them.
-
Steve, here's a list of features that would primarily help the RED side and which are not present for them.
1) Uncons and Syrians without Body Armor should be easily able to get trough some windows - even if they are not in a prepared ambush point/house but moving around the city.
2) All soldiers should be able to scale some 2m+ walls without explosives.
3) Trenches and Bunkers should be invisible until spotted. There should be foxholes and also some light top cover avalable (tin metal sheets + sandbags...)
4) If you have only slow artillery assets, TRPs are essential.
5) Two man with an RPG should be able to go on the roof if the Squad leader one floor below tells them.
6) Buildings should be able to be fortified.
7) If you try to flank someone and have to break a route for it, he should not be aware of it.
That's at least 7 concrete points the Red Commander is lacking in his tactical arsenal, some of them heavily favor the US Attacker (like visible trenches).
This applies NOT to counterinsurgency, but regular MOUT and Open Ground Warfare.
Now please, show me at least 5 points from the US/Attacking side that are not present due to "abstractions". What tactics can the US player commanding a Stryker platoon and with Air Support NOT use?
If you say it's all about abstractions, and that's the way it is, then both sides should be equally disadvantages due to game mechanics. Are they?
-
No we're not gonna ask you why you know all this from first hand experience or what your job description is...
Seriously, thanks for the feedback. Makes sense.
-
First picture I see of the LLM from bellow.
The contrast, the laser and the bayonet!!!
Well, Technology has improved - now you can aim the bayonet with laser precision.
-
Sorry to butt in here, as someone who didn't buy ToW because of small map size (and some other reasons:)
Armed Assault, Successor to Flashpoint, can have up to 30 squads on a map (in Warfare mode) which will move and fight all over the Islands pretty much on their own. That's at least 30x independent pathfinding, but you can also send each individual soldier of that squad (30x8 or so) to his own waypoint at the same time.
The islands are full of villages, trees, ravines, a road network and bridges, and still they all manage to find their way around. And even if the player is not present in one part of the world, the battle between AI units still takes place in full detail.
I too find it hard to understand why pathfinding on a 2x2km map without deformable terrain (could use pre-made waypoint nodes and stuff) us a problem.
-
Interesting, hadn't seen all what you say URC. But makes sense.
I guess my vocal frustration here is borne out of the fact that I really looked forward to being the sneaky, evil, dastardly but creative Syrian bastard who'd give the US guys a hard time by unconventional means. Arguments like "Soldiers with 30 pounds Body Armor can not go trough windows" is PRECISELY why the Syrians would enjoy an unconventional advantage in doing so over the US (and even out their own disadvantages some).
BFC had - still has - the chance to make this a game that truly mirrors two sides in an asymmetrical conflict and their very specific advantages and disadvantages - one would be the attacker with superior mobility, networking and firepower, the other the cleverly hidden, stealthy/sneaky hit&run defender.
But what came out of it was a game that - arguable pretty brilliantly - models US Army doctrinal movement and combat behaviour, and then just takes away certain options from the Syrian troops (like splitting Squads). It doesn't really seem to consider individual specific tactical options for both sides separatly, more like "fit them all into a mold".
The only thing Syrians have and the US does not are IEDs and Spys, if I'm not mistaken. Stuff like better fortification modeling, TRPs for the slow artillery, unconventional ways to move around in MOUT, prepared positions - all not here. Am I to be surprised that there isn't a Syrian campaign either?
-
Steve, your answers disappoint me. You seem to mostly disregard what has been said.
Namely for example that window exit would be very helpfull to get OUT of a house, or trough an unoccupied house, especially for Uncons. There goes your argument that the first soldier is an easy target for anyone inside.
As for interface, right now how do you tell an unit which door to exit? Simple, they take the door closest to the next waypoint. Why shouldn't that work with windows (You'd place the first waypoint outside at the wall, just like you select which wall to BLAST when you use that movement). There goes your argument that it would be a clumsy and complicated interface.
As for multiple window types - if first floor windows are generally barred (boarded up) how come my guys can shoot out of them? If they are metal-grill blocked, that can be pried down and not even too loudly, compared to the background noise of a urban fight. I know from friends that the US Army does - at least some units - very well train to enter and exit trough windows. I guess they do it just for fun.
I didn't see anything about scaling walls without breaking them either, which would be a way around deformable terrain being seen by both sides, and would allow a more stealthy approach.
But to get down to the point why your answer most disappoints me: Everthing you argue and say always is about US tactics, training doctrine. You are always arguing from the US POV, what the US Army/Marines would do and wouldn't do. Belive me, Uncon Fighters (Irregulars with three banana clips and an AK-47) or Syrian Conscripts who have less equipment, vehicles and manouver training will come up with a LOT of things they can do in MOUT that are different from the US - because they want to survive just as much.
You think Syrian uncons will say "No, we can't break open that window and squeeze trough, lets go out front where the stryker will see us and gun us down?" Another example is that Syrians are unable to split squads because it is "not their doctrine". Yeah, so the Syrian Squad Leader can not tell two guys of his nine to take the RPG and go one floor up from the rest of the squad on the roof to watch out for the Bradley coming down the street - he would rather expose the other seven squaddies also? Or that he can't send two guys ahead across the street to see if they draw any fire? Even the german and russian conscripts - civilians with a minimum of basic training - in WW2 managed to things like that without always sticking togehter in blocks of nine men - because it was the logical thing to survive.
The weaker side in the current asymmetric conflicts has proven to be all but stupid. They are very creative in ways to make up for their inherent disadvantages. But whenever something like that is brought up here (like improvised tin metal sheet top cover for foxholes or trenches, to bring an example for "open warfare) your arguments are always "no, the US wouldn't do that, and thus no other army would do that".
Steve, your choice of setting for this game gives one of two human players in PBEM a very real disadvantage. Instead of allowing the Syrian Commander to make up for the tactical shortcomings of his men trough creativity and "out-of-the-box" tactics, you force him to play by the same rules as the superior-in-firepower US Side. Yes, if the scenario is set up very loopsided or with very tight restrictions on Blue (Casuality Percentage for example) the Red Player can still win - but even then, playing is NOT fun. It's no fun having to play by the Blue rulebook with Red units. It's no fun having your fortifications seen from miles away (Blue is usually the attacker, so they don't have that problem). It's no fun being unable to fortify a building as strongpoint so your guys would last just 10 minutes longer in a firefight.
You told me yourself in my recent Al Huqf thread that I should not try to play Red side like Blue side. Just a shame that all the unconventional things a weak Red force would try (like silently scaling a wall to sneak into the flank of an approaching blue squad, for example) are not allowed by the BFC rulebook.
I for one won't be buying any future modules for CMSF, and hope that CMx2 WW2 will again bring the even-sided fun that CMBB was. Blue vs. Blue and Red vs. Red is right now the only way to have a fair shot at an even-chanced PBEM game, but seeing US soldiers shoot at US Soldiers is more comical than immersive.
Rant over, continue with your regular shedule now.
-
McCains speech really shows true class. Maybe if he hadn't set on Palin, and focused his campaign more on his visions instead of attacks, he would have had a fair chance.
Scary thought that Palin could be running in 4 years.
'I wanna send my RPG guy onto the roof' suggestion
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I really don't care much how it is done, but that has been one of the things that REALLY limit my enjoyment of the Syrians. If I want to watch out and maybe shoot a Bradley coming down the road, I don't want 9 guys on the roof getting shot if the US side catches me.
And the most rigid squad structure will still allow to send someone up on a stairwell when the squad leader stands in screaming distance at the bottom of it.
Rendering the unit ineffective as soon as it is too far away sounds like a good plan.