hardcampa

Lol, if someone I played didn't number his files I would get pissed. If you fight several PBEM's it's common sense to give each turn a higher number. And the clutter talk, what's that about? I can understand that if your filenames are PBEM.txt or something equally stupid instead of hc-elvis_mapname-1.txt for example it'll look cluttered. I want to save my fights so of-course I number them. Just use common sense. [ January 14, 2003, 02:02 AM: Message edited by: hardcampa ]

Sure thing, here it is: http://www.tribes2maps.com Here's a direct link to get you to start selecting maps from the CTF maps. You click "Add to custom map pack to add it" http://www.tribes2maps.com/cgi-bin/map_search.cgi?type=ctf [ January 13, 2003, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: hardcampa ]

Pakfans Splash screens OWN in my opinion =) Just check this one out for example: Panzer IV my splash screen for the moment =)

Guys just my opinions here. Wouldn't this debate be solved if the Scenario Depot (as an example now) had the option to zip all the scenarios you select into a pack and then send them to you as one big zip file? What I find annoying is having 20 scenarios lying around. I play Tribes2 and the greatest map place for tribes2 does just that. It lets you select maps and then zips them into 1 file before sending them to you. Otherwise, if this isn't a solution. I would add that I love scenario packs and support that. If the guy doesn't want to add his scenario to a pack, fine be that way. But don't condemn packs just for that. Packs are great as I find it totally booring to scan for scenarios for 30 minutes. That's 30 minutes I could have spent doing whatever. [ January 13, 2003, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: hardcampa ]

Apart from the fact that CMBB must be the best PBEM game ever in the history of the world (well think about it), the encryptions and password locks on the PBEM files are awesome. This is another thing I have felt the reviewers have missed when they've reviewed CMBB.

I can go as far as to agree to having Edith Piaf singing in CMBO heh..

Yeah you're right =| But he should have put the CD up on the wall and adored it. That we would have liked even more. Just kiddin =P

The thing that annoys me with reviews like this, and in general. Is that somehow all reviewers has gotten the idea that there should be music in the game. I don't know about you guys. But if I want music in the game I use winamp. This almost pisses me off, crauts bringing gettho blasters in their Panzers isn't my idea of a good sim.

I have tried both. I can't really say. Depends on the scenario. If it's a big one. I would say PBEM. It also depends on how much time you got on your hands of-course. If you intend to play your very very best =) then PBEM is unbeatable. As you don't feel like someone is waiting for your next moves within a few minutes. Also, if you intend to create some AAR's then PBEM can't be beaten. But that's my opinons. =) Looking back at my own post I must say PBEM won =) [ January 12, 2003, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: hardcampa ]

First, I like CMBB as it is, and Battlefront already stated that their next game will have an amazing graphics engine =). Second. The pictures aren't from IL-2, the pictures are from the WW2 RTS that Maddox (the creator of IL-2) started. Now I think it's pretty much in the hands of Codemaster and Maddox are working as consultants. The pictures are from the real deal ( not a real version but the engine is working ). The engine is using pretty much the same code as the next sim from Maddox, the Forgotten battles expansion to IL-2 will use. Of-course this will prolly change as it gets further developed. I just wanted to clarify that I don't praise the game other than that it got great graphics so far. If the gameplay sucks then the game sucks. =) [ January 12, 2003, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: hardcampa ]

After I read about the german tanks killing with 1 hit in this thread I almost understood what they talked about. Until I realised that it have been exactly the same for me on occations. But for the Russian side =/ Conclusion. **** happens. =)

Yup I think so too. BTW how could you other guys miss the crane and the wire? Anyway, check this link for more info. Use babelfish to translate it if you want: http://www.go2war2.nl/landmacht/_voertuigen-gepantserd/dui_sturmtiger/artikel.htm After you've fired one shot with this tank, be prepared to wait a couple of minutes before you can fire again. Just try it in a scenario. Oh and yes it's expensive. [ January 12, 2003, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: hardcampa ]

Any of you guys ever battled an enemy with 1 or 2 of these? Heh hadn't until now. Man those are insane. A blast of over 2000 I mean.... I can see that they must be awesome to take care of infantry in buildings. Although, as this pictures shows, loading isn't exactly the fastest thing in the world on these things: [ January 12, 2003, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: hardcampa ]

I have seen that some of you guys have problems connecting or hosting in the "Opponent finder" forums, so I thought I write some clarifications on IP's for you here. This applies to any game not just CMBO or CMBB. I have seen some of you hosting and telling your opponent to connect to you at 192.168.0.x. This will never work for opponents connected to your computer over the Internet. The reason to why this won't work is that the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has reserved the following three blocks of the IP address space for private internets: 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 Meaning that numbers between those blocks can never be used over internet connections. So if you host and find that you have these numbers then you're on a LAN and chances are that your connection is NAT'ed towards the outside. In short you're behind a firewall. If you can bypass the firewall then you can host. But that's up to you and the person/s running the firewall. If you want to read more about it you can read RFC1918 Just something for you guys to remember. [ January 12, 2003, 05:45 AM: Message edited by: hardcampa ]

Heh, to counter with how it should be (to take advantage of true 3D in a strategy sim): Example 1 Example 2 =) BUT, I think Battlefronts graphics engine is AWESOME. I mean you have to think: What is the point of the engine. What can it do to enhance the "gameplay". With that I think Battlefront should be given 5 stars as it is.

Nah that could very well be a screenshot. What I'm wondering is whether the graphics is fake 3d (isometric view, in effect 2d) or real 3D. The graphics in those screenshots are UGLY though. Maddox Games is doing the graphics the right way in their upcoming title (well codemasters now): http://www.il2center.com/article.php?sid=98

Wierd, only thing I can think of is that the free domain name service I'm using (www.mine.nu) doesn't have full coverage of its DNS'es. Therefore I replaced the address with my IP. If it doesn't work now. I dunno what it can be as I see lots of traffic from other people all the time.

That's the "default" grass =P

The site should work. Although when I first posted it my web logs filled with accesses. So that could have made your connection time out =/ Never knew that many would click the link.

For around 20 seconds after I had posted my message the link was wrong. It should be fixed =)

I have seen a lot of screenshots from CMBB, but most of them seem to be birds-eye view. There's of-course nothing wrong with this view as you plan and ponder upon moves. But when you want to get ready for a night of serious warfare, perhaps these pictures can get you into the mood, and off the forums =P Screenies (most of the pictures comes from the exellent Stalingrad Pack, which most of you guys probably have played time and time again). I plan to add more screenies as I like to have something to show those I try to convince of CMBB's greatness. [ January 10, 2003, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: hardcampa ]