GreenAsJade
-
Posts
4,877 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by GreenAsJade
-
-
Hear hear... every now and then I click on a target line thinking it will select the unit (like the movement lines do) and am disappointed when it doesn't!
-
Why would one want hexes?
Grids are good for spotting terrain variations: eyes are good at picking bends in lines.
But hexes? What value do they add?
-
Thanks mightily!Originally posted by AstroCat:Check cmmods under CMBO mods for the file: SDOGFLAG_v2.zip
This is my flag mod of choice and it works with CMBB as well. It was done by Strontium Dog and I added the mid-worn version of the flags.
Jordan "AstroCat"
(Is it just me, or has the forum started running reeeelllllyyyy sllllllooooowwwww.... ?)
-
Could some kind person make an unidentified small flag that looks different (but sensible) to the unidentified large flag. My ole eyes sometimes mistake them going by size alone
-
I have found that for QB meeting engagements of mechanised forces with force quality set to "high" and and allowing the computer to select the forces, the Axis will always end up with Elite/Crack everything, and will generally have HTs with the odd tank, wheras the Allies will get veterans with large tanks and no HTs.
If I set the Axis force quality to "Medium" then green and regulars are selected!
Why is this so? Were there no Axis veteran troops in 1945?
It seems to really suck, because given the choice between larger sqads of vets or smaller sqads of elite, I know which I would choose every time.
Plus, the HTs give a mobility advantage that is hard to counter in a meeting engagement.
Does this mean that QBs meeting engagements with computer selected forces are doomed to be unbalanced in this way?
GaJ.
-
Looks like I started something, eh, Gordo?
Marco.
-
What's the conclusion, JC?Originally posted by JasonC:Well I tried it. I put 12 M3 GMC, 4 halftracks, and 5 jeeps in open desert. I gave the Germans one hiding FO to avoid autosurrender, and 11 Bf-109s strafing - the nearest thing to P-38s without bombs. It took a little longer than 3 minutes. The result was 17 vehicles destroyed - all the plain HTs, 2 of the jeeps, and all but one of the GMCs. The remaining GMC was gun damaged and broken. The causalties were 5 KIA and 22 WIA - surprisingly close to the historical figures. The main reason is overkill. They knock out the 'tracks easily, getting only 1-2 men in each. Then they strafe the dead ones about as often as the live ones.
Isn't 11 planes vs around that many vehicles without defense pretty much a recipe for for death for all the vehicles... happened as expected?
What was the exp level of the pilots?
GaJ
-
Horsesh1t.Originally posted by Hun Hunter:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by btm:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Originally posted by Matthias:
If the RAF showed up the germans hide
If the luffewaffer showed up the Allies hide
If the usaf showed up both teh allies and the germans hide
hehe its a funny joke but true....
The U.S. Army and U.S. Army Air Corps were able to develop the most advanced system of close air support that the world had ever seen to that point in time.
Granted this took time, and the system was not perfect, but it was extremely valuable and effective.
Try reading any of the following books to educate yourselves:
Patton's Air Force: Forging a Legendary Air-Ground Team by David Spires
Angels Zero: P-47 Close Air Support in Europe by Robert Bulle
Tactical Air Interdiction by the USAAF in WW2 (Series) by Col. Dupuy </font>
-
As others have observed, its not the "must have" that CMBO was, but its really worthwhile...
- Game-play enhancer like grids and the ASL
buildings (clear difference between heavy &
light)
- Candy like CW's sound pack and the sky packs
- Tender loving care on certain vehicles
as mentioned above, plus snow etc.
(Just be careful not to loose your
camoflaged infantry in the snow!
I had one embarrassing experience that way!
)GaJ.
-
But in all seriousness, I really do wonder why designers put CAS into their scenarios.
It is clearly an element of pure randomness... I can't really see how that adds value to a tactical game.
In historic scenarios, sure. If you are trying to simulate the confusion and frustration felt by troops under friendly fire, then do that.
But other than that, it seems like a pointless addition to a scenario: you can't plan anything based on it, and you can have the best plan working well only to be wiped out by it...
GaJ.
-
It's definitely been toned down.
You now do not get the yellow "I am being targetted" line straight away when under fire... it appears that you only get it when your unit might credibly have figured out who is shooting at it.
GaJ.
-
First we had 14104 answered by 14105, then we had Michael Dorosh followed by MikeyD! Strange thread!Originally posted by MikeyD: -
Actually, CMAK is darn good, and has many subtle improvements over CMBB (which is light years ahead of CMBO).
Subtle things like better TacAI for sqauds, for example....
As someone said: it's not a revolution, its an evolution of an excellent game.
GaJ.
-
It's definitely "no Zips in Zips", but folders in Zips are OK and in fact encouraged
for optional components.
(I guess you could check with COG, but
I clarified this point at the time that he
issued the CMMODS ruling).
GaJ.
(It makes sense really, especially from a mod-user's point of view: having BMPs with the right name ready to copy in is much lower hassle value than having to rename BMPs when you want them... the former is a select-drag operation, the latter involves typing!)
[ December 18, 2003, 03:07 AM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]
-
I just grabbed Alcohol 120% ... It Rocks!!!
Unbelievable... I never thought that CMBB CD would come out of my primary CD drive, and I was wondering how the kids would cope when I took over the secondary for CMAK...
Wow!
-
Hey, MikeyD,
Any chance of making one teensy change to your Mod-packs to make them more McMMM user-friendly?
(And just more user-friendly in general).
The one thing that would make the world of difference is to put alternate bitmaps inside subdirectories with the correct BMP name instead of making the user rename the BMP file.
If you do that, McMMM recognises it and offers the user the alternatives to swap in and out hassle-free.
McMMM 'suggestion to modders' appended.
Cheers,
GaJ.
Notes to Modders
The #1 rule for McMMM has been "don't make any work for modders".
This means that you should be able to do your Mods and package them up just how you always have, and McMMM will cope.
That being said, there are a few things you can do to transform the experience for the user of your mod from "OK" to "really nice". Here they are:
</font>
- Don't put zip files inside zip files. That just makes a mess when they are unpacked.</font>
- If you have alternatives in your mod, put each set of alternative BMPs in a separate subdirectory, and zip the whole thing up.</font>
- Give the subdirectories nice meaningful names</font>
- Put 'general information' files in the main directory.</font>
- Never mess with the names of BMPs that users are intended to use/install.</font>
See #2 above: instead of giving the user 300.bmp and 300_alt.bmp, put the different versions of 300.bmp into separate subdirectories.
An ideal Mod zip file with alternatives would look like this:
GAUT_R1.ZIP contains
GAUT_R1\ directory containing
info.txt
clean.jpg
dusty.jpg
alt_insig.jpg
clean\ subdirectory containing
14940.bmp
14941.bmp
dusty\ subdirectory containing
14940.bmp
14941.bmp
14942.bmp
alternate_dusty_insig\ subdirectory containing
14941.bmp
[ December 17, 2003, 05:51 AM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]
-
If he made the colours match, then how would I tell those tanks apart??Originally posted by Thin Red Line:MikeyD your russian tank mods are outstanding my only regret is that colors don't match together; for exeample the latest T34-85 (44) mod has a nice dark green color which isn't the same as your lighter tone IS2s.
-
Burnout is a real issue. Also, one per week means that creation of nice AARs etc that we've seen in other places is less likely 'cause of the speed.
How about SOTM instead? Do one from Italy and one from Africa, starting a new one (alternating) every two weeks.
Just a suggestion.
GaJ.
-
I almost never play the AI, so it's a slightly moot question, but even when I do play the AI I'm with the gang that treat it as real. If I goofed up a scenario, hey all those guys are dead and the enemy has that place captured now... luckily I still have my commission and I'm on to the next battle.
But by-and-large playing the AI is so boring that replaying a turn would kill me from boredom!
One real exception to "treating it as real" was a CMBB scenario that a guy on Scenario Talk was developing called Pohlersilta. That was a really fascinating scenario based on a story about a young sergent (or some such) having dreams about his first defense assignment... and each dream he messed it up, but gradually learned some lessons about defense.
The scenario offered the opportunities to try the defense yourself first, then read the story, then try again. Fascinating exercise, and that caused replay of a whole scenario... but not just replay of a turn, so I guess I'm getting off topic. It was a good scenario though! Don't know if it ever got published...
Enough rambling for one post!
GaJ
-
At camera angle 1 you can usually push halfway through the HT and see the MG.Originally posted by dieseltaylor:I am just so happy this has not turned up in a TCP/IP game
Finland game. I have a bout a dozen intrinsic 250/1 in my force. Loaded with MG42's , mortars, AT guns. I can get everything but the MG's to disembark. Click all over at various ranges but I cannot click on anything but the vehicle itself.
Is it me! Am I missing something or is some bug. Searches reveal nothing
But easier is to do Shift-V: toggle vehicle display. Bingo: HT disappears and MG is sitting on a magic carpet waiting for you to click on him.
GaJ
-
If only 3 or 4 people care enough about the Scenario Depot to comment, then maybe we should all just get on the phone with Adm Keth and talk about what we'd like to see?
-
The lists would have value if the users could define them.Originally posted by Berlichtingen:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GreenAsJade:
The lists ARE VALUABLE because ON THE WHOLE they contain AN EXCELLENT reference for people looking for scenarios.
</font>
-
I'm far from convinced that all that math adds realism to the game. It could very well be like calculating beyond the number of sigificant digits. Also, since other factors of the game are left with weaker models, in order to have a very strong armor penetration model, the overall result isn't necessarily any better. </font>Originally posted by CMplayer:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by pritzl:
I think we would all be shocked to see the math that occurs when we see our little tank have a round ricochet off the front.
-
Actually, it happens quite often.Originally posted by BulletRat:Barring LAN play, I'm thinking it would be hard to get even say... 6 people together to play such a game. Especially one of any decent length.
Having said that, I'd love to see this style of play implemented - and allowing spectators.
Back in the past (10 years ago!) I wrote a play-by-email server for a game called "Firetop Mountain".
It originally was conceived as a duel between two mages, but a later person added to my code multi-multi capability. People loved it, and they still (10 years later!) play melees. The most I've seen is a 20-player brawl. With strict rules about what happens if people don't submit orders in time it chugs along just fine.
I'm sure that if BFC come out with multi-multi PBEM support, someone will quickly produce game-moderator software. Heck, I might even.
GaJ.
(If you go and look at Firetop Mountain, please remember that it is 10 years old, none of the original contributors (myself included) play anymore or maintain it... so its nothing fancy, but its still going strong! I guess 'cause its a simple, fun, challenging game...)
)
Mod wanted: unidentified flags
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
Ah.
Nice flags.
But what I really wanted I see I can't have: I wanted small (100 pt) flags to be different looking to large (300 pt) flags.
Unfortunately I can see from the contents of the flag pack that the same bmps are used for both.
Darn!