Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

GreenAsJade

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,877

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by GreenAsJade

    Two turns per e-mail is here

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Fuerte:

    But it is even simpler to start a new game in fast+trust mode. Just give the game file name 2- prefix when you save it for the first time. That's it. You don't need to convert anything, just give that name. smile.gif

    Playing is fast mode is absolutely wonderful, there's no doubt about it. However, it never seems so simple to get there... in fact we almost alway have something of a battle persuading PBEMH to actually get smoothly into the groove.

    I just started a game, gave it a 2- name as above, and checked that PBEMH thought it was in fast mode... it did.

    BUT, when it came to turn three (IE I had entered my initial orders and my opponent had), the "now its time to switch to fast mode" dialog came up, and the transition failed: I was looking at View instead of Plot.

    This is a common occurence, and the only solution seems to be to keep trying on each email exchange till it works :( :confused:

    [ September 14, 2003, 03:20 AM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

    0

    Exclusive CMAK screenshot feature at IGN.COM today

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    They seem to be playing with the ads/layout.

    When I first visited, I got straight to the screens. This morning, I had to go through two indirects.

    Try this link ... maybe it will get you straight there...

    Edit:

    ... NOPE! Looks like cookies at work: you have to go through the couple of ads pages :mad:

    Still, if you have banners, popups and animation blocked, its not that bad smile.gif

    [ September 12, 2003, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

    0

    How's this idea for a very extreme fog of war option?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    I had been pondering a very similar suggestion: at levels 1-4 you can only see what one of your units can see. At 5 and above, you can see everywhere, but only your own units show.

    IE 1-4 is "what your guys can see" and

    5 and up is "what you plot on your map".

    The reason it remained pondering only was because I couldn't visualise what it would be like to be looking at level 3 but only having what your units can see displayed.

    Maybe not so bad: simply a lot like having the horizon set very short?

    Of course, the "graphics engine" implication of such a thing are horrendous: possible completely infeasible (calculating what is in LOS from any friendly unit at each point)... but hey, that's what computers are for :)

    GaJ.

    0

    Exclusive CMAK screenshot feature at IGN.COM today

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    There's no doubt these are spectacular.

    Ironically, each time the realism of the pictures gets better, more nitty little things stand out.

    Here's a couple:

    - The tanks appear to be driving above the sand instead of in it.

    - No tracks in the sand?

    How impressed would you be if you came over the crest of a dune and saw a pile of tracks that could only mean "the enemy is just round there"...

    0

    Multi-turret primer, anyone?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Fascinating already! I had no idea there

    were so many variants of "multi turret"!

    Those ones with two turrets sitting next

    to each other look like a joke photo that

    someone stitched up!

    The Grant is easier to understand: one big gun for the main offensive, and one more manoeverable one for fending off defenders.

    If "one good gun" was found to be better than multi-turrets, do you think CMAK players will conclude the same? Will this lead to the multi-turretted tanks being the realm of historically-oriented players only? If you can choose a one gun goody, that's what you'll choose?

    0

    Which is more fun? Creating or playing?

    in Combat Mission - Scenario Talk

    Posted

    Originally posted by The Graeme:

    NG cavscout wrote:

    " I can't even figure out how to use the quote function in this forum.

    You just click on the "" button on the person's post that you want to quote, as I did to quote yours above.

    If you want someone to try out your scenario, why don't you describe one in this forum, and offer to email it to interested parties. They will let you know where to send it and how. Posting it on a web site can come later...

    GaJ.

    0

    Unbalanced PBEM: wouldn't that be nice?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Something I got to thinking about just now is the fact that I often find myself using my own force makeup to deduce something about the opponent's force makeup. "Gee, I have 2 whopping tank destroyers, better be careful about getting exposed to his big tanks then".

    Hang on! Who ever said the opponent was going to have big tanks?

    One argument is that "the intelligence back at HQ reported that there were big tanks in the area, and that is _why_ you have the TDs at your disposal". But in that case, why did I get only just enough to maybe defeat the alleged big tanks? Why not give me plenty?

    Um, because then you and your opponent would not have a "balanced fight". Well, isn't that a bit "gamey"?

    I noticed that tournament rules solve this by saying that not all scenarios _will_ be balanced, and resolve it by a neato scoring system.

    Would this extend into general PBEM play somehow?

    Could we have a site where people register the results of their battle for a set of scenarios in an ongoing way, so that then the next pair of people playing it can judge how well they went not by whether they won or not, but how they did compared to how everyone else has done for a particular scenario? Would this lead to the creation of more varied scenarios?

    I guess I'm asking if a sort of "ongoing tournament" would be practical and fun, and might extend the kinds of battles we all get to play...

    0

    Which is more fun? Creating or playing?

    in Combat Mission - Scenario Talk

    Posted

    Originally posted by The Graeme:

    So when I come home too tired to think I nevertheless spend a relaxing hour or two changing scenario maps till they look 'right'.

    Each to his own.

    The "looks" of a scenario are very important,

    and some wonderful art has been done in the medium of "Terrain Editor" (I think my all time favourite is a CMBO scenario with a huge dam, in the rain... can't remember what it was called, but it was fantastic - took my breath away when I opened it), but its barely the beginning of creating a scenario.

    It's positively amazing how a scenario that one makes that looks great when its done plays awful, and not at all how you expected.

    There's a thought: maybe we need a web page with CM art! Scenario's/screen shots that deserve to be preserved purely for their aesthetic value!

    0

    Have any of you beaten Cemetery Hill as Axis?

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Ligur:

    AI +3 are you INSANE?

    Anyway all scenarios shouldn't be easy or even winnable without a perfect plan and luck. I love the occasion "desperate fight".

    You should try "Defense of Bowler Bridge" that TrapOne is playtesting (in "Scenario Talk"). A very nice challenge. But make sure you get a version that hasn't been beefed up too much: one ATG, one ATR and two Maxims is the right number, nore than that is too many.
    0

    Clearing Woods of SMGs

    in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks

    Posted

    I think that the scouting technique described by Ligur here pretty much extends to walking through the woods. With less visibility the "firebase" needs to be walking along in the woods probably 30-40m behind the scount, and then it should work?

    Maybe Ligur will do a "Scouting through the woods" update to the "scouting from cover to cover" story, if everyone asks nicely!? (Guess we have to wait till he gets over his hangover first!)

    0

    Covered arc behaviour: measurements/answers

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Doodlebug:

    Question.

    The manual specifically states that trucks and the like are not considered armoured vehicles for the purpose of covered arcs. The AI would therefore ignore the truck in a cover armour arc. Did you manage to test the fate of the truck and Pak in a straightforward cover arc situation?

    Wow - well done for seeing that in the manual... I completely missed it (I mean, its only there in highlighted italics, what do you expect? :rolleyes: )

    It specifically says "very light armoured cars", bur doesn't really help you understand exactly which those will be.

    The interpretation someone else on another thread gave was "something that can't hurt the AFV with the arc".

    So - this was specifically tested & reported in my first post:

    </font>

    • A "cover armour" arc will not cause an AFV to open fire on a halftrack that has no gun that could hurt it (this was described in a recent thread, and completely suprised me!)</font>

    ... well, I didn't try a truck or a jeep, but I'm sure it would be the same.

    Funny isn't it: a cover armour will cause an AFV to open fire more readily on some distant tough targets, but less readily on closer weaker targets! No wonder it took some discussion & testig to figure out!

    I think we have it figured out, finally, though, and it all makes sense!

    [ June 27, 2003, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

    0

    Covered arc behaviour: measurements/answers

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    In couple of recent long, slightly winding threads, the question of "if you have a covered arc, does it increase the chance of your units opening fire" was discussed. Other side questions came up as well, and I was left unsure enough of the answers to feel like trying it out.

    I marched infantry, halftracks & tanks in turn back and forth across an opening in some trees through which tanks, infantry & ATGs were looking.

    I tried different settings of "hide" and "covered arc" for the lookers.

    Here is what I found:

    </font>

    • If the onlookers are hiding, with no covered arc they will not open fire unless they are fired upon or unless something walks right on top of them.</font>
    • If the onlookers are _not_ hiding, they will open fire on anything that they see moving, as long as they have a reasonable chance of hurting it.</font>
    • If the onlookers are hiding and have a covered arc, they will open fire on something that walks into the covered arc, wheras before they would not have.</font>
    • A "cover armour" arc will not cause an AFV to open fire on a halftrack that has no gun that could hurt it (this was described in a recent thread, and completely suprised me!)</font>

    Finally, I did a slightly different test: I had a platoon in some pines, not hiding, and watching one of their squads advance across the open to another patch of pines 100m away. In that pines was an enemy squad hiding, about 15m back from the edge, so the other guys could just see them once they spotted them.

    Without covered arcs, the bastards back in the forest watched their buddies get slaughtered as they entered the opposite forest. Hey, we're comfy here, and now we know there are bad guys over there. heh heh.

    With covered arcs covering the forest into which the hapless scouts were advancing, the scout buddies in the forest opened fire on the baddies as soon as the baddies opened fire on the scout.

    Moral of the story: use covered arcs if you want to be shooting.

    I can send anyone the test map if you want to prove it for yourself (though it was about a 10 minute job).

    GaJ.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...