SKELLEN
-
Posts
209 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by SKELLEN
-
-
I have also tried loading this scenario but to no avail for whatever reason, but I have sent an e-mail to the author asking for any advice. I tried three times to load it and each time it would freeze after pressing go for turn 1.Originally posted by Dawg Bonz:Mac system crash puzzle?
Problem: Mac System crash during move #1 with CMAK scenario text file.
I can run 'To the Volga' which is massive in comparison although it is CMBB, but the point is there shouldn't be any problem with loading this scenario and is beyond me. :confused:
I'm using an iMac flatscreen/700mhz OS 9.2.2 btw.
-
The AI is definitely better/best in defence than offence as you may becoming aware, but it's also no push-over in offence either as I've discovered a number of times.Originally posted by Adamo:Just wondering how you guys all feel about the AI in this game (meaning your AI opponent). I'm kinda new so I'm pretty happy with it now, but I'm wondering if many of you 'experienced' players still play against the AI and enjoy it.
On occasions I've beaten the AI and on others I've had my butt kicked too, and I'd consider myself an average player also, so the AI is pretty astonishing in my book.
There're problems you will notice with the AI for sure like:-
1) Battalion and Company HQs being sent ahead of plattoons or squad in offence and usually resulting in the AI losing them unnecessarily.
2) Traffic jams or to put it another way, the gathering of its armour in the same area or small area - easy targeting.
3) When in defence the AI sometimes sends its units on walkabout from it's foxhole.
4) MG and Bazooka/Panzershrek teams have a tendency to move within full view of my units without support.
You will obviously discover other niggles too, but in one QB I played a while ago with the AI in defence and which I lost btw, at the end of the game I was gobsmacked seeing how competently the AI had placed its units and especially MG units. I'm not sure I could of done much better and that's no word of lie (praise to BFC), so yes in conclusion the AI is not perfect and never will be, but you have to admire the way BFC have created probably the best AI they can at present and the mind boggles thinking what the AI will be like in CMX2 or any future version of CM.
[ September 01, 2004, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: SKELLEN ]
-
Thanks for telling me how to edit the post Kingfish as I did try the faq option for info, but for some reason it's not working.
-
I'm not sure how to edit a post and would have if I knew how, but if you can give some some insight?Originally posted by Redwolf:Well, Skellen, you can edit the post to hide the spoiler now
-
It was on top of an open slope and I think you've hit the nail on it's head, as my 17pdr was sighted by infantry now that I think of it, which would explain the reason for revealing its position in self defense as Kingfish mentions.Originally posted by Panzerman:On an open slope, scattered tree, woods or what? Also if German infantry were shooting at it, no wonder it wouldn't stop unhiding. Some units in CM seem to, even with cover arcs, unhide them selves, but I find that only happens once the enemy has opened fire on it and continues to do so once you try to "hide" them.
And thanks for reminding about about a spoiler warning Kingfish - sorry folks.
-
The 17pdr was given a Amour cover arc and hide command and was dug in on a slight slope, but would still reveal its position firing at infantry and needless to say it was eventually knocked out by a Tiger - aaahhh!
-
I have recently completed 'Brits at Anzio' scenario and have experienced a couple of annoying niggles so to speak:-
***SPOILER***
*
*
*
*
1) I had a Crack piat team targeting a Panzer III and he only managed one hit in the side although the Tank did have skirts from 110 meters or so, and seemed to take an age to reload the thing. But what is the benefit of having a Crack unit if no advantage is gained or so it seemed in this scenario and no damage done to the tank?
2) I also had a 17pdr I was trying to keep hidden from German units several hundred meters or so away IIRC, but he would constantly reveal his position firing AP rounds at infantry which I was intending to conserve for German tanks, so again is this due to unit experience or a bug perhaps?
I think the 17pdr was a regular but has anyone else experienced this?
[ August 29, 2004, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: SKELLEN ]
-
For no particular reason while playing CM the other night, I remembered an old friend of mine who used to read what I think were fictional novels by an author called 'Sven Hessel', although I could be slightly wrong with the name and whether the content was purely fictional or partly based on fact.
The reason I'm mentioning this is because these books were based on the fightings from a German perspective during WW2 and my friend kept boasting about how good they were to read. He even manged to persuade me to read one or two from his vast collection, although it's pretty vague to me now, but I do remember thinking that the content was interesting and different from anything I'd read before.
Does anybody know anything about this author and if so can you please disclose any information possible, as I think these books could be of some real value with regard to scenario design, or not as the case may be?
-
Don't remind the Grogs that there is a world of Grand design out there, as it may just remind them that there is a better designer/creator than that of the world they exist in Artificially...smell those roses and see the sunlight people.Originally posted by Seanachai:Now, be a good lad and run out and watch the sunset. The glories of nature are almost as exciting as man's own achievements in the pursuit of killing of his fellows....
Sorry I'm getting excited again, but I'm looking forward to the Sun rise in a few hours from now.
-
I watched a Tank programme a couple of nights ago which mentioned the following for all those interested, amongst other interesting things also:-
The Tank was invented by the British in 1916 to help overcome the German artillery and MGs on the Western Front. The Holt (not sure about the spelling) Catterpillar Tractor gave the British the inspiration they needed to design a machine to carry Guns with a bullet proof engine and catterpillar tracks.
This machine could easily bridge trenches and crush any type of barbed wire in its path, and the macine was so
secret that production workers were told that they were constructing water carriers - hence they were called Tanks.
This Tank had a crew of eight and the men were often overcome by carbon monoxide poisoning, as well as having to wear chain mail visors for protection against armor flaking etc.
However in 1917 four hundred Tanks took the Germans by complete surprise when they broke through the previously inpenetrable barbed wire along the Hindenberg line. These Tanks managed to advance five miles in six hours and played a major role in the capture of four thousand German soldiers.
The Germans were quick to respond and built their own version of a Tank, but it had a crew of eighteen (unbelievable), was too big, slow and cumbersome and was easy prey for the Allies.
Moving on to the present the programme mentioned a couple of future Tank designs beginning with what could be the replacement for the M1 Tank. Known as the Future Combat System and having a much lower profile and only a two man crew situated in the hull for better protection. This obviously means that overall view would be restricted and so the Tank commander has an onboard computer giving a 3D three hundred & sixty degree field of view. The Tank will weigh fourty tons enabling it to be transported by plane rather than boat for quicker deployment, and the design, especially the main gun (squarish and flat-like), for want of a better term, seems to be geared toward stealth.
And finally onto the Plastic Tank which is undergoing a number of tests still, but its armor seems to have incredible strentgh. Not only is it well protected it's also pretty light in weight and could be parachuted from a plane if required - well that's about all was mentioned on this Tank, but the future place of the Tank on the Battlefield is assured seemingly in case anyone had any doubts.
Roll on the Stealth and Plastic Tanks for CMX3/CMX4!!!
-
Magic mushrooms!
-
I catch your drift now, as it would defeat the object of having Camoflage once you have moved from position, and are most likely to be spotted or seen as a sound contact.Originally posted by Sergei:Yes but, as I mentioned before, at the beginning of a battle all units (also attacking) are camouflaged. This camo bonus is lost once they leave their positions.
Creating a new camo'd position for a vehicle or a gun would require the fighting to cease for a longer period.
-
Forgive any ignorance I may show here, but I would have thought that using Camoflage whether for Tanks/Vehicles/Infantry etc, is a must in any Combat situation surely?Originally posted by Sergei:I don't think you'd really want to start applying camo DURING combat! It would take time to cut some trees to support the camo net and then arrange them properly so that it doesn't obstruct firing.
After all, your men need all the help they can get on the Battlfield, and not revealing positions to the enemy and cover and concealment/camoflage is a must, as not all of your force is exposed to the enemy or shouldn't be if the Commander has any any ounce of sense at all.
-
When I first purchased the CMBB/CMAK bundle pack in December last year, I tried to give a 'Move to Contact' & 'Hide' order for Tanks, only to discover this isn't possible.
It works fine for infantry though, anyway I sent an e-mail to BFC and here is the reply regarding the 'Hide' command from Matt himself:-
"Hide for vehicles is a bit of a misnomer. It really represents the unit taking precautions such as ideling the engine at low RPM's to reduce noise and other such measures. For a vehicle, it can only be given as the "only" command, it can not be combined with other orders.
Personally, I would have preferred that it be removed for vehicles alltogether (since its effect is minimal), but it was decided to leave in."
I would like to see a proper camoflage feature for vehicles in a future CM, which could perhaps replace the 'Hide' command with a 'Vehicle Camo' or 'Camo Net' command, or some other name.
-
I would like to see the following:-
1) Mechanical problems with vehicles - could make things very interesting for both players.
2) Optional rulesets.
3) Built-in mod editor similar to the scenario editor maybe?
4) Follow vehicle command.
5) Infantry and vehicle formation commands.
6) Full movie play-back.
7) Distinction between commonwealth accents - at present in CMAK, they all have English accents.
8) A little more humour.
9) Winter textures - please!
10) Booby-traps - oh the possibilities!
I could probably mention more with a little extra thought, but this will suffice for now.
-
1) What was the decision behind not including winter textures for vehicles/infantry in the CM trilogy?
2) Would it be possible to include a built-in mod editor for the new engine, but perhaps done in a similar way to the scenario editor?
I did a search for winter textures and couldn't find the answer I was seeking, and I can guess to some degree the reasons behind excluding winter textures, but would like to hear it from the horses mouth, so to speak.
Big thanks as always.
-
I have d/l Chris Hares Excel Armor tables and charts, however they seem to be saved in an earlier version of Excel and I'm using a Mac which should allow me to open anything above MS Excel Win 5 and above.
So if anyone has Chris Hare's files saved in MS Excel Win 5 and above and can send me them, it would be very much appreciated and I'm very much looking forward to opening the files.
I have CMBO/CMBB/CMAK files, but they are obviously saved in an earlier version of Excel and preventing me from opening them.
Thanks in advance.
-
Originally posted by YankeeDog:
Nice idea, unfortunately virtually impossible to implement.
The kind of critical, subjective analysis you're talking about is probably beyond the capability of even the most advanced computer AIs built to date, and most CM players aren't booting up Deep Blue to play the game.
If Charles spent the next three years working solely on an AI program to analyze and offer player suggestion on the current engine games, he might be able to create something that offered somewhat useful advice. Maybe.
Otherwise, you're going to have to rely on other players to criticize your battle plans.
Cheers,
YD
Oh well, if you don't ask you'll never know I suppose, but thanks anyway.
-
Having played CM for two years or so now and also reading how others have asked numerous times for some advice and info on a particular scenario or QB, I've thought of something that could be used in the new engine, or not as the case may be, but maybe worth consideration:-
After reading the AAR screen and feeling chuffed with your victory or miffed with your defeat, how about having the computer to give some advice and info on what you should/shouldn't have done, and explain what you could have done e.g. a left flanking manoeuvre in this instance would have saved you x amount of infantry/use more suppression when attacking buidings/a cover arc may have helped here/your tanks should have given more support to infantry with this type of attcking plan etc, etc.
I understand some players would not need/want such advice, but perhaps if the feature was toggable I can certainly see where it could be of great assistance to new and old if desired - just an idea anyway at the very least.
-
While reading through a thread just yesterday a number of people mentioned how they have trouble memorizing orders given and also preferring smaller sized battles or points (1000-3000 pts), however some also enjoyed larger battles now and again.
What would be nice is to see some kind of drop down menu implemented in the new engine listing all vehicles or units with orders shown, and their current position if possible, rather than having obtrusive lines appear for moves/targets at present.
The other thing I'm concerned about is the points total for the new engine being far more than may be used, because it is evident that many people prefer smaller battles and will maybe neglect any additional points as they do now.
Personally I like any any number of points small/medium/large maps etc, as long as it's playable on my computer, but how do you all feel about this and what problems do you have with regard to memorizing your troops?
There has deffintely been numerous times where I have completely forgotten what orders I've given or even where my units were for that matter, especially in larger battles, but do we need a set points allocation perhaps or maybe leave as is, or perhaps you would like more?
-
I'm currently playing 'To the Volga' and have just noticed no labels for Halftracks at all, but is this intentional or not, as I don't recall this happening in CMBO/CMAK?
I have pressed the relevant key combination (shift-G) which displays labels for other units/vehicles, but I get no labels for my out of ammo Halftracks, which seems odd.
Btw, the scenario is great fun, despite its size, although I probably won't finish it in a hurry, that's for sure (15-30 mins each turn to process) - nightmare, but hopefully worth it!
-
I've started an OP and have been trying to take out an Mg Pillbox from the rear using x2bazooka teams, but to no avail although I'm showing hits.
I then decide to move a couple of infantry squads within 10m and hope for the best, but I'm still only getting hits and the Pillbox still stands - aaahhh!
And then through chance, while moving around some of my units, my plt HQ is also withn 10m of the Pillbox and lobs a grenade and guess what, he only goes and knocks it out with his first grenade - jammy bugger or what?
How are Pillboxes handled within the game exactly and do they have a clock cycle similar to vehicles?
-
I don't claim to be technical minded, but your guess is correct. More ram would not really be utilized as far as I know and a faster processor is pretty much a given if you can't stand the wait times.Originally posted by EarlofWarwick:If I want to speed up battles and fight bigger battles faster --by faster I mean with shorter crunch times between the planning and action phases-- should I get a more powerful processor or add more RAM. I'm guessing it's the former.
Also if you don't feel like upgrading just yet, then hang on for the new CM and splash out on a new computer like I will be doing - assuming you can wait that long?
-
I couldn't agree more, and let's not forget that people played/play hex style games, which are fine if you like that sought of thing, but then along came the BFC factor - nuff said!Originally posted by willbell:Oh, I thought you guys were saying it couldn't be done.
I wont do it because it's not my mission. But when someone does try, I will be a supporter, not a nay sayer.
Every thing works fine, until someone comes along and offers something better, just ask IBM.
Mac system crash puzzle?
in Combat Mission - Tech Support
Posted