stikkypixie
-
Posts
4,134 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by stikkypixie
-
-
I only own one steam game and it's still works when I'm not connected to the internet. Maybe they do it on a game per game basis.
-
You're better off asking for help in Strategic Command forum. Or email the support people of Battlefront.com and checking http://www.battlefront.com/helpdesk/.
-
Piffle!......................
???Humbug???
-
What are you doing with a picture of Sturmy in a big plastic bag?
Anything you'd care to discuss with the rest of us?
It's to keep him fresh, obviously.
-
......why isn't there cheese flavoured beer?
There is a chocolate flavoured beer, which is I've been told undrinkable. Banana beer however is not too bad.
-
I would comment on the sub-par rules as well but I am too distraught by the fact that they stopped selling my favourite toothbrush.
-
Ugh, just got slaughtered. Will have to try again...
-
I like this motion: Hindi-indie.
-
And you actually believe we care???
Michael
I like this lotion: Hindi-indie.
-
I like this notion: Hindi-indie.
-
Perhaps add "New Order" to the unit status scroll to describe the units next action. Something like this:
"Spotting"
"New Order"
"Moving"
"Spotting"
The lack of unit moving is understood as not having recv'd and order. Just like "cowering" inserted into the status scroll is indicative of not following any commands at this time. Creation of delays to increase Realism must have an explanation. You'll avoid the "Troops don't follow orders" harangue... or at least point out that no orders received means no orders followed
They have that "planning" status don't they?
-
As has been pointed out, the primary problem with Command Delays is that they aren't very realistic. Sometimes they penalize units which in real life wouldn't be penalized, and don't penalize units to the extent they would have been in real life. So from a realism standpoint it's on very shaky ground. The concept is fine, don't get me wrong, it's just that there's no good way to implement it "fairly" in a way that can be seen as really reflecting actual combat.
Which is why we left it out for CM:SF
For CM: Normandy I am in favor of putting it back in as an option for WeGo. I do like the feel it brings to the game in terms of making it more or less difficult to move units around. As has been pointed out, it doesn't prevent unrealistic movements, which is what the feature SHOULD do if it were reflecting reality, but it does throw a bit of a monkey wrench into things. Which means it has some value even though that value isn't arguably realistic.
Steve
If you do, can you make it an one time upfront delay? Like 10 sec for normal, 15 sec for green, etc... and not relate it to the complexity of the movement? That way you still have your monkey wrench but I can order around a bend without cursing. Hell make the delay random for all I care.
And back on C2, and I doing this one for poor Thomm as much as me. Do you units get spotting bonuses when information is passed along the C2 line?
-
I thought withdraw worked with tanks as well as infantry.
I remember them not working that great with RPGs hits or was it near misses?
Anyway I don't see how a conscript team would follow their orders flawlessly after sitting around for a minute is more realistic than having them look where to go after each waypoint.
-
I don't the miss the command delays at all. Commands like follow the bank of that winding river took way too long to come into effect and when a tank is hit by a shell but doesn't see what hit it, you'd have to wait 15s before the damned thing start to execute the reverse order you gave it. And unless you're playing consript Soviet troops, the only real advantage of keeping the red line were the command bonuses, or at least that's how I play.
I was under the impression that when unit reach a waypoint it needs some time to regroup and more experienced troops regroup faster. That sort of thing is more desirable IMHO.
-
I would tie this ability with the experience level of the Syrian squad. If veteran or higher for example, they can split teams. Or some other modifier, this would reflect the astute commander tactical ability.
-
Bump
;);)So I had those M1s in "Milk Run", being aware of enemy ATGMs (question markers). They never actually spotted any of them. Did they at least receive a spotting bonus? Did they actively look for them? Is it only a player aid?
Question still stands ...
Best regards,
Thomm
I have to hand it to you and your persistence
. Maybe it can be tested by using a platoon of tanks with excellent C2 links and one where they are all independent. This would require a lot of testing and timing though. -
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.
I guess it's all about compromise. Who knows how the game works internally. The way the terrain is set up might very well enable a whole host of things which we all agree is huge step forward.
Sugarcoating might be offensive, but I guess it has to put next to the all the rants in the opposite direction where it seems the game is totally unplayable if not every single feature is in.
-
I think the Thunder campaign is also a bit easier because the scenario designers were not very experienced at making scenarios, something that is very well illustrated by the marines campaign.
-
Heh, I've been slogging the good fight at the Onion wars. You apparently went AWOL after perceiving the inevitable outcome; where the glorious People's Army of the Salmon Republics lifted the heavy, iron-shod jackboot of Emerald oppression from the necks of the of the workers of Fea Cebola and replaced it with the liberating jackboot of a worker's utopia!
...and drawing the Salmon Army Nurse Calendar, of course.
Do they make those of stenographers as well?
-
C3K,
Already answered on previous page
It's basically the same as the "lid" idea. Definitely not going to happen.Steve
Yes but with the "lid" idea, the lid has to fit exactly. A camouflage netting doesn't. It just makes the trenches harder to see than they are now.
-
Expanding on what I meant from above...
Given that the terrain mesh must be identical for both sides and trenches, etc., deform the terrain mesh, why not approach the task of hiding the trench from a different direction? The terrain mesh cannot be changed. Instead of messing with terrain, ADD a unit.
I was thinking more in line of a type of camo netting. A camo net which smoothly covers the underlying tile.
Call the camo net a "vehicle" for in-game purposes, or for this thought experiment. The difference is that the spotting rules would be reversed. As long as the "camo net vehicle" is NOT in LOS, it is visible. It, in effect, hides the underlying terrain mesh. Once a friendly unit gets LOS to the enemy "camo net vehicle" it becomes UNSPOTTED; it evaporates. Permanently.
Sure there are problems there; floating icons being the most obvious.
My point being, don't try to change the terrain mesh, just try to hide it from view. Use a non-terrain based methodology.
Thoughts?
Ken
I think I see what you mean? Maybe a camouflage netting unit, to put on all trenches making them harder to see. It might alleviate the problem, but won't solve it, but I'm sure you know that
. Would be cool though. -
Is there a chance that during the hosedown can we disable the tanks cannon? The coloring book says on hit will do it.
The coloring book also says that you're not very likely to hit it.
-
But this suggests to me that there is some kind of modifier:
"If there happens to be an intersection with his buttocks the system might not consider him hit (depends). "
Otherwise it's always a hit, right?
I guess this "modifier" is applied generally no matter where the guy being hit is in. That is to say I think the game engine can't make the distinction between a hole in the ground and a foxhole. All it sees is a deformation of the terrain mesh.
-
I've found that trenches placed in woods are actually quite hard to see unless you go looking for it or turn tree view off. We'll just have to see when it comes out.
;)
It's basically the same as the "lid" idea. Definitely not going to happen.
Improving the look of the Peng Challenge Thread
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Emrys is not worth a forum meme.