Exel
-
Posts
716 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Exel
-
-
Condition: WeGo, PBEM, QB, 1.08
* Units keep ignoring pause commands, both at their starting position and at waypoints. Some times they do pause as ordered, most of the time they don't. Happens with any unit and any force.
* Javelins disappear from Bradleys. Engineer units loaded up to Bradleys can acquire Javelins normally during the command phase, but when the replay starts the Javelins have vanished from both the squad and the vehicle, never to be seen again. Same happens with AT4s.
* Bradleys often take several shots to kill with Abrams. Likewise both Abrams and Bradley often withstand several top-attack Javelins with little or no damage. Something not right here.
-
Something as simple as showing the minimum and maximum ranges for weapons is gravely missing from the game. Needs to be added. I don't want to read the manual in the heat of battle just to see what the engagement range of my missiles is.
-
Please add color codes and hotkeys to the spacebar command menu, corresponding to those in the command tabs.
-
Have you tried clickingOriginally posted by stikkypixie:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Exel:
How do you give target commands for waypoints? Whenever I attempt to give a target command to a unit, I can only target buildings/units that are in direct LOS from the starting position, regardless of any waypoint I have selected. I can't recreate the "death blossom" for instance - what have I missed?
When you highlight a waypoint and target something, the line will start from your unit till the target, but once you click you will see that the starting point will be the end point of the waypoint. </font>
-
How do you give target commands for waypoints? Whenever I attempt to give a target command to a unit, I can only target buildings/units that are in direct LOS from the starting position, regardless of any waypoint I have selected. I can't recreate the "death blossom" for instance - what have I missed?
-
I'll try to post one up today.
-
What units? </font>Originally posted by George Mc:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Exel:
No. On some units some of the weapons are permanently *white*.
-
No. On some units some of the weapons are permanently *white*.
-
No, that doesn't solve it. I too have had plenty of frustration with the pause commands being ignored. Other times they work fine, so it's not about using them wrong - they are plain ignored, whether they are on any waypoint or the starting position of the vehicle.
-
In the vehicle ammo report panel, showing the different weapons and their ammo of the vehicle, the weapons are normally in green text. Occasionally, however, they appear white. What does this mean? I found no reference to it from the manual whatsoever, and it definitely is not self-explanatory.
Thanks in advance.
-
The quick battle force selection algorithm still causes some immense frustration at times. How high is this on the priority list of things to be fixed for the next patch(es)? I'm tired of getting forward observers without artillery, jeeps when I ask for armor, and only tanks when I ask for infantry.
I'd also appreciate for more direct control over what units we get in QBs, but I guess that's a useless wish..
-
At least they should ignore enemies beyond their weapons' reach. They should only stop when they engage or if pinned down (that's what getting pinned down means, after all).
-
So how well does the pbem in 1.07 function?
-
So they only take the missile even if you click the launcher?
-
I laughed my self to tears after this one.Originally posted by Meach:Z1812
We already tossed a dozen balls into the ring and no one caught a single one!
-
I haven't tried the multiplayer in 1.07, but I heard it still has some problems. Is it playable? Somehow more buggy than SP?
-
Found the reason to the campaign crashing on me, was missing a tag in the hotkeys.txt. Edited topic and post above.
-
That's hardly the tank's fault. Being crewed by Egyptians or Saudis doesn't make the Abrams any worse as a tank either.Originally posted by Kevin Kinscherff:I know you all are comparing hardware/weapon systems, but lets remember that even the best hardware has to be placed into the hands of well motivated and trained soldiers backed by excellent command/control and logistics. I don't see the T90 integrated anytime soon into a world class operational formation.
- Kevin
-
Beautiful spin doctoring this, turning cons into pros. I almost woke the neighbour by laughing.Originally posted by Bigduke6:5. Elements of M1's computer power suite are mounted externally and vunerable to HE; T-90's computer power stuff is deep inside the vehicle.
6. M1 vison slots are large and vulnerable to .50 cal, T-90 vison slots are smaller and better protected.
M1s computer units are in the turret where they are better kept cool but more importantly can be quickly changed if damaged. T-series computers are God-knows-where inside the tank - try changing those in a hurry.
M1s vision slots are much larger, yes. They also give superb vision all-around, whereas the T-series vision slots are very small and narrow, severely limiting your field of view. Prone to damage? Yeah, sure. It takes about 15 seconds to replace one on the Abrams, without ever leaving the cover of armor.
And getting those thermals "very soon" only means that as it is, all Western tanks beat the T-series 10:1 in detection and targetting both day and night. Naturally you can upgrade the T-90, but then it's suddenly not so cheap anymore...
[ March 07, 2008, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Exel ]
-
So I decided to give 1.07 a try after reading some positive comments on it, and after some battles and QBs I found myself finally enjoying the game. Kudos to BFC for great continued game support, as always. The game is finally earning back its purchase. :cool:
I especially like that you brought back the CMx1 style on-screen command menu - been anxiously wanting for it since release. However it would be super if you could add the same color codes to the commands in the space bar menu that are in the command tabs. And it would be good to show the hotkeys in the on-screen menu as well. That way it's not necessary to use the mouse to select commands from the menu even when you don't remember the hotkeys without it.
[ March 08, 2008, 04:13 AM: Message edited by: Exel ]
-
What I can say from personal experience is that at least in our training they didn't put much emphasis on technical specifications of most of the systems where maintenance or usage issues were not concerned, including armor and ammunition specs. More information on both is generally available in books, official documents and even on the net.Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):You're probably right, although I have heard differing reports from various tankers. To be honest though, lots of guys don't often know their equipment like they should. I know that prior to GW1 I heard tanker officers gushing about the protection of their tanks and including spall liners. Of course they could have just been parroting the sales brochure. I know they were supposed to have them.
Training emphasizes operating the equipment, not so much estimating if that enemy ATGM is going to mutilate you inside or not. Then, it could be different in the US, but somehow I doubt that it would differ much.
Tankers know an awful lot about their equipment for sure, but sometimes engineers know more.
-
Erm it has half the operational range of a Warrior, and is 5 kph slower..</font>Originally posted by jBrereton:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />more mobile
-
Uh-huh? CV90 is better protected, more mobile, has more firepower and better sights too. Warrior doesn't even have a stabilized gun until it's upgraded (Warrior Improvement Programme). Even after that there's some pretty stiff competition from CV90 Mk.III and Puma, and that's just for Europe. You just can't help it that Warrior is an old design, even though far from obsolete after the upgrades.Originally posted by jBrereton:Ah, but you have to remember that a Warrior IFV is better than any other IFV in the world that I can currently think of.
-
They have had them from the start. The book "King of the Killing Fields," notes that the designers were concerned about stopping Soviet versions of the British HESH warhead which creates spall effects as its primary killing agent.</font>Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Statisoris:
The Abrams does have a spall liner Exel, I asked a real world tanker. He didnt know if they had been in since the beggining, but they are now. Its made of thick kevlar.
When you highlight a waypoint and target something, the line will start from your unit till the target, but once you click you will see that the starting point will be the end point of the waypoint. </font>
Please fix the "Mulitplayer" Problems
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
PBEM works mostly fine in 1.08. I've played several successful games without running into any major game-killing issues.
There are bugs though. I don't know how they relate to multiplayer or pbem specifically, but there are some. For instance pause commands are often ignored by units, which cause major tactical blunders at times. Other commands, including waypoints, are also randomly ignored, but less often. In one game my dismounting troops lost all their Javelins and AT4s at the start of the next turn.
TacAI causes some headaches in pbem games too. Missile units are reluctant to fire on their own, so Bradleys will engage Abrams with 25mm cannons only, for instance.
Overall pbem games are playable, and enjoyable too. But there still are issues that need to be sorted out.