Xipe66
-
Posts
107 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Xipe66
-
-
No, while this one is also very interesting and well written, the one I'm thinking is more detailed about STAVKAs incredulence and misunderstanding on the losses in the first two summers, "armies disappear on the strategic map in STAVKA without seeming reason, they send new ones, only to shatter". In that vein. Unfortunately I forget the exact wording to search for.
-
I remember it as particularly glorious and dramatic in its telling, describing the initial moments of Barbarossa and STAVKA's incredulence at whole armies, logically and properly strategically placed, just vanishing.
I had this bookmarked, which obviously doesn't work anymore.
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=001957;p=1
I've tried searching and came up with lots of interesting old posts, but not this particular one.
-
Checking all important post count.
-
Wow. This thread.Originally posted by Knaust:I think the fact is simple...waiting eagerly for the cd..version 1.01
-
I have a high postcount (see my postcount #).
My rig is four years old and ran the small Abu Susah scenario really well.
And you're (sort of understatement) throwing a tantrum from out of nowhere.
IS THAT REALLY FAIR?
Have you tried the tech support forum, giving them your specs, and a detailed description of your problems?
-
I believe Rune told me they won't add modability so that no one can figure out "how to win the game". Which is bull****, apart from being moronic. Spell it out if you have to, but don't play stupid;
They won't add modability because the fan base would finish their next module before they even thought about making it.
Also, people would add really interesting things. Like T-80s and T-90s. Hind air support for red side. Awesome looking Leopard 2A6s.
And so forth.
And this OP kind of highlights this.
I probably won't buy a marine module unless it brings something awesome or something novel to the battlefield, and a marine module doesn't do that.
-
WEGO is dead, but yeah, playback in RT would be really nice, and probably not that hard to implement with the code that is already in place for WEGO.
-
Why don't you guys decide what this game should be?
-
Just release the code already and let the community work it. Or will someone figure our "how to win" then?
-
Apparently the package is pretty heavy at 49 lbs - or is the spotting device retachable from the actual launcher? Also it needs lots of battery power and a warm-up phase that can last 30 seconds or longer... all according to Wikipedia.
-
That's extremely counter-intuitive and should be a bug. I usually "target light" when I positively don't want them to expend Javelins.Originally posted by wolf66:I had them fire the Javelins at buildings with the "target light" command .....
Was this since 1.2, or have I been lucky in 1.1?
-
TBH they should have ditched it alltogether and let everyone get used to, or quit over, it not being in. Now the WEGO nagging will go on forever and steal development time.Originally posted by stikkypixie:I know we're talking about TCP/IP but you get a lot of comment that WEGO is not supported or only half-hearted supported. It still there.
I've already converted to real time in SP and find it much better and that it gives me alot more control (replays would be nice, though).
Dunno what the best design for TCP, but I can see the "chess clock" suggestion working; because RT _isn't_ a click fest, and only occassionally are you in need of pausing.
-
In the scenario editor, click the AI button and set a setup zone and then a consecutive number of orders for the AI to follow, and possibly variations thereof.
It's pretty basic and you can't make it reactive, but you can make it move.
-
They already have similar vehicles included (with clearing gear) and I remember reading that that gear is not simulated _as of yet_. Once it is maybe there will be a point in adding it.
Also, that vehicle looks kickass, so I hope it will get added once it can be simulated according to its abilities.
-
Stay safe, and thank you for the pics.
-
I'd actually like to see stuff like designated hospitals, deliberate human shield centres that will affect the points scored as to the scenario designer's will.Originally posted by Brent Pollock:I think I'll take another kick at, but restrict Javelin use to a max of four, and only at buildings that are known to be occupied by more than one guy.
Let's say you want to do a Sniper's Alley ambush-type scenario, for political reasons US troops IRL can't just start levelling buildings as they see fit, so the designer has to be able to impose point punishments for severely damaging certain or all buildings (depending on the scenario setup).
Even when a 'conventional' assymetric war is going on during the invasion phase you're not politically going to get away with calling in heavy artillery on a hospital, even if the enemy is barricading there. That's why it's assymetrical.
-
No, it would be an extension of the already existing Aquire command, maybe based on range.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:We had it on the drawing board but kept it off until we could see if there was a need. Didn't see a reason to put it in after a lot of testing. Would it be better to have it? Theoretically yes, but it would probably require yet another Command and we'd rather remove them if we could, not add them
This also has to do with the employment of heavy weapons in general - if the carrier of those are killed and the weapon is fine (and Javelins and other weapons are vital) you still don't get to use it. An enchanced Aquire would fix this.
-
That's an awesome map and use of buildings. Looking forward to it being released.Originally posted by Normal Dude:I'm working on one right now. It involves an airborne battalion seizing Aleppo International Airport. Here's a screenshot of the (unfinish) map. The player will be in command of Alpha company which was been tasking with securing the airport terminal.
-
All heavy weapons should be Aquirable aswell if the operator dies or gets severely wounded.
-
In the test scenarios I've made I've noticed that if a building only occupies half a tile and you tell the AI to occupy that tile (top floors) it will still quite often reposition its men outside of the wall instead on inside the building.
I don't know if it's a bug though, more like something that scenario designers need to be aware of. I've never seen it happen when the zone they're told to occupy is all within the building.
-
fyi - that should be vis-a-vis </font>Originally posted by David Chapuis:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Xipe66:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Chapuis: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Xipe66:
(and Steve isn't handling the real problems like he should be visavi how you treat a customer and actual problems)...
-
CoH is utterly unfullfilling.Originally posted by RedDevil:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Xipe66:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jogr:
Sell your copy on Ebay and get this
Either way, CoH is not a wargame. </font>
-
Not by yourself. You'd have to find a willing partner to create double-blind scenarios in the editor. </font>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fetchez la Vache:
Can we make scenarios without knowing exactly what the oppo force is going to consist of? That's what I like about SP QB's - not knowing what's gonna come a-trundling around the next mosque.
-
CoH is utterly unfullfilling.Originally posted by jogr:Sell your copy on Ebay and get this
Yes. CMSF has problems, some of them quite big (and Steve isn't handling the real problems like he should be visavi how you treat a customer and actual problems), but at least it's fun (albeit sometimes frustrating), and the bugs and glaring problems will be fixed.
Either way, CoH is not a wargame.
[ July 31, 2007, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Xipe66 ]
Looking for a JasonC post
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
Thanks, that's the one! I skimmed that thread but apparently abandoned the first page too quickly.