Jump to content

noob

Members
  • Content Count

    1,934
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by noob

  1. The cherry on the "Titanium play mode" cake would of course be a ground level unit camera lock, thus bringing high ground and multi storey buildings more into play, and adding a new level of immersion to the combat, and a new level of tension to scouting with vehicles.
  2. I would like to see an option to disable the LOS function of waypoints. This would add a level of realism, and reduce the workload of the orders phase, thus speeding up PBEM games in general.
  3. Or, aggressively rush into a weak spot in the enemy line, catching them by surprise, and getting all your men kills
  4. I think it's safe to say that Hunt, along with Move and Slow, are passive orders, and Quick, Fast and Assault, are aggressive orders. So if the move you want to make is aggressive, don't use Hunt.
  5. That makes sense, the cover arcs for all my tanks were overlapping, so they were all primed to react to any one of their groups contacts. I'm just going to use "Fast" in those situations in future. Thanks for all the replies.
  6. Yes, the arcs have a 300m radius, well beyond the enemy locations. All the tanks stopped immediately the first one was hit, even though they had no LOS on the enemy tanks.
  7. In a game I am playing, I rushed two PzIV's in cover in a ditch with five Shermans across open terrain. All had a "hunt" order, and a cover armour arc. So, I assumed that when each of my tanks made visual contact, or was fired upon, they would stop and engage, no problem. However, that didn't happen, when the lead tank got a sighting, and a hit, the rest just stopped outside the LOS of the enemy. So now I have to change their order to "move fast" to get them to engage, and have now lost the element of surprise. So I checked the manual regarding "hunt". Vehicles - orders vehicles
  8. It would be nice if some clever person could come up with a handicap system that would factor in all the advantages / disadvantages of each side in a given scenario, then cross reference those parameters with the actual result, to come up with a new result. That way, one could "lose" a scenario, but still win if the "loss" wasn't as bad as it should of been. For example, I played a scenario that was so Pro Allies that one was left with the feeling that it was impossible for the Axis to win, yet it was classed as a H2H game. So one could have argued that if the Allies did not ach
  9. There's an English superstition that goes all the way back to medieval times, that binoculars brought bad luck. It still persists today.
  10. Thanks Ian. I changed the parameters of the map in the scenario editor from Axis Attack, to Axis Assault, and now I see it in the QB map menu.
  11. I have just set up a QB using a modified scenario map. I placed the map in the QB map folder, set the QB parameters to Assault, but could not find the map in the QB map list. When I set the parameters to Attack, I could.
  12. By useless, I meant gun damaged tanks, broken infantry, and units out of ammo.
  13. My tongue was firmly in my cheek when making this statement, as the emoticon shows
  14. No, when I first made my request, I didn't know what the consequences would be for "certain" types of battle parameters. Once I was educated as to those consequences by JonS, I re assessed the situation, and modified my request. However, I have come to realise that encroaching into the territory of experienced designers is a dangerous game for the uninitiated, so I think I will tweak any scenarios I play myself, based on the knowledge I have acquired creating this topic
  15. Not if it's a "Casualty" parameter. For example, in a recent game I played with an exit zone, I was rewarded 500 points for exiting with less than 25% casualties. As for scenarios with just terrain objectives, the exit zone would be purely for the purpose of clearing the battlefield of useless units. For example, I played a game where I had a lot of unarmed transport vehicles, and they were only going be used once. That meant that once they had completed their mission, they had to be hidden in cover that I wanted to use during the rest of the battle. They took up space, and were easier to
  16. A scenario that rewards specific point values for damaging / destroying specific enemy units, and, has an exit zone present, will count any friendly "bounty" units that do not exit the map at the end of the battle as kill points for the enemy. The only way to use exit zones without distorting the point system, is to use it in conjunction with scenarios that only count objectives occupied / touched, and, or percentages of casualties sustained / inflicted.
  17. I checked the manual, and yes, it's a terrible idea if there are points rewarded for unit kills / damage. For any other scoring system, i'm assuming an exit zone would be fine. However, I should of checked the manual first before saying anything, my bad.
  18. I needed to make sure scenario designers for all the various versions of CMx2 got my request. However, I was unaware that CMSF did not cater for exit zones.
  19. Could anyone designing a scenario create exit zones for either side in the relevant places, this will avoid the trapping of ineffective units on the map, and possibly contributing to the opponents score.
  20. Could anyone designing a scenario create exit zones for either side in the relevant places, this will avoid the trapping of ineffective units on the map, and possibly contributing to the opponents score.
  21. Could anyone designing a scenario create exit zones for either side in the relevant places, this will avoid the trapping of ineffective units on the map, and possibly contributing to the opponents score.
×
×
  • Create New...