xian
-
Posts
827 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by xian
-
-
It would also be nice if:
1. It was possible to blast mines
2. Mines functioned in the same way as other 'unit objectives' in the scenario editor
-
Another problem is that units do not rout in CMBN, so they can end up hiding at the edge of the map. This is something that I hope BFC will eventually look into and change.
Also, I think that it might be an idea to include the option for 'balance of force terrain objectives' - where the objective points are given to the side that has units worth at least 1.5x the unit cost of the other side within the objective zone.
-
Interesting solution.
I agree that the info panel was a valuable part of the CM games. Indeed, it was the catalyst for my growing interest in WWII technology and history.
-
Totally agree with you.
-
No - he was asking if you could pause RT.
-
-
Nay.
But PBEM is much faster in CMBN than CMBB.
-
Having problems with M8 assault gun. Unless they aren't meant to have AT capability.
1. Refuses to fire main gun at armour (short and medium range). During an H2H game both of my M8s had plenty of opportunities to fire HEAT at enemy Stug - but only ever fired machine gun.
2. Crew member climbs out of M8 and sits on main gun.
Mac version. QB. Save game available.
-
Last I heard BFC were working hard on some additional issues with the Lion OS. I imagine, all going well, that there should be a patch early/mid next week.
They also need to fix a few other small issues with the Mac keystrokes, menu display, and possibly unit behaviour. I doubt that they want to create 2 separate patches - hence the delay.
-
For those of you already fretting over the next installment, you could play CM:BN til you're sated, then pick up a copy of CM:Afghanistan and play that till tunnel matcarpal syndrome sets in, then pick up CMSF and play through that, then grab each of the modules. And when you're finally done with all of them, returning to CM:BN will be like returning to a favorite old love.
Old CMSF player have gone the opposite route. Starting with CMSF then to Afghanistan, then the long-anticipated CM:BN title. And now they're becoming nostalgic again for AT-4 ATGMs and ERA exploding armor blocks.
Caveat: unless you own a Mac.
-
What the heck is the rush for a new module? Hands up everyone who has this one mastered.....
GaJ
I knew there'd be one.
Read my original post.
Also - it's nothing to do with mastering the game. If I ever mastered it then I wouldn't bother with a new module.
-
Just wondering if the commonwealth module is scheduled for this year?
I have a good reason for asking - but I wont go into that here.
-
Good to know.
Still wish you could clear them though. Then the 'destroy unit' objective could be used to add a mine-clearing aspect to scenarios.
-
IMHO, the biggest problem with the hedgerows in the game is that they do not give enough concealment/cover to the defenders. However, it is possible to come acceptably close.
Really?! Bocage is probably the best protection in the game.
-
Not much of a bonus as troops moving slowly through unmarked mines don't really trigger them anyway.
-
Sorry - I didn't make myself clear about spotting mines:
In the scenario editor you can set up certain units that when spotted provide the player with OBJECTIVE points. Mines are also units - but they provide no Objective points when spotted.
-
Would it be reasonable to allow engineers/pioneers to 'blast' marked mine field squares? To me, it seems odd that they can't.
It would also be nice if the unit objective of 'spotting' mines would actually work.
-
Yes... I think some people might be misunderstanding... I don't have a problem with the wounded soldiers if they are under my command. The problem arises when they badly affect an AI plan.
A human player can always split the squad or perhaps find them transport, but when an AI soldier is wounded it forces the entire squad to wait for the wounded soldier to catch up before following the next order.
-
I see your point about the historical accuracy - altering the force balance for the AI wouldn't necessarily please the purists.
Your idea about different skill levels is a good one, but I would suggest that it might be better to simplify it by including a feature to automatically add/remove a certain percentage of units (much as in the force modifier in QB), rather than having to manually create separate AI plans for each skill level. Maybe this would work best if the mission were designed for 'Elite' level, with lower settings programmed to automatically/manually subtract units.
In a way - you could probably combine both of our ideas into a single workable solution.
-
Indeed it does - just making everything worse.
-
So - what you guys are saying is that no one should bother making AI plans for both sides?
I thought that nearly every official scenario included plans for both ALLIED and AXIS?
Or - are you not getting my suggestion?
The idea is to make the 'tweaking' much easier- simple as that.
-
It can take an eternity - especially when the AI decides to go against the set plan and starts to crawl. Waiting for a crawling wounded soldier in CMBN is like watching paint dry.
-
Yes I agree - but very few people want 3 versions of one mission in their mission folder.
-
I think that most scenario designers will agree with me that it can be tricky to prepare missions that provide the human player with an equal challenge no matter which side he chooses to play against the AI.
For example: You get the scenario balanced just right for when the human player chooses Allied vs Axis, but it becomes far too easy to win if he chooses to play Axis vs Allied instead. If you then try to re-balance the Allied unit selection to help the AI, you can end up messing up your original finely tuned work. Thus, many scenarios are really only playable from one side only.
I think that I may have come up with a solution that is both elegant and easy to implement:
AI-ONLY UNITS.
Certain units are marked as 'AI Only' in the mission editor, and are not available to the human player when he/she plays that side (the units will simply not appear on the map for the human player). So, you might mark certain units as AI-Only for both sides. This would provide the AI with that extra punch it needs to make up for its tactical and intelligence deficiencies.
In the editor you might see:
Light Machinegun Team [A3, U1, AI_ONLY]
You could then set the AI up with that extra squad it needs for an attack or perhaps some additional reinforcements that you wouldn't want a human player to have access to because their inclusion would make the mission just too easy for him/her.
Naturally, whether to include these units is up to the mission designer.
Thoughts?
Fighting to the last man and victory locations.
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Yes - this can work, but could also produce undesirable effects with panicked units.
I think the 'red exclamation mark' of recent CM games should be reinstated in CMBN. The manual says it is a feature, but sadly it's missing.