xian
-
Posts
827 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by xian
-
-
Makes the buildings and vehicles look even more glorious.
Note to Phil: but the FPS drop still makes it unusable even with a 'Tiny' mission.
-
Mods folder IS the Z folder.
-
I like it. A problem I too have encountered.
+1 from me.
-
He makes a few interesting points as well as expressing some age old criticisms of CM2. He also provides some incorrect information, like insisting on quitting back to options to turn the sound on.
Mostly, he can't play CM for toffee.
-
Michael, I'm so happy to know I'm not alone with this issue.
Older Mac - check
ATI card - check
CMFI camera stuttering (especially when passing over infantry) and other anomalies - check
I'm sure all will come good in the end.
-
What a LOD?
GaJ
I think it stands for: Level of Detail - but don't quote me on that.
-
Although Off-Map artillery kills are not shown.
-
I remember reading somewhere that (in the author's opinion) the British see themselves as an adorable people who just can't understand why the rest of the world doesn't like them.
A clue to the answer might have something to do with the sense of superiority (unfounded - according to some) that runs deep in the British psyche. On certain days, and with the right kind of ears, one can still just make out the whispered lament: "Empire... Empire..."
-
Worst opening ceremony EVER.
I think that's what we were going for - but I may be wrong.
-
Nothing to do with CM - apart from it distracting me from it but...
I can hear Paul Mccartney singing from about 5 miles away! It's the Olympic 2012 opening ceremony and despite being in North London I can see the lights and hear the show.
Doesn't happen every day.
-
Interesting. It does seem like an opportunity waiting to be taken.
-
US airborne units in the Mac version of CMBN can often turn into 'hulking bat creatures'. It's a known bug which I'm sure will be sorted out in the next patch.
-
Good job guys. All of your comedic offerings are so much better than my poor attempts at a caption.
But I'm currently running a few 'laugh-o-meter' tests on each caption so I can't pick a winner just yet.
-
a few of my suggestions...
"If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times - if you bring that tank of yours into the house one more time we're getting a divorce!"
"No, no no... this is a half-WAY house not a half-TRACK house!"
"Hans... PLEASE stop bringing your work home with you."
-
I recall awhile ago in CMBN Beta there was a vexing problem with the Tiger I not spotting well from the front. It turned out the problem was with the unseen virtual tank commander sitting sideways in his seat and not facing his forward periscope. Even the old hands had to exclaim "You model things in that level of detail?" If they're modeling particular advantages and disadvantages like persicope placement overlaying it with abstracted advantages has the effect of undoing all their hard work.
Personally, I don't think this is entirely true. If the cover arc adds a spotting modifier then it will only improve a Tiger's forward spotting by the same amount as it would any other unit. i.e a Tiger with a cover arc will still be worse at forward spotting than a Sherman with a cover arc.
-
Perhaps. But a retro NATO VS Warsaw pact game set in the 70s or 80s seems unlikely if Battlefront counts on building their relationship with Russian partners, like Snowball. Too much corporate controversy. Much the same way an Arab-Israeli setting, in many ways a perfect fit for the CM engine, would generate unwanted heat.
I'm still not sure that this is a valid argument either. BFC have always maintained a non-partisan stance and (from what I've read in the manual) are very aware of the importance of remaining non-political. The conflicts depicted in CM games are clearly just an interesting examination of men, machinery and tactics - nothing more.
-
The NATO v's Soviet weapons, an intervention in Ukraine IIRC, should realistically be an easy victory for NATO (better equipment, more of it, air supremacy, better trained, multi-sensor superiority etc). Unless NATO operate under low-tolerence loss conditions, or some 'event' greatly diminishes their combat power I cannot see this being a real challenge. Correspondingly, the 'Red' player is rarely going to have a chance to conduct the massive mechanised operations, that his kit was designed for.
Turn the clock back to the 70's, early 80's and the NATO player would have a real fight on his hands, with his smaller units having a superiority in training, just holding an edge, or in many cases having parity or even inferiorities, regarding equipment. The Soviet player would be able to conduct actions/drills his kit was designed to perform and not have to scuttle around being a tactical genius just to stop the evisceration of his forces.
The only trouble with this scenario is to truly simulate a massed Warpac assault a campaign game would be needed to generate conflicts. The NATO player might have one battle where he holds the line against Regiment 1 only to find the next is a desperate stop gap fight to prevent Regiment 2 which has carefully been working around the flank. Bottom line, 21 Century NATO versus anyone else, for the foreseable future, means the 'Red' player has to be highly adept at tactical thinking, whereas the 'Blue' player does not, a complete inversion of reality.
My 2 cents...
This may be true, but CM games don't really simulate the strategic level of conflicts. The tactical nature of CM allows scenario designers to create balanced battles between radically mismatched forces.
-
I've mentioned this issue before on the forum - and YankeeDog is correct. Grenades are subtracted from the grenade count just prior to playback.
If you had a save of the previous turn then you would see that grenade-throwers had the right number of grenades.
It's a small annoyance, but I hope it will be fixed.
-
PDFs of the manual are supplied with the game when you purchase it.
-
One of my MG jeeps took out a 20mm gunned halftrack. The jeep was scouting in the early morning and came upon the halftrack from the rear. The jeep was just sitting there like a good scout and doing nothing so I figured that it was lost anyway so I ordered it to fire on the halftrack and to my delight and surprise the halftrack crew bailed out. This was in Carbide Carbide or Huzzar I forget which.
I got exactly the same result when playing Huzzar! My jeep managed to knock out a halftrack before it too met its maker (and I don't mean Chrysler).
-
Nice one - thanks.
-
-
Does anyone know what the Mac version of H2HH's preferences file is called and where it is located?
My opponent is experiencing misbehaving H2HH app, and I was wondering whether deleting the pref file might solve the issue.
-
Purchasing Units for Quick Battles Tip.
Sometimes it can be a bit of a giveaway when you click upon an opponent's tank and it says: "5th Tank Destroyer". Often it means that there are 4 others running around somewhere.
Here's how to avoid an opponent from working out how many tanks you have from the generous info provided by the GUI:
When purchasing a formation of vehicles on the purchasing screen delete those at the top of the list first. So, if you only want 2 tanks from a 5 tank formation make sure you keep the 4th and the 5th and delete 1, 2 and 3.
This way your opponent can never be certain if you really have the full compliment of 5 tanks or not. This can also be done with infantry, platoons, companies etc.
I suppose it's a bit like numbering your divisions non-sequentially to prevent the enemy calculating your actual divisional strength.
8outof8 Video Commentary Review
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
I think most Windows users could write a good 2 pages on the flaws of an Apple.