xian
-
Posts
827 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by xian
-
-
Due to a few issues with the Mac version of 1.10 I am having to stick with 1.01 for the moment.
Are there any players out there willing to run a parallel install and play (using H2HH) 1.01?
Many thanks,
C
-
Tank crews do seem to be made of stern stuff - It might be better if crews went into a 'Shaken' state for a few seconds when losing a crew member - a bit like the 'Shocked' tanks in Cmx1.
-
RT forces the player to play from an overview most of the time so you often miss out on the glorious detail of watching individual units.
I also think that RT isn't implemented that well in CMBN... IMO the player needs quite a lot more information fed back to them in an quick to digest format, plus better tools to work with large numbers of units in a short space of time.
I occasionally play RT (I'm 40) and wish I could enjoy it more. I like the fact it gives you the feel of a battle in a realistic time-frame but I just find it too difficult to play.
-
I know that BFC wanted to avoid 'last man standing' type situations when they released CMx1 - Now - I don't know whether they have changed their thinking about this, but the lack of ROUT and AUTO-SURRENDER can certainly make for unsatisfactory endings to many games.
I'd like to know how BFC view this issue.
-
I don't think that there are many missions that came with the base game that are much larger than a reinforced company (probably only 3-4).
I have noticed that the sizes of the battles got much larger with the release of CW.
-
Barkmann's Corner (as Axis).
It's a New Dawn
Silence the Guns
-
Even if it doesn't feel like it sometimes CMBN is still a game, and I think it can afford to include a few game-like elements.
I would like to suggest the inclusion of an optional 'auto surrender' checkbox for H2H battles. It is sometimes difficult to know whether it is time to surrender (or ceasefire) when playing H2H - you can often keep holding on just in case... and this can end up being unrealistic and frustrating for your opponent.
I would like to see the inclusion of an optional 'auto surrender' - implemented much in the same ay as it is currently for the AI. Before starting an H2H battle both sides can then decide whether to include it or not.
Currently the long time limits, lack of a 'rout' and lack of an 'auto-surrender' can lead to drawn out sessions whilst players search for that 'last man' hiding in an objective zone.
What do you guys think?
-
Lovely work JuJu. Thanks for all your efforts.
-
Looks like someone might want to make use of this again:
(These are just the Mods I use - there are plenty more good mods out there)
.png)
-
I just keep the XO [smithers]....next to his HQ [Mr Burns] at all times. There are also many threads discussing this issue on the forum.
Really? I keep the XO far away from its HQ unit in case they both get the same piece of lead falling on them.
-
Agreed.
I'd like to know if it is on BFCs 'things to do' list or whether the 'rout' is gone for good?
-
I have to agree about the foxholes - they are a bit of a giveaway.
-
Exit zones as a substitute for an actual 'rout' are not going to work well in many cases where objective points are awarded for 'destroy' or 'destroy all'.
I believe that the 'rout' function was included in CMSF (which it is why it exists in the CMBN manual) - so I don't see that it could be too much of a problem to put it back into CMBN.
I'm still not sure if its absence in CMBN was an oversight or not???
-
I would like to petition BFC to put the 'Rout' back into CMBN. It would mean that a lot of games would come to a more natural and satisfactory conclusion.
For instance:
I am defending a terrain objective at the edge of the map. I have long-term panicked troops hanging around at the edge of the map that really should have 'routed' and run away ages ago. If one of these units suddenly recovers at the last minute it will deny my opponent the terrain objective that he rightly deserves.
Also, it makes more sense for 'routed' units to leave the map rather than just hanging around waiting to be slaughtered.
Does anyone else want to see 'rout' included in CMBN as described in the manual?
-
I wonder if we will ever get 'Rout' implemented as suggested in the manual - or if it was left out for some reason?
In the mission I'm playing at the moment my conscript troops should have run off the map many minutes ago instead of recovering from long term panic and putting up a fight.
-
Simply stunning.
-
Good Good.
I'm taking a look at it now.
YEah - I'm trying to see what is most in keeping with the normal chromatic sequence (like that used by BFC). Bear with me - I'm just checking some colour palettes
Also - you are going for squares rather than circles - or was it always like that?
-
I've been watching my 75mm shells bounce off one of those damn Jpz IVs until the sun went down - one tough mother!
-
Hi Juju - I really liked the scheme with you suggested on this thread that the majority said was not clear enough:
I think that some people may prefer it... well me at least :-)
I realise that you are very soon going end end up with a design by committee if people keep making requests - but I think if it is a customisable option it should be okay.
Personally I think BFC should pay you for the design and make it the default UI. Okay, the original UI is functional, but yours is functional and beautiful.
-
Ju Ju - could you include your other damage colours (the one that was voted down) as a customisable extra?
-
Im trying to work on a convoy of trucks passing through the map too and points will be awarded for its destruction but im not sure how to implement this yet.
EXIT - friendly units may leave the map (permanently) after reaching this objective. Any friendly unit may use the exit zone. There are no points awarded for leaving the map! Instead, any unit that is part of a Destroy/Destroy All Unit Objective for the opposing player and does not leave the map, is scored as “destroyed” and the points are awarded to the enemy.
-
Number 1 seems best to me - clear and non-obtrusive.
-
Maybe we could do with 2 types of foxhole:
a) the current obvious sandbagged version. (Better protection, easier detection)
an earth walled/camouflaged version. (Worse protection, harder detection)Also, why can't the foxholes and the trenches actually deform the terrain - like craters?
-
It fell off the bridge!
Screenshot of Centre Bridge in 'Huzzar!' A few seconds later the Sherman was completely submerged. Sadly, the entire crew drowned.
an earth walled/camouflaged version. (Worse protection, harder detection)
Anyone willing to play a 1.01 game? - I've had no Luck on Blitz
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
It's a graphical issue that will be solved with the next patch:
The units lose their weapons at very short range and revert to low polygon models.
(better/better)
I have tried to play 1.10 on quite a few occasions but (combined with the flickering icons and shadow problems) the graphical issues are too distracting.
So, to stop me from getting a bad impression of the game, I am just playing 1.01 until the patch is released.
...well, you did ask :-)
oh - and this is 1.0.1 on my machine: