Jump to content

mav1

Members
  • Posts

    296
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by mav1

  1. Bros? No, I made it up myself, without any influence. ;)

    Anyway I prefer boyzone their so cool. :eek:

    Looking at games website it could be 3 days before its avaible in a uk retail shop, unless someone knows better.

    Iam confused with everyones reviews is shock force better than than cmx1? Is the failings on the game based on bugs or the game itself?

  2. Iam surprised that the is-2 armour in the game is thinner than what a lot of other books and websites state. I wonder where BFC got the info for the IS-2 from?

    In comparison the armour of all the other vehicles match what is stated in other books and websites.

    [ July 16, 2007, 05:13 AM: Message edited by: mav1 ]

  3. Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    Believe me... we spent months on this topic and what you see in CM:SF is the best solution for CM. For another game, like TOW, a different solution may be better suited to it. For a game made 17 years ago... don't even get me started! That's like saying "Ford build a car that cost only a few hundred bucks back in the 1920s, so why not do that today?" :D

    Steve [/QB]

    Oh well, having dense urban area and more units is more important than continous map edges. It will be something to look forward to in the future, also with bigger map ares in cmx3. smile.gif

    Is their diffent backgrounds to choose from? Like flat terrain or hilly terrain.

    [ July 13, 2007, 05:02 AM: Message edited by: mav1 ]

  4. John you were at the forum long before me.

    So what's with the weak armour of the is-2 tank.

    I was just looking at an osprey book and it stated that Tiger tank could only knock out the is-2 at the side from the maximum of 1500m! In cmbb the panzer IV can knock out the is 2 at that range fromn the front!

    Its not only the osprey book that state this other books and website state virtualy the same. The is 2 is badly weakened in the game due to its weakened armour because if its natural low firing rate.

    There is also this long debate I have been reading from the past posts about the low penetration of the 76mm soviet tank gun. Has a conclusion ever been reached on it?

  5. Originally posted by Melnibone:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mav1:

    I suggest you play that then - it would surely be a bettr use of your time than whining on and on about a game you've not played yet. [/QB]</font>
  6. Wow look at how the map carries of far in the distance past the map edge of the battle.

    oh, Iam dreaming again.

    I remmember a game called team yankee on the atari st not having map edges. That game is about 17 years old! Team yankee and its sequals were fun games.

    [ July 11, 2007, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: mav1 ]

  7. Originally posted by Moon:

    For every battle, including the first one, you can branch out to two scenarios. But don't have to. And the branch can include the same scenario as well if you would like the player to repeat it if he "lost".

    You can create distinct branches where the campaign plays out entirely different for the remainder of the campaign if you lost a key battle, or you can route the player back to the "main path" in the campaign after a side battle or two.

    Martin

    Thats an excellant flexible system. A pat on the back for the one who came up with the idea.
  8. Originally posted by MikeyD:

    I agree a monster map might have some occassional gameplay value. I just don't want pleople to get the false impression that anything under 12km is unrealistic & unplayable. Rifle range is still rifle range (actually, shorter range than WWII rifles), Hvy mg range is still hvy mg range. I read somewhere that in Iraq TOW Strykers providing infantry support (while waiting for MGS to arrive) were typically firing its missiles at pretty close to minimum arming distance! Yikes! If your job is doing close infantry support you don't often have the luxury of standing 3km back on a hillside.

    Its nothing to do with small maps being unrealistic or unplayable. smile.gif

    Its to do with big maps not being realistic or unplayable.

  9. Right my mind has drifted back to reality.

    Is is possible to change units on a map in a campaign to reflect whats going on another map in another campaign.

    Say that in one map of one campaign my forces get trashed. Can I then lessen my forces in another map in another campaign to back up my routed forces in the other map in the other campaign. Iam trying to see if campaigns can be fluid in their ceation to reacted on whats going on in another campaign. I know the calculations will have to be done by me with a pencil on paper.

    Its to fit in the idea of lots of campaigns of many maps to simulate all of syria.

    Their is no limit to the number ofscenarios in a campaign is their? Otherwise my fantasy game will not work.

  10. Originally posted by SGT_56M:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So you can move the core units from one map to a completly different map. Iam I right?

    Yes.

    Then you can add reinforcements to the core units on the new map?

    Yes.

    Your complicated part, yes, theoretically you could do this.

    But keep in mind the terrain tiles in the editor are 5 square meters (I think, though everything is modeled in 3D at 1 meter). So to model an 800 km line, only 400 meters wide, you would need to place and verify 12,800,000 tiles in the editor. If of course you are shooting for a true 1:1 representation of Syria and provided I got my math right. </font>

  11. Originally posted by SGT_56M:

    wow, double sided core units would be a trip! Er... will be a trip.

    But that gives me a really big idea.

    Mav1, not sure I completely understand what you are asking.

    In the campaing, the map is what ever the designer sets it for for each individual battle. in other words, the campaign is actually a series of linked scenarios with a set of core units that are tracked from scenario to scenario. The designer could use the same map over and over, but the battle damage to the map itself is not carried over after each fight. (Unit damage is though)

    So for a more believable campaign, most designers will move locations for each fight. Granted, that move could be as little as one block over in a heavy city fight or a few KM down the road.

    So you can move the core units from one map to a completly different map. Iam I right?

    Then you can add reinforcements to the core units on the new map?

    What was the decision making in not having any building or terrain carried on from end of the scenario? To make it belivable you are going to have to move to a completly new map.

    Right this when things might get complicated. I will try my best to be understood.

    Say you wanted to simulate combat on the whole map of syria.

    Is it possible to create a campaign of scenarios going from south to north that covers a stretch of land that is 4km (scenario map width, west to east) by 800km ( 200 scenario map's, width 4km, north to south). You are then going to have to create 150 campaign of similiar size to cover the whole area of Syria going from west to east.

    Yes I know thats 30,000 scenario, but is it possible?

    It would be better if the total width limit of the scenario map in the game , be 8km instead of 4km it would mean a whole lot less of scenarios.

  12. Originally posted by Moon:

    Please keep in mind that while 16 sqkm are possible, it is by no means a standard play size. You will need a VERY fast computer to play on such a huge map, and will have to design the map smartly in order to avoid bringing even the best PC out there to its knees. Most maps are going to be much smaller than 16 sqkm on average.

    Martin

    Is it the number of units that take up most of the calculations? So if you have very few units, can you get away with a large map, without straining the pc to breaking point?
  13. Phew! Iam glad its 4x4km, I was getting worried.

    Any chance of stretching the size of the maps in future modules, since computers will get more powerful as the months go by. I don't know how long shock force will be supported for with the extra modules. But say a module is made in a years time, can the size of the map be increased.

    I JUST LOVE THE BIG MAPS!

    :D

    The same goes for rivers. Can the rivers from the future ww2 game be added in a module for the shock force game?

×
×
  • Create New...