Flanker15
-
Posts
756 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Flanker15
-
-
This site:
http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/introduction.html
Uses allot of the more reliable Soviet test data for weapons and lists all its references, it's the best one I've found.
-
The only one I can think of is a maneuver you can do in a co-axial rotor helicopter but other than that nothing. Probably just some kind of bottleneck tactic.
-
That surrendering thing will be most welcome, I presume the "buddy aid" bit is in there because they can un-surrender if left alone right?
What about routing has that had some work done to it?
The problem with having the routed guys just vanish is you can't rally or recover them in any way. Back in CM:BB you could have routed units stop running and then recover their morale for future use. Something like: the unit has to move X distance from enemies, not be under fire and be in heavy cover to vanish might work? Instead of firing at an empty trench and not knowing because the enemies there have teleported to safety.
-
Only real visual difference you'll need for the M1 today is the M1A2 has a CITV sticking out of the forward left turret roof and the M1A1 don't.
Look here for nice diagrams of the major models:
-
I was playing some Empire total war today and really think that CMx2 could benefit from a similar system having forests and trees stay visible in a very low quality form at long range. Not so much to do with visual pretty (which it does add too) but mainly the tactical gain it adds of being able to tell where the trees are without running around the map (having maneuvers fail because there was a forest in the way that didn't render).
-
Rendering the whole map's worth of forest would be rather bad for the frame-rate given how it can struggle a bit as it is.
There needs to be more LODs for the trees so they keep getting less detailed down to the point that they're simple sprites as you zoom out. At the moment the only option is to always have a different coloured terrain under forests.
-
I'd imagine that it's partly due to the proper ballistics and subsystem model CMx2 has, there's allot of empty space and redundant areas in a BMP that a 25mm perpetrator will fly straight through. SB: pro has a an even better ballistics model and I often had BMPs that took over 10 hits to be knocked out and the AAR showed that my shots were just going straight through and only causing light damage. Of course if you aimed your shot right you could get one hit KOs through the ammo and crew compartment.
But the AI just aims at the centre of mass in CMx2 so it's sometimes a lucky draw as to whether there's something important in the way of the shot.
-
A case of arrogance perhaps?
The reason for not encrypting the downlink (which is unimaginable for something in the military or anything really) seems to be that they thought the people they were watching were to primitive to intercept it (all you need is a wideband antenna and a terminal with the appropriate software to read the data).
Well they've certainly learnt their lesson about never underestimating your foe (although this is hardly the first time so I'm not so sure).
-
Yes the bullet collision is 1:1 but the squad is a cohesive unit that moves together and they are more tightly bunched than they should be.
-
Warsaw pact defiantly used red/black for friendly and blue for any enemy, they switched to NATO after '91.
-
I'm pretty sure but not 100% that they adopted the NATO system of blue=friendly.
-
I think a improvment would be to have the MG's fire in proper "Z" patterns and sweeps as well as direct killing bursts at infantry, non-vehicle/solo and area targets.
-
I always play ATGM ambush after every patch since it's such a small/fun mission. There's been some big changes recently as it's now much harder to win as the Syrians.
-
OK, looks like it's the new nVidia drivers. Gee... anybody here think I'm shocked to find that out? Anyone? No? Good, because I'm not
I don't know if there is anything we can do to fix this or not, but we'll take a look into it.
Steve
That would explain why I've never seen it, I haven't had any reason to upgrade from 181.22 which seem to be the most stable drivers in a long time.
-
Things that try to "vs" something are ussually not very good from my experience, eg. Desert Strom armor battles can only superficially be related to a 1980's Warsaw pact / NATO conflic.
-
The other problem here is mainly due ot senario design, trees don't have different terrain under them anymore so when your away from them and they don't render you can't tell the difference. Putting a different terrain under all your forests can help allot.
The engine does pop in a few trees here and there for distant forests but it's pretty hard to tell what's in/behind the forest and what isn't.
-
Apocal, those two screenshots reveal a tale...
I think you've hit on something important there. (Okay, "important" may be exaggerating the implications of how a computer game models some damage, but still....)
It seems that targeting the floor you want could, indeed, result in artillery strikes being fuzed to hit that floor. (Now, having rounds fuzed on a per floor basis seems a bit too precise to me, but I don't know how many milliseconds of delay are required per floor - maybe an artillery unit does.)
The remaining issue would be to find out how to target something other than the roof of a building if your spotter has an elevation advantage.
BF.C???
Ken
I always target the lowest floor on the buidling I can see, it's never had an effect on where the shells explode for me (they explode on the first thing they hit).
-
I assume the armour setting was put in back when BFC was going to put in copperhead type shells. There is apparently a tighter grouping with armour shells but it really so insignificant that it might just be a coincidence. The actual explosion from the shell and its effect is not observably different from general.
-
Armour doesn't seem to ever make a difference against buildings, infact I'm not sure it's different to general in any way (just a placebo effect). Perhapse the armour setting should be taken out of the game? It could be changed to a new "Delayed" setting that does exeactly what's wanted for buildings.
The other problem I have is people on the roof of a building aren't remotly threatened by air-burst shells.
-
I had a good picture before, I'll see if I can find it again.
-
My opinion on that scene from the show is basically:
After the gun blows up, one of the gunners should stand up and yell: "Damn you plot armour"!
You're not supposed to take it seriously, they didn't invest very much into realism for the series.
-
Well with a 12 hour game the tax on the memory would be pretty horrible and the size on disk would be 1 huge file, so it's better to break it down into smaller pieces/seperate map files. Also without breaks in the mission you have to model everything that exists in a prolonged battle, nothing could be abstracted (things like vehicle recovery/repairs, troop replenishment, the long periods of inaction etc).
-
I think he's talking about the ones where the plane just explodes in a couple of hits, that's caused by hitting the payload of the aircraft.
-
I'm pretty 99% sure it's going in for Normandy.
Unit types in CM:N?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
FJ's coming later, I think that's what BFC said last time. They're working on getting the basic German army perfected first.