Jump to content

Dragon67

Members
  • Posts

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Dragon67

  1. Originally posted by Field Marshal Blücher:

    I don't know of a way to do this, but honestly, it isn't really a problem for me. It seems mostly unrealistic that enemies (especially in the initial invasion phase) would continue to fight to the last man. Besides, it would probably be anti-climactic anyway if you assaulted with a full company only to have a single RPG team to deal with. ;)

    -FMB

    I am not talking about a single RPG. I am finding the computer whimps with significant resources that in no way would a human opponent quit with if they could still gain points by damaging your units. For instance- I created a scenario that I played yesterday and I gained 5 of my six objectives. My side had terrain objectives and the AI had unit objectives. The computer quit right after it decimated two squads I had assault the final objective. The AI still had at least 20% of its force and held at least that much of the map. If you were playing me in multi-player would you whimp on those terms ? Even if you knew you were going to lose, you would go for the points, right ?
  2. Is it possible in single player to have a death match ? ie a fight to the finish ? I am not talking about an open ended time limit.

    I am talking about when the computer whimps and declares you the winner just when you have a final objective to go.

    It seems kind of pussy to me that the computer decides to whimp when you are having a great time and gearing up to go for the kill and all of a sudden you end up with the After Action Report.

    Anyone know a parameter setting that would force the computer to finish the scenario ?

  3. Originally posted by tiny_tanker:

    Here's an interesting airforce M-113, note the claymores on the sides. This was supposedly taken in 2008 being used for base defense and QRF. This is not a plug for there inclusion, just a cool picture. :D

    800px-USAF_M113_APC_at_Camp_Bucca%2C_Iraq.jpg

    Claymores... wow, that is just dirty dirty pool. you realize what an accident that is waiting to happen... each of those contain over 700 steel balls.

    Interesting because the back blast of a claymore is deadly.

  4. //No, we give rational counter arguments. Plus, if I were to poll CM customers right now, I bet 80% of them wouldn't say the M113 is the most important thing in the world. Most would say King Tiger//

    For the past several years I have been pretending Tigers were Abrahms in Combat Mission Beyond Overlord... I think I am going to be sick.

  5. Originally posted by CommC:

    YES! the M9 ACE... we want it!!! :D

    these threw up berms on the fly in OIF to great effect.

    You could just have the command "create berm" and then draw a line like the artillery targeting line and they would then create the berm... now that would be sweet...

    Like the engineers did in Sudden Strike ?
  6. //Why do we have Humvee supply platoons?

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you mean CM:SF, there aren't any supply units of any sort. Humvees are only in the game where relevant to combat units.

    Now, onto Jason's grinding...//

    Ibn the scenario editor There is unit beneath the engineer company called, "Supply Platton" that contains 4 Humvees. Instead of the Humvees- you could have put M113's in there.

    //Here's a reason why you're going off the deepend into a useless argument... CM:SF does not simulate any of those nations you list, including the Iraqis. So why on Earth are you putting that crap into your argument? It's almost like you're... well... not really interested in being relevant.//

    Well, it is like everything 80% of the users of your game want you just blow off. That is why you will lose 80% of your customers when the developer that listens comes out with the next game.

    We get no on board civilians, no casualty evec, etc.- all in the name of being relevant. A war game with no water or bridge and then when we get it, it will be included with a future WWII mod (most of your base does not want) you have to purchase...

    [ May 12, 2008, 04:17 AM: Message edited by: Dragon67 ]

  7. Originally posted by Normal Dude:

    Why do we have Humvee supply platoons?

    If I were to guess it was probably because their may have been grander designs for this game.

    Either that, or it is so you can have more humvees in a game without have delete entire battalions to use them.

  8. // My point is that the article he wrote was very lopsided and very typical of the tracks vs. wheels debates that the Stryker brought to a new fevered pitch.//

    I tend to ignore those arguments. I recall the 60 Minutes segment on the Bradley over a decade ago stating the same things about the Bradley that are issues now coming out about the Stryker.

    The Abrahms and Bradley compliment each other and eventually the TO&E for Stryker units will be altered to allow for the Stryker's weaknesses.

    There is no military vehicle out there that does not have a weakness.

  9. according to the wiki article on the M113- Iraq's army currently has over 230 M113s and there is a photo of the 25th ID using them in Iraq in March 2007.

    So they are very much active by US forces in the Middle East and undoubtedly would play a role in any invasion in the Middle East in the near future.

    Interestingly, the M113s in Iraq are also being equiped with anti-RPG cages.

  10. BTW- there is no annoying background clutter at all with this mod- I have been using it in games all day and rifle shots and explosions are crisp.

    With the background sound before, I never appreciated the volume of fire a single 9 man squad could put out in this game because it was concealed by the background sound.

×
×
  • Create New...