Jump to content

Chris69

Members
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Chris69

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 09/06/1983

Converted

  • Location
    Germany
  • Interests
    Music, Guitar, Beer
  • Occupation
    IT
  1. Not quite first. US Navy Fighters, 1994 is the earliest one I'm aware of. DCS A10 is great, but a lot of effort and DCS World as a whole seems to be quite the work-in-progress. Good tutorials are available, though, and the in-game ones are good enough to get you started (..quite literally). You can get it on Steam for very little money once it pops up as a deal again, I don't think you'll be disappointed if you're into flight sims.
  2. Consider this: 17 May 2011 CM Battle for Normandy release 20 July 2011 CM Battle for Normandy v1.01 Patch (PC & Mac) 05 March 2012 Commonwealth module release 21 March 2012 CM Battle for Normandy v1.10 Patch (PC & Mac) 02 August 2012 CM Fortress Italy release (engine v2.0) 07 December 2012 CM Battle for Normandy v1.11 Patch (PC & Mac) 11 December 2012 Normandy 2.0 release 15 February 2013 CM Battle for Normandy v2.01 Patch (PC & Mac) Observations: there's a new "baseline" patch for each module released, and one follow-up to fix stuff. For all intents and purposes,
  3. Speaking of analyses.. you mentioned in the other AAR you might do a "public" OAKOC analysis of a QB map. Can we expect this to happen here? If not, thanks anyway for doing another AAR.
  4. Doesn't much of this boil down to how the tank crew (gunner and commander) is modeled in-game? I would assume 1-1 representation works that way, especially considering that one incident where some tank crewman wouldn't spot things because he was looking at the turret wall... If it doesn't, disregard the following paragraph. If a tank is pausing, it does not move. Therefore, it is a perfectly stable gun platform for the time being. Whether there is intent to move again in a discrete amount of time or not is irrelevant. What is relevant, or rather should be, is the difficulty the gunner should
  5. That is not at all what he is arguing. Key word here being an indefinite pause order. Which means that after a few rounds after stopping (if the tank was moving before, in the first place), accuracy should approach the control group's level, because the tank is not moving at all while firing those 100 rounds. He is not simulating shoot'n'scoot.
  6. There was some discussion a while ago as to how this information could be conveyed to the player best. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=101894&page=2 The issue is not whether it is a balanced game to play the scenario H2H or as Axis/Allied, it's just to indicate if it is possible (i.e. AI plans exist for the respective opponent). If it isn't recommended, well, that's something that would fit perfectly in the description. The nuisance of having to double-check every scenario in the editor for AI plans is one that should be avoidable.
  7. It's usually one of two cases: either they just ran a few hundred meters across open terrain, from the point their vehicle was knocked out to whatever waypoint they should have driven it to, or they are somewhere near the KO'd vehicle they recently exited from. And as we all know, there is no better firing position in the world than behind a burning Sherman without wet ammo storage.
  8. The difference lies in the amount of purchase points allocated. The attacker's points are increased and the defender's points decreased, from Probe being the least advantage for the attacker, and Assault the highest.
  9. Map size notwithstanding, if you can buy formations by the bataillon (fire up a Large/Huge QB and marvel at all the goodies you can buy!) it certainly isn't unreasonable to assume that the game can handle one of them + assorted extras. Regarding pathfinding... I wish you'd have a preview function in the game, just so you can see how the plotted movements work out and adapt your plan accordingly. While this doesn't improve pathfinding itself (and would thus be of little to no use to mostly RT guys like me...), it would massively help you maneuver around the shortcomings of the AI in that regar
  10. 7-Zip does the trick as well, and it's open source and stuff. For all other cheapskates out there. Thanks very much, the terrain looks terrific.
  11. Not to mention the lack of any sources or the absolutely unnecessary political agenda included in Steiner's post. Schneider even mentions the necessity to have other tanks observe round impacts in "Panzer Tactics" (Defense chapter), because smoke from the discharge could obscure the target for several seconds.
  12. So, I just shamelessly borrowed the player/computer graphics from People's General and made a mock-up of what I posted before would be a nice solution.
  13. While plausible it's certainly the more "backwards" way of approaching it. Like negative control questions in a survey... Anyway, if you want to include symbols, you might as well use a player symbol (like a head f.e.) and a computer symbol instead of "yes" and "no". That way, you also get rid of the H2H component. I'm no use with graphics programs, so you'll get some ASCII examples: o = human, # = computer/AI Axis: o / # Allies : o => H2H or Allies vs AI possible. Axis: o Allies: o => H2H only. Axis: o Allies: # => Axis vs AI only. Axis: o / # Allies: o / # =
×
×
  • Create New...