Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

kevinkin

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,208

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Posts posted by kevinkin

    Apple has removed Civil War games from App Store

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    I think it is used sort of like calling your friend a dumbass after a few rounds.

    My OP was meant to focus on the power of certain organizations to determine product design using their dominate position in distribution. I have sat with a 35 year old Walmart buyer and it was a very unprofessional exchange to put it lightly. So, other than Steam, wargames should be insulated unless hard core gamers just die off. This of course includes BFC and its titles.

    BTW, Apple backed off on the G-Burg game they had in their store re: flag issue.

    Kevin

    0

    Real Time Only?

    in CM Black Sea Maps and Mods

    Posted

    Erwin

    I am experimenting with infantry company sized QBs and that size seems right for me so far with the battle length at 45 mins. These are meeting engagements (WW2 - I posted here since the OP deals with any CB title). The action gets really hot 1/2 way through and the "endgame" slows down into a recollection of forces and holding gains. I only need to stop the clock to rest my eyes grab a drink etc. The middle game, due to the amount of lead being tossed around, is still manageable since you can't maneuver into the hail of bullets. You can pull squads out of fire and maneuver for an end run which is fun. I am not a first person shooter guy so company sized works.

    Kevin

    0

    Real Time Only?

    in CM Black Sea Maps and Mods

    Posted

    ASL

    I agree with that assessment re: scenario length. The RT player needs a bit more to coordinate things given the faster mouse clicking needed. There is no golden rule but I find a 30 min wego plays comfortably at 40 min RT where quick decisions need to be made with time for a bit on thought.

    This begs the age old question: releasing specific files of the same battle eg. best played as allied vs AI

    best played as axis vs AI, one for RT, one for H2H etc. All optimized for balance. I hate to see great maps and historical battles not reach their potential if released without thought given to all forms of gameplay. Not saying today we have a problem with current scenarios - more of a alternate design approach. Having different files might alleviate some time consuming balancing and compromises. I would be surprised if this is new, I been away for many years.

    Kevin

    0

    QB Map Triggers

    in CM Red Thunder Maps and Mods

    Posted

    I also did a test. Same battle file loaded as a Battle and as a Quick Battle with designer mode on. The triggers work when the file is loaded as a Battle but not as a Quick Battle. As you describe, the triggers are ignored. The trigger terrain objective is not displayed on the map as it is when playing the file as a Battle.

    Taking a look at the engine manual this is sort of confirmed:

    "Quick Battles consider only OCCUPY terrain objectives and unit casualties for determining victory conditions. All other objective types and parameters are ignored. All terrain objectives are converted to OCCUPY objectives automatically, and all Units are part of a force-wide UNIT objective."

    Triggers objectives are not converted they are just not used when the file is loaded as a QB.

    Triggers are an important tool and we are thankful for them. Having them functional within a QB should make those battles better. The AI will react better. For example, the QB map designer has no way knowing the length of the battle the player selects for a particular QB map. With triggers, AI movement can be designed in a more generalized manner.

    Kevin

    1

    QB Map Triggers

    in CM Red Thunder Maps and Mods

    Posted

    I read with interest a small thread back in April on getting triggers to trip within a QB. The thread sort of ended without a definitive conclusion or agreement. So I will start try to continue that thread here unless it continued in a thread I cant find.

    Thanks

    Kevin

    0

    Real Time Only?

    in CM Black Sea Maps and Mods

    Posted

    Now Now ... I am sure its totally based on CMs depth of tactical realism that only Steve could understand.

    Anyway, I find real time refreshing at times if the battles are manageable. You do miss the minute to minute replays.

    I guess you can record the outcome with external software but the real time views are all you will keep.

    Kevin

    PS: has there been a recent poll on how folks are playing CM? ie H2H vs AI; real time vs turn?

    0

    Real Time Only?

    in CM Black Sea Maps and Mods

    Posted

    Do you think when designers recco a best played as they consider both real time and wego? I was thinking playing real time would start making playing the AI tougher all else being equal. And I certainly agree with smaller battles for real time.

    Kevin

    0

    Real Time Only?

    in CM Black Sea Maps and Mods

    Posted

    Vinnart

    I am interested in designing scenarios for any CMx2 targeting real time play. Sort of like when the designer specifies "best as" or "play only as" one nation or another. Would design techniques (map OOB AI) be different? I would think playing real time would help the AI (a lot?). Just seeing if there is a potential niche market.

    Kevin

    0

    Real Time Only?

    in CM Black Sea Maps and Mods

    Posted

    Does anyone remember any CMx2 battles recommended for real time only? I believe turn based remains the overall - perhaps overwhelming - favorite. However, in a wayward post over in RT, Steve mentioned he only plays real time. So I said: "Perhaps there is some unplowed but fertile ground here ..."

    Kevin

    0

    So did you make the right choice when buying CMRT

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Lee -

    I was drawn to always play the US in wargames early on but as a read more about WWII I just had to explore the Eastern Front and its overall role in the outcome of the war. So CMRT was a must in my view from a historical perspective. Also, it is just the beginning of other timeframes to be released like Stalingrad. I also became interested in the combat techniques at various levels so playing non-US forces became less of an issue from a learning POV. There is an unlimited number and type of company sized battles that played now or designed in the future. The terrain is more open I guess. But there are woods/swamps to be encountered. No massive hedgerows. So I would not hesitate getting RT unless playing the US is a complete show stopper.

    - Kevin

    0

    Timescale for Eastern front CMx3 or CMx4?

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    As "impatient" as I am for 41 and 42 eastern front I hope the series never stops evolving utilizing the best the electronic technology brings us in the future. I would be happy to trade a period module for the next high tech engine (what ever that may look like). I thought the title of the thread referred to the next game scale which would be a more interesting discussion.

    Kevin

    0

    panzerschreck vs (tank hunters) panzerfaust

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted

    Thanks. From game play POV so much depends on the length of the scenario and the ground needed to be crossed. 15 mins is a blink of the eye in real terms. But can change the battle result in-game drastically. In the game, if the scenario is too short recon has to charge ahead and not allowed to carefully scout. Too long and the attacker takes the delaying position apart unit by unit. Even with equal losses the attacker has enough to occupy and push ahead. I have been toying with the points allocated differently ie terrain is worth twice as much to the attacker and enemy losses twice as much to the defender. Ideally I think the defenders would give a bloody nose gain intel and then hightail it out of Dodge to the next delaying point rearward. The timing of the withdrawal might provide interesting play for a normally static defense. The map would be like 1 by 3 or more KM deep.

    Kevin

    0
×
×
  • Create New...