herr_oberst
-
Posts
502 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by herr_oberst
-
-
Still watching and reading... pay no attention to the 'lurker silence'.
@MikeyD: You comment reminds of a (can't remember the name) civil war general astride his horse. "Don't worry boys, they can't hit us from.." Dead.
-
Definitely not my best game, sorry fellas, I had hoped to provide a better show.
Pffft. No worries here. I always enjoy your AARs. They provide much more information than just a 'this is what happened in this situation'.
Thank you for your efforts.
One question: with all that white on the ground, did you find it any harder to get a handle on the micro terrain of the map?
-
Ah, I was going to ask about an infantry screen. Don't let Big Kitties leave home without 'em! Are you planning to keep your TC unbuttoned?
I've never taken out a vehicle with a mortar in MP, but I've taken out a number of them in SP - both HTs and TDs/tanks. One of the best turns I ever had in CMRT was killing 2 hulldown PIVs in one turn of light fire by medium off-map mortars.
On the atmospherics...
I commented in the other thread that the weather effects and terrain look surprisingly natural in some of the screenshots (I don't have CMFI). I can't wait to see them live on my rig!
Haha, one of the worst turns I ever had was the AI mortaring the bejeesus out of my Stugs in a campaign battle, and taking out/disabling three as I was advancing through to support the infantry who had just vacated the area. Really, really bad luck.
-
Others of us have a slightly different song spring to mind...
Ob's stürmt oder schneit, ob die Sonne uns lacht,
Der Tag glühend heiß, oder eiskalt die Nacht,
Bestaubt sind die Gesichter, doch froh ist unser Sinn, ja, unser Sinn. -
Yeah, those tank riders lend a new definition to the term "meat shield". At least they kept the paint from getting scuffed off.
(I find it mildly reassuring seeing other folks who make the same tactical, er, mis-decisions as I seem wont to do.)
-
Keyholing via flimsy wooden buildings? I'd be tempted, tempted mind you, to scoot a T34 (first T34 from your first platoon, or whatever) over to that side and creep up just enough to put a few rounds into those buildings (after some infantry are in overwatch to see if that sent any rats scurrying). Then back the T34 off, and send to over to the right to do something similar from the other angle.
No sense exposing any more info about just how many pieces of armor you have (learned that trick from watching Mr. Hardenberger's analysis of identified units in previous AARs -- damned scary what he can deduce from exposed units). If you show the same unit in both locations, then either: you bought precious few tanks, or you are being a cagey bastidge. In any event, you're exposing a single cad in your deck, no more.
-
I had a horrible time with the 3.11 patch because the MAC version did not correctly install the 3.10 brz file which was originally included in the vehicle pack...
First thing I do after downloading a patch/update from BFC is update Time Machine. Easy roll-back if there's something mis-applied by me, easy rollback if the patch/update is borked in general.
On a Mac and not using Time Machine? Shame on you. It's really dirt easy.
-
does anyone know exactly what those stats/mechanics do in a game?
I don't think there is an easily statable "formula" for what those stats do in a game. I wouldn't think that it is as simple as "motivation +1 adds 0.13 to X where X is chance to hit target".
I've always thought of the soft factors (as well as other attributes) as affecting the probability distribution of inputs, which then affect the outcome. If you think of motivation as a bell curve, perhaps a +1 skews the distribution slightly in the positive direction, making a favorable outcome more likely than otherwise. You still "roll a die" to see where you fall in the motivation distribution at this moment, and you aren't guaranteed a better outcome because you have a +1.
These factors could be additive as well, affecting different attributes of the distribution -- skewness, kurtosis, deviation -- enough to make statisticians giddy with possibilities.
Think as well of low versus high velocity cannons - wouldn't be unreasonable to see a wider distribution around the aim point for a low velocity shell versus a high velocity one with a much flatter trajectory.
If you had the time, patience, and requisite skills, you could probably monte carlo a large-scale sample, and from the results be able to infer the average effect of a +1 versus a 0, but I think you're still talking probability, not certainty.
-
... make it over the reverse slope position ...
Ugh, my least favorite phrase to hear. Sounds like fun!
-
Starting this one up now (quite literally).
-
Yup, agree with all the rest. Thank you for taking on the challenge of a public AAR with a brand new game.
-
Great stuff. Thank you both for taking the time to "hang your dirty laundry in public".
-
Turn 9
22:00 to 21:00
The most intense minute I've ever participated in, other than that time in the Philippines...
We don't need to hear about your past womanizing... back to the AAR scoundrel!!!
-
I need your advices how to deal with Trophy APS! Has it dead zone, 20, 30 metres? Dead zone at the rear? Artillery strikes are too late, ATGMs are intercepted, what should I do? Handgrenades?
But this is your AAR, with all the rights of crowing your brilliance to you should you be victorious, or suffering the slings and arrows of ignominious defeat should you lose.
Now get back there and produce some more turns.
-
Wow, serious see-saw turns.
Great fun to read.
Thanks again for putting on this show.
-
I honestly don't know what people want. They complain when the game changes radically and they complain when the game doesn't change radically. They complain when the game plays too little like other titles, they complain when the game plays too much like other titles. They complain when they don't get what they want, they complain when they do get what they want!
I think we all know what would happen if BFC went and rewrote their entire game engine from scratch to make it 'popular', if they sunk five million+ in borrowed money into fancy-schmancy graphics to attract the snotty-nose teenage xbox crowd. The complainers would go ballistic, they'd complain that CM had sold-out, had become indistinguishable from the other games out there. They'd also complain about the $150 pricetag for this fancy feature-fllled all-revised game they wanted.
/agreed
I want Combat Mission to play just like it has. Graphics are the icing on the cake, but if the engine sucks. you just have icing on, well, crap.
( caveat, I play mostly WWII, CMBN, CNFI, CMRT + modules, CMBS is new, and interesting)
I want it to matter that when I crest a hill with a tank and plan to engage a known tank in a known position that orienting my hull at 45 degrees adds protection.
I want it to matter than then my opponent has a Tiger, and I rush it with two Shermans with a good distance between them, that the turret traverse speed means he (or the Tac AI) has to pick one to kill, giving me a flank shot from the other.
Give me an engine that rocks, and better graphics as you can work them in.
-
I am stating the harsh reality of what >> I << expect when >> I << spend money on your products. If you cant live up to that well that's your problem to face in the future.
There, fixed that for you.
I've spent far more on BFC products than you have (I think).
That being said, I resent the fact that you feel qualified to speak for me as a paying customer of BFC. You generalize where you have no basis.
Next!!!
-
If the Customer is always right and I disagree with you then how does BF resolve that? I say they follow my opinion as I am a customer and I am always right.
Sorry guys, but the customer is DECIDEDLY NOT always right.
"I want it to work like this", or "I'm the customer, what I say goes" does not mean that as the developer, you have to ignore GAAP, or that you have to ignore DERP/FUDS CER/CLA. Ugh, my kingdom, however small, for intelligent clients.
The fact that someone paid you $55 for a game does not magically grant them some semi-divine right to have their opinions turned into your software.
Listened to, yes (if you're a responsible company, and I think the fact that Steve replies in threads on the forums answers that question straight off). Acted upon, no necessarily.
That's BFC's choice to make when they weigh: do they even want to do something?, what are their costs versus the revenue from you, and what they anticipate might happen from others "like" you.
Their judgement call, not yours. And unless you have the credentials that qualifies you in the business. little weight will be accorded to your opinion.
You are always free to take your business elsewhere, that's what a free market is all about.
Apologies for the semi-rant, but today was a day dealing with similar issues, and I'm all out of patience.
Steve, you're a far better man than I.
-
Simple, "Support your local wargame builder".
PC Titles:
CMBO, CMAK, CMBB, CMBN
Mac Titles (after 'The Great OS Changeover'):
CMBN, CMCW, CMMG, CMFI, CMGL, CMRT, CMBS (the only one in the list I didn't pre-order).
-
Wow... With those victory conditions and points, I wonder how many snipers you could purchase... one bullet would ruin their commander's day.
Your commander, a ton o' snipers, couple of FO's, and a ton o' off board arty to pummel the area to wipe defenders and obscure the VL at the end as you scurry your commander to the bridge. Gaminess abounds!!!
-
This type of event is what undermined Einstein's specific theory of relativity. You may know it as "spooky physics".
Known issue.
Don't know what they're worried about... just a little quantum entanglement going on -- distance is irrelevant.
Before that Stryker gets destroyed, everybody in the platoon is scared/nervous. When that first Stryker goes boom, there's suddenly a bunch fewer guys in the platoon to spread that fear across, so all the remaining platoon members pick up a the portion of the fear that can no longer be felt by the deceased.
Second Stryker goes boom, well, everyone left alive, their fear just trebled from its initial point.
Simple physics.
-
Ha! That's very funny. Assuming I can get to play the bloody PBEM, that is. You have to admit, for newbs like me it's a bit counter-instinctual. I played many PBEMs in CMBO but do not remember it working like this.
Just go read the fine manual. Page 28 or thereabouts for multi-player.
-
Hmm... plotting some "exploratory" mortar fire, then zooming into the target area during playback to see if I hear any screams of wounded.
Edge hugging is "de rigeur" -- hey, if he doesn't cover his edges, is it my fault? No different than attacking the borders between upper level command structures, which was common.
Supposedly playing as the defender in a nighttime QB, stripping the line down to just MG42s and some supporting infantry to fill the gaps, and taking fully 1/3 of my force to launch an immediate attack on an extreme flank to try and turn my opponents attacking flank. It turned into a bloody free-for-all with units mixed up all over the map.
-
Being new to the modern era, first thing I did was pick a quick battle, a reasonably open map (rolling hills, with a village), and Blue armor attack against Red infantry. Rolled out the tanks mainly to get a handle on what the capabilities were of the different forces. Very little manual targeting, more like playing chess - moving the pieces.
Next round, same map, inverted the forces, Red armor attack against Blue infantry defense, and repeated nearly the same offensive moves. Highly educational (Javelins are wicked beasts).
Next up are more QBs, repeat the selections, but me playing the infantry defense side as Blue then Red.
CMFB Bonus Beta AAR (Allied: Attacking, Advancing, Allied)
in Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
Posted
Enough of this jibber-jabber.
Pics, or it didn't happen.