Jump to content

IanL

Members
  • Content Count

    14,392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    53

Posts posted by IanL

  1. I recently switched to a 2K monitor and had some issues because I wanted to run at a scaling of 125%. That caused the game text to look odd. What I did to fix it was switch the game .exe settings to allow the application to handle its own scaling.

    1. Select the game .exe file - right click select properties.
    2. Click on the "Compatibility" tab
    3. Turn on the "High DPI scaling behaviour" and pick "Application" from the drop down.

    This is only a fix if you are using a scale and layout other than 100%

  2. 3 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:

    But...the end condition of NON-CORE forces can have a decisive impact on follow on scenarios...If the designer wish for that to be the case...can they not ?

    Dependant on how the unit objectives and force parameters are set-up for the individual scenarios.

    You and @Ithikial_AU are getting at two different aspects of the condition of the non-core units. I am pretty sure that @Ithikial_AU means that a depleted non-core unit will not hinder you ability to fight in a following scenario by causing you to have two few forces at your command. Since they will not return in following scenarios you will not have to fight with a depleted unit from the beginning of any following scenario. However you are correct, the condition of any unit in a secenario can be used for scoring and thus a non-core unit that has suffered significant casualties can effect the score in the scenario you just finished and thus effect the path the campaign takes.

    The non-core units will not appear in follow on scenarios thus they will have no lasting effect in battles going forward. However they do count in scoring of the scenario they appeared in. So, their condition could change what branch you fight on and your overall results are.

  3. LOL cool malware guard. I can see some uses for being careful with such things. For example I could create a top level domain of .con (great irony there) and then register microsoft.con and apple.con and use those link to scam people and it would be hard for them to notice the trickery.

     

    However this is not a scam. As @Freyberg said this one is approved by ICAAN so you should be safe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.club

     

  4. 5 hours ago, rocketman said:

     

    I used the new adress but can't create an account. Could this cause it?

    It looks ok, but it suspects me of being a spammer (VPN causing this?) and states that my accound is on hold. I get the welcome emails with links to ok the account but no luck. Have tried twice in the past week or so with the same result.

    Bummer. I cannot personally fix it but I can pass this along and get is sorted. PM me your email address and I'll find out what's up.

  5. We lost the domain and access to the provider. So, the web admin had to get things moved to a new provider and there are still some glitches to work out. Please note the address has changed the new address is https://www.theblitz.club The .org domain used to have a redirect on it but no longer does.

    I'm sorry I don't know the back story on what happened - nothing very dramatic though but I just don't know the story.

  6. OK ... just keep in mind this is a CM2 forum you are posing in. I for one only finished the PBEM games I had on going in CM1 once CMBN was released. CM2 games are vastly better in my opinion and I don't understand why people still play CM1 games but if you are happy that's great.

    You may already know but in case not there is still an active community at theBlitz.club (domain used to be .org but control was lost) that plays CM1 games. You can find the forum here: https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=10

  7. The AI plans only had orders for two groups. A1 (in the unit list they appear with no label) and A2. I reviewed the plans and made sure they all did something and that there was a passenger dismount for the armoured infantry to use - one plan did not have one. Then I reassigned the armour to one group and the armoured infantry to the other (I for got to memorize which was which but in the unit purchase screen you can see.

    I ran a test and got a two pronged attack. I did not test both AI plans just one but I think that will get you on track.

     

    testModified.btt

  8. 10 hours ago, Titanius Peck said:

     Greetings, long time lurker and Demo tryer. This game intrigues me yet i can never commit to the Buy button as its pretty pricey relatively speaking. What is the difference between Engine 3 (the Demo im on) and Engine 4 -think i saw it was snappier AI responses?

    Here is the summary list: https://www.battlefront.com/cmfb-upgrades/cmfb-upgrade-4/?tab=features

    Hull down and solider behaviour (spacing, avoiding HE and peaking around corners) are my favourites but there is a lot there

     

    10 hours ago, Titanius Peck said:

    - Why is there no blood? Im not a gore nut but a certain level of violence is needed to convey warfare. Are there mods that remedy this?

    Stated policy by Steve, they don't want gore in the game. I had a quick look and could not find a thread to quote.

    I see @MOS:96B2P showed off a couple of mods that introduce this. I could not find them on the CM Mods site - @MOS:96B2P do you have links?

     

    10 hours ago, Titanius Peck said:

    - How moddable is the game outside of maps and models. Im a longtime Arma AI modder - and one thing i like to do is add experience to successful troops. It makes the AI far more interesting when they "rank up" and become better skilled soldiers through their actions -making you bond to them and hoping for their success. Is this type of thing doable in this modding system? What language is the mod tools using?

    It is not. The game supports re skinning of the UI and the models but it does not support changing the AI behaviour and the properties of armour or weapons.

     

    10 hours ago, Titanius Peck said:

    Thanks! I do enjoy the demo i feel like a little more polish for missions and things like troops that rank up and carry over from mission to mission would really step it up to the next level

    The campaigns in the game take place over the course of a day or part of a day. At most a few days. In real life soldiers don't get significantly better or promoted that fast. And I am sure someone will come along with a specific counter example but having it happen from time to time does not change the reality that in the CM time frames it is not normal or even rare.

  9. 22 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:

    One thing that i am considdering to include , in some of my future scenarios atleast, is some degree of 'custom difficulty setting'...

    In addition to the default player-force that the scenario has been designed to be played with i'm thinking of adding some additional units (located on a small exitzone) at the rear of the player setup area. If the player would like to include some of those units he simply moves them of the exitzone before hitting go (during setup). This will make the scenario somewhat easier then the default setup.

    That's actually a pretty cool idea.

    22 hours ago, RepsolCBR said:

    As of now i have not considdered any VP impacts of these tweaks of the original force...

    And that's the brilliant part. Since units assigned to exit are considered to score VPs for the opposition if they do not exit the battlefield. That means you can assign some number of points to those units and by keeping them the player is shifting VPs to their opponent. The more they decide to keep the more points their opponent starts with as a handy-cap.

  10. 16 hours ago, George MC said:

    I have a vague memory (don't quote me!) that the crew of the AFV will always have the appropriate round loaded and ready to fire (except smoke) i..e if they turn a corner and its a tank they'll fire AP, if infantry HE.

    You should get quoted because you are correct. In order to keep things simple and avoid long discussions about how a tank's commander should have known to have X type of round ready because it's obvious that Y. Etc.

    Really smoke rounds are the same. If you give a tank a smoke order they don't have to first fire the HE round they have loaded they just start firing smoke.

    It's just an abstraction that makes game play smoother.

  11. 2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

    (G) You forget all about kicking in the door like an action hero, and instead you use smoke, move your Bren guns into cover with LOF within 150m of the buildings. When the smoke clears, you shoot it out with the Germans and then once they are dead you enter the builing. 

    What he said.

    Once you think everything is quiet then follow A, B or C just to be sure.

    2 hours ago, markshot said:

    No satchel charges, no priest, no M1A2 ...  Just bolt action rifles; 1895 surplus.

    Sure sure bring those too :D

  12. 1 minute ago, John1966 said:

    Which begs the question as to whether a tank is "live" to some units but not others - I thought it would be KO'd for everyone because when you click on it, it's live even though I saw the crew bail

    I am not sure about the KO status being per unit. But keep in mind that crew can bail on a tank that is not KO'd. So, in this case it may not have been.

  13. There are lots of explanations that contribute: poor play on our and the computer's part, a misunderstanding of how different casualty rates were at he tip of the spear vs the over all numbers, various (mostly incorrect) theories about fortifications and modeling etc.

    The biggest difference is that we don't act like real commanders. We press far too much and don't withdraw when we take casualties. In a real action units rarely stay and fight on and on. They pull back to fright another day or bring up extra fire power or wait for support etc.

    We are playing a game so we don't do that. If you play a game with someone like @Bil Hardenberger or another professional they will tell you when they would be done in real life and trust me it is way way before most people stop. Including myself.

  14. 1 hour ago, John1966 said:

    They treated it as a live tank. Very odd.

    Yep, the units in the game do not automatically know if they KO'ed something. Unless their is smoke and fire. I once had a sherman pump 7 rounds into a PzIV from under 50m (it was in thick woods so viability was still not great). I was worried there was a bug but my opponent reported that the Panzer was dead after the second shot. The Sherman crew kept firing because they just didn't know it was already toast.

    That's the most extreme example I have personally seen.

    PS your Sherman crew is smart. The last time one of my Sherman tanks got a clean shot at the back of a panther it bounced of the turret and then I watched in horror as the Panther gunner turned the turret around and took out the Sherman in one shot.

  15. On 9/29/2020 at 2:22 PM, markshot said:

    So, are QBs more worth the time in CMx2?

    Yes, I believe so. However there are a few things you should be aware of.

    The automatic selection of enemy forces can be spotty at times. Things have gotten better in the later releases but they still sometimes pick goofy forces. One way to mitigate this is to set the QB for human force selection and then use the suggest button. Try to not look to closely at the enemy forces but re do the suggestion if it should pick nothing but flame thrower units for some thing else odd. Unless you feel like facing a wall of fire - that could be interesting. 🙂

    Also, the later maps and AI plans are better than the early ones - @MarkEzra got better and better at making them. You can also manually select maps. You can make it feel pretty random by just scrolling and picking a map with a high number.

     

    On 9/29/2020 at 1:13 PM, markshot said:

    I don't think you got my type of player.  I want a good fight.  I am perfectly happy to lose the fight or get a minor win.

    But I don't want to lose by being tricked.  I want to lose because I advanced without clearing my flank or posting a rear guard.  And the enemy came up from behind me.

    Another example of a fair loss is letting my platoons all get bunched up, and then the enemy calls down arty on a TRP which was intended for exactly that purpose.

    ---

    So, I want an intellectual challenge.  Not a riddle.  I want to put all the pieces I have been taught about movement, recon, fire support, combined arms ... together and test my problem solving skills.  I want a chance to win.

    I'm right there with ya. However I feel I get that from CM2 games. It is not really clear to me why you feel CM2 games are less good at this than CM1 games in this regard. I just cannot play CM1 any more. CMBN was so much better in every respect (except in variety of forces when it came out) I just could not go back.

     

    On 9/29/2020 at 9:06 PM, Freyberg said:

    Some battles have been so good, I've played them again (the Road to Mounteburg springs to mind, and the CMSF2 one where you're clearing the big valley - there are others). It can also be fun to get into the editor and try it with a different but equivalent attacking force, of a different nationality.

    I share the frustration with having to replay campaign battles though - I'd usually rather give up...

    Agreed there are a few scenarios that I really like. Huzzar! and Carbide Carbide from CMBN being two (note they both use a variation of the same map - maybe I like the map :-). I normally play H2H so I don't have much campaign experience.

×
×
  • Create New...