Jump to content

Bud Backer

Members
  • Posts

    5,006
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    51

Everything posted by Bud Backer

  1. The SdKfz 251/3 Engineer half track comes to mind. Just a cost-ineffective way to transport a lot less men than in the 251/1 variant, but it’s in the game nonetheless because it fits real life TO&E. I buy them because I want to have a realistic feel to my formations.
  2. Depends on the version you are talking about. The original had no opportunity fire.
  3. I run CM on multiple Mac and Windows computers each with integrated and discrete GPUs, and I’m not the only one. It will use the discrete GPU autonomously in MacOS and with some changes in settings in Windows 10. See my reply to your thread here:
  4. Simple way to do this without using Nvidia’s tools: In Windows 10, click START - Settings - System then Select Display Scroll down to Graphics Settings right below Advanced Display Settings The second section in the window that opens is called Graphics Performance Preference use the Browse feature to find the exe of the game you want to have use the discrete GPU. You can set that by clicking on the app once it is added, and select Options. There it gives you a choice of windows deciding, or the integrated GPU or the Discrete one
  5. Those red unit icons in the background blend with the crosses and trick the eye in a quick glance. I kept thinking that somehow you killed dozens of people, not 3.
  6. All this talk of people without pants makes me think this is Fulda Gap: Burlesque.
  7. I enjoyed Bil and c3k’s CMBS Beta AAR some years ago, watching modern kit go and bang each other about, but this will be a completely different experience. Really looking forward to it!
  8. I remember reading Hackett’s Third World War, Coyle’s Team Yankee, and wanting to play out those battles and feel those stories. Now I get to do it for “real,” rather than the board games I bought back then. Awesome stuff, Bil!
  9. The dark May skies were laden with rain as the trucks trundled up the hill. Sound of laughter and boys’ voices pitched high with bravado filled the canvas tops of the trucks.
  10. Just stopped for the day during a REFORGER exercise...
  11. I run the CM games on my 2012 MacBookPro without issue. I’m still on MacOS 10.10. My friend runs it in his 27” iMac using MacOS 10.11 without a problem. There is a delay the first time one runs it after installation as the OS does some sort of scan of the application. This can sometimes take a few minutes but if allowed to complete then subsequent running of the app is instant.
  12. I’ve been waiting for these little guys for ages. I played around with it a fair bit to make that shot different from the conventional front or side shot.
  13. Ah, Balance. I agree, we need to have balance in a competitive game. And that is made all the harder because the war it is trying to simulate was never balanced. The more the game balances things the more it is removed from the realism that many die-hards would like to see. Personally, I don’t feel I need an excuse to be able to use certain vehicles. You mentioned the Cromwell and other Commonwealth vehicles and it’s an interesting example. Are they overpriced? Do their costs not reflect their quality, as you put it? I actually don’t know. Even if their cost was adjusted, would rarity not come into play and make them still problematic to purchase compared to the ubiquitous Sherman? I don’t expect an answer, it’s more an illustration of how this isn’t actually an issue that cost adjustments will automatically correct; more a “can we all buy something other than the same 10 units” frustration. Which I can relate to. To turn the argument around, I am fairly certain that were units priced for balance, many would complain that Unit X is nowhere near as good as Unit Y, so how can their costs be so close? In a realism focused game balance might require some mental effort and collaboration between players, sometimes. I get it; that can be a hassle and source of argument. NONE of what we’ve talked about should imply that I agree with the prices of all units. I DO wonder why the StuG is so pricey. I’m less concerned with the PzIV than you but I can see a reasonable person could think they are overpriced and I’m inclined to agree. There are other examples. So I while I may take a different viewpoint on HOW to price things, I think getting the costs right is very very important. ps: I enjoyed this discussion. You brought up ideas and approaches that were outside my focus and it’s good to have that mental challenge of having one’s approach to a problem challenged in a positive way.
  14. This caught my eye after I wrote the above and wanted to address it because it is an important assumption. I emphasized one part because I think this is key. This is very much an assumption of the cost factor. It appears to imply that in this discussion, the Sherman is the natural match-up for the Panzer IV. I think this might be a easy conclusion to make, however, let's challenge that for a moment. It is a likely matchup? Sure. So is Sherman-Panther. Or Sherman-SdKfz 251. Or Sherman-infantry. I say this not be be silly but rather to draw one's attention that the kind of matchups they are likely to get into is a highly variable, theatre- and situation-dependent comparison. And I think potentially risky to use as a cost-factor. A unit has to have a value - for game purposes - based on its capabilities and limitations, and not compared to another unit. Only then will one have a true value for a unit. Naturally the unit does not exist in a vacuum, and naturally we would compare that unit to another, and their relative costs. That's useful information to have and to compare. But to base a cost on "how well it fares against its presumptive enemy" is making a comparison on a sliding scale where the Sherman or PzIV will change value based on what it faces, or how what it faces is improved over time. I know this isn't exactly what you meant, but I am explaining a design logic here. To carry that further then, I do not think we can use the kind of matchups they are likely to get into as a cost factor. What if the Sherman was constantly running into Panthers? It should still cost the same. Is a Sherman less pricey if it has to face Infantry most of the time (which in fact it would). I think while it is natural to make the comparison between medium tanks the value of those medium tanks it faces is not the sole factor. What about anti-infantry capability? I don't just mean weapons, how well can each spot infantry? How close? How about ammo supplies for various tasks. And so on. These are entirely unrelated to a presumptive match-up. I re-requoted your statement several times because it was the easiest way to discuss it, not to make it sound ridiculous. I hope it did not come across as the latter
  15. Good. I know you are a thoughtful fellow, so don't accept the bait and drop the level of discussion I know you are capable of holding. It just doesn't go anywhere and encourages more nonsense. There was a reason the Germans were trying to use and improve the Panther, and I think you are essentially confirming that here. And Tommy-Lighters or Ronsons or Shermans, call them what one will, there are reasons for those monikers, unfortunately the moniker sticks long after the reasons it was granted are corrected. Neither here nor there, in terms of the cost discussion, but nice anecdotes to be sure. As I said before, the Panzer IV's price could be tweaked, sure. How much is the penultimate discussion. The ultimate discussion is whether the costs factor in something we may not be aware of. After so long and so many game versions, I think it's going to be difficult to gain traction to undertake a rather time consuming review of unit costs (because let's face it, it won't end with just the handful of units we've chatted about here). One can't just look at a pair of units in isolation. The fortunate thing is that the cost is not 150% or some exorbitant higher than it should be, at least in my view. That would become painful indeed. And I think you know, I am exclusively a QB player, so I appreciate it being a functional, robust system because it's vital for my enjoyment of these simulations. These are interesting arguments, and I see the value in things working the way you suggest, however, let me take my beta tester certificate off the wall and speak from the designer's perspective on this: some games do exactly the approach you suggest. It encourages a breadth of unit choices over those that are the most cost effective and efficient. However, it is my understanding (I emphasize that word as I have not had BFC speak directly on their process) that unit costs are based on unit capabilities and limitations. Rarity, as we know, factors in how available something is. But the unit cost is not meant to promote some sort of meta-game where the use of some units that are otherwise not the best choice are tacitly encouraged by making them attractive from a cost standpoint. As a simulation that tries hard to be fairly realistic (within limitations that can be debated ad-nauseam) it would not make sense (in my opinion, no disrespect to yours) to do what you suggest. The fact is that if I want Cromwells (to use your example), I will happily buy them because that is the situation I am trying to create. I want to have a reasonable assurance that they are priced using the same standards as everything else. I think that it might be overstating things to say that QB cannot be interesting and challenging for both parties unless one limits one's purchases to a very narrow group of exceptionally cost-effective choices. It's not been my experience. Of course, one can take things to extremes to prove you're right, one can really go crazy with min-maxing but I think we are both trying to be reasonable and not make arguments based on unusual situations.
×
×
  • Create New...