Silvio Manuel Posted November 26, 2002 Share Posted November 26, 2002 Originally posted by GriffinCheng+: And I still want my no "detailed armor hit" in extereme fog-of-war.Just find someone ya trust and have both sides hit Alt-D. ;> Biltong: I think that the temp. always defaults back to the default for that month, and maybe not a random value-? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted November 26, 2002 Share Posted November 26, 2002 Do away with increased delays for extra waypoints issued on T1 please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted November 26, 2002 Share Posted November 26, 2002 Do away with increased delays for extra waypoints issued on T1 please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demoss Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 With the death clock, there's no need to turn off detailed armor hits. You still don't know what that penetration accomplished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demoss Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 With the death clock, there's no need to turn off detailed armor hits. You still don't know what that penetration accomplished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Saunders Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 Originally posted by SlowMotion: 1) In 1.01 the highest possible quick battle turn count was increased to 120. Could it be possible to reduce the lower limit from current 20 to 10 or at least to 15? Ditto that request. -Sarge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Saunders Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 Originally posted by SlowMotion: 1) In 1.01 the highest possible quick battle turn count was increased to 120. Could it be possible to reduce the lower limit from current 20 to 10 or at least to 15? Ditto that request. -Sarge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halberdier Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 Originally posted by Tarqulene: I havn't been following this argument, so maybe this has already been discussed, but: What about increasing the size of the attacking forces instead of adding turns?I like the big QB's, but the problem with adding more points is that both sides start to run out of ammo. I did a 5000pt Assault as the Soviet which included three platoons of ISU-152's, all of which ran out of HE ammo. At least the T-34's have good ammo. For the Germans, the StuG's also have problems in larger QB's. cheers, -gabe- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halberdier Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 Originally posted by Tarqulene: I havn't been following this argument, so maybe this has already been discussed, but: What about increasing the size of the attacking forces instead of adding turns?I like the big QB's, but the problem with adding more points is that both sides start to run out of ammo. I did a 5000pt Assault as the Soviet which included three platoons of ISU-152's, all of which ran out of HE ammo. At least the T-34's have good ammo. For the Germans, the StuG's also have problems in larger QB's. cheers, -gabe- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 Get the rarity for infantry displayed. It does nobody any good hidden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted November 27, 2002 Share Posted November 27, 2002 Get the rarity for infantry displayed. It does nobody any good hidden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted December 3, 2002 Author Share Posted December 3, 2002 oh what the hell Bump -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted December 3, 2002 Author Share Posted December 3, 2002 oh what the hell Bump -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 How about increasing the ammo load for infantry? In CMBB, ammo is used up faster than it was for CMBO and yet we need more turns to complete a battle. This obviously makes for a lot of infantry squads who run out of ammo early. Not fun. [ December 03, 2002, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 How about increasing the ammo load for infantry? In CMBB, ammo is used up faster than it was for CMBO and yet we need more turns to complete a battle. This obviously makes for a lot of infantry squads who run out of ammo early. Not fun. [ December 03, 2002, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 Isn't that what reserves are for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 Isn't that what reserves are for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrapin Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 I want an OOB at-a-glance screen to see my unit statuses. Yeah, yeah, I read Steve's comment that it's not in there because real-life commanders wouldn't have access to such detailed info on their units. However -- and realize I'm not as well-read in WW2 commander strategy as some of you -- but I don't think these commanders could hit CTRL-G and see the status of their units either, so where's the conflict here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 Not necessarily. And besides, I'd have to buy an entire company's worth of reserves to replace the front line soldiers when they run dry. The default turn length in CMBB will be adjusted to 40 turns. This obviously signifies that more turns are needed to complete a full game and still have things like flanking involved in battles. No way infantry teams right now will last anywhere near 40 turns. Plus, aren't squads firing at a faster rate in up-close battles? Not sure if that's just MG's or not but I've noticed my men seem to blow out their supply a lot faster in CMBB than they did in CMBO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrapin Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 I want an OOB at-a-glance screen to see my unit statuses. Yeah, yeah, I read Steve's comment that it's not in there because real-life commanders wouldn't have access to such detailed info on their units. However -- and realize I'm not as well-read in WW2 commander strategy as some of you -- but I don't think these commanders could hit CTRL-G and see the status of their units either, so where's the conflict here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 Not necessarily. And besides, I'd have to buy an entire company's worth of reserves to replace the front line soldiers when they run dry. The default turn length in CMBB will be adjusted to 40 turns. This obviously signifies that more turns are needed to complete a full game and still have things like flanking involved in battles. No way infantry teams right now will last anywhere near 40 turns. Plus, aren't squads firing at a faster rate in up-close battles? Not sure if that's just MG's or not but I've noticed my men seem to blow out their supply a lot faster in CMBB than they did in CMBO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoopenfaust2 Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 Trench movement, if faster would make me a happy camper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoopenfaust2 Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 Trench movement, if faster would make me a happy camper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 Please consider the following: Remove the "hard" switch from turning to panning when moving the mouse down the edge of the screen. Add a transition zone, where panning and turning are happening at the same time, at a rate relative to the vertical cursor position!! Regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 Please consider the following: Remove the "hard" switch from turning to panning when moving the mouse down the edge of the screen. Add a transition zone, where panning and turning are happening at the same time, at a rate relative to the vertical cursor position!! Regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts