Jump to content

MDF

Members
  • Content count

    903
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About MDF

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 12/10/1966

Personal Information

  • Location
    New York State, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

2,100 profile views
  1. Should AP-FSDS be effective over 2 km????

    FWIW, all tanks in "Tanks! Again" have default ammo loadouts, except for T-90, which has been altered to carry just two Refleks.
  2. THE RETURN OF FIRST CLASH

    For more on this, see articles here: Direct Fire Planning, part 1 Direct Fire Planning, part 2 Engagement Area Development – A Guide for Tank Platoon Leaders in Cavalry Squadrons
  3. Just use a whisper list with the other crewmember. Everyone stays in the same channel. Best practice would be to pick a "wingman" prior to the mission, somewith with whom you have multicrewed previously and are familiar. When your vehicle is destroyed, you jump into his, and vice versa.
  4. Well, it doesn't have to be a strict 1:1 player/vehicle ratio at all times. You could start out with a company of 10-14 tanks. Since TGIF usually has about 8-9 players per side, the people who like having multiple vehicles can have two, and people like me can have just one. As vehicles are destroyed, you can take a vehicle from a player who had two to start with, or you can multicrew. (I don't think multicrewing is a bad idea. Maybe we just need to run a short (like 10 minutes) multicrew training mission before the main mission starts so that people can get more experience with it.)
  5. I agree that the issue is with the AI. But wouldn't that issue largely be fixed if the missions had much smaller forces, and you only have to control a single vehicle at a time?
  6. We love videos

    There's no need to argue. Some people (myself included) prefer smaller-scale missions, in which a player controls only a single vehicle (or even has other human crew members). Others prefer to control a large force and play predominantly from the map view (RTS style). I suppose there are even some people who like to control multiple vehicles and mostly hop from vehicle to vehicle in the first-person views (mixed style). And gibsonm seems to be agreeable to controlling a larger force if "enemy map updates" are enabled. These are matters of opinion and there is no right answer. The issue with TGIF, IMHO, is that it consists almost exclusively of missions with large forces in relation to the attendance level and, therefore caters almost exclusively to the RTS- or mixed-style crowd. Participants like me are obligated to play in a manner not to our liking. It's not clear to me that most or all TGIF attendees actually prefer the RTS or mixed play style. I was hoping to foster a discussion about this on the TGIF thread in order to answer this question, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
  7. This was a source of continuing frustration for me as well, and one of the main reasons I stopped attending TGIF. I did create several missions to try to reduce the vehicle:player ratio (FEBA Madness, Peredovoy Otryag '83, and REFORGER '85) but these only get played once per year, and thus do little to shift the TGIF repertoire. Maybe it makes sense to conduct a poll? Or Put up a list of all the missions and allow people to vote for the ones they want to play? I don't mean to slag the organizers, and I hope this is taken as constructive criticism. (Edited to clarify that my preference is for smaller missions with "enemy map updates" off.)
  8. On reflection, I should amend my earlier statement. In this mission, two 'waves" might spawn in temporal proximity, giving that side a preponderance of force which (I'd hoped) it would use to press the attack. If/when that happens, one or more players could be saddled with a larger number of vehicles. Looking forward to the AAR file. Thanks!
  9. I structured this mission so that players hopefully would only have to control 1, maybe 2, vehicles at a time. Did it work out this way?
  10. How did this mission turn out? Could someone post the AAR file? Thanks.
  11. Video Thread

    Aaaaand....a $7 billion carrier air wing slides off into the Pacific.
  12. Steel Beasts: Content Wish List

    I would love to see this improvement to the information environment as well. The immediate obstacle is (I suspect) that the simulation does not perform detection (e.g., line-of-sight ) checks between units that are friendly or neutral towards one another, in order to conserve computing resources. And this would explain the occasional AI fratricide -- it occurs not because the victim was misidentified, but because a unit generally has no conception of the whereabouts of friendlies/neutrals. (The main exception to this ignorance would be that platoon members know where the platoon leader is in order to maintain position in formation.) This is all semi-educated guesswork on my part.
  13. Video Card Recommendation

    I just built a powerful gaming PC: i7-8700K @ 4.8GHz, GeForce 1080 Ti, 32GB DDR4-3200 RAM, 2 x Samsung 960 EVO SSD. Running SB in 1440p, fullscreen mode, terrain detail sliders set to 80, graphics settings set to default values. Testing using the detailed Fulda map, which can run very slow in places. In commander's unbuttoned view, get between 40-60+ FPS. Roughly the same in GPS day sight view with narrow FOV when looking at cluttered terrain. Drops to 30-40 FPS when looking at same terrain in day sight/wide FOV. Using GPS FLIR channel/narrow FOV in same terrain, drops to 25-35 FPS, and drops to 20-30 FPS in FLIR/wide FOV. However, I will say that in unbuttoned or F8 view, the terrain definitely looks a bit nicer in 1440p than it did in 1080.
  14. Video Card Recommendation

    Because I sometimes fantasize that I win the lottery and am in a position to fund such an endeavor . . . . how much do you think it would cost for a complete ground-up rewrite of SB?
×