Apocalypse 31
-
Posts
2,771 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
66
Content Type
Forums
Events
Downloads
Articles
Everything posted by Apocalypse 31
-
I will take a look at the smell.wav today and get back to you. It may be an unsupported .wav type (?), as there are a few different .wav types (ACM and PCM vs Windows)
-
Thanks for sharing this! These stories are 40 years old, but 100% accurate and still applicable for today.
-
Not seeing anything unreasonable. Can you post a screen of the 7 Destroyed condition?
-
Can you post a screenshot of the scripting box. Id like to see how you're using it.
-
44khz mono is fine. Sound file works in media player?
-
1. Is the .wav file placed in the Media folder? 2. What is the wav quality? (44khz, stereo) 3. How are you testing it? (MP/SP/Editor) 4. Are you sure the event/condition is working? How?
-
Downloaded and took a quick look in the mission editor and noticed two things: 1. You will win the scenario in 25 minutes, no matter what. There are no victory conditions, other than when 25 minute elapses. 2. Scenario description and briefing also say that the player controls 2 x platoons and that the computer will control the rest, but the player actually controls all BLUE elements. Personal opinion - I wasn't a fan of the defending AI setup - it wasn't really a coherent defense, but that might just be a design method that you have. No harm, no foul.
-
I should've known that I would get that 'ACKCHYUALLY' with some lesser known operations
-
Airborne operations are generally conducted at the Brigade level, not something that fits the scale for SB. Definitely not something a company would ever do on their own. Also, airborne operations are generally conducted out of contact for conventional forces.
-
Can't make it. Playing Real Beasts this weekend. -
Oh, you poor thing.
-
I don't disagree but I think there's a way of doing that without bogging down gameplay. That was my biggest gripe: gameplay was good but all the unnecessary board game "flash" that came with it was a distraction and I don't think it added anything to the game. I felt like I was playing a game about playing a game. Edit: Panzer Corps 1 does a great job in this regard. Showing players the potential combat results then allowing players to see the post-attack results (in detail) but only if the player toggles it. It's not in the players face.
-
Lock and Load: make up your mind. Do you want to be a board game or a computer game. I played Heroes of Stalingrad on PC. It was really well done but I don't like how it's TRYING to be a board game. I don't want to see the dice or the other stuff that can/does generally go behind the scenes in a computer game. That's the POINT of a computer game: it can do all the calculations and dice rolling behind the scenes so players can focus on other things.
-
@DarkAngel are you referring to the Gaduata map that was released with 4.1?
-
Maybe, but it's not their loss if they have no aspirations to do it. DCS players seem content with air to air.
-
I've attempted this before. I was unable to find a DCS VU that: 1. Had the ability to even understand HOW to build a combined arms scenario. 2. Could understand how to work in a combined arms capacity Again, most DCS players seem to want to play air quake and couldn't care less about what's going on below 2000ft
-
I'll take Hussar 11
-
Not really what I had in mind, but that's the usual response. Sitting there with my laser on for 20 minutes isn't really my idea of fun. I prefer it when a scenario has multiple lines of effort (ground and air) with several places that those lines connect.
-
Ironically, I really enjoy the ground component of the game. It's a little gamey and has bugs but can produce some really great battles, and is really fun. My most enjoyable time in DCS was when I was playing with a small group, doing combined arms operations. We had 3 guys on the ground managing Platoon and Company sized units and 3-4 in the air flying in support. Unfortunately, I have yet to find an active VU that is interested in integrating any ground combat into their operations. Most units only want to do air to air, and can't even comprehend how to include a ground element.
-
DCS WW2 vehicles are now playable! Armor Car: Sd.Kfz 234/2 Puma Assault Gun StuG III Ausf. G StuG IV Cruiser Tanks Centaur IV Cromwell IV Heavy Infantry Tank Churchill VII Heavy Tanks Pz.Kpfw VI Ausf B Tiger II Pz.Kpfw VI Tiger I Medium Tanks Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf H Pz.Kpfw V panther Ausf G M4 Sherman M4A4 Firefly Tank Destroyer Elefant Sd.Kfz.184 Jagdpanther G1 Jagdpanzer IV M10 GMC
-
I'm not sure I see the point- In real life, gunnery targets are used to emulate real vehicles. In game we have real vehicles.
-
I've tried so hard to enjoy games from the Shrapnel catalog (to include SPMBT). They all seem to have a nice focus, a few with modern combat, but in the end they're all clunky, ugly, play very pooly and generally not fun or enjoyable.
-
Not only is he NOT getting a Silver Star, but he is now under investigation for exploiting several articles of the UCMJ. Please have him return his weapon and ammunition to the 1SG and report to trial defense services immediately.
-
Rant: I hate when games pick and choose which methods of pain that they're going to inflict on players in the NAME OF "REALISM" (according to a developer) We should kill 50% of tanks to depict incorrect maintenance and dispatch procedures. We should randomly disable drivers night sights for 25% of vehicles in game to depict low maintenance readiness rates for night vision devices. We could also remove 25% of the tanks from the battlefield because their crewmen are not medically fit to deploy into a combat zone, or have not completed all administrative paperwork required to deploy into a combat zone. It literally never ends.... In the case of SB infantry, I'd like to see realism applied to assist the player a little bit, instead of the imposed constraints that we currently have. It this thing called a GAME, and last time I checked this was the Personal Edition. We are reminded of that frequently. -How about Javelins that don't need to be setup for 20 seconds to employ, and Javelin teams that can actually move distances quickly. I've seen Soldiers on live fire ranges be able to put a Javelin into action instantly. -What about realistic sprint/jog distances for regular and elite soldiers - even the 'Elite' in this game are ridiculously out of shape - probably would not pass a basic US Army physical fitness test. -How about rifleman that can actually hit their targets at distances under 20m without firing 5-10 rounds. A Soldiers who cannot hit a 25m target wouldn't qualify on a basic rifle qualification course -What about the vast majority of Light AT Soldiers who freeze up or cannot seem to aim their LAW/AT4/RPG correctly when a tank is within clearly eyesite. Qualifying on the AT-4 is a task that infantrymen must accomplish, annually in the US Army. I could keep going, but I have a feeling that one of two people will tell me how wrong I am, and that none of this is a priority. Side Note: @RedWardancerThats a cool picture and great backstory. Thanks for sharing. I have forwarded your Recommendation for Award to the next higher headquarters for approval. Pending the S-1 losing the paperwork...
-
Wading infantry through water for a long duration would be a painfully slow approach to 'gaming' or 'exploiting'. Have you seen that happen so often that it is considered a problem in Steel Beasts?