Jump to content

Volcano

Members
  • Content Count

    7,960
  • Joined

4 Followers

About Volcano

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 02/14/1977

Personal Information

  • Location
    Texas
  • Occupation
    Game Design

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 14 MAY 2021: The road to Chateau Schlongberger_OMU_SBv4162 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. Minimum # players: 10 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  2. OK, I'll take a look at it. Yes, I see, its a typo - was changed a while back (to cut artillery on both sides) but I missed changing the briefing. Done, thanks.
  3. So FYI to all... In the scenario tonight, I did change the Red side from Czech to Soviet (so from T-72M to T-72A), to make it more similar to the campaign. Both tanks are historical for the time period (1978) despite the model number in the tank's name, because the changes of that exact model number are superficial and (in SB representation) visual differences only. However, the problem is that T-72A doesn't help the situation any in that scenario for Blue, so I will go back to Czech forces to help balance it out a bit better like it used to be. In the campaign, the num
  4. Well, actually the Dragon is not much more deadly than the LAW, and less so than the RPG-7. What it does have over both is range though. I wouldn't say the Dragon is a major threat, but certainly when used in enough numbers it can be a serious problem. That said, yes, most games like M1 Tank Platoon only had US infantry with rifles, RPGs and M113s but in actuality, the M113 infantry platoon was pretty effective. I liked the 1978 period because both sides were pretty close in capability.
  5. 07 MAY 2021: Hasty Defense 01 (DE) Leo1A4-HTH-MAD-4259 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. Minimum # players: 10 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  6. No no no no, Iranistan and Iraqistan. No relation to any real world nations at all. 😏
  7. 30 APR 2021: Iranistan-Iraqistan War (1980)-smaller-4259-MAD SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Draft? Yes. Random CO selection? Yes. Minimum # players: 10 NOTES: Remember to play within the TGIF House Rules and SB.com Community Rules.
  8. Well, there is another similar (and new) Cold War type campaign planned later this year. Let's see how it goes. Stay tuned.... (I have to give Valleyboy time to gather his 1980s movie clips).
  9. Ah OK, I guess I misinterpreted that part - no worries. I will correct my comment then. But yes, its one of the huge challenges with figuring out how many units are "too many", as there are so many variables involved. In some scenarios controlling a company is possible, while in others controlling a single platoon is difficult, depending on how well the enemy "cooperates" and METT considerations. Its also one of the challenges as the CO - knowing who to give what, and how much, and also avoiding being straddled with so many units themselves. But then again, that's the fun of SB.
  10. (regarding the video) ...and everyone lived happily ever after (until 2020). The worse part about the campaign ending is sadness about no more Rocky IV clips.
  11. Best thing I have found to do here is to place one wire or mine obstacle (or bunker/vehicle emplacement) in the orientation you want, then duplicate a few, slide them to be connected as desired, then place a new one and orient in a new direction, and then duplicate those (which will all be oriented in that new direction) and slide to be connected, and repeat this. This limits the number times you need to orient everything, which can be a huge pain, yes.
  12. Yes, IIRC the "redrawing" is actually the terrain streaming in. This is a necessary side effect, because the alternative was to force the user to wait when jumping to another unit, like at a black (or blurry) screen, while the terrain fully loads. This was very much disliked by the Beta team, because we can all think of the frustration ourselves -- being forced to wait while terrain loads, when you want to jump to a unit under fire and take direct control. There would be a lot of anger about a several second delay and the jarring break in the experience. So, the current behavior was thought t
  13. Maybe I am missing the point, but (again) if you had found that you had too many units, then take less units next time. It does happen from time to time, everyone has experienced a scenario where they had too many units, but we do the best we can to accomplish the mission as best as possible - that is a story as old as SB. That said, I don't see why whether or not you feel like you had too many units is somehow my problem with making a scenario; I can't control how many people show up and play, and because it was a campaign, we couldn't quite swap sides from week to week. Also, y
  14. Thanks for playing Mission 10. That concludes Firefight 79-2021, the result is a DRAW. Thanks to CavGunner and Valley Boy for CO'ing, with Sean for putting up with hosting the long last scenario. After tonight the final score is: Scenario 1 US: +706 Soviet: -294 Scenario 2 US +326 Soviet: -674 Scenario 3 US +800 Soviet: -100 Scenario 4 US +1000 Soviet: -0 Scenario 5 US +163 Soviet: -837 Scenario 6 US +0 Soviet: -1000 Scenario 7 US +
  15. So in case it isn't obvious, we will try the final FF79 campaign scenario again. Start watching the training montage video again.... 🏋️‍♂️🏃‍♂️
×
×
  • Create New...