Volcano

Thanks for the props, but no one seems to care about those chess type strategy games here. :frown:

Now you know what has been inside those Ssnake Shipping ISO containers all these years. :biggrin:

Well, the campaign is far from reality currently. We still have to finish the Grenada map first. Another campaign across Gary Owen's map never gets old though in the mean time, but I am not sure Tacbat cares to revisit that headache again.

Yeah it is hard to explain and wouldn't be very... military like. I will have to make one and see how it goes. As for another idea, you spoiled us all with that campaign you did. Other than something like that, maybe something non traditional like escort, raids or... dare I say, meeting engagements where score is based on who can hold common center objectives which are checked for ownership at the end of a set time (60 min or so). Just some ideas...

Nothing like owning a 12.7mm DShK in your garage.

The military does not (or at least should not) care about markings, but they can certainly replace them with transparent ones if they really care that much about it.

I had an idea but I can't remember what it was now. It was something to do with... "Combat" on the Atari 2600.

Well, we (Red) held the objective by the score, and given that the victory was set at 55%, had we not gotten one more vehicle killed then we would have won. Had Blue taken the objective in the final minutes then they would have won. In other words, it is very closely balanced -- I wouldn't change too much (if anything). I agree that the Strv 122's made it confusing since Blue had them as well, but Red could have done a lot better if someone hadn't shot out all the fuel tanks on our Strvs (not going to name any names).

Well, every time I put in T-80Us into a scenario, I make it a point to disable the TIS. It is easy to do and only takes a second. The good thing about this is that you can leave the TIS enabled as an option to at least *pretend* that it is the T-80UM, in some modern (non mid 80s) scenario.

Good scenario. Very confusing in the fog.

I know, -- I was just poking some fun your way. It is definitely Age of Sail naval combat, dumbed down, but still fun and better than the old Total War naval combat method (simulating the battle).

I have to add, if they ever add a multiplayer campaign to the damned thing then we will have to all try it out one day.

Well, I have to put in my observations now that I just bought Empire:TW yesterday. In a word, I think it is an awesome game. The only problem of course being that my old ass computer runs it terribly. I have been meaning to get a new computer for years now and Empire:TW will probably push me towards that decision even sooner. I don't think the game is perfect, but what game is. I don't think the naval aspect is "gayed up" as some has said, it is still fun and enjoyable albeit it may not be Naval Sail Boat Simulator 2009 like some people apparently expect. They did add a slow motion button to the battles to slow the action down by 1/2 which is good, the only bad thing is that if you do so then you won't hear any battle sounds lol -- not good. As some have mentioned, the same problem with all Total War games still exists: no multiplayer campaign and the combat units move way too fast (so fast that it is hard to keep track of everything going on). Since they say that multiplayer campaign will be added later (probably at the same time a T-72 is added to SB), then I guess that issue is not so bad). The fast unit movement has been like this since Shogun so I have kind of gotten used to it by now although I wish they would slow it all down. Or, at the very least, make it so that units get winded VERY EASILY, instead of them being able to run all over the map all the time. Other than that, the battles are fun and the campaign is fun. The only thing I wish for is to have a better NASA type super computer where I can turn on all the details and raise the unit sizes to "Ultra". If I could do that, then each unit would have over 200 men in them, but until then I have to be content with units of 20 men. Still, I think it is definately worth getting and probably worth upgrading your computer for. Now if they just revisit Shogun in the next game then everything will be complete -- but no, they will probably make a Total War: WW2 or something.

Sounds like SBwiki material -- on a resupply page.

Oh great. Medieval 2 played like a slide show on my PC with almost everything turned off, so I guess Empire:TW will cause my computer to have a meltdown.

Ahh geez, are they never going to anything about this? The complaint in every Total War since Shogun is that the units move and fight too quickly. People have asked for a feature to slow down the action to .75 or .5 time but I guess they refuse to do that. Let me guess, still no online campaign mode either eh?

The New Iraqi Army will need a playable T-72... there, someone go over there and convince them to buy SB.

Infantry *will* automatically mount and remount. I posted a link a few posts above to the SB wiki where you can see how the behavior will work. Here it is again:

I plan to update the vehicle's wiki page with the updated armor model screen shots (to replace the old ones). Unfortunately, I have a lot of other things to do first. I am not sure where that image came from (from an old thread I guess), but the values shows are for KE values.

I want to say that the guy in that image probably had his nose broken. That is all.

Sounds like you are playing on low difficulty (or is it low realism). In that case, the other dots represent various things -- mainly the different directions of the vehicle's weapon system and crew direction. But I think it mainly is for reference point orientation for reference points that are placed on the map.

Speaking for everyone are we?

Hello SG1_Rommel, I just sent you a PM.

Well, the M1A1 SA would have a Leo 2E type map screen for the TC (amongst other details), an Australian texture on the outside, and different armor values -- which would actually be lower than the M1A1 (HA) from what I know. Of course I could be mistaken about that though. Anyway, it would be in their benefit to ask for their specific variant to be modeled, but I guess they think that the M1A1 (HA) is good enough for now.

Actually, just to be sure I am not telling you the wrong thing, I got out my FM 17-12, which is called something else by now. Anyway, on page 10-3 it describes exactly how it works. Basically: SALVO 1 fires grenades #s: 3, 6, 4 (left side), and 1, 2, 5 (right side). Because of the layout of the grenades, this results in a smoke screen from 55* left side, to 45* right side. SALVO 2 fires grenades #s: 5, 2, 1 (left) and 4, 6, 3 (right). Because of the layout of the grenades, this results in the opposite: a smoke screen from 45* left side to 55* right side. So basically, yes, there are two salvos -- and each is designed to be sufficient coverage. But I was incorrect in saying that they fire to the exact same place, because you COULD choose to fire both salvos to cover from 55* left to 55* right. Why someone would do this for 10* more coverage on one side would be wasteful, because of what you are giving up to do this.