Search found 85 matches

Ah, but this is Gettysburg, Stonewall Jacky-boy is tragically diseased. Wink

I have yet to try the alternate history scenario with Jackson fighting at the battle.

And while Stuart was an excellent cavalry commander throughout the war, his actions during South Mountain/Antietam and Gettysburg were downright shameful... completely failed to keep Lee informed of enemy movements.

I'm still fuzzy on the Union order of battle, playing as them in h2h will be good to learn more.

Yeah, even though my extended tour through the Close Combat series makes Gettysburg's AI look like Deep Blue, the AI has faults. The biggest thing that annoys me is when they bunch up tons of regiments into big masses. The regiments just overlap each other and look totally chaotic. I typically play with the ordered structure that brigadier generals provide.

Any and all willing to play are more than welcome to set up a game or two with me. Hamachi should work, if not, GR now plays with both Gettysburg/Antietam. I also have Antietam, so I am willing to play that as well. Antietam has improvements that I like, but there are also a bunch of features I dislike, so Gettysburg is my preferred of the two.

I'm gonna try to get Waterloo and Austerlitz, so I can also try to get that going in the future, if any are interested.

I'm usually on Hamachi during the day.

Yeah, I'll be on Hamachi during the afternoons more often. Can't put off wiping the floor with your Wehrmacht any longer.

For Virginian Glory!

Heh, the big interest for me is because, in Canada, I'm 7 hours from Gettysburg and have toured the battle-sight, makes playing Meier's game 10x more fun. I also spent time in Virgina, where I have family, just a few miles from Manassas and 30 minutes from Washington, DC. So, I'm right in Civil War country. A few people I've talk to tell me they are descended from Civil War soldiers, one was even a historical researcher who wrote a book, interesting dude.

Though I much prefer the southern boys, Lee, Longstreet, Armistead, Pickett, Ramseur, Early, and alot of really good Brigades, I don't mind playing Billy Yank, they still had a lot of good Generals at the battle, Meade, Buford, Reynolds (didn't last, though), Doubleday, Hancock.

I just recently dusted off this old gem and got hooked again. The graphics mean nothing to me when game-play is good. I never got a chance to try H2H with it, though. I was wondering if any dinosaurs still remain who would be interested in trying some multiplayer action.
Surprising, I know, considering the AI is so good.

Eastern Standard time, etc.

I play the AI at the hardest difficulty level, just so you know what to expect.

BO for CC5 is great, but I believe the only problem is there are no tracers shown in that version. I don't remember hearing if it was ever fixed, and I have no knowledge of the TLD version.

But the most engaging thing, for me, about Bloody Omaha, is how the descriptions for some of the maps seem to imply the mod's creator or someone involved was actually at D-day as a ranger. He talks about being a company leader and what happened when he landed, losing men right beside him and how most of his unit was KIA before they reached the bluff.

I would really like to find out more about who this is and how he was involved with the game.

I've read the BoB book, and in regards to the turkey shoot in "Crossroads", the SS were in assembly at their starting positions just before initiating an attack - you're really vulnerable at this point if the enemy catches you off guard, which is exactly what Easy Company did. Easy was really lucky in coming around from practically the SS's rear, and the Germans where so focused on their upcoming advance; American troops assaulting from the side/rear caught them completely unawares and having no idea what to do except run like chickens.

I've always liked this scene from Stalingrad. The Soviet Tank attack in the snow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVvoo1qFPDo

Although it's aged, it's a realistic engagement. I like how the one schutzen starts frantically digging in his dugout once he sees the T34s coming.

Also, how they wait for the tanks to drive right over their little pits, so they can place magnetic bombs on the tank's rear... that has to be one of the most ballsy things you could attempt. Who knows if your dugout is deep or strong enough to keep the tank from squashing you like a bug?

I'm a little more traditional, I just chant "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"

But that's just me, seems to work just fine.

I now habitually refrain from giving orders in the last 10-15 secs. I haven't crashed in a 'coon's age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics

Cool Beans.

What do these scattered teams include? I would imagine 1/3 to 2/3 of the active roster should be scattered, 5 to 10 units.

As for the AI, I only know that when I play against it, I pretty much choose the units myself for them every battle. I typically give them the standard layout of what I'd expect myself to bring to battle.

I just wasn't sure, as the only system of shared force pools I'm familiar with is the one used in LSA.

I'm confused, as I haven't tried CC4 and only played a modded Ardennes for CC5.

Do you mean "different BGs corresponding to a parent unit", as in, each BG is a Regiment/Brigade (in TLD), and their parent unit would be the Division the Regs/Brigs belonged to?

So the 101st has 3 Regiments in TLD, each of these BGs would share one force-pool to split between them?

Kinda strange, now that I think about it... I used to deal with the crashing issues oh so often at the start of this year (when I started to play h2h). About 1-in-5 to 1-in-10 games crashing.

But for the past couple months, I don't remember having anything except something like 1 out of 99 games crashing. I can't even specifically remember the last time I've crashed. Sure, there have been other things, such as a few cases of airstrikes freezing the game, but those specific "at the timer's end" crashing, those don't happen anymore.

Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, play the A.I.

Except for when I'm testing new features or things I've never seen before, like new vehicles, but never to play an actual game. I used to have a hard time against the comp when I was 13, only because that's probably the mindset the A.I. is comparable to. Wink

Vetmods gave me some entertainment for a short-while, but I don't have much enthusiasm unless the game's at a realistic level with both sides on par with one another, not just substituting the tactical element for troop handicaps.

I'd really like to get involved with this team. I have a bunch of ideas to throw around and love to conceptualize new changes for the game. I have no modding experience, whatsoever, and my computer savvy is good, though not excellent, but I have great knowledge about WW2 and the realistic portrayal of combat.

I can still try and dive into the specifics of modding, and maybe add another set of hands to the workload, whatever it may be.

I can also spend time researching to help make TLD's units and BGs more accurate and authentic.

So let me know, I can give you my email and instant messager, or whatever program you use, and we can get in touch to discuss things. I'd love to hear what is being worked on for GT 1.5 and especially 1.6. I'm really amped where GT is taking TLD.

It seems Schrecken is also working at some changes, on the GT random deployment zones thread he posted a download altering the experience level of the 101st. This is a good thing in my eyes, but we'll have to go into it deeper to make it as accurate as possible. He also hinted at working on a representation of the misdrops and loss of men and equipment by AA fire and those flimsy weapon bags that had a habit of ripping away in the prop-blast.

Sorry Schreck, it's just that we're holding off until GT 1.5 comes out to start playing CC again. I'm grateful for what you did, and I'll certainly be implementing it when we do start again. I'm sure it needs no testing, just, what levels did you set the 101st at? Is it on the same level as the 6th Brit AB Div? I think that would be perfect, if you did.

Are we whining? Probably. But we're just discussing and going down the list of things we are looking to change, making sure we can get it all perfect for our playing-style before we start another camp (we've restarted at least 4-5 times, I can't remember anymore). We might be a little anal, but I think what's being worked on will benefit whoever plays TLD in the future.

Thanks again for all the hard work, everyone.

Thanks alot, Dave! I really, really appreciate what you've done. Priapus and I are dead set on being hardcore with our TLD camp. Realism and stable gameplay are our prime concerns. We kept running into issues that scuttled our camp, forcing us to restart multiple times to implement "house" rules in an attempt to mend whatever was upsetting our game. It was really frustrating and demoralizing.

I can see a lot of the changes made in this vers. will improve the gameplay for us in multiple areas.

Also, as Priapus was asking, who is the one working on the overhaul of data in 1.5? Pri was in discussion with Dima a little while ago, and Dima said he would work on altering the stats for all weapons/vehicles, etc, to be as realistic and authentic as possible. Is this what you were referring to? Or are you overhauling the data yourself?

Thanks again!

I'm guessing there weren't supposed to be hostages aboard...

I started watching it assuming it was a hostage situation. When the guy runs up with what looks like a lacrosse stick and whips the explosive inside, all I could think was, "Jesus, screw the hostages, I guess... these guys don't f*** around". It almost looked like he did a suicide charge, the explosion just envelopes him.

About the Moscow Theater Siege. I read this off wiki,

"Officially, 39 of the attackers were killed by Russian forces, along with at least 129 and possibly many more of the hostages (including nine foreigners). All but a few of the hostages who died during the siege were killed by the toxic substance pumped into the theater to subdue the militants. The use of the gas was "widely condemned as heavy handed". Physicians in Moscow "condemned the secrecy surrounding the identity of the gas" that prevented them from saving more lives. Roughly, 170 people died in all."

Islamic terrorists, big surprise...

But using an unknown chemical agent that kills more of the hostages than there were terrorists? Please tell me wiki isn't accurate...

All in all, after all the incidences I've read over the years, and particularly how they were handled by the Russian government, I don't hold the government's responses to crisis and disaster in high regard...

I really like that idea of having special para units on the 1st night round. But that would be a doosy to try and implement. How I figure it, they would have to represent the loss of weapons and men in the drop. So, I don't know if you can randomize the contents of a unit when it's first activated, but it would be really cool for these special units to come with a random factor of between 3 to 5 men and each man is randomized with what weapon he is using, either garand, carbine, thompson, colt, maybe some German weapons, or nothing at all. Then there's how many of these units would be required in a BG on that night round. Somewhere like 5-10 of these units would be enforced on the Allied player to use, kinda like how units are disorganized and remained fixed in the active roster. Then, they would need to be only available on this one round, and after that the BG somehow reverts back to using normal units. The only problem here, is you'll lose those units that gained experience in the first round of fighting. Is it somehow possible to retain the specific soldiers who fought, and reorganize them back into normal units? Kinda like when a veteran squad is decimated, and only a few veteran soldiers remain, then those vets are placed into other units on the active roster.

Plus, I saw that amongst the Allied BGs that form the beach landings, there were certain BGs (American 1st Big Red One Div) using superior units than other BGs with the same units in their rosters. Aren't those an example of same teams with different skill levels? I don't don't if Big Red One used a separate selection of units, but they had Rifle Teams, BAR Teams, just like 4th Div and 29 Div, only at a higher experience level.

Sure thing, I'll make sure to drop bombs wherever I see the guys running around in gray Wink

, oh wait...

A sad fact is my stepbrother had a friend and roommate in the CAF get killed by U.S. A10 Thunderbolts in that friendly fire incident during Operation Medusa. It really churns my insides when I think about how combat is already dangerous enough just fighting the adversaries. Not to mention that disaster in Sicily when Allied vessels starting shooting at the 82nd's transport planes just before their drop and shot down 23 of their own planes, all filled with paras.

But one thing about TLD that kinda miffs me, is why are the American paratroopers all green at "experienced" and "high morale", while the British (who I'd imagine received similar training) are only yellow with "seen action" and "good/high morale", seems kinda demeaning...

I know the American 1st Division has distinctly better troops than the 4th or 29th since it had seen serious action in Operations Torch and Husky. I see how divisions with previous experience in combat have superior troops. In that case, it is somewhat appropriate that 6th British Airborne division (since D-Day is its first engagement, as the 1st AB Division was the one at Sicily) be slightly lower. But, that being the case, it was also only the 82nd at Sicily, while the 101st would be fighting for the first time at Normandy. Why are the 82nd and 101st virtually the same in stats?


	Login or Register	Home · Downloads · Forums · Combat Camera · Help