|
I suggested in CSPAM that Baloogan should make a CMANO scenario where Trump blows up an Iranian destroyer for no good reason
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:39 |
|
|
StashAugustine posted:I suggested in CSPAM that Baloogan should make a CMANO scenario where Trump blows up an Iranian destroyer for no good reason And the ensuing war.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Add "Taunting" to the database as a visual range projectile weapon that does no damage
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Goetta posted:Add "Taunting" to the database as a visual range projectile weapon that does no damage No, add in an Ego damage type that does nothing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Drone posted:Vaguely surprised that none of you grogs picked up on Trump insulting the noble B-52 and its role in our defense arsenal. Given that it's the most successful airframe in history that is projected to continue use up to 2040.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:It's a tremendous plane, truly a great airframe, and I admire a rare case of the government keeping spending its money wisely, but in 2016? Come on. The Russians in a Tu-22M run rings around that old bird! Isn't the Tu-22M about the same age as the B-52H? Or is that the joke?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Have you seen/read this? Thanks for this, the article I used to have must have been based on this guy's work since it also referenced the Canadian officer surveys.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:I suggested in CSPAM that Baloogan should make a CMANO scenario where Trump blows up an Iranian destroyer for no good reason I've kinda wanted to make a set of scenarios set during the Trump Administration.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Just avoid the temptation to editorialize.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Isn't the Tu-22M about the same age as the B-52H? Or is that the joke? They're close - maiden B-52 flight was Apr 15 1952, maiden Tu-22 flight was Jun 21 1958
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Isn't one of the Live scenarios that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:This is 100% true. So the military spent a lot of money on psychological analytics designing modern basic training, which is specifically aimed at upping the dehumanizations and increasing the in-group ("stolen valor!!") bullshit to increase the number of soldiers willing to shoot their weapons at people. I don't know that it's really non-sociopaths. I think it is for people who have been trained by their culture/society to value life. It would be interesting to look into research as to the incidence of PTSD across different cultures and societies. For example, did WWII Japan have as many PTSD cases from killing other humans (as opposed to watching your friends get blown up) as we have now? It's armchair psychology, but I really do think there is something to the notion that the Mongols probably did not get mass PTSD from creating their skull pyramids. I think it is something Western society forgets - not every culture/society values life in quite the same way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Flippycunt posted:I wish I still had a link to this article that did a step-by-step refutation of SLA Marshall theories since this topic would come up occasionally but I've lost it unfortunately. Basically though the whole thing is one of those "reality is stranger than fiction" moments in history. So, Marshall's number might be off, but from my reading, it's not an out of line phenomenon, and it's off base to call a soldier not adequately shooting at the enemy "combat ineffective". There are a lot of things officers during the war did learn about how their men did, and one of the common elements in field remedial training in the US during 1944, for example, was getting soldiers to shoot area targets rather than simply waiting for a visible target to shoot. There are reports of soldiers lacking in a bunch of basic skills and not really shooting enough, though the motive can be difficult to discern.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Drone posted:Vaguely surprised that none of you grogs picked up on Trump insulting the noble B-52 and its role in our defense arsenal. Given that it's the most successful airframe in history that is projected to continue use up to 2040. We need a newer bomber to deliver the nuclear bombs that the B-52 now currently deploys.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Let's get the F-35 people on it, because that turned out well right
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Drone posted:Let's get the F-35 people on it, because that turned out well right Obama to unveil groundbreaking new 'No first-use when it is raining" policy
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Drone posted:Let's get the F-35 people on it, because that turned out well right Just weld four F-35s together and you get a four engine heavy bomber with about the same combined payload Nenonen fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Sep 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Haha the developer comments on some of the simulation limits in CoaDE (yes it has a grog acronym now) are gold.quote:Information on nuclear payload explosive lenses appears to be rather classified and the author was unable to find proper equations for that part of nuclear weaponry, so the equations used are fictional and probably end with the author on some sort of watchlist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:So, Marshall's number might be off, but from my reading, it's not an out of line phenomenon, and it's off base to call a soldier not adequately shooting at the enemy "combat ineffective". There are a lot of things officers during the war did learn about how their men did, and one of the common elements in field remedial training in the US during 1944, for example, was getting soldiers to shoot area targets rather than simply waiting for a visible target to shoot. There are reports of soldiers lacking in a bunch of basic skills and not really shooting enough, though the motive can be difficult to discern. Combat is seriously goddamn confusing and terrifying and maintaining the presence of mind to respond appropriately is something that takes lots of training and discipline. My experience is that the opening phase of a firefight is all muscle memory and conscious thought takes awhile to kick in and it's amazing how you can physically carry on when your mind is running circles chanting gently caress. Basically there's a lot less intentional action than you would think and attributing exact motives to even your own actions can be difficult. The Grossman explanation of all the weapons jammed with unfired shot from the Civil War as intentional moral action is obviously less likely then poorly trained panicking soldiers being unable to discern if their weapons were actually firing and just mindlessly repeating their firing drills
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
My favorite thing atm in CoaDE is matching the orbit of a hostile fleet, but going retrograde, so every few hours we zoooooom past eachother landing a few hits. Half disabled warships pecking away
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Just weld four F-35s together and you get a four engine heavy bomber with about the same combined payload Doesn't the f-35 engine have a ludicrous thrust to weight ratio? Maybe that wouldn't be that bad an idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
e: wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
So I just went back and read dtkozl's Final Blitzkrieg LP that I missed and rediscovered the joy of goon versus goon Combat Mission. Then I went back and read Grey Hunter's Black Sea LP and was reminded of the collective blueballs of planning for weeks only for the battle to end before it really began. It gave me Ideas. Would there be any interest if I were to set up a participatory Black Sea LP in the near future? I've been messing around with the scenario designer and really want to see a joint Ukrainian/American force fight a Russian one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Obviously I'm dizzown.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:So I just went back and read dtkozl's Final Blitzkrieg LP that I missed and rediscovered the joy of goon versus goon Combat Mission. Then I went back and read Grey Hunter's Black Sea LP and was reminded of the collective blueballs of planning for weeks only for the battle to end before it really began. It gave me Ideas. DA TOVARISH THE
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:So I just went back and read dtkozl's Final Blitzkrieg LP that I missed and rediscovered the joy of goon versus goon Combat Mission. Then I went back and read Grey Hunter's Black Sea LP and was reminded of the collective blueballs of planning for weeks only for the battle to end before it really began. It gave me Ideas. I'm in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Would this be Goons vs. Goons, Goons vs. One Goon, or Goons vs. AI?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:Would this be Goons vs. Goons, Goons vs. One Goon, or Goons vs. AI? Goons vs. Goons is my preference, the human element is what makes it interesting. I'm playing around with different scenarios and trying to find a good balance in an inherently asymmetrical game, but right now I'm thinking predefined force selections on a large map with mixed objectives. I'm also wondering how granular control should be since Black Sea is way deadlier than the WWII games, I think the smallest command should be platoon level so people can keep their units in the game longer. The Ukrainian and Russian players would probably end up controlling more units than the Americans, too. I'm also leaning towards an infantry-heavy force selection to try and minimize cross-map tank duels. Most infantry would come in transports, but nothing with an auto-cannon so they ideally have less of an impact on the fight than the squads they transport. The hardest part is trying to anticipate how goons will end up using their forces 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
While Combat Mission is a bad game the LPs are always popular, if you're up for the ~~~stress~~~ go for it. At face value jesus christ how is a Russian force supposed to actually fight yankee tanks in that but you own the game and I don't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Overwhelming numbers, luck, terrain advantages, and surprise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:While Combat Mission is a bad game the LPs are always popular, if you're up for the ~~~stress~~~ go for it. It's going to be a significantly more controlled environment than "here's 50,000 points, go hog wild!" Some of the benefits of making a custom scenario instead of a quick-battle are that you can mix American and Ukrainian forces and you can set how much ammo units start with, which should hopefully make it much easier to balance the two sides against each other.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:Would there be any interest if I were to set up a participatory Black Sea LP in the near future? I've been messing around with the scenario designer and really want to see a joint Ukrainian/American force fight a Russian one. Yessssssssss.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
I would love a CM LP, and yes, the key is to make sure it's crafted so as to have forces that make sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Generation Internet posted:Would there be any interest if I were to set up a participatory Black Sea LP in the near future? I've been messing around with the scenario designer and really want to see a joint Ukrainian/American force fight a Russian one. Yes! I'm down in a heartbeat. Generation Internet posted:It's going to be a significantly more controlled environment than "here's 50,000 points, go hog wild!" Instead of balancing by removing classes of weapons from the scenario, I think it would be more interesting if you selected a map where the terrain (and some smart play) negated the advantages of certain weapons. For example, instead of avoiding vehicles with autocannons (which is 90% of the infantry carriers in-game), you could pick a map that has a built-up area, which would reward the defending side for defending the city with close-in ambushes, at ranges where autocannons aren't so OP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Don't include urban environment in a participatory LP. You would regret it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
abelian posted:Instead of balancing by removing classes of weapons from the scenario, I think it would be more interesting if you selected a map where the terrain (and some smart play) negated the advantages of certain weapons. The only issue with most built up maps in the game is that they're tiny because of the horrible optimized engine that can't handle too many buildings at once. Right now my top two map picks are a 4.5x3.5km map with a mix of forest, hills, open spaces, and villages but no real built up areas, or a 1.6x2.4km mostly urban map with a bit of room for flanking. A majority of the other maps are tiny little boxes. I may just draft a scenario that allows for either and put it to a vote when I post the thread. Nenonen posted:Don't include urban environment in a participatory LP. You would regret it. This is also a consideration, especially on a big urban map it'll get a bit crazy trying to keep track of which buildings have windows facing a given direction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Also because if you have narrow streets and alleys it becomes hard to tell what each unit can see or if a vehicle can trace line of fire on a building. This is manageable when playing by yourself, but all that information is impossible to convey through forum posts turn after turn for every unit on map.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Don't pick a "city" map because those are guaranteed 2FPS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Black Sea goon versus goon thread is up! http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3792422 This is way bigger than the last time I ran a game, so I'm slightly nervous about getting enough people to fill all the spaces. It should be easy enough to adjust the forces down if we don't get enough, but feel free to spread the word.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:39 |
|
|
Okay so after sinking far too many hours into Children of a Dead Earth yesterday here are some impressions. First up, this game is good, really good but has its limitations. If you liked Orbiter or KSP you'll probably like this and anyone with a passing interest in realistic space combat should probably check it out. Basically you have the orbital map which runs in 'turns' which are X amount of time depending on which button you press (similar to aurora). It autopauses for events etc. Once hostile units close enough you are dropped into a tactical battle where you give your ships orders. Its the view where you see all the screenshots of ships fighting etc in. Orders are fairly simplistic and the units largely fight themselves with a lot been determined by the relative closing velocities etc. Major complaints are missiles/drones are very finickitey and require a lot of manual clicking, also the launch interface is unnecessarily buried away in the tactical view so you have to go diving into that whenever you want to launch a salvo. Finally missile final target behavior is kind of hosed, they seem to aim for spots past the ship or behind it (something weird with them using IR sensors?) and so even sending loads of missiles at a target it can be a struggle to get a kill as the usually go off behind it and smash up the engine/rear but leave it otherwise largely intact. Still Its super satisfying to set up an orbit with some commedically high closing velocity like and launch some shrapnel missiles on flyby so they detonate and 10kps shrapnel turns any ship into swiss cheese.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2016 15:15
|
|