Jump to content

The_Capt

Members
  • Content Count

    1,139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About The_Capt

  • Rank
    CM Beta Tester

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Converted

  • Interests
    Military History and Tactics
  • Occupation
    Military Engr Offr

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Well I guess I opened my big gob on this one so I'll respond. I do not presume to be the voice of the Beta team and am in no way official spokesperson for BFC (and no Steve did not demand I state this). That out of the way, I will say there is debate, not as heated as it is here. Opinions are expressed on both sides of the issue. I for one line to take a longer view and adapt in-game tactics as reqr and do not believe a major tweak is reqr. Again if a tweak were to happen I am confident it will be balanced and probably minor. It is safe to say no one seems to think "It's broken!!". I will give any Beta wanna-bees out there a hint; a mature balanced open-minded attitude is definitely a good thing to develop. Also if you do want to make a point, a careful well-developed repeatable test approach will get much farther than yelling into the mic until it squeals. In the end your opinion is only one of many that has to be balanced, try and remember it and all will be well. Now go in peace etc etc...
  2. Well thanks but I think you need to go into the archives for most of it. I am the old guy who has grown into the ship. If it wasn't for Bil H I would likely never wake up. Before anyone gets riled by my response above, guys this is an old argument...we are talking CMx1 old. The AI is what it is, I have seen it totally implode and I have pixeltruppen who have brought me to near tears (big shout out to Sgt Hamilton and that SMG...promised I would do this..sob). In the end that unexpected-ness that some hate is what in my opinion makes the game so realistic. Those little guys aren't cowards, they are just smarter than this fat old man sitting in his comfy chair. Now go and spend their little digital lives wisely.
  3. Yes, I am posting on the outer board. I always promise myself it will be the last time. You know that scene in Zero Dark Thirty when they are in the chopper going to clip OBL? And the lead Sgt (whatever) asks "who here has been in a chopper crash" and all the hands begrudgingly go up? That is pretty much the response you would get in the CM Beta forum if you asked "who here has been in a firefight". Do we all agree on the issue at hand? No,been a debate for about 15 years. But here is one thing most will agree on; nobody "does" what another someone staring from the sky think one should do in a fire fight. One could argue the name of the entire game is to position yourself so that the enemy and not you is reacting to fire. Paraphrasing Rommel "if they hit the beach we are in trouble". Same can be said for combat in general. If your little guys are caught in any other position other than cover when the steel starts flying you are in real trouble...so avoid it. It isn't AI it is crappy tactics (in game and in RL). Guys dismount out of a IFV into an open street directly into fire...they are more justified in questioning the commanders "AI" than we are of theirs. I could go on about "when someone gets hit" but no need to really dig that up except to say again no real way to predict. Last point, take a look at history and casualty rates of any given action. Then compare to a CM body count, CM's will be much, much higher. Why? Because in RL soldiers (even US) are much less likely to follow amateur and sucidal orders...you know, like the ones we give every game. Want perfect control? Go play chess.
  4. True, but my point is that we already know arty is lethal in CM. 1000 25-lbr rounds in a 300 x 300 area is a round for every 90 square meters or roughly 10 x 10 box, the same box you would put a squad in. At one round per squad I think we are safe in assuming in-game this would cause at least 9 cas over the entire Coy, if not more. My underlying point is we already ran test on arty...a lot of tests and were fairly comfortable with the results. We ran them for squads in the open, under trees, in trenches, in buildings and behind hedgerows.
  5. Don't need to already know the answer. CM needs nowhere near that level of fire to create a casualty. IIRC a one minute pounding (so maybe 10 rounds) with a light mortar will cripple a Regular squad in the open. Arty in CM in the open is deadly.
  6. Well let me chime in. I disagree with JasonC (not a new thing) on a lot of issues but his point that most "combat" was a low level grind rings true. However the ends of that grind being an attrition-to-victory affair I am afraid we will never agree on. The aim of Normandy was operational breakout. A breakout that would enable operational manoeuvre and encirclement of the Germans. This was the money shot that would lead to (hopefully) the strategic effect of mass surrender on the Western Front. This was partially accomplished, blame thrown around with abandon but lets not lose sight of the overall plan. Dwight and the boys never planned to "slug it out hedgerow by hedgerow until they are attrited to death". In some areas that is how it turned out but this was never the "plan". Artillery is a "force multiplier". It is designed to change the attacker-defender ratio without massing more troops, which is often ineffective anyway. Like minewarfare for the defender, arty is designed to "make more of what you have" on the battlefield. It was never, in WWII a "system of decision", in modern times that may change but back in WWII it was volume in support of ground manoeuvre plain and simple. This was an extension of the Lessons Learned in WWI where they tried to use arty as a stand alone system and failed miserably. Now when artillery is added, IF the ratios still are not enough in favour of an attacker then the slow grind begins. In the case at the front of this thread, I suspect (but cannot be sure without more detail) that CPT Mike's timing is what hurt him. If you drop a bunch of arty are not following up very closely with infantry assault you will find that the survivors have time to sort themselves up and shoot back. With box standard arty it took a lot to hammer troops under cover into submission. However if they are forced to take cover, are taking hits and when it clears and they lift their heads up they are staring at a gun barrel it definitely changed the equation. Arty is not designed to spook the enemy, make them give ground and slowly bleed (this is a secondary virtue-out-of-bad outcome). It is designed to provide suppression and therefore freedom for manouevre, which arguably is the point for any massing of fires at all levels of warfare.
  7. Zels77 you just made the list. The "Reasonable and Polite" list. On the Internet that is a very short list. You are welcome, sir.
  8. I rarely post to the outer-board anymore, largely because from lengthy experience it generally is a bit of a waste of time....however on this one I will take a bite. This thread is proof of the challenge with input/feedback from the "general population". This thread, at its root, is putting forward that artillery in-game simulation is inaccurate because it is weak and not realistic from a volume-to-effect perspective. As per normal there are very few details to go on. "I dropped a bunch of stuff on some guys and they didn't die!" is really not something to go on for a small company to drop everything and chase down. Now where the customer does come in helpful is in volume. If multiple cries of a problem come up then BFC and its dedicated team of highly paid Beta Testers will conduct a lengthy and encompassing campaign to chase down the problem. Now back to the issue of this thread. Problem here is with arty there have been cries in both directions. Most have in fact been that arty, mortars specifically are over-powered and too accurate. When faced with these sorts of things we actually test the guts out of mortars and arty, in buildings, in the open, in bunkers, behind hedgerows, in trenches and foxholes; you name it we ran the tests. We then look at the literature, historical vignettes and technical specs of the weapons in question. Add to this roughly half of the Beta Team are modern veterans so the cry of "I have been under fire of "insert weapon" really doesn't resonate well. But we take into account RL experiences where applicable but we also recognize none of us were in Normandy in '44 so these types of things are a small part of the assessment. BFC then decides if it is a burning issue in need of patch inclusion, a future issue that can wait or not an issue. I won't speak for BFC but from the tests I ran arty was actually pretty damned good, one of the better implimented features of the game. If Steve asked me tomorrow what my advice would be, I would say not to mess with it in favour of other issue that are well known and "on the list". It is not a requirement for the customer to offer "forensic proof" on every observation or suggestion. But their observation/recommendation is just that; their's. It is the sum of the whole that the BFC team has to wrestle with and often an individual observation is simply not enough to go on. It may have been an outlier or wild-card that happened for any number of reasons. Now if thirty customers come back with the same problem then it gets traction.
  9. Been awhile since I have posted out here but this thread is a nice example of things going right and a positive dicsussion as a result. CMBN should come with a warning label in my opinion. It is a hard game, a very hard game sometimes. I think the look of 3D graphics throws some people off as 3D and hard often do not roll well together. A lot of modern games play out like puzzles and have scripted outcomes. CMBN simply provides a realistic environment and then releases the hounds at you. Arty, is damned realistic. Maybe a little tight in the CEPs, it has been brought up and will probably be tweaked some but for the most part mortars are spot on. I have run test and shown that the lethal and danger radii are accurate for frag. The ROFs are accurate, keep in mind these guys are not firing on a range but in cbt where speed will save your life. If you let them fire quick they will. Stand still too long and you will die. You need to employ some pretty solid tactics in this game. Dedicate a lot of your force to recon and for gawds sake...keep moving!! Some may simply drop away, not their cup of tea but if you stick with it, the game can provide some simply outstanding gameplay.
  10. Problem is not with the charge, which through overpressure will effectively clear AP mines and to a lesser extent AT mines, it is with the length of the minefield. If the minefield if 100m deep, you are now talking multiple attacks (after signalling to the world you are clearing a gap) or a very long bangalore which will quickly need a vehicle to push it...enter rocket propelled line charges. For CM sized AP minefields however you could do them with bangalore, which would be not only cool but more realistic for the scope of the game.
  11. BFC has got this one sooo right. Minefield+troops=total sh#t-show. Use scouts, lots of scouts. When they hit the minefield, start writing letters and then don't send the rest of your troops there. Squad gets hit inside one; you can try a rescue but that may just turn more trained troops into dead ones. Best bet it to try and move them out slowly but in reality if a squad goes to ground in the middle of a minefield it is in serious trouble.
  12. You see what you have done?! Even asking the question invariably leads to that question thread becoming ANOTHER Peng thread!! CDC protocols; lock this one up and then burn it!!
  13. Shhh..do not speak it's name. It is a little known fact that the entire Dyatlov Pass incident was directly the result of the 'That P-thread', even though they are over 40 years apart in time....think about it before bringing it up again.
  14. Well that is too bad but I will answer anyway because this is a 'forum' after all. Clarks sin was on Steps 4 and 5. Statements like "poor craftsmenship" and "Worst UI I have seen in a long time" really don't help and suggest some downright nasty things about BFC even couched by positives. Then outlining how this was all initial design errors that could have easily been avoided just adds to things. As to 'postal', now that hurts...really. I thought I had some pretty pithy stuff going on there delivered in a slick style. C'mon the "same as a guy building a deck" didn't hit at any level? I think I am losing my touch...damn. BTW the only person I was really going postal on was on Mr Redwolf who is a known entity from another dimension. I don't hang around the Public forum much anymore but if I do happen see any of that crew swing by for a quick hit based on absolute nonsense...well plug you ears. Either way it would appear that we are not going to be friends which is unfortunate. Odd thing about the Internet, kind of like driving. I bet if we all met in person we would get along great but put us behind the wheel or a keyboard and we somehow become other people entirely.
  15. Huh? Come again? My first post was a simple opinion on the context of the review in contrast to the developer and its intended market: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=100795&page=4 No flames there, nor calls for burning of the reviewer or people who agree with him. Then Mr Griswold jumps in with some stuff on the UI and state of BFC's production values that I personally think is 1) over the top 2) unmerited and 3) argued from a position of ignorance. No problem in telling him so. Things get heated from there, particularly when certain individuals start jumping in because they smell blood and will take any chance to jump in on a BFC-bashing. But you do raise a good question; "how to offer up criticism and or suggestions?" Let me see if I can help. Step #1. If you are jumping into a conversation or thread on an issue read the entire thread. This avoids mis-communication in what is a medium with inherent communication shortcoming. Step #2. Make sure what you are seeing is really what you are seeing. A lot of times there can be solid reasons why you are seeing a behaviour and anything you can do see if this is the case makes everyones life a lot easier. Step #3. Give as much detail as you can. For in-game oddities use screenshots etc. For general quality issues or changes try and really narrow it down. "I don't like it" is not very helpful. Step #4. Avoid if at all possible hyperbole and repetition. I cannot stress this one enough. Your particular observation/issue may very well be valid but couching between "Worst {insert here} ever!!" or any other type of broad statements does little to really motivate the guys in the back or the Betas. Step #5. Recognize that none of what BFC does is 'simple' and be patient. This game engine has grown a lot over the last few years and has tremendous potential. Give the little guy a chance. I have said this before. If you walked into a bar that brewed its own beer and told the owner/operator "This stuff taste like camel-piss, why haven't you gotten it right by now..it is so simple!!" See what happens. Somehow because this is the internet some people figure it should work differently.
×
×
  • Create New...