Jump to content

Vanir Ausf B

Members
  • Content Count

    8,394
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    4

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to IanL in CM Helper Replacement?   
    Thanks. There is not chat support in the officially released version. I am running a beta of the next release that supports chatting - including chatting with CMH users too. I'm not sure when I'll get it out the door though.
  2. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to powdermonkey in Over-Powered Artillery and general game lethality   
    Morning all, 
    this is my first ever post on this forum so please have patience if i am bringing up points that have already been discussed elsewhere.
    Firstly i'd like to say that i love this game and have all the WWII releases. I have played it a lot. So, i do not speak lightly or from lack of experience when i say  that i feel it is currently unplayable. i have a number of issues ranging from the quite trivial to what i consider game-breaking.
    First and foremost is the the vulnerability of  infantry to all the weapon systems in the game (particularly Arty), the ineffectiveness of cover and the futility i experience trying to keep casualties manageable. I come hot-foot from trying to play the second mission in the Polish assault on Monte Casino in CMFI during which i watched as a 110 man company hunkered down in rough ground was reduced to 20 men in less than ten minutes. The barrage was not heavy in either caliber or volume, i would have understood if it had been a heavy and sustained 210mm rocket barrage but it was not, it was a medium, probably 81mm mortar strike. In such a situation it is a matter of historical record that men will dig scoops in the ground with their helmets just to get a little lower and that once anywhere near below ground level you were afforded a certain protection from HE shells, even in relatively open terrain and excepting direct hits of course.
    I feel that that unit would have been suppressed, yes, would be sustaining casualties over time, yes, been broken, quite possibly if the incoming fire was heavy and prolonged enough, going anywhere, no, annihilated almost to a man, no. This is only the most recent and pertinent example of this phenomenon.
    A similar thing could be said for infantry suppressed in decent cover by small arms fire. Such a unit again will not be going anywhere, will not be returning fire effectively but will also not be taking excessive casualties as it is notoriously difficult to hit a human being in cover with direct small-arms fire if they are trying there damnedest not to be exposed. What i find at the moment is that one HMG at even quite long ranges will continue to chew through a unit suppressed, in heavy woods for example, until they break and run. 
    i consistently use arty, smoke and heavy weapons over-watch to try and minimise infantry losses only to find that the moment they come into, almost, any sort of enemy contact a unit will regularly lose 50+ % of its strength.  I can attest that at the end of most missions these days infantry units engaged will have suffered somewhere in the region of +70% casualties across the board. It is my opinion  that this is highly unrealistic and unsustainable. If such had been the ACTUAL casualty rates in WWII there wouldn't have been anybody left to tell us about saving Private Ryan... let alone save him for that matter.
    the second point i wish to make is the reaction of infantry when coming under fire small arms fire, which is, generally, hit the dirt and curl into a ball until they have taken enough casualties to stand up and run back through a hail of bullets. Standard infantry doctrine dictated that in such a situation they would take whatever cover was available and return fire, EVEN if they could not see exactly where the enemy fire was coming from, they would try and lay down counter fire in that rough direction in the hope of suppressing the enemy instead. This never happens, and rarely happens even if they can spot the firing unit.
    In a related example about behaviour under fire, a twelve man squad enters a stone house and comes under fire from a two-man LMG team across the street. One man is hit and instead of taking cover behind the windows for example the entire squad turns around and runs back out of the house, taking an additional two casualties in the process. They were regular infantry. 
    Apologies if this turned into something of a rant but i would be interested in your thoughts, and there are other points i should like to make, however, i think that's probably enough for one post.
    Cheers all,
    pm.
  3. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to LongLeftFlank in How I view most scenarios and the designers...   
    Hmm. Instant resort to ad hominem attack, plus entirely fanciful assertion that I have spent significant time commenting on your posts seems... faintly familiar.
    Mr. Tittles, is that you?
  4. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to BletchleyGeek in Combat Mission future   
    Actually I disagree at two different levels Michael. Models go wrong for very clear reasons (imo) and most of the time is for the better (gameplay wise) not to fix them. This is informed by my experience both playtesting and working on building sims. 
    I think it is very safe to say that like 90% of the time that you see a reasonably well designed model go off the rails is because you're not capturing a human factor. For instance, you can work out a very reasonable and detailed model of logistics, combat and transport to portray a campaign like Typhoon or the Bulge. But if you don't have in your system something, mechanics or rules, that either create certain incentives or compel the players to employ their forces in a manner consistent with that documented for their historical counterparts, you can kiss goodbye to "reproduce" a historical outcome or anything resembling it.
    A typical example is having an operational representation of Barbarossa where the Red Army player isn't compelled to behave as if he thought his forces had a chance to defeat the German Army anywhere, anytime. Otherwise you'll get the STAVKA playing the part of Brave Sir Robin. Another typical example are games where the Allies player can evacuate the Dutch East Indies, the Malay peninsula and Burma in a game covering the initial steps of the Japanese offensive in early 1942 without any kind of repercussion.
    In the CMx2 games, and as @slysniper said on the recent thread on how to use snipers, for all its realism, is still a game. We do all kind of crazy things since pixeltruppen aren't real people. If they die, due to our stupidity or our excessive optimism or our timidity, we're fine with that and don't have nightmares, develop PTSD or feel compelled to write to Steve letters expressing our condolences. There's no consequence to our acts.
    Unless one day the pixeltruppen escape the computer and decide it's time to do like their Westworld colleagues and have some fun too.
  5. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to JoMc67 in Improvement suggestions   
    And, on top of the above, we see turrets just swing around and shoot within a second or so as if there is no Aiming or Targeting Cycle, etc
    Basically, If BF just slows down the actual whole process a little from time it takes to spot, round in chamber, Aim, and fire, then it would seem more realistic.
  6. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from LukeFF in Combat Mission future   
    But the same question applies to CM1. How many CM1 scenarios were really that large? None of the official scenarios were anywhere near that. The map for the BB13 tourney at We Band of Brothers is 3.2 km x 2.8 km, which is smaller than some CM2 maps on my hard drive.
  7. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Bud Backer in Another stupid question, but what do these buttons do?   
    That is not true. At a certain load point the unit will no longer be able to Fast move. Pile on more ammo and it can't Quick move either.
  8. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from IanL in Scenario to QB?   
    This happens when there is already a file in the outgoing email directory with the same name (QB 001). Delete it and the ~QB 001 (temp) file the game creates when this happens and it should work. Do note however that your attempt to circumvent the QB purchase point limits in the scenario editor will not work. When you begin a QB any forces place there in the scenario editor are ignored.
  9. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from IanL in Combat Mission future   
    But the same question applies to CM1. How many CM1 scenarios were really that large? None of the official scenarios were anywhere near that. The map for the BB13 tourney at We Band of Brothers is 3.2 km x 2.8 km, which is smaller than some CM2 maps on my hard drive.
  10. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from IanL in Another stupid question, but what do these buttons do?   
    That is not true. At a certain load point the unit will no longer be able to Fast move. Pile on more ammo and it can't Quick move either.
  11. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Warts 'n' all in Another stupid question, but what do these buttons do?   
    That is not true. At a certain load point the unit will no longer be able to Fast move. Pile on more ammo and it can't Quick move either.
  12. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Blazing 88's in Another stupid question, but what do these buttons do?   
    That is not true. At a certain load point the unit will no longer be able to Fast move. Pile on more ammo and it can't Quick move either.
  13. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Kaunitz in Terrain?   
    And just to follow up on my post on the numbers, I do agree with Slysniper on one point: you don't need to know the exact numbers and no one should construe these tests to be an argument that you do. The numbers are just there to inform your tactical decisions, or to inform map-makers. Do you need to know that a grass AS with a tree in it provides 20% cover while a light forest AS with no tree provides 10%. No, you do not. But knowing the general relationship can make your decision tree more accurate and showing the numbers is simply a means to that end, and I would argue that this is useful to the extent that some of these relationships are not intuitive.
  14. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to SgtHatred in The state of CMSF2   
    I'm pretty sure the plan is to miss the date and then make fun of you for trusting their judgement, again.
  15. Like
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Aragorn2002 in StG 44 in the upcoming CMRT module   
    Here's an interesting discussion about the use of Sturmgewehre 44 and it's availability. Definitely something to consider for the upcoming CMRT module. It comes down to the conclusion that the use of the StG 44 was more widespread than usually thought.
    http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2568621&mpage=1&key=&#2568621
  16. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to MOS:96B2P in Dust clouds!   
    Below is a link to a similar topic reference dust and smoke.  The behavior of dust and smoke was changed with the 4.0 engine release. 
    http://community.battlefront.com/topic/125914-smoke-as-a-force-field/
    After 4.0 it seems you can no longer fire through smoke at all.  I have even had a case where some of my own vehicles were kicking up a lot of dust and the cloud of dust drifted in front of a shooting vehicle causing the vehicle to stop shooting.  The vehicle was on area target and should have fired until told to stop, ran out of ammo or had something really bad happen to it.  Another frustrating thing about this is that the status block (lower left screen, green text) will incorrectly advise that the vehicle is aiming, firing, aiming, firing etc when it is not.  I tested this in CMBS and one of the WWII titles (IIRC it was CMFB) about a month ago. 
     
    The smoke / force field wasn't a huge deal as long as we had a work around for it.  However 4.0 seems to have removed the work around.  In theory if the conditions are right you could follow a smoke screen all the way into the OpFor main line of resistance.  I hope maybe this behavior can be tweaked with the other 4.0 stuff that BFC is tweaking. 
  17. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in US strafing planes became dirt cheap in 4.0?   
    The accuracy of aircraft strafing in the WW2 games got hit with the nerf hammer awhile back so it's probably deliberate.
  18. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to George MC in beta tester?   
    Manners borne from fine breeding and a slightly haughty hauteur
    And wine and beer, lot's of it. ;).
  19. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Excess of accuracy?   
    I disagree. I think accuracy has already been toned way down compared to reality. If you've ever paid close attention to how many shots it typically takes to hit troops in the open you'll see that soldiers in CM are borderline incompetent at marksmanship.
     
    If you want to point the finger at high casualty levels in Combat Mission you would be better off looking towards artillery and mortars, which are too precise by far and at least in the WW2 titles too flexible.
  20. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in How come Nebelwerfers are so rare in the big German scenarios?   
    That was true years ago due to their going-out-of-business low price, not their effectiveness. The prices were adjusted and there's no issue now that I am aware of.
  21. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from IanL in Russian army under equipped?   
    I think the Abrams in CMBS is somewhat more godly than in reality. I also think the technical aspects of armored vehicles matters less in real wars than in war games. In an actual war between NATO and Russia it would matter very little. The main effect of having an inferior tank is wounded national pride and maybe a hit in the export market.
  22. Like
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Sgt.Squarehead in Russian army under equipped?   
    I think the Abrams in CMBS is somewhat more godly than in reality. I also think the technical aspects of armored vehicles matters less in real wars than in war games. In an actual war between NATO and Russia it would matter very little. The main effect of having an inferior tank is wounded national pride and maybe a hit in the export market.
  23. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from AtheistDane in Russian army under equipped?   
    I think the Abrams in CMBS is somewhat more godly than in reality. I also think the technical aspects of armored vehicles matters less in real wars than in war games. In an actual war between NATO and Russia it would matter very little. The main effect of having an inferior tank is wounded national pride and maybe a hit in the export market.
  24. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from sburke in Russian army under equipped?   
    I think the Abrams in CMBS is somewhat more godly than in reality. I also think the technical aspects of armored vehicles matters less in real wars than in war games. In an actual war between NATO and Russia it would matter very little. The main effect of having an inferior tank is wounded national pride and maybe a hit in the export market.
  25. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from HerrTom in Matrix games exciting new release   
    If that is your cup of tea you should check out Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm, also published by Matrix (is also on Steam). Less a game and more of a simulation compared to Combat Mission but it does what it does very well.
×
×
  • Create New...