Jump to content

Myles Keogh

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Myles Keogh

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling


  • Location
    New York, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I've seen an improvement with the fleeing behavior. I had a fire team hunting along hedgerow, received fire, took one casualty, and then ran away from the enemy fire. So, this patch appears to have limited some of that behavior. Has it eliminated it? From other posters, doesn't sound like it, but in my experience it's an improvement over 4.01.
  2. Just joining the chorus in the hopes something will be done about it fairly quickly: I'm also seeing this "fleeing towards the enemy by way of the nearest hedgerow gap" behavior in CMBN. Disappointing. Waiting 2.5 years for a patch to fix highly questionable infantry behavior under fire only to see it introduce ANOTHER form of highly questionable behavior? Geez-o-man. Between that, the CMFI patch zapping the Fallschirmjaeger uniforms, and complete silence as to the alleged upcoming modules for CMRT and CMFI, 2019 has so far been a rough year for BF and its fans. I truly hope the year ends on a far better note.
  3. That sounds like included preparatory coding work for the "soon" to be released module for Red Thunder that will extend the timeline to May 1945 and include cold temperatures and snow visual effects. (Hopefully, the extended delayed releases for these 4.0 patches were mostly the result of their being worked on in tandem with the upcoming modules for CMFI and CMRT. At least, that's what I hope caused the problem.) Still, the CMFI patch being released with Fallschirmjaegers missing their uniforms was pretty sloppy.
  4. I'm seeing this too. Fallschirmjaegers are not using their own uniform skins in any scenario or campaign. How did that get by the testers? It's not a game-killing bug, but it is an immersion killing one. I really hope we don't have to wait 2.5 years for it to be corrected.
  5. It's very evident in CMBN too. The first scenario I played with the 4.0 engine was a CMBN one and that bug was noticeable almost immediately. I ordered an harassment artillery barrage on a group of buildings which I suspected harbored hidden German forces. As my forces neared those buildings, I came across German teams just sitting in the open. (They had fled the buildings for the "safety" of open terrain.) Needless to say, it made things easier for my attacking troops. And I played that scenario in January 2017! Almost as insidious is that the 4.0 engine caused the Bren/BAR (and I believe the Breda as well) to be reduced to single shot weapons when fired past a certain range. This really limits their effectiveness as automatic weapons. It especially hurts the already anemic firepower of the Commonwealth forces. Some people claim the above make these games "unplayable." I don't entirely agree. While I have avoided playing Commonwealth scenarios/campaigns due to the issue with the Bren gun, I have continued to play CMx2 4.0. It's still a great game, but I've played mostly CMRT because it doesn't have the Bren/BAR issue. However, it has been REALLY disappointing that BF allowed these issues to exist as long as they have. Two years! Yes, they're not "game-killing" bugs like that saved-game crash that was introduced by a CMRT patch which BF quickly fixed within a week or two, but they do make the CMx2 gaming experience feel less than optimal. I keep checking these forums daily hoping to see the announcement of the patches' release. Hopefully, it'll be soon.
  6. "A war without Mercy- Another pathetic enemy vet vs your conscripts type battle. Takes place in Herrlisheim. Terrible scenario with too short of a time limit. The game began to skip and serious FPS lose to the point of almost not being able to play when the panthers rolled in and were taken out as quick as they arrived. Artillery never ever hit where i wanted it to. Weather was terrible. Allies skills were horrid. Not playing again." Disagree with the above. I really enjoyed that one. The green 12th Armored getting a bloody nose trying to clear-out a town during Operation Nordwind. I thought it was a lot of fun and pretty manageable even for a huge scenario. (I followed the advice in the scenario briefing to flank around the town which is a panzerfaust/panzerschrek gallery. I also ensured that I left flank guards to defend against counter-attacks which the briefing mentions as a possibility.) Overall, I thought it was one of the better CMFB scenarios. Also, I had no tech issues with it whatsoever. My PC/graphics card are both nearly four years old. They were decent when I got them, but certainly not top-of-the-line gaming PC/graphics card even for 2015. Yet, they handled that scenario without any noticeable FPS loss or any "skipping."
  7. Just to be clear, I am asking if the "weapon slot" (the silhouette in the vanilla UI) for DT is missing for everyone else. The DT is IN the game. If you mouse over a crew member manning one then you'll see "DT" as the weapon listed and they will fire them. However, there doesn't appear to be a weapon slot for the DT- no physical depiction of it like for all the other crew weapons of a Soviet tank. In contrast, you'll see the crew manned silhouette of the MG-34 for German tanks and .30 cal. for the Americans. It appears the DT's missing weapon slot was an oversight by BF and just wanted to confirm.
  8. I rarely play the Russians and it's been a while since I played CMRT, but I just noticed that their AFVs have no weapon slot for the DT machine gun (the vehicle version of the DP-27). At first, I thought I was dealing with undermanned crews because I'd see the crew's various small arms and the AP/HE round for the gunner, but if a crew member was manning the bow or turret machine gun (which is labeled by the game as a DT) then there is no weapon shown as if that crew member is missing. This is noticeable with both the vanilla UI and JuJu's UI mod. (I did try to use JuJu's DP-27 weapon slot as a replacement for the DT, but the game won't recognize it.) Is the DT weapon slot missing? (I did a search to see if this was already noticed, but I couldn't find anything. It'd be surprising if this wasn't already noted in the years CMRT has been out, but I want to make sure that I'm not the only one with this issue.)
  9. "Sounds pretty cool, doesn't it? We think so When will it be available to you? As always we have to be vague about it, however we're very sure it will be before the end of the year. We'll know much better after CMFI R2V is out the door, which happens after CMSF2 is in your hands." This is the most amazing part: a release THIS YEAR? So, BF hasn't turned-out anything since April 2017, but they're going to be releasing three major base game/modules within the next six months? They've never done anything like that before. Unbelievably awesome! However, I have to admit that I'm skeptical as to that except for the "unbelievably" part. I'm thrilled we've gotten some concrete info. I'll definitely pre-order both R2V and the CMRT module (I'll skip CMSF2 because I've never purchased any of their hypo modern titles), but I'll be shocked if we do indeed see all three by year's end. However, I dearly hope they prove me wrong.
  10. I wouldn't say I role-play, but I tend to avoid doing "gamey" stuff such as map-edge creeping. I play all scenarios "blind"- I don't peek at the enemy force composition or deployment prior to playing. I don't use trucks or damaged vehicles for recon purposes. Further, dismounted crews are sent to the rear and not used as additional infantry. I try to avoid being careless with the lives of my pixeltruppen. Even playing single-player, there have numerous times when I said myself: "I'm not sending them out there" even though I could always save-scum if a mad-dash didn't pay-off. I just don't do "mad dashes." Yeah, I'm more George McClellan than George Patton as a commander, but that's my play-style. Ruthlessly exploiting the game engine and the AI by using every edge and advantage just doesn't appeal to me. However, I do play to win and trying to beat a scenario within its designer's allotted time adds to the challenge and the fun. (I tried very hard to avoid those "three-hour-you-suck" consolation scenarios in Paper Tiger's Road to Nijmegen campaign.) (I'm a HUGE fan of Scourge of War's "headquarters-in-the-saddle" mode and have fantasized about such a system being in Combat Mission. However, Steve has made it very clear that they have no intention of ever instituting such a system which is understandable considering how limited its appeal would be.)
  11. No problem. I should have taken a closer look myself prior to posting.
  12. Thanks for info and the explanation. As stated, it's been awhile since I last played CM. So, it could be a memory mistake that led me to believe I could use the company HQ in this manner. I do remember being able to do it, but maybe I'm forgetting other factors involved such as having a radio jeep present.
  13. Ok, now I am confused. Armored infantry platoons do have radios! (It's been a while since I played CM and remembered (or misremembered) when CM initially changed the TO&E for armored infantry by having their platoon HQs embedded in the 1st squad that they didn't have radios. So, either my memory is faulty (a possibility) or something was changed by patch or upgrade?) Anyway, I took a closer look at my current saved game and every armored infantry platoon HQ has a radio. (I also have a company of engineers whose platoon HQs don't have radios which probably added to my confusion.) So, my platoon HQs are able to stay in C&C with distant company HQs. So, it's now doubly confusing why armored infantry platoon mortars when out of C&C with their platoon HQ won't "attach" to their company HQs so I can use them as on-call arty assets like one can with a regular US infantry company.
  14. Thanks for the reply and explanation. That's most likely the reason: armored infantry platoon HQs don't have radios enabling them to keep in contact with company HQ. However, that raises another issue. Why don't US armored infantry platoon HQs have radios? Steven Zaloga stated that each armored infantry company had seven SCR-536 "handie-talkie" radios specifically for dismounted combat purposes with three being located with the company HQ and each platoon having one. So, either Zaloga or BF is incorrect. Having to keep the 60mm mortar tied to platoon HQ does limit its flexibility.
  15. I am playing a scenario with several companies of American armored infantry in which every platoon has a 60mm mortar. When playing with regular American infantry, I usually take the 60mm mortars away from their platoons and place them near their company commander well to the rear. Once the platoon commanders are out-of-contact/sight, the mortars become "attached" to their company commander which enables them to always be on-call for arty requests. Yet, trying the above with an armored infantry company doesn't seem to work. Once the armored infantry platoon commanders were out-of-sight/contact then the mortars remained out-of-command & control regardless of how close they were to their company commander. Is this working as designed that the company commander of armored infantry company cannot exert C&C upon a mortar that is out-out-of-contact with its platoon HQ?
  • Create New...