Jump to content

37mm

Members
  • Content Count

    1,817
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Everything posted by 37mm

  1. CM does have the tools to help simulate lower intensity warfare... there are CMSF1/2 scenarios where the penalty for casualties are quite harsh (@Combatintman has made a few) and even a few low intensity campaigns by @puje. Although, as @Howler points out, this is a game & people usually want to get to the 'splodey tank' bits fairly quickly.
  2. I'm not too sure that is correct... during large battles/offensives (where most CM scenarios take place) you have very high casualty rates where units are trying to stick to some timetable of objectives (if your unit fails to meet its objectives, both the flanking units are left in horrendous danger). Operation Goodwood was a two day battle which saw the Allies lose 500 tanks... Normandy, day by day, was considered to be as bloody as WW1's Battle of the Somme (although, obviously, ending up more decisive... and with more movement). Compared with most wars* the World Wars really were staggering in terms of bloodiness... and CM scenarios are usually representing the very bloody tip of that truly outrageous carnage. CMSF1/2 is probably the outlier here... as it is difficult to imagine, considering the BFC hypothetical timeline, why "objectives" (any objective) would be worth as many casualties as one usually suffers during a scenario... however, clearly, CMSF1/2 is a fantasy sandbox. * Just as a random comparison, the British suffered 256 dead from the four year (1936-39) revolt in Palestine... a butchers bill perfectly comparable with todays "small wars".
  3. None of those wooded areas are very thick. I think CM underestimates the concealment potential of thin woods (especially when there is any rise in the underlying terrain)... in fact, I think I recall that it is confirmed that ALL units in CM are FAR more visible than they should be for gameplay reasons (there's a reason small unit skirmishes can last many hours in real life). We're not talking "health bars" here... but it is an ahistorical engine quirk that one needs to get used to & plan for. I agree with @Bulletpoint that the (thin) wooded terrain suggests, to me, "assault route" rather than "base of fire position". However, there are usually advantages for doing something unexpected (especially considering all the murderous scenario creators out there, all of whom seem insanely desperate to brutally murder my poor, innocent pixeltruppen... what did my pixels ever do to you @George MC? We can't take a nice "walk in the sun" without you flinging various kinds of explosive sh*t at us?).
  4. Hmmm odd. Either way, my version of the @Kieme(ITA) HD mods has been altered to better fit in with the CMSF2 engine (mostly in terms of distant bitmaps). Rather than go through my current set-up, bit by bit, here it is in its entirety (for battles in Syria)... http://www.mediafire.com/file/hk8tt6jfxv2ro8l/zzzzSyria.7z/file
  5. I've been gettin enquiries about old CMSF vehicle mods, so here are the ones in my possession (they seem to be mostly by @MikeyD & @M1A1TC)... http://www.mediafire.com/file/f500hkxs4xlzlxu/Old_CMSF_Vehicle_mods.7z/file
  6. That was my top theory too however a lot of the retreating units were combatants that I hadn't encountered... so I found it strange. Either way, I've just checked the scenario in the editor & there was a rather questionable AI plan in it... so forget my observation in that regard. So far, so good... with the latest Tac AI.
  7. Not yet... I didn't see any issues with units in the open (say on a street). Infantry firefights seemed a bit "stickier" with less withdrawing (for instance units under heavy fire on a second floor had to be ordered down to the ground floor if I wanted the firefight to break off... usually it's a struggle to keep units on the second floor without them automatically fleeing to the bottom) however the US infantry was crack (and presumably well motivated) whilst I can imagine most of the opposing fighters were also well motivated. I did seem to catch a lot of units withdrawing from the back of buildings and, as this was an old CMSF1 scenario (triggers didn't exist), I can't think of any planned AI reason why that would be so... indicating a possible tac AI issue (one to keep an eye out for). I transferred some of my CMSF1 mods before the repository shut down for good... I think there is an Abrams mod in there but I've used them all so long I couldn't tell you what it is or where I got it from.
  8. I always use the HQS voices by @waclaw however I subdue them so that they better fit in with the "dynamic range" of the soundscape... I've been slowly working my way through the WW2 voice packs.
  9. I am pretty pleased with the (WIP) ME Soundscape 1.5 and consider it a great improvement over 1.4 (that comes with Heaven & Earth).
  10. Many of them may be barely trained but the Syrians in that scenario are on the offensive & have made the decision to fight against the invaders... most are highly motivated. There is marsh/bog/mud near the set-up zones in that scenario so bogging could be an issue if you cross such terrain. Another issue is there are quite a number of minefields dotted around the map (I managed to hit every damn one from what I recall) which could also immobilize your vehicles. The town objective is well defended and potentially very bloody, following "rule 1" from @agusto, I remember initially bypassing that objective. Either way, it sounds like you actually did fairly well & at least kept your casualties down. I think you might be allowing small frustrations/hiccups to seem larger & more important than they actually are. Scenario time-limits are a complex balancing act for scenarion designers to decide upon... too much time & it is felt that the scenario can become too easy (and also start raising issues about reinforcements & resupply). Too little time and it can become too bloody/too hard/too immersion breaking. Myself? I tend to not worry so much about the "victory" objectives or even the time limit that much and always appreciate the work that scenario designers have done in creating maps & AI plans & briefings & all the rest of that stuff.
  11. Many veterans complain that buildings don't provide enough cover however the modern games, like CMSF2, can still be pretty brutal... even a few bad moves/decisions can lead to heavy casualties (CMBS is often considered to be worse than SF2 in that regard however, because of the lack of body armour, arguably CMA is even worse than that). Most of the Syrians in that scenario are at "normal" motivation... but there is a spattering of highly motivated troops who are more than willing to stand up to fire. It should be noted that CMSF2 models relatively weak building penetration of the 5.56mm armed blue forces (when compared with the heavier AK rounds or full power rifle/GPMG rounds). After many (very many in my case) bloody disasters, modern CM players tend to learn to be paranoid & cautious... and then bring overwhelming firepower, from covered positions, to deal with any spotted enemy. Also, because of "elite" fog of war, you might have been wrong about the enemy position being only a single guy/unit.
  12. This has certainly been fixed for most Syrian infantry units and their aquads now have reasonable PKM loadouts as standard... however the Airborne/Special Forces do appear to have been forgotten about. These squads are still fixed at 100 rounds.
  13. Almost every scenario & campaign ever made for CM (even officially) are semi-historical at best... do not overestimate the historical accuracy of the computer game that you play. I suspect far more people play CM because of the decent 3D graphics & sound (for a wargame), fairly realistic physics &, at least plausible, infantry behaviour than they do because of accurate OOB's... if BFC decided to go back to TACOPS style graphics for CMx3, but increase the OOB accuracy, I can certainly imagine that it would hurt sales. Heaven & Earth is a fantasy & although, technically, the modded aspects are graphics & sound mods only it also comes with unique maps, concepts, content & unit compositions... it very often requires a different playstyle & mindset compared with CMSF2. Either way, it was the best that could be done given the modding limitations. Some of us have been waiting almost twenty years for CM-Vietnam (or CM-WW1) and not everyone has survived that wait. A lot of what was done could only have been done with the help of people like @sbobovyc & @Aquila-SmartWargames making & figuring out how to use the modding tools... which I think is part of the point.
  14. To be fair, looking at the pictures, there was probably also screwy timing going on... the suspected tank clearly had been in a ditch but must have risen out of it, perhaps just a few seconds before it then got hit (accidentally). I definately don't see any issue here (quite the reverse, this is a great example of 'the fog of war' being simulated by CM) but I will say the suspected location icons are perhaps a little subtle to understand sometimes.
  15. The intervening tank is in a ditch... the first shot penetrates this "suspected tank" (its not truly invisible as there is an icon there) & then hits the visible tank in the hull (presumably the result of a shot aimed low). The second shot hits the visible tank in the turret (presumably the result of a shot aimed high). The tank in the ditch has a lower profile & is more easily concealed by foilage, dust etc...despite this concealment the tank in the ditch has no real cover from the low first shot. There is absolutely no issue with this sequence of events.
  16. I have a relatively small list... -Distant gunshot sounds, they don't need to be specific for each weapon... it could be more generic (like the current "gun shot trail" sounds) but the sound of battle should go further than ~800m. -Intermediate distance bitmaps... currently, for terrain, CM runs either at high detail or uses the tiny distant "minimaps". There seems to be no in between... which is strange as virtually every other thing on a CM battlefield has a range of various distant LOD's (perhaps the oddest exception being vineyards in CMFI... they are either visible or invisible, there's no in between). -Individuality & independence is nice & all... however community is not without its merits. Could a small independent company not work with other small independent companies to share things? The people behind reshade might know more about shaders than anybody at BFC, the people who make independent first person shooters might have better sounds to share? There are small independents working on amazing things in areas like voxel physics & learning AI... a deal with BFC might help them to train up the next Skynet. You've seen yourself that working, with Slitherine, in areas that you might be lacking, can be beneficial for both parties. Surely, as you're all competing against AAA games (and budgets of tens of millions of dollars), agreements could be reached? -CMx2 was launched with a totally new theatre never seen (or even imagined) by most CMx1 players. Obviously, that means CMx3 should launch in Vietnam!
  17. A tank in a ditch (though not entirely spotted) is hit by accident whilst another (far more visible) tank, on a road, is engaged? Is this even an issue? It seems like something we'd all agree could happen... that CM models such things (and always remembering we are looking at abstractions) seems to be something we should celibrate... no? Notice the first, weakened, shot hits the visible tanks hull (presumably the result of a shot aimed slightly low) but the second, deadly, shot hits the turret (presumably the result of a shot aimed slightly high & therefore bypassing the obstructive tank). If we drop the assumption that every tank round fired in a CM battlefield takes placed under ideal optical conditions (and instead imagine foilage, dust, smoke, silhouettes, shadows, microterrain undulations... as well as sweat, panic & fear) then there's no issue with this incident. Good job BFC.
  18. Getting ready for 'Fire & Rubble'...
  19. Unfortunately I upgraded my reshade to the latest version &, although I'm pleased with the increased efficiency & the new effects to play around with, it has left my profiles in a bit of a mess... I'm trying to find out what the issues are & fix them. However, I do know that I've generally been getting subtler & simpler with the reshade effects and I'm all but certain that, for that vid, I was using just the Barbarico movie mode that comes with H&E, a pirate bloom set on a high threshold* (which also gives a quasi ambient light effect), SMAA & one of the default multi-LUT options (I think option 2)... nothing else, no sharpening, no colour correction, no AO. *Which is pretty standard with most of my previous .ini's.
  20. I said I needed 15 maps for the People's Militia campaign however one of the maps is slated to perform double duty, so it's really 14 now. The latest map conversion is based off a @Paper Tiger map... ... I only have two more maps to go & they're both planned to be on the smallish scale so we're looking good for the release of the 0.97 'People's Beta'. I also quickly tried out one of the 0.96 scenarios & realized I forget to update that scenario's briefing (despite me having a very specific memory of having done so)... ... so that's another fix that has been added to the "to do" list.
  21. Infantry in Battle is a good book on US actions (mostly in 1918) & shows how fluid the fighting had become by that stage. Basically, by 1918, everyone could succesfully attack everyone else.
  22. Twas a great little campaign & I enjoyed it tremendously... I really, really have to return to working on Heaven & Earth but I've enjoyed CMFI even more than I was expecting!
×
×
  • Create New...