macjimm
-
Posts
47 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by macjimm
-
-
I've been unable to log into the Battlefront Store. My email is not recognized. Does anyone know where I should go for support?
-
Thanks to everyone for the helpful responses. It was an outstanding answer to my query.
I also received this video from from Valkatox at "The Few Good Men" community.
-
Does anyone have any good references for indirect fire?
Questions:
- How to use? - General Command and control - dos and don't
- How to decrease delay?
- How to improve accuracy?
- Limitations and considerations of the "Cancel' and "Adjust" order.
- Other helpful hints.
It seems that my troops have a lot of difficulty hitting what they target, if they fire at all.
I've done a search on the forums and come up with; more than 70 results for Arty and 125 for Mortar. It would be nice to find a comprehensive guide, tutorial, or video. Or series.
-
On 11/5/2016 at 11:36 AM, guachi said:
It's a moot point, anyway. I just tried to buy something and got an error message so it's off to customer support I go.
Hope you managed to sort this out. Battlefront has a wonderful support department. I've found that they are very helpful, prompt and intelligent. I'm happy to spend money to a company that stands behind what they sell. I've never had any issues giving them my money but I suspect they would offer the same outstanding service I've experienced post purchase.
I'm interested in this thread. The feedback may guide the decision on my next purchase.
Guachi,
have you experimented with the demos? Black Sea Final Blitzkrieg Red Thunder Fortress Italy -
-
On 8/4/2016 at 6:22 PM, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:
If this was the case I imagine we'd have stopped issuing smoke grenades some decades ago. It's not "magic" but it does transform aimed fire at point targets into area fire, which greatly reduces the ability of an enemy to engage targets.
Wow. I am truly delusional or I failed to communicate effectively.
First off. Panzersaurkrautwerfer, I've thoroughly enjoyed reading many of your posts and I find your content very thoughtful and well informed. From what I have gleaned from your words I would be far out my depth to debate military tactics with you. So don't take this as a confrontation from an arrogant computer gamer but rather as an enthusiastic interested old guy seeking clarification.
I understand your comment "... smoke does transform aimed fire at point targets into area fire" and aimed fire in certain circumstances may be more effective than area fire. But I found that having a buddy team or fireteam delivering aimed fire is often less devastating than a platoon pouring lead into an area. This is especially true when the enemy has big weapons and is at range. But perchance I may be confusing suppression with casualties.
What I was trying to say was: Using smoke as a screen to aid breaking contact is not always effective.
Smoke can be misused. I've seen smoke used as if it were a force shield. Smoke doesn't stop bullets and can give away your position, or alert the enemy that you are about to move. It can be used effectively, although having 4 people throw smoke at the same time is often excessive. Smoke on your own position can provide your enemy a nice aiming marker and prevent you from firing. Don't throw smoke onto your own position. The only time smoke to your front is applicable is if you're withdrawing, & then try to get it as far away from where you actually are as possible. If you can break contact without smoke you may often draw less fire from the enemy because as individual soldiers moving in bounds your team may be not be visible to all of the enemy, when smoke often will be.
Often using smoke near friendly positions when under effective enemy fire can be a very bad idea. Sometimes not all of the enemy is aware of your position. The enemy can be shooting at you & not know exactly where you are - I've noticed this to be common. You throw a smoke grenade and then every single enemy knows where you are and can quickly be shooting at you. Rather than "Where's the enemy?" "He's by that tree." "Which tree?" "The one with the leaves." etc. you'll just have, "Enemy on white smoke!" and then suddenly the whole enemy force knows where you are and can be focused on your area and looking to see you exiting it.
Basically smoke is okay (for signals) near friendly positions when the enemy can't see it. Using smoke in a firefight should be on top of or very close to the enemy to blind and confuse them and allow friendlies to use area suppressible fire right into the smoke. Put down suppressing fire on the enemy while trying to put smoke on their position is a good tactic. Obscuring smoke can be smoke delivered onto the enemy to blind him.
Smoke is often best deployed on the enemy position via 203 or AFVs, if possible, or if not thrown so that the wind will carry it so that it screens only where you are moving and doesn't blind your own guys. I especially like to use smoke as "Good Smoke" to blind enemy and light up the area with mounted weapons on our friendly AFVs. If the enemy also has Vics then target them at the same time as the smoke is deployed. A smoke in the right spot forces the enemy vehicle to move, or be destroyed, while blinding it and creating an opportunity for friendly movement.
But my key point was that the game should allow for area fire into smoke.
-
On May 13, 2016 at 9:21 AM, ncc1701e said:
One thing that is puzzling me is that during one of the mission of the demo, computer did fire some smoke and I was knowing the infantry was just behind the smoke screen coming in my direction. I was willing to order my men to area fire on the smoke or just behind but the engine prevents me to do this.
I see no real life reason why I could not waste my ammo across a smoke screen if I need to.
Thank you
Seem reasonable to me. Good use of ammo. If the enemy is stupid enough to pop some smoke close to his own position then your whole platoon (or Company) should be able to target the smoke and saturate the position with massed area fire. The smoke makes a great target indicator. Or if the enemy is a little smarter we should be able to mark his position with smoke and fire into it. By aiming through the smoke we can cause surpression if not casualties. This is a great standard drill as smoke on the battlefield is usually very dangerous for those close it it. Smoke is just two thin to stop bullets, or any other ordinance.
Smoke should = a great target. Game mechanics that limit fire into and through smoke are just poor. It's just unrealistic, like game mechanics that don't allow area fire at all.
Smoke should never be allowed as a magic protective cloak. Smoke is the red flag that attracts the bull. The BULLet.
-
Very informative comments. Thanks for the ideas
-
Nope, this wasn't WWI*. There were discrete defended localities, generally of company size, with the gaps in between covered by observation, fires, and patrols.
Hmmm. If that were true then it might be more interesting to play on huge maps ... to allow for more flexibility. And have very large set up zones. Allow more time for enroute stage.
-
It seems to me the problem is that you know where the opponent's exact "setup zone" is. You would rarely have such accurate information in a real life WW2 situation.
I often wonder about that myself. Wonder how much empty terrain would be available or would friendly units be within site distance of each other (shoulder to shoulder) along the front.
-
This type of thread is great. Thanks for your insight as to the relative effectiveness of infantry up close with armor.
It reminds me of the frustration I experienced during my first CM2 missions getting slaughtered by mortars. I was irritated at my own impotence and the disappointment wth my opponent's skill with indirect fire. I'd never seen a game where the mortars and arty dominated the battle so decisively. I thought that it had to be a game flaw so I endeavored to search for topics regarding the accuracy and rate of fire for WW2 mortars. Dam those mortars in WW2 were lethal ... and quick.
Suppose it may be the same for some gamers when infantry gets up close and personal with their AFVs.
-
Very nice AR
Entertaining and easy to watch Thanks for your efforts hope you enjoyed doing it as much as much as I enjoyed watching
-
When I was a kid I loved playing war games in the woods, using toy soldiers, board games like Squad Leader, Tobrok or Panzer Leader. I loved scale miniature models and was always watching war movies on the TV. Currently I enjoy Combat Mission, Hearts of Iron 3, ARMA and Command Ops and to a lesser degree some of the Total War games.
In real life I am non-violent and almost all of the physical confrontations in my life I met with a strong resistance to strike back, choosing instead to grapple and softly talk my way clear of using force. And the only time my desire to hurt someone has been aroused was when my life was immediately and seriously threatened.
Despite being a very gentle, caring and compassionate person I have a deep interest in history and military strategy. History related to warfare is fascinating. The combat gaming that I enjoy are the ones constructed so real life tactics must be used to be successful in game. I would stop short of claiming that I enjoy realistic war games because I have no desire to witness most of the battlefield. I would not enjoy the smells of rotten waste, burnt flesh and chemicals , nor the sounds of creatures (especially children and animals in agony). Are not most of the casualties of war civilians? In the games I use on the computer there is no bravery or sacrifice and I am grateful because I don’t want to watch the futility of war and endure the heartbreak and emotional trauma that must surely accompany decisions made when so much is risked.
The wargame is just that, a game. An intricate chess match of immersive historical strategy. The best of the games are not realistic and I am glad. If the game was truly and fully realistic I would indeed feel guilty if I still enjoyed it.
-
Well, the simplest solution I can think of would be to replace all the game's voice tracks with audio tracks that contain nothing but silence. I would use your favorite audio editing software (I use Audacity, myself - it's free and open source) to create a single .wav file with 1 second of silence, then make a bunch of copies of it and rename them to match all the voice files.
If you don't know how to track down the voice files, you could download somebody else's voice mod to get the names. That will show you how a mod should be put together and used, too.
Awesome, thanks for the direction. Any idea where I can find anyone's voice mod? Link?
Appreciate the idea.
-
If you are just scared of repeat voice phrases have you thought about going the other way and adding more voices into the game through a mod folder using the usual numbering system?
Thanks for the reply.
Not sure how to do what you are suggesting - I had not thought of it and have no idea how to start. But I still think I would have a problem ...
For the record. I'm not scared of the repeat voices and like them when I'm playing the game. They are great indicators.
But for creating a movie ....
There are moments when the infantry is creeping carefully in hunting mode and some one nearby is yelling "GO! GO! GO!".
Other times everyone is hiding and quiet and someone yells out "LETS USE A LITTLE NOISE DISIPLNE!!!"
Seems everyone has a bullet to the thigh "ARG MY LEG!!"
It would just be way easier to remove all of the voice files and add in my own at the video level ....
Hopefully someone knows an easy fix.
-
Hopefully someone can provide some direction on how to remove the voices from the game. I know nothing about modding. And I'm not technically savvy.
I'm aware that lots of people like to hear the AI talking because it yields clues about their situational awareness. Hopefully this doesn't become a list of the benefits of AI voices.
I would like to make a AAR video of a PBEM and it is a lot of work to remove the repetitive phases that are often distracting.
Can anyone help me to remove the AI voices?
-
Would it be difficult to make silent audio files and replace the current ones?
Is there a better place to post this question?
-
The voices in the game can't be turned off but it should be possible to replace the voice files with silent audio files. Someone would have to make them first.
Would it be difficult to make silent audio files and replace the current ones?
-
Is there anyway to get rid of the soldiers voices?
"Move it! GO GO GO!" "Take cover" "Did you see that?" gets a little redundant.
-
Fixed. Needed the v2.12 patch
Thanks John Costello and c3k
-
How would I "Take it to tech support?"?
-
Anyone know how to fix weird glitches with graphics?
The Browning 1919A4 looks strange on my system. The lid seems to be floating ... works okay when it is deployed. But looks odd when it is transported.
I have a similar problem with the MG42
-
Any suggestions for great references for editing?
My goal is learn how to set unique objectives for both sides on a map that will be used for a quick battle PBEM.
The Terrain Objectives (Axis) will be different from the Terrain Objectives (Allied) and neither side can see the other's.
I would be happy if each side had one objective each. Just searching for a way to keep them unknown to each other. The single Allied side objective is not known to the Axis and visa versa.
If there is a way to set multiple objectives in a QB great. But one unique objective for each side is okay.
-
I would suggest that CoH seems to hold peoples attention for a few weeks or months. CM players often continue to play the game for years.
I watched several videos of CoH and that was enough exposure for me. The units seems to move very quickly. It had the look and feel of a computer game. CM has the atmosphere of a simulator.
Support or Help to Log on
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
Thanks for the reply. Didn't get to try your suggestion though. Battlefront reactivated my account upon receipt of an email I sent.
Great company. Wonderful individualized service.