Jump to content

Animal_Mother

Members
  • Posts

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Animal_Mother

  1. No, I'm in the U.S., so no problems there. Actually I think I might be able to afford the video card before release (if there's 4 more weeks) so not only will I be able to play Commonwealth but I'll be able to do it on my brand new GTX580 Anyway thanks for the help.
  2. Hey guys, if I wait until after release I won't have problems getting a hard copy of the Commonwealth module will I? I have to have one to avoid DL due to crappy internet but atm am trying to save up for a new video card. But I definitely am planning on getting it.
  3. But if your scout unit has a short covered arc they won't stop & hide unless fired upon or the enemy they see is actually inside the arc, right? Or does it work differently with the hide command at the end? If so I might try that. But it seems to me that if you used no covered arc and a hunt order with hide at the end they would hide immediately upon seeing enemy, and being hidden wouldn't fire on anything. Darn it, now you've got me thinking & I'll have to go try it.
  4. I'd like to see this feature, I'd use it constantly.
  5. When scouting I always use small infantry elements--the 3-man scout teams are best but I always use random force selection so these are not always available. Extra arty spotters, ammo bearers, LMG teams also work, binoculars are a plus but not absolutely necessary. Use the Hunt order. The idea is that if they get wiped out you've only taken a couple of casualties. Now once the enemy has foolishly given away their position firing on your scouts it's time for payback. My favorite unit to cover an advance with is light mortars, firing directly--they'll put a serious hurting on anything they see, unless its armor. Remember the idea is not to take no casualties yourself but to make the enemy take MORE casualties, and HE is the way to do that.
  6. They had something similar but I think it was a generation or two down the line, I can't remember exactly what the designation for it was. It definitely didn't weigh 500 pounds though. I remember it had parameters for things like weather, wind speed & direction, ect.
  7. Should have also added that there should be a random variation on where your repeat FFE actually hits, depending mainly on the quality of the spotting unit. Repeat FFE uses same target area (circle of standard/nonstandard size, line, or point target) as original fire mission. You can repeat as many times as you want as long as the above criteria are met, but all targets must be within 100-200 meters of original.
  8. Artillery changes: The ability to call for repeat FFE within a certain distance of the original target without having to start a new fire mission from scratch (maybe 100-200 meters) with the tradeoff being that each type of artillery gun/mortar/rocket/whatever has a default target circle that, if deviated from, adds significantly to the fire mission time. Also repeat FFE should have to be requested immediately following the original fire mission. Cover armor arc would be nice as well.
  9. So when you play Combat Mission you have ambient battle sound coming from outside...cool! And now I think about it I think PADS stood for Position and Azimuth Determining System.
  10. It was inertial but I don't remember it being referred to by either INS or IMU. They called it PADS: Positional Azimuth Determining System. It weighed probably at least 50-60 lbs and occupied a cube about 2 1/2 feet a side. You would enter your map coordinates at whatever registered point was available with a plumb bob out the back of the jeep and then drive to where the battery was set up, and it would do all the calcs. to give you the orienting line. Nifty piece of equipment for its day. I don't know about other applications, but artillery survey has been gone since approx. 1992. Don't know for sure but I seriously doubt the army uses survey for anything anymore. We better hope our tech doesn't fail us since we really don't know how to do squat anymore, huh? So where were you stationed? I of course did basic/AIT at Fort Sill and then served in units in West Virginia & Minnesota.
  11. Actually I started in field artillery survey--mos 82C--in 1989. A few years later they introduced a new system for deriving the orienting line for the howitzer battery...involved a big gyro driven unit that you could mount in the back of a jeep (we didn't have Hummers yet) Anyway, when that happened 82C became obsolete, so they put me in FDC instead. I was in the National Guard in a couple different units, 155mm mobile howitzers and 105s. I can't remember exactly what year I started FDC, but I got out in 1995. And no, I never got to do any FOing, but I do remember getting to accompany them just to see it at least once.
  12. As for me I haven't even played CMSF, was still playing CM1 and waiting for CMBN.
  13. Couldn't this just replace the present bottom UI when no unit is selected? Right now it's blank if you don't select anything. Good idea though.
  14. Yes that's what I meant. But maybe the circle should be different sizes depending on the firing unit. A battery of 105s using a bigger standard circle than, say, 60mm mortars would. Also if you are going to repeat FFE you should have to do it immediately following the original mission, at least with higher level assets. A battalion level asset might wait a little longer for you to decide if you want to repeat before going on to something else while brigade level might not, ect. At present my favorite trick when trying to take out a single target like an AT gun is point target, harassing fire, max. mission length. This way I can continue fire until the target is destroyed without having to restart the fire mission from scratch, but once it is destroyed I can cease fire without wasting too many rounds. It doesn't work too badly but imo is a little gamey and is not what a unit would do irl.
  15. OP--I used to be in FDC as well, so I can sympathize. The artillery system could stand a little additional work. My recommendation would be having repeat FFE within maybe 100-200 meters of the original target (of course there should be some random variation on where this actually falls, one factor being the experience of the FO) with the tradeoff being that each arty type has a standard firing pattern and deviating from this will result in longer fire mission times. Maybe not all that is needed but I think it would improve things.
  16. When placing a FO in a building you want to use a short cover arc command, 50 meters or less, facing towards your artillery target. If you use the Face command instead your FO will engage any target within range with small arms, giving away their position...not good. I found this out the hard way during my early days.
  17. Couldn't find it anywhere so I wasn't sure if you guys were aware: PC Gamer magazine has reviewed CMBN--I quote their verdict: "CMBN is a very good tactical wargame saddled with pre-alpha looks & controls. You really have to want it." Rating: 73% I thought it deserved better, but there it is.
  18. Well that's good then, definitely not a bug. Sure surprised the h*** out of me though. Been playing CM since CMAK first came out and never seen that happen.
  19. No, it didn't hit the turret; left side almost perpendicular to the tank, about 2/3 of the way front to back. Is there not a way to tell what round is being used?
  20. Hey guys Haven't posted for a long time, been too busy playing this awesome game--seriously, every other WW2 game I've tried (mostly FPS) is full of poor design decisions giving in to the mainstream gamer, but not CMBN. Great job guys, your efforts are appreciated. I'm posting now because something really weird happened & I want to make sure it wasn't a bug. Anyone here ever seen a PSW222 destroy a Sherman? It was in a QB I was playing--night mission, point blank fire (maybe 15-25 meters) on the Shermans left side, of course with 20mm. Anyway the Sherman exploded, probably the ammo storage was hit. Unfortunately I didn't think to save the turn, but maybe you could set up a test scenario? I'm thinking the Sherman was an M4. Just thought you guys might like to know about that, and thanks from a very satisfied customer.
  21. Yeah I would go with that--bring back command delays but only for units out of C2. You would have to figure out what the delay should be for each individual situation though. Probably factors like unit experience of both the unit receiving the order & it's immediate superior (assumed to be the source of the order) ,psychological state of both units and distance between the two would apply. But if you send orders to a subordinate unit via a runner nothing says he will actually ever get there at all. He could be killed, be unable to find the unit in question, ect. So there should probably be a chance of the orders not going through with the chance being greater the longer the orders were going to take in the first place. In practice what you would do is resend the order when it became apparent that something had gone wrong. Also units that haven't moved since setup should have less of a delay--their commander knows right where they are.
  22. Here's another idea (not saying it's necessarily a GOOD idea): what if you could only issue specific orders to units if they were in C2 and they would then do their best to complete those orders (you could stack more than one order in a row if you wanted) BUT after the orders are completed or failed if the unit was now out of C2 it would do its best (via AI) to move back into C2 for new orders?
  23. Yes I know about slide rules..never used one. I guess what I really meant was "electronic computers". The ones we had in the early 90s were pretty clunky but at least kept us from having to sit there doing all that math. You just plugged in all the variables & there was your firing solution. I don't know the procedure for doing it with a slide rule though so it's a little hard to make a comparison as far as how much faster one method is than the other.
  24. I used to be in an FDC (early 1990s, 155mm mobile howitzers) and the thought that they could make fire adjustments as quickly as they did with no sort of computers actually impresses me quite a bit. That being said adding duration or delay to a mission after the fact would be pretty simple. The higher level the asset the longer it would take for the request to get through though--they would have more to worry about than just your fire mission--and repeated requests would probably add more & more time.
  25. Completely unrelated but still in the right thread I think: I could be wrong but shadows seem to show as normal on maps where it's raining, even if it's a thunderstorm. Not a huge issue, just looks a little funny IMO. Would it be possible to maybe lower the general lighting level by an appropriate amount (maybe depending on whether it's a storm or just rain) if it's raining on a map? Then the shadows wouldn't be as noticeable, right? This would do a lot for the atmosphere of these maps IMO. Maybe even add in lightning flashes. No big deal if it can't/won't get done though, I realize they have more important issues to worry about.
×
×
  • Create New...