Jump to content

WynnterGreen

Members
  • Posts

    169
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by WynnterGreen

  1. I'm having a play around with CM for the first time in a while. Giving a AFV a Target Armour Cover Arc will result in the unit not engaging AA Vehicles.
  2. Video footage surfaced showing Syrian rebels using a German World War II - Era Wehrmacht Howitzer on the battlefield in Idlib. The howitzer appears to be a 10.5 cm leFH 18, a 105 mm light howitzer that entered service with Nazi Germany's armed forces in 1935. The Syrian Army was known to operate limited numbers of the 10,5 cm leFH 18M howitzer, as well as the 7,5cm PaK 40 anti-tank gun. It is likely that the howitzer shown was captured from a Syrian Army base or museum.This footage is part of an ongoing documentary of the war in Syria through raw combat footage. German World War II Era Wehrmacht Howitzer Used By Syrian Rebels On The Battlefield In Idlib .
  3. I've got no problem with the need to reload during the assault. I've got a problem with the individual sitting around for 30 turns prior to the assault and not reloading or consolidating ammo.
  4. It was noticing assaulting troops stopping at odd and infuriating times that bought it to my attention that units weren't reloading between engagements. Which I then put to the test to confirm. I'm not contending that it's a particular problem with 'assaulting units' or 'assault tactics', it's a systemic problem with reloading. ie, that given ample opportunity and time, units aren't reloading their weapons. Which means that those 'assaulting units' are doing so with little ammo loaded due to lack of preparation, not lack of ammo. There seems to be some disagreement with the assessment I've made. Fair enough. I contend that it's a LONG way from First Person Shooter syndrome to expect moderately well trained troops to reload their weapons and consolidate ammo between firefights. Assistant gunners and Squad Leaders should be insisting on it, it's their job, and there should be some kind of [under the hood] representation of that in game. Currently there isn't.
  5. oh. Good. Agree or disagree I'm glad the message is getting through. My intention isn't to comment on the 'feasibility or difficulty' of getting units to consoildate and prepare effectively in CM as a coding effort. If it's an unreasonable expectation 'workload for reward', so be it. My objective is to point out the discrepancy between what one might reasonably expect to see tactically, against what's reproduced behaviorally in the simulation.
  6. Are we? The game would beg to differ. At the moment your Elite infantry units won't reload or consolidate ammo no matter how much time they're given between firefights.
  7. Ummmm..... I'm not sure how to explain it again to make it more simple. Currently in CombatMission an individual will fire off any percentage of the ammunition from his current clip, magazine, belt, whatever....... fine. After he's done so, it doesnt matter how much time passes, he won't swap out the clip or reload his firearm until he expends all the ammo in the currently loaded magazine...... Bad. It might be thirty minutes/turns of idle time, and you might be about to assault him across a dangerous field, but he won't repack, reload or ensure that his firearm is properly loaded before the advance, no matter how much time or opportunity he's afforded. He's happy to wait until he's discharged whatever's left in the magazine, and reload somewhere stupid, dangerous, illogical and inappropriate. Any semblance of realism should require that each individual keep his ammunition loadout at optimal. Including reloading and ammunition consolidation whenever possible. As it stands, given time and opportunity, that's not what they do. It doesnt require a 'reload' micromanagement button as someone implied. It requires some coding that simulates reloading and consolidation. Much the same way that there's already coding for ammo sharing.
  8. You dont need to go into the mechanical details of reloading to understanding that not reloading when you have ample opportunity is STUPID and wouldn't happen.
  9. Oh' come on...... this is absurd. What possible argument is there for sitting around with the last two rounds in your assault rifles magazine (Accept for, 'these are the last two rounds you have') in lulls between firefights? Time to prepare, IS TIME TO PREPARE. At the moment the Combat Mission AI situation is: Fire off some rounds at an area target, sit around for ten minutes with the last 3 rounds in your magazine, make the assault with the 3 round mag and reload to the full clip you're carrying at the most inconvenient and dangerous time possible. So because it's not obvious, when they've got ten minutes to sit around before the next engagement, they shouldn't swap out the mag or repack it? Better to keep the clip with 'I don't know how many'?
  10. For a while I've been noticing while mirco-managing between turns that quite often my infantry start reloading at infuriating times during a firefight. Instead of reloading during periods of rest, they sit with their clips depleted to just a few rounds. Then, when the S*#T hits the fan, they pop off the remaining rounds before beginning the reloading procedure during the middle of the engagement. I put it to the test with US BAR units, depleted to just the single Automatic Rifleman. I had them fire 'Target Briefly' at an area to substantially deplete their clips. I then rested them for ten to fifteen minutes. After the rest period I then 'Targeted Briefly' again. They fire off the last two or three rounds in their clip then start reloading. UNITS SHOULD BE RELOADING BETWEEN ENGAGEMENTS, not just waiting until their clips are depleted. In my opinion this is quite an oversight.
  11. Read 'opposite side of the wall' as in the same action square as the wall, if the'ye further back, they wont be spotted.
  12. Just tested this. The exception is hedge and low boacge. Units spot through them while hidden very quickly and easily, right out to at least 150m, my test limit. Units will spot enemy units traversing along the opposite side of a low wall, hedge, low bocage out to a reasonable distance. Tall bocage the enemy has to be nearly on top of them before they spot. Unit's hidden behind low walls get a [Sound - Infantry ?] contact from quick traverse moving enemy at about 70m in empty terrain [but never spot] after about one minute.
  13. You're not demanding change, but you are continuously asking for better evidence in an environment where none, or little, may exist. Nor is anyone else 'demanding change'. Arguments have been made [based on evidence currently available] that modelling of ATGs in CM under-represents the assets real world capabilities. Some of us would like to see change, but that's far from demanding anything. Battlefront may saunter in here at any time and say "this is what I know about ATGs, and this is why I've chosen to model them the way they are". Further discussion may ensue, or they may close the matter with their godlike power over how ATG mechanics work in THEIR game . Those advocating for change are asking for more realism [in their view] and they hope BF will see it the same way. That's all. You seem to be asserting that the evidence presented by Lt.Bull isn't good enough to demonstrate the conclusions he's come to? Interestingly, you "definitely agree that ATGs ought to be allowed faster movement speeds if some realistic provisions could be made for it". You agree with the conclusion, but disagree with the quality of evidence provided to support the conclusion? So, you're basing your belief that ATGs ought to be allowed to move faster on......... what exactly? Can you understand why Lt.Bull might find your desire for him to provide better evidence perplexing? Any number of things might exist. .
  14. You do understand that sometimes better sources are unavailable, and that we have to infer likelihoods and probabilities from the somewhat limited resources we have? It's perfectly valid to make inferences on less than ideal source material, so long as we're prepared to adjust our thinking when better information becomes available. Do you think Combat Mission is based on nothing but flawless data and pristine source material? You hate the sources, we get it. Table something more valuable and we'll all happily reference it. If you don't like the analysis, add yours to the discussion. Otherwise you're not contributing much, other than negativity.
  15. I'm assuming the 50 feet [15m] is hyperbole? I find it extremely difficult to believe a 57mm ATG could be moved that far unless it was off a ledge or down a steep slope. Recoil springs and rails take up a huge portion of the energy. Is it possible the person was hit by the barrel blow back and not carriage movement? A quote would be awesome, just to satiate curiosity. I completely agree that it's impossible for BF to code for all permutations and that we have to accept abstraction. That's true of many and varied aspects of CM. I don't think that changes the fact that ATGs need attention. If you look at many WWII era guns trails, they were designed with a plough wedge at the end. That meant that on most surfaces the action of firing the gun would direct force through the trail into the ground, further entrenching the trail. A self entrenching mechanism, if you will. However, that shouldn't be taken as meaning the trails wouldn't be manually entrenched in prepared sites.
  16. This This, This, This and This A well organized prepared position is the best option. EVERYONE AGREES!!!!! Whenever they had the time and opportunity to prepare one, that's what they did. BF has given a nod to that with their concealment bonus for unmoved ATGs. However, it wasn't a luxury they always had in the field, ad hoc tactics were often necessary. Some of us would love to have ATGs in Combat Mission perform to their capabilities and be the threat they should be rather than an ignored option because they have to be pushed through molasses in game.
  17. You're fixated on an issue that's been given a reasonable address, ie, a larger portion of the ammo being offloaded to the 'bearer' detachment with whatever movement and fatigue restrictions seem appropriate. You even agreed that it was a good option. Why are you still using it as an argument? As far as I can see, the problem with the guns and their lack of mobility remains.
  18. Yeah I agree in essence, being able to set any point values we like would be ideal. I really went with the Force Adjustment option because it already exists, it just needs to be duplicated for the 'Defender'.
  19. There are quite a few players interested in very large scale games, utilizing larger force allocations than the current maximum, Huge. A really quick fix for those of us wanting to play these larger engagements would to give both sides the Force Adjustment menu during a Quick Battle set-up. Currently a Force Adjustment can only be given to one side, the 'Attacker', even in Meeting Engagements. Giving a Force Adjustment menu to both sides would allow up to 150% more points than a standard Huge game allocation. It would also mean that you could adjust the points % advantage given to the attacker in Attack and Assualt games to whatever the players agree on rather than the arbitrary amount dictated by BF. This can technically already be done, by giving the Attacker a negative % modifier, but for those of us wanting to play HUGE + games it's an undesirable option.
  20. I'm not sure if you read the first thread on the issue, where much of this was talked about at length. Legitimate examples of tactics commonly used in actual combat that aren't really viable with the current mechanics are guns in defilade being quickly rolled into firing positions. As per towed gun doctrine, guns being rolled from primary to prepared secondary firing positions. For lighter guns, shoot and scoot. Not being such easy meat for direct fire mortars.......etc
  21. There's scant evidence available, but what evidence there is supports that notion that CM currently under-models ATG performance. There are 'period' videos of ATGs being manhandled in much the same way as shown in the re-enactment videos. Those videos are largely staged demonstrations, with the occasional bit of combat footage [usually pre-engagement] thrown in. I don't necessarily like it, but those videos and Towed Gun Doctrine make up the largest portion of evidence available on the matter. So while it isn't wise or ideal to rely on them completely, they provide the best evidence we have for the moment. Perhaps it is a 'frankly horrible source', it's still more evidence than the 0 sources provided to support either the contrary position or the current status quo in game mechanics. I think we're probably in furious agreement that aspects ATGs performance need addressing. It's just the details, the "why's" and "at what costs" that are in contention.
  22. I'd love to know who it is that you believe that's advocating for the perks without any downsides? The contention is that after a small but welcome revision by BF, ATGs still significantly under-perform in relation to their real world potential. If in-game Sherman's were restricted to move at 30% of their real world potential there would be discussion about it. This is no different. No one's asked for anything unrealistic, they've asked for more realism [which is Combat Missions mantra]. In my opinion that includes modelling fatigue differently, which I alluded to in my previous post. They fixed the ridiculous Pack, Move, Un-Pack necessary to move an ATG a short distance, and thank goodness. But it was only a partial fix for what should be a more useful and versatile battlefield asset. Movement speeds need to be revised, I think that's quite clear. I'd also suggest that crews receive heavy fatigue penalties for moving too often, or too far. Fatigue should be amplified for moving through difficult terrain, and perhaps only smaller guns should be able to move on certain terrain types. I think the suggestion that a larger portion of the ammo goes to 'bearer' detachments and that gun crews themselves carry a smaller round allocation to offset greater mobility is an excellent one. That way if a player gets 'gamey' rolling their guns all over the place, they soon find that their heavily fatigued bearers can't keep up. In game assets should be given as many real world tactical possibilities as possible, 'nerfing' the gun to simulate supply lag isn't a good solution.
  23. First let me say thanks to BF for making progress on the ATG issue, the squeaky wheel did get some attention. It's proof to my mind that they'll listen to cogent arguments. However, as Bullman is pointing out, only a partial overhaul got done. Static bracing and digging in were desirable, but not necessary. Here's some perfectly acceptable and historicity accurate 'bracing'. When necessary a crew member would also ride the barrel or muzzle as a counterbalance during quick re-positioning manoeuvres and facing adjustments. In Combat Mission nearly all ATGs have a separate 'ammo bearer' detachment. Surely the ammo bearers role in a Tactical Simulation [as opposed to a logistical one] is to simulate the packing, movement, deployment etc. of incidental equipment? Leaving the gun crew itself to fight as dynamically as possible. Artificially restricting the combat capability of ATGs [and I believe I clearly demonstrated that to be the case in the previous thread on this issue] for those reasons is a spurious argument in my view. This is part of what I meant by partial overhaul. ATGs went from a requirement of having to be packed up, then moved, then re-deployed even if they only needed to be moved a single action square, to being able to move short distances while deployed. However nothing was done about ATGs glacial movement/turning speeds, their speed over various terrain, more accurate modelling of fatigue, etc. There were definite improvements made, but they weren't given the full attention they needed.
  24. Hey there..... I created a new Attack Map recently. It seems to have been affected by the Qick Battle 'Attacker/Defender' side swap bug, so I never released it. However I didn't want it to go to waste so I've added units to create a Scenario. I haven't gone into any detail with regards operational situation or anything like that, but there should be plenty to like for those that are into Huge Scale Scenarios. It's a 2.4km x 2.2km map, rolling countryside, river, large towns with plenty of 'known to player only' Objectives and variable timed reinforcements for both sides. Map can be found at Greenasjades [HERE]
×
×
  • Create New...