Jump to content

Pelican Pal

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Pelican Pal

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. IIRC there was a user-made CM:BN campaign detailing the exploits of paratroopers during D-Day and D+1. The player was nominally the Lt. in leading the men. Small sized units in a campaign format with special "choose your action" missions You would have a standard mission and then the follow up would be a road with two objectives on either end of it. Obj. 1: Ambush the upcoming German Convoy Obj. 2: Stay hidden Which would then change how the next mission played out. Choice 1 would lead to a quick mission where a convoy of German equipment is ambushed. Allowing you to gain an advantage in the next battle if you can keep your losses low. While choice 2 would keep the element of surprise during the next battle although there would be more enemy forces there. --- Using small single man units (detailed in the latter portions of this thread ) and a "choose your own adventure" campaign storyline would allow you to make a very enjoyable series of SF missions. Where watching the town for 2 days could be abstracted out as choices made in the mission selection portions.
  2. I think a lot of it comes back to the animation system not being paid enough attention to when dealing with how it effects combat losses. Load up a halftrack and you have the entire complement of men sitting bolt upright in the back allowing much of their upperchest and head to appear above the protective sides of the hull. The result being that relatively light fire will start to accrue casualties on the men ostensibly using it as protection. With trenches we have much the same issue in that the men when crouching expose a large portion of their body to fire. Additionally the trenches themselves are quite wide and relatively shallow making it easier for artillery to "clear" the line as it were. If trenchers were slightly taller and not so wide their protection would likely increase. Infantry survivability would also increase if their animations weren't so "parade ground" suited. --- What I did find useful for trenches was to build a ditch and then place a trench line within the ditch. Effectively giving the men better protection from both direct and indirect fire. As they are now forced to stand to fire and their basic crouching position is generally safer.
  3. That is an interesting solution to my issue. At this point I've largely stopped playing CM and drifted over to other games. As a result I haven't done any scenario work in literal years. I might comeback to it if BFC releases a particular interesting module - but at this point I've been enjoying games with offer a bit more breadth even if the granularity isn't quite there. I do have CM:SF but need to create a ticket to get it redeemed. I have an odd issue where it doesn't list the base game in my library but I do have two modules listed. I had CM:SF Paradox -> bought the paradox upgrade patch -> purchased the Marines and Brit expansions. However, I only have the Brit and Marine expansions listed in my library. Anyway...
  4. CMx2 is still 32-bit? Presumably there is at least some talk about doing a CMx3 in 64?
  5. I'm assuming the headcount functionality was coded for a formation wide scale and has some play in it. In this case though it seems rather bizarre that 50% can actually net you 100%. I wonder if that is true for large squads? Would 50% of 10 men ever get you 60%? Its even weirder given that the options for different reductions are available and ostensibly seem rather granular, and you would think that granular choices would be expected --- but then they just aren't. I ran into this issues a few years back when doing Squad Battles series in Red Thunder. I took CMX2's 1:1 idea to its logical endpoint and created several scenarios where each man was his own unit. Using the current command structure system but scaled for Company as the largest unit. I had a few testers but this coincided with me becoming too busy to do much scenario making and having to drop the concept. In total I made 2 or 3 scenarios. The teams issue was a bit of a pain for me, but I switched to primarily using truck drivers and such since they guaranteed single man units unfortunately they lacked grenades. Since I was also doing reinforced platoon to company scale I could also stomach far more two man teams where it made sense (lmg, anti-tank, etc...). It played surprisingly well. Its too bad we don't have single man units within the editor OOB for each faction. That would open up a lot of interesting scenarios without all the fiddling around.
  6. Just like to add that I would be interested in seeing this back on the store.
  7. Yea, reading anecdotes from American combatants I often saw variants of "we waited for the Germans to advance out of 'insert cover/concealment here' before opening fire". It seemed that many American units managed to keep their heads long enough to wait for the German infantry to enter good fields of fire before engaging. While German Infantry, on the other hand, often did not have a clear idea of where the American line is.
  8. CM's dichotomy is that while WeGo removes your ability to unrealistically micro units when you are wearing the hat of Platoon commander or above the player is quite often wearing the hat of a Sergeant, Corporal, or even Private. In those cases wego is unsuited to the situation. At the top of the minute a fireteam spots five tanks and a platoon of infantry crossing a ridge. 9 times out of 10 that fireteam isn't going to sign their own death warrants in reality, but in CM those four men have no conceptual understanding that they are massively outgunned. That Corporal will have to wait an entire minute before telling his fireteam to do anything reasonable like crawl away or hold fire. Instead they'll fire a few rifle rounds before being pulverized. An RPG team fires a rocket and then, against all logic, proceed to not move and get plastered by return fire. Etc... Neither WeGo or Real-Time is always realistic or unrealistic. They just happen to have moments where they are the most realistic choice and some where they are not.
  9. The tension between Real-Time and Turn-based will likely continue to exist as long as Tac-AI is primarily reactive. - Turn-Based probably gives you the best experience when you are wearing the hat of a mid/high level position. A Company or Battalion commander. You have an orders delay without being able to micro the individual men. However, turn-based is easily the worst for wearing the hat of an individual unit. People have mentioned shoot & scoot, and that is an obvious example of where turn-based fails. Especially in a modern setting where an RPG team will quickly be killed if they don't move. - Real-time while giving you a better unit level hat gives you a more unrealistic and worse mid/high level hat. There is often too much to do and it also gives you the ability to game the system a bit more when interacting with multiple units. - My personal favorite is real-time w. multiple pre-determined pauses/command timings. Its essentially a house rule where depending on the units scale and breadth of the order I have a timer before I can give it. Individual/local scope is whenever. This covers any sort of order that a Squad Leader or lower could reasonably give. Platoon scope. These I limit to every 20 seconds. These are orders that a Platoon Leader could reasonably give. Company Scope is at 40 seconds and Battalion is at 60 seconds. It takes some rules setting for myself and can only be done solo but it provides interesting gameplay outside the norm.
  10. The key difference being that 3 mortar bombs landing within rapid succession will grant you greater suppression and a better chance at routing the enemy unit. 1 mortar bomb ever 20 seconds is going to be much less likely to give you a good suppression effect.
  11. I believe CM:BS was covered. Flare Path covers a lot of content and usually that means whatever new release is hitting is going to get attention and older games are going to get less attention. Battlefront hasn't released a new module in like a year+? so they haven't had a lot of coverage. I'm sure CM:SF2 will get covered when it launches.
  12. Yea the nice thing about CMSF2 will be that you get something like 2-5 years of development in a single release. So as far as content goes it beats literally every other release that BF has made and will likely ever make unless they do a similar rebuild of CM:BN or something. Tech wise you are essentially playing with low tier CM:BS units and different OOB for Red and Blue.
  13. Flamethrowers are generally better weapons in real-time play. Their short range and tac-ai priority make them very vulnerable so they need to have a lot of personal initiative allowed for them. The 60 second turns generally don't allow for them to have that sort of initiative needed for success. When playing real-time I've been able to more easily get them to operate with support of friendly troops in a cohesive way that allows for success. Most often a platoon moves up to relatively close range to the enemy with the flamethrower team and they begin to suppress enemies with fire and 5-10 seconds later I have the flamer team FAST to within the 30 meter range and quickly target enemy positions in order. Firing a quick burst of flame at each one, before having the flame team FAST to cover. In real-time this is relatively easy and can be done in a matter of 30 seconds, give or take. However, doing this in turn-based is almost impossible as it requires a bunch of very specific move, pause, and target orders that you can't really reliably get to work. Generally I prefer turn-based but in situations like these where you are simulating the decision making of small groups of men acting independently (a small flamethrower team in this instance) real-time does a much better job of giving you a realistic result.
  14. The general thrust that most CM scenarios are not scenarios where recce units excel I would agree with fully, but in addition to that the 1:1 nature of CM + the rather static animations makes gun turrets more dangerous than they probably should be. The gunners in most vehicles stand essentially upright with a decent portion of their bodies exposed to enemy fire and switch between unbuttoned and buttoned in a rather binary fashion. You can see it in this video where both the men firing from the half-track, the man sitting in the track, and the .50 gunner are relatively high up. More so than would be absolutely necessary. The Bren gunner is firing from a fully standing position when huddling below the armor deck and resting the Bren on the vehicle would likely be more stable. Around the 1:10 mark the gunner engages infantry within 20-30 meters of him who are using an identifiable object as concealment. The gunner maintains an upright position on the gun while engaging and remains upright between bursts. He is not receiving return fire, but if he was it seems possible that he could drop down behind the gun and spray the object with fire dynamically popping up and down to check his fires. Compare that to this video from a gunner who is taking fire. (2:28 mark or so) After receiving near misses the gunner is only exposing himself to fire a burst at the enemy and is otherwise below the armor. This sort of dynamic up/down action isn't seen in CM and even the base stance in CM is relatively high. In CM the gunner also has to be up on the gun to fire it. In most combat videos you see the gunner will also be on the gun when firing, but occasionally you will see a gunner firing from a position that keeps him largely below the armor. This is a limitation of programmer/animator time, and I wouldn't expect to see gunners dynamically moving while firing on targets. However, I think its important to understand this limitation so that the player can make decisions not only around tactics but also with better knowledge of the tool they are using.
  • Create New...