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. Just like to add that I would be interested in seeing this back on the store.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Just spit-balling, but a suppressed unit in CM will generally not move if they aren't taking losses. A constant barrage of artillery could suppress the crew of the tank to the point where the high suppression level would prevent them from exiting the vehicle?
  11. Why are you all being such weird asses about his question? IanL and MOS:96B2P were kind enough to answer his questions about content, MOS very thoroughly. However, we are now on page two largely on the basis of people being ****ty that he thinks $60 is a lot of money. Yes he thinks $60 is a bit pricey. Okay great maybe it his for him, maybe it isn't. We don't know. What we don't need to be doing is dogpiling on the dude. And you have to admit that if you didn't follow BFC posts very regularly you would likely be confused as to what is going on. You might wonder what changes have been made since CM:SF. You might wonder if CM:BS, a 4 year old game, is expecting any updates. You may not know about the CM:SF2 update. You might want to come to the forums and ask the nice helpful users some questions so those with more knowledge could concisely inform you. If you look at the CM:BS news page http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=334&Itemid=576 you might be forgiven in thinking that there are no expansions planned. But of course we have to jump down his throat that he dare question spending $60. Imagine replying like this.... Yea $60 is kind of expensive, but I've gotten really good value for the money. There is a lot of content included with CM:BS and a bunch of user made content for you to access. (maybe link to the scenario depot here?). You can see some of the added features since CM:SF on this page http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=338&Itemid=583 and there is always the demo available here http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=340&Itemid=584 Right now we're expecting an CM:BS expansion somewhere around (insert date here). Imagine that, helpful, informative, non-argumentative. But why would we want to do that? When we can reply like this: It is possible for people to hold views that are in opposition from each other without being petty. I mean this guy has posted nine times. Five in the T-72 Balkans on Fire forum between 2010 and 2012 and four times in this thread. I'm sure he has left with a positively sterling opinion on Battlefront and the forum users. And of course we were perfectly right to drag him down as quickly as we can because this 9 post lurker is obviously a troll who wants to destroy Battlefront. Maybe next time someone says something you don't agree with you can not immediately go on the attack. If you are really triggered by the possibility that someone thinks $60 is expensive you can just turn off your computer and not reply.
  12. Ah, yea. I have CM:BN and CM:BS so I might try doing a port one of these days. I'm not sure if you saw these, but I made a port of a series of CM:RT maps that may be of some interest to you.
  13. You don't need to remove every building. Only the unique pre-made buildings. This is annoying but not prohibitive on most maps. Any of the modular buildings can remain. If terrain tiles are causing issues I suspect that you can mass paint the offending area with a basic terrain type.
  14. I did some porting a while back and found that unique, non-modular buildings, would cause the editor to crash. A modular building (2x2, for example) appears to be standard in the code and have a texture per game. While the unique buildings (Orthodox Church, for example) is unique to the game and will crash if brought to a different game. It has been a while, but I also believe that any terrain tile that isn't present in the game will also cause a crash. So a snow tile will crash a game that doesn't have one.
  • Create New...