Freyberg
-
Posts
1,048 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Posts posted by Freyberg
-
-
11 minutes ago, sttp said:
There are plenty of people who considered the HE bug introduced by version 3 to be game-breaking. There was discussion of it all over the forums here.
Oh, indeed - I'm not arguing that no one has claimed that CM contains 'game-breaking bugs', just that it puzzles me that they do.
One of my points is that the difficulty of CM is one of the things that has kept me interested in it.
Before the 'troops leaving foxholes when shelled bug' came, some years ago there was the 'MGs don't kill enough people bug'. I consider both of these to be settings. I've never been shelled - so would I stay and get killed or try and run away and get killed? I can only imagine that cowering in a little hole in the ground while high explosive erupts around me would be disconcerting, but I really don't know, which is why, even though a few people made a big fuss about it, I considered it a setting rather than a bug.
Likewise with the earlier 'MG bug' - how deadly is a tripod MG? War is so chaotic, and WWII battles in RL consisted of so much hiding and sniping (which wouldn't make a fun game), that it must be very hard to know what the most realistic setting is. I like that MGs now are more lethal - that fits with my perception of them, but is it scientifically true? I have no idea.
-
1 hour ago, sttp said:
And not all that long ago a major (some would say game-breaking) bug took over a year to be patched.
I haven't really wanted to participate in this discussion, but I have found it interesting to follow.
I'm curious, though, about the idea of a 'game-breaking' bug, because I have never experienced that with any of the titles, except maybe the Bridge Bug - which was annoying, and could spoil an particular QB or scenario, unless you had a saved game to return to. That one only got me a couple of times and it was fixed pretty quickly.
The other bugs that I have heard described as 'game-breaking' were:
- the bug-out-forwards bug:
This one didn't bother me. I figured a routed unit is probably doomed whichever way they run, so it didn't seem overly penalising that they rout in the wrong direction.- the stuck-in-hedges bug
Again, this one was occasionally annoying, but not really 'game-breaking'. It taught me to keep a closer eye on my men, to make sure none of them were getting lost. It never made me quit a game.Then some of the things listed as bugs, I would describe as settings. Like the fortifications-quitting bug. I never noticed that as a bug. Should soldiers stay where they are when being shelled, or try and escape? It sounds like a philosophical question - anyway, if I wanted them to stay and die, I would click Pause.
The auto-select forces setting in QBs doesn't really suit me - I usually select both sides, but I have so many QBs going at once, I quickly forget what forces I chose for the AI. But I wouldn't call it a bug, it's just the setting is a bit random for my taste - I like balanced forces. Typically I just tweak the auto-select rather than choosing the whole force from scratch, so the setting isn't too bad.
CM is a pretty hard game. I've been playing it since CMBB came out and on a tough QB map or with a craftily designed scenario, I sometimes still have to cheat to beat the AI.
-
On 4/18/2021 at 3:07 PM, dbsapp said:
When I wrote opening post I was struggling with Bunkers Burning scenario.
I remember that one - it was a hell of a game, lots of fun
-
In Assault scenarios, you get to see quite a few of the enemy fortifications and positions before Turn 1, which makes sense.
Otherwise, fortifications don't seem unreasonably easy to spot. It's amazing what you can see with the naked eye from 3-400m away, with binoculars even more so.
I'm not sure how invisible you'd expect fortifications and emplacements to be...
-
1 minute ago, AlanSA said:
Yet you decided to entertain his attempts at whitewashing Soviet crimes. Ironically I wouldn't have bothered to reply otherwise if you hadn't.
I'm not going to get in a fight with either of you. I'm actually trying to be conciliatory to you both
I think forum etiquette is important, especially on the topic of war, which combines the twin topics of politics and death in their most tragic form.
You both appear to be new to the forum, so you may not have seen how unpleasant these political arguments can get. It's just best if we stick to the game - like heated arguments about whether the Bren Gun is better than the BAR
-
1 hour ago, AlanSA said:
Since you insist on continuing this off topic discussion.
This tit-for-tat squabbling is how threads get shut down, which is annoying for the rest of us.
-
3 hours ago, dbsapp said:
Wise and meaningful words. Sad, that they didn't appear after this comment.
Sorry, I didn't see that comment, or I might have said something.
For the record, I'm anti-Communist myself, but I deeply respect the great sacrifice the Soviet people made to defeat a much more dangerous enemy; and I also feel grieved and conflicted by the terrible civilian casualties we, the Western Allies, inflicted on the civilian populations of Germany and Japan (my ex-father-in-law was a child at the fire-bombing of Tokyo).
I generally don't play as the 'bad guys' either - I'd much rather play CMRT as Soviets than as Germans.
Anyway - it's normal to get emotional about historical events from time to time, but let's all stay friends because we all have a great geeky hobby in common
-
28 minutes ago, dbsapp said:
Agree! Unless the Soviets are condemned and Wehrmacht is praised, then it's OK!
Actually, most of us have thought about these issues and have various sad, complex and humanitarian opinions, often coloured by the experiences of the many people we know, have known love or have talked to or read about - but we prefer not to be drawn into politicised arguments in the BF Community.
Sometimes it spills over because we're only human, but we try and leave the angry debates in the world outside, as it spoils the fun of discussing a game we love
-
6 hours ago, IanL said:
PS I've seen a lot of misses too so I'm not sure that your initial characterization is even accurate.
Yeah, I haven't observed gun accuracy to be over-modelled either.
Some guns are just very accurate at under 1000m. I wouldn't expect a German PAK 75mm at 500m to miss an easy target like a squad of infantry.
-
13 minutes ago, Canuck21 said:
Am I right in that basically the info will be communicated via the sounds of the other side shooting at them? Again, I'm presuming they've gone totally LOS for C2 purposes. Thanks.
No, sorry - if they're out of contact, the contact maker will be lost with the team.
(assuming you meant the team were all casualties)
-
7 hours ago, chuckdyke said:8 hours ago, Erwin said:
So, in CM one may as well move FAST all the time so long as not in immediate combat.
Indeed, unless there is a reason to move at a lesser speed.
I dunno - I have no tests to prove otherwise, but this theory doesn't gel with my experience of the game.
Perhaps it's just my imagination...
-
2 hours ago, weapon2010 said:
Is the mud ground tile much more likely to cause bog/immobilization if the ground condition is set to wet as opposed to dry?
Significantly more!
-
Combat Mission is a game, with its tricks and quirks (which are part of playing and learning any game); but it is also a realistic game.
If you are playing WWII, and you can advance a mainly infantry force 500m in one hour, against a fairly well-equipped enemy in good cover, without huge casualties, that's a pretty impressive achievement for that period.
-
It's the rage, frustration and infuriation that keep you coming back for more
-
2 hours ago, MikeyD said:
The trick to gameplayplay is to enjoy dying.
Lol... or accept cheating. If you screw up - go back to a saved turn and try again
Plus - in QBs, give yourself plenty of time. Only in the very smallest of games will you finish in 45min with mostly infantry.
I love infantry-heavy battles. They require patience, studying the terrain, making use of all arms, a lot of slow and careful manoeuvre with occasional short dashes, always conscious of enemy artillery - fantastic...
-
10 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
The same reason I don't indulge in the gamey practice by sending two men on a suicide mission a human player won't fall for it.
I hate doing that - it's one thing to attack aggressively, but recon by suicide is so fake...
Another thing ACs are great for is pursuit - once you break the MLR and you want to hasten the enemy's surrender, light armour are fabulous at shooting down fleeing enemy :D
-
On 4/1/2021 at 4:00 PM, RMM said:
- In as much as campaigns continue play on the same map (eg. Bridge Too Close), the map should retain the wrecks and changes to terrain (eg. rubbled buildings and blasted hedgerows) created in the previous battles.
I don't agree with some of your other ideas, because I don't want to have to micromanage units, but this suggestion I like.
Actually, the Team have said they won't be implementing map damage across battles, nor the ability to import troops or maps (with damage) from a previous battle to a new one, as it would represent a kind of Campaign feature, and the game has a Campaign feature.
...but the Team also said they'd never do CM Fulda Gap, so who knows....
-
On 4/1/2021 at 12:59 AM, Sven said:
How does the AI place its guns?
With occasional aberrations, the AI places guns extremely well. It seems to have an algo that checks LOS and LOF across the whole map very carefully. At its best, it uses depressions for cover, terrain features for concealment and clever keyholing.
If you have time, it's worth setting up a couple of QBs in play-test mode, just to see how it does it.
-
If you believe there are enemy nearby - and in CM you know they are nearby and roughly how many there are - you scout using stealth, which means someone on foot.
Scouting vehicles are still useful, because they can move your stealthy teams quickly to locations where they can see something, their radios tie you in the CC network, they can use their MGs to conduct recon by fire, and you can do very quick forward and reverse moves to see if you draw fire, although that is often hazardous.
-
Agreed - the times I've needed tech support, it's always been prompt and effective
-
1 hour ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:
Set troops to fanatic. Voila, you have a bunch of drugged up lunatics.
Interesting idea - maybe set some of them to 'weakened' and 'unfit' as well - and -2 efficiency, because Meth can do weird things to people
I'm gonna try that.
-
If you find that all units are spotting around the same, I wonder if it's because you're playing mainly at very close ranges..?
It simply isn't that hard to see a moving object at 300m, whether you have binoculars, cupola, naked eyes (in my case with some myopia) or whatever, so unless the target has begun the game hidden (assumed to be camouflaged) I'd expect most vehicles to be of similar capability at that range. The situation is very different at 1300m.
-
14 hours ago, Cobetco said:
recon vehicles have about the same spotting chance as a tank
I haven't noticed that to be true in the WWII titles...
-
Thank you
I read all your updates, but didn't comment as I didn't really have anything to say. However, I enjoyed it very much.
Sandbags ruining concealment
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Freyberg
OK - this was bugging me so I ran a test. It took a long time to set up, I expect to be thanked
Scenario file attached, play with it yourself.
Test settings:
Results:
1) Control, no cover (terrain file 'hard')
2) Extra long grass tile, fortifications placed one tile back from front of cover tiles
3) Light tree cover - light forest tile, tree type A, one tree per tile, fortifications placed one tile back
OK - so this is a single vanilla spotter, with binoculars and 10 min of uninterrupted observation on a clear day.
For those who say 'these things are too easy to spot', do you drive, do you ever visit the country or go to the beach? 100m is literally 'just over there' - I can spot a sparrow in flight from 100m, without my glasses on - and it doesn't take 10 min.
I may (or more likely may not) do other tests with different elevation, but this is my preliminary conclusion.
Summary:
A high elevation advantage may make a big difference, but it should; more eyes and more experienced eyes may make a difference, but they should - feel free to play with the file and change terrain types.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9yvjmwddqiyv0eu/000 spotting A2_L.btt?dl=0