Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Hapless last won the day on April 10 2019

Hapless had the most liked content!


About Hapless

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

969 profile views
  1. @BFCElvis Awesome! If I'm going to be totally honest, the first thing I'm going to do when i get the game is see how the Lend Lease Sherman stacks up against the T-34 and vice versa. Then fight over Berlin. Loving those wrecked Volkswagens too.
  2. Oh wow. Err... I'm not actually up on my late war Eastern Front stuff. So I guess... an IS-2? Not sure whether we've seen one of those yet. Or who/what-ever shot those unfortunate pixeltruppen in your first screenshot.
  3. Ruined wall segments? Those ruined walls don't look like they're part of the usual ruined building pile, or damaged existing walls, more like they're a specific placed object.
  4. Yeah, I just had a play about with it. Definitely something weird going on.
  5. See what happens if you put the HQ back in the BMP or if the HQ is out of line of sight of the infantry (behind a wall or a hill or something). It might take a second or two for the C2 icons to update when you move them. As a guess, everyone still has their radios but because they can now see the Pl HQ, they're now relying on visual signals in preference to the radio. IIRC, the icons at the bottom just indicate the means of contact that are being used, its not like an inventory.
  6. Touche. This is what I get for being slow to CMFI.
  7. Sloped armour reduces internal volume, which has some serious knock on effects on things like ergonomics, ammunition count and survivability. The other question mark is whether it would have helped in any way: the frontal armour would obviously be more effective than the side armour (it would be both thicker and more angled) and when was the last time you saw the Sherman bounce anything off it's front slope?
  8. CMFFS would be an unfortunate acronym, though I'm sure we've all felt it
  9. Nicely done @Bud Backer Just trying to get into the defence a bit more: what were the conditions like? It looks pretty snowy in a couple of the screenshots. We're all talking about how the defender should have mutually supporting positions on the flanks, but if you're fighting in poor visibility and those positions can't see far enough to cover one another then despite its drawbacks concentrating in the town might have been the least worst option. I think one of the things we're glossing over is that your opponent managed to generate so much uncertainty you felt like you needed advice . That's not a trivial achievement: CM is as much about attacking the enemy's decision-making ability as it is about killing his pixeltruppen. Its only a pity that he was unable to exploit it, but without going over the terrain and knowing the exact conditions and points available it feels a little premature to assume that he could. Not that any of this diminishes your victory at all: there are always things to learn from both sides.
  10. Urban warfare 101: Do you actually need to go into the village at all? I would take a look at the time, the points allocated to each ground objective and the points available for destroying the enemy and decide off those factors. If you don't need to take the village, then why take the risk? Occupy the two minor objectives, surround the village and chip away at him from a distance at minimum risk.
  11. Yeah. Apparently the Jackson can depress its gun to -10 degrees, which would make sense seen as though its a Tank Destroyer that's supposed to be fighting hull down (being open topped helps- means the breech isn't smacking into the turret roof!). Not sure if this graphical oddity is an issue with the model or if it is actually depressed -10 degrees and its hard to tell. Its a little off-topic, but interesting to see the projectile created at the end of the barrel and not where the breech should be. The shell tracers are bigger than the barrel, so I guess it would look weird everytime it fired if you could see the tracer going through the barrel, not to mention how that might interact with any collision logic going on.
  12. It also works with min elevation: this is a M36 Jackson just after firing from a hull down position. Take that physics!
  13. The distribution varies depending on the type of battle. I can only remember Meeting Engagements off the top of my head: the points would be split 60% unit objectives and 40% ground objectives. If you made a map with 4 objectives, each one would be worth 400/4= 100 points. I think you can change the points distribution between the objectives by varying their points worth in the editor. For example, if you had two objectives and you allocated Obj A twice as many points than Obj B, in a QB Obj A would be worth 66% of the terrain points and Obj B would be worth 33% (in our meeting engagement, that would be 266-133). The best way to see how this works is to pick a map and then set up quick battles against the AI in different game modes and surrender as soon as you get to the deployment screen: this will give all the victory points to computer so you can see how they're distributed.
  14. My quick 2p: I don't have any problems with tanks in CM, I think almost all of the issues you raise have tactical solutions. Or to put it another way, don't the situations you describe imply that something has gone wrong somewhere? Why are defensive positions exposed to direct fire at all, never mind direct fire from tanks? If the defensive plan is to engage in a slugfest with a superior enemy force, what is the purpose of these positions (delay, attrite, destroy, bait?) and how are they sited to achieve that purpose? How has enemy armour advanced to infantry close assault range? Is the infantry too far forward? Are the anti-tank assets not set up effective? There are plenty of infantry tools (bazooka, PIAT, faust, shreck) capable of dealing with enemy armour- are these weapons effectively distributed or protected until they are needed? If all friendly AT assets are gone then something has definitely gone seriously wrong! But how would the enemy know that he can operate unopposed? Where was the AT reserve? Why are underpowered AT assets engaging overarmoured targets? If they're underpowered, what was the plan to use them effectively? Cumulative subsystem damage from non-penetrating hits isn't a trivial problem: tanks with no optics and no radios are a lot less effective. Maybe a different angle on the issue. Fortification issues are a different kettle of fish, but from a strictly (potentially unrealistic) gameplay perspective I would rather have ineffective or overly expensive fortifications than time consuming trench clearing operations, map spanning minefields and impenetrable walls of anti-tank obstacles.
  15. Hello! Syrian Airborne troops seem to be equipped with night vision monoculars and night sights on their weapons, but only have a single piece of night vision equipment in their inventory. It seems a bit weird because the NATO units have an NVG set for each soldier (ie. 8 sets for an 8 man squad). Plus, the Syrian Airborne appear to have NATO NVGs magically attached to their helmet brims? I can understand how it makes sense to reuse the NATO night vision monocular asset, but in combination with the discrepancy in the inventory it seems off. I was wondering if all the squad members are supposed to have night vision, whether they're supposed to only have the night optics for their weapons or whether its only the squad leader seen as though they apparently only have one set between them? And more importantly, is it just a graphical bug or can they actually see at night?
  • Create New...