Jump to content

Kaunitz

Members
  • Content Count

    161
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Kaunitz

  1. Oh boy. Now that I'm planning my first H2H CM:BS game, I tried to take a more detailed look at the capabilities of all those units. I admit that I don't have a lot of knowledge about modern warfare, but still: I can't even google most of the stuff I'm searching for. CM:BS desperately needs a better documentation for the units' capabilities. The game manual is lacking in many aspects: For many ATGMs, you can't even find how they work You don't get to know what kind of smoke vehicles pop (and in which pattern), [it would be perfect if the manual gave you info on how many minutes the smoke grenade will be "active"/emitting smoke, whether it degrades/blocks IR/thermal imaging, whether it is fired defensively (close) or aggressively (farther out in front), how many charges the smoke grenade launcher has] You don't get to know the spotting devices for most vehicles (and infantrymen). In the game UI, you often only get to see an "IR" entry in the damage section, or - for infantry units - some night vision devices in the equipment section - But what does this actually mean? How does the game handle spotting devices? Magnifiers of all kinds, night vision/rest light, night vision/infrared, thermal imaging? Does the game differentiate those and how? And does it matter where those devices are (gunner/loader/commander/driver positions)? And where the devices are located on the vehicle (locations of periscopes, vision slits, etc). Similar questions arise for infantry: we don't get to know how capable the spotting device is (if the game even differentiates several levels here...?) and, e.g., if it makes a difference if a soldier wears googles or is equipped with a night vision scope on his weapon. Generally speaking, spotting is such an obscure topic in all CM titles, but in CM:BS, it matters even more in WWII titles, due to all the available technology. Right now, the manual does not explain how all that technology is represented in the game. If anyone has some knowledge he would like to share, I'd be very thankfull! But ideally, it should be ingame info, not "real world" info. I primarily want to know how weapons and other equipment works in the game, not in the real world. The lack of documentation limits the fun I get out of the game, since I can't really understand what's going on on the battlefield. Questions like this one pop up all the time: "Was that just bad luck or did I miss some important technical advantage of the enemy vehicle?" PS: By the way, I also think it would be very nice (in all CM titles) if the manual listed the standard [regular/normal/fi/0] point costs for a unit. PS1: The BMP-2 (Ukraine) has just 2 crew members? The commander seems to be missing, or is that intended? If the commander is missing, does this degrade the spotting capabilities of the vehicle? (the commander's position has the best spotting devices according to the internet...)
  2. Yeah, but there is nothing wrong with that. Wow. The info on telescopic sight is not visible in the game. It's only mentioned in the manual. Are you sure that its effect are modeled in the game, ie. like you say, a weapon without telescopic sight is not that good at spotting at longer distances (and maybe also less accurate when firing?)?
  3. I don't know what the motivtion behind the topic is: Making the gunner duck in order to survive longer or making him duck in order to make him cease fire. Is the topic about the defensive or offensive capability of the halftrack? In any case, once panicked I also think that the passengers should keep their heads down. I don't think that the halftrack is badly constructed. In my recent H2H game, I was very happy that my halftrack gunners were keeping their heads up and returning fire. In this case, the enemy's fire was ineffective (rifle shots from ca. 350-400m against the frontal armor & gun shield of the halftrack). Despite the halftrack getting hit by more than 100 bullets in a matter of perhaps 10 turns, not a single one penetrated or caused any casualties (video AAR will be available once the game is finished). The important precondition was that all bullets came strictly from the front. Combat Mission's cover mechanics are very detailed. As soon as the angle slightly changed, the gunner got exposed and shot, as the enemy was now able to fire "around" the gunshield. As always, distance/the laws of triangulation help to make it harder for the enemy to work around some piece of cover. And as always, you should not expose a weapon to areas that it can't control. In fact I think halftracks are extremely strong (if used correctly) for their point cost. Major advantages: elevated MG and eyes (better for spotting and firing over obstacles, but also harder to hide), radio good protection against light and medium artillery (a shell needs to land really very close for its shrapnel to have any chance to penetrate - protection can be increased further by proper positioning and sandbags; Note how elegantly the german halftrack is designed with the inwards bending upper armor plates of the passenger compartment - shrapnel striking upwards from the ground will hit the armor in a bad angle and be deflected just enough to protect the gunner) good protection against long range small arms fire from the front mobile extra ammo can transport troops Basically, you get an artillery proof mobile heavy MG with slightly less ammo (which can also be used as a small supply dump) and a radio included. If you buy an ordinary hMG (and add a trench for arty protection), you pay more and still don't have a radio and are not mobile. The only drawback is that the halftrack has no binoculars, which means that the mounted hMG is not that good at shooting on sight (prefer area fire). PS: The M3A1 doesn't even have a gun shield for its MG.
  4. Kaunitz

    Echo featured sound mod?

    Well yeah figuring out what weapon uses which sound can be a tricky. Some time ago, I started a systematical approach, but I somehow ran out of motivation ^^
  5. Kaunitz

    Echo featured sound mod?

    I'd be interested into sound mods myself. To be honest, sounds are the most underwhelming aspect of CM games, but luckily there are mods around that greatly improve the experience. I've tried to mod a bit in the past, but it proves to be rather difficult. There are several unsolvable problems: Weapons would sound differently depending on whether you're close or far away. In CM, you only ever get 1 sound for a weapon. This is particularly bad with some of the modded sounds that add some "out of ammo" sound (clip-*ding*). If you make the overall shot sound large enough, the *ding* can also be heard very far away. Generally speaking with increasing distance, you want to filter out the high/treble frequencies. Weapons would also sound differently depending on the overall circumstances (humidity, hills/echoes, etc). Again, in CM, you only ever get 1 sound file for a weapon. Then there are some handicaps that could probably be improved somehow: You run into troubles with any weapon that fires rapidly. If you add some echo to the sound, then the echoes of multiple shots will overlap and you'll end up with a very weird and artificial noise. Most weapons have several files (e.g. gun mg42 0, gun mg42 1, gun mg42 2, etc), but I don't know exactly how the game makes use of these additional files. I tried to use a burst sound (several shots in a single sound file) for "gun mg42 0" (i.e. shot nr. 1) and silent files for shots nr. 2-4 - I hoped that this way I'd only hear that one burst sound. But the problem is that the game seems to start the burst with any of the files - it does NOT iterate through the sound files per burst, so you could end up with totally silent bursts, or the burst sound setting in too late (with the last bullet fired) and going on for too long. The game seems to randomize the pitch of sounds quite a bit (too much imho). By default, all sounds are WAY too silent (i.e. they don't get played at all or only at reduced volume over distance). Therefore, if you want to get a proper battlefield atmosphere, sounds need to be very very loud (clipped). Clipped sounds mean more "noisey", low quality sounds. Take a look at any sound mod out there and you'll see that most sounds are clipped. It's really unfortunate and something which could be improved quite easily, I guess. So in the end, I couldn't come up with a good solution for the MG42. It bugs me out. Right now, I'm using the mg42 sound from Audigisil's sound mod. I think that for the MG42 it's the best of all the available sound mods.
  6. Kaunitz

    Rimini Airfield

    Looks nice! How big is the map? Is it true to scale?
  7. Kaunitz

    Reverse slope/grazing fire.

    Here is a diagram I've quickly tossed together, showing the effect of distance and muzzle height in relation to the aimpoint. If your aimpoint is at a different height than your muzzle, increasing the distance to the aimpoint results in a flatter trajectory, which can be used for grazing fire. Note that for the two muzzle points at lower height (red + blue), the intended grazing zone would be reverse-slope and could not be targeted. (Of course there is always some random inaccuracy/deviation from the "ideal" lines. This is not shown in this pic.)
  8. Kaunitz

    Reverse slope/grazing fire.

    Well, I suppose the problem with larger maps (apart from the technical/performance issues it might bring) is that the scales would get mixed up. In some instances, I wished the game had turns of 30 rather than 60 seconds and smaller/more action squares. If we'd have larger maps, however, most of the 60 second-turns would still be utterly boring. So gameplay would really suffer from the mix of scales. A very fine resolution of time and space fits to the tactical, but not to a grand-tactical/operational scale. Also, to a certain extent, positions that are farther away are already represented by offmap support, even though it's nice to see these units as 3D models on the battlefield. So it's really hard to draw a line here. I prefer relatively large maps with relatively few troops. The larger maps are just enough to allow for properly spaced-out support positions. Give me more troops and I'm overwhelmed by the load of micromanagement. Give me smaller maps and it feels "bottlenecked" and a bit unrealistic. I also have to admit that I think that CM is set on a very small tactical scale, which primarily is about playing it "right". Of course landscapes differ a lot in the real world. So I'm not denying that in some situations, maps can be small without any loss of tactical complexity. But overall, my gut feeling tells me that the engagements are a bit too crowded and close in Combat Mission. It's interesting to compare CM engagements with those that another game I like to play, Command Ops II, creates (in terms of distance, troops involved, duration of engagement, losses caused by engagement). Command Ops is set on the grand-tactical/operational level and also features maps that are true to scale. On this scale, scouting makes perfect sense. (And also, you'd rarely attack with infantry in daytime in Command Ops, which is standard for CM - well, it's because of all the graphical eye candy again, I guess ). I think that the problem, if you want to call it such, becomes more noticable with the "modern" titles (Black Sea). The more the operational and tactical spheres are intertwined in reality, the more problems you run into with a game engine that is designed to represent only the tactical sphere.
  9. Kaunitz

    Reverse slope/grazing fire.

    In my eyes, "large" CM maps are just medium maps, really. Small maps usually lack ("cut off") observation and support positions. This in turn means that many units suffer disproportionally, especially scouts/observers and other recon elements as well as support elements (assault guns, infantry guns). Due to the tiny size of many maps, these units are forced into closer, uncomfortable ranges to the "frontline". Ranges at which they're spotted more easily and at which the opponent's shots miss rarely. Also, since the overall number of positions is limited on a small map, artillery can be extremely dangerous - there are only so many positions where the enemy can hide, which again increases the weakness of the aforementioned units which are typically only lightly armored. Anyway, back on topic!
  10. Kaunitz

    Reverse slope/grazing fire.

    If both tiles have the same height, it could work, especially since there is always some random dispersion? From my understanding, given a perfectly flat terrain, your bullets will cross through the "effect zone" at a greater height if you aim "behind" the zone. As soldiers tend to go prone (reduce their height), such a fire might be less effective . If you aim short of the effect zone, by contrast, your bullets will cross the effect zone at a lower height, if at all (if they don't hit the ground in the effect zone that is), which is more dangerous for prone soldiers. But really this depends on the exact height of the "aim point" which is unknown?
  11. Kaunitz

    Reverse slope/grazing fire.

    *super necro powers* As it has been mentioned elsewhere, grazing fire (and theoretically also indirect fire) is possible right now in certain situations. You can let your units fire in a "flat" manner over ground if you position your units properly and the terrain is suitable. So it's not really a feature, but rather a very complex work around. From my observations, it depends on the height of the firing weapon in relation to the height of the aimpoint on the area-targeted tile. Draw a line between those two and you get the path/angle of the projectile. If the line continues close to the ground for a long distance "after/behind" the tile you've aimed at, what you achieve is grazing fire. They bullet stays dangerous as it travels on. Since the aimpoint is hardly ever on the exact same height as your muzzle, the distance between the muzzle and the area-targeted tile plays a major role. The higher your muzzle, the greater the distance to the targeted tile needs to be in order to achieve a "flat" trajectory. Therefore, it's pretty much impossible to get a flat trajectory with the main gun of a tank atmedium ranges. A prone infantryman with a MG, however, can get a flat trajectory at medium ranges. At extremely short ranges though, even the prone MG will get a "negative"/downwards pointing angle, firing into the ground at the area-targeted tile - so I assume the aimpoint must be slightly lower than the muzzle-height of a prone infantryman. To sum it up, you need to consider the height of your muzzle, the height of the tile you're targeting, the distance to it, and - importantly - the shape of the ground "behind" the area-targeted tile. You want your bullets to travel close to the ground after it passes the targeted tile. -------------------- Of course you still require a LOS on the tile you want to target. So, while small muzzle heights are generally good for grazing fire, they also suffer from terrain that obscures LOS (from my observations, each terrain type has a LOS-reducing value and a "height"). If you're on a hill or in the upper floor of a house, you have an easier time spotting enemies (as your LOS travels above most terrain tiles and thus cuts through fewer terrain tiles), but you trajectory is not flat. It's also worth mentioning that the distance to the aimpoint affects your rate of fire. Before firing a shot or burst, a unit needs to aim, and the time it takes to aim depends on the distance to the aim-point (for a regular XP unit, I suppose it's ca. 1 second aiming per 100m distance). As you're generally targeting tiles that are much closer to you than your actual target zone, using the grazing fire method described here will result in relatively high rates of fire (and ammo consumption). I also need to point out that due to its high ammo consumption, this method of grazing fire is not really usefull except for very few situations - mainly for MG flanking fire along the path of the attacker. With "target briefly", it can also be handy to make some impression on distant targets that pop out only for very short durations - if you don't use area-target, your units' aiming takes too long so they don't fire at all. Last but not least, it could probably be used for heavy MGs, whose capability for indirect fire is underrepresented in the game (also due to maps being too small in many cases). It would be interesting to place a heavy MG on the reverse slope of a very gentle hill. The MG would have many tiles in front of it, with the height increasing very gently from one tile to the next. This would allow you to fine-tune the elevation of the gun (by area-targeting different tiles). And then you'd need to observe where the bullets "land" (affected by bullet drop) for each elevation. Interesting idea, but probably not very practical . The only thing you'd really need to make intentional grazing and indirect fire a real thing in Combat Mission is some form integrated gun-elevation. E.g. you should be allowed to target reverse slopes if the circumstances (1) terrain, 2) max/min elevation of the gun, 3) bullet or projectile drop, distance to the target) would allow an effective line of fire on that tile (one that is close enough to the ground to inflict suppression). It would make a lot of sense for MGs and also infantry guns which, by the way, are also also underrepresented in the game right now (they suck because you can't make them fire indirectly!). Right now, you need to elevate the gun by firing at a tile that has a suitable height (if you're lucky enough to have one within your LOS...).
  12. Yes, I've noticed this too. Seems a bit weird. I knew the devs are neglecting fortifications! 😭 With offmap-artillery it works fine (only experience affects point costs, all other stats don't matter).
  13. I've posted these observations some time ago in my Gerbini scenario-topic, but I think they deserve a better spot and some discussion, so here we go! Some short notes on dust in Combat Mission I have not conducted serious tests, just some quick hotseat-experiments in Combat Mission: Fortress Italy. What raises dust? Vehicle movement over "dusty terrain". The faster the vehicle goes, the more dust is thrown up. Firing large calibre guns (AT guns, tank guns, etc) from "dusty terrain". MGs are okay. Shell impacts on "dusty terrain" Whether a terrain is dusty or not depends on the ground condition (no dust if wet, eg.) and on the type of terrain. E.g. the ploughed field tiles don't raise any dust, most crop tiles do. Also consider different road types. Who can see dust? Dust generated by shell impacts can be seen by the opponent. Dust generated by firing or moving can only be seen by the opponent if he has spotted the unit generating the dust (confirmed contact required). Note that the enemy can only see the dust that is created from the moment on at which he has spotted the source (i.e. "older" dust generated by the source is not shown to the opponent retrospectively). On the other hand: once you've spotted dust, it stays even if you lose sight of its source. Effects of dust? Dust reduces/blocks LOS. For example, if you have 5 tanks on a sanddune fire, they will literally disappear in a cloud of dust. This is a two-edged sword and something to consider if you want to area-fire. Fire --> dust-cloud --> No LOS --> no area fire until the dust dissipates. This also raises an important question: Do dustclouds that my enemy can't see (because he has not spotted the source) still handicap his LOS? In order words: Is it possible that he can't see me because he's looking at a dust-cloud of which he is totally unaware? Can you be fooled by an invisible dust cloud? Another highly interesting question: I don't know whether dust raises the chance of getting spotted (as an unconfirmed contact at least, even if you're shrouded in your own dust-cloud?). Behaviour of dust? Dust travels with the wind (scenario condition) and dissipates at some point.
  14. Kaunitz

    Beat me!

    My first and last multiplayer defeat is already two years old (https://youtu.be/EyulMh2b5Dk)! I've overcome my "Mad Mike" trauma and would like to try once more! So if you're interested please let me know. (I know about The Few Good Men, but I need to re-register because they periodically delete inactive members...). Terms and conditions I'm in Austria, Europe and should be able to play 1-2 turns per day, especially in the early (boring) phases of the battle. But if you prefer larger intervalls, I'm also fine. No hurry! I might create a video-AAR of the battle. Including captions in horrible english. I have Black Sea as well as all the WWII titles and modules except for Battle for Normandy. I'll play any of them. WEGO/turn based only, no real time. I'd like to keep it at small-medium size. Absolute maximum for me is an infantry company + some support vehicles. I'm not a fan of tank only battles. If we play BlackSea, I'd really prefer a very small battle. Quickbattle, no scenario. I'm a fan of fixed attacker-defender roles as I think this is just more realistic. I'll play either role. I also think that the attacker could get some initial information on the defender's dispositions (--> assault battle type) to reduce the boring time spent on scouting and shadow-boxing in the early stages. The map should be comparatively large and not cause too much paranoia (no woods only, no fully urban map, e.g.) as this tends to greatly increase my planning-efforts and slows down the action. We should review the map together and check whether the objectives are fair and set the time limit accordingly. Once we have agreed on a map and type, I might need a few days to select my force and create a super duper genius master plan. No bombardements on the attacker's deployment zone. I think it would be interesting if we agreed to use only "typical" troops (not boost everything up to veteran/fanatic). But I'm fine either way.
  15. Kaunitz

    Beat me!

    On topic: I've already found an opponent! (at The Few Good Men...)
  16. Kaunitz

    Beat me!

    Hey JoMc67! Sounds interesting except for two points: 1) CMBN: It's the only game in the series I don't own. 2) Meeting Engagement? I'd prefer fixed roles. Also, is there any particular reason you want to set the motivation, leadership and equipment of the troops to specific settings? Can't we just leave it to "typical"?
  17. Kaunitz

    Beat me!

    Don't judge me! ;D
  18. Kaunitz

    Beat me!

    As mentioned, I've joined them in the past, but I always get auto-deleted due to inactivity. I'm waiting for confirmation of my new account right now.
  19. To my ears, that sounds pretty sophisticated! I have the impression that "deco" props (fallen trees, etc.) can also stop bullets (and probably shrapnel). I don't have anything to back up that claim, except for my experience from my CM:BlackSea MG-position: I placed a MG gunner prone in a crater behind a fallen tree. Despite a lot of bullets coming his way, he survived very long, and his MG (which - being on the trunk, not behind it - was more exposed than he himself) got shredded by the enemy fire.
  20. This thread is about the creation of a historical map and scenario for CM:FI/GL: The battle of Gerbini which was fought on 20/21st July 1943 between elements of the commonwealth 51st (Highland) Division and the german parachute-tank-division Hermann Göring. As I don’t want to create or play scenarios that are larger than 1 company, and there is a limit to the maximum map-size, the scenario will only comprise part of the battle. But maybe I will end up with several company-sized scenarios. Context There is not a lot one needs to know about the overall context: After its landing south of Syracuse, the british/commonwealth 8th army (XXX. and XIII. corps) pushed north along the eastern coast of Sicily. The aim was to get to Messina as fast as possible in order to cut off the germans’ path of retreat and trap them on Sicily. A few kilometers south of Catania – a major coastal town – the 8th army met stiff resistance. Montgomery tried to bypass Catania further to the west, on the inland. In the battles of Gerbini and Sferro Hill, however, he had to learn that his army had made contact with the first (Hauptkampflinie) of three main defensive lines of the Germans, stretching from the west coast to the east cost of Sicily. While the western half of the defensive line made use of the mountainous terrain, here, on its eastern end, it ran along the plain of Catania, a large plain south of mount Etna. The germans set up their defenses at the northern edge of that plain, stretching 40 kilometers along and behind the river Dittaino. At Sferro and Gerbini, the commonwealth/british army tried to penetrate the eastern sectors of the Hauptkampflinie. The 51st Highland-division had established a bridgehead north of the Dittaino from which it started a night attack on Gerbini. It was primarily carried out by the 7th battalion Argyll & Sutherland highlanders and 2 companies of the 1st Blackwatch Highlanders – both these battalions were part of the 154th brigade of the 51st Highland Division/XXX. corps/8th army. Gerbini itself was northing more than a crossroad, orchards and a few houses. North of Gerbini, however, lay Gerbini airfield - a major axis aerodrome which had been a high priority target for allied bombers. Also, a single railroad-track ran east-west in between Gerbini proper and the airfield, with a stop at Gerbini station (stazione di Gerbini on the map). Today, you can only make out some remains of the runway on a field in between the railroad and the modern highway. Sources For a contemporary 1943 map (1:25.000) take a look here: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/italy_25k/ (Gerbini) (same here: http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/onlineex/maps/europe/zoomify138659.html ). This seems to be the US Army Map Service -map that the allied troops actually used during the campaign. You can compare this to modern maps, like the OpenTopo map (https://opentopomap.org/#map=15/37.47215/14.84386) and google maps (https://www.google.at/maps/@37.4691357,14.842885,1698m/data=!3m1!1e3). Thanks to the 51st Division online museum, there are two quite detailed reports about the action available online: The first source is a report by brigadier T. Rennie, the commander of the 154th Brigade, dating from August 14th 1943. It also includes a sketch (based on the map linked above) on which the objectives/artillery targets are marked: http://51hd.co.uk/accounts/gerbini_combs (report + artillery fire plan), http://51hd.co.uk/history/sicily_gerbini (Map/sketch). Note that if you compare the plan to the report of the action nothing seems to have gone according to plan. None of the 7th Argyll & Sutherlands coys seem to have reached their assigned target area - instead they stayed further to the east and advanced on the airfield and beyond (D coy) and along the railroad (where A coy made it to the station). The west was therefore still held by the enemy as the 1st coy/1st blackwatch found out when it tried to secure the road north to clear the way for the support weapons and got pinned down in the process. The course of the tank platoon is a riddle for me. They showed up at the road/rail junction (where the 7th A&S's C coy held out) in the east at 00:00, then sent a tank to support A coy in the station, but later took up position in the orchard north of Gerbini, in the west. I wonder how the tanks got there. The second source, also to be found on the 51st Division online museum, is a shorter account of Dell Porchetta, a member of the 8th platoon of A coy of the 7th Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders. http://51hd.co.uk/accounts/porchetta_gerbini (His company surrendered at Gerbini station) I also found this account quite helpful: https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2017/02/25/the-plain-of-catania-1943-part-i/ I could even find some drawings by the Division's artist Ian Gilber Marr Eadie (1917–1973):http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/8379 It is labeled with "Gerbini". We can try to identify the exact location (see next post). Some impressions filmed at Gerbini airfield: https://youtu.be/6HOPxnK2a6A Selection The Gerbini-attack is too large to be put into a single scenario. Therefore, I've decided to select (a) single theater(s) of the battle. I think that the western flank of the battle is very interesting. Here, the 1st coy. of 1st Blackwatch got pinned down, the 2nd coy managed to take a german pillbox with the help of a smoke screen, AT-guns were moved forward, and also, the german counter-attack on the next morning has been very strong, knocking out a good part of the Shermans who had been positioned in the orchard north of Gerbini. I think that this makes for one (or two) interesting scenarios (attack - counter-attack). Moreover, I feel confident that maps and the accounts give me a quite detailed picture of the terrain. Gerbini station and the airfield are harder to imagine, since I couldn't find any contemporary pictures.
  21. Hello! I'm a big fan of the series and have released some videos of my latest battles on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/user/TheKaunitz/videos). However, in my games, I came upon a few things that I think might be improved. Not CM:FB-specific, more related to the engine/whole series: 1. I'd like to be able to chain multiple "target briefly"-commands (i.e. multiple area targets) together in one turn for a stationary unit. Some weapons should be able to "spray" more than a single actionsquare in one minute/turn. E.g. in 1 minute, a MG should surely be able to control more than a section of 5 meters? Right now, the only way to do so is by moving units back and forth "on the spot" to give them multiple waypoints with a new target for each waypoint. Needless to say that this is fiddly and does not work for certain weapons (infantry-handled MGs that have delploy-times). Alternatively, I've often wondered what would happen if one changed turn-intervalls from 1 minute to 30 seconds. 2. I'd like to have control over infantry's stance (prone, kneeling, standing). LOS of a unit (to determine whether it is allowed to area-target or for indirect-fire-missions) seems to be calculated according to the current stance (of the majority of soldiers of? the unit leader?) a unit which is almost entirely a matter of contingency. It's not impossible but rather unelegant and very fiddly to get the desired results sometimes. E.g. if I want my FO-team to have a LOS over a ridge (so it needs to be standing), I need to give the unit a movement command after a 45 seconds pause so that it will be moving DURING the turn intervall, so that at the start of the next turn it will be moving=standing and have the desired LOS. Other than that, soldiers do whatever they like: some stand, some lie prone (even though this means they have no LOS and don't fire like the rest of their unit). The only way you can influence their stance is the "hide" command (which will make the whole unit go prone reliably). I think that LOS is by far too important to leave it to chance and coincidence. 3. Certainly more ambitious and more "fluffy"/superfluous: Some kind of incentive to evacuate wounded soldiers. Buddy aid is nice, but I'd like to see some incentive to and some way of transporting wounded soldiers (to an exit point?).
  22. Kaunitz

    Improvement suggestions

    I'm still hoping that the infantry's inability to use cover (in particular depressions in the ground, ditches) while retaining good LOS will be fixed by a glorious patch some day! The more I tried to make it work and delved into the problem, the more it became a deal-breaker for me, which affects all CM titiles and makes infantry die like flies. The problem is described (including some screenshots) in my Gerbini project, especially in the posts on page 3:
  23. Fellow CM veterans! First let me make it clear that this is not supposed to be a rant or a suggestion for improvement. I think that CM is already as good as a game can get in this respect. I'm just interested in how you play the game: Do you roleplay a lot or do prefer a highly competitive approach to the game and use all means available to you, even if some of your actions are implausible from a realism standpoint? What do I mean by this? Mostly, it boils down to letting a unit react to information that would not be available to the unit. Stopping a movement because you know you will be running into a line of fire, for example, or area-targeting the position of an enemy unit which has been spotted by a different unit. Or letting a small section exploit an opportunities regularly and independently of the platoon HQ's knowledge, etc. Things along those lines. So do you usually pay attention to these details, do you wait until enemy sightings are communicated up and down the command hierarchy, or do you "abuse" your godlike player power? For me personally, it depends. In multiplayer games, I play competitively. Even if both sides would agree to roleplay, you still never know and there will be room for heated discussions and interpretations ("Why did you move that tank platoon over there?" "Ehrm ... they were ... patrolling?" ). In single player, I prefer to roleplay. I often play hotseat against myself, roleplaying both sides so that I can speed things up unrealistically when I know the other faction is not using the delay/time anyway. What I find quite interesting is that when I roleplay, communication becomes a major aspect in planning the mission. You have to consider reaction times and command links. If my force is in desperate need of radios (I'm looking at you, WWII-Italians!) I usually assume that there is a pre-determined H-hour at which all units ought to start their attack. I sometimes also integrate limited means of visual communication into the plan (eg. I assume that some units have flares in different colors to signal/initiate a predetermined action to other units). Roleplaying greatly enhances the fun I have with CM. And it can lead to very exciting situations. Ever seen a messenger sprint through an artillery barrage? On the other hand, roleplaying can lead to some problems as most scenarios are not designed with roleplaying in mind. From my experience, time limits can get very brutal when you roleplay, especially if your communcation-plan turns out to be deficient. But then I don't overdo roleplaying. For example, I reckon that it would take much longer for units to describe the location of enemy sightings (unless in close visual contact so that you can point in the direction). I think that the transfer of information is quite fast in CM. In reality, someone would probably need to get out their map (HQ units only?) then spread the word and instruct his subordinate tanks/squads? I guess it would take much more time, especially if the battlefield doesn't offer a lot of features that can be called out easily. Here is an interesting approach by Bill Hardenberger - it's pretty much the pinnacle of roleplaying in CM (it's a bit too complex for me, too much book-keeping, but I might try it out some day): Please share your opinion or tell us if and what aspects of the game you like to roleplay! PS: I can't finish any post without an improvement suggestion, so here we go: Messengers/despatch riders on motorcycles (for WWII themed titles)!
  24. Kaunitz

    Are AT guns too fragile?

    I'm probably not contributing directly to the main question at hand (how much protection should the shields of ATguns provide) but may be interesting for the side-question (did AT guns manoevure when exposed?). Here is a British brigadier's reflection on how to use AT guns after the battle of Gerbini 19743, where - after a successfull night attack - the British failed to bring up their AT-guns (according to the British doctrine mentioned by Josey Wales) in time to repel the German counter-attack the next morning and were therefore beaten back to the starting line. I've marked the more interesting parts (concerning the usage of AT guns in an attack context) in bold: "2. In view of this experience it appears that our arrangements (contracted in the desert) for reorganising the A.Tk defence of a captured position requires thorough overhauling. In the desert the enemy was generally completely evicted from the captured area, thus allowing some hours of darkness and quietness for reorganisation. In this battle conditions were, as already described, quite different. It seems now that the A.Tk plan for reorganisation down even to the sighting and responsibility of each gun should be worked out beforehand. A.Tk defence should follow up the various stages of the attack, making good ground as it is captured. Guns, particularly Pheasants [=17pdr AT guns], should be sited in the vicinity of the start line to fire well forward; not only in an A.Tk role but also in the close support role firing HE. Support A.Tk guns should be pushed well forward to reorganise on the reserve coy positions when captured, and in turn also to provide close support to the forward coys. Forward A.Tk guns should then be pushed forward to carry out their pre-allotted tasks in the area of the forward coys when those areas are captured. All guns should be carefully camouflaged before the attack, so that they can, should it be necessary, give support initially from exposed positions. The forward movement of the guns should be controlled by a very responsible officer (in case of Bns the 2nd i/c) who should have by his side an arty officer, prepared, should it be necessary, to bring down smoke to cover the forward movement. All ranks in the Bn should understand this procedure so that they can cooperate to the full extent to aid this move forward if [recte: of?] A.Tk guns either by smoke or fire. Finally it seems imperative that each A.Tk Bty should have at least one troop of S[elf]P[ropelled] A Tk guns for quick reorganisation in forward areas."Read more: http://51hd.co.uk/accounts/gerbini_combs#ixzz5KHLj6EUt Also, you may like to check out the 61st AT regiment's journal from July 1943: http://51hd.co.uk/accounts/61_anti_tank_sicily
×