Jump to content

Kaunitz

Members
  • Content Count

    408
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to MikeyD in Trees. I hate them.   
    I second the request for 'interesting' rural terrain. I'm a big fan of 'heavy rocks' to impede tanks, often tagged as [rubble] for blocked city streets. I also liberally use 'heavy woods' terrain tiles to create no-go areas for tanks. Lately, for CMRT scenarios, I've gotten into mixing up hedges, bocage, light woods tiles and trees to make strips of dense roadside foliage. And yeh, either slightly raised or depressed roads. You really do need to build in the 'mircoterrain'.
  2. Upvote
    Kaunitz got a reaction from LongLeftFlank in Trees. I hate them.   
    Last game a trooper of mine  fired 4 RPG7-shots into a tree right in front of him. The tank was 20-25m away...

    I'm also a bit disappointed about how easily tanks seem to be allowed to manoeuver (and turn their turret/gun) in woods. It would be great if more map designers made use of small patches of heavy wood (impassable to tanks, afaik?) to make tank movement more complicated and less predictable in woods. Tank manoeuverablity in dense forest is one of my main gripes.

    As LongLeftFlank also mentioned, very few CM map feature the thickets at the edges of woods (a gently rising canopy, so to speak), which would cut LOS into the wood. Of course this would also depend on the type of wood - there are many woods without that typical thicket.

    Most woods on quick battle maps are way too small. As a result, these woods can be traversed very fast, they can be easily saturated by artillery fire, and defending them doesn't take a lot of troops.
  3. Like
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Trees. I hate them.   
    Last game a trooper of mine  fired 4 RPG7-shots into a tree right in front of him. The tank was 20-25m away...

    I'm also a bit disappointed about how easily tanks seem to be allowed to manoeuver (and turn their turret/gun) in woods. It would be great if more map designers made use of small patches of heavy wood (impassable to tanks, afaik?) to make tank movement more complicated and less predictable in woods. Tank manoeuverablity in dense forest is one of my main gripes.

    As LongLeftFlank also mentioned, very few CM map feature the thickets at the edges of woods (a gently rising canopy, so to speak), which would cut LOS into the wood. Of course this would also depend on the type of wood - there are many woods without that typical thicket.

    Most woods on quick battle maps are way too small. As a result, these woods can be traversed very fast, they can be easily saturated by artillery fire, and defending them doesn't take a lot of troops.
  4. Like
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Bulletpoint in What I'd like to see in CM3...   
    What often drives me nuts is that you cannot area-target reverse slope spots (exception: mortars).
    This basically means that your line of sight (onto the ground!) is identical with your line of fire, which sometimes leads to rather ridicolous problems: For example, I cannot order my heavy MG to spray some bushes. I can only order the MG to target the ground in front of the bushes, but I cannot fire at the bushes themselves.
    For this reason alone, vehicle-mounted MGs are often more usefull as they are better at "spotting the ground" because of the elevated position of the MG. But then again, the fire from mounted MGs  is often not as effective (depending on the distance, the angle between the ground and the trajectory of the shots is bigger, so the bullets don't graze that well/travel that far - the effect of the fire is extremely limited to a very tight spot). 
    Generally speaking, I think that MGs have a lot of problems in the current engine. Effective fire is very hard to achieve because of the LOS=LOF issue described above, because of map design (very steep elevations, lots of cover --> very few opportunities for effective long range and/or grazing fire), because players have no influence on the spread (only 1 spot targeted per round/minute) and on the rate of fire (which depends entirely on the range) and because combat mission pixeltruppen tend to be rather unimpressed by fire (unless it kills). To a lesser degree though, these problems affect all small calibre fire. It's very hard to direct fire in a way in which it is effective (sweeping/covering ground effectively).
    It would also be nice if MGs were more trigger happy. If they see a single enemy soldier who drops to the ground, they should continue to fire at the spot where he went down and the surroundings. Exclusively firing on sight defeats the purpose.

    PS. Example of grazing fire in CM: https://youtu.be/KrY135AV6tg
     
  5. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to holoween in QB points   
    The forward platoon was in defilade so hard to spot but what i was trying to say it that the actual assault on the position took 15min with more additional time needed to scout around before launching the assault. Also while its relatively easy to spot foxholes its quite difficult to spot if they are occupied if the troops are hiding.
    He did have arty but that was busy supressing atgms covering the position. And arty isnt great against spred out foxholes.
    It took an abrams platoon and a striker platoon 15 min to clear and thats 1 platoon in defilade and 2 in enfilade positions. in comparison later 2 abrams wiped a similarly positioned platoon in the open in 2min. So yea the resilience there is entirely due to the foxholes.
  6. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to holoween in QB points   
    Fortifications arent useless.
    I tend to play large or huge QB and at least at that size field fortifications are quite usefull.
    Foxholes especially provide the best possible cover as far as my testing could determine and only cost 5 points each. And they allow setting up strong defensive positions where there isnt one on the map.
     
    Also the lethality of the modern titles is mostly a result of not adjusting to the environment youre fighting in. In ww2 you can sit a tank into hulldown for several minutes and it will most likely be fine because neither itself nor the oponent will spot or hit. In the modern titles simply poking up for 10-15s at a time accomplishes the same.
     
  7. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to holoween in QB points   
    As an example. This Position was only marginally more expensive by adding the foxholes yet it took an M1A2sep platoon and a striker platoon around 15min to clear on the assault and quite a bit more time to scout out which made a significant contribution to me eventually winning the match.

  8. Upvote
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Eicio in Canons and attack   
    double post
  9. Upvote
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Eicio in Canons and attack   
    Infantry guns are almost useless in Combat Mission because most of maps are too small/too hilly and crowded with terrain. For Normandy, that's okay, but for the other titles, I think it's a big problem. You rarely get LOS beyond ca. 250m. This is too close for comfort even for heavy MGs, let alone an infantry gun. Most reasonable "support positions" would be somewhere behind the attacker's deployment zone off map on a hill/ridge  (which would also allow some spotting and help get rid of the CM scouting claustrophobia). 
  10. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to AlanSA in CMFI intel sharing bug?   
    When you spot the typo after the edit window has passed....
     
    "the rationale" obviously
  11. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to Bulletpoint in CMFI intel sharing bug?   
    The info sharing system is buggy in some ways. I tested it before. If an enemy tank moves, its updated contact marker will never get shared through C2. Maybe that's what's happening in your example too.
    In your example, notice how the HQ has an enemy tank marker kust above it, in front of the white building. That's probably the marker for the same enemy tank as the other Sherman knows now moved ahead. But it's unable to share this new info.
     
     
  12. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to Bulletpoint in QB points   
    The problem is that the different types of battles are meant to be played out on different types of maps. So that the extra points the attacker gets in an assault are countered by the map being more difficult to attack, and that he will have to reach objectives deeper in the map. That's how it's supposed to be. BUT many scenario designers don't understand that, so they just ship identical versions of the same map, labelled as probe, attack, assault... Even in the QB maps that come with the official game.
    In effect, this turns the battle type selection into just a kind of difficulty setting, where probes is the most difficult attack missions, and assault are the easiest.
  13. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to 37mm in Heaven & Earth: Project discussion thread   
    I'll just post it here...
    https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ar0-nWIeMPIA2H92xQF65S8BrDMd?e=FAVkQe
    Normally, I use the greenzone.ini for H&E... the screenshots that caught your interest used the screenshots.ini.
    I'm in two minds about the slightly blue "multi.lut" effect.
    My last two "Tidbits" have both used the screenshot.ini but with the "milti.lut" switched off...
     
  14. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to Freyberg in North Italy QB maps   
    Here we go
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/9garry91kpdf5ql/Frey_CMFI_Maps_BETA_01.zip?dl=1
    These are some of the slices, as well as the master maps.
    The master maps have no AI or setup zones. The slices have defender AI only for attack maps, and AI plans each way (usually only one at the moment) for the ME maps.
    When making the maps, I tried to think only of what looked like realistic rural terrain, with no thought to how they might play. Then I tried to pick interesting slices for the QB maps.
    It's still a work in progress - and now that I am becoming more confident with the AI, there will be many more to follow - but have fun and let me know if you enjoy them.
    [oops - download link fixed I hope]
     
     
  15. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to Freyberg in North Italy QB maps   
    I've been working on a series of QB maps - starting with large-huge base maps, which I am slicing up, adding AI plans, to make QB maps of various sizes.
    It's still in progress, but I have been quite pleased with the latest base map, around 2.5km square, of rolling cropland. There is lots of patchy scattered cover, but also frequent avenues of long-range LOS. I found the result of this latest one quite picturesque...

    The land descends gently from the north, through gently rolling fields.

    As it descends, there are occasional low escarpments, offering views of the surrounding countryside.

    Scattered amongst the fields, there are one or two patches of open woodland.

    Spend the afternoon wandering pretty shaded paths.

    The roads are generally good in this part of Italy.

    And here and there are some delightful Italian farmhouses and farm complexes.

    Some of them are quite modern.

    Others with a historical feel.

    For the well-heeled businessman, or an ex-GI flush with looted Nazi treasure, enjoy a stay in this charming part of Italy...
  16. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to Lt Bull in QB points   
    I believe placing a limit on the number of QB points is a way of ensuring the game won't crash and be overloaded by the additional processing/RAM power required (CPU and GPU). However, I  can not think of a sensible reason for why the game does not allow players the complete freedom to just manually determine the precise number of points each side should have in a QB.
    Anyway, I was somewhat inspired by your telling of how you try to use the QB battles to configure battles to play out various battles in a user run H2H campaign, and have updated/enhanced my previously released "Bull's CM QB RATIOS" table (discussed in the thread QB Battle Force Points tables/charts) to Rev2.
    I have now gone the final extra few yards and have now tabulated every possible combination of QB battle that is possible from CM QBs in one consolidated table, listing the QB force points allocated to both sides, the total of those points, the resultant force ratios, and of course all the QB parameter setup information required to achieve the battle of choice (battle type, size, force modifer).  Of course you need to be able to open the file in Excel (or equivalent) to filter and sort the table as you seem fit to find the battle setup you want.  Column values are colour formatted from smallest possible (green) to largest possible (red).
    eg.  Preview of top of table sorted by force ratio (note: although only the five ME battles at the top of that list precisely give both players "even points" to spend ie. force ration of 1).  However, you can see that there are other battle setups which differ in points allocation by only a few percentage (ie. ratios between 1 and 1.1 (or between 0% and 10% points differential) which players may agree to consider irrelevant in setting up an otherwise "balanced points ME", if that is what they want.

    This table alone should provide anyone everything they need to know about what is and what is not possible to achieve with the CM QB parameters, and how to achieve them.
  17. Like
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Never Seen This Before   
    This. 
    I think one of the more interesting points in the "tanks op?" thread was the question whether the coordination between tanks and infantry is too easy in CM. And I'm still of the opinion that it is. Mind you, this is not neccessarily about borg-spotting (letting tanks area-fire at targets that they can't even know about), but also about reaction by movement. If I spot a Panzershreck team with my infantry over there, I can let my tanks stop/reverse very quickly. Tanks can react to things they shouldn't be aware of. An interesting but purely hypothetical "solution" would be to increase reaction intervals for tanks, so that - for example - you could only give new orders to a tank every 3 minutes, not every single minute. 

    Also, I still think that the lack of proper defensive works in Combat Mission increases the tanks' power against infantry.  
    On the other hand, quickbattle-map-design tends to make tanks more vulnerable to infantry (and also to other tanks). Most quickbattle-maps are extremely compartmentalized, which means that tanks are too close for comfort most of the time. (It also means that heavy MGs aren't even remotely as usefull as they should be, but that's another issue)
  18. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to Bulletpoint in Never Seen This Before   
    It's very possible for tanks to be both too strong at a distance and too weak up close. I'm not saying they are, but we cannot conclude that it is an example of the stereotypical "stupid customers don't even know what they want".
  19. Upvote
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Liberator in Improvement suggestions   
    I can’t help it! One (last?) time, I want to point out how much I miss proper fortifications. The lack of them keeps me from finishing my Gerbini scenario (and many more to come?) and puts infantry at a severe disadvantage, with the result of horribly exaggerated infantry casualty rates (at least if you consider the duration of a scenario) and the defender's system of mutually supportive positions being compromised very easily. Moreover, trenches are not only usefull for representing actual field-works, but also natural terrain features that you can’t create due to soldier-behaviour (soldiers are not positioning themselves in a depression where they’d be safe from arty, or in a way in which they don’t see anything, etc) and the size of the action grid (8x8m --> a 1 tile depression is still a 64sq.m target for arty).
    I’ve created a beautiful visual comparison between the current trench fortification and the ideal slit trench, now give me some likes! As you can see, the slit trench beats the combat mission trench in all regards! What I've missed to point out: Because it stands out, tanks/direct HE can hit the CM trench more easily (causing an explosion that might still knock out soldiers in the trench). With a slit trench, this is much more difficult and unlikely. The almost inexistant silhouette of a trench might also make it harder to direct artillery onto it? 


    Worries and doubts
    1) Aesthetical: Lowering fortifications into the ground mesh is probably impossible (and if you could do it, the enemy would detect your fortifications by looking at the ground mesh). But what if we simply allowed the fortification (and soldiers in it) to clip/cut through the mesh. Yes, it wouldn’t really look good, but who cares?! I wouldn’t mind if that’s the price for proper fortifications!
    2) Balance: Yes, it will be hard to knock out a trench line. But that’s how it’s supposed to be! You’d need to work much more with suppression and smoke. You won’t be able to knock out the trench with 3 mortar shells before you close in. You might still use the mortar to suppress it though. After all, that’s one of the main purposes of a trench: to protect you from arty/mortars! You need to take out a trench with the tip of the bayonet (or SMG, ... or flamethrower....or hand grenade). That's what rifle-infantry was actually usefull for (for any longer distances, you rather use your MGs). And tanks sucked at it (try to aim you hull MG down a slit-trench!).
    A bright future!
    Needless to say that while a slit-trench would be the most desirable starting candidate, it doesn’t need to stop there. I’m sure the community has plenty of ideas for field-fortifications, including gun emplacements (especially as long as guns can't be dis- and remounted to seek cover in a nearby artillery shelter; in FB, you do get ATgun-bunkers though!), hesco-walls (modern titles), pillboxes in different shapes (i.e. allowing for different firing angles/loopholes), hastily dug firing positions (for soldiers in prone position), etc.
     
    http://www.oldhickory30th.com/119th Co G Entrenching Tool by Nolan.pdf
    https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1005/m1/2/zoom/?resolution=6&lat=4088.5&lon=5231.5
  20. Upvote
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Nektoman in A bunch of maps of Ukraine I have made over the years   
    @Zveroboy1
    I've converted your map for Red Thunder and Final Blitzkrieg. Just had a quick look, everything looks fine. The only thing you might want to adjust are the flavour objects. I've uploaded the files here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/91wr3f203ub9ash/AABD8cAKYNLStBpusxo1yl_pa?dl=0
  21. Like
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Bulletpoint in "That's one vast valley!" - hard-edged, realistically scaled map   
    Thanks for all your investigations of the "pillbox-issue"! I haven't had the time to conduct my own tests yet. It seems as if there are no clear conclusions yet. By the way are troops inside the pillbox unaffected by the "prefer the cover of a crater over any other cover" issue? 
    Thank you very much for the feedback! Of course the open space makes large calibre guns very usefull. However, some thoughts come to my mind:
    1) Tanks were not everywhere. The available assets might be very limited in the final scenario. Lacking large calibres, artillery and machine guns should dominate the long and medium ranges.  
    2) Infantry would still need to advance into the danger zone of enemy machine guns to spot the enemy mg nests in order for them to be taken out by the tanks/larger calibres. As we know, the game has some "issues" in this respect (I have no clue either how one could solve these) in that the player can immediately target any enemy that has been spotted by any of his units. Coordination is too fast/easy. Also, as it is very hard to fortify positions properly (no good trench solutions, troopers don't make optimal use of cover), I'm convinced that positions are taken out way, way too quickly by HE fire.  
    3) The scenario might be set at night. As I envision the scenario as a proper attack on a (thinned-out) german defensive line, it would be more plausible to set it at night. 
    Haha, you can really control the position of troopers in an action spot by interrupting a "slow" movement order? As you say that's probably not that usefull but it's still hilarious. 
    Regarding the craters: That's very interesting!  I just tested it (density: 7 craters) and indeed the troopers in the action spot always positioned themselves on a crater. The light craters only seem to provide space for one trooper each (contains only one "positional slot"). The medium and heavy craters, by contrast, can take 3+ troopers - so, if you only place 1 of these craters on the action spot, chances are high your troopers will all bunch up in the crater. I wasn't aware of this. Its usefullness obviously depends on how much control you can have over the placement of craters within the AS. The "7 craters" (which are "aesthetically tolerable" enough to be placed everywhere) are spread out all over the AS. I don't quite understand the 15° pattern you're describing. Could you elaborate? 
  22. Upvote
    Kaunitz got a reaction from LongLeftFlank in Fire suppression from small arms discussion   
    Based on my readings of WWII memoirs and also a few Vietnam accounts, I fully agree with this. You can also watch very relevant videos of real combat footage of recent conflicts on youtube. The experience of modern fire combat often seems to be one of being exposed to a more or less abstract "volume of fire". Especially, but not exclusively in dense terrain (woods, jungle...). Troops couldn't always tell the direction from which it was coming nor identify/spot the source. Soldiers in WWII did also (and were sometimes encouraged to) fire without seeing the enemy. I suppose that being exposed to a high volume of fire - not neccessarily to any actual "suppression effect" (seeing the effect of bullets hitting close), just judging from the number of sounds/noise - would also be a psychological deterrent. Even if you're not acively pinned by the opponent's fire, you'd be less likely to risk any attack if the enemy "sounded" strong?    
    I'm not sure whether fire fights in Combat Mission fully convince me in this regard. But it's generally hard to visualize the dynamics of modern fire combat and there is certainly a lot of variety. I sometimes get the impression that our pixel infantrymen might be a bit too brave when it comes to exposing themselves to enemy fire, and perhaps a bit too good when it comes to spotting the enemy when under fire. These two things are probably related, which is also why further experiments with modding animations might be interesting (forcing soldiers to stay prone more). Infantrymen in Combat Mission are very often able to fire on sight, with the result that casualties accumulate very fast and fire fights are decided comparatively quickly. For example, how often do you order a MG unit to move to an alternate fire position? In my experience, fire fights usually don't last long enough (by the time they would reach the new position, the engagement is already over) and 2) as soon as they move, they get shot. By contrast, if both sides were more affected by the "volume of fire", firing blindly to a greater degree, you'd expect casualties to accumulate slowlier, as a kind of "attrition". Soldiers would get hit by "anonymous" bullets more often, accidently, if you will. Partial cover would be more effective in this situation (it is of no great help when the enemy has spotted you...).
    I sometimes wonder why these situations don't occur in Combat Mission. As far as I know, Combat Mission does not take into account the more "abstract", indirect psychological factors. It does model the actual "suppression" effect, but not the psychological impact of a "high volume of fire". (Similarly, I think there is no tank shock/panic in Combat Mission). Depending on a unit's morale, the mere sound of intensive firing (within a certain distance/radius) could have an impact on morale and the will to advance. So this would be a more long-term "environmental" factor compared to the more extreme and direct "suppression" effect when the unit is targeted by accurate fire. I suppose that MGs are also part of the reason. They're quite handicapped by the fact that they can only area-target a single square per minute. They can only cover very small areas. Another point to think about would be the bonus for spotting units that are firing. And then of course the distance at which engagements take place also play a big role. Another rather weird thought: what about the lack of a "crouched movement"? Perhaps units would be able to advance closer to each other without getting spotted (staying below the height of the terrain type), so that both sides would be more likely to find themselves in a situation in which they can area fire at each other at closer distances? Also, when exposed to fire, a soldier's accuracy should drop drastically? Just very hypothetical brainstorming here, free of any considerations how it would affect gameplay as a whole ... 
    So, for the further discussion, I would be interested in your opinions on these questions: 
    1) Should a perceived high volume of fire have a psychological effect, even if it's blind/inaccurate (not covered by the actual suppression mechanic)?
    2) Does CM infantry engaged in fire combat spot too well? If so, why? 
  23. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to SimpleSimon in CM WWII: Are tanks "overpowered"?   
    And like, don't get me wrong Freyberg, there's a lot of validity to your point and this view that it wasn't clear cut. I'm intentionally being dramatic to illustrate a point and kind of get across a certain "zeitgeist" about the era that's been lost to time I think. The Germans particularly lamented that as the war went on the Panzer Divisions seemed to have lost their ability to inflict "tank terror" on formations of troops better led and less shocked by the appearance of armour. So while enough tanks might still penetrate the line it was no longer guaranteed that the entire front might collapse in a single decisive blow as it had in 1940 or 1941. Men triumphed over machine on a number of occasions before, during, and after World War 2.
    I just think that people don't realize when they're applying reasoning and thinking that has been taught to them by generations of games, movies, media, etc much of which is actually just self-referential (or mindless repetition of propaganda) and not really grounded in any kind of fact or truth. Here it's the idea, frequently implied by fiction and wielded by the propaganda of reckless, irresponsible leaders that bravery and persistence will always triumph over the superior numbers and weapons of the enemy. It bugs me enough for me to take my own stance on it, but it is not meant to invalidate yours since I also believe there's plenty of space for subjectivity on all this...
     
  24. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to DougPhresh in CM WWII: Are tanks "overpowered"?   
    Soviet infantry killed panzers at close range all of the way from Moscow to Berlin. Clearly their tactics worked because 45mm AT guns, AT Rifles and AT Grenades were not discarded along the way. German counterattacks, including those of heavy panzer battalions were turned away by soviet infantry, with their organic weapons in their trenches or built up areas. This needs to be reflected in Red Thunder, else as you said, as soon as your opponent fields a tiger or tiger ii you may as well call for a ceasefire.
  25. Upvote
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Panzergrenadier Tactics (training film in German but with later English subtitles)   
    "Infanteriegruppe als Spähtrupp" (The infantry squad on a recon mission for the company)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJwEsfobXy8
    @40:43, you can see a schematic presentation of the squad's retrograde movement (footage starting @32:18) upon contact. The distance between the german squad in the rivulet and the enemy heavy MG is said to be 150m. The distance between the german light MG (back in the wood) and the enemy heavy MG is 350m. 
×
×
  • Create New...