Jump to content

Kaunitz

Members
  • Posts

    410
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Artkin 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
  2. Like
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Question about infantry animation files   
    By the way. Maybe this is something to add for your realism mod: When bullets hit trees, there are some impact effects (small explosions, dust). While this is nice, it is not part of the fog of war, i.e. the enemy can see these effects even when he has not spotted the unit whose firing is causing them. Especially when automatic weapons are involved (many bullets hitting something in a short time), it broadcasts the bearing of the unit. If you also take into account that you can pin-point units due to their sound, you can get a very clear picture of where unspotted units are. 
  3. Like
    Kaunitz got a reaction from TheFriendlyFelon in Resources for scenario and map creation   
    Sorry for the triple post, but here is one last addition that might prove usefull: an up-to-date (June 2nd!), highly detailed contour map (10 m intervalls):
    http://garmin.opentopomap.org/ 
  4. Like
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Bulletpoint in High casualty rates in CM games   
    I concur with RockinHarry. It does make a difference. From my impressions, hit registry is indeed somehow linked to the actual models, and the animation changes where the model is. 
    This doesn't help if you don't get any aiming point at all, as it commonly happens on flatter maps. Then the only means to fire your MG in a direction is to use a very close target area spot, which leads to very high ammo consumption and incredible spread of burts (for each fire action, the MG targets a random point in the action square. If the action square is very close, the angle of dispersion is huge...).

    Also, firing at point in front of the target may sometimes results in a bad (too high) trajectory. The trajectory runs roughly from the muzzle to a random point in the target square at about knee-height. If the target point is slightly "above" your muzzle height (as it often happens because you need to see the ground to spot it), and your gun is firing knee-height at a target point, the shots often go high.

    ----

    And yes, there are also many maps that are marvellous and more realistically scaled. I appreciate that and it is by no means meant as a reproach to all the people who put their heart into designing maps. The problem is most severe for older quickbattle maps. I also have the impression that it's sometimes meant to give infantry a better chance against armor.
  5. Upvote
    Kaunitz got a reaction from grungar in High casualty rates in CM games   
    The problem of infantry protection has already been mentioned. The benefit of fortifications is puny. It's a pity that fortifications are so neglected. Also, Pixelsoldiers tend to be too brave. They often continue to run under fire (default reaction of most move orders) and they also tend to kneel while under fire (I use an animation mod by ROckinharry (?) so that my men stay prone more often and survive much better). And Pixelsoldiers they don't make the best use of cover (which is understandable, as this must be a highly complicated issue to tackle). I'd also like to point out that I often get the impression that infantry often seems to move somewhat unflexibly and slowly - almost as if stuck in some jelly. But then again, this is balanced out by the bad shooting skills of many pixelsoldiers.

    -------------------

    Another point which has not been mentioned in this thread yet is map design. While I understand that many other players don't share my opinion, I'm still convinced that the map design is one of the main culprits for the exagerated casualty rate in CM.

    Of course not all maps are the same and many maps are well researched and realistically scaled. But the big bunch of sandbox quickbattle maps are anything but realistic. Their landscapes resemble tabletop miniature landscapes. In general, the footprint of most terrain features (a forest, a field, a hill,...) is too small and there are too many terrain features in too little space. Exaggerated example: On a 1x1km CM map, you can often find 2 hills, 5 woods, 2 villages. In reality, such a space would comprise half a hill (sloping gently, not cutting LOS!), a village and perhaps a part of a forest.  

    The main consequence of "too many small terrain features in too little space" is that lines of sight/fire are cut much too frequently. This in turn reduces the range at which combat typically takes place. For a combat mission player, a 200m LOF feels like a luxurious "long range". In reality, it's still well within rifle range and all too common! Now, if the combat distance is "too" short, it's no surprise that casualty rates are high. The attacker often has to move into what amounts to an ambush by the defender. Often, there is not a single position from which you could bring your support weapons like hMGs to bear on the enemy from a reasonable distance (outside rifle range! at a range at which you're not immediately spotted and shot dead and thus have time to set up!). On many maps, there is no way for the attacker to establish a "soft" contact and build up fire to suppress a position. Most contact in Combat Mission games is hard contact at point blank range. 

    Hills are particularly critical, because going prone doesn't reduce your exposure that much when fired at from above at short range. On gentler, flatter slopes, things are different. 

    ---------------

    Another issue is that weapons who are supposed to be very good at suppression often can't be used effectively. The main victims are machine gun teams. Not only are they handicapped by map design (as mentioned above), but also the way that area fire works makes their use very unreliable and fiddly. You need to have LOS onto the GROUND in your target-area spot. Needless to say that it is often impossible for a MG team that lies prone to see any spot on the ground. You're not allowed to fire in a "direction" if you cannot see a spot on the ground. Thus MGs are often unable to fire - reverse slope targets everywhere, no line of fire! Also, you can't fire through bushes. The only way around this is to have an elevated position. 

    Another issue for MGs is that the game does not allow them to target more than 1 action spot (a front of 8m) in a single turn. If firing from a proper distance, the gun would hardly need to be traversed to cover an area much larger than a single action spot. There are reasons why MGs in Combat Mission are extremely underwhelming and don't have the suppressive effect they should have. Less suppression = more casualties. 
  6. Like
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Zveroboy1 in High casualty rates in CM games   
    The problem of infantry protection has already been mentioned. The benefit of fortifications is puny. It's a pity that fortifications are so neglected. Also, Pixelsoldiers tend to be too brave. They often continue to run under fire (default reaction of most move orders) and they also tend to kneel while under fire (I use an animation mod by ROckinharry (?) so that my men stay prone more often and survive much better). And Pixelsoldiers they don't make the best use of cover (which is understandable, as this must be a highly complicated issue to tackle). I'd also like to point out that I often get the impression that infantry often seems to move somewhat unflexibly and slowly - almost as if stuck in some jelly. But then again, this is balanced out by the bad shooting skills of many pixelsoldiers.

    -------------------

    Another point which has not been mentioned in this thread yet is map design. While I understand that many other players don't share my opinion, I'm still convinced that the map design is one of the main culprits for the exagerated casualty rate in CM.

    Of course not all maps are the same and many maps are well researched and realistically scaled. But the big bunch of sandbox quickbattle maps are anything but realistic. Their landscapes resemble tabletop miniature landscapes. In general, the footprint of most terrain features (a forest, a field, a hill,...) is too small and there are too many terrain features in too little space. Exaggerated example: On a 1x1km CM map, you can often find 2 hills, 5 woods, 2 villages. In reality, such a space would comprise half a hill (sloping gently, not cutting LOS!), a village and perhaps a part of a forest.  

    The main consequence of "too many small terrain features in too little space" is that lines of sight/fire are cut much too frequently. This in turn reduces the range at which combat typically takes place. For a combat mission player, a 200m LOF feels like a luxurious "long range". In reality, it's still well within rifle range and all too common! Now, if the combat distance is "too" short, it's no surprise that casualty rates are high. The attacker often has to move into what amounts to an ambush by the defender. Often, there is not a single position from which you could bring your support weapons like hMGs to bear on the enemy from a reasonable distance (outside rifle range! at a range at which you're not immediately spotted and shot dead and thus have time to set up!). On many maps, there is no way for the attacker to establish a "soft" contact and build up fire to suppress a position. Most contact in Combat Mission games is hard contact at point blank range. 

    Hills are particularly critical, because going prone doesn't reduce your exposure that much when fired at from above at short range. On gentler, flatter slopes, things are different. 

    ---------------

    Another issue is that weapons who are supposed to be very good at suppression often can't be used effectively. The main victims are machine gun teams. Not only are they handicapped by map design (as mentioned above), but also the way that area fire works makes their use very unreliable and fiddly. You need to have LOS onto the GROUND in your target-area spot. Needless to say that it is often impossible for a MG team that lies prone to see any spot on the ground. You're not allowed to fire in a "direction" if you cannot see a spot on the ground. Thus MGs are often unable to fire - reverse slope targets everywhere, no line of fire! Also, you can't fire through bushes. The only way around this is to have an elevated position. 

    Another issue for MGs is that the game does not allow them to target more than 1 action spot (a front of 8m) in a single turn. If firing from a proper distance, the gun would hardly need to be traversed to cover an area much larger than a single action spot. There are reasons why MGs in Combat Mission are extremely underwhelming and don't have the suppressive effect they should have. Less suppression = more casualties. 
  7. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to 37mm in Experience of the soviet troops in the US campaign   
    They most certainly were capable of it & were trained as such... which is why all 1914 Divisions featured Rifle, Cavalry, Machine Gun & Artillery units.
    As for Mons, there are a number of good threads on The Great War Forums about "The Machine Guns of Mons" as well as Zubers analysis of the German histories... generally, even the most ardent Anglophiles accept that the German casualties at Mons have been exagerrated by the British & that German tactics were not as usually portrayed (close order mass assaults).
    Still this is all a topic for another time & place.
  8. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to domfluff in Experience of the soviet troops in the US campaign   
    Experience levels are a long-standing problem of wargame design, since that kind of thing started to be modelled.

    The classic example is the 101st on D-Day - should they be "Veteran" to account for their better training, or "Green", since this was the first time they saw combat? Both answers are viable, depending on what system you're using to model this. Typically in CM they'd be Veteran, but that's not necessarily true for everything ever.

    Soft factors are not an objective measure (unlike armour penetration or rate of fire), so any modelling of something subjective is going to have an inherently subjective outcome.

    "Artificially inflating the difficulty" is the least charitable way of saying that. Scenario design is game design, and game design is harder than people think it is. The map, forces and soft factors are all altered to produce the desired outcome. This is especially true for historical scenarios, because you have a real outcome that you'd like to see on-screen.

    For example, if you're doing the opening Desert Storm, you'd need to set Iraqi motivation to awful, because taking thousands of surrenders is a major part of that narrative. There's no table you can look up to show what level of experience and motivation the Iraqi soldiers should have historically, but you can start with the intended outcome and work backwards, tweaking things to suit. This is the essence of "Design for Effect", and you'll see it up and down wargame design.

    So, yes, I haven't played through enough of the campaigns (or scenarios) yet to get cross at anything specific, but you will see a range of soft factors, in every CM title, even when representing the same forces. Call this "artificially inflating the difficulty" if you like, but it's really just modelling the scenario.

    It's viable to take exception to the choices made in modelling the scenario, naturally, but "these troops should be +1 leadership" is not really firm ground to stand on - the definitions of each soft factor and how that pertains to the real world is subjective and fluffy.
  9. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to Redwolf in US armour spotting ability - buttoned or unbuttoned?   
    I seem to recall that the regular "move" command is as slow as it is because it abstracts away a short halt to fire. So it gives an accuracy bonus when on the move, as if it had stopped momentarily to shoot (which you can't do in CMx2). Likewise, a spotting bonus (as if swiveling the turret, which you can't do in CMx2). But that is from memory, something that might have been said during CMBN release discussions.
  10. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to MikeyD in US armour spotting ability - buttoned or unbuttoned?   
    I had performed a test awhile ago confirming that Abrams and M60A3 can spot through kicked up dust in very dry conditions (other tanks can't). On a whim I tried the opposite, spotting on damp ground on a rainy day. To my surprise the Russians started spotting me first and getting the first shots off. So apparently, based on one small test, US thermals are degraded in the rain.
  11. Upvote
    Kaunitz got a reaction from LongLeftFlank in High casualty rates in CM games   
    I concur with RockinHarry. It does make a difference. From my impressions, hit registry is indeed somehow linked to the actual models, and the animation changes where the model is. 
    This doesn't help if you don't get any aiming point at all, as it commonly happens on flatter maps. Then the only means to fire your MG in a direction is to use a very close target area spot, which leads to very high ammo consumption and incredible spread of burts (for each fire action, the MG targets a random point in the action square. If the action square is very close, the angle of dispersion is huge...).

    Also, firing at point in front of the target may sometimes results in a bad (too high) trajectory. The trajectory runs roughly from the muzzle to a random point in the target square at about knee-height. If the target point is slightly "above" your muzzle height (as it often happens because you need to see the ground to spot it), and your gun is firing knee-height at a target point, the shots often go high.

    ----

    And yes, there are also many maps that are marvellous and more realistically scaled. I appreciate that and it is by no means meant as a reproach to all the people who put their heart into designing maps. The problem is most severe for older quickbattle maps. I also have the impression that it's sometimes meant to give infantry a better chance against armor.
  12. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to dbsapp in Infantry useless?   
    It's truly amazing that you shared your priceless experience being stationed with heavy machine gun behind the lines to gun down any soldier who ran from the assault during WW2. 
    Internet experts and war veterans make us look humble and make our lives easier with useful advice. 
  13. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to dbsapp in Infantry useless?   
    I've already watched your video. It's more cinematic than instructing, but I got the idea. 
    I accomplished this mission in a different way: concentrated the forces on the left side and went through under smoke cover. It produced good results. 
    Overall this mission is a massive joykiller. Terrain is constructed specially to dump attackers field of view. The most awful part is the scripted Stug, coming from cover when your tanks (which can't penetrate it from the front) are going into attack, and flak, hidden in the trees. 
    Unfortunately, even game manual promotes strange idea that Soviet troops were some sort of brainless numerically highly superior  hordes that fought by simply throwing at the enemy as much human bodies as necessary. This twisted image came from Hollywood movies, like "Enemy at the gates", and memoirs of German generals, who blamed weather, Hitler and "hordes" for their defeat. This notion is very far from reality.
     
  14. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to RockinHarry in High casualty rates in CM games   
    quick response task force coming in. 😁 @Erwin sorry, got to disagree. If it´s just eye candy I wouldn´t have released the file swaps to public at all. The intended main purpose was just that. Lowered single soldier target footprints at cases, where it makes some sense. Main purpose was and still is single player vs. the AI. Was bits of tested in PBEM as well, where both players have the animation swap files in place on their PC´s. There´s some old threads where all of this was debated already.  IF you have some insider info (from dev´s and beta team) and they tell it´s all nonsense, then please tell! I still prefer that direct insider info before any my own observations and conclusions. 😎
  15. Like
    Kaunitz reacted to LongLeftFlank in High casualty rates in CM games   
    As I've noted before elsewhere, battles (outside Hollywood and HBO) very rarely consist of 'mad minute' dramatic charges with all guns in continuous action one after the other for 1-2 solid hours, yet that is the norm in CM.
    Actual combat, even high intensity combat with forces in close contact, is nonetheless punctuated by extended lulls to observe, regroup, rally, medevac, call in fire support, etc. While most of the poor blighters simply cower in holes, overcome by fear, shock, exhaustion, and dehydration while a tense silence settles over the eerily empty battlescape. Until another stonk drops, or someone exposes himself to a sniper, or urgent orders to get moving again are finally obeyed, most usually by fresh troops.
    Like a few others here, my focus is on designing (and occasionally even publishing 🤪) well-documented historical tactical (infantry) actions, fought in their historical tactical footprints: Makin Atoll, Ramadi (Iraq), Le Meauffe-le Carillon. And the RL timeframes involved run from 4 hour blocks to most of a day, at the end of which both forces are generally spent and regroup to 'tie in' for the night. In apocalyptic city fights like Stalingrad and Mosul (ht @Sgt.Squarehead), or cave fights like Peleliu and Okinawa that's why you hear about entire companies being spent taking a few rooms in a building or a hundred yards of lava, or a single Norman hedgerow. Most of the men aren't literally dead or maimed, but by the end of the day they are in no condition to do much more than hold their holes.
    So as far as reflecting this in the game is concerned, I just abstractly assume that these lulls are in fact occurring, but off the clock, and that most of the guys who show as 'casualties' aren't in fact hit but have simply hit their limit and are unavailable for further orders (so they might as well be dead as far as the player-CO is concerned).
    So when we say that scenarios 'forcing' us to take meet our objectives in 2 hours seems unrealistically short, the constraints we are actually racing against are remaining daylight (ok, night actions are a different beast) plus the actual endurance limit of the formations involved. Anyway, that's how I think of it, and design accordingly.
  16. Upvote
    Kaunitz got a reaction from LongLeftFlank in High casualty rates in CM games   
    The problem of infantry protection has already been mentioned. The benefit of fortifications is puny. It's a pity that fortifications are so neglected. Also, Pixelsoldiers tend to be too brave. They often continue to run under fire (default reaction of most move orders) and they also tend to kneel while under fire (I use an animation mod by ROckinharry (?) so that my men stay prone more often and survive much better). And Pixelsoldiers they don't make the best use of cover (which is understandable, as this must be a highly complicated issue to tackle). I'd also like to point out that I often get the impression that infantry often seems to move somewhat unflexibly and slowly - almost as if stuck in some jelly. But then again, this is balanced out by the bad shooting skills of many pixelsoldiers.

    -------------------

    Another point which has not been mentioned in this thread yet is map design. While I understand that many other players don't share my opinion, I'm still convinced that the map design is one of the main culprits for the exagerated casualty rate in CM.

    Of course not all maps are the same and many maps are well researched and realistically scaled. But the big bunch of sandbox quickbattle maps are anything but realistic. Their landscapes resemble tabletop miniature landscapes. In general, the footprint of most terrain features (a forest, a field, a hill,...) is too small and there are too many terrain features in too little space. Exaggerated example: On a 1x1km CM map, you can often find 2 hills, 5 woods, 2 villages. In reality, such a space would comprise half a hill (sloping gently, not cutting LOS!), a village and perhaps a part of a forest.  

    The main consequence of "too many small terrain features in too little space" is that lines of sight/fire are cut much too frequently. This in turn reduces the range at which combat typically takes place. For a combat mission player, a 200m LOF feels like a luxurious "long range". In reality, it's still well within rifle range and all too common! Now, if the combat distance is "too" short, it's no surprise that casualty rates are high. The attacker often has to move into what amounts to an ambush by the defender. Often, there is not a single position from which you could bring your support weapons like hMGs to bear on the enemy from a reasonable distance (outside rifle range! at a range at which you're not immediately spotted and shot dead and thus have time to set up!). On many maps, there is no way for the attacker to establish a "soft" contact and build up fire to suppress a position. Most contact in Combat Mission games is hard contact at point blank range. 

    Hills are particularly critical, because going prone doesn't reduce your exposure that much when fired at from above at short range. On gentler, flatter slopes, things are different. 

    ---------------

    Another issue is that weapons who are supposed to be very good at suppression often can't be used effectively. The main victims are machine gun teams. Not only are they handicapped by map design (as mentioned above), but also the way that area fire works makes their use very unreliable and fiddly. You need to have LOS onto the GROUND in your target-area spot. Needless to say that it is often impossible for a MG team that lies prone to see any spot on the ground. You're not allowed to fire in a "direction" if you cannot see a spot on the ground. Thus MGs are often unable to fire - reverse slope targets everywhere, no line of fire! Also, you can't fire through bushes. The only way around this is to have an elevated position. 

    Another issue for MGs is that the game does not allow them to target more than 1 action spot (a front of 8m) in a single turn. If firing from a proper distance, the gun would hardly need to be traversed to cover an area much larger than a single action spot. There are reasons why MGs in Combat Mission are extremely underwhelming and don't have the suppressive effect they should have. Less suppression = more casualties. 
  17. Like
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Lt Bull in "That's one vast valley!" - hard-edged, realistically scaled map   
    As I've been comparing CM's quickbattle-maps with actual landscape/maps, I couldn't help but notice that the scale of many quickbattle-maps is off (this issue doesn't apply to many scenario-maps which are more often based on real maps). Generally speaking, quickbattle-maps are too crowded and too small. It's a bit like the landscape of a model railroad. It’s extremely compartialized. Often there are tiny patches of trees ("woods") all over the place, the fields are tiny, there are little bumps in the terrain everywhere ("hills"). And even the houses in villages often seem to be placed too close to each other. A map of 2km² often contains several fields, villages and woods in Combat Mission, whereas in reality, you could probably only fit in only a few fields.
    I'm not saying that this is bad, mind you. In a weird way, our computer-gamer-eyes are accustomed to the look of it. And also in terms of gameplay, it does certainly make sense as it leads to a lot of close quarter action, forces tanks and vehicles into point blank to each other and into the range of infantry and generally speaking offers more (and more diverse) terrain to play with. So, to some extent, you could say that miniature-terrain guarantees "action packed" engagements and revamps infantry against vehicles (balance-issue). But the geeky wargamer voice in me kept pestering me, asking that seemingly innocent question: "Yeah, Kaunitz, but it is realistic?".   
    So here we go. In order to silence that nagging voice in my head, I decided to make my own map. I've been trying that before, mind you (my Gerbini project is on hold until the patch comes out). This time though, the map will not be based on an actual battle and will not even be based on a real location. This simply gives me much more freedom and speeds up things.
    Here are some of my guiding principles for map design: 
    realistic scale - even though the map is not based on a real location, the map will be based on a plausible scale. After a few short tests, the results are certainly interesting. You can actually set up MGs (without getting them killed the moment they can theoretically be sighted by an enemy unit) and attacking infantry needs to work a bit in order to get within rifle range!  as few "cutoffs" as possible -  A problem I have with many QB-maps is that they're so small that the more reasonable positions for vehicles, support weapons and FOs are simply cut off. Most of the time, I'm asking myself: Why would I place this tank/MG so close to the frontline? Nobody would do that! The weapon is not supposed to be used like that! Surely, there would be some small hill 1km to the rear where it would make much more sense to set up the weapon/vehicle? Also, do I really have to peek over that ridge at point blank range? Is there no hill in the rear area that would allow me to take a look from a safer distance? Admittedly, there can be situations in which there simply is no better position available, but QB maps constantly seem to force a deadly point blank ranges onto me. To prevent that, maps need to have a certain minimum size, and observation and long-range positions need to be taken into account when designing the map. Of course engagements were not static, and if you do take into account that the battle might move on a bit in this or that direction, the required map-size multiplies very quickly (irregular shaped maps would be interesting here…). To tackle this problem, I want to experiment with the “exit” objective (see below).   if possible, I’d like to pay special attention to micro-cover - I do think that infantry is a bit too vulnerable in the open. I will see whether it is possible to add a few more small bumps in the ground and some props to give infantry more cover (if prone). But I'm not sure yet if and how that will work out. I suppose one would need very tiny differences in height which would provide some cover to infantry without blocking their LOS. I don’t think it’s possible in CM, but I see if I can somehow recreate the effect. Small preview of the current status (obviously not much yet, but it is a beginning): 
    https://imgur.com/a/imul3HX (the map is 1456x1920m)
    https://imgur.com/a/5dX5B5s
    https://imgur.com/a/SahWEan
     Further ideas: 
    Allow the defender to retreat to prevent implausible blood baths:  As this is a little experiment, I do want to make the battle realistic, even at the cost of game play. Therefore, I want to give the defender the option to retreat to cut down his casualties. I’ve not taken a closer look if and how I can get it to work yet. The problem I see is that all units (tagged to be destroyed) that have not left the battlefield by the end of the battle are counted as destroyed, which is not really what I want. There needs to be a difference between "did not leave the battlefield because the battle was going well and there was no reason to do so" and "did not leave the battlefield because the player decided to make a desperate suicide last stand". I'm not sure if the editor allows me to differentiate between those two. Generally speaking, the option to retreat should also be interesting from a gameplay perspective as the defender will need to move and cover his retreat (with longer ranges, this is much more reasonable as you won't get killed the very moment you stand up and move...). ------------------------------------
    Feel free to discuss and contribute! What are your thoughts on map design and particularly map-scale? Also, how many troops would be fighting over the map? I was thinking of at least 2 companies up for the attacker (the width of the front is 1456m). Do you have any comments on the retreat-idea?
    Right now, I'm stuck a little bit as I can't make the cornifer-woods look pretty and functional (lack of cornifer-trees that come with a short tree-trunk/low tree crown). I think I will have to go for mixed forests. 
    I will also be looking out for volunteers to test the map once it is ready!
  18. 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'.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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
     
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
     
  24. 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.

  25. Upvote
    Kaunitz got a reaction from Eicio in Canons and attack   
    double post
×
×
  • Create New...