Jump to content

Aquila-SmartWargames

Members
  • Content Count

    339
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Posts posted by Aquila-SmartWargames


  1. Bloody Ride Panther and Halftrack Foliage Camo Pack (CMWW2):

    Unbenannt2.png

    - was made for a Bloody Ride campaign playthrough in mind, so not all Panther and Halftrack models are done.

    - should work with all WW2 games where this Panther and Halftrack models are present

    - modular, you can remove vehicle version you don´t want to modify (for example only camo specific support halftracks etc.)

    3D Foliage Camo German Helmet (Experimental)

    Unbenannt.png

    - it seems there are some texture amount limitation when modding helmets, status quo is that the foliage adapts the helmet texture. Didn´t find out yet how to overcome. So only woodland/green/camo helmet textures should be used alongside it. See previous videos model tutorial videos for details. I recommend to stick with the "classic" texture based camo mods by other authors.

    M8 (Mid) Foliage Camo

    Unbenannt3.png

    This camo mods should work with all CMWW2 games where the vehicle versions are present. The foliage camo also adapts to winter snow.

    Download:

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1tviryry89g6py7/AAAJpSvGH6u1iEx4WzwVLSnJa?dl=0

     

    For more details check out the Youtube videos, especially this playlist:

    Video Playlist for CM 3D Model Editing with Showcases, Workflows, and Tutorials (latter with commentary)


  2. On 2/19/2020 at 5:56 PM, Erwin said:

    Are you planning to release a mod set for COUP that features the amazing work you've done making the ships look authentic plus any other magic you've created?

    CMSF2 Coupdetat Ship Models Expansion Download

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1tviryry89g6py7/AAAJpSvGH6u1iEx4WzwVLSnJa?dl=0

    It was planned as a personal edit rather than a release and I didn´t bother to align the ships in order to 100% perfectly cover everything and the visible part of the sunken ship was left delibaretly there to simulate broken-off superstructure. There are some helicopters on the flight deck, it was a test if you can quickly combine existing (custom) models and yes you can. The ship files are modtagged with [COUP]. This is only an mod expansion it still requires the other files and mods @MOS:96B2P recommends: https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-shock-force-2-2/cm-shock-force-2-scenarios/coup-detat/

     

    Thats the mod folder I specifically used for this playthrough:

    Unbenannt.png

    Most here are in the Dropbox, Oleksandr´s Chernorussian uniforms and MikeyD´s  pickup can be found on CMMODS. This does not include the permanent mods I use for my CMSF2 playthroughs.


  3. 47:52, nothing sophisticated:

     

    I am looking for a ini, config, edit, mod to set the control scheme of the CM Classic games to something similar like tho the modern WASD one. I know I could use authotkey to get the numpad camera keys to wasd + qe but is there also a way to remove this little "lag" from the CM Classic camera controls.

    Despite this I still looking for "must-play" narrative campaigns, I´ve made another thread for this question. 


  4. 2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
    • When people are passionate about something, often they want to help improve it. Reporting bugs and suggesting ideas are not attacks on the game or the company behind it - quite the opposite.
       
    • The people who play Combat Mission often have a keen interest in WW2, and they like that the game is generally realistic and takes history seriously. When they find something that could be improved, they are likely to mention it.

    I see it also in this rather optimistic way. Sure there are always people that make out of proportion or rude demands but you have stuff like this in in every game forum. From what I´ve seen it appears even worse in forums of more casual games which might have something to do that a game like CM might attract more mature individuals in the first place, which additionally might be looking for the most definitive wargame representation, while understanding that the market and dev resources are different here. I personally see the bar CM has set as one of its biggest strength and selling points, absolutely not as its enemy. 

    About graphics, I am not a graphics fetishist but not a nostalgia grog either. I like beautiful and authentic games, I have a strong machine, and alot of recent strategy games like Steel Division 2 or other genre games like PS, HLL etc. at my disposal and still when somebody would ask me "show me the most beautiful and definitive audiovisual experience in a ground strategy game" I would show him CM2 footage. Never gets old too look at the detailed vehicles and uniforms, never gets old when a big firefight errupts and the surrounds start to go down in an absolute apocalypse of gunfire, explosions, and shouting. No other strategy game reaches even close to this and I am talking here only about the (audio)visuals. Furthermore the terrain - not in a how much diverse objects there are - but talking rather about terrain complexity: In alot of strategy games you have this rather abstracted "wood, plains, urban, high ground etc." terrain features but in CM its on another level, hard to put in words but if you ever reconnoitered terrain for whatever reason, you might understand what I mean. Better than any real strategy game, even better than in some military first person shooters.

    Sure I run a heavily modded audiovisual setup together with a personal fav of Reshade profile there. Some might argue "thats not part of the game" but I don´t make this differentiation. If I can do something myself in order to improve a situation or to better met certain criteria, I do it. Personal conclusion: CM2 looks to me beautiful like any current gen strat game with some aspects like uniform, vehicle detail, and combat fidelity even being on an higher level.

    This of course doesn´t mean that engine overhauls or visual improvements are not welcome. Wouldn´t say no to improved rain visuals, problematic shadows in certain situations, better backgrounds, a more attractive void (the empy space beyond the map), ballistics analysis, better briefing and campaign/core force interfaces etc etc.. But if it would be gameplay/content vs. visuals right now I would go with the first. And when CM3 eventually becomes a thing, well then we´ll see 🙂


  5. On 2/19/2020 at 5:26 PM, DerKommissar said:

    I don't understand why SLOW is so damn exhausting. I often need to wait a couple of minutes for sappers to rest, before they can crawl another 10 meters.

    Depends of course on the fitness and conditioning of the individual soldier but a low crawl - body flat on the ground, no forearm and lower leg rest - in kit is one of the most exhaustive movement methods.

    Its also a quite effective body/conditioning workout.  


  6. Good read: "World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery" by Lorrin Rexford Bird and Roberd D. Livingston.

    By taking lesser known aspects into account like the projectile diameter vs true armor thickness overmatch effect it helps to understand why high emphasis on multi-aspect/flank sloped armour protection (despite its logistical, production, ergonomical, and other/tactical concerns)  might not be the jack of all trades solution in WW2 as some seem to perceive it nowadays, especially in a late WW2 environment.

    Never tested it but my inner gut feeling teels me that the mentioned overmatch effect is simulated in Combat Mission in a bilateral way thus either armor thickness or projectile diameter overmatch. 

    I heard that the authors were involved in (playing) Combat Mission aswell.


  7. Furthermore this could be a chance to (semi-)historically utilize CM´s editor ability to pitch Axis vs. Axis tanks. A situation I never have encountered before in any CM campaign or scenario.

    Not long ago I finally got a checkmark on an Allies vs. Allies tank situation in a certain CMFB campaign which was quite a pleasant surprise. Really like the captured tank/Beutepanzer idea.


  8. Quote

    A CM title that includes both Western forces and the Soviets would fantastic IMO.  My hope is that the last release for CMFB will be an equipment pack introducing Soviet forces/equipment into CMFB.  Call it meeting on the Elbe River or something.  Then the US, Commonwealth and Soviets would all be in the same Combat Mission game.   No BFC created scenarios would be needed.  Just an equipment pack of already designed equipment ported over from CMRT.  Scenario designers and mod creators could do all kinds of cold war, neo-colonialism stuff.  Patton goes east 1945, Fulda Gap 1948, Korea, Suez Crisis, etc.    Just put them in the same game. 

    I saw this proposal by @MOS:96B2P in another thread with a rather unrelated topic and I wanted to give it a dedicated thread before it might get buried. I really like this idea as it would enable us to play CM in a new unique way and open up alot of opportunities for scenario & campaign designers.

     

    I would not think twice about buying this and hope that it will be indeed considered at some point. 


  9. On 1/12/2020 at 1:34 AM, MOS:96B2P said:

    +1   A CM title that includes both Western forces and the Soviets would fantastic IMO.  My hope is that the last release for CMFB will be an equipment pack introducing Soviet forces/equipment into CMFB.  Call it meeting on the Elbe River or something.  Then the US, Commonwealth and Soviets would all be in the same Combat Mission game.   No BFC created scenarios would be needed.  Just an equipment pack of already designed equipment ported over from CMRT.  Scenario designers and mod creators could do all kinds of cold war, neo-colonialism stuff.  Patton goes east 1945, Fulda Gap 1948, Korea, Suez Crisis, etc.    Just put them in the same game.  

    Would be an instant buy for me.


  10. Good information, looks quiet authentic but I don´t have enough knowledge about the source website or the topic overall to evaluate the quality. However it would be in line with the mentionings that are found in some of the literature that the ZIS-2 regular 57mm AP round would have serious trouble to knock out a Tiger head on at 500m while in contrast to this in CMRT the regular AP shell is absolute deadly at this range. 

    That the 57mm APCR round according to this documentation could be effective against a Tiger at <=1000m sounds reasonable. According to the attached pen table in @akd second post the round might have trouble with the Tiger´s front at 1000m but with an 90 degree angle penetration almost matching the Tiger´s front armor it could score lucky hits or degrade the armor but I personally didn´t dig that much into the capabilities of the ZIS-2 57mm APCR rounds.

    In the testing video above I couldn´t figure out when the crew decides to use the regular AP and when the APCR. Against the King Tiger at 500m the AT gun crew started to use regular AP aswell and then when the tank came really close at some point they used the APCR but with the limiting testing there could be other reasons when and why the crew decides to use it.

    Side note for mission designers: The lowest supply setting for the ZIS-2 seems to be the only setting that strips the gun from its APCR rounds. However it leaves it with little AP ammo aswell.


  11. 2 hours ago, StieliAlpha said:

    That sounds like pretty wishful thinking. I wonder how many people would remember such advise when the heat is on.

    The part about DYO-ordnance even sounds a little desperate.

    Its up to you to believe that instructing soldiers is pointless as you think they will forget everything in the heat. 

    There was not much left for them other than wishful thinking and desperation as the war at this point was lost beyond recovering. If writing manuals for soldiers in order to continue an auto-destructive and pointless war fits your propaganda definition well then I have nothing to add.

    2 hours ago, StieliAlpha said:

    Along the lines: “We can’t give you the tools, but feel free to build some.”

    To adapt despite the equipment you´re supplied with is nothing new and IMO not different for a today´s soldier. Stuff like creating DIY explosive ordnance or booby traps isn´t taught anymore that much or even forbidden today among our Western armies - at least as far my insight goes -  but back then it was taught not only to Axis but to Allies soldiers aswell to a more or less extent. 

    2 hours ago, StieliAlpha said:

    but then remembered, to have read similar over-optimistic non-sense even in Bundeswehr field manuals.

    Again up to you to wether the content of this close anti tank assault document is nonsense or not. Two absolute contrary threads alone show that there are many different opinions about this topic.

    For me the GER ZDVs are designed similar to the US FM with some differences, which would make sense as the US assisted in build-up of the GER BW but I am not a ZDV history buff. However not one of the ZDV I know of is written in this style. There is alot of unintentionally amusing and silly sections to be found in them and there are better and worse.

    But hinting a comparison between Bundeswehr ZDVs and 3rd Reich Propaganda here indicates me that you no really know what you´re talking about and furthermore don´t really understand the purpose and limits of these field manuals. Every competent commander and soldier is taught and understands that not everything what you see in a tactical ZDV should be applied blindly while neglecting practicability and adaptability.

     

    We´re in off-topic territory lets go back


  12. 1 hour ago, General Jack Ripper said:

    Yes, but you're not expecting contact with all your units at all times. Hunt is for your lead scout, and maybe your leading squad. The complaint registered is that Hunt causes excessive fatigue. My answer to that is the player is using it too much, mostly because it's being used too much.

    Turning down the fatigue effect would simply encourage it to be used even more than the too much it's being used already. Hunt exists because it's useful, just like Move, Quick, Fast, and Slow. Every UI command given to the player serves a purpose, the key to becoming skilled at this game is to learn to use the correct command at the correct time, and in the correct situation.

    Now I've put on a sixty pound pack, strapped some magazines to my hip, and gone tramping across the countryside on a few occasions, and I think troops in Combat Mission tend to get fatigued quite a bit more quickly than in reality.

    Same did I. I can´t speak for other players but even when HUNT would come with low/no fatigue it would not change much for my current modus operandi and I still would keep using MOVE especially for most rear movement. In fact the major thing that would change for me is stop wondering why this fatigue was slapped onto HUNT.

    For me as RT player there is absolute no hassle with all that but I do understand why some might miss either a middle solution (MOVE to CONTACT) or would like to see the HUNT fatigue changed. 

    I also generally do not agree to trade authenticity for sake of balancing the usage of ingame movement commands but I see your points here as the devs pretty sure had something in mind when opting for this solution.


  13. Because wether every soldier being able to do the close assault or not was mentioned in this thread. From the German Wehrmacht field manual comic about close assaulting tanks I´ve posted in the competition thread @MOS:96B2P linked here, these bits might be interesting:

    "Das Pänzerknacken muß jeder Soldat beherrschen wie seine Knarre. Ganz gleich, welche Waffe, gleich ob Grenadier oder Feldbäcker."

    Basically: every soldier needs to know how to knock out tanks no matter what branch, no matter if rifleman or baker.

    "Jeder muß das Knacken können. Seid nicht stur! Drängt Euch dazu, das Zeug zu sehen und zu lernen! Schafft Nahkampfwaffen und Nahkampfmittel bei oder macht Euch selber welche! Und laßt sie nicht verrotten, wenn einmal eine Zeitlang nichts passiert. Vor allem Zünder, Zündladungen und Zündschnüre gut aufbewahren. Zu jeder Minute müßt Ihr auf Panzer gefaßt sein."

    Basically: Everybody needs to learn and know about knocking out tanks. Get (anti tank) close assault ordnance and means or make sure to create your own. Maintain them even when no tank threat presents itself for a longer time. Every minute you must be ready for tanks.

    http://pbc.gda.pl/Content/57971/Der Panzerknacker.pdf


  14. I find it rather surprising that so many players have issues with close assaulting tanks and end up getting mowed down by the target tank. 

    The Wehrmacht once released some sort of field manual in this comic style known from the famous Tiger and Panther Fibel: http://pbc.gda.pl/Content/57971/Der Panzerknacker.pdf Just imagine that the mentioned AT explosive usage and close assault tactics are abstracted by generic grenade attacks.

    Basically:

    1) stay cool and don´t run away/around when tanks approach your positions, you might die (hide, hold fire target arc)

    2) know what tank you´re engaging and keep this in mind for the approach plan (rear MG?, hull gunner?, turret traverse rate? close protection system?)

    3) if possible make sure close-by infantry is surpressed or tank is otherwise isolated

    4) find best concealed covered approach to come as close as possible before being threatened or let him come as close as possible to you

    5) then for the final approach, be swift, aggressive, and dash towards the tank from the safest approach (usually flank, rear, and turret pointed away)

    6) if possible coordinate your efforts with other tank hunter teams or elements in order to distract/overwhelm the tank or other enemy elements that might become a danger to the endeavour

    7) just do it

    I  think the content of this comic manual translate pretty well into the game and I basically apply these principles to my tank assaults and  it works well. As described in the manual the biggest threat is not the tank itself but usually the surroundings (other tanks and infantry covering it)

    One thing for CM specifically to keep in mind that tank turrets are allowed to engage closer targets than historically the gun height & depression allowed to do so they can engage the infantry even when close and prone usually with the coax MG. However the tank will face a latency penalty in CM when attempting that below the historical depression range from a gut feeling of about 20 seconds and might depend on other factors. So might need to shift position. As 60 seconds are too much for turn-based players, they might need to incorporate this into the plan beforehand:

    Also my Finnish campaign playthrough is full with close assaulting tanks.


  15. 2 hours ago, Hapless said:

    Sloped armour reduces internal volume, which has some serious knock on effects on things like ergonomics, ammunition count and survivability.

    This

    Sloped armor reduces interior space which might be needed for engine, equipment, radios, ammo, crewmen whatever. If you want to have the same internal space you need to make the tank bigger which might introduce tactical and logistical disadvantages. Taken this into account its questionable if it would be a good deal for the Sherman which no matter if sloped or not never could offer sufficient flank protection against anything that Germans might fire at it without respeccing the complete vehicle design.  

    Despite this depending on model and industry characteristics it might make production more complex.


  16. I almost never see Air Assets in CMRT scenarios which might be tied to this not unproblematic air support system CMRT uses.

    I recently played a mission with JU-87 being EN ROUTE PREPARING right from the beginning. Even after an hour there was no sight of them. So the appearance is completely randomized over the complete mission time? They could basically show up with the mission timer having one minute left?

    I always had the impression that mission designers set areas for them while designing but now understand that they completely independent roam the battlefield. How in detail is the friendly fire danger? Is it tied to how enemy target rich the environment is? In a testing scenario I just placed some Opel Blitz and several German air elements and the first aircraft element that appeared after a minute or so immediately attacked the friendly Opel trucks. There were no enemy units present on the map. When air support is scheduled is it perhaps a good idea to wait and let them handle a target-rich environment to prevent that the air force pilots arrive don´t find enemy units, and thus instead start attacking friendly forces?

    As concealed units under foliage might be harder to identify correctly as friendly is concealing my units from my own airforce making it worse or better 😂

    Besides this it would be definitely great if this system sees change or improvement in the upcoming expansion.


  17. I prefer historical accuracy and rather lean towards how BF/CM is handling things. In alot of tactical wargames infantry is reduced to "nice to have them around but not really threatening or battle decisive" when tanks are present aswell. Drive them up to the inf and blast them into pieces. In CM on the other hand you need to excercise the combined arms approach and thus protect your tanks from infantry and locating infantry can be difficult depending on conditions and environment aswell.  

    Having enemy infantry swarming your tank was one of the worst situations a tank crew could find itself in. Some tanks came with close defense system such as dedicated mgs or firing ports but AFAIK they never prove to be an effective deterrent and even less a proper replacement for infantry support. There is a reason why some German tanks installed sohisticated solutions like  the "Nahverteidigungswaffe" which tried to protect their heavy tanks from infantry attacks by launching explosives, its quiet interesting to see it in action in CM. If infantry swarming them wouldn´t be a threat to their Tigers/Kingtigers they wouldn´t bother with it.

    In the beginning the effectiveness of grenades also wondered me but when someone on these forums came up with the explanation that it represents an abstraction of the various close infantry attack tactics that were used against tanks and that the generic grenade counter/throw also represents an abstraction of various dedicated or DIY AT ordnance such as dedicated/improvised mines, charges, liquids, throwables it started to make sense to me. If true putting an explanation into the manual could avoid alot of the confusion. 

    Interesting are also the results. I had Medium Tanks such as the T-34 knocked out after 1-2 grenade/close infantry attacks and I had T-34 that survived 12 of them and kept me constantly on the run. Something gave me the impression that there might be some hidden values running under the "grenade count" hood but on the other hand I don´t want to know in order to keep the "magic" which makes every close infantry attack exciting about what might happen. 

    What for me is left to debate is if effect on enemy tanks is achieved too fast, if despite mobility killing them they had the means to completely knock out heavier tanks that fast or at all, force the crew outside, and if so many infantrymen would have the knowledge, guts, and equipment to undertake such an endeavour. Pretty sure there are some of these that can be at least partially answered with "not really" but I guess some of this might be tied to 1) current engine limitations 2) limited development resources, and balancing 1) and 2) out with the other aspects of the game in order to still offer the best historical accuracy possible.

    But nevertheless I still think CM has one  of the - if not the - most authentic Infantry vs tanks warfare representations.

    There are even ideas to go farer as somebody mentioned the idea to allow infantry to use their explosive ordnance/close infantry attack ability from buildings which I think is not that bad of an idea but might end up absolutely over the top with infantry occupied build-up areas becoming apocalyptic for tanks to drive through and on the other hand would neglect the exposure of infantry as they wouldn´t have to leave the safety of the building for that. Perhaps thats was the decision-making reason why the ability is denied from interiors.

×
×
  • Create New...