Jump to content

Aquila-SmartWargames

Members
  • Content Count

    339
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Posts posted by Aquila-SmartWargames


  1. 25 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

    +1 to the rest of your post, but this part is not my experience, I must say. I find I have to click on every single bend of the road. And I find I have to click exactly in the middle of the bend, or the vehicle will drive halfway off the road, which increases bogging risk a lot.

    By the way, I started playing Mius Front recently, and in a recent battle, I put my StuGs on the left flank, and then the enemy tanks appeared on the right flank. I was able to just select my AFVs and then click to redeploy them all, using the "move by road" command. I kind of expected something to go wrong, but they all moved perfectly by road to their new destination. Such a relief.

    I´ve just tested it and yes as you mention they veer off the road alot. I´ve corrected 1)

    Would be great to have a "stick to roads" command added to CM one day. 


  2. 18 hours ago, General Jack Ripper said:

    Personally I think the added fatigue using Hunt is intended to force the player to use it less than they otherwise would, because if it was less fatiguing than everyone would just use Hunt all the time.

    As mentioned HUNT is slower than MOVE and for covering bigger distances time efficient without fatigue I definitely would keep using MOVE.

    Despite this, why is it something bad if HUNT would see alot of use? If enemy contact is expected - which is most times the situation for a Combat Mission scenario from minute one - a slow advance, ready to hit the deck/engage, and a weapon alert carry is a quiet appropiate approach.  


  3. On 1/2/2020 at 1:26 PM, Bulletpoint said:

    I think there's a fundamental problem in how the number of clicks needed to bring up troops to the front balloons as more reinforcements arrive and as the distance from the starting area to the front increases and includes more and more bends in the road. It turns into a game of "Waypoint: The Clickening".

    Problem is - I simply have no idea how to solve this. I really like the concept of a "one map campaign".

    I find excessive waypoint plotting and multiple battles on a huge map that require the player to constantly shift attention and camera rather exhausting too while the multiple battles aspect comes down to preference. However directing vehicle convoys over a road network is one of the most exhausting tasks I can think of when playing CM. Bad ground conditions can make it worse. It can even become more extreme when designers put mud/ditches beside roads or junctions, which is realistic but may stress the handicapped driving AI and your patience to the absolute max.

    In the time I´ve developed some work reducing methods:

    1) I sometimes "abstract" the plotting and only set few waypoints. Vehicles may navigate to the target in an efficient manner but will veer of the road often. Only use this if the bogging chance offroad is low. Important is to make sure that there are waypoints for key areas that will prevent the vehicle AI from taking unexpected routes or terrible terrain. With time the player gets a "feeling" for how the AI will behave when plotting this abstracted routes.

     2) I often give orders to multi vehicles at once even for road travel. While this otherwise handy "waypoint spread by unit relation" feature is rather hindering when plotting road travel, Engine 4 allows you to drag the waypoints quickly into correct position. It isn´t perfect as every single unit needs to be selected but I think it can save time and work.

    3) pause all vehicles when done and make sure to unpause them when there is absolute enough room between each vehicle. One of the worst thing that can happen is when vehicles bump together for too long, triggering into this bypass mode and then the vehicle babysitting is about to happen. Bogged vehicles can stop entire fleets of vehicle. Remove the waypoints from the bogged vehicle if you want them to bypass the bogged one. Not sure if pause leads to the same. 

    Great to see that V2 uses ground conditions with less bogging which will makes things alot easier


  4. I usually avoid to bring tanks into contact with AT guns at all but currently playing a campaign that might make it inevitable to do so for my Tigers.

    While a quick 76mm ZIS-3 test produced the outcome that I´ve seen from various historical accounts (penetration frontal almost impossible, side penetration on short distances possible) the ZIS-2 57mm effectiveness gives me some thoughts.

    In a recent test it was able to easily penetrate Tigers frontally at 500m and destroy them with 1-4 hits while most hits causes damage ranging from armor spalling (most times 1st hit) over partial penetrations (with internal damage & casualties) to full penetration. Angling the hull with about 15-20 degree towards incoming trajectory didn´t made it any better. In easy words most Tigers were taken out rather fast and often rendered combat ineffective/"stunned" after already the first hit.

    The ZIS-2 was definitely was a powerful AT gun and could basically take out any <1943 German tank from any aspect and great ranges. I saw these Soviet penetration tables at WP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/57_mm_anti-tank_gun_M1943_(ZiS-2) which are somewhat consistent what the UI Penetration/Armor Mod is showing me for the ZIS-2 which indicate that it should penetrate Tigers at 500m, although there is a disclaimer on WP that the Soviet aquisition method makes this values for some reason not comparable to Western or similar tests.

    While its hard to find quick information on the ZIS-2 vs Tiger situation online most statements I found rather point towards that the ZIS-2 had difficulties against Tigers.

    Unbenannt.jpg

     

    I only did a superficial research on this and would be great if one with a greater insight into this matter could provide some info on if the ZIS-2 was indeed that deadly. 

    Beside this: the above results were achieved with regular AP shells. Against a similar test against a King Tiger the ZIS-2 crew was also starting with AP shells and at some point decided to use the APCR after expending dozen of AP shells.

    All tests:

     


  5. 1 hour ago, umlaut said:

    Thanks a lot.
    I might have - but I must admit that I do not know what a Reshade Profile is 🤔

    Reshade is a third party shader tool for altering visuals in games such as Combat Mission. The screenshot looked somehow different but it seems that the vivid building textures alone are responsible for that impression.


  6. 7 minutes ago, umlaut said:

    I think a new thread would be a good idea - so we dont mix things too much up. I also think it would be a good idea to place it in the general maps and mods forum, instead of CMSF. Many of us WWII freaks seldom venture in here - for example it took me a long time to discover this thread :)

    Just to be clear you mean this subforum: CM2 Scenario and Mod Tips?

    Okay so if no other opinions or objections will come up in the meantime I will create a thread there with copy/pasting useful stuff from here in a couple of days. 


  7. @umlaut basically explained everything important. When using the Blackhawk or other bigger custom models you might want to keep this in mind:

    On 7/18/2019 at 3:41 PM, Aquila-SmartWargames said:

    When replacing flavor objects its important to keep the draw distance of the original in mind. Replacing the crate1.mdr with the blackhawk isn´t a good idea as it will go invisible to quick. The biggest draw distance is provided by flavor objects such as "street (traffic) lamp" and "shelter" etc. It can also be an alternative to better replace an unimportant vehicle (taxi) and give it a destroyed condition, as vehicles have excellent draw distances.

    When replacing vehicles with custom flavor objects (or other mods/vehicles), the associated .lod files also have to be replaced too. A quick fix is simply getting this done by creating copies of the main .mdr file and then add -lod-1 to -lod-4 to them. Not all require 4 of them, I think infantry even can have 5 lod files but I always do 4.

     

    This thread is indeed long and cluttered with alot. I was thinking about making a new thread "Custom 3D Models Infos & Tutorials" and at least extract the knowledge we´ve collected here. You can tell me if this is a good idea or if we want to better keep everything here. However if we go for the new thread I do not plan to rewrite or sort the information but just extract it to make it easier to access. I think it would also be a good idea to create this new thread in "Combat Mission General Discussion" rather than CMSF2 Mods


  8. 7 hours ago, Satomas said:

    PS : I have a question I can't find the 250/7 in Game
     Someone tell me or and where is it available ?

    I didn´t look through everything but at least the Panzer Aufklärung Batallion 44 has them. Under the formation options select for medium mortar "on map" and then you should see the option mortar halftrack with 250/7 (alt) and (neu).


  9. 1 hour ago, umlaut said:

    Could you please explain how? In this case I have chosen vehicles from the editor - not as flavor objects - because "real" vehicles can burn and provide cover. If you rename the mdr will I then get to choose an extra version of that vehicle in the editor - og how does it work?

     

    Lets say you want the Sherman and the burning Sherman wrecks in your scenario and are perfectly sure that you won´t - lets say - use a British Cromwell IV in your scenario/campaign. Then rename the Sherman wreck files to:

    cromwell-iv [damage].mdr

    cromwell-iv-lod-1,2,3,4 [damage].mdr

    Then in the scenario  editor set the [damage] modtag and place some Cromwell-iv wrecks there and they will look like your Sherman wreck, provide cover, LOS/LOF blocking, and burn, etc. while you still can use the regular Shermans as "alive" tanks for the player/enemy side.

    In this example the chromwell->sherman conversion will only become active when modtag [damage] is called. So users don´t need to worry about their modfolder and will keep their default Cromwells for any other scenarios. The Cromwell is just a example could be also every another vehicle of any faction like a kubelwagen but it makes sense to choose something similar in size/sturdiness in order to get most consistent LOS/LOF blocking and cover.

×
×
  • Create New...