Jump to content

com-intern

Members
  • Content Count

    120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About com-intern

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. iirc the reason the contacts in CMx2 are better is because they are not sound contacts but poor visual contacts. "was that a man or a bush" as opposed to "I heard metal clinking" This is sorta linked into why we dont have vehicle misidentification
  2. Also remember that the enemy within the core of the woods is effectively out of the fight. As soon as you push them deep enough into it that they cannot see out you can leave a small group of men to screen your force from it and move on.
  3. Split the platoon into fireteams. Step #1: fireteams on line and within LOS of each other. One team advances a short distance forwards using hunt (about half of LOS maybe less) and then sits for maybe 20 seconds. | | -> | | step #2: Other fireteams then advance inline with the sacrifical element and waits 20 seconds or so before repeating. | -> | . | | -> | It will take a long time but it allows your mean to move forward bit by bit and gives them time to spot and engage any enemies. Once you locate the enemy you can then engage them on your terms. You can make this slightly faster by just having your troops do a similar style of movement but with having them firing into the woods as they advance using target light. The reason you use hunt is that you want the team to immediately hit the deck should they suspect anything is going wrong. Going prone in woods gives them a lot of concealment and the accompanying fireteams should be close enough to provide supporting fire quickly.
  4. There are a lot of games but it does give you decent ability to find similar games. I found Command Ops 2 on Steam and before then I didn't know it existed. Since that time I've spent around $100 on it.
  5. iirc this issue predates any of the more recent bugs. I recall running into this way back in 2011.
  6. I'd argue that from a realism stand point the usual culprit is too large a force on too small a map. Rather than vice versa. The pain in the ass that is scenario design makes it clear why we have that problem. I've done some personal editing of scenarios and increasing the size of the map and adding/moving some of the supporting troops out of the immediate combat zone has usually worked although for obvious reasons the new terrain isn't terribly detailed. Which from a gameplay perspective I think works just fine because the player is never meant to walk over there. @RepsolCBR Just being able to have persistent map damage would be fantastic. Literally just exporting the map out as is would be nice.
  7. Most objectives at CM scale games shouldn't have you maneuvering over long distances. Essentially there are two parts to map size movement affect and fire affect. By giving the player reasonable setup zones you can largely negate the movement affect. You can presume that the player takes over well after the approach march and as men are preparing for H-Hour. However, the large map allows for fires to affect activities quite a bit away from them and this can change what tools or how players approach the attack. This is easier to explain visually and this little snippet from Command Ops 2 does a good job. The Combat Mission focus would be the battalion attack on Steinebrück with armor support from the hill just South of Steinebrück. However, if you enlarge the map to include a portion of Lommersweiler it adds context to the attack visually and makes the attack a bit more complicated. Rather than a 1-dimensional straight on assault the player must make the assault while contending with fires from Lommersweiler. At no point in the scenario would the player make an approach of the town but they would exchange fire with it. Say its a morning scenario wit the first 25 minutes occurring before first light. - Do you press hard earlier to get across the river before Germans in Lommersweiler can see you? - Do you use your artillery to suppress the heights while your armor supports the assault? - Do you attempt to shoot it out and gain fire superiority over Lommersweiler? - etc....
  8. I've been plying quite a bit of Command Ops 2 recently and at its Divison+ scale what you run into quite often are Companies/Battalions making attacks only to be receiving fire from some wooded terrain 1.000 to 3.000 meters away. When playing CM though most of the maps are pretty airtight. I've toyed around the the idea of adding "generic terrain" to some existing maps just to see how it might change play. Part of the issue with CM is that map making takes a long time so to make reasonable sized maps takes quite a while. A detour around this would be to heavily detail the core area where the player is expected to partake in close combat and have a less detailed distance zone where the terrain largely exists for the placement of long range assets. Essentially in a 100 meter fight the exact layout of ditches and where windows are will matter. At 1.000 meters not so much.
  9. Support By Fire https://www.benning.army.mil/infantry/magazine/issues/2014/Apr-Jun/ConradTinsley.html#:~:text=During a deliberate attack for example%2C the assaulting,to the deliberate attack as conducting the assault.
  10. Depending on the situation is often hard - if not impossible to get the SBF into position safely. Largely because many maps force the SBF to be overly close to where you want fires to go. If its a small map I usually just have the SBF shoot their way into their position. Depending on the terrain you can also do a LOS trick where you have your men crawl to a location where they do not have LOS to the target and keep the on HIDE until their weapons are deployed. Then un-HIDE them so that they kneel and gain LOS to the target.
  11. My suspicion is that many of these are just overlooked but a good SOP system rather than just blindly trusting the tacAI would do wonders for the game system.
  12. I've been playing around with doing some "deep" battles. Imagine a pretty standard COY scale battle except the map is more battalion size or more. Aircraft within these style maps seem to be much more effective since there is an actual rear area. Whereas what you normally get is a knife fight battle where the difference between the front and rear area is maybe 100 meters of wood or a knoll.
  13. What I wouldn't give for Panzerfausts/AT4s to have a half second delay on firing. Here comes a light vehicle and there goes all of our AT.
  14. During the fighting in Stalingrad at least one Tank Brigade was committed to fight as infantry and I recall reading that at some points during the fighting the 23rd Tank Corp had crew fighting as infantry as their number of armored vehicles evaporated.
  15. Odds are shadow do not play into spotting. Especially given that they will move with the sun. The cost of calculating their new position within the context of spotting would likely forbid it although Battlefront may be pulling some sort of trick that I am unaware of.
×
×
  • Create New...