New features curiosity

[Mord]

On 2/28/2018 at 9:49 AM, 3j2m7 said:

As i know there are more anims but more soldiers are doing the same things on the same time... deduction... not every soldiers have a personal anim...

I know there is a thread  talking about this in details but dont remember where is it I m sure soon we will have more knoledges about your question I'm sorry to don't tell you more for the time...

I will make some researsh on the forum...

 

I think what 3j2m7 is saying is that there is a synchronization of animations on some of the models. You can see this blatantly with vehicle crews. Select a Priest or M10 in the editor and watch the models, they will all move in unison (using the exact same animation at the exact same time) instead of individually. It's jarring to the eye and looks really bad. This got introduced somewhere around the 2.0 upgrade or a patch just prior to it.

 

Mord.

[Kaunitz]

14. I'd love to have an "area fire (burst every x seconds)" AI-order available in the scenario editor. I think it would make a lot of sense for heavy MGs (and perhaps also some vehicles).

15. Probably very complicated to implement, but personally, I'd really love to see it: Allow us to aim behind concealment = shoot through concelment. By concealment, I'm mainly refering to bushes and hedges. Often I know that the enemy must be somewhere approaching behind the bushes. I have an MG ready and I'd love to just fire away at the bushes to make the attackers go down and at least delay them, but I'm not allowed to because the MG can't see the ground behind the bushes. It feels quite awkward. Only under very specific circumstances can you create some effect on places you can't see (i.e. aimpoint directly in front of the bush and completely flat terrain behind the bush --> grazing effect). My suggestion nr. 6 (Let us area-target reverse slopes) could help a bit, but being allowed to fire your weapon in a direction through concealment (MG bullets don't really care about bushes...) would be ideal. Perhaps it could be limited to firing at TRPs.

As you can see, I really think the engine could give players better means for defence. Apart from proper fortifications, MGs are the main issue, as it seems they were used in quite intricate ways. For example, there is no real way to fire indirectly with heavy MGs, or, as described above, along pre-defined lines of fire. I don't think that MGs should be limited to firing on sight. 

16. Option to toggle TRPs on/off.

 

Edited June 9, 2018 by Kaunitz

[Kozlice]

Would be nice to be able fire mortars and automatic grenade launchers somewhat further behind their line of sight.

Would also be nice to have the "review" stage combined with "giving orders" stage, as sometimes it is difficult to keep track of what happened in the last turn in that particular location to give orders to the troops located there. In bigger battles (battalion+), I actually have to write it down

[Badger73]

1 hour ago, Kozlice said:

Would be nice to be able fire mortars and automatic grenade launchers somewhat further behind their line of sight.

<snipped>

Please explain/justify; they cannot fire directly nor adjust direct fires against targets they cannot see.

[Kozlice]

17 minutes ago, Badger73 said:

Please explain/justify; they cannot fire directly nor adjust direct fires against targets they cannot see.

 

Mortars CAN fire directly, slightly behind their line of sight - I would like that slightly to be slightly more, even if it comes at the price of accuracy. I do not think grenade launchers can do indirect (indirect being slightly behind their line of sight - same way as mortars, not indirect as in called by FO) fire in game at all - which is something that happens in real life

Does it get implemented, now that it's "justified" lol?

Edited June 9, 2018 by Kozlice

[Badger73]

I led a 107mm self-propelled mortar platoon for 13 months.  Gunners cannot accurately fire at targets they cannot see.  More importantly, they cannot adjust fires so as to hit targets they cannot see.  Your "justification" is flawed in that is not realistic.  The game currently (and accurately) lets mortars and grenadiers lay "area" fires anywhere they have lines of sight.  That's about as realistic as it should get in any game.   

[Kozlice]

I am not trying to argue about the realism of the concept, but there is an approximation in the game of a mortar being able to, say, put a round behind a wall that is in it's line of sight. That approximation is achieved through allowing to directly (when I say directly I obviously mean that a mortar still fires like a mortar, with an arc, just without an FO correcting the shots) fire slightly behind it's direct line of sight. Very slightly.

What I wish we had is just a maybe double of that very small distance of being able to fire behind the line of sight. As the whole concept is rather an approximation, I do now know how I could justify in realistic terms, but I could provide a screenshot or two from a PBEM, where this distance limitation was rather very "artificial", and I would have loved to literally get just <10 more meters of "behind the line of sight direct fire"

Edited June 9, 2018 by Kozlice

[Badger73]

Okay.  That helped me better understand your meaning.  I still think the game does so now.  In your example, the mortar direct fire aiming point would be the top of that wall.  In the game, mortar rounds fire in a small but variable pattern around that aiming point; some long, some short, some left, some right.  The blasts suppress the enemy.  Shrapnel has a pretty good chance to kill or wound.  I think the effort to calculate, code, test, and finalize such a small tweak in the game incurs costs to Battlefront which far outweighs negligible benefits.  To me, there are far better uses of programmer time. 

[MOS:96B2P]

The following might be interesting.  In May 2015 I experimented with US mortars in CMBN.

I had a fire team, a mortar team and a spotter all in the same action spot facing a ridge.  The fire team could target /about up to the crest at 112 meters.  The spotter, spotting for the mortar team, could target 135 meters (approximately 23 meters past the crest of the ridge).  The mortar, using direct fire, could target 161 meters (approximately 49 meters past the crest of the ridge).

That was a few game engines ago and have not re-tested recently.     

 

[Kozlice]

1 hour ago, Badger73 said:

Okay.  That helped me better understand your meaning.  I still think the game does so now.  In your example, the mortar direct fire aiming point would be the top of that wall.  In the game, mortar rounds fire in a small but variable pattern around that aiming point; some long, some short, some left, some right.  The blasts suppress the enemy.  Shrapnel has a pretty good chance to kill or wound.  I think the effort to calculate, code, test, and finalize such a small tweak in the game incurs costs to Battlefront which far outweighs negligible benefits.  To me, there are far better uses of programmer time. 

Yea, I certainly did not assume Battlefront will really consider this, I thought this was just a "dream out loud" type of thread. But I do not think adding a few meters to that (arbitrary?) extra behind-line-of-sight distance will need much coding, testing or calculation...but then again, what do I know. And you are certainly right that suppression is still there and the not perfect accuracy will eventually get a round or two far enough.

1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:

The following might be interesting.  In May 2015 I experimented with US mortars in CMBN.

I had a fire team, a mortar team and a spotter all in the same action spot facing a ridge.  The fire team could target /about up to the crest at 112 meters.  The spotter, spotting for the mortar team, could target 135 meters (approximately 23 meters past the crest of the ridge).  The mortar, using direct fire, could target 161 meters (approximately 49 meters past the crest of the ridge).

That was a few game engines ago and have not re-tested recently.     

 

That actually made me wanna do some experiments myself

1a: A building?

https://ibb.co/kFC18T

1b: No problem, 50 m extra, exactly the range you are talking about

https://ibb.co/ir4sF8

 

2a: Another building

https://ibb.co/ft8xho

2b: Nope

https://ibb.co/eGQhF8

 

3a: Inf. line of sight, around 40 m)

https://ibb.co/m0Mpv8

https://ibb.co/evMpv8

 

3b: Mortar, only 10 meters more

https://ibb.co/gM218T

https://ibb.co/gAO8oT

 

There is obviously more factors involved than I have originally thought, and it is a bit confusing now

[MOS:96B2P]

7 minutes ago, Kozlice said:

There is obviously more factors involved than I have originally thought, and it is a bit confusing now

Interesting stuff.  In my test, IIRC, I always used the crest of a hill/ridge.  That may be one difference from your testing.  Not sure if that should matter ............... I just did a quick experiment on my CMBS v2.0 Engine 4 test map with a US 81mm mortar platoon.  They targeted 50 meters on the reverse slope.  So seems to still work for reverse slopes.  Below is my TACSOP for the mortar team. 

1. Deploy mortar in a firing position with LOS to the crest of the slope.   

2. Have mortar team Target Light¹ OpFor up to 49 meters on the reverse slope.

Notes: 1)In a mortar section the difference between Target & Target light is the rate of fire of the mortar not the type of weapons fired.

[Kozlice]

Another interesting situation, I suspect relative elevation might also have something to do with it

LOS for reference

Just over the crest

A bit further

Even further, slightly elevated but out of LOS of the mortar team

[Badger73]

Good discussion, @Kozlice.  This game goes pretty deep indeed.

[Bulletpoint]

17 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

14. I'd love to have an "area fire (burst every x seconds)" AI-order available in the scenario editor. I think it would make a lot of sense for heavy MGs (and perhaps also some vehicles).

I think this is already in the game - was added recently (in 4.0 - 'recent' in CM terms means within the last couple of years)

[Kaunitz]

On 6/10/2018 at 10:15 AM, Bulletpoint said:

I think this is already in the game - was added recently (in 4.0 - 'recent' in CM terms means within the last couple of years)

ooh! I see. I noticed you can paint a "fire" order on the map for an AI-group, but in my (admittedly rushed) test, it didn't work. I probably failed to assign the plan to my troops or they had no LOS on the area. I will check it out again. According to the manual (engine version 4 manual, p. 7, 103), it should clearly work. Thanks for pointing it out!

---------

17. Let the scenario designer fix (player-friendly) troops in place (you can "immobilize" tanks, but it doesn't work for infantry). Afaik (please correct me if i'm wrong, I would be very happy!) you can't do this right now. It would also be an improvised work-around for my suggestion number 13: presence of friendly troops that cannot be (in this case: fully) controled by the player. Again, this would help to give the player the feeling of taking part in a bigger battle, while keeping micro-management load small. And it's also quite realistic for many situations and scenarios (thinking about my Gerbini scenario  ) in which troops of different units (with different orders) are present on the battle field. 

18. Defoliated versions of all foliage-assets in the editor. 

Edited June 12, 2018 by Kaunitz

[Kaunitz]

19. Allow more than one ammo dump per side. If you buy a truck in the editor and set its status to "dismounted", it will show up as a stationary ammo dump. However, this only works a single time, so you can only ever have one ammo dump per side (the second one will simply not show up on the map). This is bad news if you plan to use a lot of heavy MGs that are supposed to deliver lines of grazing fire for prolonged amounts of time.  On realistically scaled maps (with comparatively vast "flat" areas), hMGs graze-firing height along predefined lines can be extremely effective, if only they wouldn't run out of ammo so fast. 

Edited June 15, 2018 by Kaunitz

[MOS:96B2P]

36 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

19. Allow more than one ammo dump per side. If you buy a truck in the editor and set its status to "dismounted", it will show up as a stationary ammo dump. However, this only works a single time, so you can only ever have one ammo dump per side (the second one will simply not show up on the map). This is bad news if you plan to use a lot of heavy MGs that are supposed to deliver lines of grazing fire for prolonged amounts of time.  On realistically scaled maps (with comparatively vast "flat" areas), hMGs graze-firing height along predefined lines can be extremely effective, if only they wouldn't run out of ammo so fast. 

Below are my editor notes from ammo dumps:

Ammo/Supply  Dumps: Multiple smaller supply dumps look cool and are easier to Acquire reasonable amounts of ammo from (instead of 1000 rds. of 5.56 etc.). Supply dumps are dismounted vehicles.  They will combine into one supply dump if the dismounted vehicles are in the same platoon or are both directly subordinate to the same Bn. HQ.  Make one dismounted vehicle subordinate to Bn. HQ, one subordinate to A Co., one subordinate to a supply platoon etc.  This will create multiple ammo dumps.  It does not matter if the dismounted vehicles are different vehicle types.  A Humvee, Armored Knight & Truck will all combine into one supply dump if they are in the same platoon.  If the dismounted vehicles are in the exact same chain of command additional ammo dumps that are added will always appear in the location the first ammo dump was place and automatically combine with it.  Ammo dumps from different nationalities will also combine into the same ammo dump.  If ammo dumps are in adjacent action spots there may be some weirdness.  Keep at least one open A/S between ammo dumps.  Next, in the editor, change the supply status of the dismounted vehicle from full to limited or scarce.  This will help with allowing for smaller amounts of ammo to be obtained. There of course won’t be as much ammo in an ammo dump so create multiple limited supply dumps. Changing the quality (typical, average etc.) does not seem to change the amount of the ammo.  Also as of April 2018 there is a bug in CMBS v2.1 Engine 4 where the OpFor ammo dumps are invisible except in Hot Seat play.   

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Ask him how he knows! 

Appreciate that summary fella, you've saved me a bunch of experimentation. 

[Erwin]

7 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

you can only ever have one ammo dump per side (the second one will simply not show up on the map).

Yes, MOS has already (cleverly) demonstrated that one can have multiple dumps in his TOC scenario.  The other clever idea is to have reduced ammo in each dump so that units can acquire smaller amounts of ammo - like when you want to give a sniper unit 200 rounds but the minimum is 1,000.   

The only thing to be careful about as a designer is to make sure you provide many such reduced ammo dumps so that the total amount of ammo available in all the dumps is sufficient.  

Question:  What happens when a unit is within ACQUIRE range of more than one dump and tries to ACQUIRE ammo?  

[MOS:96B2P]

22 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Question:  What happens when a unit is within ACQUIRE range of more than one dump and tries to ACQUIRE ammo?  

Only one supply dump will appear in the Acquire list.  Not sure how the game determines which one will be the one to appear.  You can however Acquire from any supply dump by moving the troops until the supply dump you want shows up in the Acquire list.  (Moving to the far side of the one you want while placing your troops out of range of the one you don't want.)   YOU would think of such a question........................     

[Kozlice]

Lol you beta testers really don't wanna go easy on us. Most anticipated community project 2018?

To stay on topic, rather a cosmetic wish, but helicopter models made to high BF standards would make for some scenic screenshots

https://old.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/8r5yzs/russian_helicopters_homs_province_november_2015/ 

Edited June 15, 2018 by Kozlice

[Erwin]

The choppers look great.  But, it's a different game. 

CM focuses on small unit ground warfare and most everything else is abstracted.  That's one reason so many have attempted to give CM an "operational" feel to add depth to the tactical game.  What MOS has achieved in his "Tactical Ops Center" gives one that feeling.   Am hoping that the concepts will inspire other designers to create uncon/low intensity warfare scenarios.  

In addition to CMBS, CMSF2 and also CMRT provide obviously good potential.  Eg: German rear area Security Forces vs Russian Partisans.  If  Yugoslavian/Balkan Partisan mods are made, CMFI could provide similar opportunities. 

[Kaunitz]

16 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Ammo/Supply  Dumps

Thanks a lot! It works just like you've described! This should be in the manual!

[Aragorn2002]

The possibility to exchange ammo and crew between tanks. Two bailed out tank crews combining and manning an abounded tank.

Plus a Bergepanther.

And the possibility to place dead soldiers on the map in the editor. I know this upsets some people, but I never really understood why, given the fact that after the game starts the field is littered with bodies in no time.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Aragorn2002

[MOS:96B2P]

6 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Thanks a lot! It works just like you've described! This should be in the manual!

You're welcome, my friend.