Jump to content
Gazmaps

UNCONS - Bugs?? / Improvements

Recommended Posts

Hello,

Started a PBEM with UNCONs vs Conventional.

I suspect this has uncovered some bugs??? and some potential enhancements (in my opinion....)

1. Combatant Transports have no apparent "stealth buff" - they seem to be spotted straight of the bat and shotup. This doesn't make sense to me especially for taxis

2. Combatant Technicals are the same as above - perhaps this is deliberate - but why have combatant technical s if they dont get the "stealth buff???

Ok so maybe some small changes to improve the game play;

1. Fighters and Combatants seem to be almost identical - except the "stealth buff" - perhaps have some simple differences; ie bigger ammo loadout for the Fighters as opposed to combatants and I suspect this would fit narrative wise as well

2. Perhaps apply the same principal to Technicals - with the Fighter Technical getting a higher ammo load out.

3. More Indirect Fire Support Options for insurgents - at least upto 120mm mtrs and off map rockets...

4. Allow UNCONS access to fortifications - especially mines!!!!! 

Some more Radical Changes

1. Let UNCONS have access to individual Armour ed Vehicles - say T64s and BMP1....

2. Change the stealth buff for combatants so to make it not just a one off. Ie if they are spotted but can break contact then they go back to been hard to detect. This with the ability to control the Civilian Density I think would add quite a bit more asymmetry in PBEM games. Ideally you would make them easier to spot as well - but the players can control this using the civilian density...

3. The QB cost of insurgents groups comes with a fixed overhead of 50pts regardless of the size ie small to Huge. The overhead should be scaled to be dependent on the size of the group and perhaps the upper tier dropped from the current 50 pts to say 40 or 30.....   

Whats people think???

Cheers

Gary

PS - Ive heavily modded one of the stock maps - "UK Armoured Assault" and Urbanized it - going to do a second round of edits, then Ill look to get it uploaded. the aim was to setup a large map that is good for large UNCON vs Conventional PBEMs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Gazmaps said:

1. Combatant Transports have no apparent "stealth buff" - they seem to be spotted straight of the bat and shotup. This doesn't make sense to me especially for taxis

2. Combatant Technicals are the same as above - perhaps this is deliberate - but why have combatant technical s if they dont get the "stealth buff???

Yup, that seems to be the case. Just Combatants, Spies and VBIED.

10 minutes ago, Gazmaps said:

1. Fighters and Combatants seem to be almost identical - except the "stealth buff" - perhaps have some simple differences; ie bigger ammo loadout for the Fighters as opposed to combatants and I suspect this would fit narrative wise as well

Absolutely not - Fighters have much better equipment, usually carry more ammunition, and (on Typical) better soft factors. Combatants are rubbish, Fighters are tenacious and well equipped (or "well equipped"), up to and including ATGMs.

10 minutes ago, Gazmaps said:

2. Perhaps apply the same principal to Technicals - with the Fighter Technical getting a higher ammo load out.

I haven't compared the two, but I'd expect their soft factors to be better at least.

10 minutes ago, Gazmaps said:

3. More Indirect Fire Support Options for insurgents - at least upto 120mm mtrs and off map rockets...

Off-map rockets I can see, but the mortars they currently have are pretty great, and an upgrade from what they got in CMSF 1. I've never participated in an insurgency, but I imagine that 120mm mortars require a much longer supply chain than 82mm ones, since the ammunition will be harder to cart around, etc.

10 minutes ago, Gazmaps said:

4. Allow UNCONS access to fortifications - especially mines!!!!! 

Mines would be good, but you do get IED's. Not having access to "IED mines" is a problem, certainly.

Actual fortifications are dodgier, perhaps. I imagine that you really don't want to be digging trenches for the most part.

10 minutes ago, Gazmaps said:

1. Let UNCONS have access to individual Armour ed Vehicles - say T64s and BMP1....

I'd not really be happy with this outside of scenarios - and you can already do this in a scenario.

10 minutes ago, Gazmaps said:

2. Change the stealth buff for combatants so to make it not just a one off. Ie if they are spotted but can break contact then they go back to been hard to detect. This with the ability to control the Civilian Density I think would add quite a bit more asymmetry in PBEM games. Ideally you would make them easier to spot as well - but the players can control this using the civilian density...

In general, combatants are a one-time thing. You can't reasonably expect them to do more than one task (ambush here, defend this building, etc.), and they'll probably expend themselves on that task. Would be nice, but I think the current compromise is okay.

10 minutes ago, Gazmaps said:

3. The QB cost of insurgents groups comes with a fixed overhead of 50pts regardless of the size ie small to Huge. The overhead should be scaled to be dependent on the size of the group and perhaps the upper tier dropped from the current 50 pts to say 40 or 30.....   

Haven't dug around the points yet, you might well be correct.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gazmaps said:

but why have combatant technical s if they dont get the "stealth buff???

I'm assuming by "stealth buff" you mean when civilian density is high some units are hard to detect. If I have that right then technicals should *never* get that. Sure they are pickup trucks but they have a big ass MG or AAA gun on the back. Those things don't look like joe the plumbers work truck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Gary, it looks like you aren't scared of the editor, so why not experiment with mixing forces from different TOEs?

For instance you can easily give Uncons 122mm Grad MRLs, 122mm Howitzers & so on simply by choosing them from the Syrian Army lists, in game they are effectively just artillery SFX after all, you don't ever see them.

While you do see Fortifications, they are only identified by side or by what's in 'em.....So just chuck Uncon teams in your bunkers and Bob's yer uncle.

Similarly you can add tanks or other vehicles from the Syrian Army lists to your Uncon force, if you choose them from the Armour list they will be displayed with suitable head gear on your control panel (even ISIS wore tank helmets, unless they wanted a few stitches as a souvenir of their tank ride).

With some messing about and editor trickery you can make all sorts of things:

e7eUdFz.jpg

Allahu Ackbar! etc.  :ph34r:

You really won't find the full power of CM in QB mode.....The game editor is king.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

With some messing about and editor trickery you can make all sorts of things:

e7eUdFz.jpg

You really won't find the full power of CM in QB mode.....The game editor is king.

+1   This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Gary, it looks like you aren't scared of the editor, so why not experiment with mixing forces from different TOEs?

For instance you can easily give Uncons 122mm Grad MRLs, 122mm Howitzers & so on simply by choosing them from the Syrian Army lists, in game they are effectively just artillery SFX after all, you don't ever see them.

While you do see Fortifications, they are only identified by side or by what's in 'em.....So just chuck Uncon teams in your bunkers and Bob's yer uncle.

Similarly you can add tanks or other vehicles from the Syrian Army lists to your Uncon force, if you choose them from the Armour list they will be displayed with suitable head gear on your control panel (even ISIS wore tank helmets, unless they wanted a few stitches as a souvenir of their tank ride).

With some messing about and editor trickery you can make all sorts of things:

e7eUdFz.jpg

Allahu Ackbar! etc.  :ph34r:

You really won't find the full power of CM in QB mode.....The game editor is king.

I know what you mean mate and yes what you have said is a good solution for making scenarios - but what Im saying is that flexibility would ideally be in the QBs and particularly QB selection. That's where the real fun and challenge of CM comes into its ow I think - Human  vs Human :) anf this uncon dimension opens up  a whole differant style and options of gameplay - and its very interesting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2019 at 2:12 AM, IanL said:

I'm assuming by "stealth buff" you mean when civilian density is high some units are hard to detect. If I have that right then technicals should *never* get that. Sure they are pickup trucks but they have a big ass MG or AAA gun on the back. Those things don't look like joe the plumbers work truck.

 

I enjoy these games immensely - so much so I was motivated to start making maps for the community (mainly because I feel I owe it - due to the hours of entertainment Ive had from other members (ie General Maltchett, Wyntergren and others who made some awesome maps!!!!!!) and battlefront for providing the framework. - Im trying to highlight bugs and  suggestions with the aim of making these games even better. Ive been a solid PBEM player since the original CM. I buy every title even if I dont play them - eg RT and FB just to support the devs.

Im going to respond to the Technicals as an example but the same applies to all the UNCONS in general;

Your point can be debated as follows;

If Technicals can be spotted straight of the bat - then why have combatant technicals at all???  I would suggest Battlefront have deliberately included Combatant and Fighter Technicals.

I would assume their intent is that their are differences other than just appearance. As it stands now with the Technicals,  their are no differences between Combatants and Fighter Technical s

See below;

TechComparison.thumb.PNG.182ad8fa0b47dc8712957ca2078d63f0.PNG

(I know the res is not good - but the load out is exactly the same - ie the two identical reconciles rifles have 15 rnds a piece...)

If you look at the cost of in the QB Editor;

PointsExample.PNG.e5c2b179131dd5baaea525cdc84860f2.PNG

You can see identical prices for Technicals.

Note To Battlefront: If you do get around to fixing these - be good to have Combatant and Fighter Technical Identified in the QB Selection Window, same as IED groups - at the moment its not clear what you are actually buying for Technical and IED groups.

So - I would assume the Combatant Technical should get a stealth buff - otherwise why would Battlefront have them in their???

Then as per my original post - I'm also suggesting they be differentiated in say points and / or ammo load out

In real life - hvy weapons can be disguised. They can be hard to spot at long ranges ie 300m or greater, if its surrounded by in heavy traffic (ie High Civilian Density) ....The pickup truck is just an abstraction, it may be a covered pickup truck, it may be a flatbed truck with a canvas cover....So what Im saying and what I suspect battlefront intended, makes narrative sense.

Im suggesting this is a bug  / oversight - which is pretty understandable given the the complexity and scope of these games.

As you can see above, the same applies to UNCONS Infantry. Their load outs are almost identical as well (its only about 30rnds difference in the squads - and thats not RPG rounds - just small arms  ammo) - hence I'm guessing the 1-2 point differential in the QB points cost .

Youll also see the constant 50 point overhead that I mention in my initial post.

I hope by raising these likely bugs and making suggestions on changes, it will improve the game overall.

I broke the initial post into three sections;

Likley Bugs

Little / Easy Improvements

Bigger / Harder to implement Fixes.

I came up with some interesting ideas on how make UNCON playable maps especially on how to use Preserve Objectives etc...Have some more changes to make - but Ill get that up on the CMMOds site when its finished (may take a couple  more weeks)....

I focused on QB, Human vs Human matches - so that's what my posts are typically aimed at. 

Cheers

Gary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Combatants are just 'neighborhood guys with guns' and nothing else. Uncle Bert grabs his rifle out of the closet and runs out of the house in his sneakers. Fighters (consider them jihadists) often appear equipped with better weapons than the Syrian military because of presumed foreign financial backing. But they don't have the 'tooth-to-tail ratio' of the established supply chain & command structure that standing militaries have.

QBs are QBs, there's a limit to what you can do. The heart of the game has always been the scenario editor. I've got one or two scenario in the game where the uncon force includes a couple army stragglers with commandeered ATGMs and armored cars. I agree the type 63 artillery rockets would be a good fit with Uncons. I had lobbied for their inclusion in the fighter force without success. A fighter 'spy spotter' can be used as FO for army artillery type 63 rockets (in a scenario, not QB). I just checked, they've got an awful 27 minute wait time using conscript FOs, 24 min wait for veterans (and 12 minutes spotting for their own mortar team, which must stay within shouting distance of the spotter). Steve wanted uncon limitations to be apparent and tactically significant.

As for 'stealth buff', regardless of which title we're discussing "Maybe they won't spot me" has always been a weak tactical strategy. The more modern the title the more difficult it becomes. In CMBS hoping to not get spotted is pretty much suicidal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

As for 'stealth buff', regardless of which title we're discussing "Maybe they won't spot me" has always been a weak tactical strategy. The more modern the title the more difficult it becomes. In CMBS hoping to not get spotted is pretty much suicidal. 

Id say its more about simulating asymmetric warfare and the complexities of fighting an enemy who blends in with the civilian population. SF is unique among st the other titles in this regard as its the only one that models insurgents (unless the Afghan Title does this - though its the only CM title I don't have so I wouldn't know..._).

"QBs are QBs, there's a limit to what you can do" - well I have a very different opinion to statements like this - Id prefer to make things the best they can be - many of the points Ive raised are likely oversights - their is no reason not to get these working as they where likely envisaged to be ...  

"Combatants are just 'neighborhood guys with guns' and nothing else"  - you don't really address the main thrust that their should be more differentiation between the combatants and Fighters. Im not saying combatants aren't heavily loaded up enough  - actually I think they have a  good balance here - Im saying its realistic to expect fighters as they are defined to have larger load outs - If your saying ISIS style groups (and those lower down the food chain) dont understand the principals of logistics  - Id suggest the Syrian Arab Army and Iraqi Army would disagree....

Their is a spectrum of how well equipped, motivated and organized the various unconventional forces are - battlefront have likely made a balanced design decision on how they represent this spectrum (2 distinct groups - fighters and combatants)  - I'm pointing out where some of the finer implementation of these probably does not align with the what was originally intended because they look like obvious omissions in the overall framework - and I think some of the ideas I'm putting forward would add more value to the game.

 "Maybe they won't spot me"  - this is pretty much a key operational principal of unconventional forces - hence why battlefront has gone to the extent to model civilian density.

"Steve wanted uncon limitations to be apparent and tactically significant"  - theirs already loads - virtually nill C2, limited / low quality weapons, much smaller units sizes - ie 5 man teams max size, limited heavy weapons....The other soft factors are for players and designers to set or agree upon. Nothing Ive suggested detracts from this...

I suspect BF aimed to have the differences between combatants and fighters be tactically significant as well - more so than they are currently implemented - what Im saying makes for more interesting and varied game play - while being realistic

Cheers

Gary

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QBs have some restrictions and inflexible aspects. Improving that is a laudable goal. If you compare the improvement in QBs between version one and two it's pretty dramatic. We can always ask for more. I'm not sure how high in the priority list they would go. Just to set expectations.

As for pickup trucks with rockets and machine guns mounted: yeah I think you are totally wrong on that one. They should not be able to sneak up on anyone. Plain cars and trucks sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gazmaps said:

I would assume their intent is that their are differences other than just appearance. As it stands now with the Technicals,  their are no differences between Combatants and Fighter Technicals

The difference between the technicals lies in the composition of their crew.

Pickup trucks with weapons on them are the same as other pickup trucks with weapons on them, regardless of the credit score of the owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...