Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/16/2019 in all areas

  1. Summer of 2019. Possybly Svitlodarsk bulge area. Intensive fire for suppressing of enemy position - several days ago Ukrainian position was shelled from there and one soldier was killed. This is retaliation from 54th brigade and it's UAV reckon group K-2. 273 meters to the enemy. Interestling detail - 120 mm mortar deployed directly on "zero line", no in the rear as usual. The minimal range of firing is 482 m, but the gunner put the shell in the barrel without any additional charges, which attach to the tail. Thus, only inner igniter charge uses, in order to reduce minimal firing range. Such firing mode isn't provided by mortar's field manual - the smallest 1st charge provides igniter charge+one additional charge. Leftward from operator, HMG shots.
    1 point
  2. I think AT guns should be difficult to spot, especially out of a tank. But the odd thing for me in Combat Mission is the game seems to treat it as though it's the crew spotted, not the gun. As a result, if the crew becomes suppressed, the spot is lost. As though it's the top of the pointer's helmet that's spotted, not the gun, and if the crew simply lie down we can no longer see the gun. I think once spotted, an AT gun should remain so unless it's moved, the spotting unit moves, or it's obscured by smoke. The crew could run away or dig a tunnel but the gun should still be seen. Not how it works in CM.
    1 point
  3. I am forty minutes in to the final mission. I've lost as many tanks in this battle as I had during the campaign to this point. Five Panthers and two Mark IVs have been knocked out. But I have a massive force and have taken out a lot of enemy armor though I am sure more lies hidden. At this point I am just committing my infantry, until now we've been probing forward to find the form. The thing that worries me is the enemy have yet to send over any artillery, which I am sure they have plenty of. Once my units get spotted by a F/O I expect a lot of it all at once. Gotta keep 'em moving. It's as if the enemy has gotten better ammunition, all those failed penetrations from earlier battles have been replaced with dismay and despair, with the Panthers committed on the left suffering in particular to T-34/85s well concealed in the tree lines. One T-34 was so well cloaked in fact that I had to withdraw, reposition, and then attack from the flank. He got off a lot of shots, and despite having four or five Panthers with LOS to his position, none could spot him. He destroyed two Panthers, and the gun on a third before I wised up, withdrew and then took him out with flanking fire. This is one more great battle in a campaign full of great battles. Honestly I am sorry it's nearly over. I could go for another six missions of this.
    1 point
  4. Erwin

    fast move

    Tests some years ago showed that HIDE makes no difference for recovery times. So, unless things have changed...
    1 point
  5. Ahh, yeah. I forgot that they changed things with tags when I created that. You'll need to add a space then [snow] at the end of the file name. Ex: A winter background picture becomes "portrait german infantry [snow]" minus the quotation marks. You will actually be able to have two of each portrait in the mods folder now without them canceling each other out. portrait german infantry portrait german infantry [snow] The snow background will only show up in scenarios where there is snow on the ground. Any other portrait named portrait german infantry will show up when there isn't snow. If you wanted to use portraits with say the flag background, all the time, you'd have to make two copies of them and add the [snow] tag to one (as above). I will make sure to address this when I get around to updating the FB mod to my new style. And will make sure it's all set in the FI & RT module mods. Mords.
    1 point
  6. Additionally, in olden times when pots and kettles were used over the open flames of hearth or cooking fires, soot would form on their bottoms and sides. They would both become blackened so neither could claim to be cleaner or better than the other.
    1 point
  7. That, in fact, is the better way to go and my hope for the future.
    1 point
  8. This is the better way to go. Even better just have the game realize that two way points are on roads and automatically favour staying on the road net to go between. Then there isn't even a need for a separate command.
    1 point
  9. Rediscovered for the first time. I remember when the fist post about stars showed up after CMBN came out (I wasn't around for CMSF). It was a cool moment. Really sold me on how awesome this game is. Yes, I know it has nothing to do with game play but is is really cool.
    1 point
  10. ok I posted the missing "Mech Airbone Battalion" in QB as a bug report. However I don't know how long a fix will take. R2V is the priority right now.
    1 point
  11. There are a ton of ways to do this. One option would be to GM this as an Engle Matrix game, with the GM creating battles to suit the situation (you could use existing maps, so this creation process doesn't need to be that long. You'd want to standardise on a points system for the battles, but that's fairly straightforward to do.) Briefly. Matrix games are gm-run things, where each turn the players submit Arguments, and reasons why these will succeed. This is a quick example of a matrix-only game, but you can see how it can be used to generate meaningful battles: https://balagan.info/missing-general-an-engle-matrix-game-battle-report A practical (small) CM example off the top of my head: Situation, turn 3 (this is mostly narrative fluff, but since that's what Matrix games are all about, that's important). German player lost the previous battle and needs to regroup and re-arm. Their AT ammunition is getting significantly low, and their supply lines are in jeopardy. The town of Fullofpixeltruppen is on a key supply route. There is a simple sketch map of the surrounding area that both players have access to, and both players will have clearly defined campaign goals, that aren't important for this example. Both players will have a TO&E at the start, which is not tracked explicitly, but in terms of vague percentage losses, or removed entirely. (US player) Change to matrix:I send 2nd platoon to conduct a probing attack at night into the village of Fullofpixeltruppen Specific benefit desired: We will learn of the enemy strengths and weaknesses, and take out key assets (AT guns) in preparation for the main assault. Support from matrix: 2nd platoon is well-rested. The enemy are fleeing in disarray following the last battle. The initiative is ours. (German player) Change to matrix: My focus will be to get the supplies through safely. I'll bring up 2nd company to halt the retreat in a safe position and send out a force to take hill 217 with artillery. Specific benefit desired: My forces can resupply, and set up artillery fire and TRPs onto key terrain over the surrounding area - the village, the river crossing and the crest of hill 312. Support from matrix: My artillery is untouched, my men are well trained and the supplies are in really fast trucks. (submitted in secret) The GM takes these arguments and considers them. It's important that the arguments should not be mutually exclusive. The US player has no forces on hill 217, and hasn't mentioned it, so it's reasonable to rule that this move from the Germans will succeed. The rest of the German argument is pretty weak, and more or less reads as "I stop running away when I can". Since the US player is not explicitly pursuing the Germans, it's reasonable to suggest that the fleeing forces will drip out, but won't take much of a part in this battle. This means that the generated scenario here will be: Probing attack. Night mission, weather will be randomised with a die roll, but weighted towards being fine. US forces: - Rifle platoon, with priority of fires from the company mortars (no other action is happening here, and they're available) German forces: - Stragglers and malcontents, not quite a platoon in size. - AT Gun platoon - Artillery with a TRP All German forces will be low on ammunition and motivation. German infantry stragglers will also have some percentage losses. The mission objectives will be Spot and Destroy objectives for the US, centred around the AT guns. There will also be some points for killing Germans. Priority are the guns and minimising losses. German victory will be for destroying US forces, and occupying the town. Assuming standardising to 1000 points, then something like: German: Destroy (all) 800 Occupy 200 US Spot (AT Guns) 200 Destroy (AT Guns) 400 Destroy (Remaining Germans) 400 In practice, the GM would choose a sensible looking map, and set up the objectives and choose units to match the above. Stick them in the setup zones, which will be determined by the map - in this case, the German setup zones will be a lot more restrictive. GM then sends the scenario file and briefings to each party. It's probably useful if both players share their PBEM password with the GM, and all three players share a dropbox folder, so that everything is GM-accessible if needs be (but particularly the outcome). *** What's worth defining before you start though is: What are you trying to achieve? Campaigns have multiple purposes - they can provide context for battles, produce a narrative, they can force you to make longer term decisions about preserving forces, etc. Campaigns can be fully fledged wargames all by themselves, but they can also be pre-set tree campaigns, or fluffy narrative campaigns just as easily. What I really like about the Matrix game concept is that it's a powerful tool for applying some structure to an otherwise arbitrary narrative.
    1 point
  12. I don't understand the childish downplaying. What is the purpose of this comment? And this? I think you have a great point John. A fatigue feature which affects more than just running speed would come with a very welcome yet drastic change in gameplay.
    1 point
  13. Fatigue has no effect on a units accuracy or on its morale state regardless if the current morale state is as a result from either Combat Stress or Combat Shock or a combination of both. Fatigue will only affect your movement options; Tired troops cannot Fast Move.Fatigued troops cannot Fast, Assault or Hunt Move.Exhausted troops cannot Fast, Assault, Hunt or Quick Move. Maintaining a C2 link with a Plt HQ for example provides that squad with a resistance to Combat Shock i.e. its morale state will not drop as low under incoming fire as it would if it was out of C2 link. Whether you want to maintain the C2 link is up to you as a player. Well trained, led and motivated units have a built in resistance to Combat Shock whereas poorly trained, led and motivated units are more susceptible to its effects. You could make a case that its more important to keep the C2 link with lower quality troops when they are in contact, however even good quality troops get worn down and will benefit from maintaining the link when taking incoming fire especially if they have taken casualties and are suffering an additional impact on their morale state from Combat Stress.
    1 point
  14. IanL - I'd say roughly 90% of threads around here consist of new or old players making legitimate comments about aspects of the game that could be improved, then for their pains getting abused and insulted at length by experienced players who do nothing to improve it, nor for that matter to improve the neighborhood. That BTS occasionally listens anyway is entirely to their credit. If the peanut gallery decided, we'd all still have the CMBO cartoonishly invulnerable infantry we started with 15 years ago.
    1 point
  15. Board wargames can design for effect and get this sort of thing right pretty effortlessly. The spotting rules in Jim Day's Panzer from GMT, for example, work extremely well, well enough that I've been "porting" them to older game systems that didn't include the right effects or give them the right strengths. And yes board wargames are easier to "patch" - Panzer needs some "area fire" options are previous contacts, for example, that have been lost in the meantime because one side or other went prone, and similar. As usual, the engineering approach that promises greater realism from bottom up modeling instead, doesn't actually deliver on that promise until it is nearly perfect in its handling of every relevant factor. Get the photon interception stuff perfect (we aren't there with CM, as several posters above have pointed out, the issue being "transparent" concealment) and you still have to get the camouflage and object detection stuff perfect too, or you get worse not better realism than was available with a simpler "design for effect" approach. I understand why CM is committed to the bottom up method, and that's fine. It just carries with it a commitment to fix every issue anyone notices, and not to "plead" the endlessness of those fixes as a reason not to do any of them. If you don't want endless fixes to get every piece right, you should stick with design for effect. If you want engineering realism bottom up, then every time someone finds another issue, it has to be improved. Don't expect to get off that treadmill soon.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...