Mattias
-
Posts
1,279 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Mattias
-
-
I would say that all the observations have merit. However not even when counted together they amount to more than pointer to future refinements. As a whole the game stands firmly on what it delivers, and the more you play you come to appreciate the subtleties of the simulation. I didn´t think I would be saying this after having struggled with issues like the ones mentioned by the OP in CM:SF but now that I have seen how the game engine works in a world war 2 environment I think I can finally can cut my attachment to CM1.
The same details that deliver this exceptional gaming experience are also, as well all know, home to the devil. There there will always be issues. The question is if you have a good game all things considered.I for one will not be going back to playing CM1 like I did in the CM:SF years, other than to sate some odd Ost-craving.
M.
-
No. Panzerfaust 60 only went into production in September, which the game doesn't cover. It's also not mentioned in the manual. What you see is a Panzerfaust 30.
To clarify a bit further. What you see in the game is either the Panzerfaust 30 Klein ("small" - with the pointy 100 mm warhead) or the newer Panzerfaust 30 (with the 149 mm warthead).
Cheers,
M.
-
The point I was making is that when someone is reporting behaviour within the game that is unusual, it doesn't really matter that other people haven't seen it. The people who are reporting it still have a valid issue.
-
Not quite sure why this is relevant. Are you saying the behaviour that people are reporting is made up?
I clearly must take greater care when posting these days...
What i meant to say was that in this test, that was so extremely limited in time and space that it probably should be considered irrelevant, all 60 fire missions landed on target. In no way does this invalidate the observations of all previous and following posters.
I would, however hazard to voice the opinion that in this particular test, insignificant as it may be, the off-board mortars were almost ridiculously accurate.
Cheers,
M.
-
you have written to me " ignorant", and , you have used dick word against to me and after erasing of your thoughts you think that you're clean and faultless, you owe me an excuse
and you're asking to me why I'm so offensive
Are you kidding with me?
No but you see the wording "he is either completely IGNORANT as to how he is perceived when expressing his opinions in English" is not an insult. It is in fact an observation in support of you, i.e. you might not mean to be rude....
And being "a bit of a d**k" is in reference to some one that comes through as rude.... No more no less.
M.
-
You really should take care before writing such topic title as "ridiculously inaccurate" without knowing to play the game, even with a question mark...
Oh, that seems to be the order of the day, these days (cough cough).
Anyhow: I set up a platoon HQ, company HQ and FO (all regular/normal at Elite difficulty) firing off board 60mm, 81mm and 107 mm mortars (all regular).
Perfect conditions, perfect visibility.
And fired and fired and fired (that would be some 20 missions per unit).
Result: Not once was the fire for effect off target.
That is in fact better than I would have thought possible in WW2.
M.
-
As I post your private e-mail, you have written some abuse words to my personality before deleting the post this area, I saw , so you're the last man to give me above warnings for rude content.
Indeed you did, under the head line "WARNING" (of what I wonder?)
"Hey I have seen your message before deleting from my post
What is your goal while writing on your crappy thoughts?"
That´s what I am talking about. What you saw was someone thinking about what they are saying, i.e. me. I realized that my wording was not conductive to a civilized discourse so I removed it and replaced the original text with one that was actually meant as a more or less friendly pointer to you. How about that?
M.
-
QB sucks because of unlogical force selection not selecting the troops myself
A tip Togi: Stop using the word "sucks" when referring to some ones work. In particular when the issue you are raising concerns but one tiny aspect out of thousands in what over all is a very good simulation. It´s rude and it makes you look bad no matter how relevant your reflections may be.
Cheers,
Mattias
-
Page 152 and 153 in the manual should get you started.
The important thing to understand is that the folder named "Z" that you should create inside the "Data" folder is where you put all the files that you want to take priority over the standard files, usually the Mods that is.
It´s a very clean way of doing it as it means that you can incorporate mods without endangering the standard files, and add and remove mods in seconds.
Just take the mod file (usually a *.brz file) and put in the "Z" folder. CM:BN will now execute it´s function with priority over the standard version of whatever part of CM that has been modded.
As it says in the manual you can also add single files, such as .wav or .bmp, into the "Z" folder and they will be ran with priority over the standard files with the same name. Very neat and clean, not to mention safe.
M.
-
I wish they could have written a short sentence on it in the manual. Couldn't have been too much of a hassle.
Page 46 in the manual:
"Movement Commands given to a unit within its Setup Zone will move it there immidiately and without any game effect, such as Fatigue".
That short enough for you?
Alt+e, Alt+f, "setup" = short enough for me
M.
-
All fine and dandy, but after finishing I got the message that the customs have to process my declaration and they will notify me by e-mail how the process unfolds. AAAAAARGH! BUREAUCRACY, WORSE THAN THE NAZIS!
Having watched the HBO drama "Conspiracy" yesterday I am happy and indeed proud to live in a country that makes me pay what will probably amount to a 70% price premium when compared to the US price.
M.
-
Nice! Either path can make you feel better, but take up a lot of energy. So you may as well just jump straight to acceptance and try and find the best work-arounds for you. Saves a lot of time and effort.
Correct, that´s where the"humbly and gratefully accept all that I have been given" bit comes in. And speaking in general terms it´s probably the only sane way to live in this lovely and dysfunctional world of ours
The only real questions being does my work-around work for you, and should I care if it does or doesn't?
M.
-
I don't see where having closed hatches will in any way mitigate or aggravate the jet's effect since there is no actual shockwave from the penetration, only from ammunition that the jet may ignite.
This is correct, in so far that the pressure effect is insignificant. But just to clarify to the "I think" crowd: There are modern shaped charge warheads that incorporate combustible metals like aluminum, uranium or zirconium. These can result in a significant increase in pressure that might in turn damage the ears and lungs of the crew.
M.
-
Maybe Battlefront hopes that we will forget this issues if they stay quiet long enough...
This is actually the closest I have felt to being in the presence of divinity. I humbly and gratefully accept all that I have been given. I cannot demand anything. Through contemplation and discourse I meditate on what it is that I truly desire and then I pray. I pray so that I through insight may better myself, so that i may understand the way of the gods. In the silent hope that the lords may hear me or that I may, in the end, as the saying goes accept that that cannot be changed. So sayeth the holy Manual. SeeEm!
It´s either that or throw a bug tantrum
M.
-
I´m not saying that anyone of you are actually wrong. But i am truly amazed at the amount of subjective blabbering and the flood of assumptions that literally pour into this and pretty much every other thread. Sometimes it seems 80% of the discussion is wasted on opinions beginning with the word "I think".
Now, a few observations:
First round of testing (all at "Elite" level):
2 x MMG .30 Cal.
2 x HMG .30 Cal.
2 x HMG .50 Cal.
Vs.
Infantry (regular, normal/high moral) in the four church building types (the little village type church, the two bigger grey churches and the tower). 18-50 men in total in each church on floor 1-4.
Range: 150 meters (short that is)
All infantry in the churches in "Hiding".
All MG´s area firing
Outcome:
Them MG's (behind walls and bocage) were spotted pretty much at once. The infantry was not spotted until they actually left the buildings after some 15 minutes.
After 12 minutes of sustained .30 (4 guns) fire there were no casualties caused by the MG´s (a rifle grenade took out one man). Suppression was highest in the Village church and lowest (not much at all) in the Tower. By the look of things the infantry could have stayed there indefinitely.
When the .50 cal. joined in on minute 13 things changed. Some casualties (1-3 in a minute) were caused but the level of suppression increased to the point where the men routed. This happened first in the Village church and last in the tower (where there were very few casualties).
NB: Test limited to area fire against hiding target.
Conclusion:
Hiding infantry in churchs are not spotted at 150 meters (FO team spotting as well). Hiding infantry spots firing MG´s behind all wall -> bocage cover at 150 meters
In this test the churches provided 100% cover from small arms fire.
Troops in the Village church were pinned. In the Mid size churches suppression was lower and still lower in the Tower.
The .50 Cal. M2 however is capable of causing casualties and forcing infantry out of all church buildings (effectiveness subject to church type).
M.
-
Okay, that explains why I can't recrew it. The tank doesn't show any graphic signs of damage nor does the the triangle in the info display for damage. Very odd
In many cases there will be no visual damage as there are no damage decals in CM:BN. The triangle shows the moral state of the crew. If the tank is empty there is no crew in it, thus no moral state is shown.
Nothing "very" or "odd" here, just simple facts, apparently unknown to you at the time of writing.
M.
-
Being blessed with a little extra time to really get into CM:BN I set up all vehicles and units in the the editor, just to take a closer look at them. What really hit me was that apart from the exceptional visual quality and level of mechanical detail of the vehicles and guns, (almost) every little difference in the models, in the Panther series for example, is portrayed down to (almost) the last detail. The -almost- bit becomes irrelevant because you can clearly see that it has been an all out effort with a lot of hard work put into it. In this context what is missing, if anything, stands out as a beauty mark. As a long(ish) time wargamer (and owner of a complete set of Spielberger/Doyle books) I am profoundly pleased that somewhere out there is someone who is willing to put in overtime with the details that the vast majority of the players will not even know they are missing. This if anything show that Battlefront are the genuine article, pure wargaming gold. This is what dedication to the subject matter is about, this is what elevates the game to art!
And the game play is really shaping up to be of the same standard...
Now, one question that comes to mind, if we extrapolate; in the next big release will we be seeing interiors of the pixeltruppen as well? Where we might, for instance, spot and compare differences in the respective operative methods of American and German surgeons in, say, appendix operations
M.
-
When set up in a test range scenario, with two Shermans facing two Panthers at 2000 meters, the TAC AI behaved oddly and in a way that probably was not intended:
The M4´s never fire their guns even though they had spotted the Panthers (unless specifically ordered to do so). Nor did they visibly seek cover or pop smoke. If this was an example of the "I cannot defeat that tank with my gun Tac AI defense SOP" then it failed when compared to the old CM1 behavior where the outmatched M4´s would start evasive maneuvers, shooting smoke and popping smoke almost at once.
The CM:BN M4´s did start evasive maneuvers and smoke popping after getting damaged (or maybe the moral state triggered it) but there was no active firing of blocking smoke with the main gun.
No shooting, sitting passive, awaiting death? Is it a glitch in the AI logic?
/M
-
The one truly disturbing discovery though was that the M4´s in CM:BN did not fire their guns even though they had spotted the Panthers, unless specifically ordered to do so! Nore did they visibly seek cover (there was non) or pop smoke. If this was an example of the "I cannot defeat that tank with my gun tac AI defence SOP" then it failed compared to the CMAK M4´s that started evasive manouvers, shooting smoke, popping smoke almost at once (First they fired a couple of AP rounds though).
Never quoted myself before but this question begs answering. Something is definitely off here. Be it the Tac AI routine or something else but it should not play out like this.
M.
-
I have never played this game before. In spite of being a Steel Panthers tragic I never knew Battlefront existed until December 2010 when I stumbled upon the CMBfN release announcement. And I am still crap at playing this game (there seems to be some bug in the game that manifests itself in all my tanks blowing up and all my troops becoming dead). But when I cruise through the forums and read all the complaints and questions I feel like the old man of Battlefront. Because I have read the manual and a lot of the questions are answered in the manual.
This manual is excellent. It is clearly the work of many man hours and man men and women. It is like those manuals that used to come with the Mircroprose games. I am not a fanboy but I would like to say to Battlefront "thank you for the manual, and god bless these united states of america".
I say, if this is Australian for RTFM D34D#!!!!!!!! I think I prefere it the Aussie way
M.
-
Just kicked up a CMAK vs. CM:BN (At ELITE level) comparison scenario:
2 M4A3W vs. Pz VA (early) at 2000 meters (completely open terrain). Not fair but thats not the point
In CMAK all tanks were instantly spotted by one another. In CM:BN It varied from 8 seconds (Panther 1 seeing M4) to 30 seconds (Panter 2 seing M4, from 13 seconds (M4 seeing Panther that by that time fired) to 26 seconds (M4 2 seeing Panther).
Panther 1 needed four shots to score a hit (historical number at that range). To hit the other M4 it needed one shot (luck or ranging now being correct? You test more and find out
.Didn´t feel wrong in this one run because in CMAK the Pantehr hit on round two.
The one truly disturbing discovery though was that the M4´s in CM:BN did not fire their guns even though they had spotted the Panthers, unless specifically ordered to do so! Nore did they visibly seek cover (there was non) or pop smoke. If this was an example of the "I cannot defeat that tank with my gun tac AI defence SOP" then it failed compared to the CMAK M4´s that started evasive manouvers, shooting smoke, popping smoke almost at once (First they fired a couple of AP rounds though).
M.
-
The much higher fidelity in the new simulation (or was CM1 even a simulation in comparison to CM:BN?) REALLY forces you reassess all the things you have learned and thought you knew. I am struggling, happily, with LOS vs contour lines, on board arty C3 and positioning, not to mention the much increased WEGO possibilities with individual way point orders.
For what we got I give a 100% positive score.... For what we want, well only Battlefront can tell. I´m just enjoying the ride!
M.
-
And it was the scene of so much pent up anticipation, so much WOW and WTF! Not to mention the real starting point of tens of thousands of threads flowering (festering in some cases) in and around this glorious little oasis and common ground in our respective hobbies, perspectives and lives
Ah, it's a good time to be alive and healthy!
M.
-
There it is. The hill not as steep and the historic lack of felines from Hades will probably mean that the helping hand is represented by a few other letters and number!
Will I be seeing my first Nahverteidigungswaffe here too? Who knows? What I do know is that I have two weeks of "mancation" running since monday and I know what I'll be doing
Good one!
M.
What is correct about these impresions
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I´ll be sure to keep that in mind
M.