Pak40
-
Posts
2,198 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Pak40
-
-
LOL, I can see it now, a full battalion of Piper Cubs coming to
squash, er, gingerly float over the opposition.
-
By far the best idea ever. I would love it with move commands as well. I cannot tell you how many times I double click a unit to figure out its group and then give a command or remove a command) by mistake not to the unit but the whole dang platoon/company. I then have to go back and painstakingly figure out who was effected and redo their command or worse have an entire company marching in the wrong direction....
Well, I was specifically talking about an Undo command for the map editor.
For the situation you're describing, the simple thing to do is double click on one of the units to select it's whole unit, then hit the backspace key. That will undo all of their commands I think. If you've already hit the GO button then I suppose your SOL.
I think a simple text warning that you have multiple units selected will help people reduce these mistakes. Maybe something as simple as an X5 next to the cursor, this would let the user know that you have 5 units selected.
-
US Airborne Glider Batt HQ (Sept 1944) has MP40's instead of Thompsons.
Also, he's got his face in that guy's butt.
-
Scenario Editor:
- Allow copy-pasting of map sections into new maps, with a rotate feature.
- Allow copy-pasting of buildings and flavor objects in 3D Preview mode, along with free rotation and a dropdown menu to select new building/FO items while in 3D Preview.
- Allow 3 force mixes in one scenario file to facilitate different force mixes for Allied vs. AI, Axis vs. AI, and H2H. That way, you could say, give the AI a much stronger force than in the H2H setup.
There are more things, of course, but these are currently at the top of my list.
And for God's sake, add an undo button.
-
Unsure of the doctrine here, but inferring from the game:
US Glider infantry are mostly the same as their leg infantry. The paratroopers are also pretty similar in practice, replacing the BAR with the M1919. Since the BAR isn't a light machine gun in any real sense (it's fine when adding to the volume of small arms fire, but it can't operate by itself at all), this means that the distinctions between the assault and support teams should be more pronounced.US Paratroopers squads can vary quite a bit too. BAR wasn't really replaced since the troopers used them in Normandy and beyond. The MG module often has two BARs per squad plus the M1919, IIRC. That's a lot of firepower when coupled with the usual semi autos of the M1s and the close range Thompsons.
-
Dead is dead, if its going through the shield. Then I doubt, removing the shield and letting it pass through me is going to make it that much better.
Lets guess, instead of a 10 % chance of living, its 20% chance.
And since it blows right through, there is a better chance to save a limb if the shot was grazing.
I have a better suggestion, don't get shot
Well, I'm no ballistics expert but there's a reason why they make hallow point bullets. Instead of passing cleanly though your body they collect and redistribute your insides. I think a disfigured round will act similarly and do a lot more damage than a nice clean round.
-
BYU has all the pre-war German Topos:
Use the Index to find a town and write down the Sheet Number (not the grid reference)
Then click here to use the search to find the sheet number. Once you find the map you're looking for, Click Download button and choose Large.
This set contains the very eastern part of Belgium for the Bulge area but doesn't go past St. Vith, for instance.
-
Possible info sharing occurances from neighboring units and any within the C2 structure.
Conclusion: None, for lack of given and needed info.
I´d check for exact time of the spotting (the second where the US icon showed up for the first time) and then check with the zoom function at ground level for what really can be seen from a spotter towards its target and vice versa. Off course works only in WEGO mode and if you either make the checks at once, or can load the execution phase from a save game.
Only then we have a base for any evaluation and further discussion. Otherwise it´s a waste of time for everybody around here.
True. This is like trying to determine if the ball crossed the goal line if you're standing on the other side of the field.
Also, your point about possible info sharing in the C2 structure is something that von Luck needs to be aware of (if he isn't already). I doubt that's the case from this particular screen shot but he'll run across it at some point.
-
von Luck,
The issue with the LOS to the building is a known limitation to the game. As bulletpoint mentioned earlier, The LOS is calculated to the center of the Action Spot, and for some weird reason when buildings are angled to a certain degree the incoming LOS has trouble seeing the center of the AS.
Unfortunately, the LOS calculations and targeting to an AS where an enemy is not seen, is to the ground. This is the same reason you can't target hedgerows across a field. You must be able to see the ground at that action spot. It sucks, but this is how it is. I wish it would calculate to the facade of targets instead of the center.
The pic of the aerial does not seem abnormal to me at all. The german units are positioned on the hedgrows and can typically see moving units on the other side of the next hedgrow. It's not as if the Germans are getting unobstructed LOS views. These are just instant spots of something moving and are usually quickly lost. Trees don't necessarily block much LOS but it depends on the type of tree.
-
And here's a preview of the new site:
https://web.archive.org/web/19991012210845/http://battlefront.com/
.
.
.
.
...just kidding
-
Surprised no one list "Hitler's Last Gamble: The Battle of the Bulge, Dec 1944-Jan 1945" by Trevor Dupuy. Despite its "pulpy" title it is a super detailed account that approaches the subject matter from an operational level systems perspective. It includes many maps and 130+ page appendixes on the TO&Es and doctrines of the armies involved. It is a bit dry and perhaps overly detailed at times.
I bought this book when it was first released (before the internet as we know it). I was impressed by the TO&Es in the appendix and bought it just for that because finding this information before the internet was hard. However, when I showed the book to my Grandfather, who was in the 99th ID in WWII, he found an error within minutes of reading about the specific areas that he was involved. In short, Dupuy says in his book that the Germans captured a certain town by a certain time and date, but my Grandfather says he was in that particular town on that date and the Germans were not there. I'm paraphrasing here, but basically my Grandfather said that Dupuy had copied errors that were published in previous books (probably the official US Army History).
Needless to say, I lost some respect for this book after that. I should also say that the claim that it's overly detailed at times is relative. His entire Chapter about the Northern Shoulder is a brief few pages. It's lacking any real detail where other authors have written entire books on the subject. Obviously Dupuy's scope is broader and meant to be an operational level account but the Northern Shoulder is where the Germans focal point of the entire operation was focused. And when they were stopped there it stalled the entire operation.
-
I'm going to jump to another conclusion: CMFB is fully finished and on it's way to the press. Why else would Steve spend so much time replying in this thread?
Please tell me I'm correct, Steve.
-
I don't think it took 44 seconds. I just watched the second video and it's the same replay as the first video but from a different angle. He just doesn't start the turn until well after the video begins.
Something to remember about buttoned tanks is that their situational awareness is not very good. The commander's cupola on the Panther is seven periscopes arranged in a circle, but he can only look through one of them at a time. If the Sherman fired while he was looking though the wrong scope he would have no idea where the shot came from expect that it probably wasn't where he was looking. I don't think the game explicitly models the direction anyone is looking at any give moment, I think it abstracts it with randomized spotting times.
The result looks to me like a bit of an outlier but far from impossible.
At about the 6 second mark in the second video he points his phone down to show the cursor on the rewind button. This is likely the start of the turn - so it took the Panther about 38 seconds plus or minus, to spot the Sherman. The Panther seems to acquire the target several times(blue line appearing) but immediately looses it. LOS is indeed right next to the burning tank and to me this is the only logical explanation why LOS isn't quicker. I just didn't realize that CM modeled smoke from the burning tank (other than the visible vertical plume).
-
Personally I do not think this is a rare event, I think it's very common. The chances of it being rare AND witnessed...do the math. Lol.
It's very rare. I've been playing CMBN since it was released and have never seen a case like this. Of course, it's rare to get two opposing tanks so close together in the first place. But even at long range I cannot recall a case where there was no visual impediment yet the tank could not spot another tank relatively soon.
-
Yes, I do believe it should have popped up. This is where I do believe there is a "corner case" involved where the crew is almost getting an ID on the tank but it isn't quite strong enough for about 3-4 cycles.
I saw that too but I'm not sure if it would have an affect or not. But it could be yet another factor.
Which is part of the problem. I've been doing this for a very, very long time and I can't tell you how often there's something not in the video that's relevant. A picture might be worth a 1000 words, but pictures can still be misleading.Again, you are speaking with waaaaaaaaaaay too much certainty and not taking into account other factors. The visuals in Combat Mission are pretty darned close to 1:1, but they are not perfectly 1:1 because it's not possible for computers to handle. When things don't make visual sense the first thing to do is try to figure out what factors might be at play and not presume "bug". As I said, we've had you guys pounding on this game for a very long time. The chances that there's any significant bugs remaining with the underlying system is quite low.
In this case it is necessary to remember that LOS/LOF is drawn between center mass of target and center mass of spotter. I can not tell form the video but it is possible the tree is in exactly the wrong spot, so to speak. There is definitely code in the game to prevent a tank being able to hide behind a tree, but with the other factors mentioned it could be tipping the balance.
Ideally, sure, but you have to accept some visual abstractions for the game to work at all given CM's scope. Remember, thousands of things going on... not just a couple of tanks or a couple of guys. We do not have the luxuries that World Of Tanks or Battlefield have, even if we had millions to invest in programming.
See previous explanation. Plus, keep in mind that the Panther *DID* spot the Sherman. It simply wasn't instantaneous.
"Popping" into view is the only way to have Relative Spotting. You either see it or you don't, there's no possibility for an inbetween condition.
Yet I looked at the same video as you did and came to very different conclusions.
44 seconds might seem like an eternity, but it's not. People have far, far, far too high expectations for what happens on a battlefield. Imperfect stuff happens on battlefields all the time. So yeah, if every single last encounter resulted in near perfect reactions then we, the developers, would have done a poor job simulating real life. Which means that sometimes you will see things that don't look or seem right. That's not necessarily grounds to yell BUG!
Think of it this way... if tanks were routinely not seeing each other for 44 seconds at this range then we'd have a problem to look into. But here we are some 5 years after CMBN was released. We've released several other CM games and lots of expansions. Ask yourself, honestly, if this one situation is a mountain or a molehill.
As for the Sherman firing, you bet that is a factor in spotting. For all we know the Panther would have taken even longer to spot the Sherman if it had not been shot at.
I think there is more wrong with the interpretation of the video than what is actually in the video.
As for our definitions... BUG = something that is not working as it should. I don't see any evidence to suggest that is the case here. Is there something that could use massaging? Perhaps, but it's not worth our time chasing down a single instance even if we had access to a save file. Without a save file it is absolutely not worth bothering with.
Steve
Steve,
Thank you very much for these explanations. It's one of the reasons I love you guys.
Anyway, I think I'll chalk this one up to the smoke from the burning tank. I can certainly see how smoke from burning vehicles can radiate outwards and block LOS at ground level. Unfortunately the visuals in the game , i.e. a vertical column of smoke, don't really match what may be happening under the hood.
-
This is like saying that "going by the odds I played Powerball this week"
By this point in CM's lifespan, there's pretty much no bugs left to find in the underlying systems. At least not ones that really matter. Now, is there a "corner case" here that theoretically could use a bit of specific massaging? Perhaps, but it's not worth pursuing unless the issue comes up more than once in a blue moon. We only have so many hours in the day, so why spend it trying to fix something that might come up once every couple of thousand games when we could instead spend the time making something that may positively affect every game played?No logical reason? You must have missed a bunch of posts above because there's plenty of logical reason for this happening. There's also the LOS/LOF check clock that I mentioned. I don't know why you haven't picked up on that because Vanir Ausf B came in late to the discussion and has a pretty good grasp of the whole discussion.
Yup, that's a very good summary except. Add to that the hardware limitations which impose a limit on how frequently LOS/LOF checks can happen and that further reduces the reasons to suspect "bug" or even "flaw". I think the worst possible situation here is that we have a "limitation" due to hardware realities.
Steve
I saw the posts, Steve, None of it was logical to me with the current visuals that are present in the videos supplied:
1. The tree is obviously not blocking LOS. If the tree is blocking LOS in the underling code, then something needs to be tweaked with how the trees are rendered. Although it's not a bug by coder's definition there's definitely something wrong in that video, i.e. not realistic, not intended in programming.
2. If smoke from the KIA tank is blocking LOS then something needs to be tweaked with how the smoke is rendered.
3.
If the LOS/LOF clock is the issue then please explain how it took 44 seconds in the second video for the Panther to acquire LOS. I can understand the Panther not acquiring LOS with 7 seconds or whatever the clock is but I know it's not a 44 second clock. And this is after 4 rounds fired by the Sherman which should bloody give it's position away.[edit] Steve has since explained the LOS clock system below..
4. Optics being knocked out: I'm guessing that an unsuppressed crew, even if buttoned, will be able to spot a big tank 30 meters directly in front of it. Optics wouldn't help at 30 meters anyway. Using vision slits shouldn't take much time for the gunner to acquire a close tank.
So a buttoned Panther with damaged optics takes 15 seconds to spot a Sherman that is partially obscured by a burning vehicle and foliage? Am I missing something? It's an edge case but not really that hard to believe.
It's completely believable situation but the visuals in the game don't show it. The tree is hardly blocking any part of the tank. It suddenly pops into view as if by magic.
I've played this game and CMx1 long enough to know that many things in these games are abstracted but USUALLY things such as smoke and foliage give you visual clues that they are blocking LOS. In this particular case though, there isn't a shred of visual evidence that would explain why this tank could not be seen. If the visuals matched the outcome then I'd be fine with everything. I'm sure the OP would be too.
A weapon can not shoot at something until the GUNNER of that weapon can see the target. In this case it appears that other crew members, peering through vision ports, spotted the Sherman but the gunner was not so quick because what he's looking through isn't functioning as well. Hence the Sherman not being meaningfully spotted right away. The delay in this case is an abstraction of the gunner either switching to his own vision port and guiding the gun onto target or was guided in by the TC after initially bumbling around ("I don't see it!" "It's 2 meters left! No your OTHER left!" :)). This adds a few seconds to the targeting process.
OK, so here are the issues with the Panther acquiring a target instantly:
1. The target was not previously known to the Panther
2. Target partially obscured by dead, smoking PzIV
3. Target partially obscured by foliage (at least one tree)
4. The Panther is buttoned, which reduces situational awareness significantly
5. The gunner's optics are damaged, further reducing situational awareness
These are all compounding factors which together created a situation where the Panther took a handful or two extra seconds to identify the target. Once it did, it fired quickly and nailed the Sherman. This despite the Sherman having the drop on the Panther for some reason (impossible to say why).
As far as I'm concerned we've gone from alarmist calls of "BUG!!!!" to justified shouts of "WOW!!! No other wargame does that!!" all in one thread. Well, at least that's what I shouted
Steve
That's the best explanation yet but it still doesn't make much sense when you say a "handful or two extra seconds" because the second video clearly shows it took at least 44 seconds! Also you forgot to factor that the Sherman fired 4 rounds which should drastically help the Panther spot the tank, no?
Whether it's a "by the book" definition of a bug or just some values that need "massaging", something in that video just isn't right.
-
I am not convinced. There are two things to keep in mind. First chance: there is chance involved in all these encounters and something that happens only rarely can still happen and if you recalculated the turn multiple times something else might happen all the other times you try it. Stuff happens, get over it, we all have to. Second look at the conditions here. The Panther does have optics damage - sorry but that does make spotting harder. also there is a burning tank to the right and a tree partly in the way. It could very well be that the commander has an obscured view, the loader has smoke in the way an the driver is trying to keep the tank facing the right way according to the best the gunner can figure the incoming fire is coming from. Suddenly it is not a huge surprise that the crew took 20-30s to figure out what was what.
While there may be infinitesimally small chances that one of these issues is the cause, I'm going with the odds and saying it's a bug. It should be treated as one until BF can prove that it's not. Whether it's a bug cause by an error in code or a "bug" caused by a smoke value or a "partial tree" blocking the view - it needs to be fixed. There's no logical explanation why a unsuppressed crew facing an enemy tank wouldn't see it from 30m away, especially after taking several rounds from it. If it's chance, then that Panther would have had to roll 01 on a D100 several times in a row. Extremely unlikely. And if that is the case then BF needs to re-evaluate how it calculates these obvious close encounters.
-
The distance for sound contacts for moving vehicles is about 225-230 meters. Movement speed makes no difference (IIRC it does make a difference for moving infantry, however). For stationary vehicles it is 120 meters or 60 meters with a Hide command (which does presently only work in Black Sea, but it will work in Final Blitzkrieg and I assume the other WW2 games when they are patched).
Also, vehicle units can't obtain sound contacts on enemy units.
Why would a hide command make a vehicle more quite? Are they actually turning off their engine in that case?
-
I don't know if this is a bug or some kind of 'game-balancing' cheating going on but it's put me totally off playing any more. On a small battle like this it's the difference between victory and defeat and it's not the experience I expected when I handed over $105. That's £75 in English money, not an inconsiderable amount for a PC game. So I guess I'd like some answers and if this is typical of the code I'd like a refund, under the 'not fit for purpose' clause. I'm not saying nobody else should enjoy this game, even knowing it does this, but I simply cannot.
Any dev who reads this, please feel free to PM or email me to resolve the issue. TIA.
I'm not sure why you would think this is game balancing. Clearly it's a bug and a rare one at that. Your best bet is to submit the saved turn if you have it.
-
Is it possible the extra two were attachments?
Edit 2: Oh, I see what you mean now. Page 19 of the 'VII, VIII, and UK XXX Corps' volume. Yeah, that looks pretty bad. It almost looks like he has confused the company structure within each battalion as being the battalion structure within the regiment. But even that would still be wrong.
Edit: I view the Osprey books in much the same way I view Wikipedia. They're a great starting point, but not terribly reliable or balanced, and the deeper you delve into something they more likely they are are to leave you scratching your head. But, on the upside, they provide a quick and easy income stream for the authors, so they can continue working on other deeper stuff.
Yes, Pg 19 shows 12 armored battalions in two regiments for the 2nd Armored Division. He repeats the error on pg 21 with the 3rd Armored Division.
Yet on pg 11 he correctly lists the correct number of armored battalions that a "Heavy" armored division has.
Another example of an error is on pg. 59 for the 106th ID. The 820th AT battalion is shown with a cavalry symbol.
There are other minor errors in some of the other volumes too. Still, it's a good reference to have.
-
I picked up Volume II based in part on your description and found it to be well researched and the many accounts of small-unit combat well-written. Thanks!
You're welcome. I've just started another book last night by Will Cavanaugh that you may be interested in also: The Battle East of Elsenborn and the Twin Vilages
J.C. Doherty lists this book as one of his sources. It has some well made maps(much better than Doherty's book) and has some great aerial photos of the different battle areas.
-
(Minor point, not having seen what you're describing. Early US Armored divisions were, indeed, "Heavy". That was used to describe the Armored divisions with 6 tank battalions, 3 armored inf. battalions, and the rest of their arty/recce, etc. (It might've just been one that was like that. 1st?) Anyway, the rest of them soon just had 3 tank battalions, and then the rest. Yes, 6 battalions (of 57 tanks each) was a bit unwieldy. All this from memory, so caveat emptor and all that.)
Yes, they were heavy but I think he put two extra battalions in there. I'll check it out later tonight when I get home. Also, just checked the series on Amazon and a reviewer posted a similar error in the OOB:
-
I think it's pretty clear where everything fell apart. I do think Bil's force choice wasn't bad (even if it was extreme), and it could have easily gone the other way - as mentioned, if the Jagdtiger had died to a lucky shot, we'd all be calling him a genius.
I agree, Bil's force was potent and he could have won if he had played the force the way he originally intended, i.e. mobile hit and run tactics.
A few thoughts on how things unfolded and what I would have done differently if I were Bil (obviously all this is hindsight):
1. Force Selection - Although the game didn't progress long enough, the lack or infantry and anti-infantry assets in Bil's force selection would have hurt him eventually. Baneman had a long march to reach his objectives over open terrain. Artillery would have caused lots of casualties on Baneman and more importantly would have caused slow downs. Infantry would have also served the same purpose. The recon teams served their purpose for spotting but were useless otherwise.
2. Bil's strategy and execution - His plan was to be mobile, get some jabs in early then fall back to next line of defense. His execution didn't quite pan out that way. It seemed to be a static frontal defense where the bulk of his armor had no place to retreat to. Sure he would use his Hellcats on a few shoot and scoot type tactics over a ridge but the lay of the land wasn't enough to protect them.
3. Setup - This is the part that kills me: The M18s and other armor assets are put up front early in the complete open. This gave Baneman two advantages -1) He quickly figured out Bil's force composition and knew that he couldn't have much infantry 2) Baneman knew that if he pushed his JT up to the ridge that Bil had no place to run to.
The M18's best advantage would be to scoot and shoot from behind cover and to flank armor. It's impossible to flank that early in the game because Baneman's units would be very congested. Bil could have more easily flanked in the southern parts of the map once Baneman's infantry was more spread out and/or partially neutralized. He had more favorable terrain in the southern part of the map too.
-
Now what am I supposed to do until the release of CMFB?
By this point in CM's lifespan, there's pretty much no bugs left to find in the underlying systems. At least not ones that really matter. Now, is there a "corner case" here that theoretically could use a bit of specific massaging? Perhaps, but it's not worth pursuing unless the issue comes up more than once in a blue moon. We only have so many hours in the day, so why spend it trying to fix something that might come up once every couple of thousand games when we could instead spend the time making something that may positively affect every game played?
Will there be artillery observer aircraft in future BattleFront titles ?
in Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
Posted
Digging around on the internet will yield some rare gems...
According to this book, (pg 308)the piper cubs were attached to the artillery battalions. Each battalion had two cubs. This seems to be the norm whether an organic Divisional battalion or Corps/Army Battalion.