Jump to content

Pak40

Members
  • Posts

    2,198
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pak40

  1. Thanks a million for the info. Some suggestions: 1. There are a few lacking land types - rough with foxholes, rubble, bocage, bocage with foxhole. 2. Instead of November, do one in December and one in August. This way we will have values for both extremes. 3. Do the numbers change if the unit is on the hedgerow or behind the hedgerow? How much does elevation affect the hedgerow bonus? Also, These percentage values are the "exposure" value, which I think is abstract combination of "cover" and "concealment". It would be nice if we could separate the two so that we have values for both. That way one would know that a hedgerow provides good concealment but not good cover. But I'm not sure if this is possible to obtain from CM.
  2. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by sajon: Why is it, that nearly all operations end before I have reached the designated number of battles? Is that a bug? Or am I just achieving the mission task too fast? Another point is that I dont get any of those missons task flags on the map as in single battles.<hr></blockquote> You must be doing a good job in your operations. The typical objective in operations is not to capture flags but to progress on the map towards the opposite side of where you started in the first battle. Other operations may be set to "Destroy" - this is where the objective is to kill as many enemy while limiting your losses. Before playing an operation, it is a good idea to know what the objectives are. The briefing should give a good clue as to what the objective is, i.e. "capture a town" or "seek and destroy". There arn't any victory flags in operations, the computer determines your score by either how much land you capture or how many enemies you kill. You can read more in detail in the manual under the Scenario Builder chapter. oh yes, I forgot to add: An operation can end prematurely if you have reached the opposite side of the map(reach your objective) [ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Pak40 ]</p>
  3. You should try playing by the Iron Man Rules. Under these rules you can only view the battlefield from view 1 and only from the position of your units. This means no more "cheating" by having aerial or top-down views of the battlefield, only the realistic views that your soldiers get. Also, you can't turn off the trees so it makes moving in a forest very confusing. There are many other rules that make the Iron man rules very challenging and more realistic. It actually makes the computer AI more challenging to play.
  4. A flamethrower is certainly a weapon to be feared. In a forest it would be even more fearful because of everything in the path of the flame would certainly catch fire so long as it's not raining. You say that a flametrower team would only be able to fire at 1-2 men at a time, I highly disagree, especially when the squad is in a forest. When a squad is in a forest they are closer together than if they were out in the open. They are maybe 20-25 meters from one end to the other. A flamethrower ambush in this situation can be deadly. Within a few seconds a 60° arc of flame 30 meters long would be torched, this could easily engulf an entire squad. Every man in the enemy squad knows that if he doesn't run away ASAP he will be burned to death. It's not so much a surpressing factor as it is a fear of being burned alive.
  5. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by FFL_Trick: Well, in fact I was thinking about coding a map converter from Close Combat map files to CM ones. They are very close one to another, both use a surface tiling for elevation and map elements. So, if anybody has a clue to do this... Otherwise I would probably try to hack a little the thing but its never easy...<hr></blockquote> A good number of CC2 maps have been done in CM. I have done two of them myself, although only in operation mode, not scenario/battle mode. IIRC, it is real easy to convert from CC to CM: In the CC battle editor screen, the map is divided into a 20 meter grid, which happens to be CM's tile size. All you need to do is press PRINT SCREEN to make a screen capture, then open up a graphics program (or even MS Word) and paste the screen capture. Then you can print it out. Only the elevations need interpreting, but if you have the CC user made map editor tools then you can figure out the elevations of any map.
  6. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by FFL_Trick: Hello, I'd like to know if there is some place where I can find a technical reference about the map/scenario and maybe campaigns file format of combat missions. I saw that some battle editors had been written the I suppose that this information should be available somewhere.<hr></blockquote> To my knowledge there isn't a reference on the file format for CM. If people were able to hack the file format then there would be some cheating going on in PBEM games. The one and only battle editor is included in the game. The documentation is in the manual. There are some tips posted on several CM web sites about making battles. You can find these by browsing through the CM Web Ring (use the RESOURCES link on the left bullet menu.
  7. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: If prisoners are taken in a TCP/IP game, the game often crashes or hangs, depending on who hits the next button first.<hr></blockquote> I've never experience this and have played many TCP/IP games where prisoners have been taken. I guess I'm just lucky. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: With all respect, but you should have reviewed some of the excellent threads on the issues above before accusing me of posting glibberish. I also made it very clear that only some of the items are quick-fixable bugs, some are only fixable by program serious extension, some are a matter of taste or conviction. My list is "what annoys me about CMBO", nothing more.<hr></blockquote> Re-read my post. Did I ever accuse you of posting glibberish??? You have valid complaints, I was only stating that they are not bugs (except the prisoner TCP/IP thing). Everything you stated is a "wish list" of improvements that you and many others would like to see. I have no problem with that. But, I highly disagree that it takes so much away from the game that is almost unplayable. These are just little things that barely distract from the overall experience of the game. It's time for BTS to move forward and finish CMBB; and we can all expect these improvements to be in that game. Sorry if I sounded like I was bashing you. I tend to get upset when a company makes a the best tactical Wargame ever, works hard to satisfy its customers, works hard to make it very bug free, and STILL gets ripped by someone who thinks the left bogey wheel on the MkIVF2 doesn't wobble 4.5 ° in either direction like it should. But that's just me.
  8. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: Still, there are other bugs like the 3" mortars crew, the smoke round shooting, 25pdr, password entry and maybe some of the small-round-deadliness that I bet are a one-liners to fix (after you found the line that could easily make it into a 1.13 patch. For which I would pay the full CMBO price again. I also forgot the prisoner bug in TCP/IP games, which is probably a bitch to find for a programmer, but I guess it has to be done for CMBB anyway and I'd like it backported to CMBO.<hr></blockquote> Redwolf, I've read your posts in this thread and it seems that most of your "bugs" are in fact not bugs. A bug is something that is either a mistake in the programming or an undesired affect (from the point of view of the programmer). Most of your concerns fall into the "wish list" category. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> smoke round shooting bugs - tungsteen doesn't suffer enough from increased angles<hr></blockquote> You're kidding? Tungsten suffers increadibly from sloped armor. In fact, regular AP rounds have a better chance of penetration at 60° <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - Tiger and Panther too weak against US 75mm (see Rexford posts)<hr></blockquote> Huh? Last time I checked the 75mm bounced off of these two tanks frontally. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - killing unarmoured vehicles by HE bug. The whole damage model seens to be reused from the infantry model and is inadaequate for vehicles<hr></blockquote> You have a point, but this is not a bug. put this on your wish list to remodel the way artillery affects vehicles. I personally have no problem with this since unarmored vehicles are more susceptable to artillery than humans. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - no burst fire, increased rate of fire in emergency or self-defense. Hurts MGs, which can be overrun too easily and guns like the 25pdr, which in real life could deliver exceptially many shells in short time<hr></blockquote> good point, but this is not a bug. put it on your wish list to remodel in future versions. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - 25 pdr offboard arty has much too slow ROF<hr></blockquote> I have seen other threads with this concern but I have no concrete evidence. Mortars can fire faster too, does that mean that BTS should change their rate of fire? <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - mortar vehicles not able to fire indirect<hr></blockquote> Yea, this was not a good design by BTS. put this on your wish list. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - model for multiple-rounds AA guns is insufficient, hit chance too high if you take in mind that the hit has full effect as if all rounds hit, while the chance is that one of these rounds hits<hr></blockquote> I always wondered about this, however, the game was intentionally designed this way so it's not a bug. put it on your wish list. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - 3" mortars with its slow crew. I'd rather accept the Bren carrier reality strtch<hr></blockquote> is it slower than the german/american counterparts? If so then you may have point. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - Bunkers are best attacked by Stuarts, Greyhounds and Daimler ACs<hr></blockquote> I've never had this impression but I've never really run the tests. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - Panther turret model is too simple, punishes the tank too much<hr></blockquote> elaborate on this please. This is a wish list item not a bug. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - Overall, turrets always point wrong and entierly unrealistic. In real life, they would point to a possible threat. Again, punishes slow-turret tanks more than it should, even is the turret speed is right<hr></blockquote> True, but not a bug. Wish list item. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - pricing oddities like the Hetzer or the British 95mm, which has a so effective HC round that the Cromwell VI and VIII are amoung the best tank hunters in the game, at the same price as the 75mm version<hr></blockquote> The 95mm guns is a very inaccurate gun(slow arching velocity) which makes it a very poor tank hunter, along with the fact that it has a slow ROF and few HEAT rounds. I don't understand how you think that a tank with the 95mm is a good tank hunter, unless you always engage enemy tanks under 150m which I find unbelievable. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - Entering a new password is only once. Mistype and you can't reload later<hr></blockquote> good point, should be in your wish list <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> - Strange bogging chances. Compare StuG III and Panzer IV in mud <hr></blockquote> Never seen or heard anyone say anything about this. I also don't know anything about the prisoner tcp/ip bug, can you elaborate?
  9. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by bodman: Hello, Speaking of goofy Tank AI. Does anyone remember how terrible the tank AI was in The Close Combat series? I think CMBO puts that series to shame. Bodman<hr></blockquote> Oh yea, bumper tanks!
  10. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa: Your comment made me to examine this one more closely. I think that I found the reason for my problems: Moving orders. When a vehicle has moving orders pending, even with a long pause first, it won't rotate it's hull to any direction. So moving orders "take away" vehicle's freedom to rotate it's hull. Is this realistic? Not, if you ask me. Please fix/sumfink it BTS Ari<hr></blockquote> To put it blunly, you just used the wrong order. Issuing a Move or Move Fast command is equivelent to saying "Move to this location, do not stop to engage enemy" If you use anything other than a Hunt command then the movement orders overrides the necessity to rotate and engage an enemy, even while your tank is in it's pause phase. I always use the Hunt command with assault guns when moving in the face of an enemy. "Shoot and Scoot" tactics don't work with assault guns since there is no turret, therefore the only alternative is to use HUNT or just sit tight. You can use the FAST command to dash behind cover, but this is dangerous since the assault gun can't defend itself(if enemy is outside the firing arc); the dashes should be as short as possible so that any enemy gun doesn't have time to aim and shoot.
  11. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by dunc: Do you try to give them limited firing lanes? As my MG's often seem to get pounded by tanks when they are placed upfront.<hr></blockquote> That's why you place an AT gun close by your MG teams. If your enemy brings a tank in the open then it's toast.
  12. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa: - Every now and then the turretless vehicles seem not to be able to automatically rotate towards an already SET target. The gun gets pointed as far as possible towards the target, but the rest of the vehicle remains static which prevents shooting. A rotate command in following turn is required to fully wake up these tanks. Very frustrating when a whole turn gets wasted this way.<hr></blockquote> I don't think I've ever had a problem with this, it must be very rare, but never the less a bug. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa: - Spotting anomaly. Enemy troops can sometimes get perfectly identified far away from any friendly units. This seems to be a random feature. Most likely a bug.<hr></blockquote> This doesn't surprise me since randomness or fuzzy logic is in fact part of the LOS equations. This is not all all unrealistic since any unit, if visible, has a chance to be properly identified, no matter how far it is from the spotting unit. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa: - Even disregarding orders, tanks tend to shoot smoke shells at enemy infantry located in buildings. This is usually frustrating, but can sometimes be nearly catastrophical. Very rarely I have seen this feature to be desirable.<hr></blockquote> Yea, this isn't common but it does happen and hopefully will be fixed in CMBB <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa: - In some cases CM reveals too much information about tanks being hit by gun rounds. Even if it isn't identified yet, the game still reports which part of the tank was hit. A superstructure hit instantly tells that the target is turretless vehicle, for instance.<hr></blockquote> This information is optional in the game, it can be turned off. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa: - The last, but not the least: the poor tacAI for tanks. Multiple targets can basically drive tanks crazy in CM, and that constrains effective use of armor quite much. It also opens easy possibilities for gamey tricks. I have found turretless SPG's to be good choices just because they are less prone to hunt every secondary target in sight. On the other hand tanks with slow turrets usually offer the most frustrating playing experiences. Many times I have hoped that the Tiger tank would be turretless. <hr></blockquote> I agree, it very frustrating when these things happen. However, I also realize that real life commanders made BAD decisions in the heat of battle, such as switching to a less dangerous target. So, in a way CM actually models the bad decisions made by some tank commanders. Experience of the tank will lessen the bad decisions.
  13. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Equinox: You misunderstood. Give a unit one/two pause commands then set a movement command into a set of scattered trees (for example). Grab the box at the end of that movement and adjust it to a different point in the trees and the pause commands disappear.<hr></blockquote> Sorry, this isn't true. I've adjusted many many waypoints after assigning pauses and the pauses never have disapeared. However, if you delete the waypoints then the pause will disapear; this is the only way to get rid of the pauses if you change your mind.
  14. CMPlayer, What you're asking for is the same thing as the "being able to shoot throug friendly tanks" syndrome. If it were possible under the current engine (without hogging massive CPU resources) then BTS would have done it. BTS has already posted why it couldn't be done.
  15. I am personally against this. This has been done before in games like Close Combat and Panzer Elite and the end result is total chaotic mess where nobody is fully compatible with anyone else because they all have different mods. It's much better to have ONE version with the OFFICIAL units that are available. Maybe it can be programmed so that people with different mods will be compatable somehow but this is rarely the case with games. Also, this may breed a new form of online cheating: People that 'make' their own units suddenly have 'rifle squads' with nothing but mg42s in it or elite 'Stuarts' with 90mm cannons that cost only 40 points. Custom unit editing in Combat Mission would be a train wreck waiting to happen if BTS were to allow it. Besides, BTS does a great job modeling most infantry units. The only thing lacking are rare units such as US Rangers, British Commandos and German Brummbars. Whenever Combat Mission 3 comes out (2003 hopefully), you will see a major number of units to choose from and hopefully there wont be a need to have 'home created' units.
  16. Are you aware that XP has a Win 98 mode? Why don't you try and run it under that mode. If it doesn't work then come back and let us know.
  17. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JonS: The answer is: because Panzerfaust and Panzer schreck were already taken. Besides, they wouldn't have made much sense to English speakers. Hope that clears things up.<hr></blockquote> Hardly the case since the U.S. bazooka was around before the Faust and Schreck were even invented. Where else do you think the Germans got the idea for the Schreck
  18. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: It was skipped over because North Africa proved the value of larger HE firing guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That doesn't explain why the M5 was kept in service until the Chafee came around. If what you say is true then the U.S. Army would have abandoned 37mm guns ASAP for favor of 57mm guns in the light tanks. The Chaffe didn't start appearing on the line until late 44, quite a bit of time after North Africa. I guess the U.S. Army had a lot of problems when trying to modify the M5 turret to handle the bigger 57mm gun.
  19. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enoch: "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." -Gandalf the Grey. [ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Enoch ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey Enoch, do you know that part of that quote is used in Operation Flashpoint? I thought it interesting to see it here too.
  20. I never understood why the U.S. didn't put the 57mm into light tanks. It would have been a LOT more effective than the 37mm. Was this ever experimented with? Maybe the Army tried to convert some M5s to handle the 57mm. All it would take is a modified turret. Anybody know?
  21. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Pak40 said "9 times out of 10, Veterans will be victorious". A better argument that those that use all veterans are pikers cannot be imagined. Where is the sport in a handling 9 to 1 favorites<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're taking what I said out of context. I was clearly talking about a situation where there is 1 Veteran platoon vs. 1 Regular platoon. In Combat Mission Quick Battles we will never see that matchup because the force selection is by points, thereby making any force selections even no matter what the quality of troops. In other words: 1000 pts Regular troops = 1000 pts Veteran troops It's an even matchup and either side has an equal chance of winning the battle, all other things being equal. The Regular side lacks quality but makes up for it in quantity. So it is no less "sporty" to choose all veteran troops. Nor is it less historic to choose all Veteran troops.
  22. A piece of advice for newbies when buying heavy machine guns: Get the best quality HMG that money can buy Here's why: HMGs are more usefull than the LMGs in two ways: 1)more firepower 2) more ammo The only way to take advantage of point #2 is to get a Veteran+ HMG because the regulars tend to break/route before they even burn 1/2 of their ammo. That's half of a unit's firepower wasted! However, with Veteran HMGs I have had them stick it out until they're down to LOW or DEAD. This is gets most bang for the buck. Remember, that MG teams and guns are the only infantry that DONT lose firepower when some of the men or wounded or killed. Therefore your really want them to be there until the end.
  23. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gen-x87H: The only time I have ever used veteran troops was in a IP game. Veteran US Rifle 44 platoons. 3 of them in a 1000 point ME. They ran at the first sign of fighting. They were in a tree line overlooking the approaches to the flag and cameunder fire from VGs that were in the open than they just fled. At least 1 squad did not even take a casualty. So now I dont bother.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hehe. You remind me of my early days playing CM. I used to wonder if Veterans were worth the price, especially after the first time I used them which was a situation like yours. They didn't seem worth the price. But one day, after reading this forum from guys like Madmatt and Steve (who were CM Veterans at that point) about how they choose everything veteran, I decided to give Veterans another try - and boy did they kick ass. I now know that 9 times out of 10, Veterans will be victorious over Regulars - all other things equal.
  24. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison: and anyways, how many times do we get the veteran leader whos bonus is one "?". when i get that with vanilla HQ, its okay because i dont expect much else. but when a veteran HQ comes up dry (no bonus :mad , it frustrating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ugghhh, I HATE when that happens. Still a Veteran paltoon with a no bonus leader is better than a regular platoon with a no bonus leader. That's why I try and get a Company whenever possible. I will use the Company HQ as one of the platoon leaders and use the lame platoon HQ as either a scout or morar/mg leader. And now that I've seen Winters in action in Band of Brothers, I know that it's not a gamey tactic [ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Pak40 ]
×
×
  • Create New...