Lt Bull
-
Posts
896 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Lt Bull
-
-
What is the correct way (if any) to update a PBEM curently started in the previous version to the new patch?
-
On 3/31/2012 at 4:56 AM, __Yossarian0815[jby] said:
Minor bug:
In the scenario Holy Ground, you can´t enter the little doors on the inside of the high towers.
Caused some unnecesarry casualties
You might get some solace from the fact that this kind of issue is not restircted to that kind of building or that scenario. It appears a number of buildings in CM are problematic as you described.
I recently undertook an depth study on a type of "Independant" building that are in the Scenario Designer and would be featured in many of the scenarios out there. I recently added the detailed test results and easy to run example saved "test files" to a post just like yours to a post I started back in 2015! It really is disappointing that these bugs still exist and have not been corrected
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120716-odd-building-entry-bug/?do=findComment&comment=1821324
PS: LMAO! Just looked at WHEN the OP originally posted!
-
Good to see some of you got something out of the PDF. No big deal but for those more discerning of you who looked at the PDF, you may have noticed there was one comparion that is not actually from the "Storm on Stoumiont" map/Stoumont battle, but rather the Cheneuex map/Battleof Cheneux, all however cut from the same "Stoumont Master Map" that I only just recently realise existed!
On 5/5/2020 at 6:45 AM, ironcross13 said:Battle of the Bulge Then and now, is a great book also
Yes it is! I do own it (along with the Normany and Market-Garden Then and Now titles, all amazing). I did just order Vol3 of Duel in the Mist however.
I can see myself getting somewhat inspired to do a similar Before & After & CM comparison with other historical based maps that grab my attention. I had done a similar thing for some of the Arnhem maps in CMBN a while ago but just used equivalent Google Maps Street View as the comaprisons. Will see if I can dig them out.
-
11 hours ago, Pete Wenman said:
...but maybe your inbox is full.
Yes it is! Not quite ready to delete stuff out as what is in there as conversations I still want to keep as reference. Have instead contacted you via link in your profile.
-
Thanks for sharing. Very insightful. Really interesting such detail was documented, let alone on film. Doubt many knew the UC was that versatile and used in that manner. I wonder if it was in actual combat.
...and remember: When in doubt, dismount! LOL!
-
7 hours ago, theforger said:
I bought the book off eBay...
@theforger Wow! Thanks for the reply. I can't say I was expecting to get a positive reply like this just from asking the relatively small pool of readers who check these forums, let alone within 24hrs after around 160 views! Incredible! I guess if you don't ask, you never will know...
Can I ask how much of the book features unique photos and maps (i would imagine detailed tactical ones) not featured anywhere else? From my understanding, the vast bulk of photos you can search for and find that relate to the battle on the day come from that familiar German film reel that features in the Youtube video. If the book does have unique photos, I would really like to know how that is and still remains the case. Can't say I know the process by which typically all the historical photos from WW2 (or any other subject fro that matter) that feature in all the books on the subject even find their way in to a book in the first place. I know some can be sourced from official (publically available?) national archives and of course sourced from private collections never before publically disclosed typically associated with veterans who happen to be in possession of them and that the book authors have conenctions to. One book that I believe falls in to the later that I had been waiting to be released for years until I just gave up was KAMPFRAUM ARNHEIM: A Photo Study of the German Soldier Fighting In and Around Arnhem September 1944 (Kampfraum Series). That book definitely contains a whole bunch of unique photos never before published.
As far as the written account of the battle (including battle maps), does it offer a more detailed account of the battle than what is already available? eg. do
I have found a link to an actual AAR written by the US TD unit after the battle which is quite facinating: Stoumont Action - 823rd Tank Destroyer Battalion
-
8 hours ago, Bubba883XL said:
its a version 4 bug i think has been said, i've got upgrades waiting but won't until this is sorted
Hi Bubba, I am curious to know what happens if you try running the test save file. How do the infantry respond on your non-version 4 install?
-
DOH! I somehow posted the link to this thread instead of the damn file!
NEW WORKING LINK TO FILE BELOW!!!
>>>> Bull's Stoumont Before & After & CMFB.pdf <<<<
While I'm at it may as well make up for it with a few teaser previews:
-
I forgot to add and perhaps ask...
While researching the battle of Stoumont I discovered one book that has actually been published specifically about that 19th Dec battle.
I would of definitely bought it already however there is something about it that is making me hesitate:
Duel in the Mist: Kampfgruppe Peiper, Stoumont, December 19th, 1944 v. 1
Would really like to hear from anyione who has viewed the book, let alone own a copy of it. Really curious to know what kind of new info/photos etc it contains.
-
I originally played the excellent Kampfgruppe Peiper campaign that I believes comes with CMFB several years ago and forgot about it enough for me to warrant playing it again. One thing I really appreciate is playing on battlefields that are based directly on replicating the actual historical battlefieds itself. I believe all the maps in this campaign are like that.
One battle in particular caught my attention (again) which is the "Storm on Stoumont" battle and it's map. After play as the German attacker I wondered how much more challenging the German attack could be if a human player played as the US. I was inspired enough to extract and create a H2H scenario battle version of the "Storm on Stoumont" battle and let's just say it is quite interesting to see how that battle plays out when a human calls the shots for the US defenders.
Anyway, having extensively surveyed the CMFB map in preparation to play the battle, I really got a good feel for the battlefield itself and started researching the actual battle that did occur there on the 19 Dec 1944 between KG Peiper and the US garrison defending. I started looking at the amazing historical combat action photos and videos taken by the Germans during the actual assualt on the 19 Dec 1944 and it occurred to me that my familairization with the battlefield just from playing CMFB was essentially enough for me to have a good enough idea where virtually every photo/scene was taken/filmed. While searching for more photos and information from the battle, I did stumble across a Youtube video of Before & After photo comparisons of the battle of Stoumont that basically confirmed some of my guesses.
I then decided it might just be worthwhile trying to recreate as many of the photos/scenes from the historical photos and film as possible, just for fun, and to see how CMFB compares. Using the before and after comparison screenshots from the Youtube video, I conveniently added my own CMFB versions to complete the trifecta of comparisons, in cases where the "after" photos (current day photos) had been compared to the historical footage/photos. I recreated in CMFB a number of other photos/scenes for which no "after" photo comparison were suggested/offered. PDF link below:
Youtube Video: Battle of the Bulge Then & Now - Stoumont Then & Now!
CMFB Comparisons: Bull's Stoumont Before & After & CMFB.pdf
And a big shout out and tip of the hat to @Pete Wenman for researching and designing the map you see featured! It's amazing what can be achieved by some within the CM Scenario Designer. Much appreciated.
-
3 hours ago, Freyberg said:
Once they get panicked, they forget all orders, including Pause.
OK, thought so. Really interesting to hear how and when you use the Pause command. Might have to consider it a key command in instances like you mention, or when "cowardice will not be tolerated". Does the Pause command in any way affect commands like Fire At Target/Briefly Target, or even say the Face command or is it really only restricted to proper movement commands?
-
Its been almost five years since I started this thread and would have thought that the issue(s) originally highlighted would have been fixed long ago via a patch/update etc. This sadly is not the case. The issue described is not a "cosmetic" issue with no effect on gameplay. Contrary, it has the potential to turn what players would think is a relatively safe move order for infantry in to a order that may result in the entire enemy unit being decimated, as I had experienced when I first noticed the issue all those years ago.
I am revisiting this thread and the issue that was discussed because I was just curious to see what, if anything, was achieved in first highlighting the issue almost five years ago. I also like to think even trying to address such issues on these forums is not just a complete waste of time and effort. If anyone can point to a thread where Battlefront had at least previously acknowledged this issue, that will be good.
(I should also add that I did actually stop playing CM around that time out of a frustration that gameplay issues like this weren't being addressed, let alone acknowldged by those in a position to do something about it. After coming back to CM after a many year hiatus, I really was surprised that this issue was never fixed. I have stopped playing CMBN because of a new odd suicidal TacAI behaviour issue (apparently introduced after a recent update/patch) that can result in infantry defending and under fire behind a line of hedgerows deciding to break cover and run laterally along the hedgerow until they reach the infantry-sized gap in the hedgerow and start running through the gap towards the enemy/incoming fire, invariably to their death (read all about it and see for yourself here))
Perhaps this post (unlike Battlefront), will warn both players and probably more importantly/practically, scenario/map designers, that certain buildings from the Scenario Editor if used in scenarios in certain orientations will definitely result in the kind of unexpected infantry building entry/exit behaviour discussed above (and more comprehensively below for your convenience) that really can turn players off.
I cannot confirm (have mnot searched) if there are equivalent issues with certain other buildings or in other CM titles, but I will qualify that they definitely do exist in the building types I discuss below in CMBN.
I have just reviewed and tested ALL seven types of "Independent>Other" buildings available in the CMBN Scenario Editor. I have created a scenario file and two game save files to download to see for yourself that features all seven buildings in all four possible facing orientations (north, south, east, west) with all the infantry already setup and given move orders to enter the building from one end and exit it on the opposite side. The buildings are laid out as follows in the scenario/save file(s):
Typically all of these buildings are assigned a "direction" by the Scenario Editor, and visually/cosmetically all appear to have two doors: one on the "front" and one on the "rear" assigned faces of the building (through which it is expected infantry can/should and be only able to enter/exit from). The side walls of all seven buildings clearly have fully bricked side walls devoid of visible.
eg. rear view of Independedent>Other building "C". Note location of door on right of rear face, alongside the left edge of the building.
It is expected that if an infantry unit is located just outside the front or the rear face of the building and given a move order waypoint located inside the building, then the infantry unit will take the shortest route to the waypoint and move towards and through what is nearest respective door, located on that front or rear building face. Similarly, if a unit is already within the building and given a waypoint directly out the front or rear of the building, the infantry unit will exit the building using the respective doors in that direction.
If you run the save game files provided, they are already setup with movement waypoint orders assigned to infantry squads located at the front and rear of the buildings: the first waypoint is in the building, the second is on the opposite side of the building. File 001 has units positioned north and west of the buildings. File 002 has units positioned south and east of the buildings. Links to test files and the scenario test file itself:
Scenario file: CMBN Indpt Bldg Inf Enter-Exit test.btt
Save file: Indpt Bldg Inf Enter-Exit test 001.bts
Save file: Indpt Bldg Inf Enter-Exit test 002.bts
A few key points:
- All the buildings tested definitely have one or two entry/exit points, though not necessarily where they are otherwise graphically indicated on the front and rear of the building. It depends on the building and it's facing.
- When some buildings are placed on the map in certain orinetations/facings (at the map designing phase stage via the Scenario Editor) it will determine if one or both of the graphically represented doors on the front and/or rear of the building will cease to operate as entry/exit points during the game. In these instances, an apparent "invisible" side door (or entry/exit point) instead will apparently appear to function along one of the non-front/rear faces of the building, located close to one edge/corner of the building face. The location and existence of these "invisible" side doors is predetermined by the building orientation/facing.
- The test files feature 10 man squads. Using smaller squads may show more consistency in whether ALL pixeltruppen enter/exit a building via one entry/exit point, or whether the pixeltruppen will enter/exit the building using both entry/exit points during the same move order.
- Random localised positioning of each pixeltruppen seems to be a factor in some cases determining whether all, most or some of the pixeltruppen belonging to a squad entering/exiting a building during a move will use one or two of the existing building entry/exit points.
- Unless a player uses the Scenario Editor (or the save files provided in this thread) to learn to recognise/identify the 7 types of Independent>Other discussed in this post, they will invariably be unable to recognise them in any CMBN scenario they choose to play that features them.
- The comprehensive table of results of testing is available as a PDF and Excel file at links below:
Excel: Bull's CMBN Independent Houses.xlsx
PDF: Bull's CMBN Independent Houses.pdf
Preview of table:
The table text and cells are colour coded for each situation to aid in interpretation as follows:
RED text indicates (and warns players) that it has been demonstrated that it is possible (though not guaranteed) that at least some pixeltruppen MAY avoid the nearest door and instead, if entering a buildings, route around the sides of the building to instead enter the building via the indicated door on the OPPOSITE side of the building from where the unit started it's movement from, or i exiting a building, use the door on the opposite side of the building to where the waypoint was placed. Planning/expecting to enter/exit a building via a door on the near side but finding pixeltruppen entering via a door on the direct opposite side of the building is probably more likely to be of a tactical concern/disaster than say if it entered/exited the building via one of the "invisible" side doors, that's why I have highlighted the text in red alerting players to that possibility for that situation.
Backgrounds of shades of GREEN indicate that all the doors indicated on the front and rear of the building do actually work as advertised and no "invisible" doors exist. It is a darker GREEN if in the limited trials conducted, no instances of the "wrong" door being used by any pixeltruppen in that situation was observed. This would be updated if more testing at least reveals one case of a "wrong" door being used. Note that for larger sized infantry squads, it is no guarantee that all pixeltruppen will use the right (nearest) door for each situation listed (see notes on RED text). Note that this possibility is probably reduced (possibly to zero), the less pixeltruppen in the infantry team. My guess is when six or less pixeltruppen exist in a team. Further testing can confirm..
Although some cases of entering/exiting the buildings are listed with darker GREEN backgrounds and as "All enter OK" or "All exit OK" (meaning it was observed in the limited trials that all pixeltruppen enter or exit through the nearest graphically represented door as expected, the ideal case), as alluded to above, it has been noted that repeated testing can turn up cases where at least some of the pixeltruppen involved in the move order will use the second entry/exit point of the building, be it the one on the opposite side of the building, or one of the apparently "invisible" side doors that apparently exist for some buildings when facing a certain way.
Backgrounds of shades of ORANGE indicate the existence of at least one "invisible" side door through which infantry can/and will apparently use to enter the building depending on the circumstances. The darker ORANGE background indicates that either NONE of the graphically indicated doors on the building are functional in that situation, and instead the building features one or two "invisible" side doors, one on each flank (or side) of the building, or only one "invisible" serves as the only entry/exit point to the building.
In summary, a review of test results:
Regardless of which of the seven types of Independent>Other building feature in a sceanrio (regardless of their orientation), players can expect to be "surprised" by the path and subsequent entry/exit point chosen by each pixeltruppen to enter/exit the building during a single move order if the infantry team has greater than typically six pixeltruppen, if they expect a) infantry to ALWAYS use the nearest entry/exit point and b) expect the only functional and possible entry/exit points of buildings to be where they are graphically indicated.
The only Independent>Other building that feature front/rear doors/entry/exit points functioning as advertised regardless of orientation is building "G". Of the remaining six buildings, all will feature front/rear doors/entry/exit points functioning as advertised if in the following orientations/facings:
I can only suggest regular players of CMBN scenarios to be at least aware of these buggy Independent>Other buildings, especially on maps that are likely to involved and rely on very precise "house-to house" fighting and manoeuvring. They can really unexpectedly wreck you plans especially if they are embedded somewhere near critical terrain/victory locations.
To the scenario designers/map makers, I would hope they see the sense in completely avoiding the use of all building type/orientation combos that are not listed in the green column of the table above. Note that even using those buildings/orientations featured in the green column, it has been shown that at least some pixeltruppen will nevertheless choose to enter/exit from the opposite side door from which one might otherwise expect them to use when the unit size is greater than 6. Perhaps some scenario/map designers might even feel inspired to revisit previously released sceanrios/maps that feature the problem buildings and modify the maps accordingly. Of course vigilant capable players could do this themsleves. A scenario comes to mind already...the one that I was playing when I first encountered this issue almost 5 years ago...Lonsdales Block. I clearly remember where that damn building was that led to the decimation of a complete para squad trying to enter it.
-
6 hours ago, RockinHarry said:
...toying around with @Lt Bull ´s TEST GAP battle today....Interesting that Pause also works for orders not yet given, particularly those from the TacAI (evade).
@RockinHarry, that really is an amazing discovery/revelation. Great work. It's incredible the Pause order even effects all future TacAI orders like the "evade towards enemy" order being discussed.
If you think about it then, the Pause order could possibly be used as a "not one step back"/no retreat command to prevent the TacAI for executing ANY "self-preserving" evasive actions when a unit reacts to the enemy. Note that if the "self-preserving" orders issued by the TacAI are indeed valid and likely to increase the survivabilty of the unit if executed (as opposed to executing the "suicidal" kind of "self-preserving" orders being described), use of the Pause order under those circumstances to prevent any evasive orders may result in the unit suffering casualties in situ as a consequence, equivalent to those it may otherwise have suffered if the TacAI instead executed the suicidal "evade towards enemy" orders being highlighted in this thread.
In short, using the Pause command to prevent the "evade towards enemy" TacAI response from happening in situations where the TacAI would instead issue a legitimate "evasion" order (typically breaking LOS towards cover/away from enemy/enemy fire) may result in the same deadly outcome as the situation the player is trying to avoid.
Regardless, knowing the Pause order prevents any evasive TACAI orders (legitimate good ones or the suicidal bad ones being highlighted) from being excuted (but not issued!) is very intersting in itself. Being able to actually "see" the TacAI created waypoints that were issued but not executed is equally interesting and of value trying to understand and diagnose what is going on.
Did you notice if the Pause command prevents actual units that break from routing away? I imagine not.
-
Hello,
I've gone looking for a thread posted maybe a year ago where I was originally made aware of the "evade towards enemy" behaviour (though probably an actual bug) that typically involves infantry behind hedgerows breaking that cover when under fire and running towards the enemy through gaps in the hedgerow (invariably to their deaths) that I can confirm I has been able to reliably replicate when I downloaded and played the saved game that was provided by a user investigating the issue at the time. From what I understand, this issue may only be specific to CMBN and seems to only have appeared after one of the recent patch/engine upgrades. I would have checked the status of the issue and would have posted on that thread there but I have not been able to find the thread curiously enough, hence this new thread.
So I have just started a mirrored CMBN H2H QB on a map that I know several other players have battled over, and I just had a most extraordinary occurence of this "evade towards enemy" behaviour (or whatever you want to call it). I had three infantry teams lined up along a stretch of hedgerow in a defensive deployment, evenly separated by about 15m. Behind them is a flat wooded orchard. In front of them is a road, beyond which the terrain gently rises, criss-crossed with some buildings and hedgerows.
On the second turn of making contact with the enemy directly in front of them, returning fire and taking some level of suppression, each team, at some point in the turn, decided to essentially break cover and run sideways along the hedgerow to the nearest infantry-sized gap in the hedgerows and run through the gap in to the open directly towards the enemy where they just get shot up. When the teams actually break from taking casualties, the surviving pixeltruppen (eg. those that remained in place cowering behind the hedgerow) rout away from the hedgerow/enemy through the orchard behind them.
Units lined up behind hedgerows engaging enemy start of turn:
"Rattled" pixeltruppen running suicide through hedgerow gap to meet their maker:
For the full video experience, you can watch it unfold here:
First and second teams suicide
I did wonder if I had inadvertently given move orders to my units during the previous orders phase (can happen if you just want to select one unit to issue a move order to but inadvertently double click it whereby also selecting all its subordinates and/or formation level units as well). However, I can rule that possibility out: other units in the formation were unaffected.
Still not satisfied, I checked the QB map in the Scenario Editor. All "Friendly Direction" parameters were correct for the battle. I then created a scenario file using the same map and parameters and purchased the same units on both sides. I then placed the exact same German teams from the same platoon from the same company etc that I had purchased in the QB in the same spots and attacked them with the same infantry (US paras). Incredibly (or maybe not so incredibly), the same thing happened! Suicide through the hedgerow gap.
Even better: I have created a scenario file (TEST GAP.btt) using the same QB map with all units in place. All you need to do is load the scenario file, play it as a turn-based Hotseat (or SP Germans) and just press Go for both sides, no need to give any orders. The units will start shooting and exchanging fire immediately. You should see this behaviour with your own eyes occur within the first minute of battle:
So what is Battlefront's official stance on what appears to be on this undesirable TacAI induced behaviour?
- "What issue?" (no response/acknowledgement)
- "Nothing to see here, working as designed"(if so please explain)
- "Yeah, can't fix it, too bad, sucks for you though"
- "Wow, looking in to it, hopefully find a fix, keep you posted"
FWIW, I have forfeited that H2H QB I am playing. I can't afford to have that kind of thing happen and take those kinds of cheap loses and just continue playing regardless, let alone think it won't happen again. I think for now I am regretfully going to just avoid playing any CMBN (or at least anything with that hedgerow terrain) until this issue is resolved.
-
18 hours ago, DougPhresh said:
The points aren't even calculated the same across titles!
!!! If this is correct then I need to qualify that all the QB Points/Ratio tables I have released were based on CMBN. TBH, I didn't bother checking the other CM titles I have (all the WW2 ones) as I did not think it would have been any different in those games. Looks like I guessed wrong. I might have more work to do if I am going to fully paint the picture. Will be interesting to see how Battlefront altered things across the various titles, given the QB points system they implemented in the first instance and then apparently modified across subsequent releases is just so oddly configured.
-
I was somewhat inspired by discussion in another thread about configuring QBs to suit the kind of battles players may want to setup using CM QBs to play out various battles and have updated/enhanced my previously released "Bull's CM QB RATIOS" table to Rev2. Download links follow:
Bull's CM QB RATIOS Rev2.xlsx (Excel file)
Bull's CM QB RATIOS Rev2.pdf (PDF file)
I have now just gone the final extra few yards and have tabulated every possible combination of QB battle that is possible from CM QBs (260 possibile combinations) in one consolidated , searchable and filterable table (last tab in Excel file, last pages on PDF).
I have added a new tab "ALL QB POINTS COMBOS" that features a consolidated table every QB combo, listing force points allocated to both sides, the total of those points, the resultant force ratios, and of course all the QB parameter setup information required to achieve the battle of choice (battle type, size, force modifer). Of course you need to be able to open the file in Excel (or equivalent) to filter and sort the table as you seem fit to find the battle setup you want. Column values are colour formatted from smallest possible (green) to largest possible (red).
eg. Preview of top of table sorted by force ratio (note: although only the five ME battles at the top of that list precisely give both players "even points" to spend ie. force ration of 1). However, you can see that there are other battle setups which differ in points allocation by only a few percentage (ie. ratios between 1 and 1.1 (or between 0% and 10% points differential) which players may agree to consider irrelevant in setting up an otherwise "balanced points ME", if that is what they want.
This table alone should provide everything you need to know about what is and what is not possible to achieve with the CM QB parameters, and how to achieve them.
-
On 4/16/2020 at 3:41 AM, RobZ said:
Why is there not a unlimited or custom points amount in quick battles? For a game like this such an option seems like basic requirement, but it doesn't exist.
I believe placing a limit on the number of QB points is a way of ensuring the game won't crash and be overloaded by the additional processing/RAM power required (CPU and GPU). However, I can not think of a sensible reason for why the game does not allow players the complete freedom to just manually determine the precise number of points each side should have in a QB.
Anyway, I was somewhat inspired by your telling of how you try to use the QB battles to configure battles to play out various battles in a user run H2H campaign, and have updated/enhanced my previously released "Bull's CM QB RATIOS" table (discussed in the thread QB Battle Force Points tables/charts) to Rev2.
I have now gone the final extra few yards and have now tabulated every possible combination of QB battle that is possible from CM QBs in one consolidated table, listing the QB force points allocated to both sides, the total of those points, the resultant force ratios, and of course all the QB parameter setup information required to achieve the battle of choice (battle type, size, force modifer). Of course you need to be able to open the file in Excel (or equivalent) to filter and sort the table as you seem fit to find the battle setup you want. Column values are colour formatted from smallest possible (green) to largest possible (red).
eg. Preview of top of table sorted by force ratio (note: although only the five ME battles at the top of that list precisely give both players "even points" to spend ie. force ration of 1). However, you can see that there are other battle setups which differ in points allocation by only a few percentage (ie. ratios between 1 and 1.1 (or between 0% and 10% points differential) which players may agree to consider irrelevant in setting up an otherwise "balanced points ME", if that is what they want.
This table alone should provide anyone everything they need to know about what is and what is not possible to achieve with the CM QB parameters, and how to achieve them.
-
To be clear, the links to the PDF and Excel files are not PDF and Excel versions of the screenshot (CM QB POINTS) you see in the above posts. The PDF/Excel file is a different (yet complementary) filterable/searchable table of CM QB RATIOS that lists every possible QB attacker/defender points combos available in CM. It is probably more useful than the CM QB POINTS chart in the screenshot. File links and screenshot preview below:
Bull's CM QB RATIOS.pdf (if you don't have Excel)
Example of how to use this table when setting up a QB:
1. If a QB map has been decided upon, determine from the size/frontage of the QB map the approximate value of QB purchase points suitable fro such a map. As a guide, a US Infantry Battalion '44 cost approx 3700 pts, German Panzergrenadier Battalion '44 cost approx 2600 pts. Estimations of what size force is realistic based on the map frontage can be found here: https://balagan.info/infantry-unit-frontages-during-ww2.
2. Once the suitable ballpark figure of appropriate QB points is determined, eg. 3500, find the closest value to that number in the possible DEFENDER QB POINTS columns. In this example it appears to be either 3399 (LAT=large attack) or 3620 (LPR=large probe).
3. Filter the BATTLE TYPE column on the right to show all the possible QB points combinations possible for the other player for that type of battle. In this example, LAT and LPR,
.png.18a7026ee802c92625ad24942c8b78b1.png)
4. A list of all the possibilities of attacker:defender force size combos will be shown, listing the corresponding force ratios (ratios are colour scale from green true 1:1 parity, through yellow to red the more "unbalanced" the forces are). Determine what kind of battle you want this QB to be (the QB map selected must complement this) and what the appropriate Player1:Player2 force ratio should be . Players may decide a +15% advantage in points to one player may be acceptable (for whatever reason). In the example, this would be a Large Attack with a -30% force modifier to the "attacker". Note, this could still be used to setup essentially a ME type QB (even though CM calls it a "Large Attack") using a force size not prioviously evidently possible based on simply selecting ME at the QB setup screen. Note that the columns you see in blue are the only available ME force sizes available for one player in CM. As ME battles typically imply "balanced forces" it is now apparent that there are more ways to achieve that using non-ME battle settings. Players should have much more flexibility in configuring their QB battles, whether they are meant to be MEs, probes, attacks or assualts. eg. it is now possible to see that by setting up a Large Attack with -40% mod to the attacker essentially gives both players identical points to spend (3359/3399) as you might want in a classic QB ME setup, but using a force size not available if you selected ME in the CM QB setup screen. The closest would be 2850 or 4500 points.
-
I can understand that navigating through and selecting the right QB settings can be a bit of a nightmare. I've had a bit of a look at all the options and found that it is easier to "find what you are looking for" by probably looking through a chart that lists all the possible player 1 and player 2 QB force points combinations and ratios.
Note: if you apply the attacker force modifer in the QB settings in CM, the resultant points you see is/might be slightly off what you would mathematically expect. The values I work with are mathematically calculated and hence can be off by +/-20 pts in some cases.
CM has a very odd way of letting players control the size of their QB battles. They arbitrarily get you to pick the battle type, then the battle size, which fixes the force size for one side (the designated "defender"). It then gives you fixed % force size adjustment modifiers to increase or decrease the points for the other side (the "attacker"). The use of the terms ME, probe, attack and assualt are pretty much meaningless and so arbitrary when all you really care about is the actual points for each side (and associated ratio).
Given the way CM determines things in QBs, it is porbably best to first start off determing the appropriate points (and hence force size) to give the defender for a given map, as these are limited in choice. Once that is determined, determine the appropriate attacker: defender points force ratio is appropriate for the map. Note that the ratio table does not feature "attacker:defender" ratios of less than 1, even though CM QBs literally can allow the "attacker" to have less points than the "defender". To fully utilise all force size posibilities in a QB, it is more important to get the side1:side2 force ratio correct (and overall points for each side) regardless of what the game considers the "attacker" and the "defender" and then do what you need to do to make sure the QB/QB map sets up the right players in the right deployment zones etc.
For example if you think that maybe a force size of around 3500 points for one side defending on a map is suitable, we can go to the chart of ratios and search for a "defender" force size close to 3500. There is 3399 (large attack) and 3620 (large probe). You can then filter the chart (if you have Excel) on the attackers side for LAT and LPR. A bunch of "attacker" force size ration posibilities are shown.
PS: Manually download the chart above as a JPG to better read the numbers as this thread does not show image at 100%.
-
Given the way many other wargames account for the destructive firepower potential of a satchel charge carried and used by WW2 pioneers/engineer units when engaging enemy infantry in CQC/house-to-house fighting, I am surprised that the apparent lack of similar effectiveness of CMx2 WW2 pioneers/engineers squads engaged in CQC has not been more widely discussed and questioned.
Can't say I am an expert on how pioneers/engineers actually did utilise satchel charges in CQC. I guess my perceptions have been shaped by what I have seen in quite groggy tactical WW2 games, starting with Squad Leader.
Has the combat capability/potential of pioneers/engineer squads with satchel charges used in CQC in CMx2 WW2 been under represented (under modelled) for some reason (would only imagine it to be some technical limitation) , or does BFC know something about the historical CQC fighting potential/use of pioneer/engineer squads that everyone else doesn't seem to know?
-
OK...have you see satchels thrown at infantry? What range? Will they throw them at infantry located in a) adjacent adjoining buildings and b) adjacent buildings (but not adjoining)?
If anyone knows of any Youtube videos posted showing satchels used against infantry this please provide link.
FWIW, many other wargames model pioneer/engineer (or satchel carrying infantry) units as deadly close quarter specialists, ideally suited to "house-to-house" fighting because of their satchel charges. I have yet to experience/witness these units in CMx2 WW2 being effective for the same reasons. If anything, if you don't want to mouse hole your way through a wall, hedge or building, I have found pioneer/engineer infantry in CMx2 WW2 to be glorified riflemen.
Cheers
Bull
-
Hello,
Had reason to find out if engineer/pioneer units in CMx2 (the WW2 series primarily) will under any circumstances (by their own doing or otherwise) use (ie. throw) satchel charges in close quarter combat against other infantry and a search of the forums found this 8+ year old unanswered post basically asking the same thing.
I've seen several posts mentioning satchels vs tanks but not too much satchels vs infantry.
So whats the deal?
While I am here, are German bundle grenades modelled in CMx2?
Cheers
Bull
-
**********SCENARIO SPOILERS INCLUDED BELOW IN AAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*******************
Hey Fuser,
I've returned to CM after a bit of a hiatus, and this scenario was the first SP scenario I've chosen to play. Just happens however that in my first PBEM back in another scenario, I thought I noticed in it what may have been the "evade towards enemy" bug that has been discussed. Turns out, after a forum post discussion and an interrogation of the scenario file parameters, I discovered that the Allied (and Axis) Friendly Direction scenario parameter was incorrectly set to be West and East rather than North and South which explained why I was noticing my US infantry tending to evade west (rather than north). I knew such a setting must have been defined somehow in scenario files but up until this investigation I had no idea how or where so it was all kind of new to me. The scenario designer apparently wasn't even aware the parameter existed.
Anyway, when I was at the setup of his scenario, with the US setup in the south attacking north, I just happened to notice one US platoon was curiously facing east. Now that I know (from experimentation) that the facing of units when placed on a map is determined by the respective Friendly Direction setting of the scenario, and given my recent experience of playing a scenario where the Friendly Direction setting was not correctly set, for good measure and a level of curiosity, I thought I should quit the scenario and just check with the Scenario Editor before starting that the Friendly Direction setting was as I would think it should be for this scenario, Allied south, German north.....just in case!
Well, lucky I did, because I couldn't believe it when I saw the Allied setting was in fact set to north and the Axis to south! I of course changed it, saved and played the game without issue, which I will talk about below. Before I do, I just have to say that unless it has been discussed elsewhere , I am absolutely surprised that I may be the first to have picked up on the fact that the Allied and Axis Friendly Direction settings were 180deg out of whack, and I had not even played one turn. I can only image how this reversed setting would have led to all sorts of odd/inexplicable evade/rout/retreat behaviour in all the games others have played. I am just curious to know if you were cognisant of this setting? Two random scenarios, two times this setting was not set correctly. Is this a setting many scenario designers are not even aware of?
TBH, I was already suspecting and have been trying to confirm just how many of the other reported instances of the "evade towards enemy" issue were actually probably more related to the Allied and Axis Friendly Direction parameter of the .btt file being played. This discovery just deepens my suspicions.
Anyway, back to your scenario and my AAR. I don't know if it was bad luck on my behalf or just good predictive design on your behalf (probably the latter) but it seemed like my units were drawn like magnets to your hidden mines! Especially on the right flank along the train line and on the outer forward edges of those two wooded rises, I think those mines "saved the day" for the Germans. Even though I had discovered and taken out the ambushing Panther lurking in the wooded rise with an easy flanking shot from tanks nosing forward from the wooded train line, and had detected (and decided to completely avoid) the PAK gun and Stug on the far left German flank, and had discovered that 75mm PAK on the rear edge of the wooded rise overlooking the approaches to the town which I knew had to be taken out, I thought the the single infantry platoon that had taken only light casualties up to that point that I had sent that way supported by 2 tanks and HT was plenty enough to neutralise the two wooded rises as the rest of he force pushed in to the town.
When I discovered this PAK gun, i dashed a jeep loaded with infantry up to the forward crest of the wooded rise tasked to advance on to neutralise the PAK gun, only to discover they were taking some fire from enemy infantry firing from the adjacent wood rise where the Panther had been hiding. I didn't realise at the time, but my end waypoint for the jeep happened to be exactly over the top of a minefield, immobilising the jeep, and killing/shaking a bunch of the passengers, something I thought was being caused by the infantry fire coming from the adjacent rise. Even though I knew I could have ignored them the infantry in that wooded rise (and probably should of) I thought maybe I needed the kill points so I sent an tank up to the jeep for support to fire on the infantry while sending an infantry team up from the train line to the woods in the hope of easy kills on enemy infantry suppressed by the tank. My infantry get to the woods line and discover mines taking casualties. They also lost the subsequent shoot out with what i thought was enemy infantry suppressed by my tanks area fire. The jeep passenger/crew survivors made their way through the woods to the PAK gun which now was now under constant area fire from a MMG located at range just centre right of town. Despite being pinned down by MMG fire and under close range rifle/carbine fire and several bazooka rounds, this PAK (and friends) just would not break. I decided to use my last full squad, mounted in the HT to once and for all neutralise this last nuisance PAK gun. As I sent the HT through the treeline at the train lines, it hits a mine and aborted its move. The infantry disembark and suffer 25% casualties in the ensuing debacle. I had to waste a few more turns waiting for my HT and infinity squad to recover before i remounted the inf in the HT and try another passage through the woods. Again they hit mines, this time immobilising the HT, disembark and suffer the consonances. My once full strength squad is now down to about 65% strength and again shaken. More wasted time, when they recover I route them on foot through another path and this time they make it. As I still hadn't noticed the mines that took out the jeep/infantry originally, I gave this reinforcing infantry squad a move waypoint near the jeep and once again fall victim to their third minefield. I think all game there were about 6 separate minefield incidents.
At this stage it was getting late for me and I was losing patience, and rather than take a break, save and return to it, I went looking for a quick and easy way to just finish up and win the game but it didn't happen. I ended up taking more risks and paid the price falling in to some excellent ambushes. Here is what happens when you get impatient and a little to sure:
)
It looks like you really spent some time setting up the defence. You really did a great job with this. Totally recommend this scenario (remember to update Friendly Direction settings and re-release!)
Do you have any others?
Bull
-
PS: I've gone looking for the threads I read months ago (and indirectly referenced in this thread) about the "evade towards enemy through gaps in hedgerow" issue. I remember seeing a video of some German infantry breaking cover and evade directly across open ground towards the enemy fire and another of US infantry lined up along hedgerow with a gap in it. If you know what I am talking about, please provide me the links as I can't seem to find them.
.png.18a7026ee802c92625ad24942c8b78b1.png)
CM Final Blitzkrieg v2.03 patch has been released
in Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
Posted
OK thanks, just as i was for CMBO!