Holman
-
Posts
2,212 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Holman
-
-
Yes, and I understand that, but my post still stands...You have the opportunity to get your Ammo & other equipment at beginning of game or the turn that Reinforcments arrive.
How would doing it "on the turn the reinforcements arrive" actually work? And why limit it to that particular minute? My guys left their bazooka back in the truck, but now they see a line of halftracks snaking down the road. They should be able to send somebody back for the tube right now.
The current acquisition of ammo/etc from a physical location, clumsy as it is, is the most realistic system at this scale.
-
IMHO, I think the 'Acquire' feature should only be used at beginning of game ( setup ), or when 'Reinforcments' arrive, and not during mid-game as stated above...Great for multi-Scenario's in a Campaign.
But it isn't just ammo that gets topped off with Acquire. It allows you to order a unit to (e.g.) get a bazooka and a specific number of rockets for it.
This is especially important in the modern-warfare context (CMSF or the upcoming Black Sea) where a carrier might have three or four different kinds of individually tracked weapons in its inventory.
-
I think one rule universally accepted is that defenders may not pre-plot artillery on or near the attacker's set-up area.
(Attackers are usually densely packed and unprotected there, but in real life there would be no map edge to suggest to the defender where they are.)
-
I may be wrong, but I think the games counts any living, unbroken/unpanicked soldier the same for purposes of "being there." Abandoned vehicles don't count.
-
I think this points up one of the most basic design principles of CM: the player's role is that of "command" abstracted across all levels, but the player never directly controls any individual soldier.
Seen this way, many of the "Why can't I do this?" questions drop away (or at least make more sense as-is).
-
Thanks, Paper Tiger. Please keep making them!
-
I'd like an in-game OOB tree with units selectable from it.
-
Exactly Mr Wodin. All my time is devoted to that masterpiece. I finished Russian vehicles for CMRt so,...I deeply recommend EZ´s German mods for vehicles.
Aris/Fuser,
Thank you very much for all of your hard work to make the game look better! We really appreciate it.
Now, I don't think I'm seeing EZ's vehicle mods anywhere. Am I missing something obvious? Does he post them under a different name?
(One thing to note: nearly all of Aris' German vehicle mods for CMBN/FI work in CMRT without alteration.)
-
Perhaps I'm too accommodating, but when I encounter a problem like soldiers failing to spot and and fire on the enemy instantaneously, I chalk it up to fog of war and battlefield friction. If it happened all the time, I would hate it, but I encounter it rarely enough that I can simply build it into my game narrative.
Yes, it's a game engine limitation born of hardware limitations, but I'm not sure that it doesn't actually add a measure of unpredictable realism to the game.
-
I've been on this board forever, but I missed the details of that drama. I'm glad I did.
FWIW, he posts regularly on the wargames forums at BoardGameGeek, where he is knowledgeable and opinionated but also (so far as I have ever seen) sane and civil.
-
Thank you! These lend a lot of atmosphere.
-
-
Because door planks are thick and sturdy, door nails are large, and have to be belted repeatedly with a heavy hammer to make them go in. You'd be dead too if you were hit on the head a dozen times with a 16oz steel hammer.
I think the main thing is that "deader than a doornail," like most stock phrases and cliches, trips pleasingly off the tongue. We like language like that.
-
I can't remember exactly where I heard about CMBO, but I knew of it as early as possible--I was lurking on these forums even before the demo was released.
I seem to recall hearing about it on SimHQ.com (which at the time was "Crimson's SimHQ").
-
Can't wait for this, i need all those great extras I see in RT.
Any news on how air support will work, will it change in line with RT? I hope it does as it seems easier and more realistic than the spotter method.
BTS hasn't announced anything, I believe.
One issue is that the allies were getting pretty good at communication between ground units and air support, something the Russians and Germans never did as well.
I think the most realistic solution would be to allow allied (only) spotters to call air support (keeping the status quo possibility of misidentified targets) but to limit them to one mission at a time. Air support takes longer than artillery, and the spotter would be realistically occupied with communicating and bringing in the strike.
-
I don't know anything about this mission, but "friendly bonus" is simply a scenario designer's way of making the scoring harder or easier for one side.
Sometimes the opposing sides have dissimilar objectives. They might have a zone to take or hold that you can't even see when playing from your side. (Think of how gamey it would be if you could see the opponent's precise objectives every time.)
Usually a good scenario designer provides clues (and sometimes misinformation) in the briefing to guide (or frustrate) your planning.
-
Right. Bazookas and other rockets can be fired from inside buildings now. In fact, if you expect tanks in the street, it's best to split off your AT men and place them in a different space/floor from the rest.
-
Big hurry, short answers:
--CM has always been about the TacAI having control the player doesn't have. It's possible to micromanage things up to a certain level, but there's always a point at which the player is not the soldier (or the tank commander); the TacAI is. Sometimes it's frustrating, but usually in ways that seem realistic.
--I don't feel that I often encounter the problem of a bush or a tree hiding a tank. If the tank can't be seen to be targeted, it's usually because the obstruction would block the shell and make the shot not really worth taking. Again, I can usually trust the TacAI to take a shot when the shot is good.
--Re: why targeting lines can't originate from waypoints when checking from the waypoint. The explanation offered earlier is that it would require more programming time than it is worth. Maybe someday we'll have it. In practice, the status quo implementation becomes no problem at all after you've gotten used to it.
--The final LOS display change you ask for would require radical engine changes to (IMHO) little real effect. I've played the game long enough to know intuitively what can be seen (in general) from a unit's position. The LOS tool just lets me spot check certain details or borderline cases.
--You can always give a 360 target arc. Hold SHIFT while giving the order. This is on page 50 of the manual.
-
I'll take your word for it if you're sure.
-
No more so than any radio-equipped unit would, AIUI.
Right. Perhaps not all players know that HQ's without a radio can make use of a vehicle radio when it is nearby. This is true for jeeps and other troop-carrying vehicles, at least--I don't think an infantry HQ can use a tank's radio, for instance.
The communications net is one of the hardest things to learn in CM. It can be worthwhile to drop an infantry battalion in a "sandbox" scenario and see what's involved in making sure the various HQ's can actually communicate with the top, with the mortars, etc.
It's easy with the Americans since they have radios all over the place. Germans require more careful consideration, and Russians most of all.
-
Their radio isn't for communicating with companies and platoons on the ground. It's for communicating with off-map headquarters, so it has no relevance in the conduct of a CM battle. These vehicles exist in the game for the sake of OOB accuracy and flavor.
-
I'm under the impression that the AI surrenders when all of its surviving units are panicked, broken, or routed. There may be other conditions, but this is something I notice when scanning through enemy units in the endgame review.
I know the AI will sometimes surrender even if it still controls objectives. This is possible because low-morale units can panic just from knowing that other friendly units are dead.
-
I try to role-play what a real commander might do. While crews and support teams might be pulled in to form a desperate Alamo defense, I never send them forward to do a rifleman's job.
-
And just to clarify, I assume the red-base guy isn't actually moving and fighting, right? He's just dead in a standing pose?
I've never seen standing, but I've seen dead guys at 45 degree angles a few times.
Game suggestion - 'Acquire' from other units
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
I'll have to disagree. The armored target is over there; the bazooka is back in the jeep. What would WW2 soldiers do?
I'll take realism over simplicity every time, and I imagine that BTS can streamline the game interface at no cost to the former.