Tero
-
Posts
2,033 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tero
-
-
Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:
As it is right now, the game engine doesn't allow you to shoot through smoke, which is my point.
It's abstracted to make it difficult for the enemy to get a clear shot on you.
As things stand you can not fire beyond LOS no matter what.
Also, if infantry smoke wasn't used for concealment, then arty smoke differs in what way?
Arty deployed smoke has more volume, is less accurate and can not be used as effectively against point targets and is more prone to athmospherics.
-
Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
They were mostly used for battlefield signalling; as Moon indicates, they don't give cover, and at worst they simply advertise your position.
Well, that would be true only as far as the US and CW troops are concerned. :mad:
Just to remind you, in CMBB there is no smoke for the Finns because the Finnish arty was not tasked to deliver smoke, it was the task of the infantry.
-
Boobytrapped (AT-)mines (as well as actual booby traps) making the clearing of the minefield more interesting ?
-
Only for the initial module, which will be <font color="dark red">Finland 1939.</font> </font>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei:
Yes, having realistically portrayed T-38's will be central for CMx2.
-
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Units outside of C&C are still within your control. They just won't benefit from being "in the loop", something which CMx1 couldn't simulate nearly as well.
OK
Because that violates ever sensible principle surrounding unit cohesion?
What is unit cohesion ? As per basic training each man has a primary and a secondary function (even a tertiary one). The men are trained to follow procedure the guestion is how much of the training manual procedures survived in the combat zone.
Er... I am unaware of that happening on any scale worth mentioning. It goes against all WWII military doctrine that I know of. No doubt some units did it, but I doubt it was on the fly.
Regular units one particular army at least used this expedient when conducting ad hoc counter attacks (then again in other instances they would use a more general ON ME command to take control of any unit within their reach to keep the momentum of the attack when reorganization would have stalled the attack). Another example is rolling up trenches and other positions. Men bearing automatics pair up with guys whose task was to throw the grenade and when it goes off the automatics guy sweeps the section.
Another example (admittedly a hyperbole) would be when Pzfausts were first introduced a guy (any guy) who knew German would read instructions while the guy (any guy) using the weapon would conduct his first live fire shoot against a live target.
All this relates also to the entire tactical and doctrinal aspect of said army. The premise was that at the end of the battle the (defensive) positions must remain in friendly hands so if a unit was beaten back it was obliged to take the positions back by any means necessary. And that meant that the most effective weapons (automatics) would be gathered in the shock unit which would spearhead the counterattack.
What I have read about are exceptional circumstances where the weapons would be switched around.
That would defeat your premise of experts within the unit.
That means 2nd Squad would still be 2nd Squad, but armed with lots more firepower than it ordinarily would.
Yes. But would the 2nd squad comprise of the same men it would comprise in the parade ground ?
I know the Finns did this quite a bit with some small units (Sissi?). IIRC we modeled it this way because it was pretty much defacto the way those units fought.
The practise was not limited to sissi units.
Besides, sissi units were mostly automatics anyway.
You don't because you aren't allowed to micromanage your units. Yes, a sharpshooter/sniper should have a higher chance of hitting a leader.
IMO it should be their SOP to try and single out leaders.
-
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
No, that is a pretty huge thing and we can't touch that with a 10 foot pole right now. Too many other more basic things to do.
I take it the SOP related orders are "sticky" so the out-of-CC units will not become total zombies.
But to switch weapons completely you need to switch your ammo pouches. I have enough combat gear, modern and WWII era, to know that this is not an easy process. Certainly not in a minute as you suggest. Whenever I read about switching around weapons it is CLEARLY done ahead of something deliberate, like a recon patrol or an assault on a known enemy position. It isn't done on a whim.
Why would there be a need to switch the weapons and gear around ? Why not move them men already donning the gear around ? You can simply call "(men with) automatics on me, all others on section leader" or "AT team up, everybody else cover".
1:1 Representation... you figure out what his chances are
Can you order sharpshooters/snipers or even entire squads to single out leaders ? And how do you protect your leaders in such a case ?
-
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
In other words, you lose the squad leader's bonuses.
How do platoon leader bonuses work in the new game engine ?
Also, now the split off team is likely to be easily left out of C&C.
Will there be mission based orders (like recon that wood yonder, defend this bridge or take out that bunker) ? These would make out-of-CC split units act according to a plan.
No, you can not change the composition of your squads on the fly. I doubt this happened much in real life since you'd have to also spend time swapping around ammo and equipment.
I would imagine you would swap men more than equipment (specialists) and IMO ammo redistribution was done on a regular basis so that would not be a problem.
Not something you can do quickly and CMx2's scenario timeframe is still set for roughly the same as CMx1.
A conditional team split does not take more than a minute, tops. Given the fact the unit commander already knows who are his specialists and how he wants to split his units to perform the task at hand.
All units have Leaders. Bonuses are now Leader Based.
What is the propability the leader is lost and how will that affect the unit ?
-
A couple of random guestions:
Will the player be to alter the squad/team make up during game play (say order all automatics to one squad or form an AT team) ?
Will the command etc bonuses (or penalties) be individual unit specific or will the command squad still determine them for the subunits ?
-
This is not exactly vulgar but I am not sure how will this be modelled in the new game engine.
-
Hell, if limited scope means PBEM is in I'm OK with it.
Besides, all-infantry games will become practicable and less tedious when limited scale is coupled with the new game engine. Me thinks.
-
Originally posted by Sergei:
Not really. I think what he asks for is a sorta perfected 'redo' of the original series but using the wealth of hindsight that you have gained during these years. So, better graphics, better AI, no borg spotting, multimultiplayer etc. but still being able to model battles of the same scale.
Think of it this way: if Michael Jackson decided to move on from pop and start singing country music, some of her fans would surely follow. But some of the fans would not be so enthusiastic about the change, because for them, pop music is the thing, not Michael Jackson himself, and even if they'd like Jacko's new music, they'd be missing new pop songs from him. Even if, from Jacko's perspective, it was logical that he had to move on to the next level.
Hear, hear.
There has been so many, TOO many, FPS games lately which focus on the heroic US servicemen in various Western European WWII settings. And it is getting old and wearing thin even if you throw in the occasional Hero of the Soviet Union and the occasional British commando.
The thing is the first game was superb and really good. After umptheenth redo with yet a new twist (but still a rehash of the original idea) who bothers to buy it at full retail price when you can get it cheap in a couple of months ? If you are interested that is.
With the new engine BFC will no doubt exceed all our expectations. But these expectations are based on the entire family of CM games. With them the clientel has been used to do combat in various settings and if the new engine is heralded with the rehash of CMBO then the expectations will not be met in full.
And ceterum censeo PBEM nix delendam esse !
-
And the highlighter letters spell: NARVIK.Originally posted by REVS:More evidence, from the little Polygons thread...
"Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Dan just made a wheeled vehicle that has more polies in one wheel than was in a CMBO tank
....
Steve "
Oh yeah, so they compared Dan's work on a CMX2 tank with the exact same tank in CMBO did they? Why make that comparison?
The evidence mounts. Crossword puzzles with the answers being "juno, sword etc" appear in the Times, making the organisers jittery. The evidence mounts, pointing towards an invasion on the French coast, methinks.
-
That's not true, Jon. My understanding is that many young Finns are sold on street-corners every day.Originally posted by fytinghellfish:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Seanachai:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:
pfft - midgets vs. pygmies would be sexier and more saleable than Finns.
</font>
-
Originally posted by Seanachai:
That's not true, Jon. My understanding is that many young Finns are sold on street-corners every day.
Mind you, it's a specialty market.
According to my sources, it's mainly older English and German men with erectile dysfunction, who primarily want 'someone to talk to', and who are willing to actually pay money to listen for hours to stories about who's Grandfather killed how many Russians with what minimal equipment.
You would not believe the number of reclamations, returns and law suits because the customers do not know they have to listen to the yarns in Finnish sitting butt naked in a 100-120°C sauna while whipping themselves with birch branches and consuming a minimum of 1 liter of vodka or other booze.
Here is footage of how it is supposed to be done.
http://www.plugi.fi/paasivu/perkele11.avi
It's all rather sad and demeaning, actually. Europe is still so badly scarred by that war...
The war has nothing to do with it, actually. It is just that the central Europeans have forgotten how not to be politically correct.
-
Originally posted by JonS:
pfft - midgets vs. pygmies would be sexier and more saleable than Finns.
It is rather curious how many more Finns turn up than midgets or pygmies in these kind of products.
-
Hürtgenwald.
Heroic US vs evil Nazis. Outcome almost a tie. Terrain challenging.
Almost like Winter War (the Finland 1939 option), only with sexier and sellable opponents.
-
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Definately micromangement
With 1:1 Soldiers fire individually. They can engage multiple targets, though they will tend to concentrate on one target in particular. This is SOP.
It is not as much SOP, as it is human nature.
IRL firing sectors for the individuals were/are assigned to prevent overkill. Do you plan on implementing user defineable firing arcs for individuals within the team/half squad ?
-
Lets say Kennedy won the presidential election and USA opts to get involved really early on and help Germany instead of the British, the French and the Soviets......Originally posted by anteportas:Well, if they can kill French they might be interested, but I am afraid you are right.
-
Originally posted by MikeyD:
Maybe BFC could get a bit extra revenue selling ad space on their virtual billboards. CMx2 - brought to you by Dove Chocolates!
Well, we may end up getting all sorts of weirdly named vehicles and other ordnance (as well as those blasted WG troops and no swasticas) because the companies still hold on to the trademarks and will prosecute if they do not get their cut of the profits if the names are used....
-
Especially for heavy ordnance there are currently precious few misfires (due to faulty firing pin and other causes). And there are absolutely no stabilizer malfunctions.
Different failure rates for the same equipment using different parts and/or procedures (re: Maxim's using canvas belts vs Maxim's using non-disintegrating metal belts).
User selectable ad-hoc command and control switching of out-of control units from one HQ to another HQ.
FO's should be HQ units onto themselves and should not incur undue penalties because they happaen to be in the influence radius of a higher HQ unit. They should also be able to act as command units on the spot when situations demand it.
-
Why does the 1:1 representation have to include individual men ? Why not make the cut for, say, half squads. There will not be graphical 1:1 representation for each and every men so why not limit the data displayed and processed to the next manageable sub-unit ? AFAIK such things as morale resolution could be made as a subprocess for the half squad. This way the representation would be an average of 5 men.
There will no doubt be individual vehicles in the game and the unit morale is calculated from the crew. Is that so incompatible with a half squad when it comes to 1:1 representation of the more intangible qualities ?
-
Why does the 1:1 representation have to include individual men ? Why not make the cut for, say, half squads. There will not be graphical 1:1 representation for each and every men so why not limit the data displayed and processed to the next manageable sub-unit ? AFAIK such things as morale resolution could be made as a subprocess for the half squad. This way the representation would be an average of 5 men.
There will no doubt be individual vehicles in the game and the unit morale is calculated from the crew. Is that so incompatible with a half squad when it comes to 1:1 representation of the more intangible qualities ?
-
What about individual vehicle stats and data ?
IRL crews would report all sorts of things which may or may not influence the way you give them tasks and missions.
-
What about individual vehicle stats and data ?
IRL crews would report all sorts of things which may or may not influence the way you give them tasks and missions.
LOS, LOF, units, and you!
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Will a unit be able to take multiple LOF checks for different ordnance (and possibly different deployment like different elevation of the gun) ?
If for example AP shot against a HT heading behind a cover will not be possible but a direct fire or even a high arc, high kill propability, HE shot is possible ?
Also, will LOS impediments be cathegorized ?
"Soft" LOS impediment like hey, brushes or small trees will not interfere with the LOF check the same way a stone building will.