JoePrivate
-
Posts
313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by JoePrivate
-
-
Running tally:
1) 3
2) 2
3) 21
4) 9
5) 6
-
1) 1
2) 0
3) 8
4) 3
5) 3
[This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 02-06-2001).]
-
No, I haven't seen anything like you say but you never gave any specifics either. For example did the Stuh42 have any movement orders while area targeting? Do you have any friendly troops nearby the area target?
Sure I will take a look at the files, the ones before and after if you have them, email is in the profile.
-
No, I haven't seen anything like you say but you never gave any specifics either. For example did the Stuh42 have any movement orders while area targeting? Do you have any friendly troops nearby the area target?
Sure I will take a look at the files, the ones before and after if you have them, email is in the profile.
-
-
Originally posted by Leonidas:
OGSF,
IIRC, a change in the latest patch was that any AFV that saw armor would stay in 'armor only' mode for the next three minutes or so, and refuse to engage infantry. This was part of how they fixed the earlier problem of tanks obsessing over fleeing crews and getting their turrets out of position for the next enemy AFV.
I think you are confusing things here, there was a tweak in 1.05 where an AFV's turret would stay pointed in the direction of the last known anti-armour threat, the turret would rotate forward again after 2-3 minutes or when the AFV started moving. I can't recall any thread which said an AFV would remain in "'armor only' mode for the next three minutes or so, and refuse to engage infantry" or seen that behaviour in play. If you have the url please post it.
Regards the original question about the PSW, this is from the 1.1 readme:
* Vehicles, especially those with only a few crewmen, have greater difficulty spotting enemies when moving. The difficulty is proportional to speed and ruggedness of terrain.
On top of that, it has been said before(1.01 Readme) that buttoned AFVs have an additional delay before targetting so what happened to the PSW isn't so suprising.
-
Originally posted by von Lucke:
This has been brought up before (by myself, among others). The "Hunt" command has been tweaked since 1.05 --- load it up and try it yerself. Used to be AFV's on the hunt did stop when encountering Infantry targets --- I used this function all the time.
Now, in 1.11, the "Hunt" command only seems to work AFV vs. AFV --- and as ODB... er, NOFX... er, OGSF pointed out, it tends to be fatal.
Well I loaded it up as you suggested von Lucke, 1.03 and 1.05, as I am getting old and my memory may not be as razor sharp as it once was. AFVs will not stop to engage infantry targets while 'Hunting'. AFAIK that has been the same since the Beta, I'm not sure what led you to say otherwise. I was mistaken about the AT teams, in 3 runs an AFV would continue hunting even after identifying it as such.
[This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 02-05-2001).]
-
Interesting observations guys except AFVs using 'Hunt' have never stopped to engage infantry, AT teams excluded IIRC. If an AFV blunders into enemy infantry at very close range, the TacAI will take over and reverse the AFV safely away ...usually.
-
I just started reading "Steel Inferno" by Michael Reynolds, fine book BTW, in the organization chapter he lists the following artillery equipment for the 1st SS Pz(LAH) and 12th SS Pz(HJ) at the start of their engagement in Normandy.
LAH(Jul1)
23 x 105mm
17 x 150mm
4 x 100mm
18 x 150mm Nebelwerfers
HJ(Jun1)
21 x 105mm
10 x 150mm
24 x 150mm Nebelwerfers
In addition each PzGr Regiment had 6 x 150mm IGs, so 12 per division. For mortars he says each division had about 60 medium and heavy tubes. Reference: LAH Gliederung dated 1 Jul 44, HJ Gliederung dated 1 Jun 44.
A pretty impressive array on paper, though these were 'elite' formations, but as others have said the real limitation is the ammo for the pieces.
By comparison a British or Canadian Infantry Division would have 72 25pndrs. There is an interesting chapter and appendix on shell consumption in "Guns of Normandy".
Rounds fired per gun per day by 4thField(24 guns)
July 19 - 518
July 20 - 505
July 21 - 384
July 22 - 230
July 23 - 30
July 24 - 80
July 25 - 390
Total rounds per gun for the period 2137, average 305. All targets in that period were Mike or higher. Incidently the War Office had projected 62 rounds per gun as sufficient to meet the demands of the Normandy operation. The author also relates how captured Germans wanted to see the new 'wonder-weapon', the automatic loading artillery guns, having never experienced such intense barrages before.
-
Originally posted by Pale:
First of all, I'm playing the demo and in the valley scenario there is a trp, I was wondering does that also help the AT guns accuracy, and if it doesn't why not?
Secondly why can't I set waypoints for multiple units at once? like say a whole platoon, It gets tiresome plotting out the moves for an entire company.
As mentioned before I only have the demo so I can't look it up in the manual. On a side note to BTS, next time I order a game can I give ya a little extra cash so you can ship it federal express or something, I've been waiting for 3 weeks, or maybe include a few more missions in your next demo! Thank you in advance.
TRPs do give an added hit bonus to AT accuracy as well they can be targetted by on-board mortars, even when out of LOS, if they haven't moved from their setup positions.
The 'Group Move' feature was added near the end of the game's development due to player requests. In the full version you will still not be able use waypoints with it, perhaps it is something BTS is looking into for CM2.
Depending where you are 3 weeks isn't abnormal. If you think there's a problem then your best bet is to contact BTS.
-
Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:
What, you think the average WW II infantryman *wanted* to get <50 yards from an enemy tank? - LOL.
The voice of reason! Many CM commanders will gladly and repeatedly order their cyber-troops to within that range. There was even a thread awhile ago where a command was requested which in effect would allow troops to pursue an AFV so it wouldn't get away, lol.
-
Louie the Toad wrote:
One of the easiest ways to do this would be to expand the map size so that units could move while remaining out of sight. This would allow those who favor the indirect approach to use it without being hemmed in by the map edge. Those who favored the direct approach: Charge!
But who's to say while you are conducting your indirect approach you don't run into something bigger and badder than what you were trying to avoid? You are assuming the force in front of you is the only one that exists. For more information try a search on 'edge hugging', BTS has commented in depth on this issue several times. BTS has also said they are aware of the larger, more open engagements in Russia in some instances. Let's just wait and see how they handle it.
-
The URL should be http://www.geocities.com/fpd131/
Excellent analysis and presentation. I'm curious about the intel you said a realworld recon would be able to get for the attacker. Wouldn't the defenders also have patrols out to deny that level of information gathering?
-
Originally posted by Hiram Sedai:
Pushbroon is Joking
scuse me while I state the obvious once more.
Lol, it appears even forum 'veterans' are susceptible to *initiation* ploys, especially from misunderstood Poolers.
[This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 02-02-2001).]
-
GriffinCheng+ wrote:
Are we playing our moves with victory locations (VL) as focual point?
Yes they are interesting discussions, especially Henri's comments on 'flag-oriented scenarios' in CM, though they are out of my depth. I have a simple suggestion that may subtly, or fundamentally, change the way you play CM. Turn off the Victory Flags, right from the start eliminate them as factor by not even looking at them. You will look at the battle, your forces and their maneuver in an entirely different light. The goal in a ME engagement is always the destruction of your enemy but how you go about doing that is completely up to you. Why feel 'constrained' at all? You can *win* without ever *capturing* a flag. Just my .02...
-
Others have posted this before but Tanks for the Memories has got some good stuff.
-
Pacestick wrote:
When I sent a bug report to CrazyMathew about smoke use , he responded by saying that there would be no more tweaking of CM1.
Is that for real? I agree the smoke issue is a minor niggle but BTS has already said there is a data error with the 76 HVAP and the Jumbo armour. I can't see those just being put aside without correction.
-
You might find Steve's post in the middle of this page interesting as he comments on your concerns.
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/015600-4.html
-
I agree Fernando, in CM pillboxes do seem to get knocked out fairly easily from the front, however I have no comparisons to say one way or the other if that is realistic. Someone earlier said pillboxes were just improved common firing positions with overhead cover, the detail screen shows the armour of a pillbox as 500mm, reinforced concrete I presume, that seems like pretty sturdy construction. One method I have of circumventing the gaping firing slit is to place the pillbox, where possible, in HD positions and rotate it so the firing slit is at an oblique angle to likely enemy fire. Their survivability goes up significantly after that.
-
I think, Pillar, it appears to be a misunderstood subject because you seem to be saying contradictory things, to me anyway. Your clarifications regarding supporting your recon with your main body seem to confirm what ScoutPl and others have said before, ie you are simply conducting an attack. Your distinctions may very well be 'doing' the same things after all.
1. Your main body can't be everywhere at the same time to support your broad-front recon platoons. You *must* have selected initial avenues of approach to begin with and pre-committed to them.
2. You say you will break through in whatever sector your recon discovers to be weak, however there is very little room for the attacker to adjust his attack laterally in a typical CM game. There is usually not enough time, the terrain does not always favor such movements and the defender will probably have a better sighting picture and will 'see' your move in advance.
3. You mention mobilty as a method for the defender to counter the attacker, yet a properly thought out attack will negate that. The attacker has the advantage of planning where he will attack and when, he has enough assets to isolate a portion of the map with direct and indirect fire, stopping any significant mobility on the defenders part. You mention also the tactic of conducting a pre-emptive or spoiling attack by the defender, unless the attacker is sloppy in security then this is a large gamble for little payoff, IMO.
4. No where do I recall you mentioning deception, from my experience it is the *key* element for both sides as good tactics are a given between two experienced players which leads me to...
Jason wrote:That it comes down to a head game with the defender. Like paper-scissors, in a certain sense.
I agree 100% that is the case between two equally skilled opponents. Against a weak opponent just about anything can work. My thoughts for the evening....
-
Really an excellent series of introductory articles by Gremlin. A newcomer would get up to speed fast reading them, I just hope the old-timers don't give all the 'tricks' away.
I also like the new look of your site, great job. -
CavScout:
Anti-American I see...
No, a non-American perspective...
-
Jeff Heidman wrote:
Despite the rather vocal and well earned praise that CM has gotten, it is not sold and marketed in a vacuum. Its own success will ensure that other companies try to beat it at its own game. The idea of a highly realistic WW2 tactical wargame is not exactly ground breaking, and others are going to try to match and exceed what BTS has accomplished. It is likely that they will try to do so with a lot more than 4 people.
It is the height of hubris to think that just because you have succeeded the first time, you are assured of continued dominance. That is a short path to irrelevancy in *any* market. I do not think BTS is stupid, and I do not think that they are going to forget that.
Interesting but I wonder about that. Matrix Games is working on a title called 'Combat Leader'. Early on a few wondered why it wouldn't be 3D like CM, one of the spokespersons there said they couldn't justify the development(cost) of a 3D engine for a niche market, going on to say once gamers were committed to the game then perhaps.
Look at the RTS genre, a few like Battlezone, Uprising, Ground Control, Dark Reign2 went 3D but still couldn't touch the likes of AOE II or StarCraft in sales, both 2D and both with a loyal following.
No doubt BTS is aware of the dangers of 'standing still' but doing it right the first time and being recognized as such by a large audience will ensure future success, IMO. It's a combination that will be hard to beat unless BTS drops the ball, something I think future developers would be conscious of as well.
-
So what you're saying is that the the PzIV/70 in CM is what the database calls the JadgPanzer IV/70(V)?
Yes. I'm pretty sure the commonly used designation for that vehicle is PzIV/70.
Here's a link for some history of it's development:
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz10.htm#jagd4
Though it calls that vehicle a JgPzIV/70 also!
[This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 01-25-2001).]
Unit Levels, are they worth the price?
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
The name of the game with infantry in CM is volume of fire. Sure in a straight up fight an Elite platoon will walk over a platoon of Regulars, but how often are the engagements fair? You want to bring as much firepower to bear and from as many different angles as possible. The angles because they drastically reduce morale of the target, causing it to break quicker. More is almost always better.
A higher experienced squad does have a higher firepower rating, can be verified by playing the game and checking the target FP rating. Higher experienced FOs also have a reduced delay when adjusting a barrage.