Holien
-
Posts
3,525 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by Holien
-
-
An interesting post from Abbot about his Nephew. You often find that youngsters will find the most effective way to make things work in a game to their advantage. they don't have the clutter that an adult carries with them.
IRL defenders choose where they defend and can get good lanes of fire for MMG's etc... The modelling of MMG's in CM seems off kilter as I have situations where half squads have run accross open ground and been fired at by a HMG crew and survied intact.
IRL I think the situation would be somewhat different. This would stop dead a mass infantry charge and the morale of the soldiers would not allow for such tatics as the men would see that it was futile against stationary defenders.
I wish I could remember where I read a report that in a 10 man section the real fighting strength would be as follows. (I apologise if this is not exactly correct and if anyone knows the exact quote I would love to see it again).
The Jist of the article stated that 1 man would be a nutter doing crazy stuff like actively trying to kill the enemy. 4 would support him and the other 5 would be hanging back and trying to stay out of trouble.
I think IRL the men in the units would behave above and would not act as brave as they do in any game. If you have ever played Paint Ball you can see this effect when playing with people of varying skill levels (and commitment).
I know that the army would have a bit more training than the weekend warriors but in WW2 I have the perception that most troops were of a regular nature than the specialist nutters (Vets Paras etc...).
The Army did not have the time to train everyone (Indeed you need special type of people to be trained to be "nutters". No disrespect to these people as without them we would not have the Para's and Gurkha's) to the level to perform such feats as used by some players.
Also the point noted re command friction is very important. The only insight I have is from paint ball and if you have ever tried to co-ordinate people in an attack (even just among mates) it is a major headache. Introduce into that more people and personalities you are lucky to get an attack together.
I know the British army today is a professional force but in WW2 you had effecively a conscript force with minimal training and not always the level of commitment required. Even the officers were not always well trained.
Just my take on it.
H
-
Aka_Tom
**** Do the players in the top 10 at T-house ever play "Let the computer pick the units"? ***
Hi,
While not in the top ten (pretty close) I do let the computer pick forces and have suggested this to people I play.
I have only just learnt of the flaw with this and I am dissapointed that you can do this as it now means people are tarred with that brush even though I have never done such a thing.
I have played Knaust blind at various scenarios he has suggested and not loaded it up as his force to see what is coming. This has given me some intense games which were fun to play although a bit imbalanced at times. Both Knaust and I have lost these imbalanced scenario games so it kinda evens out. (Knaust you are getting good at long posts
)I agree with Jason that the points seem to be out of kilter and when that happens people who want to win will buy what is best from the shelf. This is "gamey" but it is a game so "C'est La Vie" if you want to play ladder you will get this.
I would strongly suggest that the points for units are closely examined for CM2 as this will create situations which skew away from history.
However, even if the points do get "sorted" the technicians will choose what is the best buy from the new list. I would just hope the new list would enable a more varied game.
The answer without that change is to guage your opponent and enjoy those that play at your level and swiftlty move on from those that don't. (By level I mean your own personal interpretation of "Gameyness".)
One can not legislate for it and there is no surefire way of defining gaming ethics as it is a game and the cultural differences of players will always cause mis-understandings.
We come from many different walks of life the only rules that can be defined are those that the game allows and while Gentlemans agreements can be made the game will not support those. Gentlemen (and Ladies) will.
So choose your players wisely. Trust them and hope they trust you back. It is a game and enjoyment comes not from winning but the thrills during the course of battle. (Well that's what I try and tell myself when I have been rogered badly...)
H
-
Looks more like a Sherman to me. I am guessing a Lend Lease vehicle used by the Soviets until production was in top gear for their own....
-
Hi
I would add what weight I have to getting the flags changed as discussed above.
It would add to the game and if it could be done for both CM2 and CM then excellent.
Maybe posting an e-mail proposal to Charles will help?
H
-
Hi,
I have been following this and I play the T House Ladder.
I have sympathy with the views expressed by Abbot about games becoming Power Gaming experiences.
I try to buy a balanced force and not to use crews as recon.
I believe that you can not regulate against it and must in the end decide on who to play and who not to play.
It is painful to play someone who is not playing on the same level as you and you always have the option to stop playing and give that person the game and move on.
I don't think people will check Icons to see the style of player and I think the ones who have a different style to you would not necessarily not use the icon and masqarde as "a Historic" player.
I used to play CC2 and what really pissed me off was the attitude of some of the players. I soon learnt to recognise them (in thier many different disguises) and just played those that were more noble in their approach.
I think over time you will discover the more noble CM players and gravitate towards them.
The ladder however by it's nature encourages competive play and those "gamey" players will tend to do better once they learn the ropes.
Jason's article about the SMG squads is just one example about how certain units "rock" and will therefore be used again and again.
I use the random computer picks and was not aware of the flaw in that until reading stuff here about how that can be abused.
People can try and crack passwords and again that I am sure has been done. It can be passed off as intelligence but really all the ladder does is encourage some people to want to win at all costs.
I do not think the changes suggested would be used by players and it is extra work for Yobobo which I am sure he would rather spend the time playing games.
Just my view...
-
Knaust get a job and lets see you type something longer....
Homba I agree that if the game could be changed for CM1 and CM2 then it would be nice.
These discussions provide the designers with alternative views and often some very solid arguments for changing their decisions.
What we have to remember is that they have done a sterling job, they have limited time in their lives and I can not now see CM1 being changed to deal with the suggestions.
I hate this game for the last minute rush to flags. It seems "gamey" and it IS (in my book) when you have controlled something for the whole game and then on the last turn the enemy does a suicide run with Mort Crews or Tanks driving them out into the open to deny a VL.
In reality the enemy commander would not do something like that, but as it is a game and you know you will not be accountable for your actions you do these last minute things, to win the "Game".
I agree with your suggestions for Attack / Defence games and I would also suggest a variable game length that would randomize the last turn, say plus or minus 5 turns. (Or a time agreed by both players)
I.e. Set Turn length to 25 and the game could finish between turn 20 to 30. This would help stop silly last rushes. I also think it would add to the adrelin rush...
I think you have won the attack defense issue.
H
-
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum7/HTML/000476.html
Hi Homba,
Nice to see you here as we never crossed swords with another game that the mere mention raises some peoples heckles...
The link above might help?
For my two pennies...
I accept the Flags as they are. It has caught me out, but now I know...
The use of pistols to hold VL's seems a tad gamey but it is a game and one has to accept some limitations. The flag are a limitation in the first place, so I live with that as I can see no easy way with a computer program to achieve anything else which would not also have limtations.
If you fancy a PBEM one day I would love to meet you on the battlefield.
Cheers
H
-
Wow we have the AA group, Airfix Anonymous.
What a small world we live in when so many people have had the same experiences over and with these small plastic figures.
I looked at the web site and my childhood memories came rushing back and brought a wide grin to my face.
I guess BTS were afflicted with this pleasure when they were young and thank god they were as this game recreates the fantasy games I played on my bed room floor with the Germans fighting off the allied invaders.
I used to collect lichen from old railway embankments to make life like hedges and stuck on twigs, trees...
Ahh those were the days.
Hmmm I wonder if I can use my new garden shed for a wargames den and rescue all those old toys from the attic.
Anyone in the Banbury area (UK) fancy a game?
H
[This message has been edited by Holien (edited 02-22-2001).]
-
I agree with the comments made about what an airman might be thinking when he sees a tank and that he might concentrate more fire upon it, even though it has not moved.
But other airmen might decide that it is out of action as it has not moved since his last run over the target.
As for fixing it, it is a featurer of the game and has to be lived with. By raising the question it lets other people know of these features and allows people to accomedate them.
It is after all only a computer program, but if it could be programmed to randomly decide if it (the plane) moved onto another target that might be more realisitic?
All these "what if" questions are great to discuss so we get a better understanding of the complexities of what is being modelled.
I feel at times some people are a bit harsh on new people in here when they discuss things which the "vets" have already seen and discussed previously.
I wonder if anyone has ever talked to a wartime pilot to ask this sort of question. I guess it would not be relevant as people under war conditions often just do things without thinking, pretty much like day to day life.
Just my few pence and random thoughts...
H
-
Thanks Matt,
I had made the wrong assumption that the other player would have had the most saved.
Thinking about it after a good nights sleep, it makes sense.
This is a very useful thing to know and once bitten once I now know how to try and avoid this most unpleasent situation.
Cheers
H
-
Just FYI it does not always save all orders entered. My opp had finished and I was nearly done. I had done some critical orders such as re deploying troops and Arty calls.
I was dropped and my Opp reloaded from Auto Save. I was not allowed to complete my orders.
Oh well I thought at least the majority had been done.
Well Odding Hell no orders had been remembered, I have lost quite a few arty rounds which I had ordered not to fire and my urgent redepoly did not happen.
I am not a happy bunny and want to let people know that the Autosave does not always save both sides of the story.
BTS is this considered a bug?
-
I have followed this and it does seem that bunkers are not used by people because of the problems high lighted.
I can see that the positioning of the bunkers are key to their success. I don't know if anyone has done any tests but what are the chances of killing a bunker for a side on hit? Can they only be destroyed from rear or front on shots?
I have spent some time in Normandy and Europe clambering over in and around various bunkers and pillboxes. Also we have quite a few in the UK and they are a bit of a sad hobby for me.
What struck me about the German ones on the beaches are that they are often sighted side on to the beach. This means that the guns run the length of the beach rather than facing out to sea.
This makes absolute sense as the side armour is un-penetrable and one can only take the bunker out via a front approach. The slits are on the whole small affairs and even for AT guns I would say Matt's statement of a Turret Mantle correct.
You do have to bear in mind while the size of gap is correct; the angling of the gap is such that even though you might get a shot in the gap it has to be perfect level and at a right angle for it to go in as if it hit a side it would bounce back out. The Germans went to a lot of effort designing the bunkers to minimise the effects of hits.
I have some leaflets on the designs and will hunt out references tonight which will explain how this worked.
Anyway, to add weight to Matt's view that sighting is very important you should only employ them side on with side views of any approaches. This is how they were employed.
Also I do agree that if testing shows them to be easier to hit and knock out than a tank dug in then this would be IMO wrong. The article cited states that infantry were used to bust them and this stacks up with the view that you suppress them and then move in. Not blow them with easy hits from AP rounds from tanks.
HE would have minimal effect on the structure but certainly suppress the crew allowing Infantry to close with it and close assault it.
I will check on the designs tonight. Personally I steer clear of buying them because they are too expensive for what you get. I would consider using them if they were slightly more expensive than there non armoured counter parts, which at the moment do offer "better value for money", in gamey terms.
-
Hi thxs for the responses
I understand the 150 issue and I understand how to target at an area. I am dissmissive of firing at an area for 60 seconds in the open that I might hit something running through.
The 150 was hidden and I only want to blow its location when I target at something specific.
The MMGs were also hidden and again I specifically targeted a unit. All units continued to track after 20 secs of seeing the unit for the further 40 secs. That was 40 secs of missed fire against massed targets. By the time I could re-order there was only straggling units passing through. And the same thing happened.
The 2nd time I allowed the 150 to pick targets and it choose not to fire. I know I am on thin ice regarding the 150 but the MMG's in a real life situation would have chosen other targets.
As for tracking of units how long does the program track a unit before it decides to require?
Also the tracking line followed the unit (red line) even though it could not be seen. (If it had not been a TCP / IP game I would post it to the BTS crew.) I did replay it several times and watch at ground level to see what was happening.
If it is a feature of the game it will affect how I place units and when I decide how to open up.
Thanks for the advice Olle. I have never tried that with the MMG to do area fire. If the units crossing the line take damage then that is a sure fire solution but a bit of a gamble if the opponent does not do what you are expecting. In the game I played that would have worked as I saw the charge comming.
However, I seem to remember some threads saying that the way MMG fire is resolved does not take into account such a tatic and is resolved against a specific target. I have not done any research into the games mechanics on this so if any one can confirm that approach I would be grateful.
On a further point raised by Head, in another game I had a similar situation. This time not with a tank. I had LOS from a 20mm AA gun to multiple Inf targets and a Churchill. Every turn I targeted the Inf as I knew I could do nothing against the Churchill and the Inf were closer and more of a threat I could deal with.
Every turn the Damn crew wold ignore my instructions and re-target the Churchill. Which lucky for me was too far away and out of HE to hurt me.
This happened 4 turns until I decided to try and move the AA Gun out of sight of the Churcill. (Clearly ID unit.) However just my luck when I broke sight the other player decided to move the Churchill back into sight and the damn duel continued.
Again I realise that the game must have limitations and once I know them I can work round them. But I must question the ability to track hidden units (apparently) and the mentality of a gun crew who sould have realised after a couple of turns rapid fire that they were not going to destroy a Churchill head on with a 20mm Canon.
But these are minor points in a game that I consider beyond belief for the level of detail and accuracy portrayed in a game that you can actually play and enjoy playing.
H
-
Thinking more about the tracking of units out of sight that is unrealistic!
If that was an enhancement can anyone give me some threads where it was discussed so I can better understand why it was asked for.
To my simplistic mind if a unit goes out of sight and there are plenty more valid targets surely the AI should fire at those rather than let them all pass by?
Any views please?
Cheers
H
-
Excellent, That is the stuff I wanted without actually wanting to do the work to find out. (I am lazy)
You are a star and I am grateful that you have shared that with me (and everyone else). I now have a better understanding of the mechanics and so does everyone else who wants to know.
I, like you, know that it is "gamey" but I hate to point out that it is after all only a game. (A very special and most excellent one which has me hooked.)
In the situation that happened the result was fair on the basis of a "real life" assessment of the situation, IMO.
However, in the basis of the game I missed out on a Minor Victory and a sense of satisfaction becuase I abandoned the flag to go for his men. Now I know more of the mechanics of the game I can take that into account and decide my approach as I wish.
I play the game to give me a better understanding of WWII and for sheer enjoyment. It straddles both of these well for me. However, the flag aspect and last minute rushes do take a (ever so) slight edge off this game.
I have had some games drawn where in reality the situation would have been a win for the myself. Like an opponent taking the one flag with a MKIV at the last moment and to have it surrounded without Inf support by my Inf that had run out of AT rounds.
I think the idea of a variable number of turns would help defeat that "gamey" play. But as it is a game then one must work within the rules of the system and understand them so that you stand a chance of winning.
After all is said and done, that is the aim of this game. I get far more from the game than just winning and even losing is fun and when I lose I learn more. But the winning is the cherry on the cake. Playing the game against a good opponent is like eating the cake, but winning is having the cake and eating it... (Yeah I know flame me...
) -
Thanks for the responses so far. To summarise what I believe the response to be to my questions:-
>>>Is it better to kill straggling Inf / Arty observers / HQ units, or keep control of flags. Which will get you more points?
No one knows for sure but it is likely that the flags are worth more.
>>> What is the miniumum to keep control of a flag?
Armed men and if they are out of ammo then they dont count.
>>> Do you get full points for killing a Arty FO which has called in all his rounds?
Who knows??
I have been reading the other threads and I know that if the enemy are dead then you win and that it is better to go for good terrain that controls the battlefield rather than the flags.
However, the "game" is flag based and to win the "game" it seems flags are worth more than dead opposition. I had a reduced platoon of men chasing down the enemy when they should have been sat on the flag to win the "game".
If I looked at the result it was fair for the reality of the situation, as far as one can envisage the reality of moving sprites around a computer generated battlefield.
As for the fun it was outstanding and even if I had lost the amount of pleasure generated by the whole situation was outstanding.
Thxs again for the responses.
Cheers
H
-
Fair point about the 150 gun and I know that was not what it was designed for. It seemed kinda of silly to target ground rather than men. Especially as the men are moving fast and you are liable to miss them and pummel a bit of earth.
On the MMG front the tracking of a target seems silly when it goes out of sight and you have heaps of others to fire at. The men (targets) were crossing an open expanse of land and I had hoped that the MMG's would be able to hose the approach and do more damage than they did. (Which was nada)
While not serving in the forces or ever having to run the gauntlet (other than paintball) it seemed a tad un realistic.
But as a limitation of the game I will live with it and deal with it. It's great I am learning new things all the time and while I find things annoying at the time I deal with it and take it into account.
Cheers for the responses..
H
-
Hi,
I have done a quick search and found nothing and I am in middle of game.
I have just been assualted by mass ranks of Ami's and had a 150 gun and MMGs ready to ambush them as they crossed the open.
Much to my surprise and annoyance my MMgs fired one burst of fire and then the target moved out of sight. But the MMG's kept tracking the target and did not fire at any of the other targets in sight.
The same happened to my 150 gun which did not fire at all as the target went out of sight early on before it could rotate and then it kept tracking it the full turn.
Has anyone seen anything like this? Would it be considered a bug?
It certainly pissed me off. The next turn I gave the gun no orders hoping it would aquire targets on its own, but again no dice and the carnage I had planned for did not happen and I am in serious Poo...
H
-
I have just finished playing a great game with Seany B where it ended up being a draw.
In "reality" I accept that the result was a fair one. But looking at the end position the "game" seems to have swung on a flag which was shown as contested even though I had three Arty Spotters in the building and Sean had no crediable threat within 100 Mtrs of it.
Sean had never put any units near the Flag and I had never lost control of it. I can only think that because I moved some Inf away from the flag to attack another some distance away the computer decided it was vacant. Not counting my Arty as fighting men.
This situation arose because I thought it was better to contest the other flags and use my remaining Infantry to hunt down a platoon that was in retreat.
My questions are:-
Is it better to kill straggling Inf / Arty observers / HQ units, or keep control of flags. Which will get you more points?
What is the miniumum to keep control of a flag?
Do you get full points for killing a Arty FO which has called in all his rounds?
I am going to check the rule book tonight to see what it has to say. Just thought I would open this one to any comments.
H
-
After reading this I can see where I have recently gone wrong. I would add weight to the view that you don't put your guns in a position where it can cover a large amount of open ground.
The more open ground it can cover the more chance there will be multiple tanks / nastys that can fire at it.
Recently I sited an AT Gun to cover a wide open plain on the theroy that it could hit anything in the open. My mistake in this approach was that the one gun had 12 shermans on view.
My next mistake was to engage at long range in the view that they might not see me. I managed to get one Sherman but was then wiped by the others.
When I look at the map now I can see I would have been better to place it slightly more to the rear and at an angle to the town it was defending. This would have restricted the view and while reducing the targets, it would have survied longer and maybe killed more.
As for firing wait until they are as close as possible. Try and call down some Arty to button them and open up with some small arms fire to distract them. Once that happens you might get two or three in one go and if you are real lucky survie to get more.
You want the best hit probability possible and only engage if you have a good or better chance of penetrating.
I wish I had seen the advice above sooner...
H
-
No catch. A great site with some good players using it. If you like playing the game and like the idea of seeing where you rank then it is a good site.
If you like playing the game and don't mind your rank it is great to find some skillful opponents and new tactic's.
I guess the way they keep it running is through having normal day jobs and maybe a bit of site advertising.
The new chat feature seems to work well (after a few false starts) and I have found some new opponents to play through it.
So use it as there are no catches, only wins and losses..
-
Hey,
This will not be to your liking but my BT connection is on the whole quite reliable and while it does drop occasionally this only seems to be at peak usage in the early evening.
Maybe there is some difference in line qualities around the country?
I have a mate on NTL but they have a waiting period to join because of the uptake. He seems happy with NTL. I guess if you are in London that might be an option?
H
-
Hi,
Just floating this to see if anyone else has noticed this. I have just done a search but seen nothing in last 30 days.
Tanks in the TCP/IP release seem to fire off their smoke rounds against targets that are no threat and when they still have HE to suppress the enemy.
I have seen this in a few TCP/IP games when my tanks have swapped to smoke when targetting Inf from a long range.
The smoke graphics worked for that smoke. In one of those games I had some Arty and used the op to lay down a smoke screen for my advancing Inf. The rounds landed but no smoke came out. I toggled all the diff smoke settings but no smoke was displayed.
As we were on a 2 min turn round I did not have time to concentrate on LOS and check that out. In another game my oppoent stated that he had laid a smoke screen but again I did not see it.
My graphic card can deal with smoke as in a normal e-mail game I have used smoke and seen the graphics.
Just wondering if anyone else has noticed this, or am I losing my mind.
H
-
Hi,
I am now starting to get an idea of what the points can get and how the forces bought can be used and I see some value in what you are saying.
To add my 2p there does seem to be a reliance on Paras and Hezters for the Germans. This was really brought home when I played a game where I brought some Archers.
I thought lets try something different and see how they can do. I was totally destroyed by one Hetzer which took them one by one. As well as some HE landing close by. The chap had also got some Paras and theior fire power at close range is awesome.
Well needless to say I lost. I think that there does seem to be some imbalance of points while I could have used some different tatics my tanks were hopelessly out classed.
Now I know this lesson I will only buy Churchills which makes the game IMO boring as you always end up fighting the same units.
To counter this I have made agreements with other players to not buy those sort of units. This worked well on Saturday when I played a small 500pt game on a small map ME 20 turns using 2min TCP/IP.
It was one of the most intense gaming experiences I have had in recent years. While the other chap did get a HTz I had enough small point armour to ram some 50 cal shells into his rear at the end of the game from an Allied HT.
I guess what I am saying is if the points can be re-visted I agree they should. I see fortifications cost less which is excellent. If they don't get re-adjusted then I will (and suggest others do) agree limits on what can be bought in the interest of intense game play.
Cheers
H
PBEM/TCP solutions for computer picks?
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
I agree if it could be fixed then all well and good.
BTS have thought hard about cheating and the implementation of the game has revolved around solving that.
As with all development some things do not get spotted until after the release.
If it can be fixed all well and good if not then at least people know there is a potential problem.
BigMac is correct and in an ideal world people should just get on with living, however we live in a world where people want to win at any cost.
I take BigMac approach and will play "Auto Pick" if someone wants. I will get an idea of what the player is like through chat and E-mail. If I think I am being mislead or don't enjoy the player then I guess I won't play them again.
I can however understand people not playing Auto Pick and in an "Ideal World" would like it fixed. As I would also like the force balance changed with different points cost for the effectiveness ala the points made by Jason.
I know however that this might not happen as BTS have other issues to deal with.
H