Redwolf
-
Posts
9,471 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Redwolf
-
-
2 hours ago, weapon2010 said:
Can someone explain this a little better ? I need a patch to play in Sltherine CMCW customers in the Tournament system?
My understanding is that the currently committed PBEM++ in CMCW is not sufficient for the tournament. Which is supposed to happen next month. -
39 minutes ago, Probus said:
- No bombardment of each other's setup zones in Meeting Engagements. [Set to No pre-bombardment]
- Bombardment of avenues of approach is not allowed in Meeting Engagements until contact is established. [Set to No pre-bombardment]
But in attack/defense surely the attacker should be free to pre-plan bombardment of the defender's zone? -
32 minutes ago, dbsapp said:
Does pbem++ (through server) allow viewing .bts file?
Only if you catch them in flight and copy them yourself. -
15 minutes ago, user1000 said:
yeah well smoke and sound gives off their position, that's why AT guns are easy to spot. Real life back then as well.
I don't think anybody in this thread has a problem with how they are spotted after they fire... -
5 hours ago, domfluff said:
They are trying to target the individual soldier in both cases (and granted they're not exactly the same, but they're as close as you can get), but that the dispersion from the first is significantly more.
This is clearer with automatic fire, since that will inevitably spread more for all of the obvious reasons. This really looks like a bug in the underlying calculation, rather than something intentional or working as designed.
This makes a lot of sense. -
I apologize for not testing much lately. All this stuff should be documented in the first place.
In CMx1 you could use the "target" command and it would display an exposure rating for the target.
-
Does anybody have measurements about the benefit for protection/cover that trenches and foxholes offer?
-
43 minutes ago, Simple Wine said:
I'm sure and the non-firing tank had an armor target arc as the other two tanks had. I used this technique to ambush enemy armored vehicle in my games (you need just fire at the ground from the MG for a minute to have an acceptable zeroing). At the distance of 1.5-2 km the ability to hit first is an advantage.
How did you determine that your first-shot-hit-probability went up? -
18 minutes ago, tursas said:
I wish it was the case, but it is not: both my Mac & CMBS are in the default settings. No actions taken so far, beyond of running the latest OS updates.
Its quite standard computer too: 13’’ MacBook with retina display at 2560 x 1600 resolution.
Does anyone have the same?
Wait, what is your current problem? I though you could not run CM in 2560 x 1600? -
4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
This is also how I thought they worked. But recently I was told that TRPs improve accuracy for even units that have moved. I had a discussion with someone about it, maybe it was @Drifter Man?
Might have been me. My memory says that the benefit is lost after moving. But I don't have a reference for that and testing it is too time-consuming for me right now. -
1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:
I thought that AT-Guns are supposed to be camouflaged during the deploy phase of a scenario.
Yes, I believe that is the case.However, that cover is blown when in a trench because now the trench is spotted earlier than the gun.
And trenches are expensive so you can't just buy enough of them to make the attacker waste ammo on empty ones.
-
3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
Points-wise, it's a success. Even cheap tanks like the Sherman are around twice the points of a Pak-40.
Well, Pak40 is 120 points, cheap Sherman is 190. So a gun is 2/3rds of a cheap, full tankMore importantly, even if you get one tank out of every AT gun that engages your purchased AT guns do not all engage. Some are out of way of the chosen attack path, some are discovered by infantry before they can shoot at a tank.
As long as we can't boost the gun with better cover and concealment in fortifications I think pricing them more at a factor of 0.4 or maybe even 1/3rd would be in order. It is all about actually getting the historical benefit out of the guns.
-
1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
It's been some years since I tested this, but IIRC trenches can only be spotted at ranges at which the gun would be spotted regardless. I don't recall ever seeing a trench spotted but the gun not.
No, I just tried. Approaching 3x Pak40 in open ground, foxhole and trench the trench gets spotted first. -
3 hours ago, alogie said:
Interesting. Would that kind of tweaking need to be re-done if a patch is released?
Yeah. It's more of a puzzle challenge than useful optimization. -
27 minutes ago, tursas said:
If that is the case does anyone have a recommensation on which resolution I should choose for 13’’ MacBook Pro, if the default 2560x1600 isn’t good?
Nah, you must have done something really wrong to end up with some non-standard resolution on the Mac. Default for both desktop and CM, that should be it. -
25 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
Trenches actually reduce the distance at which AT guns can be spotted. It's not a huge amount, maybe 10-15%.
Yeah, but the trench itself can be spotted farther out than the gun without a trench. Bad when playing human opponents. -
I don't mind how easy they are to kill in open ground.
What nags me is how useless foxholes and trenches are in CMx2 for protection, and even have a negative effect on being spotted.
-
One could try to package the entire HQS set into one brz.
That would help. Especially if you re-package the base game brzs to not contain the same sounds. Right now you are loading almost all sounds twice.
-
6 hours ago, Drifter Man said:
It is also interesting that the tank can zero in using the MG. This probably shouldn't work in real life as the MG rounds have a very different trajectory.
I for one am unconvinced that ground hitting fire (no matter which gun) will improve hit probability on tanks later in that spot. Zeroing in is very limited in CM, quickly lost and pretty much carried over from nothing to nothing. -
Cm does not have DPI scaling, you need to select a different resolution.
-
Well, some way should be added to control things when a vehicle has more than 2 weapons. We already got the mechanism for 2, we need it for $n.
-
How does plain infantry spotting compare to -say- an open top vehicle?
-
12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Updated CMSF2 and Black Sea (1st Quarter) - both previously released Matrix/Slitherine CM Families will get the PBEM++ and Tournament systems as free updates. Any bug fixes and what not that have come up from Cold War development will be rolled in as well.
Does that include cluster munitions by a chance? -
The server seems on the fritz. On discord somebody was also getting a game nuked.
I wonder whether there are currently any people using it successfully? Anybody?
Probus' Head-to-Head (H2H) Etiquette to Reduce Problems with PBEM Gameplay
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
I also think that in a ME I should be able to blast the objectives with preplanned fire (not the enemy setup zones).
If the enemy wants to rush the objective and run into 301mm Nebelwerfers on 5 minute delay more power to him.