hobo
-
Posts
251 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hobo
-
-
Hi Scottie,
same to me here! I´m dreaming of dynamic campaigns on one map, where the destruction, the wracks, craters are taken over into the new battle on this map. Where you are fighting the 5th battle for this damnded house on the roadcrossing, wich is a ruin...but still you have to remember how hard you fought for it!
i still missing the "original" campaigns in CMBO, CMBB...sigh!
Greetings
John
+++++
Kickstart it and put me down for $1K. By far my biggest disappointment in the CM2 series.
-
I could bake my own bread too, but if someone's planning on selling something better for a few bucks I'd be happy to pay
In my humble opinion BF is leaving a lot of money on the table by not putting out more content for their game engines.
Forget map packs - I'd pay decent bucks for more campaigns. While well served by community made scenarios it seems full campaigns are too much work for our community designers. Time for Battlefront to step into the breach!Me 2. I would pay really big bucks if they would implement real campaigns but sadly I know that ship has sailed long ago.
-
O well, just 13 years next month.
-
I think I am at 14 years as well. Need to post to check join date.
-
From my perspective CM2 is a great if not best simulation ever, requires lots of thought to play it well, and can be very satisfying. It is not a lot of fun. The modern version of chess. I always thought the problem was lack of immersion that could be fixed with a good campaign system. However, my thinking has evolved as getting through a mid-sized game now takes hours of play which takes me over a week of real time. A good operational level campaign would take months if not years to complete. No longer so sure of the answer (though I still want a campaign). The graphics are more than good enough for me so I would not invest there. hmmm.
Even so, I will buy every game (I mean sim) that they produce.
-
I would take a closer look at the windmill before making an offer. It looks to me if you leaned on it it would simply topple over. Frankly, I am thinking the woodsman's house with its land would be a much better investment 50 years later.
-
I am still confused as to why it is moving away from the VL. Understanding that I cannot even beat the AI these days probably explains my confusion.
-
I second that. Only played one scenario but enjoyed it immensely.
-
I have enjoyed this AAR so much I bit the bullet and purchased (I think) the entire CMBN family of products. If anybody wants an easy-fun H2H game send me a PM. We may be able to get a game in before Ken finishes downloading this turn:}
-
I am rooting for you as well in support of a fellow Carolinian. Here is hoping for the Magic Piat".
-
Thank you for the mortar team fix. I have had a couple scenarios screwed because my perfectly positioned and hidden mortar team had their cover blown before they could deploy their mortar because one of the crew got bored and started taking pot shots at the juicy ATG targets.
-
I do agree that it needs more campaigns and missions and would be willing to pay extra for mission packs. Sometimes I think they lose sight of the fact that at the end of the day this is a game. This is the point I usually start to preach about campaigns but will let it rest as I do appreciate the work these guys do for us niche wargaming community.
-
It is good to know that real infantry commanders make the same mistakes I make:
Comments and Lessons Learned:
(1) One of the most important points, stressed by Allied Force Headquarters,
Fifth A1:my and all Tank Destroyer experts, is that infantry commanders continue,
against the tactical advice of these persons, to place Tank Destroyers in forward
anti-tank positions where they can have only one logical field of fire instead of
placing them in a central posithn where they can move rapidly to cover a logical
area. This tends to:
(a) Absolutely nullity the purpose of the Tank Destroyer -- Mobility.
(
Pl~ce the Tar~ Destroyer under small a~s and mortar range where it will be immediately rendered less effective if the enemy plans to neutralize our
resistance prior to attack. The open turret of tho M-10 makes it vulnerable to
sniper fire. This long-range 31t gun on its thin-shelled mobUe chassis can
engaie a..."'ld knock out a tank at a much greater range than Watry commanders
realize"
© Draw unn~ce8sary fire on nearby infantry.
(2) Some mot~l overhead cover for the open turret of the M-10 should be
developed to protect the crew from flak and falling buildings. It C.ul be so
constructed that it can be thrown off if the Tank Destroyer WDves out to engage
the enelD1'. Plans are being made to construct these 10:: a.lly.
(3) In the role of firing night harassing missions, it has been found that a
minimum of counter-battery will be received if only one gun fires at a time. Should
the number of rounds to be fired or the tme al10ted require that two guns fire at
the same time, it is best to space the guns as far apart as p~ssible. This
Battalion fired 4 guns for 6 or 7 nights, a total of 800 rounds, and received ne
counter-battery in an area that enemy fire was ~ most common occurenceo
(4) At least 6 to 8 ,ower megnif7ing direct fire telescope is needed on the ~-10.
(5) A smoke generator should be ~vailable in each M-10. v1.hen enemy fire develops
they can be used to a definite a.dvantage. The Germans use them. most effectively to
our disadv&ntage.
-
Well, I'm certainly not advocating for any "special case orders." The last thing this game needs is more commands on the UI. Rather, for a more realistic modeling, I think a unit's "primary function" should have a stronger affect on how the individual members of that unit behave, both when acting autonomously and when executing specific player orders. I should think this would be obvious, but the spotter/security guy carrying an MP40 in a 2-man sniper team shouldn't use his MP40 in the same way a member of a rifle squad armed with the same weapon does because their job responsibilities are very different.
As mentioned in prior posts, mortar team members revealing the mortar's position by firing their personal firearms is usually unwise tactically and therefore probably an unrealistic depiction of how such units would behave in most combat situations. This is one way to look at this issue. Another way to look at it is in terms of soldiers' overall responsibilities in combat and whether heavy weapons team members really should be able to devote much time to firing their personal firearms in most combat situations.
Rifle squad infantry fire their personal weapon in combat a lot because that's their primary job and they don't have much else to do when the lead starts to fly. But heavy weapons teams are different. Even if they are carrying the same personal firearms as their rifle squad comrades, heavy weapons team members usually have more important things to do than take potshots at the enemy with their Garand or K98 or SMLE or whatever. This is usually true even if they're not, at the moment, directly involved with operating the team's primary weapon.
With regard to mortar teams specifically, my understanding is that mortars in the 60mm - 81mm size range require the full attention of at least 3 crew to operate at optimum efficiency: One team leader/spotter to observe fall of shot and call corrections, one mortar gunner who actually sights the tube, and one loader/charge setter. One or two additional team members also are often tasked with running shells and charges to the tube from an ammo point a few meters away (for obvious reasons, it's a good idea to avoid keeping too many shells immediately adjacent to the tube while firing).
So, taking your typical U.S. 5-man 60mm mortar team as a case example, *at most* 2 members of the team should be available to fire small arms when the mortar tube is active, and this is being generous. I have definitely seen more than 2 members of a 60mm mortar team blazing away with small arms while the gunner lays in a target. Similar issues apply to AT Gun, Infantry Gun, and Bazooka/Panzershreck teams.
Please don't take this as a "This game is broken, BFC fix er do sumfink!" post -- I don't view this issue as a "game-breaker." But I do think this is a "proud nail" sticking up out of what has become a pretty darn smooth, polished product and I'd like to see this nail beaten down sooner rather than later.
I would also add that I don't want to see this issue fixed because it's "ruining" my own tactical genius (such as it is). Rather, I think improving things in this area would make the computer more challenging opponent. Competent human players can micromanage around these issues. But the computer player does not know how to pull of micromanagement "tricks." So better small arms behavior from weapons teams would benefit the computer player much more than it would benefit human players.
Bingo. Well said and thank you.
-
How can you be so sure it was the small arms fire, rather than the mortar firing, that alerted the enemy to your unit's location? :confused:
Good point. It could have been a glint coming off of their dog tags, the pop of the mortar, or the bang from small arms fire. Lets start by removing the bang.
-
For example, if you order a U.S. 60mm teams to area fire in direct lay mode at less than 300m, the ammo bearers will usually open up with their carbines on the area target, and even the team leader will open up with his Thompson as the range drops below 250m. This is usually not desirable as the mortar team is much more likely to be spotted and take incoming fire if the ammo bearers are firing their small arms; you usually want just the mortar itself to fire. IMHO, mortar team small arms should be similarly "self defense only", at least until the mortar team either runs dry of mortar ammo, or abandons the mortar.
This is highly annoying and really should be fixed. In one game I was very proud of sneaking a mortar to a highly covered tree line with direct sight on an enemy position only to get off 1 shot before all hell broke out from enemy field guns because they were alerted to my mortar by it crew small arms fire.
-
PM Sent
- Chris
-
Firstly I forget to say, this is a Pbem Wego game.
The ATG unit was not moved but but it was redirected around 80 degrees.
A few minutes later, the crew got their act together and rejoined.
(My hypothesis : Heavy weapon crews are allergic to fences & gates)
This is George MC's excellent 'Fire Brigade' scenario.
p.s. PM me if you want the save game.
Perhaps a really bad fart
-
Dirtweasel -
That link makes every minute I spent on this board worthwhile.
Thanks,
Hobo
-
Michael - Thanks for the detailed response. I did read pages 24 and 25 and am guessing the answer is you do not really know what is at the locations unless you actually visit it. I will take Jason's advice and blast them for a while before actually doing the visit.
- hobo
-
So, I am told to reconnoiter a Named Area of Interest. What exactly am I suppose to do and how do I know if I have done it? Do I move to the NAI or is all I have to do is see it?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Thanks,
Hobo
PS - Loving the game.
-
Hey Jon -
Here is the premise of my bug theory:
1. Apaches can spot all non-static tanks/BMPs in a desert setting in the operational theater depicted in CMSF. Especially those spotted by local troops.
2. Apache will always attack an enemy tank/BMP if it sees one.
3. Apache will always use hellfires on tanks if it has them
Number 3 is the big if and is the premise of my "bug Theory". I stipulate that if you call close air support of any kind, it should attempt to take out all major threats being encountered by the calling troops.
- Hobo
-
Funny thing happened as the game finished. The tanks and BMPs left the area I identified so the Apache made a few strafing runs against a few of my dead strykers that were in the area. As far as I can tell, this needs to be put in the bug catagory.
- Hobo
PS - I love the game. Don't take this thread as another shot at BFC. This is just an amazing complex game and it is going to take some time to get all of the issues resolved.
-
Elmar - I think I did a little bit of everything. If this is indeed how it works, I want this logged as a bug. If I call in Apaches and they see tanks, they attack with hellfires. If all they see is troops or light trucks, have fun with the chain gun.
- Hobo
Pl~ce the Tar~ Destroyer under small a~s and mortar range where it
Small campaigns?
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
LOL, that describes me precisely. I watch a movie or something and get all fired up to play a game, pick a battle or campaign, see all of the icons randomly distributed around the map and quickly decide I would rather mow the lawn....