Barleyman
-
Posts
343 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Barleyman
-
-
So? Paradox has been doing configurable reporting for years and years. And seeing how BFC is now practically a paradox subsidiary..Originally posted by C'Rogers:Like would we all agree a destroyed vehicle should cause a message? Half a squad getting wiped out? I think big things like that might be doable, but people should actually put what they want in order.
Also note how I suggested status icons as an alternative.
-
Here's what I said in the other thread:
The game should provide you reports (that you'd receive as a real commander) and optimally these reports should form a scrolling message window that you can click on to zoom in to the unit that gave the report.
Naturally you should be able to hide the report window if you hate it and configure what exactly gets reported so you don't get swamped with 50x reports of units spotting enemy that you already know about.
An alternative would be that the units would somehow call attention to themselves. Whether by floating status icon or other means, doesn't matter. I should be able to see at a glance when my scouts have spotted (or think they have) an enemy position or when someone comes under fire.
Click-able OOB table available in-game would be really nice too. It should be organized as a tree or otherwise to be really useful and should optimally provide some feedback on the unit "health" (colors?)
Many of those aren't actually my ideas, they were brought up in one of those "BFC should not ignore us"-threads in around page 23.
-
So where is it? Any concrete suggestions to improve the UI of CMSF are usually met with thundering silence and/or swamped out by dithering about the location of the turret of the T-55!Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Something like UI is strong enough to have it's own discussion.
Personal favourite would be that the game should provide you reports (that you'd receive as a real commander) and optimally these reports should form a scrolling message window that you can click on to zoom in to the unit that gave the report.
-
On the other hand, if you'd like to do scenarios based on somewhat more likely events such as Turkish military adventures in Iraq or Russian "border distipute" in Georgia, more heavy-duty field fortifications would be helpful. Oh, and arty smoke. Lot's and lots of artillery smoke.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Therefore, part of my argument is that within CM:SF's scope I don't think there would be all that many instances of Syrian forces dug in in the right spots at the right time and in the right way. Those that did would likely be discovered before contact or by scouts, resulting in a detour or (more likely) overwhelming firepower.
That is, if you want scenarios made with CMSF engine that are not strictly within the scope you've set for the game. I guess you could do better trenches just by providing a few variants in the editor with different stats. If the engine works that way.
Then again, you'd have linear trench that would provide much too good protection to the guys in it WRT visual look. Unless you put in new 3D model.. And so forth.
[ January 21, 2008, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Barleyman ]
-
Originally posted by Bigduke6:
The bit about not being able to dig in better is nonsense. The bit about game design angle is not. However, Steve's argument was that it wouldn't be fun to spend 1 hour waiting for division (or whatever) arty resources to become available and pound the poor sods who've taken some effort digging in with spades.For me it's not fun to wipe out guys in mass graves in about 5 minutes including the time it takes to call in the arty. It's like playing a shooter in "very easy" difficulty level.
That or even worse, you can just hose the guys in trenches down with MG fire as they're completely exposed from the sides.
The scenarios outside towns that are interesting to play actually do not give you sufficient arty to eradicate opposition so you've got to juggle your strykers to get them into position to machinegun the grunts while potentially exposing them to rpg's.
-
Hmm. That's true because..? It seems to me that sandbags and some rocks piled on top of a board would give you plenty of protection from VT arty. After all, it's not like the shell is going to actually hit the ground! The penetrative power of schrapnel isn't on par with even wimpy .22 round. Yes, if you get unlucky, you can still get hit from the side, but the exposed area is dramatically less than in the mass graves we have now.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Right it is the crux and you're missing your own point
What can a spade, sweat, a pair of hands, and a blanket do against VT artillery? Nothing. To get even moderate cover against VT artillery, even the small stuff, you need heavy reinforcement. It's really that simple. The other stuff can give you good concealment, if prepared well enough ahead of time and by competent troops, but that isn't the same thing since concealment and cover are different concepts.I know, I know, the engine doesn't even try to model guys taking shelter and it would probably take lots of effort to get right without adding that much to the game. You'd get into all of artillery game of peek a boo of trying to lure the infantry out of their shelters etc.
I'm fairly sure that given readily accessible shelter your average GI would seek the imperfect cover as soon as incoming shells are detected by MkI ears. Yup, VT rounds would do damage but it wouldn't be instant charnel through as it is now.What is missing is marginal overhead shelter which has marginal, if any, protective properties from enemy fire but could aid in concealment from enemy observation. Mind you, such positions are shelter only, not fighting positions. They will not stop VT artillery from doing damage, they will not allow outgoing fire at the oncoming enemy forces. They are simply there to stay out of observation so long as the soldiers remain beneath them. As such, they do not have a lot to offer a pitched battle once the troops within have exposed themselves, and therefore are more useful in terms of avoiding operational detection prior to the enemy's arrival within range.
And for MOUT, yes, it's more interesting. But unfortunately game engine weirdnesses are more readily apparent there. In any case, it's outside of the scope of the discussion here.
Ed: If nothing else, better ability for field fortifications would make for more interesting and varied red vs red engagements.
[ January 20, 2008, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Barleyman ]
-
No, because that's what the guys in the foxholes do best. And we're darn bored in here after Mahmud went to catch the butterfly he needed to complete his collection and got shot by the infidels. And he had our gameboy!Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Er... can't a guy discuss elaborate maginot line-nonsense with the people that are asking me about it without getting sniped at by someone who wants just foxholes?
That's the crux, isn't it. You cannot provide the red side (or blue side but that's besides the point) with any protection against VT arty whatsoever.1. You can simulate foxholes using craters
2. You can not simulate overhead cover. I'd like to see a battalion on the move carry enough materials, or find them locally, to get everybody in under cover on the fly without the US noticing.
Having said that, I am not philosophically opposed to having more detailed foxhole treatment. It just isn't on the list of priorities.
For your 2nd point, what's the materials needed? Spades? Sweat? Pairs of hands? Something you can pile stuff on top of (plastic and corrugated steel has been suggested)
Just as a clarification, my idea of "top cover" isn't having the entire trench/foxhole covered but rather having small mouseholes where two guys can hunker down that have top protection so you don't get wiped out by VT arty. Obviously you don't do any fighting when you're holed up and if you're too slow on the uptake when you can hear the shells you end up donating your stock of chocolate to the rest of the guys afterwards.
That sort of thing gives you waaaaaaaay more survivability in face of US arty than the mass graves provided right now do. And it doesn't take much in the way of resources at all. If you have capability of digging a hole in the ground, you've already done most of the job.
Well, sorry, but you went on for long time about what they "should do" on a premise that's impossible to start with. Arming the civilians is impossible for reasons stated elsewhere. And you need a standing army to keep your good friends Israelis, Turks and Iraqis on THEIR side of the border even when political pressure calls for high-profile action against "external threat".Yup, already mentioned that "small flaw" in my theoretical argument
And, well, as pointed out, you need to have enough formations that enterprising colonels cannot stage coup d'etat too easily.
Sandbags are good for stopping schrapnel, thought. So you have to go back to using good old dirt-moving way of pounding your opponent to submission instead of wiping them out with less time than it takes to arrange that arty mission.Look, if a Syrian Battalion or Regiment digs in, and magically finds all the resources it needs to get overhead cover (sandbags do not provide overhead cover!), you have yourself a fortified defensive line, do you not? And if you do, then everything I said applies. It gets spotted, it is pounded into oblivion by air and artillery, or simply bypassed until it is sufficiently irrelevant.
Yup. So from the POV of a Syrian Major, you have an option of making the invaders expend more time and effort while making your men survive longer and having better change of actually fighting back without expending meaningful amounts of extra work and effort. Would you take it?What would happen if a US mixed infantry/armor force came upon a significant nest of resistance that was dug in beyond what CM already allows for (trenches, "foxholes", and bunkers)? The answers are:1. Assault WWI style and get very bloody
2. Assault WWII style with combined arms and get fairly bloody
3. Call in organic artillery and attached air assets to obliterate the defenses then either mop up or bypass
The alternative is NOT putting any effort into making shelters to the trenches/foxholes and allowing the blue side to butcher your men with organic 81mm mortar shells.
Hey! You from the syrian army intel who bought this game! I hope you're taking notes!
See? You have to actually call in some heavier firepower. As in make an actual effort and delay the advance. And if you just drive past, you risk exposing your supply lines afterwards, assuming their soldiers actually want to fight for their country instead of waiting for any excuse to go home. That is assuming they have SOME way of coordinating things, which can be a single guy in a town with a cell phone, map and a pair of binoculars.Continuing on with the points raised above... what is standard US doctrine for dealing with such a situation? I already know the answer and have stated it over and over again... call in heavier indirect fire NOT assault CM style.
I'm just speaking for myself, but hosing down helpless opponents without having to expand any planning, coordination or, well, thought is boring as hell for me. I'm not asking for scenarios where the blue side is on the losing end as you already claimed in a previous thread, I'd just like to see the blue side having to try a bit harder as they'd have to do in real life against an opponent with a real life desire of not getting killed after 30 seconds after being spotted.But it has to be it happens in bite sized pieces, with each battle representing one small piece. And I have to say that most of those pieces, from a wargamer's perspective, will be boring as Hell. That's a much larger discussion and is far beyond just foxholes with overhead cover or not. -
More fun than calling in anything from VT 81mm mortars and watching the defenders die in 30 seconds in the mass graves they've thoughtfully dug for themselves.Originally posted by C'Rogers:Secondly, would it be any fun?
-
Having a stake such as not being invaded by their neighbours or having their country degenerate into a violent cesspool of factional civil war a-la beirut? Generally not a brilliant idea for the stablest of goverments to distribute munitions in small caches all over the country and training everyone on "armed insurrection 101". If you absolutely want to have another failed state, that'd be pretty good way to go about it..Originally posted by Battlefront.com:This is why I think it would be smart for Syria to not spend another penny on its conventional arms race and instead invest in the sorts of things you're talking about. But they won't. They've got too much pride and too much at stake in whatever interim time there is between now and the off chance that they get invaded.
-
Elaborate this, lines of resistance that.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:[QB].. The conclusion is that the Syrians would build elaborate defenses in very few places ..
..For someone to make the case that elaborate, hardened defenses..
..highly fortified line of resistance..
..Therefore, the more CM allows you to make elaborate hardened defenses..
For petes sake, can't a man ask for proper foxholes without getting swamped by this elaborate maginot line-nonsense?
One can be and WOULD BE dug with a spade, the other takes longer time and resources to set up.
Building a hole in the ground with an optional piece of plastic sheet (yes, plastic!) on top of which you can pile sand and mid-sized rocks doesn't reflect my view of "elaborate line of defence". And the said pieces of 2cm thick plastic (or whatever roughly 1.5 meter x 2 meter sheet that can carry a few hundred kilos of junk on top of it) are now high-tech item it takes huge logistics effort to have around? As opposed to having some ratty truck or 2 for a battalion sized unit carrying "entrenching supplies" .. They're probably carting several times of the required weight of food and water daily in the 1st instance.
You just simply refuse to see any difference between a reasonable foxhole and a line of bunkers?
-
You guys seem to be hell-bent on equating foxholes with top cover and Maginot line.
-
1GB isn't that much. Especially not with Vista. Heck, go ahead and get 4GB. It's still not very big investment and at least you're getting some benefit with your 64bit system.
You won't necessarily get better framerates but should get better load times at the very least. And less tendency for hick-ups.
-
But at least you can start new thread tomorrow!
-
A pair of soldiers can dig a foxhole with top cover in a few hours. I've done so personally. Fun fun and good for building those back muscles.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Yup, but when the depth of the country is open to attack and the invader can (theoretically) be at any point within a few hours drive time, it's very difficult to have effective static positions simply because finite resources can't cover a practically infinite amount of places.
Now we have EXCLUSIVELY linear trenches and NO foxholes. You'd think if the defender had time to dig the death-traps, they'd have some foxholes for AT teams etc dug in for good measure. After all, you've got lots of pairs of hands at your disposal.
I quess the real answer is "Because the game engine can't handle dispersing squads in foxholes right now"
-
And with big enhancement in the game engine, I'd say you're going to be looking for it for a while.Originally posted by Rollstoy:Honestly, the way things are going currently, you can really look forward towards 1.06!
Now if we'd just get "enchanced reports" and "enchanced unit list"
-
I don't know if it's just me, but that statement feels about as believable as "I'll stop drinking tomorrow" .. 1.05 was quick fix, too, no?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:We had a "hotfix" patch and rejected it for reasons that will become clearer when v1.06 is released. Don't worry, we aren't going to get into another prolonged kitchensink patch. Testing is going very well so far.
-
Assuming everyone was being rational, didn't have restrictive orders from higher ups, had perfect intel.. Also it becomes mighty hard to cram great number of troops into an arbitarily narrow zone. Can't fight a division out of a single road and all that.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:"Historically accurate" battles in CMx1 were no more likely to be balanced than in CM:SF. In a real war neither side wants a balance. They have zero incentive to do this! For example, in WW2 days the attacking side was not supposed to attack unless it had 3:1 (or greater) force at its disposal. If it didn't have such a force, then in theory it wouldn't attack and therefore no battle would take place. Likewise, the defender tried to keep the ratio favorable to its stance, perhaps even withdrawing if reinforcements weren't possible and an enemy attack were likely.
I'm saying is that you very well may have "even" force match-up in a given small zone but on divisional level one side is getting creamed. And the hard-fighting company/battalion is screwed due to being cut off even if they beat their "immediate" fight.
And that was the gist of my argument, even on -41 autumn there were battles that would be very "challenging" for germans on company/battalion level.
-
There are no such examples on the included campaign, thought. Just played thru another few scenarios with 1.05 and the main challenge is to administer the various assets at your disposal with reasonable effectiveness. Then you just get a "total victory" out of the blue when the red side throws in the towel after being shelled/bombed/peppered by completely overwhelming force. If you weren't hampered by the crappy UI, even the administration bit would be walk-thru..Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:There are plenty of even matches on a tactical level. And really, what's "even" got to do with historical periods?
Ho-hum. Maybe it's exciting for Amis who can drive around their favourite beer can on wheels but for the rest of us..
It's like playing CMBB with crack panzergrenadier battalion in -41 against understrength conscript company. Every time.
-
In real life you would get... Report!Originally posted by GSX:Is this where RT falls down in a fast paced modern wargame? In WEGO, you have the time to look around the battlefield while in RT I often come back to something after 5 minutes to find my vehicles dead and squads not liking it. In RL Im certain that a bunch of Strykers would notice their buddies brewing up.
In CMSF you do not.
-
As long as you get to Moscow ASAP, you can play with the depressing French beaches as much as you want!
-
And TACAI that sprays fire to the direction of known hostiles while crossing open terrain would be nice too. But I do daresay it'd be a bit challenging to code into the game.. After all, just see how long it takes to train your generic redneck to do it effectively!
"Target" for smoke sounds sweet.
-
If you'd like to see some unprofessional and rather embarassing name-calling, check out UFO:Extraterrestrials forums.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:This post of mine is, unfortunately, yet another example of a complete waste of time
Wait, you can't! They got into mass deletion-flamewar between some modders and moderators all of whom had too big egos and too little sense. On the other hand, generally speaking the complete information produced by human race was improved by the deletion of said pointless flamewars. And polls if moderator Z should be sacked. And..
So BFC forum is still pretty professional compared to some that are out there. Imagine Derek Smart as Steve and you get the idea.
-
True, so let's see what the patch does about suppression fire etc. It's already been stated that AI is better about using corners and not exposing themselves.Originally posted by c3k:But I'm talking a pop-up target on the run and visible for only a few seconds. CMSF tends to hit them far too often. And their buddies tend NOT to fire at the location where the deadly fire came from.
Your scenario of a guy running across the street from hard cover to hard cover is obviously the best case scenario. Unfortunately, thought, things tend not to be that ideal most of the time. Enter my dead meat argument, except that most of the time you try not to let "them" have leisurely stress-free firing positions where it's like popping targets in a firing range.. Add a half-dozen rounds coming your way after every time you show your nose can put a dent on your cool!
To make things worse for the boys trying to cross the street, thought, is the fact that it's not just 1 guy. It's a squad. If they do it all at once like in CMSF, you're presented with perfect target for some snapshots/bursts for much longer than the few seconds it takes for one guy to cross a (very narrow) street..
Speaking of which, use of smoke is too cumbersome. You really need a way to get "someone" toss a smoke grenade down a street while getting minimally exposed. Not waltzing from behind a corner with the entire platoon in full view of the bad guys.
[ December 11, 2007, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Barleyman ]
-
Actually, I'm waiting for the patch so I just thought I'd finish the campaign in the meantime. After all, I had CMSF sitting untouched for months and I decided 1.04 seems good enough to give it a proper try. (bought it when 1.02 came out)Originally posted by Webwing:Have you tried some players' made scenarios?
There are some quite good ones. Very well balanced.
Go to the Scenario and Campaign Design Forum and check out some of the ones available and some opinions.
You may find one that is more to your taste.
FWIW I don't know how realistic a balanced scenario would be, after all US army DOES have firepower coming from wazoo. And relatively few soldiers. We're talking about guys who use ATGMs to do the job of a humble RR..
And about gameplay, I ran into an obvious (and annoying) bug twice so far. Some guys on a roof of a garage who couldn't be shot. Not from the 3-story building next to the garage, not from ground.. Just couldn't get LOS althought they apparently could see ME just fine.
Second one was that scenario did not end and the OPFOR had grand total of 1 spy and 1 panicked soldier covering in a basement left. I spent last 30 mins of that scenario performing house-to-house search..
So not so many blatant bugs to my mind. Lots and lots of problems with the UI and unit behavior, thought.
And, well, the stock campaign IS pretty one-sided. You can get total US victory dead drunk. Believe me, I've tried.
[ December 11, 2007, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Barleyman ]
What can a spade, sweat, a pair of hands, and a blanket do against VT artillery? Nothing. To get even moderate cover against VT artillery, even the small stuff, you need heavy reinforcement. It's really that simple. The other stuff can give you good concealment, if prepared well enough ahead of time and by competent troops, but that isn't the same thing since concealment and cover are different concepts.
Suggestions to improve the UI
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted