Wreck
-
Posts
499 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Wreck
-
-
Well, from the screenie, 2nd Platoon HQ is out of touch with C Company, but it is in touch with 1st Battalion. This explains how it gets artillery.
Now, I am not sure how it is in touch with 1st Battalion. This should not be if there is no radio, except if 1st battalion HQ is in the battle, and it is in contact somehow. I don't see any other HQ unit in your screenie, but it may still be in the battle. Is 1st battalion HQ in the battle and in LOS of 2nd Platoon HQ?
-
19kb or less? What? At least on the site I use (imgur), there is no limit.
-
If you are trying PrintScreen, it probably won't work.
-
He said he was a real life tank crewman -- not an officer. And in any case, even if he was an officer, knowing how to run a tank platoon or company does not mean that much in terms of being able to command an infantry attack, which is what he is doing in the two scenarios in question.The only issue that is disturbing that nobody picked up on is that the original poster is a RL tank CO, and doing things the way he was trained doesn't appear to work for him. -
Sounds like a bug.
-
Yes. As I recall, the problem was that CMx2 uses the vehicle model for multiple purposes. Among those are display (duh) and hit-testing for enemy fire. Anyway, you can't have a vehicle that looks like A but gets hit like B, and changing the code to support this is a bit involved.Steve made some comments on this a while back. Best I can recall, the gist of what he said is that this is theoretically possible, but unfortunately it's not a trivial thing to code. -
Is the company commander out of C2? If so then the platoon leader may be using a radio in a nearby vehicle, which would explain things.
-
My guess is that BTS does not take any account of the command link between mortar and observer. Thus, all connections get the delay that BTS feels is proper for a radio connection.
It would be nice if they worked on this. Especially given that one could fire mortars in CMx1 with no delay at all.
-
PBEM -- "play by email". Two computers are used. Files are used to transfer turns between computers.
TCP/IP -- the network protocol used by all modern computers to talk to each other. In the case of CM, playing via TCP/IP means playing a game where the two computers are talking to each other directly to transfer turns. Files (as such) are not used. CMx1 supports TCP/IP play.
Realtime mode -- in CMBN, a non-turn-based way to play. Time advances in real time, 1 second per second, although IIRC it can be paused.
WEGO mode -- a method of play where both players plot their moves without knowing what the other is doing, and then, when both players are done (or time runs out), the turn is resolved by the game engine incorporating the new input from both players. WEGO turn plotting is simultaneous in TCP/IP mode (CMx1 only), keeping both players busy most of the time. In PBEM mode (all CM games), only one player does his moves at one time.
-
You'll never see me playing RT either, for the reasons you mention. However: what about PBEM? With H2HH you can cut out the email and file copying. No, it's still not the same as TCP WEGO -- no simultaneous plotting is possible. (I am sure we won't see it for a while, but adapting email to work like TCP WEGO in allowing simultaneous turn-plotting should be an item on BFC's todo.) Still, it's a fun and worthwhile game. Just make sure to have something to do while your opponent does his turn. Surf the web or something. Bring a book.
-
I did a test of this last night. Summary: men hiding in buildings are practically immune to small arms fire.Most, if not all, buildings are impervious to small arms fire. The lethality issue is due to men bunching up in the windows.I tested 9 German HMGs at ~235m against 9 American squads in buildings. The buildings I chose were "independent" ones, all of them two stories, and no two the same. The Americans have AI orders so that they don't do anything. All Americans are on the ground floor. Germans never saw any Americans; they were given orders to area fire at the ground floors of the one building they could see. Fire was maintained for 3 minutes.
In my first test, the Americans were "up" -- not hiding. They took 62 casualties, total, over 9 squads -- so almost 7 men per squad were hit! Ouch!
In my second test, the Americans were ordered to hide. They dispersed more. They took two casualties in one squad, and zero casualties in all other squads. Those two may be some kind of fluke -- perhaps a man was hit in the initial seconds before he had time to hide? (Buddy aid probably got the second man.) Or maybe he had popped up to spot and got unlucky. Didn't see, but in any case flamingknives is right. Hiding in buildings (at least on the ground floor) is really, really safe. Men are suppressed by fire, but not hit.
Incidentally, one other thing I discovered that is not that obvious is that area fire is per-floor, and that area fire on a second floor does not have any effect (except suppression) on men on the first floor even if they are "up". (I had to re-run the "up" test after I discovered this.)
-
Tank assaulting is implemented in CMBN. It happens automatically when infantry are near a tank, where "near" is quite close -- perhaps 16m? The infantry will face the tank, and you will see grenade-hurling animations although it strangely does not actually cost grenades. Infantry will assault a tank this way a few times per minute.there is no way to assault a tank?In the particular situation in this video, getting close enough to assault the MkIV (and then waiting for the assault to go off) would probably give the tank plenty of time to annihilate the men doing it. Usually assaults only work from buildings.
-
About the tone of the OP: let's cut him a break. He's clearly not a native English speaker, and getting the nuance of tone in a foreign language is hard.
I think most of his points are at least arguable. Any difference from CMx1 is quite noticeable. And it raises the question: why is it different? Are buildings good or bad cover? (I certainly did not know that hiding in buildings is helpful -- will have to test this.) Another example: what does BFC know now about WWII tank accuracy that they didn't know then? Given that this thing was based on CMx2 which was designed for modern tanks, it is very easy to suspect that BFC adopted a targeting model that has built-in assumptions that are inappropriate in 1944.
-
If someone has better data and can set up a test in game to prove that game deviates significantly from this data, they should put it forward. Unfortunately nobody seems willing to do this.
Well, I tested artillery not a week ago. And it is not right. At least, 120mm mortars are, quite definitely, wrong.
In CMBN, German 120mm have a CEP of about 16m, apparently at all ranges. Modern 120mm (using dumb ammo) have CEP of 136m at the limit of their range (7km). We can assume that WWII 120mm was not more accurate than modern 120mm. If one assumes that CEP increases linearly with range, and we handwave the range, assuming our CMBN 120mm are 2km back from our board-edge, expected CEP at game distances (of 0-1 more km forward), should range from 39m to 58m.
That is, with these assumptions, CMBN 120mm mortars are about 10x as accurate as they ought to be. Boom. And I tend to doubt that there has been zero improvement in accuracy since 1944.
I could not find solid CEP data on the web for any other mortar, although there is a nonpartisan suggestion of 130mm for (modern) American 81mm mortars. That would also suggest 81mm in CMBN are way too accurate.
I don't know if perhaps I ought to shout about it more? I kind of thought that BFC are reading even when they do not comment.
In case you missed it:
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=102070&page=2
-
You cannot hide the main interface bar (at the bottom of the screen), if that's what you mean by "hud". You can hide pretty much everything extraneous on the battlefield display, though: icons, texts, etc.I would like to take some pictures too, but is there a way to disable the hud? I just cant find a hotkey or something for this. -
I'll agree with complaint #1. Acquire would be nice, but I can think of several other ways to do things that would be just fine with me:
1) when a MG team gets low, take most ammo from its associated ammo team. Leave ~100 rounds or whatever for their use. This should happen automatically.
2) slightly harder than 1: when a MG team drops below twice the #rounds that its bearer team has, take (say) 200 rounds. The idea here is to keep topping off the MG team whenever the bearers are close.
3) change MG team pairs to be actual squads with 2 teams, so that they merge whenever close. Then they would automatically share ammo as per currently implemented. The player could then split them manually.
Your complaint #2 is something I have noticed, but I've never found ammo to be tight enough in a campaign for it to matter that I am somewhat overloading some teams on rare occasion.
-
Yes. The various setup zones are very hard to tell apart.the colours used for the set-up zones can be confusing as they are differant shades of red or blue.Using three very similar shades of the same color was not a good UI choice. Yes, it does make the scenario editor easier to use and understand. But 95% of the players don't use the editor. Most players just play scenarios; these players will never see a German setup zone at the same time as an Allied setup zone.
The setup zone colors could be easily improved by using red, green and blue for them, for both sides.
-
-
Nice testing, Ian. I was just posting what you said in #151, but you beat me there.
-
Test it out, Ian. My opponent surrendered and I got a Major, not a Total, because he had touched half of the touch objectives and despite surrendering got the points for that.
-
Offboard assets have no variable distance from target.
I tried a maximum size map (4km is evidently the max), firing 120mm at 3.8 km from the FO. CEP is 16m. So you seem to be right -- offboard has uniform CEP at all ranges. 16m is a dramatic difference from the 136m that the army gets from modern mortars.
-
Surrender also does not give total victory -- I know for sure from this scenario. I'm not sure a surrender is scored any differently from a ceasefire.
-
The question is thus raised. What was the CEP of WWII mortars? Was it, as we currently see, roughly 4m or so at ranges up to 320m?
I googled a bit for more info, but so far nothing too much. I did find a page at army.mil with this: "Current CEP for 120 mm mortars at their maximum range is 136 meters." To my knowledge the modern 120mm is based on the German WWII one; so I added a module of 120mm to my test and did a setup-plotted stonk. 22 shells later, I can see that offboard 120mm in CMBN has a CEP of 14m. A second stonk with more shells (32 + 2 spotting rounds) shows lower CEP of 12m.
This second stonk was done 1.4km from the observer; thus we can assume it must be at least say 2km from the mortars. If CEP is linear in distance from gun to target, then that would suggest a CEP of about 42m for the German 120mm at maximum range.
BTW in case people tried to look at my images and failed, I didn't have them public. Now it should work.
-
It is actually around 50m x50m, but this is correct. No matter what size the texture is, it is mapped into those 50x50 areas.I am still unsure about the fact that resizing the stock textures does actually improve the resolution. Game engine uses terrain tiles of say, 8x8 meters. In that square, the engine fits a single texture.So it is quite possible to get higher resolution of textures by increasing their size. Similarly you can get lower resolution.
What is not possible is to get a different area covered. This is very unfortunate IMO because it makes it impossible to create gridded terrain where the grid aligns with the action spots, which are 8x8m.
Out of c2
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I'd say bug, then. Can't think of anything else that might explain it.