Blackcat
-
Posts
1,049 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Blackcat
-
-
Blackcat,
yes.
I am planning on joining you. I shall stop playing this game the moment it stops providing me with a fun and intellectually stimulating hobby. Once those damn "bugs" start impacting on my enjoyment the game will be off my hard drive faster than you can say, "best wargame around".
-
Steiner14,
Do I take it from that last post that you have stopped playing CMBN?
All the best
-
Herr, Television,
For what is is worth, my take on your points in reverse order:
Those "?" markers
These function as intended and are a direct result of the realtive spotting rules. Keep your chaps in C2 and you will have fewer problems. That ain't going to change.
Armour Arc
Yes, wouldn't it be loveley. However, Steve has said on this forum that it is not going to happen before the Bulge game. By all means chomp your gums about it, but you will be wasting energy. Unless BF change their mind it ain't going to change.
Editable Movement Paths
Some people see these as desperately important, others don't seem to feel their loss. However, given that they weren't in CMSF, haven't made it into CMBN and there are, if you think about it, some serious coding and UI issues that would have to be addressed (issues that didn't exist in CMx1), I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Its probably much easier, and less frustraing, to learn how to "drive" with the tools we have.
LOS Tool
There is a compromise already in the game, as you have noted. My frustration with it is that it doesn't seem to take account of the height of the unit. For example in a current game I plotted up a brilliant ambush based on MGs and light mortars having LOS/LOF from a particular line. When it came to it the mortars had LOS/LOF but none of the MGs did. Much bad language.
If BF were to provide a roaming LOS tool it would have to provide options for differing spotting heights and also take into account that for many units the centre of the sqaure is not where their LOF will be drawn from. If I have a tool that says I have a LOS but when I get there I don't have a LOF is it worth having? More to the point is it worth the effort that would be necessary to code it (instead of getting with something really worthwhile - like making HMGs behave like HMGs)?
All the best
-
"if its in the book its in the game"
Well, it probably is.
One last thought on HQ units getting thumped. A couple of days ago I had a platoon HQ take a casualty, it was the radio operator. Straightway the radio disappeared from the unit card and the HQ lost comms to the company HQ and the artillery. A couple of turns later that radio was back and so were the comms. I assume that game simulated the 21c picking up a still functioning radio, which was nice. I also assume that radios don't always survive their operator becoming a casualty, but I don't know this for sure.
-
I say again: why no repeat...over.
I launched a heavy short mortar barrage on a target. Waited 5 minutes for it to be spotted and on target. The target was still intact and called it in again. Had to wait 5 minutes again for the second barrage? Considering the mortar is already registered shouldn't this be less than a minute now?
Seriously, no other game models artillery support as good as CMBN so I am just saying if it is not in there then maybe a repeat fire mission option could be added.
You could try it the other way round, order a long barrage and then move it or cancell it once it has done its job. In WEGO you tend to lose one turns worth of rounds, but you win on the time penalty.
-
I meant these Blasters, im being silly.
That picture is of a British Sterling SMG wih the stock folded and fitted with some sort of optical sight (surely the most useless addition to a useless weapon).
First you want obsolete swords not issued for nearly a century, then its SMGs not developed until after the war. Get a grip man!
P.S. Peoploe forget just how small a budget Lucas had for the original Star Wars - imperial storm troopers carrying SMGs, sheesh.
-
If a spotting unit loses communication for an extended period with the artillery during a fire mission, but before FFE, the mission will probably be cancelled automatically (page 105 of the manual).
As for a higher unit cancelling the mission, if the spotting unit has lost its comms links how would they know?
So not a bug, just the game working as intended.
P.S. Does your damaged spotting unit still have a radio?
-
2) How do I learned what knocked out my tank? I am fine with not knowing during battle, but afterwards I would like to know. Is the CMx1 unit info gone, when after a battle I could select any given unit, click ENTER and got an info about what that unit did kill?
3) Can you just give an estimate on how much learning I have ahead of me if I have only played CMx1 so far? (I haven't RTFM so far, as I just bought the game an hour ago).
2) At the end of the game select a unit (froendly or enemy) and its kill stats will appear in the bottom left hand corner of the main screen.
3) Lots and lots. CMBN isn't an upgraded CMx1 it is an entirely new game.
-
Light sabres please.
Light Sabres? I think not.
Sabres, where the effect is produced by a curved cutting edge had been abandonned long before WW2. The last light sabre in UK service was the one introduced in 1853 and proved ineffectual in the Crimea a short while afterwards (there were complaints that it turned too easily in the hand and was in any case incapable of cutting through the thick Russian overcoats).
Thereafter, the UK, and most other major military nations, gradually switched over to the cavalry sword that produced the effect by thrusting with the point (thus rediscovering something that the Romans knew - six inches of point is worth any amount of length).
For the Brits the cavalry sword reached its apogee with the 1908 pattern. This had a 35inch narrow blade with a pistol style grip designed to prevent it buckling under the pressure of the thrust. A similar but more ornate sword was issued to officers from 1912.
In 1913 the yanks adopted the Patton Sabre (designed by the man himself, then a colonel). Despite its name it was in fact a straight sword of very similar design to the British 1908 pattern.
So I don't think it would be appropriate to have light sabres in CMBN.
-
Well thank goodness that is over! Hell in Hedgerows was damn hard work, but once I finally killed off the defenders of La Vallee everything fell into place quite nicely. I still suffered 40 casualties all told, which was the highest for a battle in the campaign so far, but I think I can live with that.
A couple of unusual things I noticed. Firstly, all my platoon HQs were down to just one man by the end. I have never had that before. In part that must be due to me having to put such units into the line so as to call down mortar and artillery fire, but it might be evidence of the AI targetting HQs. Dunno; seems unlikely, but there you go.
Secondly, I was aware from quite early on of some German units on my extreme right flank on about a level with my first fighting position. I knew they were there but as they wouldn't cause me any problems I decided to ignore them save for a couple of squads to screen that flank. When the game was over and I reviewed the map those German units had left their starting positions and had moved back towards their MLR. It looks as though the AI was reacting to my moves. I have never seen that before either. Mr. Tiger, if you read this would you care to comment?
Hell in Hedgerows is an absolute sod of a battle. In concept it is straightforward (get to the creek, use smoke to mask the dash up the slope and roll up the MLR) and in truth and in hindsight the defenders are not that strong. They are however very well placed. One of Mr. Tiger's finest.
-
Most of the patch desiderata, namely; more potent MGs, stouter defence works and, arguably, tanks not firing on the run, etc, are going to seriously imbalance existing scenarios and some QBs in favour of the defending side. Everyone realizes this, right?
I think it is inevitable that changes to game will have an affect on some existing scenarios, not always to the benefit of the defender though. It certainly happened in CMSF where some of the early scenarios became trivially easy and other almost impossible.
However, if the game is to progress there is no help for it. The advantage CM has got is the number, energy and creativity of its scenario designers. Thanks to those selfless and wonderful people we can look forward to new scenarios written to take advantage of the new/tweaked features.
-
I don't believe the little exclamation mark is in CMBN. I am fairly sure this was covered in one ofthe early demo threads. Units can break to the point where then run for the hills, or least their friendly map edge, and stay there as quivering lumps of jelly until the end of the game. They no longer disappear from the map, unlike units who have had their surrender accepted.
-
Thanks for the encouragement, Mr. Tiger. My actual casualties aren't too bad, at least not yet, but I am not making any progress.
There is one HMG that is really causing me a problem. He is behind a big hedge near the house at La Vallee with a very nice field of fire. So far he has survived everything I can throw at him. In my last session to supplement the mortar fire, and minutes worth of MG fire and the combined fire of 3 full squads he had already had, I dumped a full load of 60mm HE on his head (4o+ rounds). Bugger me if a turn later he wasn't up again ripping bursts into my advancing troops. To add insult to injury, his mate ten metres or so along the hedgerow, who I had long since thought I had killed or broken, comes back to life and joins in. So much for light mortars being super effective. At least I seem to have silenced that bloody infantry gun on the ridge.
-
... They just didn't include it because they thought it wasn't important enough...
You seem to know what goes on inside the councils of BF and the differences in the code between the two engines and how the new features relating to waypoints would affect the ability to move them.
Alas, I don't have your levels of knowledge and expertise. I might think that if a player has given, fro example, a target order from a waypoint and that waypoint is dragged to another place then something would have to happen about the target order and this would cause complications in the code/UI. Now that you have told me that the only reason moveable waypoints have not been included is bloody-mindedness on behalf of the BF team, I shall up my outrage levels accordingly.
-
" but the fact remains they have the ability to it"
I think you meant to say, "They had the ability to it on the old engine". You now have other things you can do with a way point that you couldn't in CMx1. Do these new things improve your gaming experience? If so do their benefits outweigh the loss of moveable way points? For me they do, massively, but each to their own.
As and when moveable way points come into CMx2 I shall rejoice, but I ain't holding my breath or letting their absence spoil my games.
-
You should always take action before you think you are ready - then you learn the most and the fastest. Also, if you play against the AI too long you pick up a lot of habits of thought that will hurt you when you come to play a human (I speak from experience here).
So go for it, now!
-
Just popping back to have a public swear at TEGPT. I am really struggling with Hell in the Hedgerows. My thanks to people who have posted their experiences, I have read them carefully and repeatedly, but my this one is hard.
I have hit on an AI plan where the first village, Le Goulet(?) is undefended but getting through on the left (La Vallee) is a nightmare (immortal HMGs holding me up long enough for the German artillery to start landing and the bunkers on the far slope joining in).
Mr. Tiger said upthread that he feared this mission might be too hard. I am worried that, with the AI plan I have drawn, he might be correct.
I think I need a fundamental rethink and meanwhile will enjoy calling down curses on TEGPT's head and calling him all the bad names I can think of.
-
"The frustration of having to delete and redo all my waypoints and final orders, like facing, target arcs, etc, is just not necessary - especially considering they had the tech to do this 10+ years ago."
That was different game. That game did not allow plotting of pause, fire orders etc. at way points. I think if you rumage around with the serach tool you'll turn up some threads from CMSF where this subject was done to death and statements from BF that getting moveable way points into CMx2 is on their list of things they want to.
So it might happen one day (in the same way that WEGO TCP/IP, or replay in RT, or pause in two player RT, or any of a dozen requested features might happen one day). Until then we must just continue to be frustrated.
-
Stoex,
I though the same as you when I first read Mr. Baba's posts. On first sight it all looks a tad fundamental with some nasty consequences. I am sure there will be some grown-ups along soon to explain it though.
-
"I'm not sure what would have to be done to convince you, but we've got multiple people running multiple different tests and all seeing the same results: suppression from friendly small arms fire."
You do not have to convince me. I am not arguing a position. I only posted on this thread in an attempt to try and be helpful to the OP. With regard to friendly suppression I know what happens with small arms fire in my games and I now know a bit more about the effecs of ricochets. I have tried to replicate AKD's direct supression and can't so I won't be changing the way I play. I am quite happy, thanks.
-
"Load up the Demo and play the "Road to Berlin" scenario. You'll get two Shermans, an MG, several squads of riflemen, etc. Put one or two squads up against the building on the right side of the courtyard. Take the MG and whatever is left and put them behind the low wall right next to the road. Order a Target Light on the house or the spot in front of the house. The guys will be completely pinned in less than a minute. I tried it multiple times and it happened every single time."
Mr. Griswold,
Alas, I no longer have the demo on my machine so I can't replicate your example. I have replicated something very similar to it with both German and US troops. What I saw, and I guess what you are seeing, is the effect of ricochets. These will cause casualties and suppression. They seem, seem, to occur at different frequencies depending on the matrial the building is made out of.
I still cannot reproduce any direct suppression on friendly units from small arms or .30/7.62 machine guns. AKD says he can. In one of his examples he got a whole squad in a building cowering and cautious with 10-15 seconds worth of fire from a single MG - I wish I could get that sort of result on enemy units. AKD also says that he did some of his tests using a new version of the software. It may be, therefore, that he is a beta tester and presumably knows what he is talking about.
If you chose to believe that freindly small arms fire does cause suppression then you will no doubt adjust your style of play to ensure that moving units do not cross into the path of friendly fire (fire lanes and movement lanes when on the advance and so forth).
For myself, this point has already taken up far too much of my gaming time and until I actually see examples of my units suffering from friendly rifle-calibre fire in the game, I shall carry on with the tactics and techniques that have worked to date.
-
"my best shot to date is still a pheasant at 600m with 5.56mm
"A single round on the wing? If so thats some fancy shooting.
-
AKD,
If 30 cal etc. cause suppression why don't I see it in my games and my tests? Please can you send me a save file which shows me what you are doing to get these results for the US side because as I say I can't reproduce them.
I have been assaulting buildings, which is where this started, in CMSF and CMBN and have never yet taken suppression or casualties from my own side's small arms when they are used in supporting (i.e. suppress the enemy) targets, nor afterwards when I have taken the building and the suppression fire is continuing. So I must be doing something different to you.
-
Akd,
There may well be different rules at play for the German side. I just repeated my Sherman test but this time used two MKIVs with a German Pioneer squad as the target. All OK indoors but ourside in the "assault" position I saw cowering and casualties, possibly because of ricochets. More work needed I think.
"
Needed Implements: what do you feel is lacking, is missing, is buggy?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
The height problem for a LOS tool has nothing directly to do with multilevel buildings. It si to do with height of the spotters eyes above ground. Men who are lying down son't see as much as men who are kneeling who don't see as much as men who are standing and so on. I think there are in fact four heights in use and that excludes the various heights of personnel in AVFs etc. So a generic LOS tool is not likely to be much use, it could well be misleading unless the UI was extended to cope with it. Then there is the problem of where in the action square your troops actually end up compared to the centre of the square which is presumably where the LOS tool would take its view from.
The AI don't cheat that I have ever been able to establish.
As for HMGs, yes they do function pretty much as in CMx1. That is a big part of the problem. However, I have had my say on this matter in another thread and I am not going to start again.