Blackcat
-
Posts
1,049 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Blackcat
-
-
Some nice ideas but I fear thier implementation would cause as many problems as it would solve (even more accidental bail outs for a start). However, I think BF may have something more radical and much better up their sleeve and are not going to change anything in the meantime.
-
Georgie,
It wasn't always easy to win playing the allies in CMSF, at least not when playing scenarios and campaigns - asymmetrical victory conditions saw to that. You cold take the objectives and kill every last enemy out there and still lose. Furhermore as scenario designers became more experienced in the nuances of the game even playing against the AI could be a real challenge.
In CMBN asymmetrical victory conditions have yet to rear their head (they will in time, and the squeals of complaint will be marvellous to hear). The other issue is the return of the quick battle - this was not a major feature of CMSF, and those that played it tended to play Red V Red - and the return of a lot of people who skipped CMSF (who not unreasonably come with CMx1 mindsets). QBs, especially the ever popular meeting engagement, are artificial constructs which bring with them their own imperatives if played in real time that don't really fit with the rest of the game.
A lot of the points you raise (e.g. "remain in the same place too long and the mortars or artillery can take out several squads") applied equally to CMSF, especially if you were playing the Red side. And given the leathality of the modern battlefield you could lose at tank there even quicker and for a smaller mstake than in CMBN.
Finally, the game is just over one month old. We are all still learning how it really works. Even the most dedicated gamer has yet to rack up that much time with it.
-
All valid points, though why people are annoyed to be charged taxes and fees on an import is beyond me. I look at it the otherway and rejoice that some got away with it. Everyone should have paid the tax, some didn't, that is a cause for celebration.
If the game was shipped from Germany then it would be subject to VAT at the German rate and presumably there are costs involved in setting up and running the German operation. The fees and taxes would still be there just hidden from us.
The other cause for celebration is that even the bureaucrats in Brussels haven't worked out a way of taxing downloads yet (thanks to our American cousins telling them to feck off when they tried few years ago). So it is in fact our choice whether we chose to pay these impositions in the first place.
-
No use them as you would like ofc. At this moment they kill infantry in buildings in a few seconds. A few rounds will take out any single halftrack and even heavier vehicles. 60mm grenades are like remote hand grenades… you won’t take out infantry in a 3 stock building by throwing 10 hand grenades on the roof the 60mm mortar can at this moment.
Well, it never occured to me to use 60mm mortars against troops in buildings. However, as you raised the possibility I thought I'd set up a little test and try it.
I can definitely confirm that troops standing or kneeling looking out of the windows when a 600mm bomb goes off outside that window do have a high chance of being hurt. I am not sure I should be surprised at that.
I fired a full load (32 bombs) indirectly at a house of which 28 were used in FFE. All FFE rounds landed within 15 metres of the building (some very close indeed). Out of 20 men in the building 9 became casualties (including "1 yellow"), but six did rout out of the building. Casualties were worse on the ground floor (6) that the first floor (3). Bombs landing on the opposite side of the building to the defenders didn't cause any casualties.
Is that really so far off the mark? In the real world when a bomb goes off outside a building people inside get hurt, especially if they are looking out of a window close to the seat of the explosion and directlly facing it. A quick glance at google shows that the HE round for the M2 weighed in at 3lb (so maybe a pound of HE), produced around 200 framents and had a burst radius of about 17 yards. Stand, effectively, in the open a few yards from one of those going off and you are going to get hurt. There was no sign of any structural damage to the building.
I could spend lots more time repeating the test and trying it with the defenders hiding, but I don't really see the need as there was nothing particulalry shattering about the first trial.
By the way 60mm mortars firing in direct mode do not always hit first time every time. In fact in my experience it usually takes them three or four ranging shots before they get the mark. Thereafter as one would expect the rounds land in a tight group.
-
How do I exploit US 60mm mortars? Or rather, so as not appear gamey, what should I do so as I am not seen to exploit 60mm mortars? Should I not fire them? Aim to miss? Use them only in situations where they won't harm my opponent? I am confused by this one.
-
"first HQ team that I sent up to spot, would not move to the front of the building and therefore did not spot the MG teams, AT guns, etc. I spent three turns trying to get them to move to the proper windows, but they always stayed at the back of the room, looking out the side windows. "
Sorry to ask the obvious, but did you use the face command? I find telling a unit in a building to face the way I want them to look works.
P.S. There is no difficulty slider in CMx2 just variations on the level of FOW.
-
That reminds me of the the classic scenes in the Simpsons. The diabolical Mr Burns has a roomful of monkeys chained to their typewriters, pounding furiously. Burns grabs a sheet from one of the machines and reads: 'It was the best of times and the BLURST of times!'. And angrily crumples the paper and tosses it.
Sheesh! I never knew the writers of the Simpsons stole jokes from Bob Newhart (his version was funnier though).
-
Not sure if this addresses your point, but I believe the study was referring to anything larger than a BAR. As a general rule, until the US figured out how to get tanks into/thru the bocage, they had no way of providing effective direct overwatch/suppression fire from their side of the bocage field. Instead they had to push all their infantry units, including MGs, into the field and fight from there. In CMBN we have lots of options for direct fire overwatch, including non-rhino tanks, and more effective indirect fire as well.
Point taken. Now, I understand you more fully, I think your original point was correct.
-
Well, the interface is a lot less confusing if one forgets about hot-keys. The mouse can do 99% of what is needed and using it makes life so much simpler.
The game is very complex. It is supposed to be and it has to be in order to do what it sets out to achieve. Comparisons with other user interfaces are not worth a light because whatever game that other interface comes from that game doesn't even attempt to do what CMBN does.
Would it be useful for new gamers to have a hold-your-hand-walk-through all on screen? Probably. However, if a person is not capable of reading the manual and applying what he has just read with what he sees in front of him is he really going to cope with the game?
My son started playing CMBO when he was about seven or eight, he didn't struggle with the interface then and, despite playing all sorts of God-awful games (which, no doubt, comply with the "conventions") in the interim, he hasn't had a problem with CMBN now.
CMBN is a "serious" wargame played on a computer. It isn't a computer game that can be enjoyed by the casual player. I strongly suspect BF know where their market is and know where to devote their efforts to satisfy that market.
Sorry, off on one there.
-
FWIW, an authoritative study of the bocage fighting classified the US HMGs as one of the direct fire weapons that could not be effectively used when attempting to fire thru the bocage (largely because the Germans would see the US attempting to open up enough of the bocage to permit deploying and firing, and react accordingly). However, I don't think CMBN attempts to restrict any large caliber direct fire weapons in that way. IMHO, this is one of the reasons why fighting in the bocage is easier in the game than it was IRL.
I am not aware of any evidence that US water-cooled HMGS are in the game any more powerful or effective that their light, air-cooled counterparts. In fact there appears to be no difference between the properties of the two weapons. Therefore, I strongly doubt that bocage fighting is made any easier by their, occasional, presence
-
Ok, I am not wholly sure I am with you on this. However, I have had many experiences of using the target tool to check LOS from behind a bocage hedgerow and been told that to the points I am interested in there will be no LOS. Now, when I have moved my unit to that point and had them set-up they did have a LOS.
I don't fully understand why that happens but I suspect it is down to relative heights (don't some units by default always finish their movement in the prone position) and the effect of the face command (units will take up the best cover possible that enables them to fire in the direction given).
So, I suspect that the deploy command when used after the face command does enable your MG team to get out their entrenching tools and get a level bi/tripod position - fast work but not impossible.
-
"I've experienced some strange tank (stuart/sherman) behaviour when they are finishing a move near trees."
Heck, I have seen some odd Sherman behaviour in the middle of a move in an open field. A couple of days ago, I ordered a Sherman to move fast in a straight line across a wheatfield. It started out ok then after maybe 75 yards it started to do pirouettes in the middle of the field. No obstructions, no incoming, no known reason. Had to cancel all movement orders and start him off again to get the drivers head straight again.
I have become used to that fact that my Sherman drivers can't manage a clutch or steer in a straight line down a road or across a bridge, so one more bit of odd behaviour I just put down to too much calvados at breakfast.
-
The face command has always sorted out these issues for me. Whether it makes a difference or not I don't know, but I always order face then deploy weapon on the last waypoint.
I have never had a problem setting up an MG in a building either, but others say they have. Perhaps I have just never played the same maps, I dunno.
-
Yes, spotting rounds for mortars occur for pre-planned barrage with immediate delivery. Ran into this last night in fact with about 6 60mm on board mortars, 2 81mm on board mortars. There was also a 75mm pack off board, but I can't sit here and say for certain whether it utilized spotting rounds. Judging from the varying accuracy, it appears the spotter must be able to see these pre-planned spotting rounds as well in order to ensure accurate fire.
Did you plot a linear barrage for your off map mortars? If so there is an acknowledged problem that the first n rounds will land just about anywhere, before starting to hit the desired target area. Point and area fires should work as per spec - accurate, immediate delivery (save flight time) and no spoting rounds.
-
P.S. Just had a very quick look at Les Lincorets. Deep joy, a succession of 200 yard open fields to cross. This I fancy is going to be one of TEGPT's specials.
-
Well I didn't do well on Turnbulls Last Stand. I had three goes at it and quit out on the first two due to the "Eternal Planning/Spotting bug"* fouling up both my AT Guns and my Mortar. When the game misbhaves like that I break my house rule of no reloads/retries.
On the third go the AI put nothing down my left flank and everything came at me to the right of the road. I took down his two MKIVs bit could never get sight on the Marder with an ATG or the mortar. Shuffling my infantry about wasn't much help as I couldn't really get the squad or MG from my left flank to a position where they could get into a position that could do any real good.
Finally I ran away and escpaed with a minor victory and just two wounded. Can't say as I enjoyed this one.
*For those who haven't seen it the "Eternal Planning/Spotting Bug" occurs when for some unknown reason a gun or mortar when asked to fire doesn't, even though they have a clean and good line of fire. When you look at the unit info in the bottom left hand corner you will see the gunners status as constantly and very rapidly alternating between "Planning" and "Spotting", once in this loop the unit never comes out of it and will never fire again. In this scenario I accepted the default set-up, save a I moved the mortar up to the hedgerow, and hit this bug on each of the first two tries. On the third occasion in the setup I moved the ATGs a very short distance to the left and had no problems.
-
... Lot's of explosions going on and I go all gooey...
Typical of the RA!
-
Sounds like sometimes "planning" also may mean the Tac AI is sitting there scratching its head going, "Hmm, what do I do next?"
I have several times seen mortars and AT guns that I have ordered to fire flick constantly and very quickly between planning and spotting. Once they get into that loop they never come out of it and never fire. Cancelling a replotting the "Target" command or HE fire mission dosen't resolve the problem, even if they ordered to fire on something else. Ordering the unit to move, may, reset the loop but other than that the gun/mortar is useless for the rest of the game.
This is the only genuine bug I have seen so far.
-
"... anyone done a grid mod or something yet?"
There was one available within a few days of the game being released. Last time I looked there were two available at the Repository.
-
"I’m short of a small amount of points (< 100)."
Happens to me everytime and always has. I am sure the points allocation is carefully worked out to produce just this effect.
Speaking personally I'd keep all the units and reduce the quality of some (crack troops die under HE just as easily as veterans and veterans as easily as regulars). However, if I couldn't do this without going picking up more than one or two green units, I'd look first to losing some MGs (for my mind they produce less value than a US infantry squad - particulalry in a meeting engagement). I'd also make sure that my force mix didn't have any long(ish) delay off-board artillery units or AT guns because I find both to very difficult to employ sucessfully in a meeting engagement and so represent poor value for money.
Others will have different views of course.
-
I have tried in CMSF and more lately in CMBN to use on FOO to control multiple missions. What I found was that although the missions could be plotted to run in parallel they actually happened sequentially (i.e. spotting rounds on the second didn't start to fall until the first was, at least, into the FFE stage). Thus the delay in getting rounds onto target could actually be much longer than using a second spotter with an inferior request time (e.g. a platoon HQ).
Given TrailApe's comments I now wonder if my experiences were clouded by some other factors, though quite what I can't think (LOS and all the indicators were good).
-
Did you actually fire the HE?
The reason I ask is I have this happen to me all the time when trying to switch from full-on "Target" to "Target Light" . The smoke and dust from the explosions obscure the target area. It is a bit aggravating, not realistic (after all I am telling one weapons system out of three to stop firing not changing the aim point) but not in the end a big deal and one which would probably be hard to fix.
-
Interesting thing about this sort of deal. You see it as an issue (and if that's your opinion, then it is an issue for you, not disagreeing here, just commenting) and I see that as a great example of the game imitating the pull-your-hair-out, cat herding, marble stacking moments of frustration that real life war provides
"Hey, boss, we got eyes on a Marder"
"Nice work, where?"
"There"
"I don't see anything"
"Well stand over there next to Corporal Katowski"
"Nope, still don't see anything"
"Then stand in between Kataowski and Smith"
"Sorry, I am not allowed to do that. I can stand in front of Katowski or in front of you, I am not allowed to stand anywhere in between"
"Well what do you want us to do, boss?"
"Bang off a few rifle rounds maybe he will just go away"
"Hey! That worked. 'Course now we got to find the sucker all over again and maybe he'll have the drop on us next time"
No, not a big deal, a weakness in the game that will, I am sure, raise its head in the future and spawn many more threads.
Anyway, we can blame TEGPT.
-
Achieving local fire superority is just as important whether you are sitting on a hill or on the second story of a building. I tend to use buildings for observation but a building with good lines of sight is not a good place to fight from IMO. I get my scouts out of there early.
Wise words.
"... a building with good lines of sight is not a good place to fight from..."
Because if you can see lots of places there are dozens of the buggers who can fire on you.
Panzerschreck/Bazooka Range and AI Behavior.
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
There is but one TacAI in the game. It is used both by the computer and human player. If the logic is changed on when a unit will open fire it will apply to both sides. The human player can, mostly, over-ride the TacAI's decisions on targetting, assuming he knows that there is a decision to take and is in a position to take it - not always guranteed in real time or WEGO.
The call for a hard limit on when the computer player will open fire with an infantry AT weapon is, I think, fraught with difficulty. For example, I know that the effective range of such a weapon is generally less than 100 yards, but it could kill me at more than twice that range. Now, if there is a hard limit of, say, 100 yards then I can place my tank at 101 yards distance and sit there blowing the snot out of anything I fancy in perfect safety. Getting a good LOS at 250 yards is, in Normandy, much harder than a LOS at 101 yards. So what is intended to be a help for the computer player could end up with being a major hinderance. The logic needs to be sufficiently fuzzy and that will always produce arguments on specific cases.
I don't say that the OP's idea is wrong just that it is not as simple as some appear to be thinking.