Blackcat
-
Posts
1,049 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Blackcat
-
-
Gunnergoz,
Everything you say makes perfect sense. There are just two problems.
Firstly, the AI might commonly lead with his armour, though I haven't yet played enough to confirm this (doesn't it depend on the designer's plan?), but PBEM opponents don't. If pushing forward with a two man scout unit triggers ATG fire, or fire from a carefully placed infantry AT team then that is what a lot of players are going to do and running an effective defence against armour will be much much harder.
Secondly, whilst I totally agree with your ideas on keyholing ATGs and the like, if one does use a short covered arc to avoid firing on low value units then in WEGO the high value unit can be across the field of fire and back into dead ground before the player can react.
Neither of these issues are impossible to deal with. For example, one could use MG's to take down the scouts and fields of fire from ATGs set up in depth. However, sometimes there aren't the resources available. An elegant and realistic ("Hans, you see any infantry, just let them pass. Your job is to go after the armour") solution was available in a different game. It will be good if BF find the time to implement it in this one, I think we might have to wait until the Bulge though.
-
It seems a pretty simple problem, and normally I err on the side of appreciation for the complexities of the system in play.
As I see it, the logic is basic - you take a normal cover arc order, and include a test on any appearing targets - armour or infantry? If not the object of the arc, then hold fire - else, open fire. Endif.
I suspect most people would settle for this, and leave the inevitable desired exceptions of the rule for those times when not covering an ObjectX-only arc.
I'm open to any and all enlightenment as to the nature of the game's algorithms for covered arcs
The logic would seem to be as you suggest, but I think we have to assume that the people who designed and coded the game know more about what is involved than we mere mortals who just play it.
I don't suppose there is a hope of finding aout about the algorithms used. BF have never yet released any such detail and I don't suppose they ever will.
-
Don't forget armour only covered arcs. Steve has said that BF do want to put them into the game but they are complex to code and so no timescale is,yet, on offer.
-
I wouldn't argue with any of that. Setting up an effective ambush, particularly an ambush of armour and especially in WEGO, does seem to be something the game doesn't really cater for. It will be able to do so at some point in the future, but if there is a way of doing it in CMx2 nobody seems to have found it. Which, I think, is a bit of a bugger.
There was also some talk in a couple of the threads here that using an arc improves spotting within it by decreases the ability to spot outside of it. That was certainly the consenus on the CMSF board and is, possibly, supported by Steve's comment quoted above.
-
"A few other things I would like to see are:
- a return of the command delay..."
Nooooooooooooooo! If that abomination is to be allowed back into the game it should only be once BF have given us proper road movement/convoy command. Command delay was a nice idea but its implementation was so awful that it detracted rather than added to the game.
-
I know they're there, but don't even see them anymore. Considering I play WeGo only, that's pretty significant UI statement. My mind blots them out entirely. I've never used them.
Same goes for me.
P.s. DaveyJJ, I note that you have changed your signature lines. In doing so you seem to have removed the most powerful one ("Cats in ancient times etc."). Will you not reconsider?
-
£37.89 in customs and clearance fee : (
Hopefully they will be delivered tomorrow.
How does that work then? You get charged £37.89 yet I and others in the same legal juristiction just get a happy postman shoving it into our hands with no fees to pay. London really is a dump.
-
Datoff,
You are bringing up a topic that has been mentioned on these forums so many times before. The game could really benefit from a follow road/convoy move/follow him command. That has been true since the start of CMBO but it ain't happened yet. One day, maybe, it might but don't hold your breath.
-
Since the release of CMBN there have been a fair number of people on here bemoaning the lack of a "Cover Armour Arc" and commenting on the difficulty of setting up an effective ambush. Now, I took one look at the inital release of CMSF and fled in horror only to come back after the the Brit Module was released (version 1.21, from memory) but I was failry sure that these issues in CMx2 had been addressed before. So this morning I went off on a rummage through the CMSF forum in search of enlightenment.
Before getting into what I found let me say a couple of things. First, my Google-fu is weak and there may well be posts that I didn't find because of my poor powers. Second, it was heartwarming to see so many names that are familiar to us from today's threads posting, often about the same issues, three or four years ago. OK, so what did I find?
The issue of using a combination of Hide + Target Arc to set up an ambush and it not working very well was mentioned as long ago as July 2007. If my fading memory serves wasn't that about the time CMx2 was released? So this is not a new issue, it has just never been resolved.
As regards target arcs I unearthed the following interesting snippet:
"Arcs are a double edged sword. They are there to limit your unit's distractions so it can focus on something very specific. For something general Arcs are a bad idea and should be avoided. The best use for Arcs are for defensive purposes or small scale, somewhat predictable assaults. Especially in urban areas. For a wide ranging tank maneuver it might be difficult to use Arcs effectively."
Steve, of Battlefront, 26 December 2009
Not terribly specific, but for players new to CMx2 it does, perhaps, provide an hint as to how BF regard the target arc command. On then to cover armour arcs.
I found a fair number of posts along the lines of, "WTF! We had these in CMx1 and they were jolly useful. So why have they disappeared in CMx2?" Where I struggled was finding an direct response from BF. However, I did turn up these two little gems:
"The request [for cover armour arcs] has been duly noted and is going to happen at some point. However, I don't know when that will be. AI has to be written to get this to work correctly, which is why we haven't put it in yet. Back in CMBB days it took a long time to get the balance of factors to work correctly with each other."
Steve
1st December 2010
"Cover Armor Arc is a feature we definitely want in the game. However, it's pretty involved and therefore we aren't promising it for Normandy. What I can say, though, is there are some other things we are planning on implementing that will make this feature more desirable and viable. But again, I can't say when that larger change will come into CM, even though I can say that I know it will. Sooner rather than later."
Steve
14 January 2010
So, gents, there is no point in bleating any further on this issue. BF will be implementing "cover armour" arcs as soon as they can. It might be in a patch, or a module for CMBN, or we may have to live with it until the Bulge game, at least. My money is on the latter, but it ain't going to happen soon.
-
Anyone else still waiting in UK --"Shipped 18 May" and still no sign of steelbox here in Brighton Sx. UK
Well I am about 12 miles North of you and mine arrived this morning. A bright happy postman delivered one complete and undamaged package and didn't ask for any money.
My son (18 years old) got his head out the Montebourg campaign for long enough to have a quick glance at the manual and say, "Nice, but I'll never read it".
-
A long time ago when BF started talking about CMx2 Steve posted on a thread that the idea was to produce a module every six months or so. That clearly went into the toilet with CMSF. However, now that they have a pretty stable platform and tweaks rather than major fixes are required, maybe they can return to their original plan. In which case we could see the 21AG module out this side of Christmas (Yay!).
-
Here's an idea I had that is kind of related to this discussion. What if mortars, when used in the direct fire role, were able to use the indirect artillery options, but only with themselves as an option. So they could do linear, area, or point targets, instead of just the current direct line. Obviously they would only be able to do this on what they can directly see, basically they would be their own spotter.
For example, say you have a mortar set up and it has direct line of sight to a hedgerow full of enemies. Wouldn't it make sense for the mortar team to be able to do a linear target mission along that entire line, instead of just firing at the one spot where you give them a target? In RT this isn't a problem since you can let them fire a few rounds and then shift the target line down a bit, but in wego you have to choose between putting ~60 seconds worth of rounds on one spot, or using a spotter, which means you are looking at 3-6 minutes at least before those rounds are landing. I'm sure you guys have considered this, but I thought I would throw it out there.
Another, probably simpler fix, would be making it where a spotter that has verbal contact with a mortar unit has a much shorter wait time for fire missions. Right now it seems there is no difference between radioing in a mission from the other end of the map and having the guy turn his head and say "Could I get some rounds on those trees over there?"
I do like both your suggestions. Let us hope BF take them up.
-
Bridger15,
What you are asking for is something that has been requested ever since CMBO first came out. It ain't happened yet and I don't suppose it will in the foreseeable future. Steve and the guys have explained why a whole game video is a non-starter several times over the years, though I can't remember what they said.
So it is a nice idea, we would all like to see it, it has been requested many times but don't hold your breath on it ever happening.
-
I should have been more specific, I meant once inside the building to clear the other floors.
To go in, yes, I like to go in with a QUICK move
Hmmmm, I dunno. Speed and violence seem the key to me, but I'll give your way a go and see how I get on.
-
"We need ... wego with no replay" Why bother if there is no replay? It would be unplayable except for very small scale actions.
Besides which I was given to understand that the size of the files containing the turn data is one of the main reasons why full WEGO over TCP/IP could be implemented.
-
I never use "hunt" anymore for infantry except for very specific tasks like clearing buildings...
Don't you find hunt gets your men killed very quickly when clearing buildings?
When doing that I like to go in quick and violent - lots of suppression fire then a pause outside the door with a fire order to put some grenades in then quick into the building with, possibly, an area fire up to the next storey, if appropriate, once I am in.
Poncing about in someone else's building with situational awareness and a bandy legged walk seems like a dangerous option to me.
-
"What would they be doing while hunting then?"
Walking about three yards then hunkering down because they have heard something go bang half a mile away, if my experience is anything to go by. The Good Book says that soldiers moving on hunt will stop if they see the enemy or are fired upon. My lot seem to interpret that last clause somewhat liberally, they also get very tired if asked to move in hunt mode for more than a few metres.
-
You might want to go and look at the thread mentioned by Furinkazan. The answer is in there if memory serves.
-
So you ordered a team splt from the rest of the squad to pop smoke, the team did nothing but someone in the rest of the squad, some distance away, did pop smoke?
I'd say that was a flaw in the game. If a unit (and a team split off from a squad is a unit for every other purpose) has no smoke then the order shouldn't be possible. The fact that it apparently is and causes another unit to carry out an action seems wrong.
-
Just to clarify, were you using the assault command?
-
You are not correct. My mortar CAN fire the position definitely. I just zoom my map to the tree where the gun is. Press target and click mouse next to the tree. And voila, I have indirect target under the tree. I just want easier way to set the same target.
It has everything to do with the user interface.
No, I have to say it isn't anything to do with the user interface. As others have said, your mortar unit has not, yet, seen the ATG. This is relative spotting in action and the game is functioning as it should.
What you are asking for is for your mortar to be able to "see" the ATG, and that is an example of borg spotting.
-
Cirrus,
sorry i misunderstood you. And i learned something. Have never tried that gamey workaround.
Steve,
wouldn't it be more realistical, to deny indirect fire of mortars, if they don't have any kind of observer having LOS to the target area?
I think there might be some confusion here with "Indirect". We cannot, as far as I am aware, fire mortars at any point on the map that they cannot themselves see unless there is a spotter, which does have a LOS, calling for fire.
What I think Cirrus is trying to do is target the ATG whch his mortar hasn't spotted, but another unit has and he is complaining that when he has the mortar selected the icon for the ATG is not shown.
If I am correct what Cirrus is asking for is, in effect, a return to borg spotting. It has nothing to do with the User Interface.
-
"It does raise the question as to whether you wish that everyone should spell English in their own way - or that we should tend towards a correct spelling"
Quite right, the Yanks should learn to spell. There is a "u" in "Armour" for a start and, by the way, they should also note that the subject is Mathematics (note the plural) therefore the diminutive should not be "Math", it should be "Maths".
-
I stuggle to see how BF can implement some sort of hit/kill probability stat that will be in anyway meaningful to the user, let alone do so without adversely affecting the performance of the game.
We know that there are a large number of variables involved in calculating where a round will go. To present a hit probability these will all have to be calculated and then presented as some sort of percentage figure (even if its done as colour code there will have to be hard numbers underneath it). To work out the kill chance there are even more variables to take into account and another set of calculations to be done.
Now, all that work has to be undertaken, on the fly, before the player fires the shot. Then surely they will have to be done again if the player actually "pulls the trigger" - if they aren't then we are back to the probability model of CMx1.
There is only so much processing power available and I don't see how, keeping in mind this all has to work in real time mode, that the calculations can be done without affecting what is going on elsewhere. Furthermore, where is the pay-off? "If you fire your 57mm ATG at the frontal aspect of that Panther you have next to no chance of killing it but you may, may damage its gun or its drive mechanism". Well f*ck me I never would have guessed I am really glad the game told me that.
Steve has indicated that BF have ideas about how more information about possible shots can be presented to the user. BF have a history of getting these things about right, but I would say if it is just rule of thumb stuff don't bother just stick an extra few paragraphs in the manual.
Cover Armour Arc & the Ambuscade
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Thanks, Mr. Cape. I was being a bit optimistic in my reading of Steve's "Sooner rather than later". Nevermind, we can now stop thinking about it for Normandy and just try and find other ways of effectively doing what we want to achieve.