Blackcat
-
Posts
1,049 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Blackcat
-
-
GaJ,
One of the reasons people have ben referred so often the CMSF S & T forum is that it contains a lot of information that is directlly useful, relevant and applicable to CMBN. Posters refering people to that site are actually trying to be helpful.
A CMBN S & T will be most welcome, but it will take time to make, so until then refering people o somewhere that will give them the information they seek seems to be a polite and helpful thing to do.
"BFC have completely screwed the game". Can I ask what you mean by that?
-
As a result of my "handcrafted" assault, I'm coming 'round to that idea. My question is which movement command to use. "Hunt" obviously won't work because the assault team will stop upon contact. The lack of situational awareness with a "Quick or "Fast" order is a concern and "Move" is usually to slow. "Quick" with a covered arc would seem to be the best choice in most circumstances. And, what about the situation where the overwatch team might not have LOS to the assault location?
Just curious, because I'm still very new to the CMx2 system and trying to work out the new tactics. Thanks for your reply.
I use quick and have the supporting unit switch to light fire before the assault team gets too close to the assault location (I am also careful not to have the assault team run through the supressive fire whilst it still in full throttle).
If your overwatch team doesn't have a LOF to the assault location I suggest you shouldn't be trying to assault in the first place. Anywhere that needs an assault needs at least a minute of supressive fire before the team goes in, at least it does the way I play.
-
Gautrek,
The only thing the command lines would tell you about the mortars was who was in direct command of them. So having them back would not provide you with any help in relation to a spotting unit on the other side of the map which wants to call down fire. CMBN offers so many more capabilities that the old interface wouldn't actually cope.
As Rake said above, once you have played with the new interface for a while you won't miss the old one at all.
P.S. Show all moves is a hot key command, but I am sure you know that.
-
I'm finding that this doesn't always work. I've noticed in a couple of scenarios that teams directed to the same action spot have not rejoined. It happened with a scout team that I sent out in "Busting the Bocage" and again while playing the second TF Raff scenario after splitting a squad to take the "Investigate Activity" location. I'm absolutely certain that I had the teams from the same squad in both circumstances.
In the Raff scenario, the team leader four a four man team was on the right side of the other team while the remaining three were directly adjacent to the left; they finally rejoined after sitting side by side for three or four minutes. It was annoying because I'd wanted to use the squad to assault a location... as it was, I had to use a "Quick" command with one team and a covered arc followed by "Quick" for the other team in the next turn.
Bug or feature?
Dunno, but hand crafting assaults using split squads is better than using the assault command - only one element gets supressed in the event of defensive fire and you can keep the heavy firepower providing supression whist the SMGs go in.
-
"So I can tell if my bloody HQ or FO units are in contact with my mortar team before I try to use them "
You don't need command lines for this just go to HQ or FO's artllery tab and if there is no line of communication to the moratr it will tell you. Didn't the old command lines work at just platoon level? So they wouldn't tell you if you what you want to know anyway.
-
If you can do a money order to the UK I will happily order the game for you and you can download it and/or I can have have it delivered to your address. I'd hate to see a gamer deprived of this game. Send me a PM if you want to work something out. We boring old farts must stick together.
-
Correct, that´s where the"humbly and gratefully accept all that I have been given" bit comes in. And speaking in general terms it´s probably the only sane way to live in this lovely and dysfunctional world of ours
The only real questions being does my work-around work for you, and should I care if it does or doesn't?
M.
As long as your work-around doesn't stop me using mine, I don't think you need care. Of course, it might be the neighbourly thing to do to tell me about your work-around because it might be better than the one I have come up with for myself and the other way around. Provided such an exchange is made in a spirit of neighbourliness and without dogma such an exchange will benefit both of us, and thats what forums are for.
-
This is actually the closest I have felt to being in the presence of divinity. I humbly and gratefully accept all that I have been given. I cannot demand anything. Through contemplation and discourse I meditate on what it is that I truly desire and then I pray. I pray so that I through insight may better myself, so that i may understand the way of the gods. In the silent hope that the lords may hear me or that I may, in the end, as the saying goes accept that that cannot be changed. So sayeth the holy Manual. SeeEm!
It´s either that or throw a bug tantrum
M.
Nice! Either path can make you feel better, but take up a lot of energy. So you may as well just jump straight to acceptance and try and find the best work-arounds for you. Saves a lot of time and effort.
-
If you were trying to give a linear fire mission then there is an known and acknowledged issue with initial phase fire missions. Area and point missions are fine, just the linear ones are screwed.
-
Thanks that solved it. Another thing to rmember mortars placed too the edge won't fire. Thanks again.
-
I am trying play the Pleasantly Shaded Woodland Scenario, but I have hit a problem with mortars that never fire.
There are three 60mm on-board mortars in command and control of their platoon leader who has a radio. On the second turn I have three platoon HQs who each call in a mortar barrage on seperate points of the map to which the HQ is shown as having a clear line of sight, two are linear barrages and one is of area type. Each call goes through sucessfully and clicking on each HQ shows that the strike is targetted.
I wait, I get three calls saying," Request fire" or whatever it is and in due course spotting rounds for one of the three barrages land and then a FFE. Of the other two strikes nothing happens, no spotting round, zilch, nothing. Clicking on the HQ Units hows that the strikes are targetted and clicking on the artillery icon for each unit shows that "their" mortar is spotting. However, when I click on the two non-firing mortar units I can see a target line but in the bottom left hand corner of the main screen where the unit's individuals' activities are displayed the mortar man is showing as alternating very quickly between "Planning" and "Spotting".
Frustrated, I reload the scenario plot the same strikes from the same HQs and get the same result. So I reload again and this time swop the pairings between HQs and mortar units and get the same result. I reload again and this time I swop the targets for each HQ and put the HQs in different positions - same result.
However, what I do notice is that no matter what HQ, HQ position, or mortar unit I use it is the same target that works and the same two targets that don't. The issue seems therefore to be related to the target location. Just to repeat the game shows a valid line of sight. Furthermore, The constant flicking between "planning" and "spotting" would seem to indicate an error with the code rather than the user - it looks to me like its stuck in a loop.
A saved game file is available if anyone wants to look at this, probable, bug.
-
"i ended up killing him(my own shreck team) myself with a nearby field gun
that'll learn him!"
-
We seem to have slipped deftly from are HMGs modelled about right to are attacks generally producing about results that "feel" right. I am sure Steve said only recently that feelings were not good enough and only hard facts would do. I also remember him giving us, pre-release, posts about how CMx2 was about accurately modelling weapons systems that then behave as they would in the real world as opposed to modelling for effect. I am struggling here as there seems to be a contradiction between then and now.
However, as I have spent far too much time on this issue, I am going to bow out. I am sure it will surface again, it did in CMBO, but I think I'd sooner spend my time playing the game rather than trying to play what small part I can to help improve it.
-
From my limited experience of the game so far I tend to agree with the idea that something is not correct in the protection from fire and cover from view that buildings provide.
There was a thread the other day in which a poster, I am sorry I can't remember who had a team hidden inside a house which was immediately spotted by a buttoned Sherman when it drove nearby. I have recently had a similar experience.
As for protection from fire, my troops seem to knock down defenders very easily even with small arms from 200 metres away. Given that any defender firing out of a window would surely have most of his body behind a wall, this doesn't seem right.
However, having tried to raise an issue already I am aware of the time and energy it takes just to get BF to notice that there is a possibility that there just might be a problem with their modelling. If anyone wants to take this one on, I wish them luck.
-
Thanks, Jason. Let us leave aside the fact that you haven't ansered ny questions or provided counter examples.
I think we have to differ on the casualty rate. You are quoting figures I don't recognise. For example, where does this ten per firing HMG come from? If I were seeing that sort of figure I might go along with your analysis. But I ain't. Using the blunt rush over open ground with no pretence at fire and movement the worst I have seen a single HMG do is 6 casualties. 6 out of thirty odd men over several minutes and 800 metres.
Anyway its 03:40 here and its time for bed. In the morning I hope you'll give me some serious in game figures that would allow me to conclude that HMGs are Ok after all.
-
The dreaded blast command, always a bugger. I think your answer lies in your screen shots. Your engineers are lying tight against the hedgerow, so tight that the blast waypoint is behind them. What can the game interpret from that fact? Well he obviously means we should blow the first thing that is behind us, i.e. the opposite hedge.
The blast command works beautifully, first time, every time, provided the blast waypoint is put on the far side of whatever it is you want to blow your way through. The problems only seem to occur when one tries to make the breach but stay on the "home side". There were lots of discussions about this on the CMSF forum, including, I think, a sticky which gave precise and detailed instructions of how it could be achieved. I never got any of them to work but others did, apparently.
-
Just which campaign are we talking about here?
-
... It puts you more realistic in the position of the company commander.
True, but you lose out on so much "cool" stuff that goes on. When your very own Tube Guy pulls of his heroic feat you probably won't even be aware of it, let alone able to enjoy the action from 36 different angles 57 times over.
Still each to their own.
-
C3K,
I tried to look at your public profile in order to get an email address to send you my test gubbins. However, I just get Error 403, file not found. I am a bit stuck.
-
To blackcat - I just call the formal fallacy "moving the goalposts".
Yup, and I wonder why you did. What was your motivation in giving me examples of successful assaults? Do you think I am so ignorant that I didn't know of any?
For the third and final time I'll say this. The issue I would like to get to resolved is whether the game models the real world capabilities of HMGs. I, and others, have run some tests that indicate that perhaps it doesn't or at least doesn't do so with sufficient fidelity. You are not offering anything that adds one way or anyother to the question in hand. Examples of assaults involving other weapons doesn't move the debate on because those other weapons will be making their own contribution.
In the game I have been able on repeated tests to walk, walk, infantry from 1000 yards out to with 200 yards of an in-cover, in-command HMG with so few casualties (and hence supression) that they could put down such fire as to overwhelm that machine gun position. Is that a reasonable representation of the effectiveness of WWII HMGs? I don't think it is. If you have some counter examples from the real word of WWII combat, then please tell me about them. Folklore about the Somme or examples of combined arms attacks against an intergrated defence, don't help.
I think you have some valid points about what levels of casaulties cause infantry to break, and, maybe, some on the duration of supression. However since an HMG seems to cause so few casualties in the first place (2 to 6 out of thirty odd men running over 800 metres in my tests and a similar level in other players tests) it is all a bit academic, ain't it.
-
Well flamethrower are a must with Commonwealth. I guess with those modern fancy directx packages or OpenGL, fire would be quite easy to implement (and a nice change for the "burning tank" too), and so awesome visually. I would be worth the effort.
On my side, I would only buy a Commonwealth add-on if there were flamethrowers in it! :-) And Jagdpanthers too... And a Bourgebus ridge 4kmx4km scenario.
Polo
You maybe disappointed. My memory definitely isn't what it was, but I am fairly sure the was a big, big hint from Steve a month or two ago that flames were sufficiently tricky that they wouldn't make it until the odds and sods third module, and even then no promises.
-
Unfortunately we can't rely on contemporary allied accounts because in their minds everything that that went 'BOOM' was an 88. I've got a collection of contemporary accounts from a Brit Churchill ballaion and I'm struck how German machineguns were invariably referred to as "Spandaus".
Not a battalion, surely. Brit armour (and artillery) never has had battalions. Regments, yes, but never battalions that is an infantry formation.
*Wrestles Mr. Flaming Picky back into his box*
-
Sure, but Hedy Lamarr wasn't photographed from behind in a bathing suit. Also, Hedy Lamarr wasn't blonde.
Hang on! Wasn't Hedy Lamarr the bad guy who tried to drive the citizens out of Rock Ridge so he could make a fortune when the railway went through?
-
"Blackcat wanted an example of troops successfully assaulting across open ground under MG fire. "
No, Jason that isn't what I said, please read my post again. I can also think of many examples of succesful assaults in 20th century wars, some under very difficult circumstances. However, examples of successful attacks against an intergrated defence tells us nothing about how effective HMGs were as a weapon and how they are modelled in the game compares to real life. That is the question under discussion.
ye olde "In Command" lines...
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Exactly. For non-radio units my rule of thumb is a 100 yards in open country with a LOS to the HQ or a lot closer (less than 50 yards) if there is no LOS and I have yet to have a C2 problem (or feel the need to click on every unit to check).