Blackcat
-
Posts
1,049 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Blackcat
-
-
"...His was a voluntary assignment, transferring out incurred no stigma...."
American bomber pilots in WWII could resign? Really?
-
"This is another bit of bad luck for GaJ that I think is going to be traced back to not paying close enough attention to where things can be seen from."
I suspect you are right, but that is in game terms. However, unless we are talking about a blockhouse the size of a house standing in an open field with no attempt at cammo, this sighting stinks. A lone armoured vehicle in position for a very short time just should not be able to see a MG bunker, that has not fired, at more than five-eighths of a mile. It is daft and it is wrong and, I suspect, goes back to a very early design decision to, in the code, classify bunkers as vehicles.
-
Never mind spotting the ATG, as Baneman posts, that JPz IV has just spotted at HMG bunker at a range, from Bill's maps, of well over a kilometre. That is crazy. I don't care how good German optics were, clocking a MG bunker, that hasn't fired, at 1 KM plus is not on. That bunker might now just as well not exist, it will never achieve any kills as Bill can destroy it any time he likes. So GAJ has got a hole in his defences, though he doesn't yet know it. Its things like that that really annoy me about this game.
-
The whole business of spotting rounds etc. is, I think, a tad overdone in the CM series. In 1917 the British used predictive artillery fire, that is fire accurate enough to do its job without the use of spotting rounds and registration., since then the techniques have improved (massively so with GPS and digital computers). Yet in CM games we have to go through the process of firing spotting rounds for all types of artillery - even in CMSF set in the early years of the 21st century.
There are, I think, good game-play reasons for this, not least because in CMBN artillery is bordering on a game destroyer. However, the artillery model is not in any real way realistic.
-
Why think small!? One per team (so three for a standard/armoured infantry squad), that'd do the trick
When my late father-in-law was in Korea with the RM he had one section of his platoon entirely equipped with Bren guns, the other two sections carried Garands. The firepower was amazing but ammo supply was a complete bitch.
-
"Realistically I don't think there was a trained combat soldier that could not scale a 4' or 5' wall that shrubs on it."
I agree. However I thought we were discussing bocage here.
-
Got me there. Bad evening here, I certainly was happy to take offence "Kick the cat", quite literally LOL ...
GaJ
No sweat, I have days like that too, but kicking the poor bloody cat seems over the top.
-
I wasn't patronising you, I was trying to explain how I think the game works in answer to your question. But if it makes you happy to take offence and, if having the answer, you want to create the same problem for yourself in later games, good luck to you.
-
GAJ, you gave the unit an order to pack-up and then another order to deploy. You seem to believe that the second order should countermand the first, i.e. the unit will stop packing up and start to deploy immediately. I am not sure that is the case. In fact, I think the unit will obey the orders in sequence i.e. they will first pack up (taking however long it takes) then deploy (again taking however long it takes).
Aggravating, to be sure, but not a problem you will have more than once.
-
I don't think the C2 system is broken. There is an issue about replacing HQ's in campaigns and Mad Mike explains it well. How often that problem occurs depends very much on one's style of play and a bit of luck (the only time I have suffered HQ losses is when the units have been caught in a mortar barrage).
Mr. Erwin questions whether C2 matters very much in the game. Well, if it doesn't I don't see why he is bothering to make such a fuss about it but leave that aside. In my experience units out of command tend to be far less effective, break more quickly and are less well informed about the location of enemy units and, just as importantly, fail to inform others of location of enemy units.
If my ageing memory can be relied upon I am sure that BF have said on numerous occassions that the C2 model is at the heart of the game (relative spotting etc.). With the exception of replacing KIA HQs in campaigns, it seems to me to work as intended.
-
The community can have as much content as it is willing to pay for. I would cheerfully pay a $50 p.m. subscription for CM (as long as it included WEGO TCP/IP), maybe more (depending on how good a mood Herself is when I had to make the decision). However, I am sure I am in the minority. The decision on investment/return can only be made by Battlefront and I am sure they know what they are doing.
-
Yeah I read the post above. Its not that though. Im familiar with the grey line, I see it most often when some members of a squad can see a target but not all. However in this case, it was definitely a clear blue line, so the game was telling me AFAIK that the tank had clear LOS to the target. Often it can be confusing with Shermans because the commanders .50 cal mount gives GREAT LOS for the commander but the rest of the crew cant see what he does. However the tank was unbuttoned as well..
Alas, the clear blue line does not always mean that the gunner (be it of a tank, ATG or mortar) can actually fire. There have been numerous threads on this since May and it is a known problem. The only solution to it that I know of is to move the weapon a short distance laterally. Maybe one day BF will fix it so that when the gunner has no LOF we will get a grey line rather than blue, but I am not holding my breath.
-
... Now bring on Commonwealth will ya! I know the Crocodile flamethrower will be in, you will not dissappoint :-)
Okay, I don't know, but one can hope...
Your hope is going to be dashed, I fear. Steve said months ago that flame and fire might make it into the third module, but not before. Still you can enjoy your wonderful rig whilst waiting.
-
"reduce the ranges at which more experienced troops open fire with SMGs "
I am certain that, following complaints on this forum, Steve said that this was addressed in the 1.01 patch. Has it not been or do you think it requires further adjustment?
-
Why? Because it doesn't agree with you? It's not the primary document, but it's source is official War Office documents from '44, and it's rather more impressive than any evidence offered to the contrary so far.
Whatever you take from that, it ought not to be: this gun can't kill at ranges >100m. Obviously it can. I used to figure those numbers just meant that when the enemy was was over that range you'd be best served by switching to single-shot mode.
Any evidence that critics of in-game SMG behaviour can provide to back-up their assertions is welcome.
UK citizens are can verify the data themselves: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATID=2449019&CATLN=6&accessmethod=5
I'd love to see a primary copy personally.
As I said I don't think the data presented justifies the conclusion that an average trained soldier has a higher overall chance of hitting an enemy at 200 yards with a sten rather than a rifle. There maybe more information in the full document, but on what we have been given so far it don't stack up. The fact that it is a War Office document doesn't, in itself, make it accurate or reliable.
As has already been mentioned by YankeeDog, nobody is disputing that a hit by a 9mm bullet at a range of over 100 metres would kill or wound. Its the quoted chance (68% at 200 yards) of hitting an enemy at that distance with a sten gun that I struggle with.
If you wish to see a the original document, I maybe able to help. It would seem that the original has not been digitized and is therefore not available on line. However, I do have a reader's ticket for the National Archives and will be next going there on Tuesday. I'll get a copy of the original, if you want to PM me with your email address I'll send it to you.
-
He hates being called "Mr. Salt".
In which case I shall apologise to him, and plead FlamingKnives' post in mitigation.
Still think that sentence can't be justified by the data he presented though.
-
"It was noted that "the average firer has a higher overall chance of hitting an enemy at 200 yards with a Sten than with a rifle." "
I should have thought with those numbers the document must be open to serious question. I would suggest a closer reading of the paper.
The 68% chance of a hit would seem to be an extrapolation based on the spread of a burst fired at a target 30 yards away from a rested weapon under range conditions. Just look at the terms of the trial, even in its own terms the conclusions are barely justified.
Furthermore the paper seems to be a summary by Mr. Salt of a much bigger set of documents. Sorry, with all respect to Mr. Salt, the data quoted doesn't support the conclusions stated.
-
Welcome, to the game and to, probably, the friendliest and most helpful game forum on the internet (just stay out of any thread containing the words "Peng Challenge" in the title).
"Also any other tips for a total noob to the series?"
The biggest thing is to take your time. Most scenarios are plenty long enough for the goals you have to achieve. So go gently, scout and use real world tactics.
-
"There was a huge amount of artillery on call for both the US and British sides in Normandy as I am discovering reading a few books on the subject."
The artillery arm of the British army in Europe 1944-45 was actually larger than the infantry. That is to say there were more gunners than PBI. The doctrine was to win with firepower not with blood. It didn't work out quite as anticipated though.
-
Thanks for taking the time to point me in rght direction, Mr.S.. I have some reading to do.
-
Mr. Sowden,
I am quite happy to do some digging but when I see Terry Pratchett and the Discworld books in a list of sources I am tempted to believe my interlocutor maybe attempting to extract the urine.
Fair go. You want to claim that bomber command had the ability to hit precise targets at night and more effectively than the yanks could do so by day. Furthermore, you seem to want to claim that Harris deliberately ignored this capability. So please do me the curtesy of pointing me at some sources that back your claim and not a reading list which includes fantasy novels.
-
Jons,
Thanks for your contribution. If we could just leave the Battle of the Atlantic alone for a moment and return to the much more interesting point of the use of bomber command. You state,
"By mid-43 Bomber Command had the tools, techniques and experience to conduct precision raids on a massive scale. Not precision in the way we'd use it now, of course, but more precise than the USAAF was able to achieve in daylight."
I thought I was fairly well read on the subject but I have never come across a claim as bold as this before. Please would you let me have a list of your sources?
-
Strange weird stuff, Mr. Oz. My reply to your post seems to have arrived before your post.
-
Thing is you don't have to patrol the whole of the Atlantic, just the bit where the convoys are...
And where the convoy is going to be in a few hours, quite so. That still leaves hundreds of square miles that need to be patrolled with no more technology that the MKI eyeball. In addition there is still in 1941-42 that big bit in the middle which no aeroplane can reach (flying from the UK, Iceland or Newfoundland).
So Mr. OZ, whilst I agree with your other points, I must still challenge Mr. Emrys' claim that diverting bomber squadrons to sub-hunting in 1941-42 would have shortened the war.
Somewhat o/t recommendation
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Burned-out? If a member of an armed force is declared medically unfit through combat fatigue, or any other reason, fair enough. However, I doubt that even the beneficent USA actually allowed its combatants to throw their hand in because they no longer fancied fighting.