Blackcat
-
Posts
1,049 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Blackcat
-
-
Womble,
As always I read your post with care and respect. It is the extent of this "praire dog" behaviour that is at the heart of my search for knowledge. It seems accepted that soldiers will not go so far as to look over a wall, how about sneeking a peak through a window? What about peering over/through/around a bush? More to the point, given the context, the berm of a bocage? Or maybe the lip of a foxhole. If in all those circumstances the answer is "No, a soldier will spot what he can see from his prone position" I truly can't see why the behaviour was coded.
-
What I would like to see is RT with enforced pauses, every 60 seconds or so, during which the action since the last pause could be replayed from any angle and as many times as the player wishes. During that pause the player should be able to issue as many orders as he likes, but none at at all while the action is running after the pause is over.
-
Stoex,
What my "beef", if such it is, is that the game represents at least one member of a hidden team "spotting" at pretty much anytime. I think it reasonable for a player seeing that to assume that the game portrays a soldier sticking his head up for a quick look round before ducking down again. Now from you I find that is not the case. Spotting whilst hidden means, well it means nothing. So what was the point of putting it in the game in the first place?
-
Unfortunate. I quit playing this because work took over my life. Now I seem to have more time and was hoping to get back into it as the demo rekindled my interest until I tried multiplayer. I even just tried playing CM1 and found that it doesn't display right and I can't end my turn after watching the video so I guess I am screwed
If the camera was more like the TOW camera I may have caved but unfortunately that isn't the case.thanks to all that tried to help me get the demo going.
Well, good luck with playing another game which maybe more to your taste.
-
Ok, so this spotting behaviour that the game says is going on when a unit is hiding isn't really going on, or at least isn't really spotting for threats and opportunities. It is just a chap staying exactly where and how he is but opening his eyes. In which case why on earth did BF bother with coding it up in the first place?
I am struggling with this one. What I am reading here suggests that a unit which hides in a type of cover that extends beyond the height of a prone man will never see an approaching enemy. Surely I am missing something.
-
I have long held the belief that the war might have ended six months earlier if even a few squadrons of heavy bombers had been diverted to anti-uboat patrolling in the mid North Atlantic in 1941-42. Harris fought that tooth and nail.
Michael
The problem in 41-42 was the range of the aeroplanes then available was such that an area of the atlantic could not be covered (the air-gap). Secondly, without good enough radar the chance of a couple dozen heavy bombers patrolling the atlantic spotting anything would be exceedingly slim. Without the technology extra aeroplanes would have been unlikley to reduce the length of the war.
-
How are your guys to know just how far the enemy was, if all they can see in front of them is a wall? It still works like in CMx1, but your guys must be able to spot the enemy for them to spring the ambush.
Whenever I have a unit in hide mode the display tells me that at least one of them keeps sticking his head up to spot. I would have thought that this spotting task would be to look for threats/opportunities and that would mean looking over the wall. Maybe the problem here is rather more fundamental.
Since CMSF we have known that the more eyes there are looking the more will be seen. This has been demonstrated time and again and acknowledged by Steve. So a thirteen man squad is more likely to see an enemy unit that a two man recon/sniper/AT team. I have had many, many experences where a small, stationary team equiped with binos and not in hiding have failed to spot enemy infantry and even armour. Given that, I think it is entirely possible, in the game, that one man sticking his head up for a few seconds will entirely fail to see an approaching threat. So maybe, maybe, the lack of sucess in setting ambushes is due to a limitation in the spotting "rules".
-
Panzerleader, the argument on this was had and "lost" at least four years ago when BF started to design the CMx2 engine. They made their decisions based on their perception of what would be best for them and, indirectly, their customers. Steve has said that WEGO over TCP/IP is something that they would like to have, but it certainly isn't going to happen in the near to medium term. Maybe we will see it again when CMx3 comes out in a few years' time.
Personally, though I was a great player of CMx1 head to head over a network, I still think the game is well worth the price. Playing against the AI is much more of a challenge than in CMx1 (there are some really good scenarios and campaigns already available) and I am finding PBEM more acceptable than I thought I would.
-
LOL. I just read an account of a squadron of Churchills that did just that during Operation Bluecoat
Chuchills could go where other tanks couldn't. Their extraordinary climbing abilities had been demonstrated in Tunisia. So I don't think the exceptional abilities of a small proportion of the armour deployed negates your original argument.
P.S. If I am thinking of the same action didn't the Churchills out run their infantry, which couldn't keep up (due to the terrain as well as defensive fire).
-
"he could have been more right, but only if he'd used his tool very differently, especially from about mid-43 onwards"
Ok, I'll ask. How do you think he should he have used his tool differently from about md-43 onwards?
-
"I am saying that unopposed infantry will be able to get through (over or under) ANY hedge or bocage. The time taken to do that can be discussed but it would certainly in a timeframe that would fall within the game."
Yes, it is possible for a man or men using hand tools to get through/over any bocage hedge. Is it possible to breach every bocage hedge with hand tools inside 30 mins - four hours, no it ain't. Some hedges, in some places but evereywhere? No. Go and see some of this stuff. In addition we ae talking about a combat environment where the GI's would be trying to do the work whilst lying on their bellies and generally trying not to attract attention.
If, as above, a hedge can stop a cow or horse pushing through it, a soldier or even 12 soldiers won't be able to either. So its down to cutting your way through.
Holien, tell you what! You come down to my neck of the woods with a WWII entrenching tool. I'll introduce to some rural hedges and we will time how long it takes you to get through. Then we will go up to some sunken roads near Shere in Surrey which have banks just like the high bocage and we can repeat the test there.
Or you could just walk out into some fields near you and try a few experiments on ordnary hedges.
-
But location objectives invite a slugfest, one way and another.
Mr. Cowley what I meant by the indrect and efficient approach was, for example ignoring the objectives perhaps swinging round past them and destroting the enemy in detail away from the objective "hexes". At present it is possible in most games I have played to achieve a good, if not total victory, by such means. Your idea that I must have at least 1.5 times the value of the enemy units negates that strategy.
Just thinking of your proposal in a little more detail, calculation of the value of units should present a few challenges. What is th numeric value of a broken tank crew with one member missing?
I also note Holien's post above and am remided by that old legal adage "Hard cases make bad law".
-
I notice one thing that hasn't been mentioned in this regard is the fact that these foxholes will allow the attacker to more easily spot possible defender locations, since half the foxholes will be on the 'wrong' side of the hedgerow. The attackers will spot the empty half of the foxholes relatively quickly, so scenario designers will have to provide extra foxholes that are left empty in order to fool the attackers.
A very good point Mr. Stoex. Then the designer would need to allow the attack even more mortars etc. to cater for the fact that so many rounds are going to fall on empty positions, or, as alternative, more units to scout so as to ensure precous ammo isn't wasted.
As I say, I am grateful for LemuelG's work in finding this technique and his dedication in testing it. Someone like THEGPT, will have fun with it, but he will also, I suspect, want to balance the gameplay. However, given his welknown weakness outside the leg-stump, the end effect might mean his scenarios become easier.
A nice discovery from LemuelG. Whether it turns out for good or ill depends on the scenario designers who take it up.
-
"The second idea would limit the gamey rushes as they would be mostly pointless."
Wouldn't this also force the player to fight directly for the objective, rather than allowing him to take an indirect approach? I am fairly sure it would re-introduce gamey flag rush as both sides try and make sure they have the requisit number of people present.
So, at best it would create a slug fest as it removes any incentive for elegant and effcient behaviour. In the worst case the idea would bring back an unpleasant behaviour from CMx1, particularly when playing the AI.
-
All fair points Mr. Broardsword. I was wondering about the effect on play in craming more units into the same area to produce, essentially, the same result and whether the candle was worth the game. I accept your views and it, for sure, is a matter for scenario designers. I await with baited breath what they give us with this new tool under their belt.
-
One of my frustrations in CMSF is that the scenarios would finish too soon - when the AI had plenty of units left who could have caused me major damage as I still had objectives too take. I can't say I have noticed this problem in CMBB.
To be sure there have been times in CMBN when the AI still had viable units on the board, but not in a position to do me any great damage as the only way they could affect the outcome was by way of a suicide rush a la CMX1 AI flag counter-attack. So I think that this time round NF and the designers have got the balance about right.
Not only that each time I see the, "Game over" screen, I am usually pleased to see it as by then I have had enough and pleased my troops got off so lightly.
-
I for one am gratful to Lemuel G, for the work he has done in this area and especially the tests he cas designed and run to demonstrate how good foxholes are when placed under bocage.
Now, what does this dicovery mean for scenario designers? Surely it must be that if they want to give the US player a fight worth having, they will have to increase the troop available to the US side (especially mortars and other HE chuckers). I think my point is, yes this makes the game more realistc, but what does it do for game play when implemented?
In the, few, PBEM games I have played so far (and to a lesser extent the scenarios) I have already become concened that the atrillery arm holds too much sway over the outcome. Artillery is rightly called the "queen of the battlefield", but being very realistic in ths respect might not make for fun games. Good work and good results Lemuel, but I would advise being careful of your wishes.
-
Mr. Steiner,
The arguments for target lines and command lines has been done to death. What is the point of continuing to flog this particular dead horse?
-
Thanks, Fuser. You gave us a very good scenario with this one. A very nice map (though I by-passed its most interesting features in both of my attempts), and a very tough fight that needs proper tactics to avoid horrendous loses but even then is hard. My thanks, Sir, for something like 16 hours enjoyable gaming.
-
Well, at the second attempt I emerged with a tactical victory and I think that will have to do. Without more mortar/artillery support I don't think I am going to do any better.
This time around I had 30-odd infantry casualties, plus one half track destroyed and one Sherman immobilized. The Panther survived though - I just didn't have enough assets to tkae the right flank and the objectives.
A good scenario.
-
I have recived an email from an old mate of mine. He is a lurker on this forum and an ex 17/21st Lancer. Here is what he said:
What Ho mate
I've just been reading your latest post on the forum re your Sherman pumping rounds into the dirt.I was watching Patton 360 on the Military channel the other day when a tank commander was talking about this very situation. The reason this happens is in part exactly what you say, i.e. the height of the commander is the highest position in the tank and as such sees things the gunner can't. Obvious as you well know.Probably what isn't quite so well known is the relationship between the gunners sight and the gun barrel. The actual sight is a distance from the barrel therefore the gunner can see the target but if you were to look through the barrel you can't see the target. Once the gunner fires the projectile will hit the ground and throw up all sorts of **** at extreme close range. Because of the lack of flight time the gunner will not be able to observe the fall of shot and therefore can't correct. The commander with a better view should see this and order the driver to advance a few feet and try again. The same could happen again and so the process must be repeated.Now in the game it is the gamer who orders the movement and is therefore the tank commander and you have to order the tank forward, but in the scope of the game you can only order the tank forward a square, hex or whatever the increments are, therefore by trying to inch forward you could totally expose your tank rather than put it into a hull down position which makes the whole task somewhat hit and miss.If you are in a prepared defensive position the gunner will drop the breach and look through the barrel to make sure he has a line of sight. Again as you well know this is bore sighting which is not possible during a battle.I hope this helps explain why your little pixeltruppen do what they do and it's not because they are pissed they just haven't got a particularly good tank commander which I presume must be yourself.Ah well never send an infantryman to do a tank commanders job.Speak to ya soonSo apparently the problem is all down to me and because I was in the infantry I don't undertsand it. Makes sense. -
Could this behaviour be caused by something to do with deployment and deployment times? If memory serves it takes quite a while longer to set up MGs in buildings, though I am not sure that this applies to bipod mounted weapons. Maybe the TacAI thinks it better to get as many rounds down range than take the time to set up. I note the squad in question is rattled and therefore maybe not thinking too clearly, though it is veteran and, therefore, should know better.
Strange stuff. What happened in the next turn?
-
"... are there any tips for reducing the click fest?"
Play in WEGO mode? The number of clicks might not actually decrease but at least you can take your time over them.
-
"I suggest that AFV LOS routines need to be made more sophisticated to differentiate between what the TC can see with his head out the hatch and what the gunner can see. In the former case, the TC would be able to fire any weapon under his direct control, but if the gunner didn't have LOS, he simply wouldn't fire. Some report to that effect would also be nice."
Mr. Emrys,
What you ask for should already be in the game, i.e. the grey line - not all weapons from this unit/vehicle can fire on the nominated target. It appears that in certain circumstances this doesn't work and what should be presented in grey is, for whatever reason, shown in glorious bright blue.
However, to prove this one way or another will require setting up tricky tests which will take up tens of hours of my time. Frankly, I can't be bothered with all that, so I'll just pretend that my tank gunners are drunk, mentally deficient or visually challenged.
If the camera was more like the TOW camera I may have caved but unfortunately that isn't the case.
Oddity
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Mssrs Stoex and Womble,
Thank you, gentlemen, for taking the time to put me straight on what is actually going on in the game with my troops when they are hiding. I am obliged, particularly as I am in the middle of setting up for my first defensive PBEM - I could have gone very wrong without your corrections.