Rocky Balboa
-
Posts
783 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rocky Balboa
-
-
Thanks so much for the response. While I understand that some "light" mortars like the US 60MM could be used in an indirect fire mode, how were they normally tactically deployed? For example were radios part of their TOE? If not then the normal tactical use of these "light" mortars would have been to direct lay them by team LOS? Is this the consensus?
-
Trying to win a bet and I knew you guys would know the answer. Did light mortar teams (50mm to 60mm) in WW2 use radios and forward observers or did they spot for themselves ...
-
20 hours ago, Mord said:
@Rocky Balboa
You should have the Marines' campaign. You may had a botched install. They included all the campaigns for the respective releases but only the two US campaigns have been updated for SF2. The remaining (older version campaigns) are being updated now and will be released when finished. They did this so we wouldn't have to wait for the game to be released.
If you bought the full upgrade your campaigns should look like this (If you didn't you can figure out which is which by process of elimination):
Back On Tracks (NATO Dutch)
Die Kunst Des Krieges (NATO Germans)
Highland Games (Brit Module)
Semper Fi Syria ( Marines Module)
Task Force Thunder (Base Game)
The Kabour Trail (NATO Canadians)
Training Campaign (Base Game)
Hope that does it.
Mord.
P.S. Tell Adrienne and Pauly, Merry Christmas.
Thanks for the help Mord but this is what I'm seeing. On the main screen I'm showing both icons for the base game and the Marines module as it should be. But when I go to the campaign menu everything is grayed out except TF Thunder & Training campaign. When I select the Semper Fi Syria Campaign, I get a message telling me that I need the NATO Module for that campaign. All the other campaigns are as you stated.
It's possible that there is a bug in the Marines campaign file and it doesn't effect those who have the NATO Module.
-
Ok this seems to work ... had to put in both the old activation codes from CMSF1 as well as the new codes from CMSF2... I did notice that there was no campaign with the Marines modules is that correct? It's been so long since I played CMSF I dont remember. I have the TF Thunder campaign and several USMC battles but no marine campaign .
-
Yes this is an upgrade but I don't even have the original CMSF1 installed anymore. Do I need to install and activate CMSF1 first and then do the upgrade?
-
I have installed CMSF2 full version for windows. when I start from the icon on my desktop I am asked to active the product. I put in my activation code in and the activation code is accepted. See attached inst1. After I hit the play button my desktop appears and then after 30 seconds to a minute the next scree appears. See inst2.
As you can see something is not working right. If I close everything out and click on the CMSF2 icon again I get the same result as if it never did activate even though it tells me it does.
Any help would be appreciated ...
-
6 hours ago, sburke said:
CM still needs Marines (in WW2).
Yep. would definitely buy. Not sure why BF is so opposed to doing it. I'm hoping some enterprising 3rd party will partner with BF to create such a beast. I know snowball did CMA but but I'm not sure how that relationship has worked out ...
-
Building protection has always been one of my issues with CMx2 as well. A moderately trained soldier can look at structure and in fairly short order be able to tell you how much protection it will afford. With CMx2 we have to guess at it.
I personally would like to see a more full proof way of determining defensive properties of any given building. With that said there should also be some way to fortify or improve a buildings protection. Maybe something you can purchase during setup.
-
Sounds like the OP is just deploying single tanks with no support. You should never have armor alone without some kind of support. Even a pure Armor formation should have tanks supporting one another. Sounds like the OP has neither which will get you killed sooner than later.
I's always better to have a mixed force if possible, especially if you are unsure what you will be facing. There is a reason why a combined arms doctrine is so effective.
This is why I like CMx2 because it forces you to use realistic tactics.
-
Sometimes, suppressed enemy squads will open fire once I get close enough.. what gives?
Situation:
I'm using a deployed machinegun to fire at an enemy in a hedgerow some 300 metres distant. The enemy squad has been under fire for around 8 minutes continuously. It's reached the point where the contact marker is half translucent, and I'm convinced that squad must have pulled back from the hedge. I even consider holding fire, but keep it going "just to be sure".
Then, as I send a squad up against the hedgerow 2-3 squares from the translucent contact marker, suddenly the hidden enemy squad opens up with their machinegun. What am I doing wrong? Are suppressed enemies only prevented from firing at distant targets, leaving them free to do close combat?
After the battle, I checked and the enemy is all "green". It's the first mission in the revised "Road to Montebourg" and I'm firing from the beach to the hedgerow.
Your support/suppressing element should continue to fire while your maneuver element is assaulting the target and continues to fire until the objective is taken.
Make sure your support element is using target light so they don't use HE attacks which can harm your maneuver element as it approaches the target. Small arms fire doenst affect your own troops.
When assaulting a hedgerow/building etc .... stop/pause your maneuver element briefly on your side of the wall. This will allow them to throw grenades before the final assault on the position.
-
I don't know. I'm responsible for the CMBN QB Maps but not the CMFI QB's. We are talking about a pretty large, time sucking project, but CMBN is worth it. I do have a method in mind that might speed up the process to maybe 30minutes per map.
Mark, Great Job as usual. If it's a matter of time and therefore $ then update the CMBN QB maps and release them as a pack. I'll pay an extra $10 to have those maps updated with the new AI triggers ....
-
It's sucky game design, since it takes control out of the field of the players in a medium (QBs) that is, at its heart, all about presenting a controlled environment for the players to manipulate.
Nah .... since when has war been a controlled environment? Even the controlled environment that you think you have today is not a controlled environment. If two players have roughly the same numerically sized force, there are still so many factors that are left up to chance. If you had a truly controlled game environment it would be so boring no one would want to play it. Good gaming is all about making choices and weighing risks vs rewards.
Players hate that. In every field of gaming in which I've been involved, which is pretty much all of them except professional military wargames.I guess you've never been involved with betting or gambling of any kind? Been around since the dawn of man and and is still the most successful and lucrative form of gaming there is.
-
And it's not a "counter" to gaminess. It's another gamey metagame: "Did he spend anything on interdiction? I'd better put some points in air superiority just in case..." And you'd possibly never know how that all worked out; whether you'd both wasted your points, or just one of you. Or it would leave a sour taste for the one who did, or who got shafted by a "discount dice roll".
There is a certain amount of gaminess within QB's however whether it's "fun" or not depends on how it's designed.
For example a counter battery meta game might look like this:
I can spend points on counter-battery but that's less point's I can spend on ground forces. So even though I might be successful at preventing my opponents 105's from having an impact on the battle, I might still lose the battle because I don't have enough ground forces to get the job done. In addition, depending on how may points I put into counter-battery might only succeed in delaying my opponent's indirect fire assets for a certain amount of time but he could still have access to them during some critical point in the game.
Another way of designing it could be to forgo assignment of points to counter battery during QB purchase but to add a new counter battery mission type to the indirect fire menu.
This could allow each player to determine during the battle if they want to commit a gun or battery to a counter battery mission for a certain amount of time.
-
I think "metagame" concepts like this are interesting, and I can see the potential value. Further, they certainly aren't aren't limited to air support. For example, it might be interesting if one could buy artillery in a QB and dedicate it to CB fire to have a shot a neutralizing your opponent's artillery.
Absolutely agree ... this is even more important as CMx2 returns to modern combat. I would definitely be thrilled to see a treatment of counter battery techniques.
Modern formations should be forced to keep their on map indirect assets on the move to avoid being pinpointed and even off map assets should be subject to neutralization under appropriate conditions.
-
Plus, as was pointed out before, tactical air *is* relevant to modern warfare.
Steve, Care to comment on what changes to Tac Air you guys are making for Black Sea?
CMSF does an adequate job of integrating Tac Air on the modern battlefield but I'm hoping you guys will kick it up a notch when you return to modern warfare ....
-
Yes, please!
Remove it from this time frame perhaps but the capability needs to remain in the engine to accommodate late 20th and 21st century conflicts.
In fact I would like to see a less abstract interpretation for Black Sea
-
There is something called an "LOS Map" which is precalculated when the map is made and it is loaded into RAM for rapid access during the game. This basically tells CM, ahead of time, which Action Spots can see which Action Spots. There are *no* on-the-fly calculations going on. And that's why your Target tool works snappy under all circumstances.
Steve
Interesting ....
Steve, have you given any thought to adding FOW terrain which essentially would block out action squares based on the LOS map? It seems to me that this could alleviate a lot of the confusion surrounding this issue. In addition I think it would also help a player visualize terrain relief as well as eliminate the gamey use of object deformation (ie ... broken fences and walls ) to track otherwise unseen movement ...
-
An automated email to those who have downloaded the content, Asking them for feedback.
The email would contain 2 links
Click here to provide feedback or
Click here if you do not want to leave feedback
Clicking on the 2nd link means you will not be asked again to leave feedback on this content.
Of course there should also be an option in the account setup that allows the user to turn of all requests for feedback.
-
I would think also that foxholes would provide some kind of concealment bonus. Certainly if troops can take the time to dig the hole, they would added a little camouflage as well. However, this incident might just be an outlier and purely anecdotal.
Maybe someone moved or the TC caught the flash of sunlight reflected off of a pair of binos .... Much testing would needto be done to see if there is a real issue here.
-
Definitely using an engine like unity would make life easier especially if you are targeting multiple platforms. As with any decision there are tradeoffs, having to pay royalties and less flexibility having to work within the limitations of that engine.
I suspect CMT was done using unity and if so then BF already has a good proof of concept.
-
Gamey decal exploits don't concern me but for those that are concerned. Perhaps make decals an option during gameplay but always shown during the AAR at the end of the game
-
Rocky, I have a favour to ask you.
Send me a PM Ill help if I can
-
Where there's fire there's smoke ... Smoke on the battle field can obscure targets or screen approaches even when set inadvertently ....
-
I don't need YOU or any other self proclaimed teacher here to tell me what he believes is adequate or not. Was this clear enough?
Unfortunately the ones you are trying to convince are the ones who must determine what is adequate or not. Your testing so far is at least adequate enough to get some attention and you've already been told that it is being scrutinized and evaluated.
Thousands of players and countless hours have been spent with this game and If the simulation was as flawed as you proclaim it to be then this would have come up before now.
I’m not saying that there might be something that needs to be adjusted but you're really taking this much too personally. I assure you no one has more invested in the success of this game than the developers.
I applaud and appreciate your contribution in trying to make this a better game but try not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Light Mortars in WW2
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
Russian's I believe also used the RM-38 50MM throughout WW2... Anyone have knowledge of how this weapon was normally deployed? Did it's TOE include radios?
And when I'm asking these questions I understand that in a prepared defense they would probably all have wired comms and pre-registered targets but I'm primarily interested in how they would have been used 75% of the time in day to day operations