Jump to content

Reanimator

Members
  • Posts

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Reanimator

  1. I was wondering something today. I know the soviets made the 45mm anti tank gun in HUGE numbers and scattered them all over the place but it seems I hardly ever see them in cmrt scenarios. I know they are in Woboblin Bridgehead (perhaps my favorite stock scenario) but I think I've mostly seen 76mm guns. I can perhaps see this because the lethality of the 76mm is much greater and is generally more help to the soviet force but with the lack of squad based AT I would figure that there would be more 45mm guns add in scenarios since they are about the closest thing the soviets had. Is it generally because of doctrine? I am unclear on how they were generally used, I know they had them in your bog standard rifle division, were there units broken up a bit and brought forward to aid infantry in their attack? Or were they generally concentrated, perhaps even with the other guns of the corps, in defensive positions and therefore not generally available in an attack? When I have used them I have been pleasantly surprised by their speed. They seem to modeled as light weapons and can move around on map about as well as a machine gun.
  2. I just wish I had it for scouting and for fighting in villages. Run into a couple situations where there were far too many men in a single shack. They would have split off men for these things in real life anyway, I cannot see why they couldn't have just gone the way they did with the Russians.
  3. I thought this was going to be added for the Italians, was I mistaken?
  4. I just see it as a temporary solution until BF decide to actually spend some time on the QB portion of the game. Look at the old cm games. When you picked a QB and put it on map generator and random forces, you pretty much knew what you were going to get. The AI, regardless of what it had would line up across the map so even if it was easy it was still a game. With the current system unless I know what to expect from the map plan I cannot even pick a force that I'm sure will even show up anywhere near where I'll send my troops. I understand MarkEzra is the man and I appreciate all his hard work. But I just feel that "standardized to a large degree" is just not good enough. Give us a framework that we can use on every map of a type and suddenly everything opens up. I teach a lot of new guys this game and most of the time I find them intimidated by scenarios. If I could say "just run a few quick battles and do x y and z" to get them comfortable with the GUI and the way the tacAI responds it would be extremely helpful. Plus I would enjoy the hell out of it too.
  5. So can we accurately know what will go in each group, as in if there are 3 groups then if we pick 3 battalions in the QB unit selection screen we will end up with the first batt in the first group and so on? If so then it seems to me the obvious solution would be to standardize the QB map pool into something like 2 groups in tiny/small where 1 group is static and 1 is mobile, 3 in medium 2 static 1 mobile, 5 in large/huge where 3 are static and 2 mobile. Obviously this is just the first idea that popped into my head, but with such a system a player would be able to use a random map and be assured when he picks the AIs forces those troops can be put into the plan where they will assuredly be used. It just seems like if we CAN do QBs where we can reproduce a result in the AI always being able to use its forces to full effect then we ought to do so and in such a way that it can easily be explained to new players easily.
  6. I definitely agree they have gotten better, it is why I said I am glad for their hard work in the matter. I appreciate them taking the time to flesh out this part of the game. I have moved to do exactly as you do, smaller battles and pick the enemy force myself. Though in the latter I have seen some improvement as well, perhaps it is just due to the TOE but I have run into fewer instances of ridiculous force compositions. So now like you I generally do medium battles with an AI mix that I pick myself. It just seems like the obvious thing to do would be to have the ai either in or or in los of the objective. That way even if there is an 88 spawned it can have a chance of being part of the battle and in this way you could ensure that whatever force happened along it would at least be visible for your average game. Then after you work on the QB system and refine get fancy. A lot of maps I can see that whoever designed it wanted the AI to hide for a bit and then jump out, which is a great idea when it works, but it doesn't really seem to work enough times for it to justify it due to the random nature of placing static (or near static) guns, etc. in random groups. I think if they could add a function to the editor where a type of unit such as infantry, gun, tank, could be assigned a group this would be a great thing. Or, even if that is not possible, perhaps define a group by speed? Then it seems you could reliably set up AI ambushes.
  7. I appreciate the hard work you do with the quick battles because they are generally what I play as well. But I have to say my experience seems different from post people here. I generally get maybe 1 good battle out of 5. Now I don't know if it is maybe I don't wait long enough in them to see the AI do something or I have the wrong settings (usually an attack in a medium/large map) but most of the time I'll get an AI force that is scattered around the map in places that are not in los of the objective or approaches to it. I will easily take the objective and then just quit. Too often I have not even seen the enemy and had to actually try and hunt it down on the map to see any action at all. Poking around the QB maps in the editor I notice there are a lot of plans that are on the "not used" setting but have actual orders. Are these going to be used in the future when you guys get some more time or are they just sorta failed ideas?
  8. At the time did they usually not have windows on the side of the building for some reason? It seems like a lot of the maps have villages made up of houses with only windows on the front and back and am wondering if that was normal to the time period/region or just a result of the type of models available. I know there wouldn't be a lot of side windows in cities with row houses, but in the smaller villages?
  9. Are they supposed to be 14 points for a battery?
  10. I mostly play quick battles either vs humans or the ai and I really have loved all the work since cmbn. Really looking forward to the new one.
  11. As your docket is already full I hope you don't mind if I also try and get an opponent with your thread, my info is the same. EST, either side, good for a turn a day, dropbox. PM if interested.
  12. This has been a problem with my game as well. I am using community qb maps, and when I try to play as bluefor there are no enemies on the map no matter the size or other settings. When I play as redfor everything works fine. Its very odd.
  13. I wish to get in on the tourney if there is room as well.
  14. I have used fraps myself for this very thing. Its not the most elegant solution, the avi's are uncompressed and huge, and you have to string them together yourself, but it does work.
  15. Yes, the crash would come not just when the two vypers were connected, but when the already connected vyper extended his cable. That is what would cause the craziness and the eventual crash.
  16. I've always found '43 the hardest year to play as the russians. Your armor choices are really limited by rarity to t34s usually and generally they can't do the job vs. stugs, let alone the tigers that start popping up. So '43 is the year I go lend lease, the six pounder valentine can take even tigers from a nice distance and the sherman is an all around good choice as well. The fire quickly and therefore more accurately than the other russian tanks. They also dont retreat like the t34s, something I find very annoying. I would couple the valentine with something with a little HE though. The su series generally isn't the best for long range tank duels, but they will blast infantry to a red smear. So for the 1000 point force you are going to have both an armor killer and an infantry killer for your tank selection. Sherman can do both, but personally I'd go with a 6 pounder valentine to take out armor (they are really cheap) and a t34 for infantry (has rarity going for it). Then just fill in the rest with troops. Someone may need to correct me on this, but I think the russian tank hunters also have a chance to get a at mine. These are great for taking out tanks if you can get close. Much better than molotovs. As for at guns, I'd take one or two short barreled 76.2mm for infantry duties, but all varieties just don't do a good job at ko'ing the heavier german tanks that you will often run into. Its better to spend the points elsewhere.
  17. I've found the big stuff is rarely worth the cost. First off its slow, which means you either have to buy a trp or wait a long time on a battlefield where, at the best of times, events are highly fluid. It can be great, but then it tends to be in games where a few conditions must be met: 1. A small amount of cover 2. A trp in said cover 3. A lot of (enemy) infantry that is forced to advance through that cover So a defender can get lucky on a map and do some real damage. But then the cost for the big stuff can be a real pain. Often (and I've starting doing this lately to great effect) I use the smaller stuff, mainly 75mm up to 105mm guns, coupled with machine guns, etc. to stop an attacking force. Buying smaller stuff has the advantage of giving you more options, both in terms of targets and freeing up points for other stuff, and bring more gives you a greater space for error. But for an attacker the roles are reversed. Generally there are no trps for an easy hit so you must use pre planned. Also, the enemy is usually dug in, so the lighter stuff isn't as good. But the guess work for the attacker to use the pre planned really isn't worth it. I know when I play as the defender I assume a pre-planned is comming, and plan my defense accordingly. Generally unless you get a real deal in rarity its better to just spend the points on a good tank or direct fire gun and carrier. At least then you pretty much know you'll be on target.
  18. Well I tend to use guns quite a lot. A well placed gun in attack and defense can be critical, so you want to be vary careful. Try to have them in command, even while in transit, and to keep them from comming under fire. If you want sure-fire strategy for moving them while visable to the enemy I'm afraid I can't give one. The whole idea stinks, and you shouldn't try it. If you must, first take out the worst of the long range equipment: machine guns, other towed pieces, mortars, etc. Also try and use the best mover for the job going along the best path. Avoid rocky terrain, and if it is anything other than dry and grassy, use something with a track to move it. But if you going to need a gun that is mobile and expected to be under fire, why don't you just take a tank? Thats why they invented them, you know. As for your idea, think of this. The gun itself isn't the problem. If you notice, most of them are nice enough to come with wheels. Unfortunatly all that ammo that goes with that phallic hunk of metal arn't on wheels and have to be lugged around. "But reanimator, those smaller guns have smaller shells, and as such my main point still stands, stupid!" you say. I would kindly like to point out those smaller guns usually have one, two, or a combination of factors going against this reasoning. Either the smaller guns have more shells or less crew.
  19. Perhaps I'm playing this wrong, but I just got a very easy total victory. I played as allies vs. ai, standard setup, and just creamed them. I left everything at the scenario default, and both times the kings were suprised by the t34 and ko'd in one or 2 shots. The third king became immobilized in the road, allowing me to forget him. I'm guessing I just got lucky, I'll try it again.
  20. In the games I've played I too have noticed that it is often a problem for the allies to be able to afford arty. This has not turned out to be too much of a problem, as I often play with both casulties at random and rarity on random, usually giving the allied player either a arty option or a fighter option. The extremely cheap strafing fighter is a nice option, and one which pins infantry much better than a single forward observer.
  21. Something I've always wondered, how is the personality of tank crews modeled? Do they make mistakes, and if so, would say green level armor fire the wrong type of shell than a vet crew?
  22. Yes! This fixed it, thank you! Now all I have to do is reinstall all the skins for the units AND terrain....
  23. My pc sometimes does some strange things. After playing half-life for about an hour I tried to get in some CM. Instead of the game loading normaly, as it has done for months, I get a black screan with a box that says something like "3dx Error" and had two options, one for 640 x 480 and the other to skip. I skipped, and the game crashed, i tried again (without rebooting my pc, a mistake!) and it gave me the same menu and I chose 640 x 480. This mode runs very slow and looks awful. I then reinstalled my game, yet it remains in 640 x 480. Please tell me how to get my good resolution back!
×
×
  • Create New...