Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

von Murrin

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    137

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by von Murrin

    results of blast command

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Gotta love blast.

    I had a team all set to make a breach, and they did. In the wrong place. The blast pinned the squad on SBF, which got the assaulting squad killed, which un-pinned the schreck I was ignoring, which KO'd the Shermie pumping rounds into the MG across the hedgerow, which routed the SBF squad, which collapsed my left flank.

    I don't think I did a thing that whole time. I just sort of admired the beautiful friggin pseudo-randomness of it all.

    0

    88's as off map arty

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I don't remember the source and am not an arty guy, so take it as you wish, but I remember reading the following:

    A fair number of 1st ID AAR's off Omaha credited "indirect 88mm fire" with being a considerable PITA and generally causing some minor mayhem. They were told that the Germans had no 88's behind the beach and they were mistaken. It wasn't until sometime much later that it was discovered there was indeed an entire flak unit behind the beach, and it had been savaged by the prelim bombings that missed the beach.

    0

    Heavy machine guns and suppressive fire

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I didn't expect so many replies.

    Agree. However it would be great to have some refinement of the 'target' tools to permit a greater control of suppressive. Equivalent linear/area/target options c.f arty is my suggestion.

    I like this. The AI isn't going to do it, so I do think it would add much to the game, especially as MG's in-game are pretty much "run here, deploy, fire here" tools. Now, can BFC add this without too much trouble is the real question.

    Quit nitpick here, a 2x1m silhouette at 200m is a really easy target to hit, even with a normal bolt-action from a standing position, especially under the best of conditions. Remember that HMG's are a very stable fire-platform with sophisticated optics firing a spray of bullets with tolerable accuracy. I expect an MG-42 in a tripod configuration with optics to easily hit a standing target in plain sight at 400m+ with the first or second burst.

    Now, a moving target (the lead for a target 150m away is nearly non-existent), obscuration, prone targets, cover, etc, of course will drastically change that, but these definitely don't fall under "best of conditions".

    As you said, "best of conditions". ;)

    I can attest to the difficulty of hitting moving or simply evasive (cover, concealment) targets 150-200m away with incoming fire. Even with an MG, this is far more challenging than it seems. A superb gunner can wield his charge like the hand of god. A superb gunner I was not. :P

    Successfully engaging targets in a fullblown firefight is irritatingly difficult. Not trying to nitpick your nitpick, just reinforcing the point.

    Not sure you agree entirely with what JasonC just posted. If I got it right I believe he is still questioning the supression and/or moral mechanism in the game for troops under HMG fire, and qualifies it as maybe "undermodeled".

    You seem to suggest that HMG are currently doing "what they are supposed to". May be that is strictly correct from the HMG point of view... but their target's reaction does not seem to be as I would humbly expect.

    I´d tend to agree more with JasonC based in my limited experience so far with the game.

    I think he took greater issue with reactions to suppressive fires, and with this I agree.

    0

    Heavy machine guns and suppressive fire

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    The physical effect seems right to me, actually. It is the morale consequences of that rate of loss on a formation that small, in that short a period of time, that appear undermodeled. Outlier special force badasses, or just veteran forces on their outlier best day with their blood high, might pull it off actually. (I can think of several historical examples where they basically did). But the average unit would dissolve under losses that high, would not continue the mission, but would pin or break irretrievably and not get up.

    Besides individual unit morale, it is possible that part of the solution might be morale contagion effects or "BCE" like effects above the individual game unit level. Right now the way such effects occur is by an HQ unit getting waxed, leaving subunits without the rally benefits of leadership - but otherwise doesn't happen. In real life, 17 men in the platoon being down already would have a catastrophic effect on the cohesion of the rest of the men. Who would be spending their time trying to aid the wounded, seeking cover personally, noticing the restraining influence of their sergeant disappeared when the hole appeared in his head and getting out of dodge outright, and the like.

    As for the focus on rate of fire issues, I think it is misplaced. The physical limits on the tactical firepower of all machineguns since they were first fielded has always been the ammo that can actually be supplied to the guns, plus the physical safety of the gunners to reply fire, and never how fast they could throw the ammo they have. They have always been able to throw all that could be fed to them far faster than was tactically useful, and if used for max ROF would simply be dry in a handful of minutes to precious little tactical effect. The way to maximize the tactical impact of the rounds is instead to move the times when more of them are fired to the times of maximum enemy exposure, not to try to fire them off as fast as possible. The enemy just hits the dirt while you "go hot" and you waste 98% of the ammo.

    Well stated.

    MG's are not superweapons. Indirect fire is called plunging fire and is an interdiction, not a suppression technique. As to the accuracy complaints, a 2mx1m silhouette is not an easy target past ranges of about 150m under the best of conditions, especially if it's moving. Even open ground isn't ever open, and finding and hitting a target that has gone to ground is difficult at best.

    MG's are superb at suppressive fires, especially when the target is known to be in a small, specific area and static. This they do very well in-game, where targets behind walls or in structures are made rather more miserable than they would otherwise be. Mowing down dozens of men who are doing their best not to get killed is pure Hollywood. T&E adjustments also make effective sustained rates of fire much harder to achieve with any real accuracy.

    Bottom line? Use area fire, target static enemy positions, and use them for suppressive fires more than as direct killing tools and they do what they are supposed to do.

    0

    CMBN Screenshot Thread

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Is that the infamous M1A3 "Schwarzenegger"-type tank? :eek:

    No, that's the genuine M4A3 Can O' Whoop-Ass. It's so rare BFC decided to make it a random hidden unit, which is why you can't buy one for QB's.

    On a more serious note, this was a one-off event created by battlefield conditions. I sent it creeping around the corner of a shack on the last TF Raff mission, right into the faltering German advance. They ran into a whole platoon and went cyclic with every weapon.

    I had some idea what was there, but didn't think it would lead to the complete collapse of the German attack. Combined with flanking fire and some serious artillery, they just melted away. Probably one of the coolest moments in gaming I've ever had. Love this game. :)

    0

    On-Map Mortars = "Superunit" !?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    Nice to hear from them from the "real world" that has BTDT and got the T-shirt to prove it! Thanks for your service, gentlemen! :)

    Thanks. :)

    I don't normally trot out stories, but sometimes it's worth sharing.

    We used to take a Charlie and his 60 with us on longer patrols. I remember one time we were moving through these damn wide-open potato fields and our lead team took fire just as we passed a small house. I'm pretty sure everyone had a suspicious eye on the house about 500m out on the only high ground in the area and so we were kind of expecting it.

    I ended up in the farm house looking for a target when I heard "SHOT!" I turned just in time to see our LT bent over our RTO, who was completely entangled in his own handset cable (think Twister, only far more strange), and our Charlie fire a round from about a foot outside the doorway. I felt my skull crush in like I'd been hit by a plank, and even my eyes hurt. This unaccountably set me to a rage and I apparently said some not-nice things about finding a decent firing position. Then I proceeded to walk around the back of the house and take up on the far corner. That's when AQI decided it wasn't worth it and withdrew. That single 60 round of the firefight impacted a few feet from the only window on the target building. He was trying to hit the roof.

    The point is not just the accuracy of mortar fire, but the strange and often humorous happenings and irrational things people do in combat, all of which happen in-game. I love it.

    0

    On-Map Mortars = "Superunit" !?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    ...Arguably, the current set of 21 Century mortars are far differerent than when I was a squad leader or gunner, where we now utlize the 120mm far more than our 60's or 81's because of the bigger guns linkage to GPS and the mortar ballistic computers. Gone are the heady days of adjustment, now we have second round fire for effect.

    Oh, they still get plenty of usage the old-fashioned way. Polar fire missions were our most common mission request, and that was four years ago.

    Anyway, not wanting to regurgitate doctrine of then versus now, but feel the mortars are getting beat up a bit, unjustifiably. They are not sniper rifles, but they do have the capability to suppress and destroy quickly and can traverse a wide area of coverage rather quickly, just a matter of shifting the bipod onto the new direction of fire. Thanks BFC, I think you've done an outstanding job, not only with the CMSF series, but with your latest incarnation of WWII.

    Matt

    As a former 11B, I can back this up. In fact, we had one firefight where one of our Charlies was putting rounds mere meters from his target, and all the while exposed and taking fire rooftop to rooftop. 60's are godly support.

    0

    Seriously?! Internal vehicle modelling?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    We tried harder on the open-topped vehicles. The M8 armored car and M8 howitzer motor carriage interiors are a wonder to behold (and no I didn't do that art). Closed-up vehicle interiors are "close enough for rock & roll". :)

    Yeah, I love the OT vehicles, I just wasn't prepared in the slightest to see interiors in the others.

    I suppose the guns function too? God, I'm going to lose my fair share of battles simply because I'll be obsessively following my vehicles around.

    0

    More Photos of the Day

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

    What is that stubby thing on the side of the SAW and M4 in the last picture? The M4 has a PAQ4 on the top but I haven't seen the other thing. Some sort of flash light maybe?

    Looks like some kind of laser boresight. The only kind I'm familiar with is in this pic </font>
    0

    "We're tired of WWII..."

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    As stated before, we can understand the disapointment. There is, however, a clear RIGHT way to voice it and a clear WRONG way. CanadaGuy scores points for doing it the right way :D

    You're probably only hearing from the vocal third as it is. For the rest of us boring middle people it problably went more like: "Umm... okay... Well, let's see what they do with it. Wait, this could be good." Except for me. Then you can add: "Oh, brill! I'll get to play myself!" :D

    For those that look at the FPS games out there and say "CM:SF" looks just like it, we thank you for the compliment. The fact that we can produce graphics that have even a hope of comparing with multi-million dollar development projects is rather nice to know about smile.gif But subject matter and graphics don't a game make. CMx1 games were no more like Medle of Honor than CM:SF is like Brother In Arms. The games share no gameplay things in common, and I'm sure you'll thank us for it :D

    Steve

    Care to guess how the response would've gone had you not released screenshots? People are acting as though you are making an FPS. I think many here simply don't connect good graphics and wargames/sims, or at least not outside flight sims, and thought BFC was going all horribly mainstream. ;)

    It's rather hard to be a snob when your esoteric combat simulator/wargame looks every bit as good as an FPS. :D

    0

    Clash of Steel?

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

    Wasn't Saving Private Ryan just an updated of A Walk In The Sun? What the hell was Speilberg thinking of, anyway? ;)

    LOL

    And here, after all this time, I thought that I was still the only guy on earth to notice that! :D

    0
×
×
  • Create New...