Caesar
-
Posts
232 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Caesar
-
-
I don't like the idea of having to click + a million times to see where the enemy units are. It would admittedly reduce some of our omniscience, but it would be a real pain to play. I also don't like the idea of losing control of the movement of individual squads due to lack of CnC. IMO tacAI is simply not good enough to allow sensible and realistic movement of the squads.
I would rather that
1. Every unit had to individually spot a unit. Obviously if the enemy unit fires, it will be easier to spot as all units will turn to the sound of fire. Fuzzy logic should determine spotting i.e you get x% chance of spotting in the given conditions (depending on the unit quality as now), with this chance increasing with sound and other factors drawing units attention to that area.
2. All units within CnC can get borg sighting or greatly increased chance of spotting after a suitable delay calculated by the number of links in the command chain that the info has to travel. This delay can be modified based on communication equipment. Higher level HQs (Company and battalion) would have special extended Command ranges (not for normal morale and control) applying only to lower level HQs. This would encourage players to keep their Company HQs in realistic positions to control their subordinate HQs.
3. FOW applied to the map. The map should only initially give broad information (the sort you could get off a map and with general info from the local populace) The map should only get updated as units within CnC (up to at least the Co level if one is present). If a player gives an order, that as a result of ignorance of the map, cannot be obeyed then the unit will stop and behave with normal TacAI behaviour. This will cause the unexpected delays that would happen in real life. Spotting from a distance should have fuzzy logic applied that causes inaccuracies such as incorrect elevetions, missing small copses, ditches etc. The map updating should suffer the same CnC delays as above.
4. Allow normal squad level delays to be applied to small movements and 1 - 2 waypoints for those in local CnC, but much greater delays related to the above CnC delays for large movements or higher numbers of waypoints. This would force players to maintain realistic command structures and more importantly slow down the current almost immediate response to a significant threat.
5. As CnC would be much more important, units that lose their HQ should be able to attach to other HQs with reduced performance (and none of the modifiers)
[ April 20, 2002, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: Caesar ]
-
You could perhaps provide crews etc with their historical weapons and limited ammo (5 - 10 perhaps) and then reduce them to conscript in abilities etc. This would not make them entirely defenceless but the delays in commanding them, their low firepower and their useless spotting abilities would make them fairly unuseable for the gamey among us.
-
I quite like the ideas that Sir Uber general and others have proposed. Their weakness seems to be that losing a Platoon HQ in effect loses you the entire platoon and so would have too much bearing on a game - especially smaller games.
To stop the loss of a Platoon HQ having too much effect, you could have after a suitable delay have one of the squads designated as the new HQ i.e. a sgt taking over after his commander was killed. Obviously this squads command ability would have to be made significantly lower - increase delays, short command radius, maybe a slight loss in firepower to simulate a couple of men too busy commanding to be able to shoot effectively etc.
-
I've bought them before simply for the entertainment value. I love the sight of that shell slowly flying through the air. In reality though, the churchill 95 is a better buy IMO. You get more ammo and much better range. While the blast is lower a bit lower and won't deal with Pillboxes etc, it is still very substantial.
-
BlackVoid, I guess it must come down to where you live and the terrain around there. Just last week while I was stuck in traffic on the way home I started to notice the terrain around me from the perspective of a CM game (Hmmm - is this game beginning to get to me). With the exception of straight along the motorway, there was no clear LOS for anything more than a couple of hundred metres. You could see some more distant patches of land on the tops of rises but there were virtually no clear open spaces and what there was had dips and bumps that would have easily hidden me and perhaps vehicles. It was this that struck me at the time. Even the farmland further on was not actually all that open with the hedges, drains, creeks etc. I agree that there needs to be more ditches and other such terrain objects but really these are largely eye candy.What I meant by bumbiness is the many chaotic elevation changes on a map. Real life terrain tends to be a bit simpler: smoother hillsides, etc. Go to any location in your area and you will see that terrain most of the time is simpler than in CM. Positions that have good LOS coverage are quite readily apparent. In CM it is often tricky to find good positions because of the 'bumpiness'. I would like to have an option in terrain setup that would set this 'bumpiness' level.
A cleaner terrain with more objects (ditches, railroads, etc) would be more realistic than the current one.
If you want really good maps, try the scenerios. I;ve just begun playing them recently and they add a whole new dimension to the game.
As far as the bumpiness goes though, does anyone know if CM models men (in open ground) as being under partial cover when in the human equivalent of hull down i.e. partially behind a rise.
-
I don't believe that BTS will be willing to commit a significant amount of resource to the problem of campaign manager integration until it is commercially viable/reasonable to do so. One can hardly blame them for this - they have limited resources (one programmer) and thus must use them to get the best bang for the buck.
Unfortunately this has resulted in a chicken and egg situation. Until there are campaign managers and other add ons in existance this is simply not going to happen. I saw recently that a Swedish guy has started writing something to provide that justification.
I am currently doing a proof of concept on one myself. However, I am not willing to expend the time and effort without some form of interface to CMBO so what I am trying to do is to remote control CMBO (in a similar manner to how the movie player is done) to allow the campaign manager to generate the battles. The summary results of the battles will have to be entered by hand (I will just have to spread the damage to units out among them). This will in no way be an ideal system but if it is possible then it will at least be workable and be able to address some of the organisational overhead problems. My main aim is to play CM battles, but realistic ones with realistic objectives and realistic consideration for my forces. If playing like a fanatic this game means that you will be overwhelmed the next then you will retreat. A battle may then entail different objectives for the players and win-win and lose-lose situations.
JasonC wrote
Maybe this can be addressed by getting players from the opponent finder for some of the battles especially some of the less important ones. Obviously their orders will have to include information such as acceptable losses and timeframe and their win/loss will be decided not by the game but by the guy in charge of the campaign (or maybe very judicious use of flags - I don't know, haven't thought about it enough). Another possible solution (with a computer campaign manager) is to use the computer to resolve some of the lesser battles statistically (similar to how higher level games do) - not a good solution but maybe a necessary evilHe asked "why a campaign feature is favored by only a minority of customers". The answer is the time commitment involved. PBEM games can last a few months. Practical campaigns can use TCP resolution to get each set of tactical battles done in one sitting, but the requirement for the players to be present simultaneously for a long block of time winds up making that a weekly event, at best. You just can't schedule around the rest of people's lives for more than that. Then some operational periods pass without tactical battles, vacations and holidays occur, real life time crunches distract key players now and then.
[ March 28, 2002, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Caesar ]
-
Personally, I prefer my opponent to have a few pints of beer BEFORE setting up. While you're at it, have several during the game - there will be a lot less complaints about the borg sighting if you can't see the screen. After CMBB comes out, I would suggest using Vodka - It should help simulate the Russian command and control issues quite nicely.
I'll take whatever breaks are on offer.
-
If the worst features about this game that Bates can moan about is just a lack of ditches etc and having to abstract a few terrain details then BTS has done rather well IMO. Considering the crappy PC that I first ran this game on (the only problem being it took a bit too long to calculate turns sometimes) I think that BTS has done a good job of balancing PC load to detail displayed.
Hopefully in the future BTS will be able to improve the Tac AI some, I would like a scout command for infantry and some sort of move to a point where I can see X command. Probably there are a few other features that others want as well, but this all has to be able to run within the constraints of the power of the average PC (or MAC)
This all sounds like whinging to me.
-
Ozzy - I just looked up the stall speed of a Mustang. It varies between 95mph - 150mph depending on flaps, load, and inclination of the aircraft. If you are going to fire 6 or 8 (can't remember) .50s at ~750 - 850 rpm each gun (that's going to cut your speen a fair bit), I would think that you would want at least 50 mph extra, so you are looking at at least 200mph or 320 kmph.
Of course other planes may be capable of slower, but I would think that this is at least indicative of the minimums.
-
The best games I have had against AI recently is 500pt, Attack, Combined Arms, random weather, default everything else with you as the attacker and give the computer 30% bonus. I usually play Allies.
Can be a bit of a challenge at times.
-
Surely you would seldomly ever get entire companies/battalions of veterens or better. I would have thought that even the best of forces would have contained units of at least regular or worse.
I would like to see CM include a QB random option for experience (and fitness now I suppose) where you could choose a level and while you would generally get that level, you would also get higher and lower level squads among them. Say something like 1/3 of the force would be lower or higher (for historical accuracy sake, maybe more lower than higher, sharpshooters and other specialists less likely to be lower etc etc)
It would also be good if it could include a randomised starting unit depletion as well. Squads with men missing, platoons a squad down etc. This sort of thing would enhance the realism a lot and make the game more interesting.
-
Try using both in the wet/snow conditions. In my experience so far, you might as well just dig a hole and bury the M3/A1. I've lost 4 in a single battle to bogging and becoming imobilised :mad: . So far, the German HTs seem to be much less prone.
-
Personally I think that the turn limit is somewhat artificial in most circumstances anyway. In real life, for most battles, if taking a target in 30 mins as opposed to 25 mins meant the saving of a number of your unit, I think most would use the extra five minutes. Even worse is where you take a position in the last turn when you know that you would be slaughtered the next turn if there was one. This is gamey, pure and simple.
I prefer to set the time/turn limit of the game to higher than seems necessary and just call a ceasefire when it is apparent that the battle is over. This way the battle is fought in a more realistic manner with both trying to achieve the target as effectively as possible.
Obviously there are exceptions to this rule, where things have to be achieved in a certain time (i.e. in a hurry) and in these circumstances a time/turn limit with a small random factor added would eliminate gamey behaviour.
OTOH, occupying a vacant position with a spare unit as redwolf describes above is perfectly reasonable. If a significant position in real life was not being contested then you may well send a small unit to occupy it. That is simply a failure of your opponent to appreciate its worth and do something about it.
[ March 16, 2002, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Caesar ]
-
Yankee Dog, the locamotive is not really a good comparison as from what I've seen, they would fly low attacking the side on a slight angle walking the fire down the side. Doing this means they could hit continuously with all 8 guns (~6800 RPM in total). Small wonder it looked like a collander, you've gotta love that sort of firepower.
OTOH I do take your point that by altering the angle of the plan to the ground, they would be able to put many more bullets on target. My maths doesn't take into account the height of the vehicle either that would increase the number of bullets hitting (though these would not be diflecting off the ground to hit the weak underside). However, even with these increases I still think the odds of such a knock out would be negligible.
-
From what I have read, when you boil down all the various tactics suggested above, the key seems to be good recon. If you find his guns then you can kill them before they kill your tanks, find his infantry then you can kill them without so many losses, find the strong/weak points you can avoid the former and hammer the latter etc etc...
Now - here's the problem. How do you carry out recon when the visibility is bad. I am playing a battle currently where I can see only ~90m. 6 turns in I have seen absolutely nothing. Even if I do find him I am only likely to see a single unit. How do you counter this? :confused:
(PS If you see this post Mark, I hope you don't think this is cheating
) -
I think people are overestimating the number of bullets on target. If you have a plane doing a strafing run at 300mph (~500kmph) with 8 MGs firing at 850 rpm firing at a 6m long target, then you are going to hit it with about 5 - 6 rounds (assuming my maths is correct - not necessarily a good assumption
) This is hardly enough hits to get too hopeful about hitting the weak spots IMHO.As for the idea of knocking out a tank by bouncing the bullet off the pavement, think how far apart the bullets are striking the ground at that speed and what the odds are that you would manage to get even one to skip get under the attack and hit a weak spot. You would have infinitely more chance achieving the same hit with a ground based MG in a high building. Not only that, to get the bullet to skip it is going to have to be on a fairly extreme angle and thus the chances of penetration are going to be practically Nill.
Admittedly all my maths is based on (what sounds like to me) a very high strafing speed. Even if you drop the speed to say 200mph, you still only hit with ~10 rounds (and this is assuming that you can hit with all 8 guns - how like that is I don't know)
-
You unlucky sod. A few days ago I had a green basic sherman take a hit from a schreck front on and survive with no damage. He then performed teh fastest reverse in history (killed the schreck) only to be hit at 5 - 6 times by a 50mm AT (3 - 400m range)and survive. The same tank had already had 2 gun hits and inummerable hits elsewhere from a 37mm (which it killed).The other night a Shreck got a Jumbo of mine with a turret front penetration. Maybe the only time I'd ever ordered a Jumbo too. Bugger also nailed a standard Sherman with all of its crew before I ran him off and killed him while he was fleeing, the cowardly wretch.I then decided with that sort of luck to go and get a lottery ticket. That sodding sherman had obviously used up all my luck
-
Just how rare were they? I have had a facination for these and the recoiless guns ever since I read a book on them some years ago. Will I get lambasted for my gameyness if pick these sorts of weapons.
Were the recoiless guns rare as well?
-
When you target the enemy, make sure they are in range, you are not hull down to them and when it ask you the 'Use main weapon' choose No, then break out the steaks 'cause it's BBQ time.
[ March 12, 2002, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: Caesar ]
-
Doh! Sorry Redwolf, I read that and didn't twig to what you meant.
-
Thanks Redford.
Do you know if crossfire is modelled in a realistic manner. I tend to spend quite a bit of time and effort establishing this and don't wish to if it is ineffective.
I do use sneak at the moment, however I have been using it wrong. I originally thought of it as creep (move/hiding), as in not fire. I was most grumpy when they first fired drawing attention to themselves. Since then I kind of use it as the human equivalent of hunt (only in cover)
-
I may have missed it, but nobody seems to have mentioned crossfire. I know this is effective in real life and so I usually try to establish it when trying to suppress a defence. If I use US forces then I try to use the MGs that you get to set up a fire base at as wide an angle to my attack as possible. Does CM model this or am I wasting a lot of time and effort.
I too have suffered inumerable losses when attacking prepared defences. My basic mistakes seem to have been,
(1) Closing too early with SMG infantry (very painful)
(2) Not using my tanks effectively (i.e. to provide some HE support) incidently, I like what redford said about using a proper tank with plenty of HE for this role. My more recent successes have relied quite heavily on this.
(3) Rushing instead of preparing my attack properly and establishing good supporting fire.
(4) Not scouting properly (I still need to work on this, I usually seem to find only part of the defence)
(5) relying on 81mm mortars to suppress/break them. The poxy little things don't seem to do much more than create pretty patterns on the ground
(6) Poor timing with smoke. I either put down smoke and block my supporting fire so effectively give him reverse slope defence, or the smoke clears just as my men run across open ground
So basically if you don't do the above I think your attacks should succeed.
Can someone answer a question that has been bothering me, when I give a run order to charge a position, are my men able to fire while running? If so are you better to give the move order instead so that they can shoot back? Intuitively it seems a better idea to run, but if they can't shoot while running then it might not be such a good idea. I probably should experiment with this.
-
Hey Pud, if you think you've got it bad, then you want to try paying for it in NZ dollarettes.
-
Do forces within command radius of their own Platoon HQ benefit from a Company or Battalion HQ as well. Do the modifiers apply to them?
Accuracy of main battle tanks
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
About the only inaccuracy that I have noticed in BTS' modeling of the accuracy is that if I have a defending vehicle waiting in ambush, I would expect it to be zeroed in and hence very accurate. Currently when an allied vehicle is ambushed by an axis vehicle/gun there doesn't appear to be any form of bonus so the faster turret etc ends up giving the ambushee an advantage over the ambusher. I am hoping the fire arc in CMBB will help fix this.