Steiner14
-
Posts
1,410 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Steiner14
-
-
Scenario: Ramparts of the Palikoi
After more than one week and 12+ hours of meticulously building a setup, where defensive positions are supporting each other and protecting the whole mountain, what happens when the game starts?
In the first turn the terrain is changed. LOS and LOF of the defensive positions change completely. :eek:
Suddenly the bunkers are not sunk into the slopes anymore, like shown during the not at all important setup phase but instead the terrain around them becomes deformed. :mad:
Bunkers and trenches on slopes therefore have a completely different LOS/LOF in game VS setup-phase.
And what makes it even worse: probably the oponent can see all the artificial undulations in the terrain without the need of units with LOS. :mad:
-
What i find very annoying are the color-filled cover arcs. In case of big arcs, the whole graphic turns is an incredibly ugly violet or yellow. Locking to a unit and watching the action becomes unbearable (and the color also makes the action less good visible).
Showing only the borders of the arcs IMO would be a huge improvement of the UI.
-
I am an excellent driver by any definition.
:eek: Definately Bernie wants you. Because normal humans have to cope with target conflicts like speed vs. safety.
-
Hm, the links don't work.
-
Now that's a Blackadder moment...
?!
My dictionary fails at your strange language.
-
I agree. One thing to keep in mind is we already played a battle on this map and sweeping wide to the right and by passing the town was exactly what I did in the first game. That game was a 12 000 point affair and this time I did not want to do the same thing. So the main attack was planned to happen on the other end of town - in the centre. I did have 3 Battery sweep wide to protect that flank. I don't like to do the same thing twice when battling on the same map.
Oh, didn't know that. Doing it for a second time would have surprised him probably even more.
Thanks for your thoughts - keep them coming as you read.Will do my best to confuse you.
If it's not too much work, could you give us again an overview of the current situation and where the remaining Panthers, Stugs, PAKs and platoons are now and where the enemy is?
-
Sure and not every person has the same visual capabilities and therefore it needs to be modeled for each soldier, too...
-
They do periodically have someone SPOTTING rather than HIDING. It's just a lot less than all the eyes all the time, so HIDEing units get surprised/contribute less to the overall intel picture than non-HIDEing troops.
My impression is, that there could be room for a conceptional improvement of the spotting capability. Right now it seems, that the spotting capability of hidden units is proportional to the number of eyes spotting. This leads to the strange effect, that a single pair of eyes can have a much worse spotting capability than in RL (hidden units don't see the tank in front of them).
A tank driving in 100 m distance: Twenty eyes should not see more than two eyes because two eyes should already recognize it with 100% probability.
Infantry on open ground coming close to 50m: two eyes should see them and ten times more eyes should not deliver better spotting results.
But:
A tank 1000 m away, or an enemy gun hidden in a wood, or enemy infantry hidden in wood:
Here the number of eyes should make a big difference.
Thesis:
The smaller the visual impact (VI) as a function of size (camouflage reduces the visible size), distance, color, shape and light, the more important the number of eyes become, while the bigger the VI, the less important the number of eyes are.
If the VI reaches a certain value, then one spotter already will be enough for reliable spotting.
The hide command could be connected with the spotting task, which is defined by the cover arc:
The size of the cover arc, determines the maximum distance. A armour cover arc would mean, that for the maximum distance of this arc the VI of the smallest tank is calculated and this gives the number of eyes, that need to spot.
A shorter CA would result in less spotters raising their heads, while a long range CA would need more spotters.
The normal CA for all targets would mean, that infantry, which has a smaller VI, must be spotted at the en of the CA, which would result in more spotters raising their heads.
Additionally each unit has only a limited number of binocs. At a certain small VI, only the number of spotting binocs should be able to gain additional spotting info.
I think there would be plenty of room for enigneered optimizations of the spotting system that could make the need of new commands (ambush) obsolete.
-
I just read now through all 20 pages. Great work, great pics, great DAR.
Good attack on the Churchill from behind - but with StuHs? :eek: The heat ammo is for emergency situations but not for being used in combined attacks where Panthers are available.
IMO that situation was tactically the best so far, where you tried to grab bigger. And with the correct weaponry it would have worked great and completely different to the rest of the tankbattles. IMO that's how it should be done and not like a bullterrier running with the head through the wall.
My impression is, that you are too hastily although you have enough time. As if the devil was hunting you.
You could take much more time to maneuver with your tanks and plan their movements more generously. They have distance weapons!
It takes some routine in CM to cancel an attack, or to delay some hopefully cool action since players tend to keep the tension and excitement high. A running game is like a drug and cancelling or delaying cool action takes the virtue of patience. Don't become a action junkie. They are doomed.
And before maneuvering with the tanks for a tankfight, it is good to know where the enemy has his tanks.
Don't use your Panthers lonely on too many locations, use them in close formation and knock out one enemy after the other and begin with the strongest opponents.
And never attack 1:1 if you can't get to a much superior position (hulldown) from a good angle with surprise effect. Try to see 12 o'clock duels more as accidents, or as emergency situations, but you should not plan them, if they can be avoided.
(I just reread it and it maybe sounds a bit too harsh, since you managed to attack some Churchills from several angles)
After 10 ricochets from a StuG against a Churchill, it's maybe a good idea to cancel all future attacks and call in the more adequate Panthers to deal with the problem. And if it takes 10 minutes until they arrive, it takes 10 minutes! That's better than playing lottery with bad odds and losing one StuG after the other. The time until the cats arrive can in most cases be used for recon or repositioning for the later advance/attack anyway.
I'd also suggest to take more time to bring infantry close to the suspected enemy tanks. This allows you small arms fire at the tanks, shortly before your tanks will attack them and gives an additional advantage.
ps: the Sdkfz with the short 75mm is called Stummel (without r).
-
I just came across this thread. Could become an interesting battle.
Thank you for sharing this with us. But besides all the praise of your work, i hope tactical critics is allowed?
Here are my 2 ct.
The beauty of big mechanized forces on big maps is, that they allow realistic movements around enemy positions, since the forces are big enough for combined warfare. But you are playing like a typical Alliied commander, who have been attracted most of the time by enemy forces like a magnet, seeking every frontal shootout, in trust of endless reinforcements but less like a German commander who must keep his losses at a minimum and therefore needs to hit the enemy in his flank or - even better - get in his back. Your force composition is great for this kind of tactics and this town in the east could offer a great opportunity, not many maps offer.
Why did you split your force already west of the river, instead splitting at the east side? With the main force waltzing as fast as possible in the far south eastward, then turning sharp north and passing the eastern town in the east as fast as possible while leaving the enemy probably expecting you frontally from the West, while you move into his back in the NE.
Afterwards turning west into the rear of your oponent, while the smaller left force plays the bait and has the objective to threaten the bridge in the north and tie enemy forces until it is too late for them when the Panthers stand in their back.
What seems also a problem to me, is that your plan seems very inflexible to such a degree, that it could become even dangerous:
You plan to split your forces before you know anything about the enemy. But even worse: you split in front of the river. If the enemy would already be on the western side and maybe even stronger than expected, then your left group could get stuck and could not support your eastern group!
Your forces could be in danger to become split with very minor enemy forces, if you can't get over the bridge(s) fast enough.
I'm really thrilled to read how you are doing, but i wanted to get my thoughts shared before i dive into the action. I don't know the map, but if you put the StuGs on the western side, and once it becomes day, i could imagine you also could run out of space to maneuver with them appropriately if there are no undulations. In the worst case when it becomes day, he could deny you to pass with the StuGs because he has LOS until the map edge. You could get nailed down on the west.
-
Although the pics are a bit small, they seem to be quite :cool: . Thanks.
But this topic better belongs to the scenario & mods forum.
-
John Kettler,
fixed points for reinforcements but becoming cheaper each minute, if they are not used sounds very, very nice (e.g.: -5 points/minute -> would make the reinforcement, if requested 10 minutes after becoming available, 50 points cheaper).
With reinforcement goups a whole new kind of battle comes to mind:
An attacker (or both sides) could begin only with a tiny force on a huge map, while many reinforcement groups could be available right from the beginning, but are not placed on the map. The difference to now: Requesting them on the map costs points. And requesting them early, could cost even more, if the designer wants it that way.
Now the composition of the own forces from the beginning tells us always a lot about what to expect. With this new feature battles become possible where players would know nothing, if the designer wants it that way. :eek:
The simulation of advancing into unknown territory could become simulated... (should fit perfectly for the Eastern Front, but also for the Bulge).
There should also be a limit for the minimum costs of a reinforcement group, too (e.g. if the designer wants that the use of the Tiger costs a certain amount, no matter how late in the game this unit is requested).
A reinforcement group would have:
1) Fixed maximum costs (points) for requesting it.
2) A rate of points this reinforcement becomes cheaper each minute after it has become available but not been requested.
3) Minimum costs for using this reinforcement group, no matter how late in the game it is requested.
-
I know this is a false positive but my antivirus is detecting the patched 2.0 CM Normandy.exe as a "Generic trojan".
Any way this could be fixed? Something must have been done differently when making this exe since this is the first time this happens with any BF game.
nimtz,
IMO it's better to switch off Heuristics in antivir. Just update every day the virus definitions and you don't need this kind of "protection".
-
Thanks from me, too.
With the improvements in CMFI i couldn't go back to CMBN v1 anymore although there is still so much to explore for me.
The price of one Burger King meal solved that.
-
I'd be interested to know, how high the percentage of potential new customers out there is, that understand even after one hour surfing the BFC-homepage, how the CM-family and upgrade-thingy works and what they can buy.
IMO it would be good invested time, if BFC would create one single picture, that explains for everyone in KISS, how the games, modules, updates and upgrades are connected and which one is needed as prerequisite for the other ones.
A second picture should show the current status of releases and should be updated with every new release/update/upgrade.
-
+1
IMO it would be fun, if scenario designers would have this option.
But it should be at the cost of something, e.g. losing points (or bonus points if the player does not use reinforcements; give the scenario designers this tool to decide).
Instead of making all players equal, optional reinforcements would allow to let the players decide if they need tactical reserves or not.
And make this option appear not from the beginning, but during the game, similar like it is now with the notification of reinforcements ("A tactical reserve you could request has arrived").
1. Scenarios could become less predictable.
Not only in the sense of the overall scenario diversity, but also during the battles: the turning point of a battle could become more uncertain.
2. A higher scenario diversity.
Players could be forced to judge on their own to recognize, if the available forces are sufficient for their plan instead of trusting into scenario designers, like it is now.
3. Scenario designers get the possibility to balance battles in a different manner (losing points for using more units).
-
Downloading...
-
Since CMFI was the latest version i only checked the CMFI forums if there are any news. So i missed the news about the v1.11 patch and only recongized it, because of the v2.0 Normandy announcement in the CMFI forum.
I think it would be good, if informations about releases would be posted in all CM forums.
-
Thousand thanks!
-
Wrong, look at this test i ran a while back: https://sites.google.com/site/cmx2tankvtanktests/
Dream on, if you think that way superior optics made a 10% difference at 2000m.
-
yes thats true... but given the fact that those variations caused a weak spot or not in real life is a different story. after all you showed with your calculations that this few milimetres can cause either a penetration or not!
i`ve just setup a different test using cmfi.
setup:
this time wanted controlled conditions so i setup 5 lanes (1000m+/- distance). again five Panzer IV H early against 5 sherman m4a1 (mid). each pair of tanks in a own lank (elevated ground + huge stone wall so that the other tanks could not spot the pair in the lane nearby).
this time i wanted to see how a showdown between a panzer IV and sherman turns out at a range were the panzerIV should be clearly superior. (over 800-900m where it could bring its superior weapon to action but not at around 1500m were the shermans upper frontal armor becomes impervious.
i`ve even used only the same grass type for the whole scenario so that it would not influence the spotting abitlities of the tanks. (controlled conditions)
----------------------------
results:
after 12 rounds:
Shermans destroyed: 33
Panzer IVs destroyed: 32
--------------------------------
This explains a lot.
Optics not modeled, too...
-
Sublime,
is this a brown ring around your neck? :eek:
-
JasonC,
you nailed it again.
IMO you even have offered BFC clear enough descriptions how they could improve artillery's realism even further (and as a consequence give the game a more realistic balance).
But i have doubts that they are interested in this problem at all?
-
@JasonC
Brilliant.
I hope that BFC finally will listen.
Your -2 moments...
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I'd suggest to look at the German and Alliied production figures and compare them before making conclusions about efficiency of weapons...