RockinHarry

Better place for this thread would´ve been maps/mods section, but... ...nice to see some more of the old CMX1 tricks working in CMN as well. With my current focus on MOUT, I tinkered with some different, normally "no go" unit-terrain combos, that´ll likely be included in an oncoming scenario of mine: Foxholes in rubble and buildings Large buildings (>=4 action spots) with interior "high walls" in the basement floor (- -), (+) or (L) shaped. "Reinforced" walls for buildings placed off center (known from another thread here and Omaha scenario) I´ve not yet thoroughly tried placing trenches, wire and minefields (booby trapped houses?) in no go terrain, but there´s some interesting possibilities. Some of that needs a bit of planning ahead, as placing order is reversed as reported (units first, then no go terrain), except the buildings & walls stuff. Yet from my play testing results, I have some doubts that most these custom made combos really "work" as one intends. I believe, everything you put within (or intersecting) a building will be ignored by the game, for LOS/LOF and cover/concealment purposes and even might provoke the game to crash. I´d the latter happen with a burning (destroyed) wooden shelter, placed within a house. There´s a probability, that the foxhole - bocage combo just takes benefits from one or the other feature, but not both at the same time. There´s also possible side effects. Who knows... Unless BFC does not tell us details about all this, it´s fun to toy with though.

While I´d love CW forces, german paras & "waffengrenadiers" to see more sooner than later, I´d rather like to see the normandy module patched up to its full potential first.

Usually the MG34/42 (bipod version) would be readied IN COVER and within very short time, dependent on soldier training and THEN pushed to fighting position. Something that obviously isn´t modelled in CMN. But in the game, the LMG´s are more or less handled like a lightweight "assault rifle". A MG34/42 with a 50 ammo drum & bipod weights what?

Good point with buildings placed "off center"! Worth checking for other issues with this placement as well. "Face" toward that buildings from the outside, may also result to movement into the building tile itself, as "face" is more like a "search for cover" vs. pointed action spot.

...there´s 2-3 story independent style buildings as well. If the rubble tile is ugly looking, then it´s most likely from independent building. I guess, modular buildings are more massively built and offer better protection.

Simply said....no Hitler = no war. Hitler (and his clique of psychopatic followers) + war and in charge of everything = automatic loss. Even if a Hitler would´ve delegated responsibilities to able military and industrial experts (..instead of "relyable" political yes sayers), leaves the fact that a dictatorship aiming at suppression, total exploitation and annihilation of certain ethnics, can´t survive the overall resistance of those beeing affected, very long. No matter who ruled germany at that time, the worst that could have happened in the 1930/40ies, would´ve been a Stalin attempting to spread world communism over peaceful europe and elsewhere. my 2 cents as wannabe historian

Just a quick guess, after I watched my short video again: Maybe the shooters have just one or few bullets left in individual weapons and in order to keep up shooting at what they think is currently a good "target", they avoid reloading (...fully exposed btw.) and grab a fully loaded weapon alternatively instead. Maybe it´s also sort of "emergency" routine going on, if a soldier thinks of beeing "threatened" at close ranges (...below X meters???). That would also explain some of the odd shooting from AT, HMG and other teams. Anybody has a better explanation?

+1 ...actually ...but there also might be some unforeseeable events coming during computing the "action phase", that might interfer with moving and pathfinding. Spotting enemy units, receiving fire, suppression...and so on.

Yes, the net effect is quite important off course. Did all that alot in CMX1, i.e getting tenacious russian defenders, by setting fanaticism high with leaders having +2 for camouflage (well prepared defenders & russian dig in skills). But my main point was, leaving all net effects aside, that CMN "veterans" behave what I would expect more to be performed by "regulars" already. Not to be mistaken, I do not want to see "by the book" results and like the great varity that the various experience levels might offer, but on the basic squad and vehicle level, I find the CMN "regulars" more performing and acting like "green". Thus I opt changing for "veterans" and above instead. "Conscripts" are more or less useless and beside german "Volkssturm", I can´t see any use for having them in the game at all.

Guess it was an "independent" style building...the ones that entirely collapse after few mortar shell hits? Think "independent" and "modular" style buildings are treated somewhat different in the game, from my latest observations in my MOUT prototype scenario.

I think that "veteran" soldiers in CMN, much more behave like what I would expect from "regulars" under battle conditions. They react better from "hide" and generally show more of something I would think of performing true "battle drills" (=regulars). In CMBB we had the reds (russians) dumbed down one skill level (until 1943/44 I think) and I would suspect, that in CMSF the "reds" also have some noticable restrictions and lacking certain capabilities, compared to "blue" forces. Has something of all that been ported over to CMN? I don´t mean the "reds" (germans) in CMN beeing "weaker" compared to the US, but rather find the "skill/experience" levels generally for both sides one step low of what I´d expect battle field preformance wise. Regulars = Green Veterans = Regular and so on Green CMN units appear to perform rather like Conscript CMX1 units IMHO, so I limit their use for guarding the field kitchen at best. I´ll do some more testing with pitting same experience units at each other, but when I think of using regulars (in my scenarios), I´ll use veteran instead, or crack to substitute the games veteran and so on.

I have the impression from various test games (Iron Mode), that if all of the scenarios forces is at least of veteran quality, that a bunch of reported "odd" infantry (...maybe AFV´s too) behaviors start to vanish. Any similar experiences?

Not directly related to accuracy of shooting, but rather of general behavior. What makes a sharpshooter swapping his scoped rifle for a handgun, while engaging the same target? check video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7RznDaGAW0

+1 Also would like to know how "close range defense" exactly is defined and triggered. With current behavior, AT teams, HMG ect. is just another front line infantry type with heavier weapons. So what is "close range defense"? Is it just a reaction to "potential" chance of beeing spotted by enemy infantry at ranges below 100m? Or is enemy infantry actually to spot AND fire at the special team, to trigger "close range defense"? However, non gunners in AT and HMG teams should stick to their intended role (support and carry stuff), go prone and not act independently unless true emergencies arise. One can start discussing, what an "emergency" could be, but there´s also the more realistic option to go prone or move away into cover, instead of taking up a senseless fight, that got the whole team killed at last.

...thus we need a "timed" hide command, in order to better avoid "unnecessary" shooting and exposure. The first shots s/b the most effective (surprise & full enemy exposure), so there´s no further need for plinking at an enemy, who either already dived for cover, or is invited to return lethal fire (tanks!). 1 minute (and more) continuous fire fights (WEGO) is a waste of ammo and usually desired effects (killing!) is achieved within first seconds, or not. Anything beyond is just further suppression....a good thing, if that´s the tactical intention.

Yeah, just keep going, playing, testing, enjoying...til things get patched and worked over to the majorities satisfaction,...even if it´ll take couple of months, maybe years.

Ok, the 3D map preview is NOT useless, if there´s already lots of units deployed, particularly in buildings. With units in buildings, making them transparent, editing wall/window configurations is hard to almost impossible.

It´s too oftenly a major problem, getting a squads or teams "main" weapon (LMG, HMG) positioned within an action spot, to let it have desired LOS/LOF. During initial "setup" game phase, you can shuffle between random team/squad member patterns, by using the same face command repeatedly, until the desired pattern occurs. It´s not applicable during the running game though. Houses is a special breed, the more if you attempt to position too many soldiers at too few windows and openings. A large, multi (5-6) windowed story still provides barely enough firing positions for any full infantry squad, facing at a SINGLE direction. []-> Usually you end up with 2 or more soldiers positioned at the same window or some falling back to the rear or wrong wall. So more often than not, it´s advisable to split squads and have the "heavy" section cover a particular wall and move the remaining squad members either to a rear wall, or to a different story of the same building. This gives more of an all around fighting position with better spread of soldiers to available windows. You can also put the "assault" team on hide, let it be the counter assault reserve for an enemy unit coming too close and penetrate the building. Generally, putting a full HMG team of six to a single wall with less than 3-4 windows, is a gamble, the more if using a "covered arc" right from the start. Usually I use the following procedure to get window/wall coverage right: #1. Have the right amount of soldiers cover available windows (split squads or avoid entirely). #2. Use a "face" command generally perpendicular to the wall to cover. []-> ( if house is within a block of adjoining houses). Single houses or houses offering more than one wall to cover a particular enemy direction, I give a 45° "face" command []/ or []\ #1. still needs to apply. #3. Have a "hide" and/or very short 360° covered arc combined with the face command, in order to get the soldiers to their intended fighting positions undisturbed (...from the enemy). #4. IF soldiers got positioned halfway right, THEN either unhide or apply a covered arc very similar to the previously given face command (center of covered arc = face command spot). For me, the procedures work reasonably well, although results aren´t still wholly predictable, the more if a unit is already in combat, suppressed, and so on. If I need to cover a very small arc from a single wall (city block house and field of view below 30° along a city street) []/ \[] ...I either set facing to opposite direction []\ or perpendicular []->, in order to have the wall/windows all occupied first. The opposite corner "face" command []\ distributes more soldiers in the lower right corner, finally enabling most of them to engage []/ ...#1, #3 and #4 still need applied first. ...hopefully I made it halfway clear with given examples. Oftenly one gets the desired, individual squad/team pattern, by facing AWAY from the "logical" direction. Also works with HMG teams in foxhole positions, although the random shuffeling within teams/squads can´t be entirely overcome. I´ve yet more to experiment with the "face" command, to influence squad/team member individual positions and obviously it also makes a difference, what map spot is clicked finally. The game manual gives the necessary hints. Clicking different points along the same axis, yields to different positioning within a team/squad. Thus a "face" map click at an open spot 20m in front of a units position, gives a different result from a "face" map click 200m away in different terrain. Edit: After some forum search I found TheVulture explaining the issue in different, yet less complicated ways: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=90128 And yet another useful one, applicable in CMN: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1155707

The FHs I´m speaking of is those that can be constructed with means at hand. A soldiers entrenching tool is just enough for the purpose AND if there´s maybe 2-4 hours time to do the job. Engineers will be assigned to erect basic wire and first minefields (to some most important sectors) and also to help with more elaborate constructions (overhead cover, dugouts ect.). But that goes beyond assumed time of "few hours" and rather towards half a days....full days work. If following the timetables for the normandy battles, one sees that germans (allies as well) had ample time to build elaborate defenses between major engagements, until the situation became fluid in late july, early august.

Thanks, that was my question aimed for. Case closed. BTW, I had good results "sinking" parts of connected trench lines 1-2 meter deeper than surrounding terrain, in order to create something like connection trenches. Off course that works somewhat vs. FOW, as the ground mesh adaption looks quite suspicious to a human player opponent (= CMSF), but I can live with that. There´s also means to "camouflage" these constructions if surrounding terrain is made looking "rough" and bits of high grass & brushes added. TOD also plays a role, with overcast and low light conditions give a better camoed impression. Generally I now prefer putting trenches and partly FHs 1 m deeper (black locking), which still offers same LOS/LOF opportunities than those put on level ground.

Yes, that´s what I figured as well, but as said, involves moving away from current action spot. QUICK and ASSAULTING away soldiers offer more of a target for return fire, so isn´t really a good option to me, but depends highly on terrain and the general situation. I´d vote for a pausable hide/unhide in combination with commands, that do NOT require to move from the currently occupied action spot.

I´d wish for CMN "lighting/shading" main parameters beeing externalized, so they could be tweaked by players to their liking. Either something in the "Options" screen, or command line parameters. This way, nights could be made realistically darker, as well as shadow strength or ambient light shading tweaked to something looking better, as is now.

Much of the troubles come from building defenders beeing too long exposed to return fire from the outside. The inherent "fire tactics" of CMN infantry units aren´t very good (don´t go for cover reloading, bunching up at single fighting positions, rates of fire too low and more...), so a lil bit of playing around with orders and micro managing is necessary. I´m looking for ways, getting an infantry unit "unhide", do quickest rate fire at chosen enemy unit AND hide again after a set time (maybe 10 seconds max). This would be a time a soldier needs to expend a full rifle clip (5-8 rounds) at the chosen enemy, synchronized with the remaing teams or squads weapons (SMG, LMG...). This would be a realistic and historic squad fire tactic (german "Feuerüberfall"). Did anybody figure out yet, how to set orders/commands to achieve something like that? "Hide" can obviously not be given as timed (do something...pause...hide) order, as hide is applied at once with stationary units or after moving to a different action spot.

I guess it won´t take long, that modders change highway to something resembling city streets & sidewalk, like the one we have in CMX1. Personally, I have no need for "highway", that can be constructed reasonably well with the other roads available, so "highway" should be free to be changed to something more usefull.

I hope the FH is meant to be the elaborate type, that usually takes just few hours to dig and beeing prepared for combat (camoflage ect.). Germans had almost always ample time to build this type (...at the cost of less sleep during nighttimes), but less so for trenches which in normandy would rather be of the connection type. But in order to "connect", you would have built elaborate squad positions (= foxholes) before. So just offering a "scrape hole" FH type AND a "trench" in CMN, does not really makes sense to me. I could live with FH´s having no overhead cover sorts of, if they would be of the "elaborate" type otherwise. No matter what infantry type at last (incl. HMG), "abstraction" s/b in a way, that soldiers "hiding",...visually laying down, are considered to be ducking in about 1,40m deep holes, with minimal footprint vs air- and treebursts. That would just be for the single soldiers. Tripod HMG is a different matter and these likely stay exposed for damage, while the crew is considered "hiding".