Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

panzermartin

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,302

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by panzermartin

    Why has concealment changed so much?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I run my own tests with different MGs, Inf targets and I noticed more or less the same. A regular squad could run in "quick" mode across the map under a single mg fire with no real worries, apart from a casualty or two. Once stoped and in the same spot the squad becomes easily pinned due to the concentrated suppressing fire. The spreading of the squad when running helps it to avoid the concentrated incoming fire and thus the supression effects. It seems when in the open running fast can be more effective than an assault move. I remember running in CMBB/CMAK under MG fire was suicidal and infantry was instantly pinned but I dont think this was more realistic either due to the squad men being tied up together in a tiny base. Once I put two mgs in the above test the targeted squad did hit the dirt rather quickly though. Overall its not that unrealistic but certainly rushing infantry around the map is a lot easier in CMSF than in previous CMs. Maybe some slight tweaking of MGs supression and accuracy on moving targets should be considered for the WW2 game. I cant imagine a company running 100m in flat grass in front of a firing MG42 without serious problems. I general expect a more special treatment to HMGs, since they were much more feared back then than in today's more fluid and fast paced battlegrounds.

    EDIT. Heavier MGs like the DSHK or the 0.50 cal have no problems pinning down moving targets. 7.62mgs on the other hand seem to lack the firepower to do so. Shouldnt the superior rate of fire of the latter allow them to perform at least equally at supressing moving targets?

    0

    CM-WW2 and the four elements of nature

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I'm hoping a big effort would be put in creating the environments. I have no worries about the vehicles. Should be up to the superb standards of CMSF. But I'm hoping terrain would be at the same quality. Things I want to see:

    -Shaded doodads. Tall Grass maps in CMSF look weird with no shading due to this shortcoming of the graphical engine.

    - More natural looking trees. More volume, more varied sizes and angles among same types (eg tall pines in the game are uniform looking). Also tree shadows drawn to greatest distances.

    - More atmospheric buildings/ flavor objects. A pansion, a cafe, a gas station, an industrial building or at least some facade textures that are less generic. Keep the awesome customization of current editor and add a couple characteristic facades/buildings. Some cosmetic additions, like hay stacks, carts, wells, hanged clothes and things that remind us that we fight in a living world. And roofs with chimneys :)

    - Some default distance fog and an enhancment in distinguishing elevations by adding a kind of secondary lighting or haze on lower grounds.

    -Would be also cool if we could have varied and moving fog clouds. No LOS effects, just a visual thing. Or some leafs falling and drifting with the wind.

    - Waterfalls....ok just kidding :D

    0

    Why has concealment changed so much?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I like the fact that now you can use every inch of the terrain for cover/concealment, unlike CMx1 where tree bases were mandatory as advance routes and defensive positions. I cant remember playing anything less than moderate/heavy trees. However trees in CMSF are a bit confusing in cover/concealment because of the 1:1 modelling. I cant figure LOS and concealment easily and this must be the only part I miss abstractions. Sometimes, when playing RT it is difficult to be down there and ensure your troops are behind the right tree. Is some kind of underbrush effect modelled in woods or tree crowns are exactly "what you see is what you get"?

    0

    British Module

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    So another 4 months of waiting? I thought it was less time between the marines announcment and the release. A great looking module btw and a nice upgrade to balanced Blue vs Blue battles. About the title..hmmm. I imagined a better sounding one like "Monty Python and the holy action spot" or something :D

    0

    CMSF Marines review up at IGN

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Apocal,

    For me late german squads are less fun to play, simply because of the less need of combined arms. Too much concentrated firepower. I'm not expert on the matter but I suspect they were forced to do this due to lack of other support units, tanks, artillery, etc etc.

    CMSF magnitudes this by a certain factor. It is a personal thing maybe but I find it more intriguing to play a stug, a panzer IV and a Hummel combined than an Abrams that can pretty much do all the work the above three can do seperately. Its like watching football with 22s Maradona clones. Some may find it exciting but personally I find it a bit uninteresting.

    Despite this I still enjoy CMSF. I mostly play Red on Red though, which lacks a bit atmosphere and makes me think I'm in the middle of some army drills not really caring about the bigger picture. If someone can point me some QB setups for a good H2H RedvsBlue battle I would be grateful.

    0

    CMSF Marines review up at IGN

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I almost choked on my Coke reading this. What game are you playing?! If I play dumb as a box of rocks, there's an even money chance some VBIED or RPG-equipped mech squad is going to ruin my whole day.

    The flipside of this is that an MG42 could basically poop over everything else on two legs in the game. Fire support? LOL, this is WW2, what fire support? Why yes, bring that Sherman into LOS and we'll install an 88mm glass-less window, free of charge. People figured out, "hey, most of my stuff is technically inferior to the Germans... I'd better play in a way that minimizes my weaknesses and maximizes my strengths."

    For some reason, perhaps due to the opposing force portrayed, a large number are unable to make this same leap for CMSF.

    You missed the point by a mile. What game I am playing? Do you deny the fact that a Marines squad with javelins and arty support can dominate the battlefield in the game without the *real* need of anything else? You said it yourself that an MG42 can pop up on two legs in this game and this explains my point that units lose their distinctive role in a modern setting, a thing that I find boring. Its like playing chess with 32 Queens. In the Normandy title, in order to have the firepower of a modern squad I will need a) a rifle squad

    b)an SMG squad c)an LMG/HMG team d)a bazooka team e)a light mortar team f)an AT gun g)an artillery FO.

    I didnt say its the game's fault. These are the-for me- drawbacks of a contemporary setting.

    0

    CMSF Marines review up at IGN

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    So many reasons WW2>Syrian for a tactical wargame. I needed and wanted the shift to a modern setting but now I'm ready to go back :)

    Tank battles suck in CMSF. Its overkill and they are over in a matter of seconds. I miss the gripping >1 min duels from CMx1. I tend to play only inf battles in CMSF because I dislike everything from ATGMs to auto-cannons. Too accurate and fast. You may have more toys in a contemporqary setting but they all more or less behave the same. Also infantry squads like the marines or javelin equipped army units pretty much own everything in the battlefield to the point tanks, MGs, support become insignificant. Combined arms tactics are no longer a necessity.On the other hand a well positioned MG42 in a ww2 scenario will always be a puzzle to solve and thats the magic of the setting. Now you can just bring down the whole building with a 13 man squad and laught at it.

    Slower pace..atmosphere, balance..water! And so many modding opportunities. Not suprisingly, I havent seen a single tank mod for CMSF.

    0

    WW2- or CM Normandy - reality or revision?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Have faith..they are the same guys that deconstructed our wonderful cherry picking QB system for the sake of realism remember?..just kidding :D But really there is no indication that they wont pay attention to historical accuracy. CMSF is based on a fictional conflict and yet we mostly get down to earth MOUT and asymmetrical warfare. I think Steve even mentioned that Tigers might not make it in the first release for historical reasons. Modules will be quite strict in time periods and equipment anyway.

    0

    CMSF Marines review up at IGN

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Given the low art budget of CMSF and the flexibility of the map maker, graphs are actually really really good with a nicely balanced pallete and even a classy feel that I much prefer over the glossy World in Conflict visuals for instance.

    Any chance we will ever see the horizon blending with the table map in CM? I would like to see distance haze set as default feature that will help map edges blend with the rest of the world and even make elevations stand out more clear(eg a hill close to our POV will contrast with the hazy valley beyond it). Theatre of war has done it quite nicely with atmospheric depth of field, map edges extending beyond game area and landscapes flourishing with light. Its very pleasant to wander around the maps, they seem so real (Of course they had the Il-2 engine heritage). Generally I think TOW can give CMSF some ideas about world graphics with nicely detailed touches here and there. Hanged clothes, hay stacks, carts, interesting and varied buildings come to mind. CMSF 3d models are richly detailed but TOW's landscapes make you want to call some friends and lay down on the grass to have some picnic :D

    0

    CMSF Marines review up at IGN

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    You already have this in CMSF - just make the objective visible to both players - this is done in the editor by the designer. Personnaly I like the differant ways the deisgner can create victory conditions. The flags in CMX1 pretty limited what you could do, and more often than not were there to guide the AI into an objective. In H2H well it just becames a charge for the flags IMO :)

    Of course, flags are limited. I'm not against the new victory conditions by no means. It is just that flags make your goals intantly recognizable and add the wargame flavour back in the simulation. It was satisfying to see the flag changing colors, now you dont really grasp the importance of your goals. Also, the neon green painted area just doesnt fit to a WW2 era atmosphere imo.

    ps never did like football!

    Blasphemy! :D

    0
×
×
  • Create New...