Bartokomus
-
Posts
334 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Bartokomus
-
-
I definitely agree with the base idea of what you're proposing; more information on the screen. In the same vein as other, in a WeGo PBEM game i managed to get an entire reinforced platoon across an open 100 yards into cover with the exception of one man who was of course the bazooka man. much discussion ensued on who got to run out and grab it...
-
i think you've already got the answer; it isn't possible, as i've run into the same limitations before. it is what it is i am sorry to say; i constantly run into situations where i'd like to attach a platoon of engineers to a company of Infantry, same as what you're experiencing. It's a no-go.
-
I can just as easily flip that around -- what was good about it? Effectively, the old way forces the defender to buy foxholes, since these have to be taken into account in the force balance. Foxholes for "free" = reduction of points to buy units, in order to keep things balanced.
In the new system, the defender can choose to spend no points on fortifications, representing a hasty 'in situ' defense, such as defensive units moving into a new position to contain a breakthrough, or perhaps a unit that has just obtained an objective defending against a rapid counterattack.
Or, the defender can just buy some foxholes, representing a defending unit that has had at least a few hours to prepare, but not a lot of time.
Or, the defender can go all the way, going beyond foxholes (except for perhaps a few forward OP positions), and go all the way to trenches and bunkers for the rest of his units.
Seems like a better, more flexible system to me.
AND i can counter-counter flip... hmm. yeah i definitely see your point of view, but it's definitely a preference thing. I don't think in assault/defend scenarios that foxholes should be paid for i guess.
it's certainly not a big issue, but the departure from the previous method doesn't make sense to me. it's just a change which was obviously not driven by development, but a change in opinion from the dev. team, which they're allowed to do. but i don't like!
-
what was wrong with the old way in CMx1 where forces on defense were automatically given foxholes, every other kind of fortification you paid for. i still am suprised when i start a PBEM on defense and this isn't the case...
-
add-on question! what happened to the big gun bunkers of the original CM generation? IIRC ther was multiple 75mm and 88mm bunkers... does anyone know if these are these planned?
-
thread lock inbound?
-
thanks Winkelried, very helpful input
-
does anyone have rl knowledge of how a FO worked if attached to a Co.? would he have to go through the Co HQ instead of directly to the Plt HQ? i don't understand why the bad comm links would affect the FO at all as the mortars are set up and in command of their Plt HQ...
-
2 questions:
1) If the Co. Cdr has a radio, is alive and sitting in a house 200m from a Plt Cdr who also has a radio how can they not be in contact? To be clear none of the Plt. have contact with Co HQ but this is the most egregious and boggling example. No contact with the enemy yet either, btw. this happens frequently and i don't understand; best guess is bad batteries...
2) 1 Plt. has their mortars deployed, able to drop rounds, and is contact with the Plt Cdr. The FO i have cannot access the mortars (out of contact); does this simulate that the FO (a company asset btw) would have to go through the CO HQ to talk to the Plt Cdr. and their mortars?
I can't tell what is being simulated and what i am missing. if this is simulation i just don't understand it!
any help or clarification would be appreciated.
Bart.
-
BTW, a feature request: If it can be coded, I'd like to be able to pre-plan multiple missions for each arty module. I'e., strike here at a certain time, then the same or another location at another time, and so forth. Any module committed to such missions is not available for on-call missions until it has completed its pre-planned missions.
Michael
+1 for this.
-
Clark my only comment would be are you noting the pack up times? I think for the German 75mm Pak i was shocked to see the time was close to 5 minutes...
-
I'd love a universal LOS tool unconnected to any unit. One click on any part of the map to anchor the point of origin, then moving the cursor to any another point gives you a readout of the distance between the points and whether LOS is possible or not. One more click (or a right-click) and it goes away.
This may have been requested before, but I'd like this so much that I thought I'd raise it again.
Michael
Complete agreement
-
I'd suggest ball bearings could be a weakness as well.
this is the winner!
-
disregard; about 3 turns later they became in contact.
-
Quick clarification on "in command":
I have the radioman from the 1st team (HQ Support) of 4th Platoon in contact with the 4th Plt Lt.; in the same action square and an adjacent one i have three mortar teams in total. None of the three mortar teams are in contact with 4th Plt.; all mortar teams and 1st team are in an open field, presently not in action.
Shouldn't the mortars be in contact with 4th Plt?
thanks.
-
thanks; i couldn't find an option for it, but i liked that in the original CM series i assumed i was missing something. for a longer battle that can be limiting.
-
1) Can we specify the amount of rounds of artillery off-board resources have?
2) Can we specify the contents of halftracks?
-
Pete you were right; thanks very much. i am modifying a QB map and they were set up in there.
-
I'm in the playtesting phase of my scenario and i can't tell if i am doing something wrong or the tac-ai is being silly. The ai keeps deciding to drop arty on turn 1 (yay) but it keeps dropping arty on the the objectives it's defending, thereby killing its own forces. Also, it drops many rounds of smoke on it's own position for no apparent reason on turn 1.
I am assuming it's me, but i know those units obviously don't have any orders from me and i can't think what to tweak to make them stop.
Comments, redirection, and education appreciated.
thank you in advance.
-
thanks much.
-
simple question:
What factors govern the size of the gap made by the blast command? I can't figure out why sometimes a blast command results in a breach large enough for a vehicle and sometimes one large enough only for infantry. i can't spot any difference in the bocage, so is it some random result?
guidance/wisdom appreciated.
-
But what about Wilmot? Who will avenge him?
-
the new interface still doesn't provide a simplistic "at-a-glacnce" view of the command structure especially for the larger organizations. this especially comes into play for QB's...
-
Any chance on them ever coming back?
engineers and hedgehog obstacles
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I searched the forum and i couldn't find guidance, so i guess everyone else knows the answer!
Can engineers clear hedgehogs with the blast command? In the manual it says that engineers can breach obstacles (all inclusive), and then on the same page it mentions only bunkers, bocage, and mines. When i try to guide my pioneers to blast a hedgehog they do everything the same as when they're blowing through bocage or a wall, but they never throw one of the charges and they are not under any fire or artillery.
Much help appreciated for what can/cannot be blasted into oblivion!