akdavis

More important than whether or not the cannister shot could kill you at long range is the dispersion that is going to occur past 100m or so. I've seen many a duck fly right through clouds of shot when pushing the range on a 12 guage. If canister shot produced an effective grouping at 200m, I would expect it to be almost worthless at ranges less than 50m. The grouping would be so tight, I'd think an HE round would have more AoE. Might tear the hell of out one guy, but probably do nothing to his buddies nearby. Much like shooting ducks that are too close. Does so much damage, the meat can ruined. I'll have to agree that tanks engage a bit early with canister. I'd like to seem them save it for that optimal 50-100m range.

I stumbled right into the Soviet platoon in the woods and had one of my platoons decimated in a matter of seconds. With the reinforcements, I still managed to slog it out to a tactical victory. Unfortunately, several of the Russian squads I thought I had routed of the map showed up in my rear just as I was approaching the hilltop defenses and proceeded to tear up my Coy HQ, mortar, FTs and THs.

I like, but I would also like the air recognition flags to be optional.

Yet vehicles in the game right now share other vehicles' models, yet have their own distinct data. Seems in these cases that it really is a case of just needing to drop in a new model.

Yet many are saying that they are not going include all the models, even in forthcoming patches. The need to work on the engine rewrite has been mentioned as the reason for cutting corners on several occasions. I believe even one of the BTS crew said that they are not going to include all the models. [ October 14, 2002, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: akdavis ]

My only gripe would be that if they're not going to correct all the shared models, then they should allow the community to do so. If you're not going to include the model for an object, just don't include it at all. Placeholders are, in my opinion, very unprofessional and reflect an unfinished product. Solution, take the time to include all the models, or help the community to do so. Leaving CMBB eternally unfinished while working on the engine rewrite (which I'm sure we won't see for at least 2 years) would be a true disappointment. I can't imagine anyone in this community who would not purchase the next BFC product simply because they were able to change the look of the current game. The people who care about this are the same people who are BFC's most loyal customers. Seems more like corporate paranoia than a legitimate fear. If I was BFC, I'd be much more concerned about loyal fans being disappointed by the unfinished state of CMBB and perhaps shying away from the next BFC product.

88mm and 105mm HE will rip the living **** out of early T-34s. Sorry for the language, but I don't know how else to describe what happens when a high-velocity 88mm HE round scores a penetration on a T-34. Gruesome.

Curiosity got the better of me (and pryed my e-mail address from my clutches). Now I keep getting e-mails about how Fredbob2144356162561345 and gang are advancing on my position and I'd better make my next move or else!(which I refuse to do since the game is about as much fun as playing tic-tac-toe by yourself). Now that I suffered the folly of my curiosity, I refuse to let it get the better of me again when it comes to anything involving CDV...yet, still, I find myself wondering how Mini-Combat 2 is an improvement over Mini-Combat 1? Perhaps in Mini-Combat 1, you really did just play tic-tac-toe against yourself, cept with little stars and swastikas (err, I mean maltese crosses) instead of X's and O's.

My only criticism would be that they look a bit to "weathered." They remind me of tanks I saw in Europe that had been sitting out in the open for 50 yrs. Paint scheme is beautiful. I like how it's very unique, but avoids the mirroring problem I've seen in some people's Russian tanks mods so far.

He was a great storyteller, and I think that is how he should be remembered. Not to devalue his work as a historian, but he truly shined as a sort of modern-day equivalent of the tribal folklorist, bringing to life our ancestors and reminding us of why they are so important to our lives today. Personally, his books D-Day and Citizen Soldiers sparked my interest in serious Second World War history. I'd always been fascinated with the equipment and famous battles, but these books really got me started reading at a more "academic" level. Now, having read alot (well, not really that much, but enough) I disagree with many of his historical conclusions, but I'll never forget the passion for the subject his books sparked in me.

It wouldn't really be a team anymore, would it? But anyways, I've noticed that when you set casualties in the editor, small teams are much more effected. Well not really, it's just that if every unit has a single casualty, then squads will hardly be effected but small teams (especially tank hunters, spotters, shreks, flamethrowers) will be severely handicapped. Kinda screwy (but I guess fair) way the casualty system works if you ask me. Seems like if a unit took casualties, it would make an effort to keep small, specialized teams intact and let squads be understrength, that is I think the casualties should be waited towards infantry squads and large crews and away from small teams and vehicles. While a unit might be perfectly willing to send a squad into action missing a few men, only under the most desperate circumstances would it field tanks with crew members missing. [ October 13, 2002, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: akdavis ]

Well, in that case the gun would not actually be spotted but would be a "AT Gun?" sound contact (which I think would include a glimpsed muzzle flash) indicating an approximate location. My problem is when you can actually target an AT gun, which means you know exactly where it is, but then you lose the target because the AT gun "hides." Once an AT gun is definitely spotted, I don't think it should be able to hide unless its location is changed. You didn't spot the gun because of its crew, you spotted it because you saw the gun firing. So why should you lose the target when the crew ducks into its foxhole? As far as AT guns being too easy to spot, I have not had this experience, at least under EFOW. In some cases, I've had light AT guns fire at my tanks repeatedly only to receive sound contacts for many turns.

What I don't understand is the concept of a spotted AT gun hiding. Once an AT gun is spotted, it should not be able to "hide" again. The crew might hide or run away, but the gun isn't going anywhere. It's not like gun itself ducks inside a foxhole. Maybe the problem is that the AI actually targets the crew, not the gun, thus causing it to lose target when the crew ducks.

"He who has the most firepower" yes, but more importantly "he who brings the most firepower to bear at the right time and place. I have lost against the AI on many occasions when I clearly had the advantage in firepower. Just having the firepower will not decide the battle, using tactics to employ it decisively will. Is the basis for all these complaints simply that infantry now behaves differently from CMBO? I guess I wasn't that attached to how infantry worked in CMBO because I much prefer the new system. A great example: I was playing a scenario where I was expected to seize a fortified hilltop with a company of German infantry. Advancing my men straight up the open face of the hill would have been suicide, no matter how much suppressive fire I laid down. The enemy was too well entrenched to be that effected by MGs and mortars. So I decide to leave my support in overwatch and take 2 of my platoons through the woods below the hill in an attempt to flank the fortifications. I'm not really expecting contact and have my squads moving in a rough line formation, with one platoon trailing the other. Then my first platoon walks right into a Russian ambush. They suffer 50-60% casualties almost immediately, and quickly break and fall back, but luckily the HQ holds, preventing a complete route. While the Russians are busy try to finish off first platoon, I swing the second platoon around their left flank and advance the 3 squads in line abreast right into them. In a matter of seconds, I do to the Russians what they just finished doing to my first platoon. Total route and pursuit a quarter way across the map follows before giving up the chase, all while suffering a single casualty. In each engagement, firepower was roughly equal, if not tilted somewhat towards the man-heavy Russian platoon. Tactics, not firepower decided the engagement, with poor tactics leading to the destruction of one of my platoons and good tactics leading to the route of a defending enemy. As a side note, my decimated first platoon was able to rally and provide support for the advance up the hill. Likewise, a few of the Russian squads I thought I had routed off the map popped up in my rear just as I was reaching the crest of the hill with my assualt groups and proceeded to slaughter my Company HQ and light mortars. All in all, it struck me as a bloody goddamn realistic little battle. Don't change a thing BF! (except for more realistic sound spotting )

Magnum, they are refering to Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord, the predecessor to CM: Barbarossa to Berlin. It deals with the Western Front (i.e. U.S>/U.K./Commonwealth vs. Germans) from just after D-Day till the end of the war. On the CD for THIS game, you will find a recreation of the Villers-Bocage turkey shoot. I wouldn't expect anyone to spend time modding this battle for CMBB, as its not Eastern Front and has already been done.

dd, just be sure to play several operations.

I've never had a problem with shoot&scoot, but I always use it for very short distances, i.e. move up 20m to hull down on a crest, then reverse back below crest. I suspect the problem may come when you make the second leg of the order a long distance.

The easy solution is to put more emphasis on operations. I was disappointed to find so few operations on the CD. In CM's operations I get satisfaction and continuity I find in other games' campaigns. I think the CM team should really put an emphasis on this aspect of the game in its advertising, try to sell it as their version of the "campaign mode."

Could someone please swap out this image??: http://www.minicombat.com/ Looks like Private Ryan has really got his ass lost this time! [ October 11, 2002, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: akdavis ]

In the same scenario, I received immediate sound contacts on 37mm PAKs after they had fired only one shot. The locations were a bit off, and I only got "AT Gun?" indicated on the contact, but at least I had an idea of where the fire was coming from and could react accordingly. I've had the same problem with mortars firing repeatedly within 100m of my troops, but only being identified by an "Infantry?" sound contact. I can sure as hell hear the mortars firing, but apparently my guys think that might actually be a sub-machinegun making that sound. Oh well, its a trivial concern, but it does strike me as a bit unrealistic. Just play a few rounds of America's Army: Operations and watch how quickly you learn to distinguish between the sounds of the different weapons firing. Hell, soldiers in WWI learned to tell the size and direction of incoming rounds just by their sound. Being able to distinguish between the sounds of rifles, machineguns, mortars and AT rifles seems like nothing in comparison. Granted, I only play in EFOW, so I'm not sure how sound contacts are handled in lesser FOW. I'm too in love with how visual spotting is realistically handled in EFOW to stop using it, I just wish sound contacts could provide more realistic information.

Well, my only complaint is that I didn't get a sound contact that distinguished it from other types of infantry. I can hear an AT rifle firing, and I'm sure the game is giving me a sound contact for that, but the problem is: I have no way of knowing which of the 20 sound contacts scattered across the map is that AT rifle I can distinctly hear firing?

Are winter uniforms, white-washed vehicles not coming in patch? I thought they were.

bump

In one scenario I played, I had a single German AT rifle team suppressing my two platoons of Russian light tanks. EFOW can be a real bitch. Everytime I moved a tank up to fire, I'd start taking hits. I could hear the sound of an AT rifle firing, but I had absolutely no indication of where it was coming from. As a consequence, my armor was rendered impotent for most of the scenario. When the scenario ended, I found out the AT rifle had been in a foxhole in some woods. During most of the scenario, it's position had been marked with a "Infantry?" sound contact. That's one beef I have with the game. You'd think a unique weapon would get a unique sound contact. 3 enemy AT guns were rapidly identified by sound contacts, at least allowing me to suppress them or maneuver relative to the thier positions, but that damn AT rifle was like the hand of God coming down and slapping my tanks everytime I tried to move. Never had any idea where it was, even when I had infantry less than 100m from it while it was firing.

There does seem to be a distinct lack of logic in AI fortification use. Bunkers are often put in strange locations with poor fields of fire. Even worse is the placement of trenches. They are often scattered randomly across the map. In one instance the AI was given 6 trenches and instead placing them across its front, the AI formed 2-trench tile rows, set back-to-back 3 deep, forming a strange box of trenches. Then the AI placed just one squad in this cluster of trenches. Needless to say, I just went around it.