Sigurd

Why?</font>

double post [ January 14, 2003, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Sigurd ]

bravo, well done Murph ! the length and über-precision of this AAR is concurencig Para and Master gooddale's one [ January 14, 2003, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Sigurd ]

I'd be glad to help Send your pics to irenee dot fromentel at int-evry dot fr, and i'll upload them on my dsl- provider storage space Sigurd

I'm looking forward to seeing yor chart, Walpurgis ! nice work i had no time to do myself

medics are already modelled in operations : you recover about 20-25% of the casualties of the last battle, which represent the lightly wounded men.

As YD, i've read somewhere the experience of the spotter represents the expereince of {spotter and battery}. So all the guys actually pointing, and firing the guns in the rear are either green/vet/crack

From silvio : Yes, that was the point of my question : Are MG more suppresive than the squad with the same FP ? Said in another way :Is the more effective suppressive effect of MG due to its internal higher-suppresive ability ? Or do we see it just because of the tweakings to the infantry moral system ? the ROF issue is interesting : the subjective impression of the chance of being killed could be higher with a MG (you hear all these bullets flying around your head, hence the morale bad effect), but in fact it could the same objective chance to die (read : same FP) as with a rifle squad (but you hear only sporadic shots, and you think wrongly you're safier, so the morale level is not so bad as with HMG) such explanation would go in the "intrinsically higher suppresive effect of the HMG" direction

Thanks for the comment, Steve Doesn't the >2 years development for the new engine seem to you as an argument for releasing a med theatre CM, with the current CMBB engine ? Just to fill the time gap. And allow all the CM fans to get some fresh flesh, till the holy graal of the rewrite... [ December 10, 2002, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Sigurd ]

****** Der Manstein kommt ****** What weather should be used for the first battle ? From a historicaly point of view ? and for gameplay ? I sometimes get blizzard, sometimes overcast weather. The battle plays very differently following this seting : the very short LOS of blizzard (100m) allows you to bring all your forces to the river, witout a shot. While overcast has 800+m LOS, so you've got to deal with all the russian nasty stuff Any thought ?

What kind of operation are you playing ? If it's an "advance" type, perhaps the manual page 156 give us the explanation : "Units which end the last battle in no man's land are automaticaly shifted back to their own front lines" Hence the free move back to the friendly lines observed in your screenies. But if you're playing "static" or "assault" type of operation, it won't help explaining this capability... [ December 09, 2002, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Sigurd ]

Seems very interesting ! BTW is Martin H. Walker member of the BFC Forum ? What's his nick ?

Thank you a lot YD for this complete answer ! I didn't think at the current engine limitation you mentioned. Another new feature hopefully to be seen in the new engine.

---spoiler Hollow Legion---- I'm only at the turn 10 (out of 35), playing those poor italians. I could see the horror in the face of them, seeing hordes of soviet getting closer, closer... and finally overrunning the positions, one after the other. The AI bunched up his inf battalion in a 50 m broad corridor, making the run "en masse" towards my positions. Tis time this usual AI tactic was adequate. The italian troop killed 3 times their own number before being slaughtered, but the soviets just keep coming... Such ass-kicking let these questions arise : 1°) I wondered if playing the allied side, as proposed by the author, could be of any fun with such umerical superiority, and no wild card at all in hands of axis side (see 4th point). Perhaps it was historically the way it is, a esay walk for the soviet, but why advise the solo play as allied ? 2°) Is such a slaughter due to the italian default setup ? Due to short LOS (200m), the russian battalion-sized inf attacking force overwhelms each italian defense line (each roughly platoon sized) one at a time. The more deeper italian lines just don't see the fiht in the lines in front of them, and are of no use. 3°) I was disappointed that the italian guns couldn't fire on the TRP without LOS on it 4°) If there is no magical reinforcement, I'll be completely trashed, unless I change the default setup (see 2), i hate this Edited : Now I'm on turn 30, and I can answer myself somme of these questions : 2°) I held 20 turns on the MLR, but now i ran out of amno, i'm overrun, yes. 4:1 kill ratio, not too bad... To achieve this i gathered my 3 platoons in the center. 4°) a platoon, bu no real AT asset In fact the italian default setup would be adapted for clear weather, but with that short LOS, each line of defense cannot support each other [ December 08, 2002, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Sigurd ]

I was playing a defensive battle in fog (with 200 m of LOS), and had only 47mm AT guns as "artillery" kind of support I was highly disapointed when I figured out those AT guns couldn't fire on a TRP without LOS. Yes, the manual only says "on map mortars can fire on TRP without LOS, and AT/Inf guns get a hit bonus when targetting near a TRP.", so no word for AT/Inf guns over TRP without LOS So my question is : were those gun crews only trained for direct fire ? Was some indirect fire on a TRP some 500 m away (still out of LOS) truly impossible for them ? Perhaps for AT guns it make sense, but bigger inf guns (like the german 150 mm) should be able to do such indirect fires on TRP, shouldn't they ? (I haven't done the test, but the explanation in the manual should be valid for them too) My poor italian soldiers, without concentrated HE support, didn't make it against the soviet hordes... May your explanations let them make understand why they died...

year, like Greenspan's statements : zillions of economics journalist will argue of "did he mean he will cut the interests rates of another quarter, or keep the same ones ?"... Year, time for Martin to move to another job...

Well, PzL, it could be a sensible guess, as the Martin's sentence above ends with "and we're researching other time periods and theaters to move to." So, if BFC researches are finished before the rewrite of the engine, they could throw all this data in the current CMBB engine ? Would make sense. On the whole, we're also doing a semantic analysis of Martin's original sentence, perhaps a native english speaker would enlighten us ?... (Tarquelene for example, in the other thread, didn't think we should interpret it as "development of the next Combat Mission title will start this year already. Then we'll finish the game. Beyond that, we're looking at a complete engine rewrite,... ) [ December 05, 2002, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: Sigurd ]

In a recent interview, Martin said : “[…] the development of the next Combat Mission title will start this year already. Beyond that, we're looking at a complete engine rewrite […]” Does this paragraph mean that there will be a CM3 before the engine rewrite ? For clarity purposes, we may stick with this convention in this thread : we can name “CM3” a hypothetical CM sequel with the current CMBB engine (for example in the mediterranean theatre), “CMII” the CM planned for 2+ years with a new re-written game engine. Well, I don’t want to start another thread to know in which theatre the next CM will take place, just when we will finally see it. I’m just another big CM fan, wanting to know how much time I have to wait for the next CM title. (I could imagine 6-12 months for CM3, or 2-3 years for CMII if no CM3 is planned) Thanks to Rollstoy for having pointed this out in this original thread

I created a "CM3 before the engine rewrite" thread to discuss this matter, go to this new thread [ December 05, 2002, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Sigurd ]

From Rollstoy : Does that last paragraph mean that there will be a CM3 before CM II (the rewrite?) This puzzling question will definitly prevent me from falling asleep tonight : BFC fix it or do somefink !

From Chris Hare CM Data Tables MG34 HMG penetrates 15@0 at 20m. MG42 HMG penetrates 15@0 at 25m. Soviet Maxim MMG penetrates 8@35 at 30m Soviet 12.7mm DShK HMG penetrates 8@35 at 800m and 30@0 at 25m.

Seems reasonnable to me Everybody agrees with Silvio ?

My question goes on the firepower value (as shown in the "unit info" window) given to any MG unit (HMG, LMG) We all agree that the MG effect on infantry was raised quite a bit in CMBB (I don't discuss wheter it was a good idea or not), so my question is : how is it reflected in the info window ? That is, does a rifle squad and a MG team with the same firepower number (say 100 at a given distance) have the same suppressive effect ? or have I to add x % to a MG firepower value to be at the same suppressive level as for a squad ? Said in another way : in CMBB, is the MG suppresive "bonus" effect (due to its MG, not squad, nature) (in comparaison with CMBO) reflected in the displayed firepower rating or not ? I don't want to argue about the old "infantery broken" subject, I'm just talking about feedback given by the game for particular kind of unit (MG), in a particular domain (suppresive effect) [ December 11, 2002, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: Sigurd ]

pz42, true, I clearly remember having read a madmatt's post explaining the HE blast are weakened in snow, in CM as in RL omni, I think u can only achieve this result (rounds exploding in mid air) with varying time fuses (in CM the xx mm VT artillery spotter)

Quenaelin, This problem is inherent to the engine of CMBB : until units have got "memories", it won't change, that is not till the engine rewrite (in 2+ years) but u can avoid this annoying behaviour (for me too) by plotting an area fire order.