76mm
-
Posts
1,366 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by 76mm
-
-
Two good books for tactical accounts:
1) IN DEADLY COMBAT by Biderman; and
2) TANK RIDER by Bessonov.
You can get in-depth reviews, etc. on Amazon, but basically both books are by soldiers (Biderman-German, Bessonov-Russian) serving at the company level during a couple years of combat, and are both pretty frank about the pluses and minuses of their respective armies.
-
+1Originally posted by Rollstoy:My personal opinion: instead of letting me fool around with sliders, supply the developers with info and data for them to get their data right and be done with it.
-
rune,
Interesting examples, but I wonder if the emphasis on keeping airguards up would extend to movements into urban areas with intensive and sustained small arms fire rather than IEDs, ambushes, snipers, etc. I see the logic for doing so, but it seems like suicide...
I think I read somewhere that in at least one of the Arab-Israeli wars, Israeli doctrine was that tank commanders would stay unbuttoned, period. The result was an astonishingly successful Israeli armored force...and 50% TC casaulties.
-
Yippee! This is great news, and I think a great way to proceed. I'm sure that in addition to whatever BFC cranks out for the East Front game (among others), the community will be ready to contribute some really cool content.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Now, I've said in the past that we're open to the possibility of 3rd Party Modules. A group of you guys get together, make a whole bunch of things (models, data, maps, etc.) with our help, and the product is then released as a Module. The authors get a cut, we get a cut, the customer gets something we wouldn't have time for otherwise. This ensures it doesn't disrupt our viability as a business and it lessens the risk in the event that only 10 people want the "Panzer I - The Early Years" Module
We have no plans on how to do this at the moment, but it is something we are open to considering. We'll probably give it a test sometime after WW2 is first out the door.
Steve [/QB]
[ December 19, 2007, 05:46 AM: Message edited by: 76mm ]
-
Yeah, I guess Carell would have been more likely to underestimate the strength of the heroic, outnumbered German soldaten as they fought off the Soviet hordes.Originally posted by Steiner14:Carell exaggering german strenght? Where?
Don't get me wrong, I have a few of Carell's books and enjoy them for what they are, but I don't regard him as a serious, objective historian.
Also, sadly, I also find this discussion about German troop strength in 1944 kind of interesting--this seems to be a pretty basic topic, and yet no apparent agreement. I've read a lot of books on the Russian Front, and always got the impression that most units were seriously understrength most of the time, but credible evidence to the contrary is always interesting.
-
While I guess I understand why BFC wouldn't want to totally up the data and models, the fact remains that--especially once you get into WWII--there is a dedicated community here that would certainly create and use all sorts of additional units, buildings, etc. beyond what BFC is willing or able to produce.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Yeah, opening up the data and models is not on our agenda. We're too small to survive doing that. We've had lengthy, and sometimes heated, debates with people and it's never convinced us that it is in our best interests to open up the modding to that degree.
As pointed out by others, it certainly seems like this kind of support would only make the various CM2 iterations more popular and long-lived. I for one would certainly be more inclined to buy one of the basic games if I knew there would be a regular stream of new mods, rather than one or two to be released by BFC.
This is a long way of asking whether a compromise is possible between totally opening up the data and models and keeping them totally closed--something like licensing or otherwise allowing specific individuals (or more likely groups) to create and release new units, mods, whatever, either for free or on a commercial basis?
[ December 18, 2007, 05:34 AM: Message edited by: 76mm ]
-
I can describe from personal experience an instance of how Iraqis made poor use of Soviet equipment in the first Gulf War:
I was in a tank unit, we came up against some Republican Guard T-72s which were equipped with dozer blades on the front. Presumably the Soviets would have used these blades to create hull-down fighting positions by digging down into the rather flat terrain. The Iraqis used the blades, however, to create "hull down" positions by scraping dirt into thin, waist-high berms on three sides of their tanks, which was about as effective against our sabot rounds as holding up a piece of cardboard. I think the Russians would have done better!
-
Perhaps Sajer or Carell?Originally posted by kipanderson:[QB] Hi,
I cannot look up his name but he is “the man” on the German army of WWII as an institution… who has gone through all the histories/units many where over strength.
This guy is the authority on the German army as an institution… is up there with Newton and Glantz as a serious historian of WWII…
I will have a dig around and see if I can come up with the book and author…
-
Awww, did you have to go and ruin the surprise? Or has this already been announced?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:When we move to Normandy...
Steve [/QB]
-
This is a quote from a thread which was locked and merged into this one:
So does this mean that at least for now, we should expect to be able to fire through berms as described in the other thread, or is this being fixed in 1.5 as well?There is a VERY fine line, unfortunately, between making the LOS/LOF too strict or too liberal. For the vast majority of situations things are fine, but for certain specific situations the calcs may be too tough or lax...Sometimes Charles can put in a "hack" to massage the calcs for a particular situation. The problem is that if the situation isn't readily identifiable (like a wall end, building corner, etc) it might not be possible to put in a fix specifically for that situation...Not to worry, though. As hardware improves Charles can increase the fidelity of certain calcs so that the extremes become fewer and less relevant when they do happen. The beauty of the new game engine is that these improvements are "relatively" easy to add compared to CMx1... -
Now that Battlefront has resurfaced, these are the types of questions I'd really like to see answered...I mean, c'mon, what's going on here?
-
Well, good to have you back, but I don't think that your comment above is completely fair. While there has certainly been rehashing ad nauseum during your absence, many of the posts over the last few months have concerned legitimate issues (often of the "how does this work" or "is this a bug" variety) that posters felt had not been addressed adequately or at all.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:But as the days went on, and sunlight reduced, I found myself less interested in brushing up on the latest and greatest rehashing of the same handful of topics I'd already addressed a dozen times.
I didn't complain about your absence, and even before your recent post I knew that your absence was completely justified, whatever the reasons for it were. That said, it sticks in my craw a bit for you to justify your absence in part by essentially saying that only jerks and idiots have been posting here lately, so no real need to respond. While I'm at it, I found the "forum rules" post rather heavy-handed as well.
OK, I've gotten that off my chest. Now get these marine modules out of the way and crank out the East Front WWII game...
-
You've got a curiously elevated opinion of the users of legal software; it never ceases to amaze me how otherwise intelligent people can make a complete hash of anything involving a computer.Originally posted by Phillip Culliton:...quite frankly was so out there that there's not a chance in hell that anyone could ever reproduce it unless they were insane, drunk, and a monkey. We make specialized legal tools; it is unlikely that a user dim enough to reproduce the bug would come within 100 yards of our product.
-
Excuse me, are you talking about me? I didn't "attack" MarkEzra "for doing his damndest to improve CM's experience by having a site..." I "attacked" him for putting too much emphasis on the fact that a single scenario seemed to enjoy any popularity among CM:SF players. Please explain how my post could possibly be interpreted otherwise?Originally posted by Sixxkiller:[QB] Then you have someone attack MarkEzra for doing his damndest to improve CM's experience by having a site that hosts user created maps. I mean the guy disagrees with someone and provides a figure about a map having x ammount of downloads, and gets labasted for his trouble...
-
Sorry for jumping on ya, MarkEzra, I think we're more or less in the same place.
My real problem with the game is that I'm not really interested in the Syrian setting, so all the kerfuffle about the next patch is kind of meaningless to me. I don't know if 1.05 will make everything right or not, but am pretty confident that BFC will get it working really well in time for the WWII game, which is all I'm really worried about.
-
Please give it a rest with the 2000 downloads for ONE, (1), a SINGLE scenario. I actually think it is really lame that only one scenario has seen that kind of popularity, especially given the deep unpopularity/unusability of quick battles in CM:SF. Or are there more great scenarios available for the 1.05 beta-testers that us riff-raff are not granted access to?Originally posted by MarkEzra:2000 downloads of one scen not enough for you...?...But I must repeat 2000 downloads of one scen is nothing to sneeze at...
-
I recommend:
--THE HEIGHTS OF COURAGE, by Kahalani (tank battles in Golan heights);
--ARABS AT WAR, by Pollack (very interesting, though lengthy, treatment of several Arab armies thoughout the post-WWII period, including the Yom Kippur war)
.
-
I guess I don't understand how people can say here that CM:SF's version of 1:1 works well, or even that it is actually 1:1 at all, if we are that much in the dark about how things work?Originally posted by thewood:This right here is my issue. We have mostly conjecture on how things work. Every time Steve has come in to answer a small specific point of contention it creates more confusion because its out of context. I need, maybe I'm slower than most on these boards, a concise, thourough walk through of exactly how the grid impacts all aspects of the game. Otherwise I am stumbling around and getting frustrated. Bugs just magnify this because I am still not sure what's a bug and what is a design issue.
So is CM:SF essentially just a more complicated set of abstractions hidden under a 1:1 graphic representation? Obviously all wargames are abstractions to one large degree or another, but to me 1:1 means that individual soldiers are considered to be located in specific coordinates and may fire, suffer casualties, and take other actions only to the extent that such should occur at such coordinates. I'm sure that other valid definitions of 1:1 exist, but it can sure get confusing with everyone talking about this undefined concept.
In any event, if no one other than BFC knows how the mechanics work, how can anyone even make claims about the validity of CM:SF's 1:1 credentials?
-
Thanks for this clarification; hopefully they'll figure out how to overcome the shortcomings of this approach in urban terrain. My brain hurts just thinking about it...Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:I'm afraid it's not true 1:1 but an approximation of 1:1. Some people decry the 8x8 grid but it's a bit better then most people suppose. In short the 8x8 grid is principally used to determine if LOS is possible. If yes, then a more fine grained LOS check determines whether or not it actually does.
It's happened to me many times with both infantry and vehicles, so it is hard to generalize. But if my guys are in a building and don't fire back (against small arms fire), I kinda thought they'd at least hunker down and survive. But they got wiped out. I guess they picked the wrong building!Also the range of the M4 is a mere 300m so beyond that someone with a bigger gun is going to shoot you to pieces. Did the SAW or the marksman return fire?Anyway, I need to play around with the game more, but between the interface, realtime, and the need to pay so much attention to individual units trying to get them to fire, etc., it is taking me a while to get the hang of this system.
-
Double post.
-
I've just been playing this game for a few weeks, as I was out of town for a long time, so please excuse if my questions have all been answered long ago.there is a LOT going on "under the hood" that HAS been "implemented well."But can anyone explain to me how the 8m "Action Spot" grid (or whatever it is) allows for 1:1? From what I've seen on the forum, no one seems to really understand how the Action Spots work, but it is not really intuitive how having LOS/LOF based on 8 meter can allow for implementation of 1:1, at least for infantry, especially in MOUT ops.
My biggest complaint though (and the reason I haven't even been able to complete a single scenario), is that too often my troops just sit there like inert blobs and get blown away without even returning fire. Occasionally they will, but too often they won't. Sometimes I can get them to fire back by manually giving them orders, but sometimes not. Is this a "feature" or an AI glitch? Who knows? Maybe I'm just doing something wrong, or maybe I would recognize some genius on Battlefront's part if I understood what was going on based on designer's notes, etc. But right now I find it frustrating and unfun.
-
I don't think that Michael's argument is essentially about "bugginess"--as someone else on this thread pointed out, the problem with 1:1 design is that to do it you either need to:Originally posted by Hoolaman:You started a thread about design philosphy and give examples of more and less elegant board-game designs...Eight pages of replies including mine gave a pretty solid argument that the 1:1 design is fine, if only it weren't buggy and poorly implemented.
1) have players control each of the individual soldiers--I think everyone agrees that this is not workable and certainly not fun;
OR
2) Hand this level of control completely over to a TacAI, which is really just another form of computer-driven abstraction and incredibly difficult to implement well, given how difficult it is to program an AI to handle all of the situations that arise in this kind of game. If the AI explicitly tries to model and represent 1:1 action in the game, it will inevitably (pending significant advances in AI development) leave players asking "why are my soldiers acting like idiots/zombies/automatons?" BFC certainly has outstanding programmer(s), but do they have the resources to develop a "next-level" AI that can make individual pixel troopers behave in a believable manner under all circumstances?
-
Hi,
I've finally gotten around to installing and trying to play this game. Didn't get too far though, because I've had a really hard time with parts of the interface, I think I must be doing something wrong. Manual didn't help much, maybe I overlooked something. Anyway, here are a couple of interface questions:
1) How do I select units? Whenever I have one unit selected and try to select another, the cursor still seems stuck on the first unit (ie, whatever movement command I gave the first unit will be repeated with the second unit as the destination instead of the second unit being selected).
2) Anyway to set waypoints other than left-clicking at each waypoint? I thought the CM1x system worked rather well...
3) How can I tell how many casualties my infantry units have suffered? If they are in buildings, etc. it is pretty tough to zoom in and count, and I don't think I should have to count anyway.
Sorry if all of this has been addressed in previous posts, but I've started and quit three scenarios because of the above issues--not having fun!
-
I add my voice to those requesting kill tracking!
I invented a powerful way to protect tanks strongly cheaply an lowtech; implications?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Does it involve making armored vehicles invulnerable by putting them behind low walls, as in 1.05?
If so, I hate to break it to you, but it probably won't work IRL, and it's gonna be fixed in 1.06 anyway...
You might be on to something, however, if you've hit upon a means to disorient and paralyze the Striker crews to that they don't flee when facing T-72s and can't drive in a straight line.