Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Terrapin

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    282

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Terrapin

    German Squad Tactics by Matthew Gajkowski

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Anyone ordered this book from Battlefront.com, translated from the German? I think it's excellent, and has helped me immeasurably in Squad tactics.

    Interestingly, the tactics described in the book work very well in the game. It's description of how to engage enemy HMGs was very useful in-game.

    For those of you who don't have a wicked knowledge of squad combat, I'd definately recommend this. Has loads of useful illustrations of how to deploy the units.

    I also like the hilarious part at the end which is apparently a translated WW2 German unit hand-signals handbook. Because you never know when you're going to need to know how to order a German half-track to move forward (Push both arms up and down at the same time and yell "GEFECHTSFAHRZEUGE VOR!")

    Useful, I think you'll agree. :D

    0

    Engine rewrite .. single player mode

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    I'd also like some scripting ability. If nothing more than "wait until THIS group gets to THIS point, then MOVE this other group". I find it hard to believe Charles can't program this in his sleep.

    As for the AI intelligence, I find it decent enough. If I don't do anything, I get my a$$ kicked, and that's usually the sign of at least competent AI.

    It's also surprisingly adept at selecting clever locations for defensive obstacles. It likes to put those minefields right where my tanks would like to go! ;)

    0

    Vehicles/Armor without ammo can't hold VLs

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    In a theoretical sense I agree with Eden. You shouldn't have to keep a guy with a rifle on every point, if you've eliminated the enemy from the region.

    The problem is, how do you, at that point, determine a change in ownership (of the now "controlled" but vacant VL). Can the enemy just drop a jeep off on top, or some lone person and claim control? Because if you did that, you get into REALLY gamey problems, that would mimic the "Assault" forms of gameplay you see in Tribes 2 or Quake, where simply standing on the flag gives you the area. So you may have guys in fast jeeps just running around claiming vacant VLs for themselves (ever played Tony Hawk Pro Skater's "graffiti" mode? ;) )

    And, if you don't do that, and say "well, you have to at LEAST put a half-squad on board" (or come up with some imaginary firepower rating say), you are back where we started.

    The way it is NOW leaves the least amount of problems. Changing it screws up a lot more. Isn't this the way ALL of these problems are? Nothing is ever simple. Sigh.

    0

    Vehicles/Armor without ammo can't hold VLs

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

    But the difference is that Pak40's vehicle has already defended the VL and used up ammo in the process. After all was said and done, his unit was on the VL and the enemy's units were not. IMO the defending vehicle should be awarded a VL.

    If the enemy wants to then attack a "defenseless" VL by sending units there to contest/control it I have no problem with that.

    It is up to an opponent to actually contest the VL, not the AI to determine that it can't be defended with what is there!

    Sarge

    I disagree. The issue is (to the computer, and real-life). Does anyone OWN AND CONTROL the VL? If it is an ammoless truck, standing on top of the hill, the answer is: NO ONE OWNS IT .

    It would be as if I, Terrapin, got transported to 1945 and snuck up into some abandoned library in Berlin and yelled out "I'M HERE, I'M QUE...", oh wait, off-topic, "I'M HERE AND I CONTROL THE LIBRARY!". Well, of course, I don't control it. I'm just there .

    It doesn't matter if no one else is around. You don't have the capability to control it, and the only reason you have it is no one is there to notice you.

    It's like the CMBB version of defensive indifference in Baseball, when a team doesn't care if second base is stolen, and the other team "steals" the base. The statician does not give a steal to that player.

    0

    Infantry "fallback" and "disengage" - how?

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Lt Bull:

    It seems now, that some people are "bastardising" the "assault" and "advance" command for want of a more suitable command.

    Huh? They're only LABELS, what difference does it make what it's called? It's up to the user. It's "an "Advance" in a different direction".

    Otherwise, your recommendation for the attributes of "Withdraw" sound exactly like Advance/Assault, only with a speed "somewhere between them", but with slightly less "Withdraw" penalty. How is this more than 2% different than Advance and Assault?

    As for the animation difference, it IS an abstraction of combat. Keep two platoons around to provide cover for one, or split the squad.

    0

    A pair of questions

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by Tigrii:

    I've noticed that when you have a platoon hiding and the enemy infantry draws near, the platoon HQ always opens up first.

    It's NOT always. Usually it's my LMG. However, you may be seeing a situation where the HQ, often a decently experienced soldier, has better spotting due to his experience level.

    Also, I've noticed that when a tank shoots at an enemy AFV and it ricochets, the shooters becomes cautious or shaken. Is this because they're afraid that the enemy is invincible or something?
    No, it means they now know that SOMEONE is shooting at them, and they don't know quite what. It could get worse for them. Remember that CAUTIOUS and SHAKEN are not abnormal states of mind for warfare. They're the norm. If someone is shooting at you, you are not calm as a kitten. And, in CMBB both Cautious and Shaken troops can be given orders without too much issue, so as long as it doesn't get demonstrably worse for them, you'll be alright.
    0

    Monster Tanks Retreating #2 And Steve's List of Why the Tac AI tells tanks to retreat

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    Originally posted by tero:

    It was perfectly OK for the KV to shrug off the insignificant 20mm FLAK rounds. What was not OK was the getting pinned down by it. The way I saw it the crew was rattled but not enough to actually do something about it since the menace from the FLAK did not warrant it.[/QB]

    Wow. I've NEVER seen that. I've never seen a tank, of any kind, get pinned at all, and I put them into bad situations all the time! ;) I've seen them get shocked, but never pinned. I didn't think a tank could GET pinned. It has a motor and armor!
    0

    Monster Tanks Retreating #2 And Steve's List of Why the Tac AI tells tanks to retreat

    in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)

    Posted

    All I can say is that I BOW DOWN and THANK GOD to whomever at BTS coded the tanks to keep themselves alive.

    I got to the fourth battle of a standard scenario (Bridgehead something), and all that stood between the Germans and total victory were my three remaining T34/83s. The Germans had at least two tigers left, when I saw one and told my T34 to attack. In the action-time section, the T34 missed. The Tiger then obliterated the turret.

    Another tiger came over the hill, and my two other T34s reversed up over the berm, and into the trees. It was awesome to watch. Otherwise, I would have lost them and the scenario. I used them in the final battle.

    [ December 04, 2002, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Terrapin ]

    0
×
×
  • Create New...