RSColonel_131st
-
Posts
660 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by RSColonel_131st
-
-
Sounds interesting to me - why not? You may have a few talented guys in that "green" unit who will save the day.
-
This threads are so usefull. They remind me why it's important to turn off the computer and step outside occasionally.
Least I'd be posting in this lunatic asylum like everyone else.
[ September 07, 2005, 06:53 AM: Message edited by: RSColonel_131st ]
-
I think my problem with the overview comes with the fact that, if you want to stay with Franco's rules, you only have a very small "map" to look at (view option 9 I think). While this avoids giving you too many details, it also means you're hardly seeing anything at all.
A real "paper-map" would likely be somewhere in between.
Another thing is that with Franco's rules, you can't just click-select the next unit if you don't see it. That's so counter-intuitive for me - and also, it means that you have to watch the replay 5 or 6 times to make sure you notice all the action and all the enemys that have been spotted.
It's a real shame that we can't have a "not reconoitered" terrain "shape" that looks, for example, like the Operation Flashpoint Map and changes into the detailed map as units with LOS approach.
-
Yeah...if limited terrain knowledge/FOW can not be implemented graphically, then the next best thing is to have an option for locking the player to a low view level like in Franco's rules, and give him an overhead map with little detail.
The problem I have with that method of playing in the current CMBB is that it's just too large to keep an overview - I always end up forgetting some units, and it takes ages to jump between them without going into top-down view.
-
While we're at it...an option to "reshape" the field would be nice.
Right now the square is not always the most effective outline for a field. Would be nice if we could form different ratio rectangles that cover the same area (same amount of mines) but allow us to place, for example, a thin but long belt.
-
We got a porn forum here? Where?
-
Forgive me if this has been asked already, I couldn't find it.
Would it be possible for CMx2 to not show the map in full detail at the start of the game?
Right now, as soon as the terrain is created, the player knows every little bit of cover and decides on his way. Only exception are trenches and holes.
I guess in reality, the commander would have a rough outline of the map (like a real paper map for example) and then as the battle progresses, gets his recon results in and is able to make more detailed decisions in regards to terrain usage.
In CMx2 terms, it would be really sweet to have some kind of "simplified look" to all those map areas where no unit of ours has put their eyes on yet.
-
I'm not sure, but for CMBB I think if LOS is broken (by smoke, for example) then area fire stops.Originally posted by Metto:This thing, that moving objects(tanks etc.) only tell the units "you must not fire here", creates an exploit.
Situation 1: A tank is advancing towards a machinegun and has infantry following it, "in cover". The player controlling the machinegun gives it an area fire order ahead of the tank -> when the tank and infantry moves forward, the mg keeps shooting the spot and hits the infantry through the tank.
Situation 2: There's a light infantry gun instead of the machinegun, and the tank is a heavy tank, so the gun can't kill it. The tank is sitting in level terrain, so even a small adjustment in the guns elevation may result in the gun's rounds going very short or very far from the tank. The player sets the gun to fire in front of the tank and when the gun eventually misses above it's ground target, the shell flies through the tank and hurts the infantry.
No reason why broken LOF shouldn't do the same in CMx2.
-
I guess the best option would be a more detailed modeling of passenger vehicles in general.
The german field manual speaks a lot about fighting from the vehicle, as well as the vehicle in a fire support role for the dismounted squad.
If they could model individual weapons which can be taken from/mounted in the vehicle, and give the user a choice to totally dismount/keep driver&gunner aboard we could do all things we want.
Still, at any rate, the current modeling of HT MGs is just not correct. If the vehicle stays in the fight, then the gunner would have been replaced by another squad member if hit; if the vehicle stays behind, they wouldn't have left the gunner and MG with it.
-
...thinking about the good old SdKfz 251 as example.
Infantry firing from vehicles has already been answered elsewhere - it would be nice, as in the "Schnelle Truppen" manual you see a lot of reference to that.
But what about the MG Gunners on those things? Right now, with CMBB if your gunner gets shot, the MG is out of order for the rest of the game.
Best as I know, historically the vehicle belonged to the squad, driver and gunner a member of the squad. I would expect that if the gunner gets shot out of a HT the squad would have sent another man into their vehicle to resume firing, instead of simple giving up a nice steady-mounted HMG.
This would be really nice to have.
-
Ah, now I know the theatre. A fictious conflict USSR/USA on the moon, of course. There's no water there.
-
Of course you realize that we now want a breakdacing command?
-
Wasn't part of the german's "Blitzkrieg" success the air liaison officers riding along in the first tanks to guide the planes in?Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:How often did infantry battalions use air liaison?
I would imagine that such a company would very well get the updates from the flyboys.
Perhabs it could be an unit - kind of like an artillery FO.
-
The thing about WW2 tank sims is that yes, there have been plenty of WW2 "Games" around, but the last serious tank sim of that time was Panzer Elite.
I like my games to compliment each other...for example I would love to play a combat-mission 2 scenario and then jump in a PanzerIV and go first-person on the eastern front.
Personally I think the more games you own about any given conflict, the more "complete" the experience gets.
-
This is what I expected. Though it's a bit scary - the sovjets right now must have about 25 tanks in play, and I haven't reached battle six yet. I really don't have the slightest clue how one should hold a defense position with just 9 PzIII against about 30 equally armored and armored russian tanks.Originally posted by Sergei:But concerning the operation we are talking about, I had a look at the forces in it. The thing is, for the first three battles Soviets have 0 tanks. Then they get 'em big time in battles #4 and #6. Which means, to win you have to advance to the village during those first 60 turns wiping out or passing by the resistance on the way, set up for defense and hold it against an onslaught. The briefing does lightly hint to this way, but if you misinterpreted that, then your failure is understandable.
-
Anyone here played "Der Manstein kommt" by Franko?
I just tried it from the german side during the last few days. The german mission is to advance into a village, take a bridge (one flag), and then hold the village (three more flags).
After battle 5 all my units were finally routed. Looked like this:
Seems to me the russians have like 600 infantry in total, compared to the germans 400. Each side lost about 25 vehicles, but on german side that inlcudes only 8 tanks - from a total of 9. The remaining stuff is halftracks and trucks mostly.
On the russian side it means about 20 tanks lost, including a few KV-1s. And they still had more tanks.
So, the russians have like 24 tanks to counter the german 9 - have more guns, have more infantry, and are in the DEFENDERS role? I admire anyone who takes the time to design a scenario, and the map is very lovely made, but how did Franko expect anyone to win this? Has anyone actually managed? Even with the fact that I killed a lot more of their infantry, killed a lot more of their tanks, I still lost big.
I thought the usual rule was that attackers should enjoy numerical superiority over the defenders, otherwise the attack is pointless. Being outnumbered AND being on the attack certainly is not an option.
[ July 02, 2005, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: RSColonel_131st ]
-
Anyone ever played "Der Manstein kommt" operation?
I'm in Battle 5 now. I have the bridge flag, and currently fight for the church and the one in the open field.
In Battle four, I managed to kill 9 russian tanks (amongst them a few KVs) for the exchange of only two PzIIIJ and one 88.
Next battle starts with about 8 or 9 more russian tanks (mostly T-34) against my remaining 5 PzIIIJ, and all in firing range.
This is insane, I wonder how the scenario designer thought this could actually be "won". To solve this I'd need to keep up a quota of about three russian tanks for one of mine, and given that the PzIIIJ is not at all superior to the T-34, it's gonna be almost impossible.
I know I'm not giving much specific info here - I can try to post a screenshot later - but meanwhile, how would you solve this?
-
Ah, good read that one. Admittley Combat Mission does teach you some things, because after reading his first two or three failures I knew where he would eventually take position.
-
Jussi, you are cruel. Hey Tom, nice to see you over here. I'll tell Doug that you're cheating on the HQ with another website
-
A human will have to take the first avalable cover after coming under fire as well. And if that happens to be a mine-field, then he is not going to avoid it. Especially since these things are controlled by TacAI and you can not really influence this a lot.Originally posted by Spears:Why you people play the AI and do these things ill never know, a human isnt so thick, but if it floats your boat so to speak........ mines sinking at the thought.
Interesting that this topic still runs here, a year after my original post. LOL
-
...what kind of scenario settings do I need so that I can use "Luftlande" (Paratroopers) in the QB Generator?
Regards
RS
-
Yes, Franko really is to be thanked for providing such a nicely detailed scenario.
When you recongize historical maps from the books in the scenario layout it is quite the WOW effect.
I think this is the strongest point and argument FOR operations...they can portray real historical battles in a somewhat decent size and duration.
Quick Battles are fine, but it's so much more immersive to have the book in hand and replay the battles descriped there...
-
This is one of these very cool computer gaming/history lesson moments I wanted to share.
Few months ago, when I found that operations where really a cool way of singleplayer games in CMBB, I got myself "Der Manstein kommt" and "Failure on the Aksai" from Franko. Back then I knew NOTHING about these battles and rather immersed myself into the "3rd Battle for Kharkov" operation.
Now, in February I ordered Guderians "Panzer Leader" and von Mellenthins "Panzer Battles". Took me a while to finnish Guderian, and these recent days I came to the parts in Mellenthins book talking about the battle for Aksai River...
Surprise surprise. Firing up CMBB, see, he's actually referenced in the Operation Briefing. Map Layout in Book and Game are quiet similar...I can guess where Franko got some sources from
.In that regard I can really recommend vMs. Book...it has very detailed accounts of some battles, down to the size we can see in Combat Mission. Nothing's more awesome than learning history that way.
-
I had a totally different experience...on the "third battle of Kharkov" operation.
After my tanks had cleared out ATs and enemy Tanks, we still had to cross a large (200meter+) bare strip of land to enter the first buildings of the city.
Of course, on the other side, in the outmost buildings, you could bet on russian infantry sitting there waiting for my guys to run into the open.
So, what I did was simple to rush up the HTs concentrated onto two buildings, keep them out of grenade range and heads down for the gunner, and then at the end of their drive all the infantry disembarked at once and opened the fire at effective range - while trying to storm the building quickly.
Since the HTs added to the suppression, it worked very well. I dont think trying to get across the 200 meters open ground without HTs could have been done at that speed.
Now, they are not killer-fighting weapons of course, but this shows that they can get infantry trough considerable enemy small arms fire without any problems.
Also, if you really want to use your armor most efficiently, the infantry will have to follow at speed. (Guderian drives that idea home in both of his books). Especially on large QB maps, I'd rather have a small, but fully motorized and armored force (including Arty FOs, Mortars, HMGs and Pioneers) than having a large infantry force that slows down the tanks in the attack time plan.
A few things I'd like to see modelled, though, is fighting from the HTs (which is in the german field manual, so I suppose it would have happened) and squad members being able to replace gunners on the HT if they have been shot.
And yeah, towing guns with them is pretty good too...
We spoiled brats, we great unwashed, we customers...
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I guess it won't really matter.
Added modules should be comparativly cheap to produce, so if more people end up not buying, then it's not as large a problem as with a complete, expensive "mod" like CMAK.