RSColonel_131st
-
Posts
660 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by RSColonel_131st
-
-
Scipio, that is right and correct. Scaling large walls would also require significant time. But if your other option is to move out the two sides of the building where you are under enemy observation or fire, slowly exiting into the back alley trough the window will be 100% more favorable even if it takes longer.
-
Interesting idea, Birdstrike. Gotta try that one - CMMODS?
-
Ambush Mentality for Red only works when you are playing as Defenders. As soon as you go meeting engagement or - gasp! attack - you can't ambush anymore.
But even then, the defenders can't reinforce (fortify) buildings, can't dig man-covers or foxholes with top cover, trenches and bunkers are always visible, and if you have to retreat from an ambush position inside a house, you better have a door at the back side facing away from the enemy because you can't leave from a window.
Red suffers much more from various game abstractions than Blue does, since Fire and Manouver work very well with the current game system - Fire especially, as it's now detailed LOS/LOF and 1:1 representation of every Squad weapon. All the restrictions you can find pretty much inhibit defensive red play.
Of course you can have scenarios like ATGM Ambush where you can set two recoiless rifles and two AT-4 up in plain view of three enemy Bradleys, which means Blue dies and Red wins. But then the Blue player has no chance either due to Scenario design.
I'm really looking forward to CMx2 WW2. I want a game with both sides able to win a fair and balanced meeting engagment, suffering the same problems with the game engine. Not like now, where one side is massivley disadvantages by their equipment and training, then gets some added disadvantages for game mechanics on top.
Another example for bad MOUT btw... - no friendly fire under a certain calibre means you can area-fire and supress a whole building shooting it up while at the same time your squads can enter unhurt. Another problem for defensive syrians, no problems for the US with their massive firepower on their Strykers.
-
SgtTeddybear - ermm Muhammed, you're of course right. But for me I'm still looking for the sweet spot in CMSF and haven't found it yet.
If you go open terrain, Blue vs. Red, you have a bunch of disadvantages and problems for the Red units (like the lack of quickly prepared overhead trench cover, TRPs and better dug-out positions, the easy visibility of the fortifications avalable etc.).
If you go MOUT with UNCON fighters on your team, you have another bunch of disadvantages to face.
While the game mechanics are the same for both Blue and Red, Blue just never seems to really suffer that much. They can do everthing with Firepower from their Strykers, superior equipment (Javelin, NVGs, Body Armor...) and flexible force structure. The Red side has a few things they could in reality certainly do (dig/hide foxholes, scale walls, crawl trough windows, sneak around town...), but can't in game.
The more I play Red, the more I discover that they have zero of their real life advantages vs. blue, which also makes playing blue a tad boring. When the Euro module comes out, all me and my friend in PBEM are gonna play is German vs. US meeting engagements... and that is frustrating, as I expected a tad more out of this game.
-
Is the world one single place (expect maybe indoors and some locations) like Oblivion, or does it load in parts like Stalker?
-
There's definitely only one guy with that Nickname running around, but I can't remember ever having been a Mod at simHQ. Although I have 12k posts there
-
I recently visited the Spectres and Spookies at Hurlburt Field, Florida - and while I'd want them in the game, if a AC-130U would be under player command, for CMSF-sized battles you could go home and let the Fly Boys do the rest. They'd wipe everthing off the map singlehandled, no spotter needed either.
-
Even when each soldier has its own 3D model and whatnot, CMx2 has still plenty of abstractions that too often, too fast are labeled as bugs or incomplete features.
The problem is that the player can not know which parts are 1:1 exactly, and which are abstracted. The soldiers I see, standing, prone, running - are 1:1. The wall next to them, of a certain size and type, is supposed to be something else? That's just not handy for any player to figure out, and this is where the labeling of "bugs" comes from.
And I don't think we need to argue that being instantly aware of a wall breach a mile away from your units is either case not realistic.
-
But a building with 4 doors, one in each wall, would look quite stupid
I think what's needed is a way to move around and trough buildings/walls in a somewhat silent, covered mode. This could include creating holes in walls with other means than explosives (battering ram, hammer...)
The only chance you have with asymmetric tactics and troops is to stay off the streets, avoid being seen and avoid being fired at by anything heavy or concentrated. And I have no doubt that some Iraqi insurgent will use every opening or way over an obstacle he can find. It's IMHO contraproductive to insist that these weak forces have the same movement restrictions as the US Troops they are fighting. It is also IMHO dependent on troop size - a two man AT team or sniper team can certainly move around more flexible than a 9 man squad.
Whatever the final verdict on windows is, there is just no way that the enemy should know when a wall has been broken halfway across the map.
-
Not very satisfying answer, is it... I know that the Austrian Army regularly trains stuff like how to scale walls and how to get into houses trough windows. And we are a sucky Army with little to show in skills or combat experience.
Okay, with a 200 pound ruck, additional weapons and gear some windows might be too small, but for an Uncon fighter with an AK-47, three clips of ammo and only his cloths to wear, I can not see him walking out the front or back door into fire-covered streets if he can get out of the window and into the neighbours house the same way. Kicking out a few boards or shards of glass isn't that hard either.
This for example would be one advantage that untrained and underarmed fighters have over conventional forces - what they "might not do" doesn't apply to them. Besides, I'm sure we all know that a lot gets done in combat that isn't supposed to be done that way. Asymmetric MOUT is the most unpredictable form of Infantry combat available- why can't we guys playing Red not enjoy a bit of leeway in how we do our thing?
So that means by BFCs own voice, the only way to get this tactical freedom is blowing holes into walls. Which somehow magically the enemy human player will see from three miles away. Just great.
-
I'm reworking the Red Unit list in that scenario right now
Good point about the restrictions on "Wall types". But then that just means there are not enough types
For example, a "low wall" can be crossed by infantry, but also provides LOS for standing units. The 2.5m wall used here blocks LOS just fine at any height, yet could still be scaled by some basic-trained infantry.
The problem is indeed that detailed 1:1 representation of the game world means people expect the objects in game to behave like their real world counterparts. The frustration arises when you design your strategy for the battle by your visual inspection of the map (really the only way we can decide our tactics is by visual cues), and then find out that you can't do stuff you "should be able to do" because some visuals do not match the game mechnics.
As far as I'm aware, MOUT is about the most flexible, unconventional warfare you'll find as far as movement is concerned. You'll have people crawling out of small windows, kicking in weak mud walls, blowing up stone walls, climbing over fences, using small ladders or blanks to get from one roof to the next. And the less vehicles and fire support you have, the more important is your infantry's ability to move around town any way you like.
BFC picked a game setting where the only scenario both sides are about evenly matched is MOUT. They will thus sadly have to live with demands for ultimate realistic MOUT - which means the visuals on the screen must match and be able to result in realistic urban combat tactics.
But at the core of it, I'd already be damn happy if there was a (may well be abstracted) way to breach a wall or fence without the opponent instantly knowing what I want to do to him. The US troops can afford to be loud since firepower and observation technology is on their side, but for the Syrians this is yet another handicap.
-
Hi Guys
Recently in my Al Huqf PBEM, I noticed a few things for the first time. I wondered what Battlefront's stance on this was.
1) Al Huqf is a small village surrounded by a "high" wall - it seems to be about 2.5 meters, a bit higher than your standing units. This wall really limits tactical flexibility, as each side only has one entrance into the village.
2) Logically following, I decided to blow a hole into the wall at a more opportunate entrance that would allow me to flank my enemy. My Syrians suck bad enough without going frontal assault. So I order my BMP to area-target and break down part of the wall.
3) Problem is: The enemy player can see this. Immediatly. Now, this is plain 100% wrong. If none of his units has LOS to that part of the wall (it was hidden behind a house in a corner) he should hear a loud bang, maybe wants to investigate that, but no way I hell can he known which wall I just knocked over.
4) More to the point: Why do I actually have to blow a hole in the wall? A 2.5 meter wall, as thought even here in Infantry basic training, can be easily scaled by basic trained troops. You need two buddies to lift up the first bunch of guys, then pull the other ones over. Even Syrian units and irregulars should be clever enough to get over a 2.5m wall without using explosives.
5) And why can't I use windows for entrance and exit into buildings? If the US side has some Strykers sitting outside on the street (who haven't spotted me yet), no one in his right mind will go out the front door. Leaving to the back trough a window is sensible and doable. Entering an unoccupied building trough a window is just as easy, and an occupied one - will require more work, but can also be done.
I find it kind of cynical that Steve or Moon (I think it was Steve...) suggests to not play Syria vs. US in the open, only in MOUT where the US Advantages are negated - just to find out that movement in MOUT is also heavily restricted, and while the US can happily bring up their superior firepower on the street, the Syrian uncons and regular army (with far less vehicles available) lose the advantage of being stealthy and moving around more freely.
I'm really trying to like this game, but neither in open ground nor MOUT has it yet really impressed me. Can these MOUT shortcomings be fixed?
-
I just gave up a PBEM with this scenario - I have syrian AT guys on a rooftop opposite the street from US troops, but they can't see them. The US however can spot and engage my other squad on the streets below at even larger range. Even after they shoot down my squad, my AT team (who has definite LOS to that roof) can not identify the US guys.
So yeah, obviously the Syrians have no NVGs. Whoever designed that scenario must have been drunk.
-
I also just found out that Blue in this Scen gets three full squads, Red gets two and an AT-Team with two guys.
Blue also are engineers who can blast walls, Red can't.
Steve, I would seriously suggest to redo this thing and update it in the next patch. People who are looking for a quick, small MOUT battle can only be frustrated by this.
-
For those running it on PC, I'd be curious how well a 9600GT behaves - at high resolution (1920x1200).
-
I don't get the problem, since in RL Blue tends to crush Red over and over. Western armies have been kicking around Arab armies for a very long time.
[sNIP]
Now for designing a scenario, balance this by giving Red lots of advantages, like numbers and position. I like playing Red, and I do pretty well. It's a game of avoiding fights you can't win. Don't get into long range shootouts, since Blue is better at those. Don't expose your tanks to Blue antitank weapons. Use the unique weapons you do have, like IEDs. Hell, I put IEDs into about every scenario I make. Don't let the Blue player ban them as "cheap," since they are the number one RL threat to Blue forces. If I'm going to play a bunch of jihadists armed with nothing but AKs and holy zeal, I want my IEDs. RL insurgents don't play by Blue's rules, so why should I? Snipers, mad Taxi bombers, and spies all help you keep an eye on Blue and make them pay for invading your homeland.
Seriously though, good scenario design makes a good game. Give Red a shot of winning, even if they have to take horrendous casualties to do so. Punish Blue much more severely for any losses. That reflects reality. Even if Blue wins, Red should have a lot of fun with taxi bombs
That's the main problem you have right here - at least Al Huqf has Red Troops of lower quality and same numbers as Blue. Basically the choice for CMSF's backdrop means that you can only play well-designed scenarios, anything else (like meeting engagements in CMBB, for example) are just suicidal for the Red player. So I don't get why Battlefront themself included a scenario that is by definition very unbalanced.
-
I'm running them with SP2?
Re Driver Clearners - I would say if you don't swap Nvidia vs. ATI or vice versa, then the regular uninstall should be okay.
-
Hhmm. You were coming from which drivers? And did an uninstall of the old ones first?
I had the 175s on the system, downloaded 178, they got unpacked into the C:\Nvidia directory, and then the setup started. XP SP2 for me.
It somewhat sounds like your setup is only unpacking the files to disk, but then not launching the actual installation. Can you verify that or descripe in more detail the process?
-
I always thought that if I wanted to shoot a reenactor, it must be pretty darn impossible to find out who of the 30 or more riflemen actually had a ball loaded when the salvo falls.
-
The Germans put some Leos into Kosovo (or Bosnia - can't quite remember) as part of their Peace Force contingent. They then arranged a live-fire demonstration in front of the Villagers. Sufficient to say that Sniper attacks and Mortar attacks went down a lot the next week.
-
Scipio, correct. The main problem is that this particular scenario (and some others) basically expect the Syrians do reach the same goals as the US side. If Al Huqf would require the US player to not go beyond 15% casualities, then the Syrians could things differently.
Steve, very good examples how to play Red. However, by your own description here, it sounds as if Syrians should never ever attack something. Because in a meeting engagement, you can hardly "ambush" the other side as you have to move yourself up to an objective, you ARE constantly manouvering, and you can't just fall back either.
I think the conclusion is simple that Al Huqf (and some of the QBs) should come with a warning to not play them as Syrians.
-
Well, it should not be hard to put the battery somewhere into a pocket (could be any kind of battery in fact) and wire the cable down your neck so you can still fully move.
That is in fact a pretty cool idea, just make sure the fan will survive paint impact.
-
I had that problem ten times worse as I was wearing glasses underneath the mask. There are some good sprays with anti-fogging chemicals that help a bit, and the right ventilation is obviously important.
-
Yep. FPS games do a very poor job at portraying the randomness and how hard it is to spot your enemys even up close.
Who did you play with? Maybe if it's a good group and you play again, let me know beforehand next time. What markers did you get?
Walls, Windows and other assorted MOUT problems
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Not that complicated - if you order them to exit into a certain direction (depending on the first waypoint outside the house) they will exit trough the wall nearest to that waypoint. If it has a door, it's quicker than if it is a window. The animations could be the same or at least very similar to entering trough a door, just slower.
Point taken about barricaded windows. I do think that boarded up stuff wouldn't last long vs. a Squad, but metal grills certainly would be a problem.