Jump to content

General Jack Ripper

Members
  • Posts

    2,326
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Everything posted by General Jack Ripper

  1. They did, which is how we got the trenches and foxholes we have right now.
  2. So I take it you're one of the people in the "foxholes should make infantry immune to cannon fire" camp. Feel free to start a thread and hash out the issue, but cherry-picking my statements won't help you. Here's the missing context you decided to leave out: Moot point. It's still not borg spotting though. It's all down to the player. CMx1 had borg spotting, where if even one unit could see the enemy, then all units magically became aware of their position, and all units with LOS and LOF could engage said unit with zero delay. That's what borg-spotting is. Players using gamey tactics that infuriate other players is not a bug, it's a feature, and has no bearing on the relative strength or weakness of tanks.
  3. The only way that debate will end is if instead of a generic "foxhole" we can pick and choose what type of foxhole is being used.
  4. Let me try to muster up some surprise. ... ... Nope. Got nothing. That would be nice.
  5. Most likely what we lose in translation is the day-to-day attrition suffered by the pixeltruppen when they're NOT engaging in the 45 minute scenario being played. When the scenario briefing specifies you have the support of a tank platoon, but when you load the scenario you only have three tanks on the field, one can safely assume the 4th tank got it's main gun sight shot out and is having it replaced, or some other such attrition.
  6. 45mm AT guns, and AT Rifles are not hand grenades, nor are they "close range" weapons. The complaint being addressed is Infantry close assaulting tanks within hand grenade or bazooka range, or the lack of ability thereof. If the enemy rolls up with a Tiger tank accompanied by infantry, and all you have to fight it is a grenade bundle or a bazooka, you might as well ceasefire. Maybe if you read my entire post you wouldn't have missed my clarifying statement.
  7. Quite a few, but not as many as I would like, sadly. Welcome to the forums.
  8. In reality, Dick Johnson huddled in his foxhole was protected from the evil Steel Elephants because he was huddled in his foxhole, and the enemy had no way of knowing Dick Johnson was in his foxhole. The enemy infantry closing in on his foxhole, on the other hand, are equipped with mortars, machineguns, and grenades which make Dick Johnson's life very short indeed. However, if Dick Johnson decides to poke his head and weapon out to fire upon these closing enemy infantry, then the evil Steel Elephants can spray him quite liberally with bullets and shells. This is why tanks and infantry are meant to work together, and in reality they did work together at every available opportunity. However, in a combat mission quick battle, you're fighting against another player with the benefit of full knowledge that foxholes usually hold occupying troops. There is no practicable reason for the opposing player to NOT lob a few shells at every foxhole they see. Now if you're sitting there thinking to yourself, "well foxholes should make infantry immune to direct cannon fire," then that is an entirely different thread we can have, and is in no way related to the use of tanks in quickbattles. Even if foxholes made infantry immune to cannon fire, the tank can still spray bullets and shells at them until the attacking infantry get to hand grenade range. AT ditches are far outside the general context of a quickbattle. I suppose one player could edit the map and place some ditches that could serve the purpose, but that would be up to either side to negotiate. As far as the cost of such things is concerned, I have no real input. How long does it take to craft anti-tank obstacles? How long does it take to emplace antitank mines? Should the price for such things scale up or down depending on the number purchased to reflect the time commitment of emplacing said obstacles and mines? Is this quickbattle intended to simulate an attack against a very heavily fortified enemy position? If so, why not make it a scenario instead so you have more leeway? Quickbattles are intended to be somewhat "evenly balanced". The use of anti-tank obstacles of massive size and scale is distinctly "unbalanced". I don't think many players are going to agree to attack the Siegfried Line in the course of a quickbattle. It's not borg-spotting. Just because Dick Johnson can see the opposing enemy infantry, doesn't mean Steel Elephant can. What DOES happen, is the player in charge of Dick and Elephant can simply order Elephant to fire upon an area which Dick knows there are enemy present. That depends entirely on the conduct of the player against which you are fighting. I generally do not use area fire against any spot that does not have a contact marker upon it, unless it's part of a pre-battle fire plan. The TAC-AI is incapable of using area fire unless specifically programmed to do so by the scenario designer using an AI order and specifying a location to fire upon, so this point: "players can let their tanks area fire at targets the crew has not spotted" is entirely incorrect. Tanks do not area fire unless the player tells them to. If the evil Steel Elephants have closed to within 60 yards of your position, you probably shouldn't still be occupying that position. If you HAVE to occupy that position, ordering your troops to 'Hide' and placing a very short 'Anti-Armor' cover arc will increase their survivability somewhat. You might even kill a tank or two if they're being poorly handled. Any infantry equipped with grenades can close assault an enemy tank, just like any infantry equipped with grenades can close assault a bunker. The real question is, why is this necessary in the first place? Just admit it's because you're desperate, all other options have been exhausted, and you might as well request a ceasefire because you're just wasting time until the inevitable. If the enemy has more than one tank, then an infantry close assault is effectively suicide, because one tank can cover the other one with it's cannon and machineguns. Sadly, Dick Johnson cannot persuade the 10th Panzer Division to retreat by waving his M1 Garand at them menacingly. If you've lost all your major anti-tank assets and the enemy still has tanks, you should just accept the fact your chances at victory are slim to none, and act accordingly. Sometimes a battle is impossible to win, but human beings are fallible, and can be encouraged to make a mistake. An enemy who becomes over-confident can occasionally nearly lose his sole remaining armored unit to a PIAT gun firing from a church tower. <- Personal anecdote. I agree. If the underpowered unit can spot and shoot first, then they might as well take the most effective shot they can. It would be nice to see more determined efforts by the TAC-AI to do this sort of thing, but I'm not a programmer, so I have no idea how this is modeled. If the overpowered unit shoots first, I'd rather the underpowered one focus exclusively on saving it's own skin. A weaker tank still alive is worth vastly more than a weaker tank who died gloriously for the Motherland. Generally speaking, I think this point deserves it's own thread and doesn't reflect on the overall combat power of tanks at all. A 20mm armed Pz-II is not going to kill a Sherman, no matter how hard it tries. If you are in a situation where you have Stuarts versus Pz-IV, you should curse your own poor force purchasing skills, not the lack of effectiveness of your main armament. OR: You could no doubt use your superior numbers to bait that Pz-IV into exposing it's weaker side armor to a flank shot. In a quickbattle the makeup of your force is based on your own decisions, and the actions and effectiveness of your force are based on relative player skill and the aforementioned agreed-upon house rules. I haven't seen anything in your bullet pointed list that is directly related to the game engine itself in terms of the effectiveness of tanks in quickbattles by themselves.
  9. *spits just sipped coffee all over computer monitor*
  10. We're on the losing track of the campaign now, so I can't afford to be as frugal as I once was. Any battle loss now will kick us out of the campaign, so if I must trade some bodies for victory, so be it. Here's my current list: Aris US Gear for Vehicles Juju's TRP's and UI Mord's War Ravaged Faces Rambler's Weapon Skins z1812's US Camo Uniforms GI Joe Mod Web Gear Umlaut's Camoflage Defensive Works Kieme's Ploughed Field Bil's Hex Markers StikkyPixie's Subdued Icons TFO's Silly Hats Mord's Immersive American Voices HQS Sound Mod by Waclaw There were a few mods once used, and now no longer. Translucent Trees was a nice mod, but it killed my framerate when zoomed in, and made trees look a bit 'stumpy'. My own Day of Defeat Sound Mod was removed after I got a complaint about excessive 'equipment rattle' sounds, and also the fact that in any ground condition other than 'dry' or 'very dry' troops sounded like they were slogging through deep mud.
  11. This definitely was the worst battle in terms of casualties so far. I lost four men killed to a minefield I had been warned about, but ignored. I lost five men to an infantry gun that fired through a house in what I reported as a bug. I lost the remaining fifteen or so due to normal battlefield wastage. The mission presented was simple in planning and execution, it merely required me to bash my head against a brick wall until it broke. One thing that surprised me in general was the fact I didn't get the enemy to surrender until they only had about eleven guys left. They put up much more of a fight than I expected.
  12. This infantry gun just fired right through a building as if it wasn't there. Here's the proof. The puff of smoke farther to the right of the distant target is where the shots actually landed. Save game is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/t2tm3grvg0nx8nm/Infantry%20Gun%20Bug.bts?dl=0
  13. As my dad always says: "There's always one *sshole who ruins things for the rest of us."
  14. Sorry I've been away, but Santa doesn't deliver Christmas, I do. Normal service will resume shortly.
  15. Add me to that list. It was the most fun I ever had playing CMx1.
  16. Did you sign up for download only, or are you waiting for a disk? You may want to consult the helpdesk.
  17. Man, that sucks. I'll send you some good vibes. No worries, use either one.
  18. Well, I checked my email twenty minutes ago and found a very interesting email, from Battlefront no less. So yeah, not necessary.
  19. All I know is, the scenario 'Duel in the Mist' is still floating around, and is still one of the most fun times I've had playing Combat Mission.
  20. Having played Combat Mission since 2003, I can definitively state the game did NOT, in fact, "work perfectly" for "around 10 years or so". In fact, it has been common knowledge the AI is incapable of launching any type of complex attack ever since Shock Force first came out. Here's an example of what the AI looks like while it's attacking: In fact, one of the earliest criticisms of Shock Force was that for a title that emphasized MOUT combat, the game engine itself seemed almost incapable of simulating combat in MOUT conditions. You ever wonder why the Stryker (MOUT) Battalion has 10-man rifle squads split into three teams (4+3+3)? That's so you can split your squads down into tiny little teams and use them in the confined spaces you see in urban environments. Splitting your squads down into teams is not a "workaround" for a problem with MOUT combat, it is HOW YOU FIGHT IN MOUT CONDITIONS. I don't know why this is difficult for you to understand. It just so happens the justification for your extra input is to simply apply some tactical common sense. If you want to argue about the inclusion of the ability for the AI to split squads into teams, then by all means do so. I will even wholeheartedly agree with you.
×
×
  • Create New...