General Jack Ripper
-
Posts
2,326 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by General Jack Ripper
-
-
On 1/12/2020 at 1:52 PM, Erwin said:
Perhaps the small-ish size of the average CM2 scenario is giving an inaccurate depiction of RL effects.
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.
-
On 1/12/2020 at 1:34 PM, DougPhresh said:
Soviet infantry killed panzers at close range all of the way from Moscow to Berlin. Clearly their tactics worked because 45mm AT guns, AT Rifles and AT Grenades were not discarded along the way. German counterattacks, including those of heavy panzer battalions were turned away by soviet infantry, with their organic weapons in their trenches or built up areas. This needs to be reflected in Red Thunder, else as you said, as soon as your opponent fields a tiger or tiger ii you may as well call for a ceasefire.
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.
QuoteIf 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.
Maybe if you read my entire post you wouldn't have missed my clarifying statement.
-
1 hour ago, BluecherForward said:
Thanks General Jack Ripper (wonder how many remember Dr. Strangelove?)
Quite a few, but not as many as I would like, sadly.
Welcome to the forums.
-
36 minutes ago, BluecherForward said:
Thanks MOS:96B2P,
So now do I create an extra file for mods or do I simply put the mods into the mod tools folder? I understand it is important to keep them separate, so they can be pulled out of the game files when applying updates and patches. Not really sure how all that works.
^ There's my Z folder setup.
Happy modding.
-
On 11/5/2019 at 5:58 AM, Kaunitz said:
Here are the points why I think tanks are overly strong in CM:
- broken fortifications (in reality, there was not much a tank could do against infantry in a foxhole/trench, other than trying to "burry" it by spinning around over the foxhole or throwing grenades from hatches; in CM, you can just lob a few shells at the infantry, job done)
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.
Quote- totally overpriced tank obstacles and AT mines, no AT ditches
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.
Quote- borg-spotting/area-fire which helps tanks a lot (the main weakness of tanks was their limited vision; this weakness is inexistent because players can let their tanks area fire at targets the crew has not spotted)
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.
Quote- almost total lack of anti-tank close combat means (in most formations, AT grenades come in ridiculously low numbers; there are neither Molotov cocktails nor mines to be carried on the men - satchel charges are only available to dedicated engineer units).
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.Quote- lack of a "reinforcement" mechanic in quickbattles, so that a player can manoeuver freely with his tanks once he is certain that he has defeated the opponents (anti)tank assets. There is no risk of new, dangerous units showing up.
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.
Quote- Also, I'd sometimes wish that "underpowered" AT assets would actively attempt to stop "overarmored" tanks by actively targeting their tracks. I prefer an immobilised tank over a tank which has been hit by a deflecting shell (with a tiny or inexistent chance of penetration).
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.QuoteWhen I was thinking about house rules for quickbattle-setups, I also noticed how many advantages the CM engine seems to give to tanks in the WWII setting, particularly in quickbattles.
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.
-
On 1/10/2020 at 6:32 PM, Battlefront.com said:
I dunno, maybe I'm remembering things all wrong and in fact our customers were uniformly open minded, happy-go-lucky people who never showed a hint of passionate or opinionated disapproval of anything we did.
*spits just sipped coffee all over computer monitor*
-
On 1/9/2020 at 6:19 PM, Warts 'n' all said:
Yawn.
Yeah.
*sips coffee* -
On 1/5/2020 at 5:20 PM, Warts 'n' all said:
" I say Jack, old boy. Do try to be a bit more careful with your men next time." As Peter Sellers almost said.
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.
15 hours ago, BluecherForward said:What mods are you using? - notice the airborne troopers uniforms and manner of speaking is different from basic game.
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 WaclawThere 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.
-
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. -
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
-
On 10/30/2019 at 1:58 PM, Childress said:
Marx died penniless in 1883, only eleven people attended his funeral. His influence had been waning for a considerable time and it seemed his works were destined to the forgotten, dusty shelves of philosophy. But seven years later a young revolutionary named Vladimir Lenin read Das Kapital and declared himself a Marxist. Once Lenin and his cohorts seized power in Russia in 1917 the legend of Marx, the world-shaking philosopher, took off.
As my dad always says:
"There's always one *sshole who ruins things for the rest of us."
-
Sorry I've been away, but Santa doesn't deliver Christmas, I do.
Normal service will resume shortly.
-
On 12/9/2019 at 9:42 AM, Battlefront.com said:
This is coming from the guy that designed Operations and thought they would be the best thing since sliced bread.
Add me to that list. It was the most fun I ever had playing CMx1.
-
On 12/4/2019 at 1:05 AM, Battlefront.com said:
Now, before someone says it... we aren't ever going to have a "sandbox" game where there is one and only one central Game Engine with DLC added too it.
You have wounded my very soul Steve.
-
1 minute ago, ForceGhost said:
Hmm, I've received 2. Order complete and order shipped, they're identical in all but subject line. Both missing a download link.
Did you sign up for download only, or are you waiting for a disk?
You may want to consult the helpdesk.
-
2 minutes ago, wadepm said:
Thank goodness. However, at the rate I am currently able to download it might be Christmas before I get this thing installed!
Man, that sucks. I'll send you some good vibes.
2 minutes ago, rocketman said:I actually got two identical emails, so maybe something is awry.
No worries, use either one.
-
4 hours ago, wadepm said:
Might as well wait until Christmas now...except for a select few of us of course.
Well, I checked my email twenty minutes ago and found a very interesting email, from Battlefront no less.
So yeah, not necessary.
-
Real-Lifetm strikes again.
-
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.
-
23 hours ago, BFCElvis said:
I did say "very soon", right? Not this weekend (said as a courtesy to any refresh monkeys that might be hanging around) but very soon.
-
14 hours ago, Pandur said:
It did work perfectly for like ~10 years or so.
They should just fix the game to where the workaround is no longer needed and the game just functions like it did for ~10 years instead of justifying some broken tacAI with some goofy arguments that are beside the point.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.
14 hours ago, Pandur said:As i said, only the player can split teams, the AI can not, so on top of introducing quiet some extra input for the player that has no gameplay value or justification, you break the behavior of the AI squads that can not use a "workaround" as it is so aptly called.
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.
-
We are now on the losing track. Perhaps I was too humane in the last mission.
-
On 10/24/2019 at 8:55 AM, Warts 'n' all said:
"liberal snowflakes" are they ones that fall neither to the left nor the right?
They are the ones who see a single snarky sentence buried within an entire post, and think the existence of said snark invalidates the poster's very existence.
(I.E. heat even a single degree above the freezing point will cause them to melt and run all over the place, soaking everything.)
-
On 10/24/2019 at 7:01 AM, Pandur said:
Maybe you only play tiny scenarios in realtime where you have 3 squads and that is it, god forbid i play scenarios where i push 2 or 3 companys through urban space. And using the workaround every turn on several squads, no, just no that is plain stupid. You can play your tiny scenarios as you like but leave me in peace with your smart suggestions.
Oh please.
"god forbid i play scenarios where i push 2 or 3 companys through urban space."
You mean like this one?
You do not seem to understand my point, so I'll make it clear as day:
YOUR TROOPS WILL FLOW THROUGH A CITY LIKE WATER IF YOU BREAK THEM INTO SMALL TEAMS.
On 10/24/2019 at 7:23 AM, c3k said:Wow. I read his commentary as being very on point with some sarcasm tossed in. Apparently, others thought it was some sort of personal attack??? Maybe I come from a less sensitive generation.
Whatever your FEELINGS are, @General Jack Ripper has made some SOLID points, AND has advised how to get around the game engine limitations...AND shown both techniques in action.
Nice to know someone around here seems to comprehend my posts. I do occasionally get the feeling I am screaming into the vacuum of deep space.
Thank you.
I work sixty hours a week doing a mostly thankless job and that results in my overuse of sarcasm to blow off steam.
Perhaps I should tone that down in the future, but after being here for so long you come across these complaints so wearily often...
On 10/24/2019 at 7:55 AM, Bulletpoint said:And that aside, his post was not useful. I think most of the people on the forum already know and use those workarounds. They work to some extent to prevent the issues of teams running around normal buildings, but they do not solve the issue with the buggy buildings.
The issue raised was one of infantry movement. I addressed that issue, and provided a known workaround for the benefit of someone who may not have already seen it. I also took the time to address the most common complaint about said workaround, and attempted to place said complaints within a realistic context. I'm sorry you didn't find that useful, and I'm sorry I'm not a BFC staffer with secret inside information about how to painlessly and effortlessly work around every single problem people raise on the forum. I'm also sorry I haven't specifically tailored several different responses to the issue in the thread specifically tailored to everyone's personal experience with said issue.
Sometimes dealing with a problem takes time and effort. I suppose you could try to convince every single person who ever released a scenario to open them up in the editor and replace all the buildings in them.
I mean, you COULD try that. I doubt it would work though.
On 10/24/2019 at 7:01 AM, Pandur said:Something else, is this what you do in this forums? Jumping people that have perfectly reasonable suggestions or feedback and act like they are retards that can not play the game?
Good question.
Why AM I even still here, anyway?
I guess after being here for sixteen years I've forgotten why I even signed up here in the first place.
The Year Ahead Bone Post
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
Let me try to muster up some surprise.
...
...
Nope. Got nothing.
That would be nice.