General Jack Ripper
-
Posts
2,326 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by General Jack Ripper
-
-
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
(I'd quite like to be able to herd the prisoners around like you could in CM1.....Mine sweeping anyone?).
Pack them into a barn, then light it on fire.
-
36 minutes ago, Combatintman said:
At the risk of being accused of reading you the riot act, I am compelled to point out that it is a 2" mortar
Aw geez.
-
3 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:
Plus, I would argue that when you have them, demo charges are in a much greater supply than the handful of non-replenish-able smoke grenades that come with the standard loadout.
Absolutely, but while not all infantry have demo charges, almost all infantry have a smoke grenade.
As I say in a later part, your bog-standard infantry platoon has at least 4 smoke grenades available.
Especially the British, who have a Platoon-Level 2pdr Mortar, with two types of smoke rounds available, WP and normal Smoke.
-
19 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:
That will give the enemy a possible chance to recover and maybe get an extra shot or two off, among other things.
I have seen Pixeltruppen in the act of 'Surrendering' put down their hands, pick up their weapons, and continue fighting.
My two cents? I'm all for the new behaviors. I hated the old 'Routing' mechanic. It seemed cheap.
-
Here's the rest of the Appendix for the forum rats:
Part three is the second version, with cuts proposed by @MOS:96B2P. I went on a bit of a rant, and he pointed out it really didn't do anything aside from stretch the runtime unnecessarily.
All 4 parts combined is the full 1 hour 20 minutes (minus edits) ramble about "How to move down a street".
18 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:The Army learned in WWII to avoid streets at all costs. Instead of moving through/down/along streets, they found that moving through buildings was much safer and more secure. In fact, they did this to the point where they only moved from building to building, and instead of using roads, they simply blew holes through adjacent buildings. This was called 'mouse holing.' A lot of this was learned the hard way through city fighting, specifically around the French town of Brest. It was further reinforced while fighting through Aachen later in the war.
What if you don't have any demo charges?
-
18 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:
In the scenario in your videos, I would have moved through the buildings, avoiding the street as much as possible. Especially considering the enemy machine gun is in a position to pour enfilading fire down the street. Even with adequate smoke cover I would still opt to go from building to building.
I would too, I just wanted to show it was possible. Remember, these Appendix videos aren't meant to be the lesson videos, but simply to show something that pops into my head at any given moment. I saw the street setup, and thought, "Would it be possible to advance straight down a street like that, and if so, how?" I was also a bit drunk at the time.
That's all I was going for, but given that @Combatintman has already read me the riot act for being so unorganized, I'm going to have to make a proper video showing the fundamentals of MOUT, right after I get through "The Infantry Battalion" and "Mechanized Infantry".
So video Number 06, or Number 09 will be "Fundamentals of MOUT". -
3 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:
If they were off map then the targeted infantry would have fled. I understand that the FO was calling in an indirect fire mission with the assets. The bug is only triggered if the artillery assets are off map. At least that is what all the testing done thus far indicates.
It's a good thing I didn't test with off-map assets then, otherwise my testing would have been invalidated, no?
Let's consider this issue closed.
-
Just now, IICptMillerII said:
In your video, are the mortars on or off map? I'm assuming they are on map based on the fact that the targeted infantry did not break and flee from the barrage.
Nothing seen in the video is part of the discussion, it's only about what was said, which was:
Quote"Mortars are most commonly used, to destroy or suppress fortified enemy positions, and are very effective against dug-in entrenched infantry, and other fortified positions such as wooden bunkers, and light buildings."
^ That was the statement Bulletpoint objected to, which he should have quoted properly from the very beginning.
In my test scenario, there is a 60mm and three 81mm Mortars, and three 75mm Pack Howitzers on the map, but the fire is being called in by a forward observer, they are NOT directly targeting the positions. Regardless, Steve has already stated that fixing things in a patch is the number one priority right now. As far as I'm concerned, it's a non-issue.
If you want to duplicate things, just load a map, plop some trenches and some opposing troops on one side, buy some guns with an F.O. on the other side, and let 'er rip.
A quick battle can get you set up in a few minutes. -
6 hours ago, sburke said:
I expect a lot of this is Iranian driven.
Me too.
3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:I don't think you can realistically blame Iran & ignore Turkey, but let us not forget however exactly how the region got into this bloody awful mess in the first place:
So since we broke it, IMHO the onus is on us in the west to fix it.
The fire was built a long time ago, way before Saddam poured gasoline onto it, all we did was walk into the room, stumble, trip, and drop a bunch of lit matches all over it.
You're right though, we can't just throw up our hands and say, "Oops!" and hope to walk away with our dignity intact.
Given the fact the satellite photos of the big base near Al Qayyarah have been scrubbed and replaced with outdated versions, something might be in the works.
You can clearly see the censor marking on the most recent images, dated 10/2017.
-
10 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
I was talking about indirect fire. Definitely direct fire is effective, that's the point I was trying to make. Direct fire good, indirect fire bad - against wooden bunkers.
I've already addressed this, indirect fire works fine, so long as you can score good hits. Whether the weapon system is on the map, or off the map, doesn't matter.
10 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:I think the keyword here is "on map" indirect fire. CptMiller did a good video presentation of the issue.
I am aware of ||CptMiller||'s presentation on the issue. Regardless, the troops in my test scenario made ZERO attempt to evacuate their trenches when under indirect fire.
Once again, whether the weapon system is on the map, or off the map, makes no difference. A Heavy/Maximum Linear Barrage called in with an F.O. is indirect artillery fire.11 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:Because you don't need to suppress them and get close. If you can get a good base of fire at about 200m range you can just shoot the guys in their trenches when they pop up to shoot. (assuming you have fire superiority and that it's a game against the computer - a human opponent might make his guys hide in the trench).
If the enemy is popping up to shoot at you, they're NOT suppressed. If you outnumber and out-firepower the enemy to such an extent, why are the presence of trenches even an issue? If you have the luxury of lining up riflemen to play "whack-a-mole" then go ahead and do it, just don't expect me to believe that THAT is the most efficient solution, because it's not.
I think you are rapidly wandering off point. Please stick to a salient point.
- Mortars and Howitzers are capable of killing or attriting wooden bunkers, either by knocking them out, or by causing casualties.
- Trenches are not proof against high-trajectory explosive rounds, and aside from deliberately hiding in them, mortars cause casualties at frightening rates.
- Lining up riflemen to plink away at entrenched infantry is NOT the most effective, or the most efficient way to kill them.
- The 4.0 Infantry Behaviors are an aberration, and will be patched at the earliest opportunity.
Is there anything else you want to bring up?
-
19 hours ago, Sasa Narinasa said:
Try typing in the words "Nahverteidigungswaffe".
Sneaky tank bomb werfer thingy.
-
14 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
The CM2 editor really isn't that daunting, I picked it up in under a year and I'm a fifty year old computer numpty.....It is not rocket science FFS.
Find a very small scenario that's already been completed, and open it up in the editor to see how they did it.
I learned the editor, especially how to do AI plans, by messing around with "A Strange Awakening". -
4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
Hmm.. maybe I'm just plain wrong (definitely possible) or maybe they adjusted the game since I began playing some years ago, but I remember those wooden bunkers to be invulnerable to small/medium sized mortars and 75mm howitzers. I remember one of the scenarios from the Road to Montebourg (Hell in the Hedgerows) where there's a hedgerow with several wooden bunkers. Back then I could not hurt them with my howitzers, even though I counted several direct hits.
Depends how long ago you were playing. Wooden Bunkers were adjusted at least once in patches.
On my test map, a 75mm Pack Howitzer KO's a wooden bunker with an average of 3 hits, firing over open sights at 900 meters.4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:Or unless they cover, which they will do automatically. The point is that trenches and foxholes protect quite well against indirect fire (in version 3.12 at least). That doesn't mean troops are invulnerable in trenches, it just means they will survive longer.
But in the game, troops automatically pop up again after hiding, so rifle fire is effective in a "whack-a-mole" fashion. You need to get your own guys into some kind of cover as well though, and depending on what exact game you're playing it might be hard to come by. I play only CMBN, and there's usually some bocage to hide behind while shooting the inhabitants of the trenches.
Yes, you are better off in a trench than sitting in open ground, however you are more vulnerable to mortars or high-trajectory artillery than anything else.
When I spoke of hiding, I wasn't talking about 'Cowering' I was talking about using the 'Hide' command. It's important to be specific.
If you are in a trench, and under mortar fire, order your troops to hide, and they will have a MUCH better chance of survival.Yes, if you can suppress the inhabitants of a trench to such an extent they are unable to return fire at you, you can walk right up to them and shoot them in relative safety. My point was, why bother taking the time and effort to do so if you have mortars available?
4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:It depends also on the version of the game. In 4.0, troops will leave their trenches when under mortar fire, and get cut down in the open. And of course if you have lots of artillery, it will definitely do its job, also against trenches and foxholes. But in that case you're spending a lot of shells, and even if you have it, it takes a long time to call in the fire mission and deliver enough ammunition as well.
Not true. I didn't have a single case where troops abandoned their trenches while under on-map mortar and howitzer fire.
Your typical 4-tube 81mm mortar battery has around 200 shells, which is more than enough to clear a trench formation of around 120-150 meters. If you combine over-watching machineguns with a mortar barrage, you will have that trench cleared with little danger or effort.
You can call it in with a regular FO or Officer in between 4 to 7 minutes. -
It feels like sharks with frikkin laser beams attached to their heads!
-
3 hours ago, weapon2010 said:
Is there a random uncontrollability coded into the engine for realism purposes?
I'm fairly certain it's because of the new "Peek around corners" mechanic.
I'll be clipping out some video for a more formal report. -
To those following this thread, feel free to 'unfollow' and join the new thread in the General Discussion section here:
This never was supposed to be CMBN specific, so I'm taking this opportunity to start fresh.
Everything you need is over there.
MODS: Feel free to lock this up. -
Appendix A - Part 1 - Street Fighting:
I figure I'll release it a bit early, since I'm just so darned excited.
Stay tuned for the remaining 3 parts. -
10 hours ago, Sasa Narinasa said:
You know what would be cool? Voice commands!
There is a program called VoiceAttack I've been meaning to try. I dunno if it will work on Combat Mission, but it does help to add some hands-free control to things like Cold Waters.
-
2 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:
Instructive and interesting video series, Maybe a few more videos covering aspects of modern warfare covering the differences between this and WW2 eg ATGMs drones, APS etc
Those are plans for the future.
-
On 10/12/2017 at 1:04 AM, Oleksandr said:
Put one tank into position by giving him movement order +plus add up to 30 seconds pause on his position and give him "reverse" order. During those 30 seconds your tank will be able to located and fire on target at least once, then he will retreat. After he moved back use the same technic to your "replacement" tank - let him take exactly the same position as your first tank and also give him 30 seconds to work on target before reverse move. By doing that you will make it nearly impossible for your enemy to take out your tank.
Of course, all of this presupposes your enemy does not come equipped with fire and forget ATGMs.
30 Seconds is an awful long time for someone to stare at you through a Javelin's CLU.||CptMiller|| successfully locked onto and destroyed a Leo2 of mine in a recent CMSF PBEM with only a 15 second exposure.
The missile actually struck the tank AFTER it had moved into cover behind a 2 story building, much to my chagrin. -
1 minute ago, sburke said:
I think you mis understood.
That is most likely the case.
-
4 hours ago, Sasa Narinasa said:
Actually, in Combat Mission it's four clicks if you aren't already in the Combat menu (and no - I don't care much to remember the letter hot keys
).
Welcome to the forums.
-
1 hour ago, sburke said:
to Thanks guys you may have just broken my string of victories against @Bulletpoint
Kidding
As I said at the opening of the thread, questions, criticism, or observation of any kind is perfectly welcome.
Beating these issues to death is one way to make sure everything gets sufficiently clarified. If we can do so without being abrasive, all the better.
Anyway, I may as well make the announcement here, there is a four-part video coming soon.
Appendix A - Street Fighting, is an unscripted ramble featuring my own observations on fighting down a street, and a few niggles about 4.0 infantry behavior.
My dedicated team of "a few dudes I wrangled into a message thread" are checking things out now.
-
3 minutes ago, Sasa Narinasa said:
That's three clicks in Combat Mission and two drags on the cursor. In Close Combat, that's one click.
It was actually, right-click unit, left-click ambush, right-click the arc (in CC3 or later) to position the arc, then left-click again to set it.
Even in CC2 or earlier, you had to right-click the unit, then left-click ambush. That's TWO whole mouse clicks!
OR: You can left-click the unit, and press the "N" key...
OR: You can left-click and drag a bounding box (in CC3 or later), and order all selected units to ambush by pressing the "N" key, or using the two mouse clicks.
But hey, who's counting?
The reason it was important in Close Combat though, was because if you didn't have your troops set to Ambush, they would simply open fire on anything they could see and give away their position, or they would "Act on own initiative" after five minutes of inactivity, and run off at random to get shot in the face.
In Combat Mission, you don't often have the same problems, your men sit right where you tell them to sit, and generally only shoot at things they think they can hurt.
Wait, what are we talking about again? Tank tactics?
Kidding
The 'Never Say You've Seen It All' Thread
in General Discussion Forum
Posted