General Jack Ripper
-
Posts
2,326 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by General Jack Ripper
-
-
Work on Part Three - "The Infantry Company" has started. This will be slightly delayed because I have to do a bit more research than normal.
I'll try putting together an Appendix on Supporting Weapons in the meantime.
-
11 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
Try recording your voice through a cord phone while biting down on a carrot - just to match your voice to your picture
Or I could smoke a cigar and drink some booze the next time I'm narrating.
Maybe that will fix it...
-
Just now, Bulletpoint said:
I agree, and unfortunately even when doing a "target light" order, they still seem to use their SMGs.
The best advice I can give is to heavily restrict your use of target commands at ranges of 250 meters or less, unless you're deliberately assaulting a position, in which case your SMGs should be in your maneuver team, not your base of fire team.
-
Just now, Rinaldi said:
I recall that Theater of War and Graviteam have close-combat animations...which was literally a short-white-girl kick that looks ludicrous. I'd rather have nothing at all than something half-assed.
Yeah, that's kind of like the Close Combat method. They just had a weapon labeled "Melee" which had a range of 0 and an accuracy of 50%, modified by the "Strength" and "Stamina" stat of the attacker and defender. Unit experience also counted, which is why Super Elite Snipers could ninja-chop whole squads at once.
-
10 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
I remember being new at the game and playing the same starter campaign and also running out of ammo quickly
The trick is that you often don't need to give target orders. You just get your guys in position and let them shoot when they spot the enemy. you only use target orders to suppress the enemy while you maneuver. So yes, it chews up ammo fast to do area fire orders, but you should only need to keep them active for a minute or two.
You're exactly right here. If you are constantly running out of ammo, you're doing it wrong.
Yes, I think the basic loadout of SMG ammo is criminally small, which is why I endeavor to pass out an extra 100 rounds or so to every squad that has one.
-
16 minutes ago, user1000 said:
There was more close combat than documented, the stories just never made it out. A lot of that was in the constant house to house fighting and clearing.
You clear a house by throwing grenades into it, not by rushing in and stabbing the defenders.
-
On 1/14/2017 at 2:32 PM, MikeyD said:
I've read several combat assessments that have stressed how the AA mount .50 cal on Sherman, M10, etc. was virtually useless. Its purpose was so a column of tanks could put up a fusillade of fire at attacking Stukas. No attacking Stukas, no utility. .50 cal isn't really an ideal anti-personnel weapon anyway. Its meant to be fired in bursts of only 5-7 rounds. Otherwise it rapidly heats up. I understand Ukraine had been having difficulty getting much utility out of their stockpile of heavy DShK mgs beyond suppression. They've taken to reengineering them as heavy sniper rifles with a proper shoulder stock and scope because firing them using double hand grip over open sites was pointless.
If the .50 was a useless weapon, Sherman crews wouldn't have been fitting them as replacement coax machineguns at the close of the war in Europe. According to Steven Zaloga, crews would remount the .50 as a coax weapon so they could still use it without having to get out of the tank, or open the hatches.
There are also numerous examples of crews remounting the AA .50's from the rear of the turret to the front, such as mounting it in front of the loaders hatch. Yes, the weapon was intended for use as anti-aircraft protection during the march, but like all wars throughout history, if you put weapons into the hands of your soldiers, they'll figure out how to use them.
-
12 hours ago, user1000 said:
They wouldn't have made knifes, bayonets and slapjacks if close combat never occurred. It's easier to say the animations can't be made rather than say it never happened in war.
How many knife wounds were there in World War Two? 10? 20? 100? Probably less than 1000? Point us to a statistically significant amount of hand to hand combat, and then you might have an argument.
Until then, you're effectively arguing for (to use Steve's own example): Tactical Cow Herds.
-
10 hours ago, IanL said:
I mostly agree but there are limits - use common sense. If you load up a squad with 1000 rounds of 9mm on top of extra other stuff they are going to tire quickly because of the additional load.
Well, if you have enough lying around to give every squad 1000 rounds, then ammo is not an issue
-
21 hours ago, axxe said:
So... is it standard practice to target the enemy's setup zone (assuming it's not full of buildings that make good cover) with an initial massive artillery barrage? Seems like an obvious tactic, though a bit gamey...
If you are playing multiplayer, then the idea has already been addressed.
If you are playing single-player, be wary of using all your arty in the initial barrage. I find most scenario makers have the enemy force arrive in stages. So, no matter how much you smash the enemy setup zone, you'll only hit a fraction of the force at one time.
-
As a rule of thumb, any time you have access to vehicles with ammunition, pass out a bunch of the ammo, especially SMG ammo, during the setup phase.
It's better to have too much, than not enough.
-
On 1/13/2017 at 7:20 PM, JonS said:
Consider this the other way; assume Charles has recoded the game so that once a minefield has been MARKED units will preferentially move through that tile rather than the ones either side. Do you think players will be happy with that? I don't, and can see the complaints now.
Yes, but Jon there is a very big difference between 'marked' minefields (green sign) and 'cleared' minefields (green sign with white X).
The minefields in question were not marked, they were cleared as in, "There are no mines in this spot, guaranteed or your money back!"
The TacAI needs to be instructed as to the difference between the two, and treat 'cleared' minefield as a zero-threat.
-
18 hours ago, akd said:
edit: correction: there may have been a tile to either side of the cleared mines that didn't have mines placed in it in my test. Going to rerun the test with mines placed closer together.
Test it by clearing with a Crab. I'm having a thought that the infantry might not be responsible for what happened, but I can't test until this weekend.
Something about the minefields being marked as cleared before the crab detonates the mines.
Hard to think now, talk later.
-
5 hours ago, user1000 said:
ai automatically formed line at top of ridge
Now isn't that a pretty sight. A whole line of M1's ready to spit lead.
-
Here is the next installment of the new TTP videos:
Yes, I sound like a robot. No, I will not be re-recording it. Screwing up the narration is what caused this in the first place.
The next video will be an unscripted Appendix about supporting weapons.
-
16 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:
@SLIM, thanks for the extra details. This kind looks to me like the AI isn't recognising the area as "clear" in a consistent manner. Have you the scenario somewhere we can play with it? If we prepare a few test cases for Charles you should be all set to prepare a bug report through the helpdesk.
That's how it looked to me as well. The AI seemed to say to itself, "There were mines here, stay away!"
I will add the scenario file to the Dropbox folder.Done. If you play the scenario, enter the wheat field to the left of the starting position, and advance directly towards the farm complex, and you'll run right into it.https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8x8dj1ydxmlx31f/AABctJ0_DjZpTvRQKH8qbxvda?dl=0
15 hours ago, akd said:SLIM, can you detail what movement commands and waypoints were used?
The first crossing used a Quick Command, with the waypoints placed in the action spot before the cleared minefields, and in the action spot on the other side. The cleared minefields formed a path one action spot wide two spots deep, and the squad leader walked off the path and stepped on a mine. However, I expected this behavior to occur given the new infantry spacing. <- That's not the one I'm complaining about...
The second crossing also used the Quick command, with the waypoints placed on the short diagonal across the cleared lane, now being two action spots wide. The Team decided to deviate from the placed path, and ran around the outside edge of the cleared lane, suffering another casualty. <- That's when I noticed things were a bit strange.
The final crossing used the Assault Command, with the waypoints being placed before and behind the central cleared minefields of the lane, now being three action spots wide. The first team skirted around the cleared zone on the right, miraculously not suffering a casualty. The second team avoided the cleared area on the left, losing one man, and the third team detoured around the cleared area far to the right, losing one man as well. <- This is when it became obvious something was wrong.
-
38 minutes ago, BletchleyGeek said:
Obvious question: if the gap is 5 AS wide does this still happen? Looks like one needs to account for padding on the flanks of the formation.
Also, were minefields identified on the neighbouring AS? If not, I wonder whether the behaviour would change. Steve commented on the new behaviours not kicking in under certain conditions (like marching through forests and other rough terrain).
Every time I widened the gap, teams deliberately moved even further to the side in order to run around the cleared section. Watch the video, the behavior is blatantly displayed.
The minefields in the neighboring spots had not been detected. I started with a lane 1 action spot wide, because I had only detected one minefield. After detecting the next one, I widened the lane another action spot. After detecting the next minefield, and still having guys run around the cleared lane, I widened it even further.
A lane 3 action spots wide is as wide as an interstate highway. There's no reason troops should run all the way around the edges of the zone as opposed to running straight through it. Especially since the movement order was only as long as the lane itself.
It's not like the movement through the minefield was part of a long move order. I literally parked them at one end, and told them to move directly to the other side.
-
25 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:
Lesson learned: Be careful what you ask for; you might get it. Players requested that troops not march in line but spread out. That is exactly what these are doing. Now the next step is to teach them not to spread out when crossing a minefield. There are probably other situations as well that may need work. Has anybody had any problems with getting them across bridges, especially narrow foot bridges?
Michael
I can understand losing a couple men to having the team spread out across an action spot, and having someone step outside the cleared lane.
What I can't understand is an entire fire team deliberately avoiding the cleared lane, as if ordered not to set foot in it.
-
I wonder whatever happened to that guy who thought he'd eventually take over the Pentagon?
I liked him.
-
Just now, IanL said:
The unintended side effects of the better infantry spacing. Remember the AI does not look at the lane you made as a bridge or a lane it just looks at it as part of the field.
Try this place a series of way points through the cleared lane so instead of one long way point where they have time to spread out they have two, three or four short ones so the don't spread out as much.
Yeah, but that doesn't mean they should deliberately avoid it? There were teams specifically running around the cleared minefields, as if told to avoid it, or as if they registered the cleared fields as active.
I can understand a guy accidentally wandering out of a single lane when told to cross it, but not a lane 3 Action Spots wide. Especially on such a short distance move order, only 3 AS long.
-
Damn XO took the radio with him, eh?
What a kleptomaniac.
-
So, I'm busily recording the big grand finale of the next TTP video, and I came across some very strange behavior:
When ordered to cross a section of cleared minefields, infantry seem to actively avoid the clear sections, and wander outside the lane.
Having run into a minefield, my M4A3 reversed, and the Crab went forward to clear the mines. At this point, I figured I'd cross a Team, so I placed a movement waypoint one AS short of the lane, and the next waypoint directly across the far side of the lane, much like you'd plot a bridge movement.
The Squad Leader, in his infinite wisdom, decided to run outside of the cleared path, and steps on a mine. I send the Crab in again to clear this newly discovered lane, and order the remainder of the Squad across it. While the rest of the Squad is running across, one man wanders outside the lane and is killed.
So, I order the Crab in again, to clear another lane, and now I have a section of cleared minefields, three action spots wide. In other words, it's a wide open highway and you can't possibly miss it.
So I order the next Squad to Assault Move through the gap, (I was still under sporadic rifle fire), and two of the three Teams deliberately avoid this cleared section, wandering well outside the lane, and two more men are killed.
Remember, the total length of the movement orders did not exceed 4 Action Spots, and the total length of the cleared area was 4 Action Spots. So within 32 meters, Teams are deviating from their assigned path by more than 8 meters.
I don't know if this is a bug with the new behaviors or not, which is why I appended a question mark to the thread title, but can we have a tweak to infantry behavior?
Something like, "cling to cleared minefields like a drowning man clinging to a life raft"?
No one in their right mind would deliberately avoid a cleared minefield like this. Not to this extraordinary extent. Not saying no one's ever done it, but when you have a clearly marked path directly in front of you, you're not going to be a trail-blazer.
I set up a Dropbox folder with a save file:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8x8dj1ydxmlx31f/AABctJ0_DjZpTvRQKH8qbxvda?dl=0
-
4 hours ago, user1000 said:
Damn it, Tube Guytm!
-
22 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
If yoou only knew how many times I mention Spaaace Lobsters of Doom internally. If someone gave us the money and some cloning technology we'd get started on it 5 minutes later!
If I ever win the Powerball Lottery, then we are totally going to do this.
Arracourt Battlepack: Preview AAR
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I notice you've extended the map quite a bit.