undead reindeer cavalry
-
Posts
1,224 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by undead reindeer cavalry
-
-
Holy crow... I spend almost as much time clicking on enemy units just to see what they are than I do clicking on them to target.
i never click on enemy units because it gives too much info on iron (i really wish this could be fixed). though i almost never give any target orders either.
it would be cool if you could add a FACE order with some mouse gesture (drag or whatever).
-
anyway i ended up killing him(my own shreck team) myself with a nearby field gun
that'll learn him!
lol, that's the attitude
-
This map is not "optimal"btw. It gives both side equal chance to react ie well in advance. Better for the defender would be a reverse slope position roughly 300m out, hold tight until they advance another 100m and open up.
reverse slope is a defence against superior firepower. no such thing present on these test maps.
it was somewhat common to wait till 100 meters before opening up, because that's the kill zone for small arms fire. if the target appears at 300 meters there's not much point left to start pinning them down anymore, because they are able to lay effective fire once they regroup (and react to the situation, as you wrote). so you want to break them and rout them, not pin them.
HMGs overlooking a huge open flat field are an entirely different thing and you want to open fire before the advancing infantry can spot you. then once they have taken cover and are wondering what is hapenning, it's the time for you to drop the mortar package on them. and that breaks the advance, or at least puts half the men out of the battle.
-
many of the old churches were literally fortresses. it was a part of their function.
-
i would buy the argument that HMG accuracy & effectiveness is right, if the tests had historical circumstances (terrain, type of movement of the advancing units, negative battlefield effects on the HMG etc). the tests put the HMG in the ideal circumstances where it ought to really excel. such circumstances were highly atypical historically, if for nothing else then for natural selection that quickly took its toll. as is, the tests are target practice and so far none of the crews have passed the basic gunnery course.
i am not suggesting HMGs should be super lethal in a historical battlefield environment. i am suggesting that HMGs (especially something like a MG42 with good tripod & scope in a prepared position) should be super lethal WHEN the terrain is flat & open, the HMG is not suppressed AND the highly concentrated targets stay upright for tens of seconds while moving towards the HMG.
the advancing infantry should hit the ground or die. if they need to move, they should make quick short (1-3 seconds) leaps here and there, or crawl if terrain permits, so that the HMG doesn't have a good target. as long as the infantry is taking cover the HMG is just suppressing, slowing the advancing infantry down to *gasp* crawl.
this is the initial setup of the basic rock-paper-scissors combined arms tactics of the open fields. prep fires, prep defensive positions, armor, ATGs, fix & flank, mines & wires, combat engineers, mortars on the pinned infantry, recon, etc etc etc come after this initial basic condition is recognized. if the basic condition is not met there is no need for the rest that follows.
EDIT: i naturally agree about all that's said about suppression.
-
It's not just the suppression effect though, it is also the fact that walking into a firing MG lemming/Somme like is not resulting in massive casualties.
i agree, but i didn't want to get the thread sidetracked.
Hell the Russo Japanese war has instances where Russian units would form up and try to march and shoot in ranks and then get shot to bits from bolt action rifles from prone and relatively dispursed Japanese units.Winter War is full of instances of Soviets making regiment/battalion sized assaults across ice. frozen sea/lake/river is probably closest to the flat open ground we have in the game (though deep snow would of course offer concealment once you are pinned). i probably don't need to tell what happened to the Soviet assaults.
some Finnish machinegunners became deeply traumatized by the slaughter, though, and required special treatment after the battles. -
But in this case I doubt "pin" means stop indefinitely or turn back. I get the impression that's what the mortars were for, and that alone the MGs wouldn't cut it.
yeah, like the source states the MGs are there just to make the attackers a juicy target for the mortars.
i don't think anyone is asking for making HMGs super weapons. they were routinely taken out by elements a lot smaller than platoons. it's just that they didn't do it by first running/walking 1 km in truly open flat ground while constantly taking HMG fire. JasonC drew the Omaha card but the test scenarios give the attackers a lot worse scenario than Omaha.
2 heavy + 5 light vs. a Company seems a better ratio than 1 HMG vs. a platoon. But I think the MGs would be better able to combine effect.yes, especially considering the crossfire situation.
though i guess in game terms the only real difference between 1 or 3 HMGs is the greater volume of fire (which could be achieved with 1 HMG if it just fired 3 times more).
Send in the Company and see what sort of results the game gives. If every thing is kosher I'm guessing the Company should be slowed considerably but still win.the field is 200x200 to 400x400 yards. i haven't tested it, but i wouldn't be surprised if the attackers could just shoot the defenders. i think this is a bit of apples & oranges thing anyway.
-
Joch,
i believe it's exactly what most of us would like to see and what we have been talking about for months. i'll requote your quote:
The purpose of the heavy machine guns was to pin down attacking infantrymen in the openAmerican infantrymen seeking cover and concealment during their advance.Once pinned down in the openPinned down in the openinfantrymen were unable to maneuver and continue the attackSquads returned fire with their own rifles and automatic weapons, but their firepower was not enough to suppress the defenders. -
Being able to click on the leader of a unit and be taken to that leader.
yeah and the other direction as well. this part of the UI is very handy.
-
Please don't make a fool out of yourself.
lol i bet i could beat you 10-0 in Bowmaster 2.
-
You need to find it below ground and mine it. Watch out for skeleton archers though.
no need to worry about the skeleton archers as i have already discovered the Amulet of Ywendor. it gives me +3 against the undead.
-
if you press jump button you can make the StuG climb up the tree. then press G to gather pinecones. after that the StuG will use pinecones as ammo. it's super effective!
-
am i really the only one who has seen the "easter egg"??
make a custom scenario with tracks and at least two buildings next to it. if you wait long enough in preview, a train will eventually appear. click on the train operator and you get a first perspective view in which you can control the train and move around the track you have created.
i couldn't figure out how to add coal so the train stopped after a while. i wonder if anyone knows how to add coal?!
-
did you check the crew's fatigue level. it's possible they were so fatigued they were just hallucinating about the tree.
-
it's not the game's fault if you choose to play it wrong. what next, you complain that the men didn't pour hot oil over the M10s? if you are looking for a castle defence game then CMBN is not for you.
-
I think the developers got A LOT right!
yeah they did and it is a very good game.
If I can use common infantry tactics such as fire-and-maneuver and achieve desired or relatively expected results, then I think they put out a successful game.good for you.
Obviously there are always going to be gaps in the game, especially with regards to realism.yeah and i am cool with it.
but I expect these flaws to be addressed as the game progresses, patches are released, and the second and third iterations (Bulge and Russia) come out.i think i kept patching CMSF up to 1.28 or some such. then i just stopped caring about the patches. after putting up with this same stuff for years, and then seeing it in CMBN -- it's extremely demoralizing.
-
i tried cutting myself whenever my brains interpret game output in incorrect ways, but it's not effective. do you guys use electric shocks or how do you get yourself to ignore all the bs? please advice, i need your help.
-
Yeah... I wouldn't be surprised if there's still a wacky bug or two floating around with bridged, just because they're so flipp'n difficult to code, but I have to say I don't think I've ever seen anything like what's described here since bridges were put in about a year ago.
this needs to be asked: have you at any point in CMBN development had that often mentioned Close Combat bug of a tank spinning in place in front of a bridge?
-
it's horribly tempting, but all the AARs i have seen suffer from the historical setting in the end. in the ParaBellum's AAR the silly hardcoded winter penalty is one example of the historical settings. the only reason Germans got that penalty historically was because of their really bad logistical situation, which gave priority to fuel, ammo etc supplies over the planned winter clothing. not allowing the player the option to prepare for winter, to give winter related supplies and preparations a priority, is absurd. only some of the winter penalties should be unavoidable, e.g. train engine fails (though even that is borderline).
in the end he is going to hope for shorter line and all the advances are moot.
-
Well, BF know how many copies they sell, and they can count the number of people who join this forum, as well as those who play in online CM communities. You could extrapolate from this how much MP is going on.
i have never played a single game against anyone in any of the CM communities. yet 90% of my CM games have been multiplayer and all the CM players i know play it as multiplayer (CMx1 TCP/IP).
i suspect 99% of my CMBN multiplayer games will be against the same guys i battled already 25 years ago in games like Kampfgruppe on C64.
-
*** SPOILER WARNING ***
because of the two WC hockey games i played only one CMBN game. i chose to play the tutorial mission as iron + RT.
i moved the initial platoon to the hedge overlooking the large field, positioned from the right of the opening on the hedge to the road on the right. the platoon exchanged fire with the Germans and received random fire from the ATG. i lost much of the mg due to unfortunate error in positioning (i didn't notice in time that they were on the wrong side of the hedge).
i moved two shermans lead by a scout team on the road, but kept them slightly back.
i moved the second platoon to the left side of the opening on the hedge, overlooking the farm. i moved the new 2+1 tanks to the opening (keeping them behind the hedge line).
i then plotted a single mission on the ATG for both mortars. as the rounds began dropping i moved the 3 shermans to the field, about the level of the bridge.
i then moved a squad from the 2nd platoon to the trees next to the farm. then moved another squad from the 2nd platoon across the bridge, keeping the third on the hedgeline overlooking the farm. i made an unfortunate error with the squad moving to the farm: having split the squad i placed the mg team on the wall so that it got a FOV to the bigger building at the other end of the farm, but the Germans were behind the first building and killed 3 of the assault team going into the building. i thus had to move the mg team to the neighbouring actionspot so that it could engage the Germans. i then moved the rest of the 2nd platoon into the farm to secure it and the hedgeline towards north.
meanwhile German mortar rounds had begun tropping on the 1st platoon and the platoon took some losses. thus i moved the 1st platoon next to the 3 shermans sitting on the open field. i don't know what took the ATG out, the mortar rounds or the small arms fire (or the tanks).
i begun moving the two other shermans + the scout team along the road a bit past the line of the hedgeline overlooking the field. i moved one team from the 1st platoon to the hedge by the road. the two shermans, the team and the scouts moved slowly along the road, sherman mgs probably doing most of the killing (Germans running into open fields and tank mg LOF).
i then moved the 2nd platoon behind the ATG position. i moved the 1st platoon towards the crossroads, leading with the 3 shermans.
i then moved the 2nd platoon towards the crossroads, spread between the map edge and the road. i moved the 1st platoon + the 3 shermans to the crossroads area. i moved the 2 shermans + 2 teams on the road a bit closer to the crossroads.
then the game ended. my losses were 30 men. the Germans had about the same number (20-30) left as OK.
the only target orders i gave during the whole game were the two mortar strikes.
i didn't spot any bugs in the game and it seemed to work great.
my only complaint regarding how the game worked would be the information given about the enemy in iron mode. i wanted to check what enemy info could be seen in iron and thus clicked a random enemy icon during early phase of the game. most unfortunately i happened to click an icon that gave the information of it begin "ATG ammo carrier team" or such. so much for guessing where the ATG would be. :/
what comes to the simulation aspect it's hard to say anything from such a quick game. basicly i just moved the 2 platoons across the field. i guess the battle was already done at that point, which could explain why there wasn't much of fighting going on.
i liked the map and the scenario served as a good tutorial to the changes made to CMBN (comparing to CMSF).
-
i'll seed it as soon as i get home and have downloaded it. i have a 100 meg line at home, so hopefully it will make things better for some.
-
OMG you had to choose the day with FIN-NOR and RUS-CAN hockey WC games? ARRGH.
-
That's not entirely true. Gooderson's book deals with this, as do some of the OR reports, and various authors in addition to Gooderson have tackled this also.
well, perhaps i missed some quotes, but the OR study on Mortain does not deal with it (at least the version i have, perhaps it's not full, i need to check it out).
those claims that made it into a generation or two of post-war booksluckily it's 2011
and shaped the perception of the effectiveness of airpower against tanks at the battlefront.heh, you give way too much credit to it. various misconceptions of airpower predates those books and 1944.
(see also p.32-33 here.seems ok to me. of course the kill claims are too high, but it's to be expected.
What is correct about these impresions
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
oh cut the crap guys
CMBN is a great game, but the level of C3 simulation is almost zero.