jep
-
Posts
85 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by jep
-
-
Bradleys can destroy whole combined arms offensives
At the very least single Bradley destroyed all my tanks. Frontally. Those poor thanks were not even able to see it from something like few hundred meters away. 25mm cannon surely is effective. Also I have to say Russian optic sucks; I would see target like that with naked eye. Its shooting my tanks, not hiding!
-
Well this problem was specific to the flavour object.
If you have seen other problems by all means start a new thread with some screen shots, saved turns and attention to detail.
I do not have safe file and I doubt BF would update game even if I could provide it. It really happened only once and may be related to broken optics and so on. Still, if learn to replicate the issue I will be unstoppable. This forum is not the best place to talk about Black Sea and seems like discussion / post related to this subject already exist. This issue does not feel like bug since every missing or undesired feature can not be a bug.
-
This may not be related to outhouse. I had similar problem where my tank could not see enemy tank even though these tanks nearly collided (yes it was hiding in forest but come on...). It feels like BF models optics but forgot to implement a "common sense algorithm". Something seems to be off with Black Sea too. You know how your fancy Russian armor does not see opponent no matter how visible it should be (short distance, shooting nearby units etc).
-
At the same time though, Russian T-72BM3 and T-90AM with APS are also on the same line of stretching, even though the Russians do have more experience when it comes to evaluating active protection systems, only few variations of the arena we got in game were created, one based on a T-80 and one on the BMP-3 (which was intended for export) - not a case the only APS vehicle correctly represented in 3d is that BMP-3 Arena, same goes with UA T-84 Oplot. So, I'd say APS for all or nobody.
APS for nobody would be my choice. APS does not really help Russian player but renderers US vehicles immune against Russian AT - missiles. Man-portable anti-tank systems would be realistic enought solution to T90 versus Abrams problems. Quick Battles are problematic because you really can't (or should not need to) prevent cherry picking.
-
Seeing all the talk about russian equipments it would only make sense to not allow us player to purhase APS equipment. If I remember correctly Battlefront stated that APS was added only because it would be fun to play with. The game would be quite balanced if Russian were able to hurt us armour.
-
Its important to note that many Russian ATGMs won't do much to an Abrams besides annoying the crew with a loud blast and damaging external systems on the tank. Others have mentioned that a few of the Russian ATGMs can penetrate and cause damage to the Abrams from the front, but as a rule of thumb know that a lot of ATGMs are pretty ineffective against an Abrams. If the Abrams has APS, its honestly a waste to engage them with missiles. Try to slug it out with your own tanks, or if you have none, get small and hope the infantry can do something about it. Don't waste ammo and give away your position by spewing useless missiles at the enemy. Adapt and overcome or die
That's the very problem with Quick Battles. Russian player must adapt and overcome to win. For US player it is generally enough to idle and wait. I can see some game balance problems here. I hope both Abrams and Javelins get fixed on next patch. No matter how realistic game is, it's no good if one cannot play it without house rules.
-
Average rating seems to be 5.5 / 10 so this does not seem like best possible product. Personally I would like to see more digital versions of board games since they are simpler thus they should be better with AI. I don't know about tanks, but Google seems to indicate that Leopard 2A5 is considered better than Abrams. Since near no body seems to appreciate T-90 I would ques that things ultimately comes down to numbers. Russia does not need best but a good enough military to make things work. I do not really know how board game would model these things since they must be simple enough for human to understand.
-
Good read... Thanks.
"Ukraine’s military doesn’t have to be stronger than Russia’s for Ukraine to win."
"Putin’s strategic miscalculations — starting a war without knowing how to finish it has to be the greatest of them — have maneuvered him and Russia into a dead end with no easy escape. "
I am not sure about strategic miscalculations. Russia annexed Crimea and and diverted world's attention by agitating separatist nationalism. All the while no body want to remember that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees from both Russia and the West. It goes without saying that this has led to a massive loss of credibility. It's too late to arm the Ukrainian army since Russian would invade Ukraine before anything significant could be achieved. Short-term economic sanctions are rather cheap price to pay for the Crimea.
-
It's a complicated old game, getting the points right, and for all purposes and all users, it simply isn't going to suffice without the systems for customising what you buy being very much more complicated than currently. And BFC don't like QBs in the first place, so getting the force selection "perfect" is low down on their priority list for fuggly coding issues. The current model is aimed at, and works well enough for, "typical" use of forces in the theatre depicted; it creaks pretty badly when forces are used in "a-pseudo-future-historical" contexts.
QB points should work more like currency. More players buy something more expensive it gets; that's how prices would find natural balance maintained by community. Price fluctuations and eventual devaluation would be fun to see.
-
Actually prices for us player should be further increased to make battles more balanced. 80 points per javelin team is ridiculously cheap and quality/price ratio favors US tanks. Individual unit cost does not matter too much as long as us wins are roughly equal to ru wins.
-
Modules are the milk cow for the Battlefront while engine changes are harder to justify. That's the basic problem with module approach. In the end quality scenario are becoming more and more hard to create while community gets more and more fragmented. It does not help that community expect quality few are willing to contribute; and should you contribute no body gives you feedback.
-
I must have done something wrong. I certainly could not use mortars to target T90 tanks spotted by UVA.
-
Does precision artillery exist in Quick Battles? Seems like my spotter does not have an ability to order precision strikes on enemy vehicles.
-
I think you mischaracterise the nature of the complaints about Xylophone and Calliope. The complaints I saw on here were pretty much solely about the costs of those systems. People didn't complain about Nebelwerfer batteries.
But I expect you're right about the reasons for not including area-saturation munitions in BS.
Exactly. Problem was with game balance. We may have similar problem with Javelins since they are ridiculously cheap when compared to performance. No much point if Russian player cannot buy tanks because they would be toast anyway. Well, Russians seems not to be too popular there so perhaps this won't be fixed.
-
Frankly, I am getting little bit worried about QB balance. I can easily see a situation where russian player does not have real winning change because prices are nearly equal but equipment quality is inferior to NATO armies. Keep in mind that, at least to some extent, Quick Battle equals cherry picking. Single mispriced item (Javelin?) would kill the game balance totally. I am sure russia will buy Leopard 2 tanks and Javelins in near future. Just to make game balanced.
Pnzldr will be perfect test subject if he get decent opportunity to use his tanks.
-
I asked already but will ask again since the answer was not sure:
If I install my game on my two computers can I play a multiplayer real time match with my girlfriend (I already know she will kick my ass, heeh) or does the licensing protection not allow same license to be used for multiplayer games?
Thanx in advance.
You can, but I am not sure if that's allowed by licence. I have feeling BF turns blind eye on this. Better ask directly from the BF.
-
Er, are you sure about that? Please explain your reasoning as all I know is that all the games beginning with SF have been in CMx2.
Michael
Note: Black Sea uses Version 3 of the Combat Mission game engine. Consequently new features are focused on bringing our modern equipment up to date as opposed to general engine changes.
(http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=334&Itemid=576)
-
Good news. Rocket pricing problem has been "fixed" in this patch. 4X82mm (13M-8-24) rockets costs is increased to 155 (155 rarity). In my point of view this make CMRT the most balanced CMX2 game to date. Now I can actually use rockets against human opponent.
I am happy to see that BF broke their habit of not changing the Quick Battle prices.
-
I really don't see the point in enhancing PBEM in 2014. Direct connect Real-time and turn-based are effective.
I am not sure there are enough players to make something like that viable. Nothing is worse than an empty multiplayer lobby. Battlefront hosted file server would work, but I doubt that BF can afford the development / upkeep costs. There are far too many "house rules" needed to make me wonder if players actually want to play against random opponent.
-
Yes I realize I am a niche player among niche players. I do understand that WEGO improvements would not be cost efficient. Finally, I do recognize that there are technical difficulties. That said, there is no denying that current LAN based WEGO is somewhat insufficient to meet the player's (equals me) demands.
1) Huge battles needs micromanagement thus they are not partially playable for attacking player. That said, if I do micromanage my units I do want to know what happens to them.
2) Lets face it, most players do not want to experience the chaotic battlefield; they want to play chess. You can see it everywhere if you are willing to read between the lines.
90's PBEM system should be improved. Personally I would like CM to check & send turns automatically. When I open CM I would like application to inform me that I have new turns in my mail box and ask if I want to open them. Also mail should be sent automatically. Both email & drop box API exist so layman would believe this is something trivial to implement.
-
What's the Point with WEGO if replay does not work? It's kind of weird see that software company creates first and foremost PBEM games. That's so 90's. Real time works well enough but I miss WEGO.
-
Oh, well, I really like AVRE. Perhaps I go and buy the package. Wouldn't certainly be my worst purchase.
-
Yes- Just watching the Crab is great fun!
Not if you flank em with an AVRE..... They can't move and have a limited arc. Or you could just get a FT team and roast em.
Can I actually afford AVRE? Perhaps some body posts some pricing information.
-
Is this worth purchasing?
I am afraid I will never be able to afford new units because rarity must be mind boggling. Also I have feeling this package will seriously unbalance the game. 76 mm fanatic AT gun bunker is gonna made the game impossible to win for allied player.
A post about a pbem.opponent and Russian weapons
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by jep
Create a YouTube video so people will learn how to play. Preferably QB without house rules because these battles seems to be most problematic ones. Good scenario designer or house rules can always ensure balanced battle but this would be kind of missing the point. I am still stating that weaker player should not choose Russian forces. Price difference is not enough to make balanced game.