jep
-
Posts
85 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by jep
-
-
Also: play against humans. If the map is not a parking lot then you will notice that a tank only force will die a certain death against infantry.
Regarding Panthers: if the map is too small to be able to outflank them, then they are nearly invulnerable. If you can outflank them - not so.
Can you describe me how you kill tanks?
Yesterday I had small quickbattle (assault, small forest, me as defender) and I had no way to stop tigers. M-10 destroyed / inmobolized two and my antitank mines inmobilized additional two tanks and three light vehicles. Still, I had no practical way to destroy remaining tigers. Even 76mm antitank gun could not hurt them. I had several bazookas yet they were completely useless.
Eventually my opponent did not even bother to move his infary. I would say that Tiger / Panther tanks are too cheap considering how expensive allied tanks with 76mm gun are. Even antitank mines are way too expensive considering how much you would need them to make sure heavy tanks wont be bothering you.
I have feeling that Battlefront believes that people enjoys tank versus tank games most.
-
I like quick battles but I have a problem with tanks (especially with German tanks). It seems that if I want to win an meeting engagement I should buy nothing but tanks. Seems like infanry can never beat tanks. Since infanry seems to be waste of purchace points, it do make sense to use all points to buy nothing but tanks (and perhaps few soldiers to find targets to shoot). Even bazookas, piats etc. are useless against tanks because they are too expensive when compared how many points would be needed to kill a tank. Guns would be some what useable, but they cannot really ne used in meeting engagements.
Even if I know what my opponent will buy does not help because there are nothing to buy what would make sense when I consider how many points my purchase can take away from my opponent. Planes? No. It seems to take least 5 expensive airplanes to kill one or two tanks. Even terrain does not make too much difference. This is quite a big problem, because if nobody never buy nothing but tanks the game will be dull.
What should be done? Tanks shoud be a little bit more expensive. Antitank weapons should be lightly better. Forest etc. should be little bit more dangerous when using tanks. Air planes should should be lightly better when used against tanks.
Second problem is related to german tanks. When I play an all tanks battle, it seems like player who chooces to purchase quality tanks (Panther etc) is likely to win. In fact it seems like only tank destroyers are able to hurt them. This of course allows german player to experience with foot soldiers, but all tanks choice would still be the best. Panther seems to be too cheap when we consider how many tanks it is able kill.
-
You may buy a paradox version (£17.99 delivered), but the strategic map is not worth that much. You really do not use it.
-
Yes I did patch (Paradox 1.02) but that did not solve my problem. I replayed a saved game and ordered a cease-fire (minor defeat). Now next scenario (Dagger Figth)loads. Syrians surrenders. Next scenario starts to load . . . and computer freezes (50%)! This is beginning to be frustrating.
-
Opinions do vary, but that's a little too straightforward to say. Why I like CC campaign? Because I am lucky enough to have a regular opponent. A campaign, as a minigame, gives us an excuse to enjoy several single scenarios. Tactical aspects in campaign adds some flavour too. Should I fight until routed from map? Should i retreat until that easy to defend map? What troops should i buy? I guess people who do not like CC campaign play it as a single player. I do not like that too (I am not sure if that because easy AI or repetitive campaign). Now if somebody decides he do not like CC campaign as a multiplayer game, our opinions differs. I think that a good game A) allows me to employ new strategies to outsmart my opponent (CMx1),Originally posted by Battlefront.com:I found the CC2 style campaign boring, repetitive, and downright aggravating. Just a reminder that opinions can differ
gives me a (multiplayer) campaign with a tactical flavour (the Close Combat series) and inludes a full potential of the CMx2 engine C). Oh, and to lesser extend I would like to see a nice graphics too (Theatre of War). Obviously I am waiting impatiently for the CM: Campagns release.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Yes, the CM:SF campaign is a better as a singleplayer game (a multiplayer campaign should be more like a gameboard). However, I think what's important is that Close Combat shows us how easy it is to create a campaign with a tactical flavour. Actually, it seems for me that CMx2 allready includes all the core components of CC2 like campaign. Basically, what Steve described as a "boring, repetitive, and downright aggravating" is not about CC2 style campaign but what scenario designers do. -
When I end the mission (Nigth Stalkers) the game crashes to desktop (no error message). I tried loading a saved game (mission end) but this does not help. Paradox version 1.0. Athlon 64 3000+, Geoforce 6600GT, 1,5 Gb RAM, WinXp Home.
[ August 17, 2007, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: jep ]
-
Same problem with the Total War games. My answer: Web-hosted database. When some unit grows too popular database increases its price (and vice versa).Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:Will all the guys complaining about lack of point purchase in CM:SF please present your mathematically perfect system that everyone can agree on?
-
-
delete
[ August 16, 2007, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: jep ]
-
And now you released yet another desert game! I would like to know what the market share between US and the rest of the world. It is hard to believe that non-us customers would be interested about CMSF setting. I need forests, please. I have to say thought that I like CMSF because modern warfare. Unfortunately CMX2 gives nothing compared to Close Combat. Tactical battles in CMX2 are some what better (3D should be better utilized), but CC2 gives me superior usability and the multiplayer experience. Would it be possible to include CC2 style campaign? As a realtime game CMX2 with decent campaign would be be a real killer. Unfortunately, it seem that for Battlefront a decent campaign is fabulously difcult to do (CM: Campaigns -> No release, CM:SF -> Nothing but Series of Scenarios. No troop puchase etc. ). The obvious worst case scenario is that both CMx2:WW2 and the moderniced Close Combat: A Bridge too far would be released about same time.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:CMAK suffered because people had already played Shermans vs. Tigers and few have any interest in tactical desert warfare.
Steve
-
There _seems_ to exist some extra patriotism on how CMSF works :confused: . I would favor red side when not absolutely certain about something because this would make CMSF a little more balanced game.
Obviously I cannot prove otherwise, but for me this does not make common sense. Distance is about 250 meters, desert does not provide sufficient protection against bullets, attacker leap-frog forward and defenders are well protected. For me a situation like that sounds like a suicide mission. I wonder: If platoon equipped with optics were about twice as much effective than platoon with plain ironsights, how come every country in world does not use them? Sure they are expensive, but if they were _that effective_, every country in the world would be buying them.Originally posted by Secondbrooks:I can say only what one of our officer told me. Platoon where half of men had optics (2x ACOG and 2x aimpoint per squad) was about twice as much effective than platoon with plain ironsights. This test was conducted in meeting engagement with laser simulators, about terrain i'm not sure (either forest or open field). This is most accurate thing i've heard about effectivity of optics. If you can prove otherwise, then i will draw my words.
I believe problem comes from CMX2 engine, which works like the world were black and white only. Does CMSF even penalize accuracy when soldiers are doing that leap-froggin. I think there is some more basic problems with infanry. For example CMSF does not allow me to properly split my squad (should be two men /team), nor can I give firing arcs to invidual soldiers.
EDIT:
I thought that trench would provide excellent protection agaist infanry. A Iraqi trench: http://wtv-zone.com/Mary/THISWILLMAKEYOUPROUD.HTML (This seems to be some kind of recruiting site).Originally posted by Secondbrooks:Secondly: Having trench isn't superb thing yet (so no bonus). Terrain wasn't favoring defender in that scenario (i assume that there wasn't even bushes).[ August 13, 2007, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: jep ]
-
-
Sorry but this is blatantly wrong. When somebody shoots at that distance nice optic does not give you anything. To put it simple, US troops should not be able to defeat syrian troops. It does not matter how well trained participants are (better training does not help when your opponent do nothing but shoot you from covered position). Infact US soldiers should promptly refuse to even consider assault like this. Also, bigger firepower (Javelins etc.) does not help when your troops cannot use those weapons.Originally posted by Secondbrooks:Us has allkinds of nice optics installed to their rifles. Those things affects much on firepower of unit, surely this is modelled in CM:SF also.
Really, experience should be modelled better. No country would train militia if they would not work. If nothing else, they should be given experience bonus because it is easy to defend. I think same goes with optical sights.Originally posted by Secondbrooks:Experience has heavy impact. Just tried to attack with green-level troops and despite covered attackroute against small enemy force, my men didn't have much change. They took few casualities and after that i wasn't able to command them for a long time. My plan failed utterly as i expected them to act like veterans
-
Iam not military expert, but I wonder if you have ever used ligth machine gun. I was easily able to hit head size targets at distance of that 50 yards. I think everybody can do this. I must admit thought that I have only second-hand knowledge about T72 machinegun accuracy. That claim sounds quite believable thought. A machine gun, mounted on a T72 tank does not move much.Originally posted by acrashb:A head-shot with a MG past maybe 50 yards would be a miracle.
Then again I am not military expert.
-
Since you mentioned WW2 i have a guestion. If i have both CMx2: Shock Force and CMx2: East Front installed, is it possible to mix content from those games. I need some uber-tigers to deal with those Abrams! Ability to play WW2 with Syrian maps would also be nice. Also, I am already looking forward to some hard figths beetween space lobsters and US marines.Originally posted by Renaud:I believe they chose not to do WWII first for this very reason: give the engine time for refinement and perfection before attempting the beloved WW2 era which I know Steve and Charles have a particular affinity for.
-
I choose destination area and computers use red color to show me every possible hulldown positions for selected unit.Originally posted by Melnibone:Explain how you think the command should work.
-
"Retreat" everything but the T-72 tanks (if you dont tolerate any casualties). Use nearby hill to cover your ambush. Wait until US forces surrenders / time ends.
-
I think this demo is too easy. Few US soldiers with Javelins easily destroy syrian mechaniced troops and T-72 tanks. I bet they would not do that in real live. I "know" T-72 is able use machinegun to hit head sized target farther than distance in demo. Perhaps this is related to bad AI?
-
As a realtime game CMSF is much like Close Combat series. "Unfortunately" CC5 is a very good game. Before the WW2 release Battlefront should do some serious benchmarking.Originally posted by ToadMan:CMSF doesn't strike me as similar to those games.
-
-
I would like to see an opportunitu to have some nterreaction beetween CMX2 and third-party applications. I do not mean anything complex, but something simple which should be fairly easy to implement to CMX2.
For example: I could crete simple campaign/multiplayer/etc. application that tells CMX2 to start a batle using certain setup. After battle ends CMX2 returns parameters what happened.
Is this posssible?
-
I would like to see an opportunitu to have some nterreaction beetween CMX2 and third-party applications. I do not mean anything complex, but something simple which should be fairly easy to implement to CMX2.
For example: I could crete simple campaign/multiplayer/etc. application that tells CMX2 to start a batle using certain setup. After battle ends CMX2 returns parameters what happened.
Is this posssible?
-
I would like to see scriptable AI as poor (and soulless) artificial Intelligence prevents me playing anything but multiplayer games. Perhaps versatile C-like syntax with triggers.
There should also be an option to import AI modules.
It should be quite easy to create AI-script-language as every key elements already exist in game. AND it is fun to test whose AI figth best!
-
It sounds funny to me when people says that attacker should have enougth time to setup his guns, do flanking movements etc. as they also despise borgspotting. After all attacker needs extra time because he knows more than would be possible in real life (and utilizes it via borgcommunication(?)).
Unfortunately attacker in CM 2 & 3 really needs all the borgcommunication and time he can get because in CM attacker cant buy enougth air/artillery/soldiers to make succesfull attack otherwise.
CM does not simulate warware in general as my soldiers never sleep, eat etc. CM simulates direct probe / attack / assault which means every defending soldier are already aiming correct direction.
Every soldier knows that there are 100-700 enemy soldiers within 1000 meters. Why anybody would wanna use horses, motorcycles in such situation? Why people still hopes to see units like these in CMX2?
It would be interesting to play different kind version of CM where player could only see what his commanding unit can see.
gives me a (multiplayer) campaign with a tactical flavour (the Close Combat series) and inludes a full potential of the CMx2 engine C). Oh, and to lesser extend I would like to see a nice graphics too (Theatre of War). Obviously I am waiting impatiently for the CM: Campagns release.
Hedges as barriers
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I would not believe hedges will stop your opponent. It seems to be simple task for engineers to blow a hole to those things as long as you have few pioneers. Even hedges + heavy forest combination was not enought to stop my shermans.