stikkypixie
-
Posts
4,132 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by stikkypixie
-
-
Let me start out by saying I'm unconvinced that a "realistic" representation of WWII tactical C3 and forcing the player to rely on the chain of command would result in an enjoyable game or eliminate gamey tactics at all.
I'm going to defend the OP against some of the modern military types who are suggesting that an almost complete lack of terrain knowledge and intel on enemy forces was unlikely in WWII. We live in a world of instant communication, where GPS and satellite imagery are taken for granted, and most developed countries would view the casualties from a battle like Tarawa as a national catastrophe.
WWII was fought on a titanic scale where a lot of the leadership were "90 day wonders", radios were lacking or dodgy and the idea using lives to lubricate the gears of the big machine wasn't as repulsive as it is now.
As was posted earlier...
"So we are trying to replicate a world where the commander:
- doesn't have a map;
- hasn't been given any aerial reconnaissance photos;
- hasn't spoken to any of the locals;
- hasn't sent out any of his own reconnaissance to tell him what the ground is like beyond what he can actually see, and
- hasn't got a set of binoculars to look for himself."
I'd say that a lot of the time most of the above was true for a company commander. His map probably lacked details, he rarely if ever saw any aerial recon photos, the locals were either not forthcoming, untrusted, absent, limited by language problems or could give information that was of questionable value anyway.
The info he got from patrols was limited to what the patrols could see and hear, and was subject to human error and basic fear, and personal recon even with binoculars gives only so much information depending on the terrain and the presence of the enemy.
My father, a WWII infantry vet, told me that they got a Division intel officer to come check out reports that were being made of German activity in his sector. The guy showed up clean and shined with a tie. When he said doubtfully that he heard and saw nothing at the Company HQ, he was told that patrols were making these observations, and he should accompany one.
This involved a night time river crossing in a small boat, since daylight crossings were too dangerous. When they got to the opposite shore and went a few yards into the woods he told the patrol he'd seen enough, and didn't listen when the men of the patrol (he outranked them all) insisted that the German positions were still some ways off. When he got back to Division he reported that the men in that sector were jumpy and probably overestimating German activity. This was the 28th Division in the Ardennes in early December of 1944.
I don't think every staff officer was incompetent or more concerned about his own skin than acquiring information, but I do think this sort of stuff was fairly common. The vast draftee armies of the time were quickly raised and trained, and would probably seem somewhat strange to the highly trained, high tech volunteer soldiers of today.
It is true that maps weren't good or intel incomplete. But don't forget that the player is NOT playing as the CO HQ or something higher up, but dozens of roles at the same time. The decision making ability of any person is much more advanced than that of the CM AI game, so the advantage of knowing the terrain in detail is usually negated by AI limitations.
-
Hi, long time absentee here, player of all the original CM games and delighted to see the new edition, which looks fantastic!
On watching the videos(which btw are absolutely great, well done and thanks), I noticed that when squads of Infantry are attacking they seem to group really close together, instead of spreading out a little more, especially when they have gone to ground and are returning fire. One grenade or mortar round could cause many more casualties than if they were spread out a little. Is there an option to select formations? Thanks.
There is no option to select the formation of a squad. The effects of HE is reduced to compensate for this bunching up tendency.
-
Another excellent appetizer, thank Chris!
While watching the vid, i noticed two instances where i didn't really understand the soundcontact questionmarks onscreen.
This moment at aprox 30:33
(did someone in the platoon fart and now they are wondering who it was?):
And then this one where Jerry suspects the Americans to tunnel underneath the road. Time stamp aprox 58:26.
Can anyone elaborate on how the sound contact system works? I'm sure my men will be getting very paranoid if they capture an enemy, pass him, turn their heads and then wonder what that sound is 1 meter behind them...
I don't think these are sounds contacts, just contact markers.
-
No and no (at least not for CMSF, but seeing as it's the same engine and all). You can change between missions in campaigns but not in a mission itself. After a while you kind of get the feel of what the movement will be like, but most of the time I still stick to short movement orders.
-
Thanks for putting this up!
-
Fetchez la Vache: OK I concede the point that game commanders are not constrained by the horrors of real life consequences of being overly aggresive. But in my reading I've often been surprised just how aggresive real life commanders often were. Rather than just skulking around trying not attract attention to themselves from on high nor the enmity of their troops for being foolhardily vernturesome.
OK scratch my comment regarding armor grouping, that is harder to sustain.
I do not see how limiting elevation or camera position will answer solve the problem as it will still be possible to roll the camera forward over the entire map and discover it's layout perfectly including checking LOS from ground level of a point miles away behind a mountain or whatever.
As regards technical limitations surely some such calculation is performed by the code already when deciding what enemy units to disclose or not. All I'm arguing for is that for an attacking player all that portion of the map not directly within the LOS of their units (or formerly was) should be blank and the player should have to rely on whatever written briefing & rough drawn sketch maps (this facility lacking) he is given at the start.
From my reading commanders at this level very rarely had more. Often less.
Spotting is very resource intensive. If the map itself has to be spotted this will require even more computations than even high-end PCs can provide.
At some point the designers have to draw line to how "realistic" a game can be while still being fun. For example, why should the spotting of the map be instantaneous? Is it realistic that every units knows the location of every brush and every tree because the clear line of sight to it? Shouldn't the same spotting rules for enemies also apply to trees in that case? This clearly would add a lot of burden without providing extra, but no-one can argue that it is less realistic.
There are more unrealistic things in the game, such as the muzzle blasts of tanks not affecting nearby infantry. The nice thing about CM is that it allows for realistic results using realistic tactics even given all these limitations.
-
If you have played CMSF and enjoyed it, you should. This game is different than CMSF: graphics have a different effect, terrain is different, units/effects are different. Viva la difference!
If you're not sure, well, look at the screenshots for CM:A, and download the CMSF demo. That will give a slight taste of what CM:A is like.
Ken
Or he could download the CMA demo
-
I don't know. I know it has been mentioned (and playing CM:SF confirms this) that the SPOTTING is from action point to action point and NOT from model to model so...
The action spots are a map that says whether or not it makes sense to do a spotting check. That way computer power can be saved. No point in doing a spotting check from the foot a of a hill to the other side of that hill. If it does makes sense to do a spotting check, then a finer spotting mechanism kicks in. The target line available to the player does not always give all the information or nuance of the situation. And if you observe infantry squads you'll often see situations where only one or two guys are shooting while the others cannot see the target. The positioning is most definitely 1:1
(that or I have learned nothing from reading these forums). -
Is this not because there is still an amount of abstract positioning going on. Although the units are 1:1 their position within a single 'action spot' is abstracted.
So the tanks could both be in the 8m sq (I think) action spot but not in the exact position as depicted by the 3d models.
I'll add another 'I think' in here just to ram home my uncertainty.
I believe you are wrong on this. The positioning is not abstract as the hit calculations depend on where the polygons of the shell and the polygons of the tank model intersect. No point in making stuff 1:1 and then having abstract position I reckon.
-
Go outside if you want to sing Paula Abdul songs!
You made look that up. I.Hate.You.
-
Disclaimer: I know this is a one time evidence in a video of a several weeks old beta version of the game. This issue may very well already being moot.
There is one scene in the VAAR where two shermans drive into each other and the models intersect (clipping). This kills very much the suspension of disbelief for this scene.
AFAIK getting the pathfinding for an AI is difficult while collision detection is not (this game should even excel at high speed collision detection
. If I could choose I would rather have the tanks bumping into each other and going nowhere than clipping and getting somewhere.
The former I can blame on the stupid tank drivers (which makes it a 'human' problem so I stay 'in game'), the latter I can only blame on the game programing itself (which takes me out of the game).
It something that happens and if I understood correctly will remain in the game as it is not that easy to deal with (given the time/budget constraints). It also exists in CMSF and in 99% of the time you don't see. Maybe that is the reason why it stands out
. -
RE: this whole grenades vs. tanks thing. Can someone point out the offending time stamp where this occurs? I didn't see anything that couldn't be explained by PFs or panzerschrecks.
It seems they used rifle grenades.
-
You don't come across many instances of it happening in the game either. But if your squad is hiding in the woods with no Fausts and no Shrecks and no rifle grenades and a buttoned Sherman just happens to stop in the road a couple feet from you what are you supposed to do? Surrender? I can well imagine the complaints "It stopped just five feet away yet my men refused to throw their grenades at it!"
It's not that but the perceived lethality of the grenades. You wonder why they ever bothered with tank mines and RPG (not the bazooka like things) when the good old frag could achieve these kinds of results. The tank was not just immobilized (yellow base) but killed! Any way, in game it's probably just a fringe occurences any way, but you can't deny there is not something peculiar about that.
-
Tyrspawn ... as mentioned by others ... WeGo, some up close MG firing, and perhaps a link to download and savour at our leisure? I'd love to grab the video and savour it ... if you could post it for download somewhere, that'd be nice. I can host on one of my servers if you want.
It is possible to save youtube videos. Just google it.
-
Grenades used to knock out tanks could be either AT rifle grenades or well placed potato mashers. Throw one or two on the back deck of a tank and you will most likely knock it out. There's almost no armor and also lots of vents for shrapnel to get in. At the ranges seen in the first video, knockouts from regular hand grenades is quite possible.
Steve
Wish that was in CMx1, would have save me plenty of times. Still seems overpowered though. What about the crazy crews?
-
Motivation? Got any links/info on that?
http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_flippingbook&book_id=2&Itemid=223
Page 125.
-
does that go for all buildings? In the vid, Chris keeps referring to Shockforce, but I never played that myself. However, modern weapons also can not be fired from small enclosures. There are significant back blast from the SMAW, RPGS, AT4s, ect. I do know recently though that the Swedes developed an AT4 that has water at the end of the AT4 that cuts down on the backblast, but I'm not sure how common that system is on today's battlefield.
I'm sure that the smaller panzer fausts can be fired from some larger&open rooms in buildings. Panzershrecks are a different story...
I think the BFC reckoned that the backblasts for modern AT weapons are bad, but reduced enough compared to WW2 weapons to make firing inside buildings more common. And to reduce the gameplay mess that would result from some building allowing RPG shots and other not, decided to allow for all cases. Just my two cents though.
-
Whoa...stikky cant wait to start kicking your butt with this new game.
I'd worry about getting to Carentan first! Looking forward to your gamey tank crew rushes.
-
Surprised grenades could knock out a Sherman so quickly.
-
Watching the video right now. Sweet! Why don't you use more cover arcs systematically, just wondering
? -
Stikky has some farking HUGE assault guns defending his flags and he's sooooooo sure of himself that he's just put them right out in the open, saucy as you please! He probably feels that my puny 75mm Shermies pose absolutely no threat to his big, honkin' guns with their soooperior armor.
Well... I guess that means I'll have to cheat.
20 cm of sloped armour can't be wrong! Next time I'm getting JagdTigers...
-
Actually have you tried an old T-55 with heavy cross-wind?
-
Just making sure, I would be interested.
-
thanks for the posts guys. I have no doubt its been modelled correctly to be honest, was just expected to see some drift from left to right from start to impact but always appears to be straight as can be.
test 2 saw more shots required to kills, first test must have just been lucky.
testing with all t72s had much different results indeed , in fact RED one
Thanks for the unbuttoning tip , i was absolutely using ww2 logic here.
I find it a hard thing to judge to honest. For example with 70's era T-55, you are probably better off unbuttoning. But fighting at distance at night with a brand new T-90, nothing beats that night vision equipment.
(that or I have learned nothing from reading these forums).
Combat Mission unrealistic
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Well say you obscure the map from the player. In the real world you could just say go there and try not to be seen. In CM what would happen is, the little guys walk to the map see that there is some sort of cover, but they won't be smart enough to use it, forcing you the player to micro manage them to take the smart route. So obscuring the map doesn't work well in the game.