stikkypixie
-
Posts
4,132 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by stikkypixie
-
-
Why not start with one and see how much you like it
? The scenarios in the later modules are harder though.If you buy straight from Battlefront.com, you don't need to buy the 1.21 retail upgrade for Paradox versions of the game.
Good hunting! It's really different from WW2!
-
Crazy question. Have PIATs always been launchable from indoors? I was just messing around with a Brumbar and I watched a Brit fired one from the 2nd floor and destroy the Brumbar.
Yes
. Since CMBN. -
Thanks, I'll get on with it.
I don't want to give too much away - either way way but clearing an occupied NAI will lose you men. Not all NAIs are occupied and some you can ID occupants then bring down arty on their heads. Others you will have to get close and personal with your dismounts. In this case hose the area down before hand with fire using your IFV and tanks.Good Luck!
This is what I needed to know thanks! I was doing recon by fire, got a response, but instead of backing the dismounts out and letting the heavies do the work, I did a close assault. Not pretty
-
Thanks, I'll have look. But more specifically I was talking about clearing out the nearest NAI. In my experience, unless I slate that one for an arty barrage, there is not a safe way of clearing it out and I was wondering whether there were any alternatives
-
I have a question about the scenario: NATO TV 98-5 Steelers
*** SPOILERS ***
The mission is to reconnoitre (touch) several (potential) enemy positions. However, it is almost impossible to approach these positions without taking casualties to my limited forces.
The only way I can see to do this by pre-emptively prepping the positions with mortar and artillery and then move in to count the bodies.
I am wondering, is this how this would be done in real life? Or are there other tactics used.
Greetings,
stikky
-
I really hope they spend their restricted resources to fix real bugs and to add features, which enhance the gameplay further.
Does it cause crashes? No.
Does it restrice gameplay? No.
Would a fix make the game more fun? No.
Would the average player recognize the fix? No.
-> Priority: very low.
The average scenario has a scale, where it is impossible to be this close to the action.
Yes but fixing models does not require the programmer to do it, but the art team. In the past they also have paid attention to this.
-
i have a question on C2
reading the manual i understood that the "enemy spotting" info moves on the command chain .... but i suppose that if a "first" unit spots an enemy unit, and is connected to its HQ, within seconds or a few minutes, all other friendly units connected to the same HQ should share the same info
that means that the other friendly units connected (HQ + other squads in the platoon) should at least have an icon of the enemy spotted by the "first" friendly squad ... ok they do not see it directly but they should know there is an enemy in that "area" of the map ("question mark" icon for example) ... so they could use "target area" commands etc etc
i ask you if that's correct because in my first battles it seems to me that it is not like that .... it seems to me that the HQ and other friendly units connected do not share the same infos because the enemy icons they see are just what they directly see or hear ...
maybe i am wrong (sure i am
) ... but well, how it works ??Well first off, you can use the target area any time you want
.Second of all, are you sure your units can communicate? I.e. they are connected either by voice or sight?
-
Who knows how to blow a hole and NOT run through it?:confused:
Thanks.
It's quite simple actually. You place the blast command perpendicular to the bocage/wall. But instead of placing the blast command on the other side of the wall, you place it just in front of the wall.
Here is an example of doing that in CMSF:
-
The terrain is different. It's no longer a hex of something (woods, scattered trees, etc...) but rather a combination of many things (e.g. trees on top of shrubbery with rocks) so they decided not to give info on what it exactly is. But thanks to modern graphics you can see what it is (give or take
). So if it looks like bad cover/concealment, it probably is.For the "pre-planned" strikes, this works just as in the old games. You have to buy TRPs.
Good luck!
-
I just registered to say that I'm really disappointed in hearing about this policy. I bought Combat Mission: Battle For Normandy and was planning on buying more of Battlefront's games and modules at some later date, but not if I have to pay another $5 for the game if my backups fail, for whatever reason.
The installers are the same for everyone. You can just ask if someone here is willing to (temporarily) upload it.
-
I rethought this and in real life your statement certainly makes sense but does the computer defensive AI make use of C2 spotting info? When you are playing against the computer and attacking does C2 afford the computer AI the same advantages and limitations that it affords the human player? I think that its important to know this because it influences the set up of a computer AI defense in the construction of a scenario. I've tried to find this info in the manual but haven't been able to.
Units who have <?> icons are more likely to spot that particular enemy. This has nothing to do with AI, purely with spotting rules. Spotting rules apply the same to the player as the computer.
A human can react to the <?>, while the computer will not, since the AI in CMBN is scripted.
-
Haven't seen this happen in action. I'm all about tanks (you could call me a virtual tanker), and it frustrates me when a tank knows nothing about enemy positions even when a nearby squad of grunts are engaging enemy positions.
Maybe I should do a little field test and verify this...
It's been a while since I tested this, so it would be nice to have some verification
-
I agree with you, but lets not make this too complicated.
Example: If an infantry squad spots an enemy tank on a ridge line I bet they would use some form of verbal- or handsignals to communicate with a friendly tank parked just 5 feet away from the squad. At least this kind of spotting sharing should be possible in CM:BN.
Edit: Other example would be Kampfgruppe Engel campaign (a small strikeforce consisting of some infantry platoons, tanks, engineers and so on). The engineers must have some kind of grudge against infantry platoons, because they sure are not talking to each other.
I believe any unit if close enough will share info, regardless of the entities they belong to. You can check it out by having two units (from separate formations) close to each other, but only one of them having eyes on a target. The other should get a <?> given time.
-
Yes, because there is no link between the two entities
. -
Just finished reading the appropriate sections of the manual and I'm a bit confused as to how C2 is supposed to work in-game. I understand its importance in RL, but in an environment where you have the ability to select other troops to see what they see, I can't seem to appreciate it in-game.
First of all, let me say that I understand the value of C2 when it relates to asking for arty or mortar support. I also understand the "morale boost" HQ units give to nearby units, especially when Assaulting or under fire. What I fail to grasp is the value of C2 for normal squads of infantry. So what if the 1st Squad can't see/hear the HQ unit? So what if the 1st Squad doesn't know where 2nd Squad is or what its up to?
Or let's say 1st Platoon HQ is in control of all of its squads (is it 3 or 4 squads per platoon?), but is not in communication with 2nd Platoon HQ? So what?
Troops in C2 fight better. As in someone did a test a while back, pitting two identical platoons against each other and the platoon not in C2 lost hands down.
-
After you loaded an old save file(1.11),you could watch the play back .
If you want to watch it again and pressed the botton ,it just got stuck and crashed to desktop.
Save games are only compatible if they are saved in the "Command Phase". Says so in the patch notes. Or are you talking about watching a turn that was converted to 2.0?
-
I've ran some tests and uploaded a video showing how effective it is to sneak up infantry to a tank with the intention of destroying it with only grenades.
So far it seems to me that it's not a very good tactic since the infantry end up getting killed almost every time.
Here's a video showing 10 attempts of infantry sneaking up on a Panther G (early) (skill: Veteran, Motivation: Normal, Leadership: +1, Fitness: Fit) using the "slow" command in extra tall grass:
The panther only gets destroyed once.
I might try this on different terrain later with different skill, motivation, and leadership levels.
Does anyone have any tips on how to destroy tanks when you only have grenades?
One thing I noticed for the first time is that the Panther uses a grenade launcher when infantry get close. I never knew they had that! :eek:
Try wheat tiles. Those offer excellent concealment
-
If 1 burst has a 50% chance of hit, then two bursts should have 100% chance.
How'd you work that out?
-
Sounds like you're moving too fast. Try a more cautious approach where at any given time, only a small portion of your troops are moving while the others are not.
Remember, moving troops can be spotted easier and are less good at spotting.
-
Gentlemen,
This question is posed to anyone that has played both Shock Force and Any of the WWII titles on the CMx2 engine. I'm aware that there are version differences between SF and the WWII versions. Have any who've played BFN or FI found this to be game-breaking or irksome? Not factoring in the absurd amount of content CMSF has to offer do the limitations of the early engine cause any problems at this point? I ask because of the issues that first arose when the CMSF engine was tested. Though I am aware of the patching that has been done, I am still wary that the older engine is still a hinderance. Am I wrong about this?
It's very subjective question. My best advice would be to play the demo's and get a feel for yourself. As to your original question, the two engines are very similar (in my opinion), except for the new features such as armour cover arc, trenches that are subject to fog of war and more detailed icons. I still play both and I do not notice much difference (I might be blind though
). -
Riddle me this.
I haven't found anything in the manual (god, what a manual...) about fatigue.
Given that, is there any reason that I would leave any ammo in a vehicle?
I regularly load aquire all the ammo in a vehicle before I leave it. More ammo is better.
Is there any reason not to?
I have XOs with Javelins.
The main effect of fatigue is that you can't use all movement orders. For example, fatigued troops won't run. Fatigued troops probably fight worse, but that's hard to put a number on;
-
But what about staking the pop smoke command? I can't seem to get it working.
Oh you mean in one waypoint? That is not possible, but you can work around it by placing a small waypoint close by and using that to give the pop smoke order.
-
we are both at version 2.. I had no idea (opps)
So are you able to see his turns now?
-
Check this out
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=82035
, it's still works in CMBN!
? The scenarios in the later modules are harder though.
Shock Force Purchase Help
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Well the patches are free (as long as you buy from Battlefront) regardless of the modules. The modules only add content. So for deciding whether you want a module or not, I'd say pick the one with an army you're interested in