John1966
-
Posts
683 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by John1966
-
-
It's kind of surprising that Battlefront is doing another East Front game at all given the alleged disappointing sales of CMBB. It seems that the bulk of their customer base- the quiet majority?- demands the presence of Americans.
Has anyone said "Harrumph" yet? Despite what some posters have said, it does seem that all of these series of games have to start in Normandy with the Americans. It does get a bit boring. Not actually boring as such but there are so many other theatres/nationalities that I'd rather explore for a change.
Mind you, just to undermine my own point, I do love playing the Brits. Can't wait to hear some vaguely regional Brit accents. (Bet there's no Bristolian!)
-
Actually, Squad Leader scenarios were pretty evenly divided between East and West Fronts. Cross of Iron, the first gamette, on the other hand, was completely devoted to the Eastern Front.
Michael
Yes but scenarios 1-6 were the Eastern Front and 7-12 were the Western Front (and American). I realise they were all in the same box but the fact that the first ones (you were supposed to play them in order for learning purposes) were on the Eastern Front was a bit of a statement of intent. The fact that Cross of Iron was the first gamette drove the point home. Eastern front was the front for wargamers.
-
Yeah, the Battle of the Bulge will be non bocage but the terrain was hardly open country.
Bet I get fed up with Belgian forests real fast. Still haven't worked out how to deal with the little Normandy ones. And I hate having to turn the trees off to see what's going on. (OK, I have the "show nearby stumps" option on but it still feels weird)
-
Personally, I'm fine with this as long as CM:East Front is done later in the engine development cycle so it benefits from all of the improvements (as appears to be the plan). As far as I'm concerned, for WWII land combat, the East Front is the main course and everything else is appetizers and side dishes.
Quite. On the other hand, I'd have liked to have started on the Eastern Front for the same reasons. (Just like we did in Squal Leader a very, very, very long time ago
) -
I've been playing since CMBO and I always play against the AI. Of course the AI isn't very good at attacking so the best way for me to play is as the attacker. In fact most scenarios that are designed to be played against the AI has the player as the attacker. So after all these years of practice it comes as no surprise that I pretty much always win as the attacker when playing against the AI. I have had lots of practice.
However, you get those odd scenarios that say best played against the AI and YOU are the defender. They are few and far between so when I see one I always have a go at them. And then suddenly I'm completely inexperienced. I have no idea what I'm doing. I really struggle. They are some of the few scenarios I give multiple plays to. I also think that, to make up for the lack of AI proficiency, the attackers are given overwhelming numbers in some cases which makes it even harder if you don't know what you're doing. No bad thing, of course; if there was no challenge there would be no point doing it.
Suffice to say that due to the AI's lack of attacking prowess, it wouldn't surprise me if most have us are better attackers simply because we don't get enough practice at defending; certainly not against competent attackers.
-
Socks it is then.
-
Open battlefield with ranges up to 1500m.
Doesn't really matter how many Shermans you have against a platoon of Tigers in those circumstances. If you see a Tiger in the distance you just stay out of its LOF (if you can) until you get close and preferably behind it. If you can't then you're going to lose. I wouldn't attempt any long range stuff against them. They'll win. I'm just going from CM experience as opposed to any groggy knowledge but the result you described seems like what I'd expect.
-
What's going on the left side of the hull of that Sherman? Looks like a big wheel or something.
Actually, is it a Sherman? Either way, what is that...thing?
-
It might. I pointed (no pun intended:rolleyes:) it out to the guy who made the scenario (sorry, I forget how you are...) and he said it might be expected as the climbing of the cliffs uses a "flaw" in the programming.
Ahhhh, I was wondering about the whole climbing cliff thing. Pretty spooky in itself. I assumed the engine doesn't really acknowledge the passability of hills for infantry, no matter how steep. But then those walls up the cliff must have some purpose as that the only place they can climb.
-
The very same thing happened to a MG team of mine in Pointe du Hoc, but I never figured out "the spooky man" issue. They just never got off the beach.
Interesting. Wonder if its a bug specifically related to Pointe du Hoc then? Or perhaps its deliberate. Nah, that would be weird...
-
Never happened before so I assume it's "just one of those things". Help not required, just sharing the experience.
I'm playing the Pointe du Hoc scenario (that's relevant) and I've got everybody up the cliff except of one MG team. Well I'd ordered them up some time earlier so why are they still down there? Order them again. And again. Right then, lets watch what they're up to? They scale the cliff, advance part of the way to where I told then then turn round and go back again.
Must be morale. Nope. Good order, no incoming. But they keep doing it.
Then I notice an odd thing (this is where Pointe du Hoc is relevant). Their icon is, depending on the angle, partially submerged in the ground when they're on top of the cliffs. No-one else's is. So I'm wondering if one of the team is stuck on the beach. According to the UI its a 4-man team and sure enough, there appears to be only three of them. So I go and have a look at the apparently empty beach. No-one there. But remember I have the team highlighted. And then I spot it! The green "base" of a man on the beach. Our missing MG man. Except he really is missing. There is only the base. Thing is, "it" won't move. Presumably as there is nothing to move. The green disk won't move on its own, right? Apparently not. I've moved the team to stand right back with "it" and paused them in the hopes the disk would sort of join them next time they scale the cliff. But no. Just sits there like the ghost of a GI who bought it on the beach. Perhaps it is.
I assume that what is happening when the rest of the team move away is that the code doesn't like the team moving too far away so they have to go back. Perhaps they just can't bear to leave him there.
Unfortunately it means I'm an MG down and not as a result of enemy action. I could try and get him killed but I control the heights and I've run out of mortar ammo. Naval barrage at the beach? Bit desperate and, as CM models the actually trajectory of flying death, I'm not entirely sure that the disk will be vulnerable to what the Navy has to offer.
In CMx1 I used to find that very occasionally, men would load without faces. That was spooky too but at least they could move and fire their weapons.
This is not a bug I've seen before and I rather hope it won't be repeated. Of course, if you have any genius ideas, I'm all ears.
-
WEGO almost all the time. I have tried RT for smaller battles and it's fun but I hate it when I miss something and can't go back to watch. I do like the ability to Pause when I want. I would play a lot more RT if there was a rolling 30 sec of history I could Pause and replay. Not change orders but just see what happened or rewatch/save some cool event.
Totally agree. If you're doing RT then you want something that is actually user-friendly for RT like Close Combat. In fact didn't they bring out a 3D version of Close Combat that bombed? Seem to remember playing a demo and it was awful.
-
Realism would be something like this: You as the commander being able to see only the inside of a bunker, while you get updates on the progress of the battle via out-of-breath dispatchers running into the bunker to tell you that a "Tiger is spotted in the western corner of the woods" or recieving half dechifrable messages on the radio. You would then move your virtual commander to the virtual map on the virtual bunker table and mark presumed location of enemy and friendly forces.
Until another dispatcher tells you that the enemy is retreating
or
the enemy enters the bunker
or
an artillery shell hits the bunker
...and the game ends.
That's the joys of playing "Highway to the Reich", that is.
Except for the bit about the shell landing on your bunker. Thankfully.
-
Really, the only way it can be adequately addressed is by closer coöperation between armor and infantry, as occurred in some formations in the later stages of the campaign. If the armor is closely accompanied by infantry, the latter can indicate in various ways the location of targets needing to be neutralized by tank fire.
Well that's fine for player controlled forces. But what about the AI player? Or are you suggesting that the AI side should perhaps share its spotting information more freely than it currently does? Actually, doing something like that to make up for its inability to use area fire effectively isn't a bad idea. Although I suspect people won't like different rules for the AI than for the player.
-
Regarding issue 1, I'm going to take a (controversial?) guess that this is a gameplay issue to do with the AI.
I think most of us would agree that a buttoned up tank's ability to spot infantry is unrealisitically good. Lets also bear in mind that tanks spend most of their time buttoned up (especially considering that the AI will fire on an unbuttoned tank pretty sharpish with MGs etc in order to make it button up).
So if the buttoned tank's ability to spot is drastically reduced to a more realistic level, what effectis this going to have?
I'd have thought the most obvious effect would be that buttoned tanks would rarely engage infantry at all, unless the infantry stands in the open in front of the tank waving flags in the air. Wouldn't this take the edge off the power of a tank? Well, perhaps not because what would happen is that we'd get them to area fire suspected infantry positions and, indeed, known infantry positions that have been spotted by other units. This dependency on area fire might even be considered to be an improvement in realism.
However, the problem is when you are playing against the AI because, as far as I understand, the AI isn't capable of doing this. Or at least that's what other threads seem to be saying and it would fit with what I've seen. Certianly they don't area fire suspected positions.
Soooo, what that means is that the AI's tanks would become effectively neutralised against your infantry. The only solution would seem to be to give them a better than actually realistic ability to spot. Which is what we have; a compromise not disimilar to what BFC have said about tanks shooting on the move.
Just a thought. Could be nonsense, I suppose.
-
Thanks YankeeDog for the quick response. Still thinking about answers 1 and 2. Apparently invisible tanks that stop bullets. No wonder the Germans lost the war. Mike.
BFC are using this apparently.
-
My personal opinion is that the "Move" command for infantry could be changed. Right now, it's only marginally useful because it's so slow -- issuing Quick orders with occasional pauses for rest will actually get a unit somewhere faster, and at the same level of readiness. Perhaps if the Move order were changed to represent a faster movement (more of a "double quick" march), but without expectation of incoming fire, it would be more useful. The AI under Move order could then be set to do things like stop immediately if it encounters unexpected resistance/danger, such as a minefield, and Quick could be kept as it is now -- more of a "push through" order, with a strong preference for completing the movement, no matter what. This would then give the player a useful choice.
Quite like the sound of that. You're right, I rarely use the "Move" command for the reasons you outline. It seems like a movement command for when you are REALLY nowhere near the action. If you're on the scenario map then you are, by definition, near the action (unless it's a particulary dull scenario
) so it never feels like the right command.Perhaps it should be replaced by a "Jog Moderately to Contact" command? (OK, that's a stupid name. But you get the idea)
-
Actually, anyone remember that Blackadder Goes Forth scene when they discover they're in a minefield? ("Stupidy, stupidy, stupid!") That's my guys in CMBN
-
Minefields are a bit the same as heavy concentrations of artillery fire. It's shockingly efficient a times, just as it should be, but when it happens to the player it feels like the devs or scenario maker hates you.
I remember discovering that a field was clear of enemy fire so I quickly tried to run a platoon across it. Of course, it turned out to be a deep minefield and the platoon was decimated in a turn as they had all been given a "quick" order so they just kept on going even though their mates were blowing up mines all around them. In fact, the lead squad eventually panicked and ran back through the minefield that had caused the panic in the first place and received another load of casualties!
Now that annoyed me because I don't believe that's what would have happened in real life. They weren't under fire so as soon as the first guy set off a mine they would have all stopped.
This seems to be real reason why mines are so deadly in CMBN. The pixeltruppen basically behave stupidly upon the discovery that they are in a minefield. Mines were never expected to destroy the enemy, they were supposed to slow them down. The reason they weren't expected to destroy the enemy is because you wouldn't expect them to blindly run across it once they'd discovered it.
I'm sure the problem can be resolved by some minor tweaking. Just getting them to stop once a mine has gone off would be a start.
(And yes, I do realise that, on occasion, we might actually want our pixeltruppen to go through a minefield. Surely that could be resolved by a Y/N order confirmation on known minefields?)
-
At a recently PBEM game(la desert scenario) an accurate 105 mm howitzer barrage almost decimated a mechanised German group, among the victims was a Panther which was set ablaze by a direct hit.
Yep, that was the effect I was after.
You have failed to make me feel better about it
But really, it got hit several times and it was still being hit when it rotated its turret. It was even at a funny angle as it was sitting in a crater the barrage had created. Ouch.
-
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=peng
#1 Google result for Peng.
I looked at their definition, and I don't think I have ever seen the Internet more broken than this.
--
Oh yeah, that is very broke.
-
I just dropped what can best be described a "large quanity" of 105mm off-board arty on a Panther in the hopes that it would stun the crew/imobilize/damage the gun/anything(!) just long enough for the two Shermans I'd got behind it to do the dirty on the bloody thing.
Despite at least two minutes of four tubes on it and several direct hits, can I just say that it had no effect at all. It rotated its turret and dispatched both. To add insult to injury, one Sherman got a shot off and actually managed to miss!!!! We all know tanks don't miss in CMBN. Think it was the first I'd seen...
And then, with no small amount of irony, a sole squad survivor got the Panther with a bazooka he'd scounged. So much for the big guns.
-
Finished it. Major victory (WEGO, elite).
The only one I had to replay was Razorback Ridge. Funnily enough, the only one I didn't get a victory on was Bumper Cars (a draw) which is not one anyone has said they found difficult. I found the lack of gaps in the bocage and engineers made it very hard to even engage with the core German assets. I was also probably a bit jaded after School of Hard Knocks.
Actually the lack of gaps in the bocage and sometime absence of the engineers (especially Razorback Ridge) would be my biggest criticism of the campaign. Satisfying in the end but a bit of a stretch to describe as "fun".
Oh, and the final battle was pretty much won by a single surviving member of a squad with a scrounged bazooka. He even survived the battle. Medal due there I think.
-
Unlike vehicles where one can set another waypoint to clear the target so that the tank fires for x seconds, moves and ceases firing...
I'd never thought of that with a vehicle. Cheers!
)
What's the situation with pre-orders?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Wasn't that extra tax as it was over a certain value? (Can't remember how much now) Isn't the Commonwealth module a bit cheaper than CMBN was? (This could all be rubbish. But, I too, was a bit annoyed by the extra tax thing at the time)