John1966
-
Posts
683 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by John1966
-
-
They already get the chance to close assault the vehicle, which is pretty effective, even in the absence of demo charges. There isn't really a need to waste a demo charge to make it more so.
How do you get them to close assault a vehicle? Assault command?
Then what happens? Do they need anything in particular? (Like grenades)
What does it look like animation-wise? Haven't seen it in CMx2...
-
Tried it playing a scenario the other night and, from the results, I would suggest that they can't remove hedgehogs. Which is annoying...
-
Does/would the AI act differently when it's RT?
Probably not (I don't know as I don't do RT) but at least you might just get the chance to stop the said vehicle before it continues into the minefield.
Mind you, it would still a problem in RT as you might not spot it yourself. But on the assumption that the vehicle crew have spotted the minefield revealed in front of them by a bloody big bang, then it is reasonable to expect them to at least stop and have a ponder as to whether continuing along the planned route really is a "Good Idea".
-
That would have a pretty simple answer: "Because the jeep driver wants to eventually go back with his family in Vermont in one piece".
Quite. I, too, have experienced the frustration of vehicles in WEGO driving straight into the minefield that the vehicle in front of them just identified (the hard way). Surely the TacAI should at least override the initial move order in these circumstances? Even if it just does it the once so that you can override it yourself in later turns if you wish.
-
Well not actually "tanks" I suppose, but Cats Chasing Dogs is pretty much an "AFV vs AFV" scenario.
Seem to remember the AI was not that great playing as the US in "Huzzar". Carbide Carbide (on the same map) is a much better scenario (but less armour orientated).
-
+1 to this -- and to John1966's suggestion of a quick "morale check" before/after the actual fighting, so there's a good chance that some units would just become unnerved and break/surrender at the sight of enemy right next to them.
This would also addr4ess my concern about players abusing hand-to-hand combat or seeking it out -- because there's every possibility that your own troops would crack or surrender and it's too much of a gamble, with the possibility of a good unit becoming immediately panicked or broken.
Just thinking aloud but I'd have thought the morale of those seeking out close combat (the attackers) would be slightly better than those who'd just spent the last ten minutes laying down fire (the defenders) to ensure that the enemy got nowhere near them. Unless, of course, it was an ambush situation, in which case the situation would be reversed. I suppose the modelling would need to take into account who had the "initiative" in such situations...
As I say, just a thought.
-
I would say that adjacent tile/same tile Melee combat could do with some tweaks. Nothing to do with how often close combat did or did not occur. As stated above, we tend to see the sharp end of the stick every minute we play, so statistical analysis won't work.
If two or more units enter into close combat...
Highest rate of fire possible, including grenade use.
NO reloading.
"Swinging Rifle" animation added for random units within Melee tile. Combine jumping over fence with running with rifle... I bet it is in there somewhere for upper torso action.
Abstracted HtH wounds/kills per tick.
Units disengage/surrender very quickly with increased morale penalties once the tide turns.
Yep, I'd agree with all that.
Could live without the rifle swing animation though.
Incidentally, as many have pointed out that the tendency of many would be to run away/surrender when finding themselves in this kind of situation, then surely it would be better to model that behaviour as the final point of Sgt Schultz's post suggests? No idea how morale operates exactly but surely a morale "check" (if that's the right terminology for how the game works) when units find themselves occupying the same tile as the enemy would not only model what people are suggesting but reduce the need for HtH modelling itself?
And I do get the difference between "close combat" and "hand to hand" - The latter just being a possible component of the former.
-
It might seem reasonable to ask for the close-quarters bayoneting, fisticuffs, etc., to be animated and represented in CMBN if it happened IRL. But IMHO this issue is similar to the one about fire not being represented in the game: Did it happen? Of course. Was it frequent? Maybe or maybe not. But should it be in the game? That's a separate question that depends on whether the cost of adding it is worth the supposed benefit. The benefit would be eye-candy and something "cool to see" that is typical in other mainstream WWII games.
Actually, I don't really care about the eye candy very much.
I'd just like to see close combat (of which HtH is just a part) modelled in a little more detail as, in my experience, it happens quite frequently.
I'd be quite happy with an abstraction. Save all that cool stuff for the kids games.
I could even live with the old "punchy noise" (although on second thoughts...)In fact, when I first posted in this thread it was because someone (I forget who) suggested that it was, in fact, modelled; it was just that it shown graphically it as a close range firefight. I just wondered if this was correct (as there would be no obvious way of telling). I have a feeling that it is not actually right, unfortunately.
-
@ John1966
Again, we are mostly talking about hand-to-hand combat here.
Stabbing, punching and biting.
Only because you see alot "close" combat (~ less then 50m), that does not mean that your pixel soldiers are fighting with knifes and bayonets.
Well obviously not, as HtH isn't modelled.
But I'm also saying that "close" combat isn't modelled; it's just the same as firefights at a distance but at closer range. If opposing pixeltruppen are occupying the same building then there ought to be some other mechanism involved. I realise that BFC talk about "what you see is what you get" but in reality there would be multiple rooms on any given floor of these buildings. There would be furniture. And, of course, on occasion, there would be HtH.
I seem to recall in the designer notes of the original Squad Leader, it pointed out that when two units reached the end of a close combat phase with neither being eliminated (in which case they were "locked" together until the next CC phase), it didn't necessarily mean they were all grappling on the floor with knives at each other's throats; it could mean a number of things. The example it went on to give was that soldiers might be waiting in silence trying to hear the enemy in the next room.
The point is that "close combat" (<40m in SL terms) was treated differently to the normal firefights at distance as there are other factors to take into account. Not just HtH encounters (although they should not be ruled out), but secondary weapons, the micro-terrain (a term I just made up but I guess you know what I mean) and (as has been pointed out many times in this thread) the peculiar morale outcomes that might occur in such circumstances; surrendering and/or running away. Probably some other things too. As far as I'm aware (and if anyone knows different, please say), none of this is taken into account. It is simply a normal firefight at close range.
-
Ignoring animations for the moment, isn't the issue of whether HtH should be modelled (even abstractly) down to how often it would occur in the game? Like I say, it would probably come up rather a lot the way I play; it certainly did in CMx1.
I'm not sure that our playing of CMBN has got that much to do with the typical experience of a soldier in WWII. We don't play scenarios based around moving up to the front or sitting in a foxhole on a "quiet" part of the front. Scenarios tend to be where the action is; in other words our CMBN experience represents a fairly intense slice of WWII life. Not sure if I'm explaining myself very well here but I'm suggesting that HtH would be a far greater occurance than any stats/anecdotes/whatever would suggest for those whose experience was real.
"Close" combat is a regular occurance in my games. As detailed as the terrain is in CMBN, it doesn't go down to furniture in a house; it doesn't even go down to seperate rooms. So when pixeltruppen in the same building just enage each other as if they were at opposite ends of a field but with closer distances, it doesn't feel like a particulary sastifactory "simulation" in these circumstances. I'm not asking for animations of bayonet action (although it would be nice) but close combat should be moddelled in a different way. And I would have thought that modelling should take account of HtH as a factor. Even if it means that one side or the other runs away in such circumstances (morale would be a perfectly valid way of deciding things in these circumstances); a continuation of the firefight just at close range does not feel at all right. Even old ASL had a seperate way of dealing with close combat (and IIRC there was even a seperate calculation when the rules dictated that a close combat had "gone HtH" - But I'm a bit fuzzy on that).
If close combat situations never occurred in my games then fair enough; it's too rare to bother. But that just isn't my experience of the game. If the parameters of the (realistic) game design mean that this situation keeps coming up then it needs to be modelled even if RL evidence suggests that it is occurring too frequently to be historically accurate.
-
There you go, it needed a little enhancment. Now get the hell out of here ya rapscallion. Why in my day we walked up hill in the snow both ways for school!!
Yeah the movie took a lot of hollywood license, but ya got to admit, the first time you saw that first 20 minutes I bet I am not the only one who was saying OMFG!!
It has to be said that SPR did alter the landscape when it comes to how the West portrayed war (especially WWII) in film. We can come up with our groggy criticisms (that would be largely correct) but lets give it it's place in cinematic history and admire it for it's very great stengths (it's one of the most influencial movies of the last 20 years) rather than dis it because its not as accurate as it might be. It still sets a bench mark as far as Hollywood is concerned.
-
Blecthley, I thought you'd know since you posted the Manchurian Candidate pic! Shaw was the senator (Actor: James Gregory) married to Angela Lansbury, mother of the brainwashed guy (Laurence Harvey) who in the end < SPOILER ALERT > shoots them both in the head at the convention, instead of shooting the Prez like he was supposed to.
Lansbury was only three years older than Harvey despite the fact she was playing his mother. That's proper acting that is.
(I shall stop with the Angela Lansbury now. Although, it must be said that my wife is deeply impressed that Angela Lansbury has been mentioned on the BFC forum. A first? Can I be bothered to do a search to see if this is a unique event?)
EDIT: I just did and it is. Lets hope it stays that way.
-
Who? I'm Spanish
Didn't mean to derail the thread, btw. I wanted people here to lower the tone and forget about real or imaginary attacks on their persons, CM:BN or BFC. I just think things get out of hand way too easily in this parts, and get personal at a hair split.
I'd like to see WriterJWA to come back to the thread and expose his concerns with a more neutral tone - hint: neutral doesn't mean uncritical, btw -, in a structured way and accounting for the answers he got.
Does this mean I have to start a whole new thread on Angela Lansbury and how she was robbed by the 15-year old Patty Duke at the 35th Academy Awards ceremony? I'm not even sure BFC will let me...
-
Ughh, I've had a really weird dream...
Angela Lansbury should have got the Best Supporting Actress Oscar she was nominated for for The Manchurian Candidate (1962).
I realise that's a little off topic but it was a subtle yet powerhouse performance, after all.
(Also got me a pointless answer in the final of "Pointless" I was watching on the BBC the other afternoon but now I'm really digressing)
-
The specific environment combat takes place will have a lot of impact on the frequency of both "close" and "HTH" combat. I suppose it would not be too controversial to state that it was more common in Stalingrad than it was in North Africa for fairly obvious reasons. Also more common in night actions. If this is the same engine that is going to be used for these different fronts (as we will be getting an Eastern front game) then HTH combat needs to be modelleed even if it is only an abstraction.
What I'm not altogether clear about from these posts (and indeed from playing CMx2) is whether it actually is modelled. Does anyone have the definitive answer to this?
And for the record (and I know I said this in a previous post), its not a "rare" occurance when I'm playing. If pixeltruppen of opposing sides end up in the same room then I call that pretty "close" combat and potentially a "hand to hand" situation; although still not a given - SMGs and pistols would probably be the first weapons of choice - but in that kind of situation I'd have thought that hitting each other would still take priority over changing clips when empty.
Perhaps I play "aggressively" (recklessly, more like) but these situations are fairly common in the games I play, especially where a fair few buildings are involved.
EDIT: Just in case that isn't obvious, I am suggesting that closed terrain will throw up more situations of close combat as opposing forces are engaged at closer distances. Not anything to do with the "nature" of the fighting; although that would also have an impact itself.
-
IIRC, actual close combat is abstracted and then represented by the game as an odd-looking close range firefight.
Is that definitely right? I must admit that I was under the impression that there was no "close combat" (as such) modelled at all and that I was watching just normal shooting happening at close range. I may have been under the wrong impression, of course; that's just what I assumed was happening.
I think regarding the rarity of these events, a lot of it is down to playing style. Although I find my pixeltruppen in rooms with the enemy far less often than occurred in CMx1, it is certainy something that happens at least once in most games I play. Or so it seems. I certainly don't regard it as "rare". I mean, in the absence of flamethrowers, it seems a fairly valid way of getting small numbers of troops removed from strongpoints. It doesn't really occur to me to keep shooting until they're all dead or routed. Keep them supressed and then go in and finish them off. Not necessarily with bayonets but certainly with weapons that are better suited to close quarters fighting such as grenades, pistols and SMGs. This is why I've always accepted it as "OK" to just have these very short range firefights but, in all, honesty, I'd rather it was abstracted (regardless of what appears to be going on on-screen).
Of course, like everyone else, I find that a building (or whatever) is far more likely to be empty by the time I get there than used to be the case but it certainly still happens. At some point we are going to be getting that Eastern Front version and the idea of Stalingrad without hand-to-hand fighting is rather like Normandy without the bocage.
So, all-in-all, I'd rather close combat was something that was actually modelled (regardless of animations) even if it is abstracted. -
"Got my gaming buddies coming around/We're gonna fight a war sitting down"
Classic lyrics...
-
I can confirm similar experiences. Buggered if I know why, though. I watch this thread with anticipation...
-
Just to get back to the original thing for the moment, is this reverse slope thing anything to do with why I get into such a mess trying to set up MGs with LOS through bocage.
Sometimes I just cannot find a spot where the MG can get a LOS even though the squads all around are fine. On closer examination, the riflemen are stood and the MGs are on the ground. It does look as if the berm of the bocage blocks the view but surely the pixeltruppen should hoik the thing higher up so he can get a LOF? I've tried trying to get the thing closer to the hedge but that's as close as the commends avaialble allow. But like I say, the riflemen seem to manage.
I'm sure there must be a solution (as I have mangaged to get them to fire through on occasion but I must be doing something wrong). And it must be ovious because I can't find a thread on it.
-
Just a guess, but in all these examples the original crew had been eliminated. So could it be that an alternative crew cannot take-over a vehicle if the vehicle's original crew are still around? Easy enough to code and would prevent gaminess to a point.
(Unless, of course, you want to get REALLY gamey and deliberately get the original crew killed...)
-
You're no doubt correct. But when you think about it an intense firefight lasting many minutes must have been a sweaty, draining and stressful experience for a tank crew. Particularly for the loader.
True but aren't all these terms a bit relative in the CM world? I mean I'd suspect that most people on a WWII battlefield would be pretty "nervous" most of the time and indeed "cautious" or whatever. But we say they are "OK" until the game flags up that its a got to a problematic stage (even though "nervous" doesn't actually effect their behaviour).
The same must apply with states of fatigue. We take it as read that everyone is "rested" at the start of a game. Actually some of them may have been up all night or just generally weary but it only shows different if it is something that will effect performance.
I'm quite sure tank crews got fatuiged but I'm not sure it is the same kind of short-term ability effecting fatigue that a squad that just ran 500m in full kit might suffer from. (Which I tend to think of as "winded" as its a bit more specifically descriptive than "tired")
-
I have a dim recollection of a Brazillian scenario (in Italy) in ASL. Think it was in one of the ASL annuals. Must admit that that is the only reason I was aware of Brazil's involvement.
-
Just a question, were the infantry suppressed or have lowered morale?
No. I think they were blissfully unaware they were even in a battle.
-
Well the people with RL tank experience seem to be of the opinion that buttoned (and moving!) AFVs spot infantry in cover far too readily. That opinion carries some weight IMHO. Worth a look for a future patch.
Yet in the game I've had a 'schreck team fail to see a Sherman a few feet away from them on the other side of the bocage and I have managed to get a Sherman to sneak up on an AT gun's flank and not be spotted until it fired from about 8' away.
Multiple observers who couldn't see or hear 30 tons of noisy tank at point blank range? You'd have thought they could smell it at that range...
Yet you'd also have thought that an infantry man who doesn't want to be seen by a buttoned up tank would normally have a fairly easy job of doing so. Isn't that why armour was so vulnerable in closed and urban environments unless they had close infantry support? Seem to have a vague recollection of reading about phones being fitted to the back of tanks in Vietnam so that the infantry could tell the tanks exactly where to shoot. In CMBN they seem to fair far too well in these environments even without support.
Anyway, I suppose I'm just saying that tanks should be easier to spot AND should find it harder to spot infantry when buttoned. Definitely something for a future patch.
Wanted features
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
So it sounds like they just do it automatically if they're close enough? Not sure I've gotten my infantry that close to an enemy tank in CMx2. I assume that you don't want to be giving them a "hide" order. Although that sounds like the only way of getting close enough...