Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

JoMac

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,263

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by JoMac

    Looking for Opponent

    in CM2 Opponent Finder

    Posted

    On ‎1‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 4:03 AM, 7thGalaxy said:

    Hi, I'm interested in playing CMRT, or CMBN+CW+MG (no BP or VP), PBEM QB or scenario.  I'm relatively inexperienced. 

    Is there a CMHelper type program still maintained?

    Thanks

     

    Tom

    Hello Tom...Shall We Play a Game.

     

    0

    CM New MG34/MG42 LMG animations

    in CM Normandy Maps and Mods

    Posted · Edited by JoMc67

    22 hours ago, Ivan Zaitzev said:

    For what I know, the posture does affect the game. That's why RockinHarry has changed the medic animations from kneeling to prone and I have also changed reload animations from standing to kneeling and from kneeling to prone.

    This is pretty much the same thing I did for the AKs in CM: Afghanistan. You can have a lot of fun with animations.

    IanL and RockinHarry, has mentioned, that there is a 'Hit Box per Posture (Stand, Kneel, Prone, Cower)...So, if a troop looks a little different in the posture he is allocated at that moment, then will any Small Arms/Arty act differently towards that troop or same (a head that sticks-up in CM:BN Prone is same as a head that sticks-up in CM:Afghanistan Prone, etc) ? 

    Which brings me to next question...If a Projectile enters a Hit Box (Stand, Kneel, Prone, Cower) I imagine there is a % chance (10%-50%, etc) that the Projectile will actually hit the troop (not automatic, and depending on Terrain)...Is that chance based on randomness (nothing to do how the troop actually looks within his Posture and Hit Box... akin to the way CM handles Close-Assaults & Arty), or is the % based off what the Animation actually looks like within his Posture and Hit Box...I would think since troops in RL are always moving about within their Posture and Hit-Box (for game purposes) that the % chance would be more random and not set in stone.

    Oh, and wish CM also had separate Postures for 'Run', Quick, and Assault' (with it's own associated Hit Boxes, etc) as troops would move act/react differently.

    Just my 3 cents...

    0

    Getting back to CM finally

    in Combat Mission - General Discussion

    Posted · Edited by JoMc67

    On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 2:45 AM, WhiteWolf65 said:

    Again, thank you for the heads-up. Right now, I just need to get the computer and one of the newer games so I can start playing and tinkering with some map making. BTW, the company I worked for was Matrix/Slitherline. I worked on the Campaign Series Middle East game and was working on the Vietnam game they are currently working on before this clunker laptop actually ate my games. I haven't played anything like a wargame now for almost a year and I miss it.

    I use to play the Platoon Level WWII 'John Tillers, Campaign Series' few yrs ago (and the older 'Talon Soft' East & West Fronts many yrs before that), and heard of the making of 'Middle East' & 'Vietnam'...

    Thou, I'm not interested in Modern, but wasn't Matrix/Slither going to re-do the "John Tillers, Campaign Series' ? If so, then I hope they change the system so that you give orders for all your Units at once (these units are going to this Hex, those Units at this Hex, etc) and press 'GO' (just like CM), and not have it where you move one unit here (combat results), then move another unit there (combat results), rinse and repeat until end of turn (I never liked that system, and thought it was un-realistic), thou, I do remember you were allowed to move a Whole Company or Battalion at once with multi-keystrokes (then combat results), and guess that wasn't too bad. 

    0

    Getting back to CM finally

    in Combat Mission - General Discussion

    Posted

    On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 4:25 AM, WhiteWolf65 said:

    I just submitted a ticket. Hopefully I will get an answer next week. I do thank all of you for your advice. It is much appreciated.

    When you finally get your situation corrected, 65ofWhiteWolf, and ready to PBEM (any of the WWII Titles...especially RT), QB's, up to Reinforced Company size, Meetings, House Rules, and using Dropbox...Then give me a PM.

    Joe

    0

    Improvement suggestions

    in Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg

    Posted · Edited by JoMc67

    Well, there are a couple things, which you are already aware and noted:

    First: 1-2 Crew members inside Opened-Topped SP will have one or two crew members in prone position (instead of sitting), but I don't think it effects spotting. Second; I'm not sure, but I noticed some troops go from prone to kneel about every 10 seconds or so (but not sure if that was the case before the Mod, but I still like it)...In any case, overall I like the popping up-down stances in many animations (firing, re-loading, etc), because for me it represents the more fluent body motions that RL troops would take in any given moment (when firing or ducking in-out in a quick self-preservation moment when shot at, etc), which in turn can slightly reduce casualties. 

    Other then that, I don't really notice any gameplay issues...

    Thou, I wonder about the stock 'Cower' to your Mod 'Cower'. Your Mod will have troops Cower in the exact location he is facing, and that is Ok if being facing the enemy front (less exposure along with FOW), but if the enemy is on his flank, then more of the body will be exposed, this compared to the stock 'Cower' that gives a 360 degree 'Curling up in a Ball effect (about same protection all around...which I believe is what CM has intended). I'm also wondering how CM models the 'Cower' animation...Does it have the same cover properties as 'Prone' (and we don't know), or does 'Cower' have its own cover properties (I guess, IanL, would know').

    Anyways, it doesn't matter to me, because I really like the Mod 'Cower' over the Stock 'Cower, especially for the FOW effect.

    I was going to Playtest each and every Mod at one point last year and give you some results, but I was just happy enough to throw it into Z Folder and be done with it.

    1

    Improvement suggestions

    in Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg

    Posted

    1 hour ago, RockinHarry said:

    ..and back. Thanks! :)

     

    2 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

    Hm... I suspect it would be the starting player sending the first PBEM file deciding on the calculating machine then? Would make sense.

    I just figured out I can actually PBEM myself through pushing files from outgoing to ingoing. :blink: Not sure If I can do a reasonable test by swapping the mod in and out at certain steps. I´ll investigate, but still would prefer some real PBEM test on two different machines. So clearing the question on potential misuse should be very close now.

    Interesting enough, me & Heirloom (along with couple other of my PBEM opponents) are using your Full Mod (not just Medic, or Cowering), but all the others you gave me awhile ago), RockinHarry...It would be interesting to see the results between you and Heirloom.

    0

    Over-Powered Artillery and general game lethality

    in CM2 General Tech Support

    Posted · Edited by JoMc67

    15 hours ago, Macisle said:

    I agree as well and definitely want BF to improve things like infantry's choice of doors, how they react to coming under fire, and assault tactics (being able to split off as many two-man teams as you want would help).

    On the other hand, at the macro level, there is the sticky problem of how the resulting extention of game time would effect overall player enjoyment. I'd very much like to see the obvious rough eges removed, but think there is a wall there on how far BF can push adding realism in terms of game assets being lost in relation to real world game time spent before it pushes overall game enjoyment down for most players.

    In regards to the First Comment:..

    Also, things like troops hugging outside of buildings (and not run in middle of street...stay on one side or the other), enhanced building combat that includes actual rooms and not just a left/right side building, troops popping up/down more often (flinching) when engaged in close range combat (Self Suppression vs. Combat Suppression) leading to less Small Arms exchanges (not using up a whole clip/mag every action-cycle, etc), reducing the HT gunners 100% casualty rate per game (small arms should be center mass just like gun fire), not having troops in building fire almost directly parallel (70 degrees) out of window/door but rather only 45-60 degrees), not having troops continuously moving back-forth within its own or adjacent action-spots before finally stopping...Not sure about the Infantry Spacing yet, but me thinks casualties are even greater due to too much spacing (some troops in squad/fire team straggle along too long before finally getting to destination, and thus potentially being casualties from small arms/arty.

    All of the above (including yours...well, except the notion of other 2x man teams) should greatly enhance a Units survivability...Instead of loosing half-Platoon in one engagement you will instead loose a few troops per Platoon (couple per Squad)...Just think, even if loosing a few troops per Battle in a several Battle Campaign (for example), you will still loose 100% of your troops in the end (even that's a high casualty rate, but acceptable). As is stands now a player can potentially loose about 250% of his original troops that he started by Campaigns end (even more unacceptable).

    These are just some of the things that I came up with that should greatly increase game play realism, but as you said, there are some things BF can change in time, cannot change due to game mechanics, or just have their own view how the game should be played.  

    0

    Over-Powered Artillery and general game lethality

    in CM2 General Tech Support

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Farmer George 1745 said:

    This is a very interesting thread. It's my first time of posting too so I may also be covering ground already discussed.

    I feel the greatest flaw that the current mechanic causes in the game is that even if you do everything right and move your forces cautiously and effectively, even if you wait, watch and set up fire bases and advance scout forces etc. etc. you cannot accomplish any mission objectives without crippling casualties.

    The game, the arty and the response to being under fire all means casualties are large and disproportionate.

    If you manoeuvre well ,use cover and implement tried and tested infantry tactics you should be able to accomplish a mission with light/reasonable casualties. As this stands this is impossible and that is very disheartening.

    2 particular bug bears for me is the habit of troops to run round the front of buildings to enter rather then through rear doors which gets men killed and the inability of advancing troops to react in a sensible way to coming under fire or to 'clear' out buildings they are supposed to be assaulting. Again engendering disproportionate casualties. 

    Yes, and this is exactly how me and powdermonkey feel about the situation...

    0

    Over-Powered Artillery and general game lethality

    in CM2 General Tech Support

    Posted · Edited by JoMc67

    Lets also keep in mind that there are 2x layers in CM (any Tactical Wargame for that matter)...Strategic Layer and a Tactical Layer:

    Strategic Layer: Players can do what they want in a Scenario, this compared to what actually did happen in a RL Battlefield...The Former tends to cause far more casualties in the end.  

    Tactical Layer: The Game Mechanics...By adjusting certain aspects of this it will help reduce casualties and give us a more realistic turn-by-turn outcome.

    @powdermonkey...When the Patch comes out it will help a little in the Tactical Layer in reducing casualties, however, the end result will probably be the same...Higher Casualties at each aspect of the game.

    I also use to play HO & Micro Armor minis on Terrain Boards back in the 70's-80's first using TRACTICS (designed for HO) then as others came out...I still have a collection of those Micro-Armor and Terrain Boards.

    0

    Over-Powered Artillery and general game lethality

    in CM2 General Tech Support

    Posted · Edited by JoMc67

    8 minutes ago, powdermonkey said:

    thanks man. Yeah, i have my ways of rationalising it away too. I try to look at casualties not so much as simply dead and wounded per se but rather as also men who cannot go forward, have given up and are no longer combat effective, with only the men still represented as being in the fight

    Exactly, and the only way to look at it...Overall Combat Effectiveness (thou, that was better suited for CMx1, then CMx2 where Bullet/Arty trajectories are calculated).

    0

    Over-Powered Artillery and general game lethality

    in CM2 General Tech Support

    Posted · Edited by JoMc67

    Oh, and I for one understand that CM Casualties are far too great compared to RL Combat situations...

    Your Arty comment is a perfect example...Troops (even in open) exposed to light/medium arty would just hunker down (and not get KO'ed every time by single mortar/arty Shell 25-50 meters away) and wait for it to cease before moving out again, and just taking a few casualties in process...Think, a better 'Savings Roll' would help out.

    Small Arms is another...Small Arms casualties needs to be reduced a bit, especially at Close Range Urban Combat. Troops should just pop-up to fire a short Burst or couple Rifle Rounds across the street then drop-down for self-preservation and not continue until firing until magazine or clip is empty. And, or a better 'Savings Roll' (if you will) when hit to represent troops trying to dodge bullets or hugging terrain better within its own posture, etc.

    Yes, Combatintman, has suggested a New Patch will come out to address some issues regarding casualties, but most other issues your referring to will not, and simply the way the Game Mechanics work...We just have to pretend that 1 minute in CM is like 5 minutes of RL Combat, and so whatever casualties that have been inflicted by games-end is half of what it should be.

    Yes, this is a Great Game compared to what is out on Market today with lots Time, Passion & Dedication put in, and I will continue to play it until I can't anymore...You will sleep better at night.

    Joe

    0

    What would be your priority wish? More Families, or more content for existing Families?

    in Combat Mission - General Discussion

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Heirloom_Tomato said:

    CM Sandbox. I would love to be able to have ALL the units, buildings, flavor objects, terrain tiles, bridges, you name it, available in one title. The possibilities for letting your imagination run wild would be awesome. Russians vs Italians in bocage country. Modern US and British forces vs modern German forces fight it out over the Nijmegen bridge.

    Realistically, I would like to see as much content as possible for the WW2 titles, from the invasion of Poland in '39 to the wonder/super weapons of '45.

    Who are you, and what have you done to Tomato of Heirloom ?

    0

    Red Thunder bugs

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted · Edited by JoMc67

    Interesting...v4.0 all Commanders are only supposed to have their Heads stick out and nothing more (v3.0 Commanders had their Heads & Torso stick out like the above)...I think, BF, just forgot to impose this on a few models, and would need corrected.

    1
×
×
  • Create New...