JoMac
-
Posts
2,263 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by JoMac
-
-
This is disconcerting...You would think if your Hull-Down the Ranging Optics especially at longer ranges ( 1000+ ) would yield better probabilities in spotting vs. extra Crew members...Sigh :-(
Ranging Optics are located in the Turret or upper superstructure of Armored Vehicles and that alone should prove superior in spotting over having a couple extra hull crew members looking w/out optics ( once again, we are talking about 1000+ meters where optics are most important ). If it was under 1000 meter ranges ( more like 500-600 meters ), then this is where extra crew members looking around at shorter ranges becomes more important.
Joe
-
I agree with Rocket, and think the 'Hunt' Command speed is alittle to fast, and should be same speed as 'Slow' Command.
Joe
-
This is disconcerting...You would think the better German Optics especially at longer ranges ( 1000+ ) would yield better probabilities in spotting over the Allies...Sigh :-(
Well, we do know that the game takes into account that the more crew that are looking the better chance of spotting a Vehicle.
However, the Ranging Optics are located in the Turret or upper superstructure of Armored Vehicles and that alone should prove superior in spotting over having a couple extra hull crew members looking around w/out optics ( once again, we are talking about 1000+ meters where optics are most important ). If it was under the 1000 meter ranges ( more like 500-600 meters ), then this is where extra crew members looking around becomes more important then ranging optics.
Joe
-
Hey Lofty, how about if we play the CM:BN Demo ( or CM:FI Demo ) since I don't own the CM:BN Base game yet ( next month )...Atleast I think the PBEM function works in the Demo.
Joe
-
Great...CMx2 v2.0 is now the new Modern Tank Simulator ( M1 Abrams ) where you can act and react several times all in a quick 60 sec turn...Wow !
Joe
-
I wonder if slightly raising the elevation of major areas in the editor work ( Buildings, Villages, etc ). This might allow you for example, to shoot over a Corn Field into the Building, Village, etc. Maybe a work around...Dunno.
Joe
-
This is true, but I think BFC has 2nd guessed themselves due to community input ( Forums ), instead of keeping true to their initial decision. Afterall, they did say that MG's ( auto weapons in general ) was a complex issue to work with in the CMx2 Engine.
I think making a Patch to fix Bugs, changing the UI, or improving game mechanics in general is one thing, but to make one that changes how the game is played, is another.
Guess, I may as well give the latest CM:FI a try first, and compare it to the old...Can always go back to the old patch ( v1.10 ) if necessary.
I also noticed BFC didn't make a CM:BN v1.12 patch like they did for CM:FI...I guess the 1.0 Engine will soon be halted in favor of the 2.0 Engine.
-
I think both MG's and SMG's ( along with pistol fire ) in the Demos are already fairly potent.
Ofcourse, this is against the Computer AI which runs down the road or open terrain half the time, and get cut down accordinly.
And, since BFC increased the MG's effectiveness in there more recent patches, then I think it may be to much ( they had it right the first time ).
I think an increase in Suppression, and a downgrade in Moral & Motivation levels will help bring the casualty rates down to where they should be.
I may have to get the patch that came out right before the MG increase ( think it's v1.10 ), but unfortunately, I will loose all the other benefits from all the patches ( Bug & TOE fixes, etc ), along with opponents ( since they will be fully patched most likely ).
I guess it may be me against the AI then.
-
What patch is the CM:FI Demo ? It does seem the Small Arms MG fire is alittle more aggressive then that from CM:BN Demo ( but could just be the placebo effect after reading changes to the small arms/mg effectivness in a previous game patch ).
I have been playing both Demos for past few months and decided it was time to purchase the CM:FI & CM:GL bundle ( will purchase the CM:BN series at a later date ), and after installation patch it to v1.12.
Any info would be appreciated.
Joe
-
Hello Waltero,
I sent you Combat Mission: CMBB & CMAK Files a few days ago, but haven't heard back from you yet...Let me know if still interested.
Joe
-
Then, I would hear back from you saying, "You will shoot your eye out, kid" :-(
-
No need to drool...Lets play CMAK, up to 1000 point QB's ( or similar size Scenarios ), Combined Arms, Village w/moderate Trees & Hills, Random Date & Weather, PBEM or TCP games :-)
Joe
-
I only play AXIS in CMBB ( don't care for playing Ruskies much ), but play either AXIS or ALLIES in CMAK.
I will send over a CMAK-Italy, 1000 point Combined Arms, Meeting ( I will play ALLIES ), Village w/Moderate Trees, Random Weather, by end of week.
Joe
-
Hello Waltero,
I can play CMBB & CMAK on a consistant basis, usually PBEM but also TCIP at times.
Lets do a few standard 1000 point, Combined Arms, Meeting Engagements first, before moving to Probes/Attack...I play AXIS only in BB, but either AXIS or ALLIES in AK.
I tried to send you an email, but system said you are not accepting.
Joe
-
That's Ok guys, I don't mind stuffing either end of that Turkey :-O
-
No Problem, Erwin, just let me know if and when you are ready to game.
Thanx again...
-
Erwin,
Let me know if interested in playing either CMBB or CMAK as I could use another opponent ( only playing aginst one at the moment ).
If so, I generally prefer smaller games no bigger then 1000 points, Combined Arms, QBs or Scenarios, I only play AXIS in BB but AXIS or ALLIES in AK. I can play either PBEM ( 1-2 turns a day ) or TCP/IP ( couple nights a week ).
Joe
-
Quote:
"Experience has shown that any historical information transmitted in a fun and role-playing form is seen as an unquestionable truth in a child's eyes. Thus, the child is often instilled with false truths. For example, young fans of the movie Pearl Harbor believe that the war was won by the Americans."
Well, it was WON by the Americans :-)
-
*Bump*
Need Opponents for both BB & AK, 1000 point QBs ( or Scenarios ), Combined Arms, Meeting Engagements ( or Probes, Attack/Defense ).
Thanx, Joe
-
JK,
Yeah, I'm still playing around with both the CM:BN & CM:FI Demos ( few months so far ) before I decide on purchasing the full versions.
Still trying to figure out how to keep the casualties down to acceptable levels. For starters, I will ( when I purchase the Game ) probably go with others suggestions and use Green Troops ( with and w/out bounes ) in place of Regs or Vets. I will use this along with other ideas & suggestions to a level im most happy with.
Well, I did play two games with Whiskeypapa, and it was like playing a kid who complained about every aspect of the game. Needless to say, we don't play each other anymore.
JM
-
Well, Iv'e played the CM:BN & CM:FI Demos for several months now ( played BB & AK for yrs ), and will eventually get the full CD versions @ 2.0 ( along with the rest of the WWII CMx2 series as they appear ). Like others, I also want to try and play CM as realistically as possible.
I think we can all agree for the most part that there are really two types of Levels in play here that cause casualties to vary in RL.
-Static: Troops on a broader front slowely grinding away to reach an overall objective. This will generallly cause lower casutalites, say up to 10%, but over a longer period of time ( weeks ).
-Breakthrough: Troops on a Narrow front attempting a quick breakthrough. This will generally cause higher casualties, say up to 25% and at a shorter amount of time ( hours, Days ). Also, if an attempted breakthrough is successful ( attacking an already weak enemy position ), then it will cause that 25% be toward the enemy more so, then upon yourself.
So, how can we translate that in CM Terms...
Well, some here simply say that the "CM Timescale is Compressed" for gameplay purposes which justifies the high casualty rates.
I for one ( like others ) want a more Realistic "Real-Time" approach to reduced casualty rates, and find myself leading towards these "Work Around" approachs mentioned by JasonC and others ( Green, Casualty Tolerences, Dynamic Flags, Exit Zones, etc ).
Now, in saying the above, I guarentee that my causualties will still be much higher then in RL, but maybe only by 2 fold...I can live with that.
As soon as I purchase CM:BN ( other titles later ) I would like to work with others in the CM Community ( Advice, House Rules, H2H PBEM Opponents, Scenario Design, etc ) who seek the same "Work Around" approach....War&Peace, this is also directed to you if interested in the above.
Joe
-
Hey Chesty,
Not into CMBO, but I know you still have old copies of CMBB & CMAK that you still like to try out again :-)
Joe
-
Interesting, So now CM:BN is June-Aug 44' ( three Months ), but CM:MG is only Sept 44' ( one month ), which means CM:Bulge will then have to be from Oct 44'-May 45' ( longest timeframe differences of the three modules ).
However, I thought that CM:MG might cover upto to WestWall making it Sept-Nov 44'...Maybe Not ? or is Battlefront going to add another Module in between...Making it: CM:BN, CM:MG, CM:Westwall, CM:Bulge ?
Joe
-
Rocket,
Just stick with small Scenarios like I do...Platoon up to Reinforced Company in size ( actually the later is already big enough as far as I'm concerned ).
Joe
Some help required.
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Unfortunately, Casualties in CM:BN/FI are far higher then they were in RL...One Hour of causualties in CM equals about a whole days fighting for the same unit.
Joe