Statisoris
-
Posts
413 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Statisoris
-
-
Ok, good info, I didn't expect the Rhinos to be that easy to break down. Ill have to be more selective with their breaching use next game.
-
Hi All,
I was playing a large US Assault quick battle in heavy Bocage country yesterday and had a force of 11 tanks with 3 Rhino tanks included in the mix. I had 2 Sherman Rhino M4A3-75-W-Earlies and one Stuart Rhino M5A1-Late. During my methodical approach to the objective area, I used my Rhino tanks to breach the hedgerows along the way, so the infantry could move more directly and not run all the way around the map to find hedge gaps.
After breaching about 2 rows, my Rhino tank track damage turned yellow. After 2 more breaches the track damage turned orange and after about 3-4 more breaches both my Sherman and the Stuart tracks broke down and they were Immobilized. Just FYI, I was being really careful with the tanks, driving them in "slow" through the bocage, not plowing through in "fast" or anything crazy. The other Sherman was pretty bad off and was creeping around the map due to its heavy track damage. I stopped using the last Sherman Rhino for breaching to avoid losing it to Immobilization. This all happened within about 15 minutes of starting the assault and I had only advanced about 40% of the way to the objective. Good thing I had a HQ Recon Platoon with some breaching charges to help out the infantry. The tanks had to take the direct approach and ended up in a head to head duel with Panthers, Stugs and a Marder guarding the main approach .
Do you all think this has been modeled correctly? Did the Rhino tanks historically break down really fast after busting through a couple hedgerows? I could understand an instantaneous/random thrown track, but not this cummulative thing. Maybe it was done in the cummulative fashion for some game balance/ease of gameplay reason.
I found this older thread on the forums about this issue, it seems others have encountered it also. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97174&page=2
-
More on map artillery that can be used as such. Right now the 75mm and 150mm german infantry guns are the only non-mortar, on map, full spottable artillery I've seen. Why can't Priests, 88s and others be used like this, are maps too close scale & range for the higher velocity arty? Want to set up a battery of pack howitzers on map and play with them.
-
Would be cool to still be able to see all the damaged systems and stuff on knocked out/destroyed/abandoned vehicles in the after action battlefield review. I want to see what damage my 75mm shermans were able to do in those 20 hits on that Tiger I before the crew bailed. At present all that info is blacked out if there is no longer a crew manning the vehicle after the battle ends.
-
A quick supplementary question for info please-----In "Quick Battles" in Bocage in July have you witnessed the AI as U.S employing Rhinos in their OOB ?
Thanks
Yes Pcelt, a few days ago I played a July 1944 quick battle in bocage country as a German defender against a mixed forces US assault. I set the US Army to auto pick its units. When I played the battle, a couple of the US Shermans were of the Rhino variant and they proceeded to ruin some of my well laid defensive plans by busting trough the tall bocage at unexpected points around the map.
-
I think I read somewhere in the game manual that they are only available in July.
-
Michael, wasn't sure on the exact historical supply situation. Thought that they might get a lot of. Tungsten rounds stocked up when staging for major attacks where lots of Panthers and maybe Tigers might be expected or something.
-
It would be awesome to be able to detail tweak ammo and equipment being carried by units atleast in the scenario editor. I remember being able to do this in CMx1 games. Like being able to adjust the number of AP, HE, HC... round types carried by all platforms or being able to add a couple of Panzerfaust 30s to a otherwise useless truck in a motorized platoon. For example, you could simulate an undersupplied Panther platoon who are nearly all out of AP ammo but who have plenty of HE or simulate a US tank destroyer that just got a large shipment of Tungsten AP rounds in, or maybe a US infantry platoon that just swapped out their garandes for a couple extra Thompson or grease guns for a close quarters urban engagement. I would love so much for this deep tweaking to return in the editor.
-
I would love to see the two functions below added to defending side setup options.
Camouflage/Conceal: Defender would be assigned camo/conceal points during setup based upon defense type ie against attack, assault ... defense. Assault defender would get max points while probe defense least. Each point allows one unit to be camouflaged/concealed in its position during setup with foliage and other stuff. This would allow for more depth of gameplay in defense such as effective ambushes with large caliber AT guns and or armored vehicles such as Stugs, which you always see covered in foliage concealment in old pics.
Dig In/Fortify Position: This would be handled the same way as above with a point system based on defensive situation. It would allow individual units especially infantry to create a tougher fighting position without the need for theI current placeable "foxhole" units. In addition, once units are ordered to dig in/ fortify they can be additionally camouflaged to create a really nice concealed defensive battle position.
The dig in system idea would be sorta like CM1 handled it but more advanced and flexible.
What do you all think?
-
Oops, Steve posted while I was writing, O well
Yeah, when I play against AI, I very rarely place any units in the yellowish objective areas. At present, if the AI has any artillery in their roster, these areas get plastered 95% of the time by immediate barrages at the very start of the game. I wish there was much more variability to this start of game barrage behavior.
Maybe something like the rough crappy example below :/
Choices made for each artillery asset in inventory
Start of game barrage? = [Yes,No]
----
If = No, AI conserves artillery assets for later use, nothing happens at game start.
----
If = Yes, Will the objective area be targeted? [Yes, No]
If = Yes, The terrain objective center is chosen as the target.
If = No, the game picks a random area on the general enemy side of the map.
If = Yes, What is the mission and duration combo? [medium quick, heavy maximum...]
If = Yes, How accurate is the fire? [spot on, slightly off, way off...]
If = Yes, Will there be a mission time delay set [Yes, No]
If = No, Then the mission begins on game start in normal fassion
If = Yes, How long of a time delay? [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,..., mins]
I'm just saying, If you know for almost certain that all of your units that you just set up in that area are going to be creamed, then why would you want to place any unit that you prize in that super danger zone to get wiped out on turn 1? Because in the real world the guys didn't know they were going to be wiped out!, na, we need more variability so these artificial, self control decisions don't have to be made.
-
Hi,
I would really like to see the main gun ammo counts (0+) being carried by all ammo bearer teams. Currently the ammunition situation on the teams is hard to understand. It seems at present there are several possible ammo situations.
1) The ammo display sometimes shows that the team IS carrying X number of main gun rounds, which is great!
2) The ammo display shows nothing except for the bearer team's personal weapons ammo (7.92mm) BUT hidden main gun rounds ARE being carried. Why are the rounds not shown in inventory?
3) The ammo display shows nothing except for the bearer's personal weapon ammo (7.92mm), main guns rounds ARE NOT being carried but I don't want to move the team away from the main gun b/c there may be hidden rounds in that team somewhere.
Was wondering if there is a good reason it works like this, or if this is a bug.
Thanks,
Shane
-
Thanks for the info on these vehicles, I was just wishing hard for a new armored toy, but alas...
-
tc237, Cease and desist your trolling... not everyone has a direct intel feed from god
-
"...Used by U.S. Army Field Artillery Combat Observation Lasing Teams (COLTs) in both Heavy and Infantry Brigade Combat teams" - Textron
I think some of the variants are/will be used by the MPs, but the "Armored Knight" is a combat variant.
-
Hello all,
For a little while now I have been catching glimpses of this family of vehicles in military photos. I just found out what these were today and that they have been used since 2007 by the US Army and they just bought 229 more of them. This family of vehicles looks like it would be fun to play with in the CM:SF series of games and I was wondering if you BF guys have ever thought about adding them in.
I especially like the M1200 Armored Knight version b/c they usually come standard with a 50/40 turrent (.50cal + 40mm Grenade launcher). They all come with IED jammers, something that the US would probably bring along in a war with Syria.
Here are three informative links for you all.
[Textron Product Fact Sheets]
http://www.textronmarineandland.com/products/land/asv_armored_knight.htm
[News Clip #2]
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20090802.aspx
[News Clip #1]
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htart/articles/20070305.aspx
-
From what I've heard and seen from friends at home and people around the net, I feel that the word "Chaingun" has aquired some sort of magical "uberweapon" meaning these days. I think it must be because of how video games and popular media portray and use the word "Chaingun". Example: "The 80ft tall robot fired its 100mm chaingun at the other robot." I don't think most(99%) people could really cite an example of a real chaingun and explain roughly what makes a chaingun a chaingun.
Sorry about the minor venting, this has annoyed me for some while now.
-
/ Walks into room, looks around, is this the restroom?, noone answers, urinates on the carpet, walks out of room /
-
Sorry to dredge this old bug report from the depths, but I finally got around to playing through the Marines campaign over the last few days. I see that this bug is still around.
Recap: Every time I load a saved game (non-setup phase), the "in game time" loses about 10-11 seconds off the clock. This isn't much, but it sure begins to build up if you are doing a lot of game loading, and/or having to play a battle over many real life days.
I found this bug because I use the current in game timer as part of my save game name. Example (Semper Fi Syria M2 55 39), Marines battle number 2, 55 minutes 39 seconds.
Has anyone ever looked into this?
-
Lol, it would be so freakin awesome to see a sand crawler in CM:SF. Now, that I think of it, AT-STs and AT-ATs would make me roflmao too.
-
Hi all,
Since the Marine module news was released, I've been looking into the details of a lot of USMC equipment. Specifically, I've been reading about how the USMC Abrams differ from Army tanks.
From reading all around, I've seen it mentioned repeatedley that USMC Abrams commonly have ATGM defense systems installed, below is a snippet of some text I found on the subject.
"...M1A1's of the US Marine Corps, are equipped with a Missile Countermeasure Device that can detect and jam the guidance systems of laser-guided anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM)[1]. This device is mounted on the turret roof in front of the Loader's hatch, and can lead some people to mistake Abrams fitted with these devices for the M1A2 version, since the Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer on the latter is mounted in the same place, though the MCD is box-shaped and fixed in place as opposed to cylindrical and rotating like the CITV."
I was just wondering how widespread this detection and jamming equipment really is and if it will be modeled in the Marines Module. Also, if anyone knows, could you list the most notable differences between Army and USMC Abrams.
[ May 05, 2008, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Statisoris ]
-
Hm, cool news, thanks for the feedback Steve.
I can't wait until some extra features like this are worked into the game engine. For me, mission design is already pretty fun overall, these extra features will make CMx2 mission design that much more of a "game" in itself.
-
I was thinking about the "Placeable Trenches & Foxholes" issue and would like to propose a possible work-around I thought of. Try to read all the text to get my overall view, I know it's probably a little scatterbrained.
Preface & Ponderings:
We all know CM:SF already has the editor where you currently are able to add and remove 3-D trenches. Likewise, I'm thinking that foxholes might work like trenches, be tile based instead of free-form and be only half or a quarter of the length, thus making more of a hole-like 3D feature. Also, maybe with some various "Number of fox-holes / fox-hole layouts" tile options in the left-hand design menu.
* Now on to my main point & question *
1) In reference to the "defender placed trenches/foxholes" problem.
- Why would it not be possible for Defender to be allowed to enter a limited "Fortifications Only" version of the map editor before starting the selected battle? Here the defender could place their defenses on the scenario designer map and preview them in 3D if they want. When the defender is finished, a Temporary "Fortifications" version of the current scenario is saved to disk after which the game is played like normal. When the scenario is finished and if it was not saved, the temporary "Fortifications" version of the scenario file, would be auto deleted.
- One possible hurdle for this approach might be implementing this feature for Campaign missions, because you might have to break up the "baked" campaign file or figure out how to edit a specific mission within the "baked" campaign file. So this placeable fortifications feature might have to be sinle scenario only, which would still be cool.
- I know this method doesn't address the "hidden fortifications" problem at all, but if what I'm thinking of is possible, then it should add alot of extra replay to atleast stand alone scenarios and make alot of people happy.
- Steve, would you say what I propose might be possible, overly difficult or beyond engine capability?
- What does everyone else think?
-
On the subject of the Milan ATGM, I remember posting my concerns somewhere about that piece of equipment shortly after CM:SF was released. That's cool that they will be in the Marine module.
On a side note about Syrian ATGMS, I've read a couple intel reports and analyses on the subject of ATGM procurement and use during the recent Isreali war and all of them mentioned that Syria supplies many of the ATGMs to Hizbollah.
What I've always wondered is how much of Syria's ATGM stock has been passed on to Hizbollah and others, and is not really available to them anymore. Most of the systems Syria supplied are pretty old and I doubt they are getting any more direct replacements for those. Maybe they buy and store a big pile of ATGMS on the side just to supply their friends. Also, I wonder if the really expensive and limited supply ATGMs like the AT-14s they "loaned" out are given back to Syria later.
I want to interview an important Syrian general
-
I use to be so hardcore supportive of the CMx1 games and SM:SF and one of the main reasons for this was the awesome communication and support that BF was giving on the boards and with the fast patches. I checked the boards mulitple times every day in hopes of reading a new interesting and informative post where the devs were chiming in. Developers that are open, honest and communicative are a very rare thing these days and when I find a game that has these kinds of developers, it really goes a long way to make me a soldier for that game's cause. When the open and frequent communication with the developers breaks down, I usually see that as a very bad sign and that it is time I move on. This absolute lack of communication and zero discussion on CM:SF's internal game mechanics has alientated me, a previous BF fanatic. This strategy is not working, you are at most, losing some of your most loyal fans and at least, screwing up the image BF has conjured over all these years :mad:
:confused: . Guess I'll check back in about a year and see if this corpse has moved any. Off to play Crysis, Hellgate London, Company of Heroes, The Orange Box, Supreme Commander ............
:confused: . Guess I'll check back in about a year and see if this corpse has moved any. Off to play Crysis, Hellgate London, Company of Heroes, The Orange Box, Supreme Commander ............
Zigzag move
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Oh Gawd, bridges plain suck in their current state. The terrain is very rarely fitted to them, all funky and sharp looking and nothing wants to actually use them. I hope BF os working on them for upcomming patches.