Statisoris
-
Posts
413 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Statisoris
-
-
I also support the recommendation. I often dont see the reinforcements alert message and they sit there for 5-10 minutes until I notice them, after which I usually blurt out an expletive.
-
Not nearly as much as older all-steel armor tanks were, but it does still happen occasionally, which is why most modern tanks have spall liners to protect from spalling of the interior armor walls.Originally posted by Exel:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by birdstrike:
How susceptible are modern AFVs to spalling/flaking armor? I know there are protective layers inside the crew compartments, so is this still an issue?
Then again, I don't think any of the tanks currently in the game have spall liners, though I'm not sure about M1A2 SEP. </font>
-
Type (partial penetration, tanks) into google for an answer. Rounds dont simply go in or not go in. There are alot of factors that can determine hit effects.
I dont think you ever played the other Combat Mission games. Some of the things in the hit text there were not totally necessary, but they added to the coolness factor of the game. Without these sort of "cool text" things, hit text is gonna be pretty boring and dry in modern warfare. What do you think the hit text would look like between some M1A2s and some T-55s, or some Strykers and some T-72s, or a BMP-1 and a Bradley. In each situation, one will almost certainly annihilate the other very quickly and with no in between dammage scenarios like you had in WWII. If you keep the hit text dry and super simple, its almost worth ignoring because you can see at a glance that the target was destroyed and 1 crewman lived. You gotta make the text fun and cool in modern warfare, so that what you see is something you enjoy and look forward to reading for the cool factor of it.
-
Just felt like discussing what hit text in CM:SF might look like, so...
With the vastly different technology and crazy lethality of todays AT weapons, it would be interesting to see how hit text would be handled for modern warfare.
Since there are new armor types and countermeasures to fire, there would have to be a customized hit text for each armor type and fire countermeasure. Also, since most hits these days with AT weapons and tank guns are simply kill or no kill, more detailed and interesting text would have to be created. With a M1A2 firing on virtually any Syrian tank it would get boring with the old text system. Maybe something like these would be interesting...
M1A2 fires a SABOT round at a T-55 with reactive armor. Hit text could read:
R. Lower Hull Full Penetration, Reactive armor ineffective, Heavy dammage, Knocked Out!
Full Penetration = in one side, out the other
[systems/Equipment/Structure]
[internal/external or general]
Dammage = none, negligable, light, medium, heavy, catastrophic
RPG-7 fired at a Stryker MGS
F. Upper Hull Par. Penetration, Slat armor par. effective, Light internal dammage.
T-72 fires a SABOT round at a M1A2
F. Turrent Hit, Round Stuck, Negligable External Dammage
It would be cool to have things like "Round Stuck" (Round burried itself into the armor and stuck there), to make an M1A2/M1A1 getting hit less boring. It would good for immersion to know that the 3rd M1A2 in 2nd Platoon, has 2 SABOT rounds stuck in its front armor.
I guess the heavy rapid fire weapons like on the Bradley, BMP-2, Auto Grenade Launchers and maybe HMGs, would have to be handled in the CMx1 sytle, with text appearing at close timed intervals as the rounds strike.
Even if a vehicle or bunker were completley destroyed when hit, the hit text should be fun and read out some interesting facts that would make the kill more satisfying than seeing Knocked Out! or just Penetration!.
has anyone else dreamed up their own system of hit text for SM:SF?
[ October 08, 2007, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Statisoris ]
-
Yep, aquiring the AT-4s is a little buggy at the moment.
-
How advanced is our (US) reactive armor compared to Russian stuff?
-
I also saw it in the second mission in the campaign. In the briefing, it specifically says you will be getting some AT support. In the game you get the message that group 2 and AT support has arrived. 2nd Platoon is there but there are no ATGM Strykers and no other artillery/air support that could be considered anti-tank assets. BF, you all have any comment on this stuff, seems to be a common problem with stock scenarios.
-
I'm sure with the integrated and computerized CC2 that the US has these days, a box would not be any more trouble than a circle. It would probably be easier. All you would have to do as a forward observer would be to call in one "line" fire mission and tell them to adjust fire however many meters forward or back from the line to cover the desired box area. It would be just like "walking" artillery barrages except that the area to be "walked" would be bombarded all at one time.
-
From playing CM:SF and using the artillery for a while now, I've noticed the need for one more artillery area fire plan, the "Box".
An artillery "Box" plan should be implemented sometime as a new way to call in area fire. It would simply be a two point click like circle area fire, one click would put on rectangle corner and the other would put down the opposite diagonal corner.
I've ran into many different situations where a box would have been much better than the circle for laying down effective area fire. Many times when trying to lay down the most efficient fire, the circle tends to cover too much "waste of artillery" ground. A box would help us to use our artillery more efficiently. Sometimes you are trying to bombard something with good length and depth, such as a trench system. Trying to call on one fire mission on this long and thick target area would be a massive waste of rounds with the circle and a line would not be effective. This is one situation where a box would be great.
Does anynone think a "Box" area fire plan for artillery would be useful in your battles?
-
Alright, do you know if any changes will be made in how armor reacts to different threat types?
-
I just started playing the campaign over again since applying the 1.04 patch and have noticed two annoying facing problems still present in the game
I noticed the problem a lot when playing the first mission in the campaign, specifically when using my M1A1 platoon to break throught the berm at the highway. I send them to the highway and set their facing down the highway and to the right of the base where most of the static tanks are.
What usually happens is .... Tanks follow initial orders well and set up desired facing. Then the problems begin. The M1A1s begin to engage opportunity and designated targets, all while correctly following your preset orders. Their facing does change a little in response to threat directions and such, but nothing too annoying or unnatural, but here is when the real problem comes about.
After the M1A1s and the MGS backup have engaged some targets, the M1A1s tend to randomly turn their turrent 180 degrees toward their rear and begin rotating their hull around too. Their is absolutley no threat in that direction [but often there are friendlies firing at targets from behind the rotating tank, dont know if this is a factor or related], so I'm wondering why the heck they are doing this. I say no problem and try to order them to STOP immediatley and/or give them a correct facing order. Then the next problem shows up. While doing their happy 180 spin they do not respond to the stop request at all and dont respond to new orders until they have turned almost completley around exposing their rears to the enemy.
My recommendations/wishes, if the core problem of vehicles making these illogical 180's cannot be fixed at present or at all, please allow the stop command to immediatley halt all automatic as well as ordered vehicle movement and facing actions. Also, secondarily, when the vehicles is acting under "auto A.I. reaction", please allow any facing or movement orders to immediatley override any A.I. auto movement (unless the vehicle is reacting to a dire threat or is shocked/suppresed in some way).
Kind of as a secondary recommendation, I would like to discuss the matter of vehicle auto-facing toward light threats with no serious AT or armor piercing threat. This is especially annoying when commanding armor. A scenario might go like this.... You order an M1A1 to a point with an ordered facing for good reason, T-72s are known to be in that direciton and could appear at any moment. Your M1A1 sees at 90* a UAZ, HMG, Infantry beyond AT range or any other really harmless threat and turns its hull 90* to face the totally harmless threat. This should not happen unless faced with a somewhat valid AT threat such as infantry within AT range, a BMP or recoiless rifle. The only thing that should be happening when the light targets are spotted is that the turrent onlly or commanderss M2 HMG should turn and engage.
How prevalent has this "illogical" vehicle auto facing been for everyone else after 1.04 was released? What are all of your thoughts on these issues, do you agree with the above recommendations and has it caused any of you great unhappiness and gnashing of teeth, as with myself?
-
Since we are highlighting this issue, I was wondering....
What is the the AT specialist designed to do differently with a Javelin or AT-4 than would a non AT specialist as it is now. Does the specialist have quicker and more accurate reactions to AT tasks (reloading, aquiring a valid target, aiming, firing ...), or is it simply a title with no under the hood bonuses? Could someone with real knowledge on this chime in.
-
This was listed in the 1.04 Notes
* Antitank specialist is more likely to be the man who picks up an
antitank weapon (say, when unloading a Javelin from a Stryker).
I'm not seeing any improvement in this, I tried as many squad types and split teams as I could, but nothing seems to ever get the AT specialist to aquire the Javelin. Seems strange that it never works for me when its suppose to happen most of the time now.
-
From playing some scenarios I designed specifically for testing the game, it seems a great improvment. I've noticed a few things that were not listed in the 1.04 notes that have been improved. I was just playing some Bradleys vs BMP1s and the BMP1s fired their smoke in a much more effective and helpful way.
Has anyone noticed if the MG deploy bug is fixed?
-
All systems are now functioning within normal parameters.
-
Just wanted to let you know that on the downloads/patch page, the link to the full 1.04 patch notes is taking me to the 1.03 patch notes. Just a heads up
-
WOOT! The Precious comes
-
Abbott, I've always thought about doing something with a school bus, there is so much room with those seats out, you could really turn one of those into whatever you want. I think I'll build a battle bus for whent he aliens/zombies invade.
-
I'm in a bad mood now, off to play some more Company of Heroes
-
Maybe with our combined telapathic powers we can will the patch into existance. Everyone center your Chi, focus your mind and reach out with the force.
-
Will we get the patch for this weekend?
-
-
I LIKE PATCH !
-
Those modules sound like World War III enemies. I often ponder what chain of events might trigger a third world war and which side nations would take if any. If these nations, barring Syria, ever do skirmish I hope they all keep their fingers off the nuke buttons and keep it conventional. The way things are developing these days, we probably are on our way into another cold war with both Russia and China at the same time. Sorry about going off track a little, I cant resist a chance to think hypothetically.
BUG: Save Game Loading - Time Loss
in Combat Mission: Shock Force Tech Support
Posted
Ok, think I found a new bug, didnt see it when I searched.
NOTE - I guess it might in some wierd way be an unsaid, really anoying game feature, not sure...
How I found it and recreating -
I have gotten into the habit of naming my saved campaign games after a scenario descriptor word and then the current in game time. An example for the second mission in the SF campaign. If the in game remaining time was [1:05:30] then I would name my save file for that point as "Airbase 1 05 30" or something like that.
To recreate the bug (playing on Elite)
1)start a game and let a few seconds pass
2)pause the game
3)note the current game time remaining
4)save your game
5)exit your current game to the main menu
6)load the save game file you just created
7)compare what your game-time is now and your previously noted game-time for that save game
What the bug does
If you follow the steps above to recreate the bug, you will loose 1 minute off of your previously noted game time remaining. So in my previous example, game-time would now be 1:04:30 instead of 1:05:30 at the time of save.
This can get really annoying if you have to reload your game often, you find that your time starts to run out really fast. I hope this isnt a game feature, its annoying.