birdstrike
-
Posts
1,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by birdstrike
-
-
I don't know if that's already on the list, but
as right now in CM only the MGs can be fired without the gun, I guess it would be nice to have the additional feature in CMX2 to fire only the main gun on tanks, to save MG ammo (especially for the flexible).
-
Things to keep:
- game scale
- detailed OOBs
- easy interface
- a dedicated community
- my current computer (no killer specs just for some useless eyecandy)
Things to change:
- more detailed tracking of small arms ammunition
- ability to change rate of fire
- ammo supply
- real 3d representation of objects and vehicles (COVER!)
- I like the idea of civilian non-combat
vehicles in the game (like cars on the streets) to use for cover - just the vehicles, no people
-
I always think about it as some unexpected incident, that forced your artillery units to relocate, further back from the frontline, so they are unable to support you.
And the FO didn't disappear, but just didn't move along with the assaulting troops, after all, there's no need for an FO without artillery, right?
-
And there I thought your first one already was perfect...
-
I don't like whitewahsed that much. But if it's as good as your mods, heck, who cares. I'd pretty much use it, even if it were pink.
-
Now, finally there's something to ease my conscience when sending my men into enemy fire.Originally posted by KG_Steiner:you might lose a few guys, but its statisticly inevitable
-
AFAIK, you do get some advantages for firing from higher ground in CMAK, besides the extended LOS. Infantry behind walls, for example will get no defense bonus when fired from above, same goes for units, hiding behind small bumps, like guns or tanks in otherwise hull-down positions. Finally, firing at armored units from above will use the respective angle to calculate a possible penetration.
But there's no general advantage for firing at infantry units from higher ground. Not sure if attacking infantry will get exhausted quicker when charging uphill, though. (In desigining scenarios, one could use difficult terrain on the attacker's hillside, to simulate this.)
In CM and real terms, I think high ground is not automatically granting you an advantage over your enemy. Shooting at a lot of enemies is one thing, being shot at from a lot of enemies is another. Putting a tank or an artillery piece on top of an open hill will enable you to see quite a lot, but you're also an easy target for enemy counter-fire. Just think of air strikes or artillery barrages.
-
Oh great, all this typing for nothing?
Guess I was confused by the high number of infantry kills and then just got carried away...
Slowly getting senile...
-
The bigger, the better, I'd say.
The way I see it, if you really want to do some damage, I'd always go with the 150s or larger. 105-mm is also nice, because you get more rounds, but they sometimes seem to lack that "je ne sais quoi" of brute force, so 105-mm would be as low as I'm willing to go (provided I got enough points).
The only problem is to call in the fire mission right on time, due to the long delays.
Anything below 105-mm is fine against unprotected infantry (especially in woods), gun positions and open-topped vehicles. Mortars are especially nice against moving infantry or HT, because of their short delays.
However, anything of lower than 100-mm is a waste of points, when dealing with entrenched infantry or heavy armored vehicles (save the fact that I rarely knock out tanks with artillery fire anyway - they just won't stay still :mad: ).
Now, if only allied arty would be a little more affordable...
-
With dust clouds turned on, you can see that something's moving behind the hills.
-
With dust clouds turned on, you can see that something's moving behind the hills.
-
Never thought of this, but seems like an extremely good idea.Originally posted by YankeeDog:I would like to see some kind of firing SOP orders protocol that would allow the player to have some limited control over the level of outgoing fire from infantry units.
I second that (and anything that will improve the current ammo calculation
). -
Possibly you overlooked some of the threads her on this board, announcing new mods for CMAK.
Anyways, try here:
click me! Click Me!! I SAID CLICK MEEEE!!!!
For easy use of mods, you should try a mod manager, either MCMMM or CMMOS. Both are quite easy to use and will backup your original files.
-
Thanks for the info guys, must've missed that one completely.
I would've been going around those hedges with my shermans forever and ever.
-
Concerning the ramming:
I think I recall an incident during the liberation of Paris, when a FF Sherman rammed a German tank. (some grog might know more about this...?)
This makes me kinda wonder, how common this 'technique' of ramming to disable enemy tanks really was.
Was it just a desperate measure or did tank crews see it as an approved tactic?
-
Can anyone please confirm this? I thought that tall hedges in CMAK generally blocked vehicle movement, including late U.S. tanks. :confused:Originally posted by MikeyD:Starting July(?) '44 U.S. tanks are given an increased ability to pass through tall hedges
-
Impatient as we are, give us the serial.
BTW, are we allowed to place bets?
-
I'd say a marsupial mammal from Australia or Tasmania (lat. Macropodidae).Originally posted by KG_Steiner:what's a kangaroo?
There are about 47 different species of Kangaroos, like wallabies for example.
BTW, I think it's pretty harsh of the Germans to blow up a defenseless cuddly animal.
-
-
I hope you're right guys, would be glad to see that my old comp (which isn't that old actually) is still capable of running the next CM.
-
I fear there might be no real CPU-friendly way to get around "borg-spotting". With dozens or well over a hundred units on the battlefield, it seems unlikely that individual spotting can be implemented without system requirements skyrocketing.
Really not much I can think of to solve this.
AKAIK in RTS games this is compensated by a limited firing range of all the units - but that's something which would do more harm than good in a game like CM.
But just out of interest: can anyone remember how this was handled in the Close Combat series?
I seem to recall there also was some kind of Borg spotting wasn't there?
-
I guess this pretty much says it all:Originally posted by JasonC:In the real war, they took out things that other stuff could not deal with. A set DC has a range of 0 in real life, making 30m seem like a big asset by comparison - but in CM the ranges are the same. And in real life, SMGs would not kill men staying back from the windows of a heavy building. In CM, you can't really stay back far enough from the windows to create this effect. Similarly, in real life, flame directed at a firing slit really would take out a bunker. 20mm popguns from 400m away would not - but do in CM.
Seems the only way to effectively use FTs is to embrace the limits of the game engine and come up with appropriate tactics whereas those of us who want to use FTs the way they were used in reality quickly get frustrated, because it simply won't work this way.
Don't know, but is there any hope for an "easy fix"? Especially concerning QBs? Maybe lowering costs of FTs or adjusting movement possibilities to increase survivability? Or leave them out of infantry platoons and such in the OOBs so we can spend the points on more "useful" units?
-
Same here.
Hope this will be fixed in the next patch.
-
Or:
"Combat Mission 2: There you have it, you bitching shmocks! And don't even dare to come up with a 'What we want to see in CM3' thread!"
Ramming feature
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
A simple solution to avoid the gamey-use of a ramming command could be to have the two tanks "imobilized" after the ramming.