noob
-
Posts
1,934 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by noob
-
-
I would like to see an option to disable the LOS function of waypoints.
This would add a level of realism, and reduce the workload of the orders phase, thus speeding up PBEM games in general.
-
23 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:
Sure, aggressively rush into an ambush and get all your men killed. Be my guest.
Michael
Or, aggressively rush into a weak spot in the enemy line, catching them by surprise, and getting all your men kills
-
I think it's safe to say that Hunt, along with Move and Slow, are passive orders, and Quick, Fast and Assault, are aggressive orders. So if the move you want to make is aggressive, don't use Hunt.
-
4 hours ago, Baneman said:
This was going to be my question too - if they're close together, they may feel that the shot that hit one of them was "themselves being fired upon" - since Hunt will still be cancelled by "nearby fire" or "a miss".
I concur.
-
6 hours ago, womble said:
Did the following tanks have "?" icons for the intended victims? Depending on soft factors, that can sometimes cause them to halt.
Yes
Was the lead tank the HQ? I'm interested if the tanks reacted "as a unit" to the incoming fire. That would, indeed, be a surprise.
No
How close were the following tanks to the "track" of the projectile that hit the lead tank? They may simply have been reacting to seeing that with their own eyes and that could qualify as "fired upon" by an unseen enemy, per your manual quote.
As mentioned previously, all the cover arcs of the five tanks overlapped, so they were reacting to fire in their arc I presume. Makes sense.
Rushing enemy tanks in cover with yours over open ground isn't really a recommended tactic, though, unless you can arrange for your overwhelming numbers to all break into LOS of the enemy pretty close to simultaneously. I think in this case your tankers' reaction was probably the least bad result.
I know the pros and cons of different situations. I was way ahead in kills, so I could afford to trade tank for tank, the distance wasn't great, one enemy tank was permanently buttoned, I had a five to two advantage, and controlling the terrain was vital.
-
32 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:
Sounds like it was a combination of the Hunt command with the cover arc.
That makes sense, the cover arcs for all my tanks were overlapping, so they were all primed to react to any one of their groups contacts.
I'm just going to use "Fast" in those situations in future.Thanks for all the replies.
-
Yes, the arcs have a 300m radius, well beyond the enemy locations.
All the tanks stopped immediately the first one was hit, even though they had no LOS on the enemy tanks. -
In a game I am playing, I rushed two PzIV's in cover in a ditch with five Shermans across open terrain. All had a "hunt" order, and a cover armour arc. So, I assumed that when each of my tanks made visual contact, or was fired upon, they would stop and engage, no problem.
However, that didn't happen, when the lead tank got a sighting, and a hit, the rest just stopped outside the LOS of the enemy. So now I have to change their order to "move fast" to get them to engage, and have now lost the element of surprise.
So I checked the manual regarding "hunt".
Vehicles - orders vehicles to advance slowly and observe the battlefield for enemy
contacts. Upon spotting a threat, such as another enemy vehicle or tank,
or when fired upon (even if the enemy is not seen), the vehicle stops immediately.
There is no mention of the fact that if one of a group of vehicles is fired upon, "all" the vehicles will stop.
So why did all five tanks stop ? when only one had gained a LOS with an enemy unit, and was fired upon. There is no mention in the manual that if one of a group of vehicles is fired upon, "all" the vehicles will stop.
So please BF, either tweak "hunt" so it only applies to the spotting, and / or engaged vehicle, or bring in a "Move to Visual Contact" order, where an "individual" unit only stops when it has a visual contact with an enemy.
p.s
Jeremy Hunt is a UK politician that's been in the news lately
-
16 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:
They had binoculars in medieval times? Telescopes weren't invented until early in the 17th. century, well after the medieval period. So how did an earlier superstition originate?
Michael
I was being silly
-
It would be nice if some clever person could come up with a handicap system that would factor in all the advantages / disadvantages of each side in a given scenario, then cross reference those parameters with the actual result, to come up with a new result.
That way, one could "lose" a scenario, but still win if the "loss" wasn't as bad as it should of been.
For example, I played a scenario that was so Pro Allies that one was left with the feeling that it was impossible for the Axis to win, yet it was classed as a H2H game.
So one could have argued that if the Allies did not achieve a Total Victory, they lose.
This would dumb down the scoring system to a simple win / lose / draw factor, and that might not be to some peoples tastes, and it would certainly disqualify the games from traditional ladders. In fact, one would probably have to create a new ladder to integrate the system, a bit like a football league table, where there are only three results available.However, I think the simplifying of the results would be worth the ability to play "any" scenario as balanced though.
How about it guys, a CM Premiere League
-
There's an English superstition that goes all the way back to medieval times, that binoculars brought bad luck. It still persists today.
-
Thanks Ian.
I changed the parameters of the map in the scenario editor from Axis Attack, to Axis Assault, and now I see it in the QB map menu.
-
I have just set up a QB using a modified scenario map. I placed the map in the QB map folder, set the QB parameters to Assault, but could not find the map in the QB map list.
When I set the parameters to Attack, I could.
-
On 5/16/2016 at 4:13 PM, [MyIS] Buffpuff said:
Where else would your tongue be???
Do you really want to know
-
2 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:
how would a designer know in advance which units the player thought were useless. I mean, if the designer thought a unit was useless he wouldn't include it in the first place would he?
By useless, I meant gun damaged tanks, broken infantry, and units out of ammo.
-
12 hours ago, [MyIS] Buffpuff said:
I wouldn't go that far. My experience (thus far) in figuring out scenario design has been uneventful and the community has been very helpful. More scenario designers means more campaigns/battles and that's good for everyone involved as far as I'm concerned. Hopefully one of these days (hint hint) Chris (Battlefront Guru/Developer) will do some Twitch streams on scenario design!
My tongue was firmly in my cheek when making this statement, as the emoticon shows
-
13 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:
So in other words, you don't want any scenario designers for any of the various releases (every forum) to use any casualty VPs other than parameters for every scenario all designers make so that you can have an exit zone in every single scenario for both sides even for scenarios that don't have any 'useless' units in them. Alright, your suggestion has been noted. Now that everyone who makes scenarios has their marching orders from you should we all respond in every forum or will just this one do?
No, when I first made my request, I didn't know what the consequences would be for "certain" types of battle parameters. Once I was educated as to those consequences by JonS, I re assessed the situation, and modified my request.
However, I have come to realise that encroaching into the territory of experienced designers is a dangerous game for the uninitiated, so I think I will tweak any scenarios I play myself, based on the knowledge I have acquired creating this topic -
8 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:
Of course if points aren't awarded for kills or damage then the entire purpose of creating the exit zone in the first place is defeated since exiting things that give no points is a pointless exercise is it not?
Not if it's a "Casualty" parameter. For example, in a recent game I played with an exit zone, I was rewarded 500 points for exiting with less than 25% casualties.
As for scenarios with just terrain objectives, the exit zone would be purely for the purpose of clearing the battlefield of useless units. For example, I played a game where I had a lot of unarmed transport vehicles, and they were only going be used once. That meant that once they had completed their mission, they had to be hidden in cover that I wanted to use during the rest of the battle. They took up space, and were easier to spot than prone troops, thus potentially drawing unwanted attention from enemy units, that otherwise would of been ignorant of my presence.
-
2 hours ago, peter thomas said:
So why is it a terrible idea, JonS?
A scenario that rewards specific point values for damaging / destroying specific enemy units, and, has an exit zone present, will count any friendly "bounty" units that do not exit the map at the end of the battle as kill points for the enemy.
The only way to use exit zones without distorting the point system, is to use it in conjunction with scenarios that only count objectives occupied / touched, and, or percentages of casualties sustained / inflicted. -
5 hours ago, JonS said:
No.
Once you figure out how exit zones work, you'll understand why this is a terrible idea.
I checked the manual, and yes, it's a terrible idea if there are points rewarded for unit kills / damage. For any other scoring system, i'm assuming an exit zone would be fine.
However, I should of checked the manual first before saying anything, my bad. -
1 hour ago, LukeFF said:
Dude, quit posting this topic in multiple forums.
I needed to make sure scenario designers for all the various versions of CMx2 got my request.
However, I was unaware that CMSF did not cater for exit zones. -
Could anyone designing a scenario create exit zones for either side in the relevant places, this will avoid the trapping of ineffective units on the map, and possibly contributing to the opponents score.
-
Could anyone designing a scenario create exit zones for either side in the relevant places, this will avoid the trapping of ineffective units on the map, and possibly contributing to the opponents score.
-
Could anyone designing a scenario create exit zones for either side in the relevant places, this will avoid the trapping of ineffective units on the map, and possibly contributing to the opponents score.
Option to disable the waypoint LOS tool
in Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
Posted · Edited by noob
The cherry on the "Titanium play mode" cake would of course be a ground level unit camera lock, thus bringing high ground and multi storey buildings more into play, and adding a new level of immersion to the combat, and a new level of tension to scouting with vehicles.