SlapHappy
-
Posts
1,576 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by SlapHappy
-
-
Shouldn't you get more efficiency out of the gun when it is tripod mounted.....I don;t see it in-game.
-
No. That's a good idea. Thanks!
-
One thing I'd like to be able to do is coordinate the movement speed of my armor assets with my infantry. I've experimented with various movement types and there doesn't seem to be a way to match movement speeds between these unit types.
In Normandy it would be nice to have infantry be able to use moving armor as a small arms shield when on the attack. Currently, I can't get it to work. Has anyone had any success with this?
-
I'm just hoping there will be a plentiful supply of halftrack variants available. So many game systems weasel out with just a couple of models.
-
Now, if we were a ruthless publisher we'd have lots of revenue coming into Battlefront's coffers from our 3rd party products. But we pass through almost all of it to the developers because they deserve it since they made the products. In that sense, we're one of the dumbest publishers out there since we're purposefully not getting rich off of other people's hard work
Steve
Exhibit A: Electronic Arts
-
After a very rough test, I'm not entirely certain that setting equipment quality to poor (post-purchase) has any effect on RPG accuracy or warhead reliability.
I believe you are correct AKD. I can't substantiate that myself.
-
How much is that in Chuck E Cheese tokens?
-
Upon a second consideration of my previous post, it dawned on me that soldiers know where the doors are located on buildings and they also know where low walls are when the "hurdle" animation is triggered, so there must be some logic code that allows them to recognize these highly variable map spots.
-
And a counter-example: suppose "peeking around corners" is implemented in CM:Normandy. This should be transferable to CM:SF almost immediately, because every soldier can do it, right? No new variables for this one are necessary, just a different LOS algorithm.
Best regards,
Thomm
I'd love to see the "corner peek" capability in the game as well, but from the last 1 1/2 years of playing the game and gaining a better understanding of how the "action spot" concept works, is it really possible? How difficult is it to get soldier entities in squads to perform complex positioning within one action spot? How does the soldier know where the corner of the building is in relationship to the entire 8 x 8 meter action spot? I know from previous posts that LOS has a finer resolution than the action spot itself, so I guess it is possible IN THEORY.
-
Put another way, if some billionaire said to us "I'll give you $10,000,000 and 5 years to make the perfect tactical wargame with higher level AI controls, and I don't care if I'm the only one that buys it" we might very well be tempted to do it
I'm sure that we could produce a product that would knock people's socks off AND profit well from it. We have the inherent skills and the money would be high enough that we could hire people to keep our viable commercial work going while we catered to the rich and foolish investor 
Steve
Well, there is a certain ex-major league baseball player who could possibly meet that description, but that doesn't mean he's going to hand over $10,000,000 just to satisfy a whim.
P.S. Also, wouldn't he kinda rate a free copy or two under those circumstances?
-
Since we are talking about a historical reference for the Normandy game, will the TO&E be based around, say, specific units of a particular corps or be more generic like "44 infantry battalion"?
-
I think Cid is referring to broader "macro" commands that can be issued at the Platoon level and then are carried out by the TAC AI. He's not referring to the enemy AI.
On hindsight, it appears he might be referring to BOTH.
-
Scipio is unfortunately, correct. The supposedly truncated timeline for release of new products related to CMx2 has not seen fruition. Perhaps the development and release cycle will speed up as the engine matures, but based on the module wait times, the picture is still pretty cloudy.
Hopefully the wait will result in some very nice patching surprises like we saw in some of the other CMx2 versions. That way all CMSF customers will be faithfully rewarded and not just the customers of the new British module.
-
I'd pretty much play and enjoy any game that took the serious (ie, Battlefront) approach to it's design. People talk about the glut of WWII titles out there and forget to mention that about 90% of them suck and have little to do with truly exploring the tactical permutations of the actual event.
Most of these games are FPS and ignore even the realities of squad combat that made up the ideology of WWII combat. There are a few exceptions which give the squad a quasi-role like Brothers in Arms. This lack of squad simulation is enough to disqualify it as a serious WWII simulation in my book.
A well-made PTO tactical ground warfare game, which highlighted the differences between the Pacific and European theatres would be worth exploring, in my opinion. Would it sell well? Probably not.
-
how come most mainstream ww2 games (CMx1, COD1-3, almost all of the medal of honor games) focus on the european theatre only a handfull of games focuses on the main reason we entered the war was to get back at Japan for attacking us. Can anyone tell me why this is?
Commercial reasons....potential perceived interested is lower than ETO games. I don't think game developers believe a European audience would buy a title that didn't have relevance to the war as it was fought in Europe. Although, of course, quite a few British and Commonwealth troops were involved in fighting with the Japanese Army. Still, they may have a valid point when it comes to the potential marketing of a PTO game.
-
Well, I must say that's a very SANITARY version of what would happen to unprotected infantry mowed down a ma deuce!
Come to think of it, I probably wouldn't want to see what that would look like.
-
I've seen military documentation that states that, at the platoon level, the Rangers have 3 vs. 2 complete MGer teams in the unit. I think this is still based around the normal rifle squads having 9 men and two fire teams.
-
Troop quality DEFINITELY affects spotting capabilities. I have had elite troops almost directly next to lower quality troops who could spot enemies the others could not.
I do feel the game coding needs to be careful with this kind of implementation, however. Just because a squad has a status of regular doesn't mean it is full of extremely near-sighted guys.
Of course, it could be more of a question of do they have they experience to positively IDENTIFY what it is that they are actually seeing........ -
This is somewhat a problem caused by the current CMSF being set in a "hypothetical" theater of operations. However the capabilities of the forces themselves are not hypothetical in that we know the relative capabilities of the weapons systems and the training levels of the forces involved. So we could judge the results based on a comparison between the game players result and the actual battle outcome, except, again, the scenario itself is hypothetical. If this were not the case we could say that US forces player "lost" the scenario because his casualties were higher than actual historical results even though he may have effectively wiped out the opposing Syrians.
So the only remaining option is to artificially increase troop quality of Syrians to increase the tactical difficulty - As Cabal points out. Or use highly imbalanced numbers of Syrians vs. US to achieve scenario balance.
-
Here's an Air Force website which lists some small arms effective ranges for common modern weapons. Note that some of these differentiate between single target fire and area firing capabilities:
-
A good quote from a user's web space:
Recent actions in Afghanistan have called into question both the terminal effects and long range performance of the 5.56mm round. The issue of terminal effects will be dealt with in this article. This one addresses long range combat.
The 5.56mm is termed a "intermediate" round, which is a round that is designed for shooting at ranges of 500m or less. The design specification of the M855/SS109 did call for an effective range of 800m but we'll deal with that issue a bit later.
There are times when a Soldier may have the opportunity to fire at ranges greater than 500m. However, there is a difference between sniping at an unsuspecting foe or suppressive fire at an area and combat shooting. In Combat shooting the enemy is aware he is a target and acting accordingly.
To understand intermediate rounds, let's put them in their historical context:-
The idea of intermediate rounds (optimized for 500m or less) is usually portrayed as a German wartime concept. In actuality the contract for developement of the 7.92x33mm round was placed in 1934 and it was apparent during the First World War that shots at more than 400yds were very rare. The usual explanation you'll see for a 500m range being selected is that in most of the world visibility and terrain prevents shooting at greater ranges. Since MGs and snipers routinely shoot at greater ranges this accepted and often repeated explanation is obviously wrong!
By 1942 the German army was very familiar with alpine and desert fighting and it is very “un-Germanic” that these experiances would not have been figured into development of the intermediate rounds.
My theory is this.
It is Tactical Accuracy not visibility that is the limiting factor.
A 7.92mm or lesser bullet takes around a second to reach 600m. In that time an AWARE target can sprint 5-9m :- you don't know which direction he will take and he'll often be darting between cover. Your chance of hitting him with a single aimed shot is virtually random.
I think most shooting was less than 500m because most German riflemen knew there was little point shooting beyond this unless the foe didn't know you were there or you could fill an area of about 10m with bullets.
A couple of friends confirm this with more recent experiences:-
“DOD did the same kinds of studies for all kinds of terrain, same result/conclusions; usual infantry engagement was 300 yards or less (didn't matter what you were armed with, typical infantry could not get hits at greater than 300m unless shooting volleys in mass or using machineguns.
I was a former USMC National Match M-14 shooter and I can testify that even then the average infantryman was not going to get hits beyond 300m.) If you are under 1000m you call company or battalion mortars or MGs or Mark 19 (full auto grenade launcher), artillery and air strikes are for better targets that are further off. The point is correct on not firing individual weapons at longer than 300m, you won't kill them and they can call fire down on you!”
The entire article with some slope charts can be found here:
-
And I've heard some grogs say that they believe 21st Panzer left even those few behind when they mobilized. I've never myself seen any sources that talk about this in any detail, however.
-
Testing at 250 meters indicated to me that M4 fire rate does tend to drop off while SAW tends to maintain ROF. But again, it's M4 REDUCING fire rate, not SAW fire rate increasing.
-
I did an observation test at ~80 meters area firing on a building. I am aware that firing rates drop off considerably at ranges that are less than ideal for the M4. Perhaps the SAW does not?
Anti-armor hand grenades
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
The two early Russian models (WWII vintage) were the RPG-40 and RPG-43. Not being especially groggy in this matter, I was surprised to find that the RPG-40 is not, in fact, a HEAT weapon at all, being simply an oversized grenade warhead probably similar to the concept behind the german stick grenade bundle. The later RPG-43 did employ the Munroe Effect and was much more effective than the earlier model.
In fact there are several WWII vintage hand-held weapons which attempted to address the problem of infantry vs. tank combat, with varying degrees of success. Especially a number of rifle launched grenade systems which saw spotty usage. The Wehrmacht even had a flare-like pistol that fired an anti-tank grenade.
http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust8.htm#sp
Most of these ideas were early war 41-42 and were largely abandoned by the time the earliest faust weapons came on the scene.