SlapHappy
-
Posts
1,576 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by SlapHappy
-
-
I think it has more to do with an "eyes in the back of their head" modeling system than it does with terrain. I'm not saying you should be able to walk up behind a group of enemy and tap them on the shoulder.....but there has to be some middle ground, surely.
-
They were the only RED units in the whole test.
-
Well, I'm not really referring to terrain here....although in the WWII case it could be a mitigating factor, certainly.
I'm talking about situational factors where an individual or group might be able to momentarily or continuously establish a LOS, but because of mitigating circumstances do not immediately do so.
For instance if a 3-man mortar crew is facing in the opposite direction of a half-squad that crawls over a rise directly behind them at say, fifty meters. That mortar crew is busily executing an indirect fire order to their own front. It would be very likely that the mortar crew would be totally unaware of the presence of that enemy group until they opened fire. Yet, under typical spotting circumstances in the current CMSF engine, the half-squad would be spotted the moment half a torso of one man broke the slope line.
Does that make more sense?
-
Just watching the Band of Brothers scene where they assaulted the Brecourt 105 positions and realized that the pre-maneuvering the paratroopers did prior to the assault would most likely have been impossible without being spotted in the CMSF engine - Despite the fact that most of the German troops were occupied or distracted with their fire orders.
Right now it seems like spotting is absolute even in cases where the enemies situational awareness might not be particularly high (ie., they are facing in the wrong direction, occupied with some task). I made a test situation once where a group of Syrians were occupied firing at a threat from inside a building out of some windows. From several yards behind them I moved a squad of US troops around a corner and into POTENTIAL LOS. By this I mean the building had rear-facing windows, so it was possible to spot through those. This spotting not only occurred, it occurred almost instantaneously, despite the fact the Syrians in the building were quite occupied with the threat to their front. Is this level of awareness likely? Especially when enemy movements are likely to be masked by heavy gunfire?
Keep in mind the troops moving around the corner were still some 50 meters away from the Syrians. Despite this, almost instantaneous awareness by the AI. Just doesn't seem likely to me.
-
I've learned that if it involves extra animations, it is pretty much a no-go.
Although, I would love to see it.
Maybe all this extra development time for CM:N is addressing features like that one, we'll see.
-
I know many of you don't care for the current quick battle implementation....
But for those of you who do occasionally play them....what's the largest troop concentration you've been able to create?
On huge, I was able to create a Syrian Heavy Infantry force of ~1400-1500 troops vs. 359 US Light Infantry with various Humvee support. The heaviest weapon the Syrians had in support was the 30 mm grenade launcher. The US side had 4 sections of 60 mm mortars as well.
I've had a battle with almost 1700 low-quality troops on the Syrian AI side. These battles aren't usually difficult, especially against the AI, because the low quality troops are such rubbish. I usually play these mega test games to see how the AI treats his huge infantry pool.
Unfortunately, the AI tends to create what I call "comets" with his formations. Bunching up in front with a large mass of troops creates a ball, while a tail of troops moving toward the head follow in single file. These tend to be fodder for a well placed mortar strike, with the resulting casualties and confusion rendering large chunks of the infantry AI completely useless for the rest of the game.
It's too bad the infantry can't be moved about better than it is by the AI. The ability to move in something approaching a skirmish line would be a start.
-
The Bölkow Bo 105 is an extreme NOTE attack copter. How are you going to keep it visually off the map and still maintain the authentic characteristics of how the unit is used in battle?
-
I always used CTRL + ALT + PrtScreen.
This doesn't work in Windows 7 anymore?
That sucks!
-
-
Cid:
I think you misunderstood my question.
I'm talking more like "you just emptied you're Garand at me and I'm dashing at you trying to brain you with my entrenching shovel".
That sort of thing.
-
Will squads have "ragtag" small arms assignments? For instance, will some squads have variable mixes of SMG's and rifles rather than be cookie cutter? Will we get a squad member with an occasional enemy weapon to start the scenario?
Also, are there any plans to expand the capabilities of soldiers in hand to hand combat situations? I would think that one-one soldier modeling and the decrease in overall lethality of the weapons systems, it would be more logical to be concerned about modeling what happens when troops face-off at swinging ranges.....
-
I bought it. Very well made game. Documentation sucks but I'm having a blast with it overall.
-
Nope. RKG-3 anti-tank grenades. You can see the silhouette fairly clearly in one man's hand just before they launch them.
-
These are the kinds of questions that should be being asked/explored with the big lull between releases. There might yet be some spotting/accuracy of fire issues still to be uncovered by a persistent observer of the game tendencies. The perception being offered by some that all is well in current upgraded version of the engine makes me feel a little nervous, despite the great job BFC has done with patches and improvements.
-
Using the "baked" scenario should allow you to do what you want to do with the bunker occupants, shouldn't it?
I don't know if that's something you want to do, however.
-
I thought maybe the BMP-3 was a bit tougher and more resistant to 25mm and 30mm fire than it should be, however, perhaps the above is the problem?
-
From what I have seen it is also impossible to get the AI to use "move" rate in any of the possible order sets (or "hunt" for that matter).
-
Mike
I have done this in some experimental BAKED scenarios. Use many, many waypoints and watch the movement speed. PAUSE feature is also useful here, especially if you are trying to move a column.
-
I already had a mock-up scenario to test javelin effects on buildings, so I simply added artillery support to the Blue troops.
Testing on the smallest building containing ten Syrian troops, I was able to land two single direct hits in two tests on top of the center of the roof.
No casualties of any kind (even yellow) in both cases. Testing downwards in firepower, all the way to the 60mm mortar provided the same results.
Only near proximity hits next to the building provided any significant casualties - scaling upwards as heavier munitions are used (155 mm).
-
This discussion is very similar to one conducted in a very long, informative thread from over a year ago debating the in-game modelling of explosive ordnances.
-
Hold up, wait a minute! Is your aimpoint at the ground floor a building, or the rooftop?
Something I found out a few weeks ago, aiming for the floors below the roof is the only way to get fuze delay. Otherwise, the FDC assumes you want to hit the roof and uses fuze quick/superquick. I'm pretty sure I made a post about it, but it probably got lost in the sauce.
Before:
http://i34.tinypic.com/34fb13c.jpg
After:
That's good stuff to know....
However, what if you are trying to target a block of interior buildings? How do you target the ground then?
-
I have to agree with B.F. here.
Certain limitations/assumptions about how the game engine works can definitely affect game realism based on theatre of war being simulated.
For instance, using persistent damage (or lack of) as an example:
Stalingrad?
-
Just got through reading "The March Up" about the First Marines Division invasion experience in Iraq.
In one engagement near an Iraqi urban area the author(s) describes how a lone M1 repeatedly snipes individual irregular troops near a marketplace using individual rounds and the tanks outstanding optics system. Basically using the MG as a sniper rifle at a 400 meter range.
This seemed like a fairly extreme example to me of just how deadly the detection and sighting systems are in a modern combat vehicle.
We don't see this level of accuracy/effect in CMSF for armored vehicles. In fact, I've found it's often necessary to fire several bursts at much shorter ranges to hit enemy soldiers.
Is this disparity between CMSF performance and the scenario described above for game balance purposes or are there other variables at work?
-
I believe i posted this link quite some time ago, but it pertains directly to this discussion, so I will resubmit for others consideration:
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/range.html
A quote:
"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."
Red vs. Blue balance
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
So would this be considered a BLUE victory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nasiriyah
How would the typical CMSF designer score this?