SlapHappy
-
Posts
1,576 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by SlapHappy
-
-
Mike, let me explain my random thought process. I was thinking way ahead till when they do the Kursk/1943 game, which would be the second one in the Ostfront series. I was joking about it yesterday, but it really does make sense for Battlefront to work their way backward on the Western front as well ,and since the Western front will have at least a year's head start we're likely to see US Lees in a Westfront 1943 game first. Anyway it's quite premature. I imagine we'll get to the 1941 game around 2015.
Actually, that's a legitimate point. The CMX2 engine is a little over 2 years old now, and has one game and 2 modules released with another game on the way at about the 2 1/2 year mark.
That's an awful lot of games and modules still on the docket. I suppose the pace of releases will sharpen dramatically so as to complete a library of stuff based around CMSF and the WWII genre before the 5 year bell tolls. It seems hard to believe now, but this engine will become outdated just like CMX1 did as people's expectations increase over time.
And just think, we will get to hear many bemoan how awful the "new" game system is and how long for the good old days of CMX2.
-
Tyrspawn
The reason you had little success with the heavy 155 artillery barrage against the barracks building troops in the "Berm Battle" is because you were using "anti-personnel" fire which could also be more accurately called "air-burst" fire.
It's excellent for troops in the open or trenches but does little against building-borne enemies - even the heaviest of rounds. Unfortunately, if you want to preserve those buildings, you need to find another solution, because the 155's in normal fire will definitely bring those buildings down. However, you're only penalized for that if the scenario is specifically designed that way.
Also, it would have been very effective to have used some of those 155 assets in a "linear" attack pattern and anti-personnel fire on the big trenchline on the left of the map.
Very effective, indeed.
-
Actually there are two types of AT-5 missiles. The first is the Spandrel AT-5 and the other is the Spandrel AT-5B. The second is a tandem warhead.
The first has a rated penetration of 650 mm of RHA, the second is rated at 925 mm RHA. I believe the game uses the first type.
-
Here's some spoken text audio files with various accent types across US and Europe:
-
I don't work in the printing business. And I'm sure most of you on this forum do not either. But I find it hard to believe you are not aware that printing is a VOLUME business. 20 copies will never be as cheap as 200 copies or 2000 copies BY UNIT.
What Steve and Martin are trying to say is that the volume of printable items needed makes the PER UNIT price unwieldy given the printers EXPECTATIONS. You see, he's in business to make money, too.
And if BFC subsidizes this by charging a slight overhead on all purchases, including Download Only customers, guess who will be complaining next?
-
Let's put this into a little bit of perspective:
You've got EA who publishes the Madden 20xx NFL Football games. This, with minor alterations is the same game year after year (albeit with roster changes) and costs $60 US for the typical newer console. And it isn't even a relatively good football simulation, in my opinion. Yet the drones line up year after year to buy the same game over again.
Then you've got BFC who have implemented a module system to sell add-ons for one of several Base Game systems. The difference here is these games are their REAL product. They sell these games to a much smaller niche while still trying to garner some reasonable level of profit. Madden is a cash cow for EA that basically guarantees them massive profit from spewing the same crap out every year. Why? Because they have the EXCLUSIVE license to produce NFL video games. This was very critical for them around 2005 to ensure competitors like the 2K video games did not erode their market and their cash cow.
You want to talk about complacency? You think BFC has taken their customers for granted and abused their pocketbooks? Look at the giant hypocrisy example I just described above.
I was never under the impression that BFC really thought the typical customer would purchase more than one add-on per base game, anyway. But some are arguing that "we must have all the extras" but then want to negotiate that cost based on their own expectations, which are sometimes just not realistic.
I fully understand that some rely on hardgoods because of lack of broadband or simply prefer the "I can hold it in my hands" type of product. I have full 20 Mbit service, but trust me, I pay for it. And on more than a few occasions, it saves me either time or money, like when I need to download game files from Battlefront vs. postage.
And about postage...if it seems high now, just wait, I can almost guarantee it's going to get worse.
-
Unfortunately, we are not going to support Baked scenarios from Normandy on. It was a compromise solution to a much better idea which, unfortunately, required a ton of programming to accommodate. We had hoped it would be "good enough", however we have come to the conclusion that they are too clunky, too restrictive, and too infrequently used to continue supporting.
They will remain a part of CM:SF, of course.
Steve
Such a shame it couldn't have worked out better...It will be interesting to see how you solve the dilemma of having enemy AI units "acquire" things from vehicles....This new functionality will make the AI a more formidable opponent when they can utilize all their resources properly.
-
If there existed the ability to "loop" commands you could recreate that behavior using movement and pause commands.
Move forward
5 second delay
move backward
5 second delay
(loop)
Getting the time delays to allow for proper targeting could be tricky, since you can't trigger movement after firing. That would be an "event" trigger, which we don't have.
-
Ahhhh....I remember this one....with all the concealed T-90's. Very ugly.
But I also remember this is the one where I fired through a building with sabot and took out a T-90 without actually having LOS.....very cool.
-
True, but the potential of the 200 round capacity can't be so easily dismissed...probably more important to the topic than just bullet caliber. Also, the fact the M4 is 3 round burst limited, while the SAW can actually only fire full auto (no semi-auto setting) tends to suggest a certain relationship/role within the squad.
The handful of practice shoots I've seen on the available internet videos suggest a fire rate very similar to what's in the game. I guess my question is, in actual combat situations, especially within 200- meter engagement ranges, is the SAW fire output so pedestrian. I realize there a lot of factors that would weight into this in a situation by situation basis.
My guess is only a combat veteran could give an educated insight into the matter.
-
And I believe the same charges were leveled against the M-16 (not robustly constructed) during the Vietnam War, but I have never heard any complaints about the AR-15 families accuracy as an assault rifle.
-
Yes, I've done trench-defense tests that confirm that L86A2 didn't open fire until well after the SA80's had already started engagement with individual rounds fired. This seems rather counter-intuitive, since the L86A2 is a squad support weapon with marksman quality accuracy.
-
Yup. If you use assault split twice you can get 3 groups. One of them will typically be the 2 SAWs with 1-2 M4 soldiers.
-
Various websites refer to this as a base of fire or high-volume fire weapon which replaced the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) in the basic squad. What I read this to mean is that it is a high ROF weapon that can be used suppressively to give the other squad members maneuver capability.
But honestly the only difference I see is a slightly higher ROF for the SAW compared to the basic M4 or M16 in-game. In typical combat situations, is this essentially the only difference when compared to the assault rifle. I guess I was expecting a more robust delineation between the roles of these two weapon types after reading books like "House to House" and some other modern AAR accounts of actual combat. From those accounts the large magazine affords the M249 to become a real buzz-saw when the need arises - A weapon capable of laying down a tremendous amount of lead in a short amount of time. The base ROF being 750 RPM and an emergency ROF of 1000 RPM.
In-game ROF seems to be based on about 5-7 round bursts, never seeming to simulate anything approaching the "sustained fire" role that the weapon is designed for. I'm not military or ex-military. Are my expectations not in-line with real-world application of the weapons firepower?
-
I didn't know how to use IED's either so I checked the manual....and the info is there....I must have missed it all those times.
Left click on the IED and then click again anywhere on the map to set the IED for first vehicle to drive over it. Left click second time on specific vehicle to activate IED only for that target vehicle. Trigger man must be in good functional state to unleash hell.
Depending on activation device, there is a 10-20% chance the IED will malfunction.
Please note different rules apply for VBIED's.
-
Hmmmm...you're right...and the vehicle in the Mouse Trap scenario was actually a TUM WMIK and not a Jackal. The TUM WMIK also has 'optics'.
This seems to be the deciding factor. Doesn't explain why troops night vision doesn't work behind a gun shield, but it is consistent to the optics rule.
-
I'll check out the marine stuff......
-
#1 is a possibility, if you account for the problem not being replicated when the Jackals were coded. They have no problems spotting at all.......
-
Same test vs. Syrian Militia.
Two Syrian squads and a platoon HQ.
After several moments, started taking small arms fire and RPG's at about 250 meters. LMTV's no contacts whatsoever. After losing one LMTV to an RPG, I dismounted all the crews and they proceeded to cut the Syrians up with small arms fire.
This test was run at 8:30 PM game time. Once out of the vehicles, the crews were more than a match for the Syrians who couldn't get a spot.
Inside the trucks, the crews might as well have been the Hellen Keller platoon.
-
Just did a test with a platoon of LMTV's vs. a platoon of BTR's. It took several seconds for the BTR's to start spotting the LMTV's, but then they started turning them into swiss cheese. The LMTV's were totally blind....this was at ridiculously short ranges....100 meters or so.
I dismounted the crew from one of the surviving trucks and within a few moments they spotted all 4 of the BTR's. So it seems to affect the truck crews when they are mounted in the vehicles.
-
OK....turned the 'Mouse Trap' scenario into a night mission and noticed something odd.
While the Jackal was happily blazing away at spotted targets with both .50 cal and 7.62 fire almost from the start of the mission, the LMTV couldn't see squat.....not even a ? spot.
Also the Hummer 7.62 never achieved more than a couple of ? spots.
Even though enemy combatants got close enough to the LMTV to start pinging rounds off the vehicle and gun shields (subsequently giving the gunner a light wound), the LMTV remained silent without a single spot. The GUI tells me the LMTV units have night vision, so why are they totally blind? Also, why does the Jackal have such a superior spotting capability than either the Humvee 7.62 or the LMTV?
Possible bug?
-
Here is a detailed AAR for an attack on Singling. This is perfectly scaled for the Normandy game despite the fact it actually occurs in December of '44.
Excellent map of village of Singling and deployment of units at end of web page:
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/smallunit/smallunit-singling.htm#pic1
Does anyone have comparable examples for actions of this size?
-
Just got through running some tests with some heavy weapons placed in sandbagged trenches. I've noticed for some time that weapons crews like to squirm around on top of each other like hyperactive 6 year olds. It seems to happen when even minor changes are made to the weapon facing by the TAC-AI. Is this a side effect of spotting? It absolutely kills the weapon ROF when the pixel soldiers start doing this. It's usually accompanied by this weird tendency for the gun to start doing 360 degree spins.
I'm sure some of you have noticed this.
Steve, what causes this and can it be eliminated?
-
Ah, yes. Of course. Some would argue that's the whole point (different units).
But I'm not going to fight that battle...
Pull the DAMN TRIGGER!
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
No one's mentioned range.
If you successfully ambush an enemy patrol with your concealed MG at under fifty meters - are you going to fire polite 3-4 round bursts? Or are you going to lay down the lead until either the barrel melts or no one is left standing?
See, we can't simulate that right now with the fairly fixed ROF's.