GSX
-
Posts
938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by GSX
-
-
That's a misinterpetation of the reason why they're not in the game. It would've been easy to do tank riding VERY BADLY in the game, but there's a laundry list of inter-related behaviors (for both tank and infantry) that have to be worked out first before they're in the game successfully. Luckily, in Normandy tank riding was tactically insignificant so there was no pressure to do a rush hack job of it.
While I agree with almost all of your post I would add that the phrase rush job doesn't sit well as this game has been in development for at least 3 years. Other fish to fry maybe, but surely not a rush job.
-
I thought there was o friendly fire from small arms or target light? Has this changed from CMSF?
-
Without question, I have seen shots being bracketed in the game. Range and crew quality and morale state may be factors. You may be happier with this aspect when you get the full game.
Yes, I think you may be right. Remember, I'm not arguing that Panthers shouldn't kill at these ranges I'm simply reporting what I'm seeing in my games. Also, no one should be closing with the enemy in a Panther unless they really have to the key to using them is their range.
That said, I always believed that the point of the Demo was to sell the game, not to ask me to buy the game first and tell me I will see it's OK then.
I'm buying it anyway........ So no worries in that department.
-
I think its fair to say this IS working, if the tanks are closer there are way more frist round hits (less than 400 m) if the tanks are far apart (more than 800m) you will see some bracketing where the rounds fall short or fire over the top of the target and fall long, this is realistic and as an aspect of the simulation of WWII tank gunnery I think the accuracy changing depending on range is working quite well in the game. IMO
I thinks its honestly fair to say that this IS NOT working as there is no bracketing. I have just dont the thing again as German and my Panthers never missed the target, either buttoned or unbuttoned. Same thing happened. Sherman crests rise, Panther turns, shoots and hits 1st time.
M10 runs right to left, panther (buttoned) turns about 40 degrees, shoots, hits 1st time.
Range, between 750 and 850 meters.
I reiterate for the last time, there is no bracketing, its CMSF robot shooting Im seeing.
It simply means that if playing the AI all you need to do is wait.
Try this, play Germans in WEGO in this scenario. Hide all of your forces except the spotter team. When the game starts Fast Forward until the Panthers arrive. Move only 1 Panther up to the hill where the spotter is but keep it close to the trees and slightly back, not hull down though. Simply wait for Allied Armour to start popping up. I have yet to see a 1st shot miss. Last time Panther hit at 824 Meters 1st shot.
-
@GSX: i cannot see the problem why a tank shoulnd be able to: spot a enemy target at 800m (even if the tank isnt facing the target) and instantly slew in the target direction and start fire. at least if the commander looks out of the turret. its a matter of 2-3 seconds: commander spots the enemy with his binoculars, gives the location to the gunner, the gunner aims at the target and fires...
once again, maybe Im not making myself clear or explaining what Im seeing too well.
I dont have a particular problem with spotting something that is head on or within the frontal hemisphere, of course I agree that vehicles should be able to spot each other at those ranges. Armour is a big thing after all.
What Im seeing though is instant spotting, then turning to engage AND hitting 1st time, every time.
Ive never fired or crewed a ww2 Panther but I would be very much astounded if a real life Panther could do this every time.
So to be clear. Im not arguing about the accuracy of a Panther to hit a stationery spotted target at 800 meters.
I am commenting about the results I see when a Panther (or M-10) can instantly spot a vehicle over 800 meters, and hit it first time, every time. And worse still, even when the target is moving, or has appeared up to 90 degrees from the front. As has been mentioned earlier, it just feels robotic and CMSF like.
Anyone can play this Hotseat and see it for themselves I suppose.
-
Please keep in mind that the panther crews in this scenario are "veterans". Think the situation differs much if it is an unexperienced crew. But we will see when the game is released. also i dont know if it helps but i have posted a link in the first impressions sections about the accuracy of a tiger I tank in training and combat situations and this link states that the accuracy at up to 1000m is allmost 100 %.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm
For the panther tank: please keep in mind that a distance of 800 m is normally no problem for a tank like the panther at least for an experienced crew. these kind of tanks were designed to kill targets accurately at 2000m + as far as i know.
Again, let me start by saying I fully appreciate that Panthers can kill a Sherman at over 800 meters and I have absolutely no gripe about it. But heres my experience so far.
Playing as Germans on 'Closing the Gap'
Panthers sit on top of the German starting hill. Sherman hoves into view. Panther immediately engages and hits first time. It doesnt matter if the Panther is directly facing the Sherman or not. If it isnt, the Panther immediately slews through up to 90 degrees and fires a 1st Shot hit (in 90% of the engagements it also kills).
I have now played from the German side about 8 times and every time is the same, with exceptions below. As long as the Panther can see the middle of an enemy vehicle it hits it first time.
The exception to this seems to be hull down vehicles. In this case the Panther seems to miss low at about the point where the centre of the Sherman is. It will do this a couple of times and then finally hit.
Now, on the other hand, if I play the US side and hunt my M-10 into the trees they also get 1st shot hits at over 800 meters. Although they arent killing the Panthers (and I wouldnt really expect them to) but easily kill the Marders.
My conclusion is that something is wrong with the gunnery itself. Its either dialled up too far for crew experience or something else is affecting it. The range alone is cause for a raised eyebrow (only in the respect of immediate sighting and firing not the ability of the gun to kill), but when coupled with a moving target which is offset by a lot of degrees then it causes both my eyebrows to raise. Its not a game breaker or anything but it just feels wrong.
-
Children be calm. The BF website says in a few days. A few days is less than a week but more than a couple of days so a few days is more than 2 but less than 7.
So it will be here soon........
-
Try moving an AT gun, strongest man in the world as he proceeds to not only carry the gun on his own but throw it around all over the place!
-
I have already noted this effect too. I've consistently had Panthers get a first shot hit over 800 meters in unusual circumstances.
One particular one was straight from CMSF as the Panther turned through about 50 degrees to get a 1st shot hit on a moving Sherman.
Another Panther took 2 hits almost simultaneously and returned fire within 5 seconds for another 1 shot kill.
Sherman and M10 accuracy has been the same but they aren't killing the Panthers but have no trouble with the Marders. This shows me that there seems to be no trouble with the armour representation.
So I would echo the original poster in his point and add mine.
Armour just seems too accurate in specific circumstances and seems to recover, or shrug off hits far too quickly.
-
You can't let infantry ride tanks in the game.
While it was done IRL, the soldiers would dismount before the actual battle... unless they're Soviet.
In addition to the questionable historical use, it would present the game with a lot of problems. Like, what happens if the tank fires it's maingun? Can it fire it's maingun? Will the infantry automatically dismount once under fire? Etc.
While I fully appreciate that its not in the game for the excellent reasons you state, infantry did ride on tanks in Western Europe, even into battle. I cant find a specific quote right now (at work) but the Irish Guards certainly started out Operation Market Garden riding on their tanks and went into combat on them, several being killed in the process.
So it was done at times. However, the game of CM doesnt specifically need them in my opinion.
-
I'd say tank gunnery (including survivability) was the aspect of CM:BN that was hammered on more than anything else during testing. In fact, just last week we had a 300 post discussion about when crews should bail out based on damage sustained.
People have to remember that a good crew, decent LOS, should produce a hit first shot almost all the time when ranges are under 400m or so. Whether it is a Sherman 75 or a Panther, there should be an extremely small chance of a miss at such ranges. When you extend out from there things change dramatically.
We've done just about every test range scenario you can think of to double check where things are at. Are they perfect the way they are now? Eh... I hate that word so I'd say "no". Are there any significant problems with this stuff at the moment? No, I think we've proven that things are pretty damned good actually.
Steve
I appreciate this and agree that these guns can kill at these ranges. What I do find strange is the ability of the Panthers to be buttoned up but spot a target moving over 800 meters away from almost 90 degrees, immediately turn, fire 1 shot and hit the fast moving target. Once maybe, but to do it consistently just feels wrong and very CMSF like.
-
Firstly, let me congratulate BF for a very enjoyable game so far. The presentation of CMBN is excellent and has moved the engine further on from CMSF while still retaining the feel of that game. Im liking the graphics and as promised the look of Normandy has been great. I also really like the way the UI looks and has progressed from CMA.
While enjoying the Demo scenarios I have noticed a couple of things:
1.1. I had a Sherman engaged by a half squad of Germans who threw a total of 2 grenades at it. The first grenade caused them to be immobilised. The second to bail out, killing the Tank.
I havent tried to re-create this again yet but hopefully will over the coming weekend.
My question about this is simple. Either grenades are possibly being overmodelled or, as with CMx1 games, throwing a grenade is being used as an abstract for an infantryman close assualting. This may have worked in CMx1, but does not work in 1-1. I dont think 2 'Stick Grenades' should cause a Sherman to be destroyed.
1.2 Another weird thing is that the Sherman crew Bailed and proceeded to kill 3 out of the 5 German soldiers to their front and take the other 2 prisoner (loosing all but 1 crewman in the fire-fight). They all had pistols and the Germans had 4 x Rifle and 1 x SMG. Shouldnt the bailed out crew take some sort of 'hit' for having just bailed out of a destroyed tank?
2. Playing the closing the gap scenario (from both sides), seems to keep getting 1st shot hits at fairly long ranges, even on moving vehicles. Both US and German vehicles seem to get 1st shot hits at over 800m. I fully realise that for the vehicles involved that they should be able to kill an enemy at that range (possibly with the exception of killing the Panthers from the front) but the vehicles seem to be targetting like CMSF MBTs.
I am fully aware that there are many variables in tank gunnery but I would have thought that in most instances the 1st shot wouldnt hit at these ranges, especially on a moving target. However, I stand to be corrected.
As I said, so far though, Im really enjoying the game and more than looking forward to the full version when it arrives.
Cheers and well done to all involved.
-
hehe...they're like that in CMSF too....
Yes, I have played cmsf from the start and actually do realise this. After ten years of listening to the same voices I was expecting some new ones. It's not exactly game breaking. I take it then that these will be he final sounds.
-
They're new.
The US voices were the same as the ones in CMBO though. After 10 years of 'Take a look at that' it does get a wee bit tiresome. SO, are these the sounds that will be in game?
-
The UK is crazy. This is so bad that there should be a trade dispute filed by the United States because this is effectively a barrier to free trade.
Steve
I don't think there has ever been free trade, possibly not since the days of the empire!
Also, some UK banks also charge for an exchange rate transaction I think.
-
WW2 Halftrack were designed to provide the infantry with a degree of mobility and protection to get to the battlefield and keep up with tanks on the move.
They were not designed to ride into battle a'la' a modern IFV, indeed APC's as recent as the M-113 would only provide fairly basic cover.
They "should" stop an SMG, assault rifle and shell fragments, "might" stop a WW2 rifle round depending on range, "probably wouldn't" stop a .30Cal MMG, MG42 or Vickers gun (lots of shots and longer barrels), "certainly wouldn't" stop anything heavier than that, a .50 Cal would easily penetrate.
The other thing to keep in mind is that tripod mounted MG's firing from range land a number of rounds in a beaten zone that can come from quite a high trajectory, no top on a WW2 Half track could lead to some major dramas in the back!
I'd go along with that. Apparently in Normandy there was a real clamour for the few Kangaroos available to the Brits/Canadians due to the fact that they were much less vulnerable than the Allied H/T.
Guess we will have to wait for the next Module for that capability (if the RAM Kangaroo is in).
-
So, regardless of what day it makes it's appearance and someone's managed to download and install it, how soon do you think it's going to be before the first complaint topic gets started on these forums?
Can be any type of complaint ... bad artillery aiming, buggy gameplay, poor models, can't plays Brits?, wrong number of lugnuts on the second rear wheel of whatever model of PzIV you're nutty about, unable to install correctly, video card complaints, etc ... but will be characterized by whining and complaining that the world is now unfair and BF have no clue what they're doing, etc etc.
1. Less than 15 minutes.
2. Less than an hour.
3. BF will get at least a three hour break from dealing with us lot.
4. Within 12 hours.
5. At least a day.
6. Release? Hell, I'm planning to complain about something in the demo.
7. What? The current list of grievances we've been whining about for weeks pre-release don't count?
What say the forum members?
Lol, probably within about 15 minutes someone will arrive complaining that they cant download the game, or that its going to take 27 hours.
Then possibly there will be guys asking where their hard-goods are as they cant download the game.
Of course, it all depends on what YOU view as a complaint and someone else views as a legitimate problem in the game.
For instance I could say 'I hate this game, it sucks because there's no SS'. Wouldn't be legitimate in my eyes as I already know that there's no SS and Id just be whining.
If however I said, 'Ive noticed that Panzerschreks always get a first shot kill from 350 meters', that would be pointing out a design flaw and not necessarily a complaint.
What Im more interested in is the reaction to the legitimate rather than the whining.
Cheers
-
It's exactly what you said: when the possibility of blowing the bridge wasn't part of the scenario designer's consideration, and where it obviously renders the game moot. IE suppose that if you think of it quickly enough you can blow all the attackers option to enter your space completely. 3 turns later ... now what does the attacker do?
It's actually not so much "gamey" as poor scenario design, I guess
I was thinking that too. What if you had to attack over the only bridge to have a chance of winning the scenario and your opponent dropped the bridge?
I suppose it would come down to bad scenario design.
-
Absolutely no idea since that module is what the best part of 8 - 12 months away.
Surely BF can get back on track with the original module concept of 6 months?
If not, then at the historical rate of modules we may never see a full Eastern Front game in our lifetime?
Whatever happened to a Year a Game and Module every 6 months????
-
Magpie, you are forgetting that the Market-Garden module will advance the timeline, this means potential new TO&E and equipment for every branch in the base game and module, on top of the new terrain set and, undoubtedly, an incredible set of well-crafted scenarios and campaigns.
As far as I'm awa there were no significant changes to US or Brit force structure between Aug and Sep except the possibility of a very few mi or vehicle changes. Certainly nothing major or significant.
-
This has already been discussed at some length in the Brits thread.
My take on it is this:
They will need to leave the Brit Airborne out of the CW Module. This means they can provide them and new terrain, buildings and flavour objects.
They can then either give the SS away again in this module, or provide new SS models.
As for other Brit armour, perhaps they can design the campaign with just airborne forces. This approach can be seen already in CMBN and makes sense to me, as if they don't add anything significant anyone can build their own MG (Market Garden) scenarios and campaigns.
In summary; save Brit Airborne, new buildings etc for MG. Give away SS formations and design it so that it does not need any other Modules to play.
-
Wasn't the release:
CMBN + Modules
Bulge + Modules
CMSF2 + modules
East Front + modules?
Wow, I will probably be dead by the last one, that's about 30 years of gaming! Have the BF team made provision for their offspring to finish the quest!
-
I don't know where they're officially getting the sounds but this game couldn't have been done without the internet. References on every last widget immediately at our fingertips, down to what 1940s French milk jugs look like. Just recently a Youtube clip of a rifle grenade being fired (BLAM!) was located for reference and the game adjusted accordingly. No need to speculate on what its supposed to sound like.
Does this mean that 'New' sounds have been sourced for everything or will I be hearing, yet again "take a look at that" from my US infantry every 5 seconds?
One of the disappointing things about CMSF was having the US stock CMBO voices all over again. The Brit module took the right approach though.
-
Just because something has been introduced in one module doesn't mean it can't be repeated in a subsequent one. For MG to work, you'd need lots of 'Commonwealth' assets that would be mandatory for the 'Commonwealth' module. If you don't need the 'Commonwealth' module to use the MG module, then, unless none of the relevant units/equipment/TOEs etc had no significant overlap with 'what went before', there will have to be some overlap in material provided.
Which is just fine with me.
I agree. I'm just going on what was said about the Module system. That using one module doesn't require you to have another one. Therefore the MG module shouldnt need anything that is in Module 1 (CW) to run it. But, seeing as there have to be Brit Airborne in it, it would be a smart and sensible move to leave these out of the CW module.
However, its BFs game and system and they can change it to whatever they fancy and so perhaps a pre-requisite for MG would be CW.
No biggie though as Im sure everyone will get every Module.
infantrymen vs tankers
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Definitely armour, the fidelity of 1-1 infantry modelling is too far away from real life yet to accurately depict either infantry formations or IA drills. As I understand it 1-1 infantry is still abstracted.
Armour in CM-2 has come along in leaps and bounds and in my opinion is the truly shining factor in CM games.