zmoney
-
Posts
688 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by zmoney
-
-
Hey friends, just notice that the German paras mortar plt leaders don’t have radios either, in the third mission of their CMFI/GL campaign.
-
On 8/17/2019 at 7:46 PM, General Liederkranz said:
In CMBN and CMFB the weapons platoon leader does have a radio, and so does his top sergeant in the HQ support team. This may represent an improved TO&E in 1944-45 compared to the 1943 version in CMFI. The weapons platoon organization changed significantly from 1943 to 1944 so it's possible that the army agreed the old organization made it too cumbersome to use the mortars. In any case I believe the SCR-536 handheld radios were issued at the company level, so the game programming must be making some guesses about how they'd be allocated to platoons.
I seem to recall that in some previous version of CMFI, maybe 3.0, the 4th platoon leader *did* have a radio, and that this changed in 4.0, but I don't know if this is deliberate and I may be remembering wrong.
I was wondering if this was something that the US Army made an improvement to later in the war. Thanks for the reply boys, was wondering if anyone noticed this before and to confirm, I am seeing this in the Triona campaign.
-
I notice that the US weapons platoon leader (4th plt) does not have a radio. Whereas the other rifle squad leaders do. Is this a bug or historical? It is kind of a pain either way because he is in charge of the motor section and they cannot be used by the FO without radio com’s.
-
56 minutes ago, Warts 'n' all said:
You might want to reread that page. It doesn't include the phrase "commonwealth campaign". It says that the Commonwealth side are represented in "stunning detail". Sadly, in regards to "Husky," that is confined to stand alone battles, and the Fallschirmjager campaign where you are playing against the British.
Dang it, I was hoping that was not the case. Thanks for the clarification.
-
It says in the GL description (on the homepage) that a commonwealth campaign was included for their side of operation Husky. Was it not included after all or am I totally blind and just overlooked it.
-
Hmmm it would appear the save file is too large to upload. I can email it upon request.
-
I witnessed something truly amazing. I had a Stuart closing with the enemy, knee deep in canister shot, when all the sudden it transported itself twice. Only a few feet both times. I was wondering if anyone else has witnessed this Stuart transporter defensive device or is it possibly a little bug?
I will upload a save in a bit. I would also like to say CMFI, like the other games, is amazing. But like the other titles I have observed crazy infantry behavior. No matter what title, it seems infantry has a hard time walking near walls, low shrubs, bocage, etc. In CMFI I have notice infantry on the wrong side of a wall while moving or fighting. Even though I gave them an order to stay on one side of the wall. Not game breaking, just beating a dead horse it would seem, with a lot of topics addressing infantry lately. Anyway lads, good day!!!
-
That’s awesome news. Thanks boys.
-
On 7/29/2019 at 5:41 AM, IanL said:
the vast majority of the running towards the enemy was fixed in 2.02 (2.x version numbers since we are talking about CMFI).
So is this fixed in CMFI???? I know it still exists in CMBN.
-
On 5/14/2019 at 10:00 AM, Wodin said:
I too want to see 41 to end 42. More than any other game\module.
Sisters!!! I too would love that. I personally prefer the east front more. I kinda disagree with the first east front title being RT’s time frame. I believe a Stalingrad time frame (late 42-early 43) would be really cool but I think the most popular would be summer 43 (Kursk timeframe). I just don’t get why so many gamers like the west front with all its hedgerows yuck!!!!!!
-
Right on, thx Mord!!!
-
Hello friends, I read on the front page of the website that if one already has Shock Force and all expansions that one can pay a discounted price to convert the game to SF2. Here is where the dumb question will rear its ugly head..... Do we need to have shock force installed on our computer and then shock force 2 will be applied like a patch or will BFC see that we have purchased the game and expansions and install shock force 2 separately like a different game?
I'm asking because I have a new computer and do not have those games installed, sooooo it would be way easier to just install SF2 as its own entity.
-
Does the scout team need to be in the vehicle to operate the LD? do you need to be unbuttoned like in CMSF? if so can vehicle crew man the LD or does it have to be the scout team?
-
Cool thanks boys.
-
So did I read this right we finally have a way to clear mines with the release of the new vehicle pack? If so has anyone used the mine clearing vehicles and how do they work.
Mines are the bane of my existence and I've been on a crusade since 2007 for BFC to release a vehicle or an engineer unit that can clear mines.
-
Found a copy of cmbb at the PX when I got back from deployment in 03. Played it but didn't really understand it at first, so checked out the website and read some aar's. The rest is history.
-
Martry, I can dig what you're saying, but then why have the mark mine command at all? And an area as small as 8x8 can be cleared fairly quickly, I have done it granted it was in training but same same.
My next point is, the particular mission was playing was a German counter attack against the Soviets that had just arrived in the area. So the mines they laid probably wouldn't be to hard to see by someone on foot even if concealed by leafs etc.
-
The engineers were not under fire, so no problem there. Another thing, I am not talking about a huge area. I am talking about a specific small square area that can be searched fairly easily, especially when looking for vehicle mines which will not activate when a human is standing on them. So really in the two minutes they take now there is plenty of time plus or minus a minute or two especially if all you are doing is clearing a smaller path through the already small square.
I am not talking about land mines meant for people, nor am I talking about a large area. Plus the particular instance I am talking about the road was narrow with thick forrest on either side so it couldn't be avoided. Lastly all of you who responded are really ok with the current handling of mine non-clearance?:confused:
-
I truly wish there was some way to deal with mines better. My question is, is it impossible to code to make mines disappear from an action square?
Second question, why even have the command mark mines? From what I have seen since CMSF days is it is a waste engineers time because they don't actually clear the mines or mark them for their buddies to see. Does it simulate engineers putting up warning signs around the area? If so the signs should be included in their equip panel
. I am seriously annoyed every time one of my vehicles hits a mine in the road, I send some engineers to clear that action square of mines (mark mines), then send another vehicle through that same square (after it was marked) with a slow command only to have it blow up just like the first did before it was supposedly marked.Notice I am only talking about vehicle mines which are large and would be easy for trained engineers to find and disarm if they knew exactly where to look (10 x 10 action square or however big it is).
This is probably my least favorite/ most un-realistic aspect of the game since CMSF, in my opinion.
-
On another note.... I read somewhere that a study was done that stated to kill an enemy soldier in the Vietnam War something like 10,000 rounds where fired as an average. I assume WW2 had a similar stat and maybe a little googleing could find it.
-
The best MG killed under these ultra superb conditions with about 2500 rounds only about 150 people. That are about 16-17 rounds per person while you are shooting with a laser accurate gun into a wall of meat....
MG's aren't laser accurate weapons. They are area fire weapons that is how they can kill/suppress multiples of troops at a time under the right circumstances. 16-17 rounds is probably close to realistic, many of those bullets could have struck the same target or ones already hit. Honestly I think your expectations of the MG42 is a little over hyped.
Just a quick explanation of how machine guns work, machine guns fire into what is called a beaten zone where their bullets cover a conical shaped area. That does not mean every inch of the conical area has a bullet in it. An easy example is like an HE explosion and the fragments that the charge emits. Typically not every fragment enters an enemy body same as bullets fired from an MG.
-
Ohhhh, OK I do remember now reading about them having to be outside. Dang it, I wish I had remembered that instead of seeing my poor pixel troopen being destroyed.
And yes BFC had replied to me a couple months ago that the AT mines and grenade bundles were abstracted. I would like to know if German infantry is more lethal against tanks than their Soviet counterparts.
I wonder if it is possible to one day have them modeled separately again. I believe I read or saw a show about how German paras threw AT grenades on passing Sherman from inside buildings in Italy. It was possible because the grenades had magnets on them which stuck them to the tanks.
-
Oh how I long for grenade bundles and other assorted anti-tank grenades that German infantry carried in CMBB. I know BFC said that they could not model them as a separate grenade model and that it was abstracted, but I haven't had any luck getting my infantry to attack the commie tanks with anything but shooting at them even if they are buttoned.
So I'm asking if anyone has had any luck ko'ing a Russian tank with infantry grenades? This is far from a test but I had five t-34's surrounded by buildings in a town. In these buildings I had un-spotted infantry laying in wait for their fearless leaders (me) command to attack. I gave the order and they very bravely albeit stupidly started shooting at the buttoned tanks. Not even one grenade was thrown. It was about a platoon of infantry all about 5-20 meters from the tanks.
So may be a bug if German infantry is meant to be carrying hand placed AT mines.
-
dont take this wrong here, but i love how this forums wants to explain to you what you see.
Pandur my friend I have seen what you have seen. i am currently playing this same monster scenario and the same thing has happened to me. If your troops were closer they would respond different by firing back which is consistent with realism.
For instance have you ever seen the different forms of infantry fighting positions? these things are tiny to where the defender will only minimally be exposed. So in this scenario as the attacker your troops are full exposed, they take fire from 265 meters away, they hit the deck, they look to see where the fire is coming from and they can barely make out movement in a trench line ahead (probably the tops of helmets) but they know it was a rifle shooting so there is the id. So they will wait for their nco or officer to tell them to either suppress or flank. obviously if the enemy is fully exposed someone can take a shot otherwise there is no need to waste ammo.
Now if the enemy was closer shooting at you from fighting positions then yea it would make sense to shoot back because you have a better chance of hitting them plus you have nothing to lose because you're so close that they can kill you even if you are on the ground, whereas at a distance you are safer because you have more cover etc at least in this scenario.
. I am seriously annoyed every time one of my vehicles hits a mine in the road, I send some engineers to clear that action square of mines (mark mines), then send another vehicle through that same square (after it was marked) with a slow command only to have it blow up just like the first did before it was supposedly marked.
Gran HE
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
What is it? I noticed it in my inventory for the 120mm mortar