Jump to content

womble

Members
  • Posts

    8,041
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    12

Posts posted by womble

  1. I  believe the problem is that the TC would have to get out of his seat and stand on the engine deck to use the Ma Deuce to fire forward in the case of the TDs. That's a little bit outside the parameters of the "simulation"... Maybe it could be programmed, but it's not an insignificant addition and clearly BFC have decided that it's not worth the effort for the vanishingly rare (even in our exception-gaming that we undertake) cases where its availability would make a difference. It'd probably only be available to a Fanatic commander at all, and most of the time, even for such a committed individual, adding the BMG to the mix wouldn't make sense. And then people would start finding ways to provoke it, it'd happen "all the time" and another segment of the demographic would start pooh-poohing it as "unrealistic depiction favouring the Americans".

    Really not worth the candle.

  2. 7 minutes ago, Erwin said:

     If you repeat a lie often enuff, eventually it gets believed. 

    And the theory is, that the bigger the lie, the more readily it becomes accepted as truth, since "no one could make this up". Western powers are as guilty: where were Saddam's WMDs that presented an "imminent" threat to us, back at the start of the Century? Fell for that one, I did, hook, line and sinker: "They daren't lie about that; it's so easy to prove it's a lie once the facts come out on the ground," I thought. I was right that it was readily proved a lie. What I hadn't counted on was the shamelessness of Blair and Bush to press on with using these lies as justification for action in spite of being fully aware of their mendacity and that they would eventually be proven to have misled everyone.

    Not saying either way whether Iraq 2 was, in the end, justifiable, just that those facts the leaders chose to use were plain, flat-out lies. Nor am I saying that any of their successors are any better.

  3. 3 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

    Read any dictionary the definition is the pursuit and killing of animals. I think it is a poor choice of words and leaves it open to interpretation.

    Is English your first language? Hunt has a much wider definition and usage. Outside of the pursuit of game, it basically means to look for until you find (unless you give up). I can hunt for my keys. I can go bargain hunting. In the field of mechanics, to give a specific example, a poorly-governed engine that runs faster and slower and repeats that cycle without external input is described as "hunting" (it's an anthropomorphisation of the engine, for sure, but we humans do that all the time). Dictionaries that omit this/these aspects of the usage of the word are lacking.

    And it's exactly what Hunt does.

  4. 40 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

    How hard would it be to area fire different floors of a multi story building?

    Let's say you know there are infantry on the first floor of a two story house. Right now you would select area fire and the AI would usually aim...

    Just be precise with your click. You can explicitly target any specific floor of any structure that's in LOS/LOF of the shooting unit. Want the ground floor taking out? Make sure you click the ground floor face of the wall you want dropping when you set the area target...

  5. 10 minutes ago, domfluff said:

    Well, the best approach is to have performed effective terrain analysis and reconnaissance, such that you have scouted out likely AT gun positions, and destroyed or suppressed them with indirect fires.

    Small (or even medium) calibre mortars in direct lay mode are ideal for this. Generally a good idea to make sure the position is actually dangerous though, since ammo is limited and speculative fire should probably be judiciously used.

     

  6. On 9/11/2021 at 12:31 PM, Erwin said:

     IIRC, the more experienced the crew the less likely they will disobey orders.  The more inexperienced, the more likely...

    My recollection is that Motivation rules how likely they are to obey/disobey; highly Motivated troops will tend to obey orders better in the face of adverse circumstances. Leadership and Experience give them more, and more well-considered "initiative" to vary their orders to respond to unexpected threats. Or at least, that's the programming intention, AIUI. How well that translates into in-game performance, I'm unsure :)

  7. 13 hours ago, Glubokii Boy said:

    The vibes i'm getting from this interview is that CM2 is indeed nearing its end...No more larger game-engine updates, no more major editor updates but rather...

    [snip]

    ...kind of sounds like these three modules will be the last ones...After these three have been delivered...

    CM2 is finished as far as BFC goes....

    [snip]

    Hopefully this means that CM3 is not all that far away 😎...two years ??? 😊

     

    I wouldn't read that far into it. The time scale to get a module out for everything that needs it isn't clear, and could be protracted. Speculation beyond that goal at this time might just be inappropriate. Things do seem to keep popping out of the woodwork: FI was a bit of a surprise when that dropped, and CW even more so. Who knows what astonishing idea might occur to 'em in the time it takes to polish up the engine and make a module for CW?!

    Still, though, I have to join you in the hope that a splendid new engine won't take til the next decade to emerge.

  8. 8 hours ago, Sven said:

    OK, I know already that I'm whining. 

    The German tanks and guns seem to hit anything, anywhere, no matter how far the distance and no matter how much of an "eye of the needle" the shot must get through.

    Yes you are whining. It's unbecoming. Look up confirmation bias. Because your account is not representative of the reality.

  9. 43 minutes ago, G. Smiley said:

    Who claims this? Battlefront?

    I look at CM games as miniature wargaming - an abstraction that captures reality well on an abstract level, but not necessarily in every detail on zoom level 1. The latter had never been my expectation, and that has surely saved me a lot of frustration.
     

     

    CM is, indeed the game of microarmour that everyone always wanted to play, with umpires managing the FoW on duplicated tables, and detailed rules for hit and penetration that would never fly IRL. But faster, better, more accurately scaled in all dimensions and bigger than would be physically possible (a 1km range at 1:300 ground scale would need a table 3.3m across; nobody's arms are that long, and imagine trying to lay an expanding steel tape without disarranging the terrain... :) ). And with a computer opponent that's better than any set of solo "programmed" rules a miniatures game ever had. And you don't need to buy, paint or base the models. And I'm not sure a microarmour rule set gets below the squad level, for its infantry resolution.

  10. 1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

    It would be nice for the scenario designer to be able to set up rolling barrages though, with the player acting as the lower ranking officer who has to work with what the higher-ups have planned for this attack. Likewise for big rocket barrages.

    You could do a series of scenarios, maybe, for each phase line of the barrage, with the player setting off "just as the bombardment has moved to the next line". They could be short, very focused scenarios.

     

  11. Trouble with rolling barrages in CM is they take a lot of rounds delivered by quite a lot of tubes, and if you have that many tubes, with enough TRPs to make the creeping bombardment line, many players would find much better things to do with the assets than blindly flatten strips of land... You'd have to trust people to realise that's what the immense quantity of ordnance was for, and to employ it as bounded by the scenario's premise.

  12. 11 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

    Have you tried using Target Reference Points (TRP)s?  Might also have to add more long duration artillery batteries.  

    This.

    1. Buy/provide enough TRPs to track the end points of your barrage and enough tubes to service it at the intensity you want for the duration you require.
    2. Use your highest level HQ (or any HQ you want that's not going to be needing to call other missions for the duration of the rolling barrage) to plot and continuously adjust a linear barrage mission the TRPs (you can plot a linear barrage with its ends in different TRPs...).
    3. Robert's your auntie's live-in lover.
  13. 4 hours ago, Bozowans said:

    That kinda reminds me of something I saw in CMSF2, where a Syrian ATGM just barely missed my hull down tank, flew past it and then slammed into a crop of trees way behind, taking out a bunch of my infantry moving beneath them.

    Have had similar with ATG in CMBN... The gun in question was 'sniping' at a pTruppe in the upper storey of a light structure, IIRC, and an overshot went into trees and inflicted casualties way downrange.

  14. 21 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

    ...maybe they could start with the early war when they go to CMx3?...

    Sadly, the opinion seems to be that this period would not sell sufficient copies to be the "first and biggest" launch of a new title.

    However, with some clever architecture choices, my pessimistic outlook might be unwarranted. One of the big chunks of work for any of the titles is the TO stuff, and the base data for that changes not one whit with a new game engine. All that work could be re-used. Similarly, the data behind all the armour values and such is already crunched, and could be imported. So perhaps the CM3 family would inflate with Big Bang speed (relatively speaking), rather than taking a decade and a half to get from partial '43 to mostly-ETO '45... which would mean that the AK period and first couple of years of Ger-v-Sov could come along sooner than we might think.

    There's hope yet.

  15. I'm not sure a direct comparison of CM1 and CM2 in terms of longevity is quite appropriate. ISTR that one of the reasons for getting rid of (rather than iterating upon) CM1 was its monolithic spaghetti code which was not amenable to updating without totally breaking. CM2 was designed, I get the impression, to avoid (at least to some degree) that stumbling block, and that's why we're on engine... is it 4? now.

    Nevertheless, the base engine and concept is, for some values, showing its age now, and there are obviously some core tenets of the code that would be good to upgrade, in the light of experience, but which are too deeply embedded to be readily changed. A fresh start on CM3 would be good, especially if it could leverage the non-code-specific work that's been done. But then we would definitely never get to the early war setting...

  16. 1 hour ago, LutzP said:

    ...they took more than 1 complete turn (about 90 seconds) to blast. They spent one complete turn apparently doing nothing (sorting  their stuff and doing calculations, I do not doubt), and then again taking 30 secs into the next turn until the blast went off. Maybe they felt crowded because other units were sitting very close by …

    That seems abnormally long, IME. ISTR it depends on the soft factors of the team in question, but 15-30 seconds is more 'expected'.

×
×
  • Create New...