Jump to content

womble

Members
  • Posts

    8,041
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    12

Posts posted by womble

  1. Another direction to approach the understanding of camouflage is offered by the differing perceptions of those with atypical colour vision (full disclosure: including myself). The only scientific paper direct link I could find with a swift Google was this one:
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1354367/

    In essence, some camo schemes may be less (or even completely in-) effective in concealing things from people (mostly men) with "deficient" colour vision. Google throws up lots of anecdotal stuff, and old papers that I'm not sure are very peer-reviewed.

  2. You get an indication on the Target tool whenever a vehicle (or a waypoint on a vehicle's movement path, if you're testing from a "future position") is Hull Down or Partial Hull Down to whatever it is you're targeting at the time. So in Target mode, if you hover the cursor over a potential target unit, you'll get an indication of Hull Down status that's "accurate" for the combination of shooter, target eyeballs and shooter-position.

    The tool is limited, though, when you hover the cursor over the ground: there's no way it can know "what might be looking back at you", so it makes "approximations" and reports your unit's hull-down status based on those. I think the approximation is that is that the engine assesses the status relative to the ground level where the cursor is, but it might assume a standing soldier's eyeball height.

  3. 6 hours ago, Erwin said:

    Wasn't familiar with that so, looked that one up and it seems good - except that it only carries 6(!) rounds.  In RL every 90/53 had an ammo carrier trailing it, but in CM2, one cannot resupply shells.  :(

     

    I can't remember whether FI "fudges" the ammo carrier's ammo into an increase in the on-board shells for the little thing. But the weapon is effectively a one-shot-one-kill LAZOR in Sicily, August '43, and you may well not need more than 6 rounds in a game for a single vehicle :)

    Just don't let it shoot at anything other than armour, ever :)

  4. The Italians have one of the best TDs of that theatre of the war, in the form of the Semovente 90/53. It's sneakily low-profile and kills anything it can see. Total egg-armed-with-a-hammer but man, what a hammer.

    Edit: and thirding the Brixia love. Great weapon; pick as many as you can in a QB :)
    They also have some great cheap light armour to bolster your infantry against other infantry. Obviously they lose against the Sherman (best available tank after the Tiger in August '43) and even an M3 halfie with an M1 BMG, but if you stay out of the way of the proper armour with 'em, they can give the slightly shonky infantry the impetus to keep advancing.

  5. 10 hours ago, Howler said:

    I wasn't aware of a difference in wait times. I thought all three used realistic wait times. Was this changed recently?

    Nope. It's the primary concrete difference in performance between the various "difficulty levels" and always has been. It's the only justification for referring to those levels as "difficulty", really, and only then if you consider that lightning quick arty response times help a human player more than an AI, which is questionable.

  6. 32 minutes ago, Canuck21 said:

    So, where does one go to find these settings (as in turning them on/off/whatever) for your own account? Not sure I'm grasping the concept here.

    I was mostly joking about BFCElvis having turned them off... Though as an admin, it may've been within his purview. We humble members don't, I believe, have a way of disabling reactions to our posts. We can activate or turn off the notifications of them, but not stop others using the feature.

  7. 29 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:

    Like and Upvote are pretty much the same. While poking around yesterday I saw that there were a lot of those kinds of things that can be enabled. I chose to only add the "Thanks" one because often someone will ask a question and someone else will give them the answer......So, I thought that was nice. I'm not interested in enabling any of the negative ones. I like to think of this forum as a happy place.

    And in a selfless act of modesty, you've disabled the option to Like/Upvote/Thank on your posts? Boooo!

     

    :)

  8. 10 hours ago, Erwin said:

    Was hoping that the explosion could automatically occur at a set time, like preset artillery barrage.  Perhaps an objective would be rescue units (and accumulate victory points) across the bridge and EXIT b4 detonation, or... cross the bridge to reach an objective b4 detonation.  

    You'd still have to have a UI for setting that time.

    You might be able to fudge it by having the requisite assault gun (pick one with a thin skin and have it turn up with no crew) arrive on the bridge as reinforcements, and hope one of the attackers' anti-armour units spots it and pops it before the player can stop it...

  9. 5 minutes ago, Erwin said:

    Depends on how much work is invested.  It's not clear that it would be any harder than the CMSF IED activation, plus a large explosion that we already have when a 2,000lb bomb lands, plus a graphic of a destroyed bridge - as in any destroyed building.

    Plus the effort of setting up the detonation mechanic/UI for the player/scenario designer to have the trigger... That's the "work" part.

  10. Just now, Erwin said:

    It would be nice/fun to be able to simulate an explosive prepped bridge blowing up - so the objective would be to either get to the bridge to prevent it from blowing, or to fight one's way there to activate the explosives - like the we we do with CMSF's IUD's. 

    Briefly, once, maybe. But effectively, if the objective is "get the bridge before it gets blown up", what you have is a time limit, or a victory location for the "defender" that will, if reached or something, automatically assign enough VP to win the scenario. So all the "simulation" would add is the SfX of the bridge blowing up. Not a great return on the work invested.

     

  11. 1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

    I think that only goes for truppen in buildings. Outside, you see the effect of cover as the bullet stopping when it hits a low wall, a tree, or a hedge.

    Be as it may, I've seen a pixeltrooper survive a full burst of MP40 straight through the stomach, as he was walking on a road, and my firing squad was in a building 10m away. So either there's a pretty high basic savings throw, or the graphics just don't match what's actually going on.

    There is, I believe, a saving throw made for every bullet*/bullet-sponge interaction. AIUI, the experience level of the target modifies their chance of "not being in the way of the lead". But even if there's a very low chance of making the save, sometimes a pTruppe will (same as if there's a vanishingly small chance of spotting...). If it happened regualarly, you could extrapolate to a high base chance of saving, but I don't think it really does. Most of the time, if a bullet trace hits the pixels of a pTruppe upright in the open, they're going to be wounded/casualty/outright dead, even if they're Elite.

    You do also see the effect of bullets bouncing off buildings... I don't know how penetration is adjudicated; it might just be parallax effects sometimes and the rounds are coming in through apertures (but the building still applies a cover value to the occupying troops).

  12. Oh, one indicator of good cover (not quantum mechanics :) ) is when you see "bullet tracers" passing right through your pTruppen's pixels without causing them harm. Cover, AIUI, gives a "saving throw" to the little guys, and good, solid cover can see that saving throw be quite high, even if the round apparently penetrates it and the tender bodily particles of your pTruppe. If they survive several "hits", they're in good cover.

  13. 9 hours ago, markshot said:

    What about the beaten zone and plunging fire?

    You can, sometimes, arrange "grazing fire" over a crest. Bullet trajectories are modelled so if an area fire at a point just before a crest is plotted, "high misses" will pass the crest, some of them close to the ground, and, depending on topology, you might have a beaten zone in what would otherwise be dead ground. Mostly achieved by serendipity, though, IME.

  14. If they've been spotted, and are taking fire, they'll cower, and be no use for spotting. And the FO might stop a bullet, making the situation permanent. I'd Hide them on alternate minutes. Their tormentors will potentially lose sight of them, (if operating under TacAI) and stop firing at them, and making them keep their heads down for a bit will mean they get a chance to stop being suppressed, so they can effectively spot.

    I'd try and make some efforts towards suppressing the wicked monsters that are harassing your poor, innocent observer though, if you can, at all.

  15. 2 hours ago, Schrullenhaft said:

    It looks like you're attempting to install starting with a version 1.x installer. Those do NOT work with Windows 10 due to the copy-protection not working properly with Windows 10. Instead, download the 4.0 Upgrade installer, which should be an all-in-one installer (all modules and patches). You will need to use the 3.0 Upgrade, 4.0 Upgrade and all of the module license keys you have to activate the game typically using the 'Activate Modules' shortcut that will be either on your desktop or within the game's main executable folder.

    To confirm that this worked for me. If your collection doesn't extend to the later versions, you'll have to buy 'em, as far as I can see. But that's probably something you want to do anyway, and it's relatively cheap.

  16. 40 minutes ago, Kevin2k said:

    I had a less severe but similar annoyance in cold war, past days. Where the computer force selection picks M106 mortar carriers with a minimum range of 770 meters, on a smaller map with no practical way to fit that minimum range.

    LOL.

    And I say again: "Oh dear."

    The unwillingness of BFC to address issues like this is frankly incomprehensible to me. All assertions that the primary target market demographic for the game is RT HvH are specious, given that the derivation of a few rules on force selection should be a trivial endeavour, and would broaden the potential market demographic. I'd rather they just said "Nah, we don't wanna."

  17. 44 minutes ago, LutzP said:

    I get the same information in the AAR, don't I? It reported 3 Germans killed and 0 on everything else on the German side.

    I guess if they were crewed things, it'd still say "nn troops okay" for the crews if you never even found 'em. Very strange. It ought to spend all the points (maybe a few leftover that it couldn't figure out how to spend).

    Still and all, the "platoon of flak cannon/heavy ATG with no transport" for a Meeting Engagement used to be a thing, and it sounds like the AI force picker still "needs some work". Maybe someone who's not as out-of-the-loop as I am can confirm whether there was ever any work done to mitigate it, but a common resolution was to have human-picked sides for both you and the AI opponent. You'd minimise the loss of Fog of War by using "random" for the AI side, but only giving it a very quick glance to make sure it's not something pointless. Or pick a good force for the AI, then save the game and leave it for a month or so, by which time all the other games you've done similar with will mean you're not as conscious of the OpFor as you would be if you played it immediately.

  18. 4 hours ago, LutzP said:

    Thanks for the reply! Yes, I forgot - it was a meeting engagement. And I did not view the map, but I am certain that was the one and only unit, coming (as usual) from the opposite corner and dawdling around in the woods for almost 20 minutes. Well, it was not too many hours of my life lost, and then of course we always ask for "realism" – a real soldier would have considered this best possible result, I guess, and here I stand whining … 🙄

    I assumed the AI would internally try to achieve a certain balance in buying points (even for a random setup on both sides), but maybe it does and just allows a rather large variance. Or this sole HQ element was particularly valuable, like knowing the complete batallion deployment plans – and I just shot them 🙁!

    It's worth looking, if you have a save of it (anytime during the game, just go in and hit "Ceasefire"), and remain even slightly curious, because the AI gets the same number of points to spend as you, in an ME, so there should have been something there. What it doesn't do is buy a "balanced force". There's no way a single HQ team could be pumped up to the same number of points as your "short company"..,

  19. 36 minutes ago, LutzP said:

    New to the game, please forgive me if I did not find any similar thread. In a QB on tiny/tiny/Veteran I got about 2.5 recon platoons available (which seems pretty normal when choosing "Infantry Only") against random German forces. In a brave fight against boredom I took all objectives and never saw any opposition … never? Well, a 3-soldier HQ unit appeared in the end (first saw them after 12 of 30 minutes, and then again at around 20).

    Is this normal? Or just possible, but unusual? Or should I sue BF because they take me for an idiot who could not manage more opposition 🙂? (They may be right, but how doo they know?)

     

    It's perhaps not "normal", but, at least last time I checked, it was "within the bounds of possible expected behaviour". It looks like maybe the QB AI force selection routines haven't been tweaked in the years I've been away. It used to be common enough that the AI picked some subset of immobile assets (like AA or other large towed equipment) and put it somewhere a bit useless, due to random "AI group" assignment. And the problem is exacerbated with small battles because you don't get many quad AA cannon for the points allowed, so if the "platoon" is deployed in a field with no useful LOS, it might as well not be on the board at all.

    Have you clicked "View Map" at the bottom of the results screen and checked what the AI actually had available and how it had been deployed?

    [Edit: Oh, and what kind of engagement was it? Meeting Engagements are particularly vulnerable to this sort of shenanigans, since the AI forces have to move, and in Infantry Only, the heavy equipment can't have the prime movers it needs to limber up and attempt to take ground...]

×
×
  • Create New...