Jump to content

womble

Members
  • Posts

    8,872
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    12

Posts posted by womble

  1. Indeed, that is the question. I'm not sure what is most effective, to pick targets or leave your troops to pick them. To me it seems to be either or. This is not considering covered arcs. Are there situation when you should always pick targets manually?

    It depends. Perhaps especially in WeGo

    If you know there's an enemy unit watching where you want to move some infantry, and you have it spotted, whether you manually target it, or let the AI, they'll stop shooting at it when it goes to ground. You know that it will pop back up again in 30s or so, but the amount of that 30s that's left at turn interstice will maybe not be enough to get across the covered gap... So you have to whack manual area-targets on the enemy, because leaving it for the AI to pick up the target and then suppress by aimed fire might mean the enemy gets off several bursts of automatic fire at your moving element.

    My gut feeling, too, is that troops fire more intensively at spotted targets that they're assigned rather than those which they have acquired for themselves, at least when they're not the target of the enemy. So suppression of the enemy is achieved more quickly.

  2. the most early kanonenjagdpanzer (pre ww2) i saw with my own eyes driving in the field, while hovering in the training battlezone with my antitank helicopter.

    propaganda ..... sure... they build some special tanks only for propaganda films and sent them to battle, so that more than 60 years later to help you with your argumentation.

    Don't be any more stupid than you have to be. You don't have to build special tanks for propaganda. Just abuse the crap out of them with no regard for the consequences. So what if your final drive fails while filming? There aren't any tanks really shooting at you. There is almost no footage of actual real combat. Please provide the link for it.

    btw.... kanonenjagdpanzer (early) was an advancement from jagdpanzer IV .... not from V and also not from VI and i guess it was not lighter with its 90mm maingun ....... the weight (mass) was 1.5 tonns more heavy, then the jagdpanz IV with its 24 tonns

    the most early kanonenjagdpanzer (pre ww2) i saw with my own eyes driving in the field, while hovering in the training battlezone with my antitank helicopter.

    So this tank was pre-ww2 but it was a development of the P4-chassis with a 90mm gun. Right. Really worth taking anything you say seriously. Really. Fine, if writing in a second language meant you made a mistake, but don't then call me on projecting off your mistake. Forgive me for thinking you were talking sense.

  3. in dangerous situation, especially when you aware that your sides are very vulnerable, you for sure can turn very fast, as i saw it in original documentation film showing at least pz4, panther and tiger.

    Documentation from where? Propaganda? My recollection is that, particularly the Panther, if you slewed fast you would be spending a week rebuilding the final drive. Fine for 'look how good the tanks you'll be fighting alongside' footage. Not so much when you're in action.

    the most early kanonenjagdpanzer (pre ww2) i saw with my own eyes driving in the field, while hovering in the training battlezone with my antitank helicopter.

    Personally, I'd not be surprised if rather lighter vehicles (as the pre ww2 examples would have been) have somewhat less trouble with their drives. It seems to be generally agreed that the drivetrain was one of the places that the kitties struggled, being underpowered and fragile.

  4. Why is the new UI better than the old?

    I have CMBO and CMBN in front of me on separate laptops.

    Camera movement. CMBO shows me the whole by just using the eight little arrows on the panel. CMBN makes me wave the mouse all over the screen to get to the edges.

    No it doesn't. Hold the left mousekey and move the mouse horizontally to slide L-R or move it vertically to slide forward and back. You can combine the two to move obliquely, and the distance you drag the mouse with the button held from the point where the mouse cursor was when you started holding the button determines the speed of your movement: press and drag it half a cm and your view moves slowly; press and drag the mouse near the edge and your view zips along. Similarly, hold the right mouse button to pitch up and down. Vastly superior because you can control the speed of your movement.

    It has its niggles, it's a long way from ideal, but it's about a hundred times better than one-speed pan-and-glide.

    Unit movement. CMBO Click unit, right click, move place destination. Oh and you can right click to change your mind and move up the other side of the street. CMBN Click on unit move mouse to panel, select move, move mouse to place. Oops too far, have to take hand off mouse and press backspace etc.....

    CMBN: Click the unit. Press a letter for how you want them to move. Click the destination. Click another destination to set another waypoint. Delesect and click a waypoint to be able to do funky stuff at that waypoint. Again, it's not perfect, but it's no worse than x1. x1 had moveable waypoints. x2 has actions at waypoints. Swings. Roundabouts. Heard of 'em?

    Command lines. CMBO I can quickly see who is getting way too far from who. CMBN??

    And once they're out of command you have no idea which HQ they were originally under. Since in BN, the looey in charge of Charlie-1 can't command the guns from Able-4 or any other platoon, it matters more that you know who's in what chain. It's usually pretty obvious whether an infantry element is near enough its HQ to be in command.

  5. Configurable Keys shortcuts would indeed be very useful: even without an interface, but just a config file the user can edit in Notepad or Simple Text...

    The current system already allows customisation of key shortcuts, to a certain extent, using a config file as you describe. It is, however, limited to using (approximately) ASCII characters under 127 and can only adjust functions that are already assigned to that sort of keystroke, plus the 9 "relative" keys. There is no syntax in the ASCII config file to represent <DEL>, <CTRL>, <F1>, <Backspace> and the like.

  6. Nope, you can't carry ammo from one unit to another. If they're in the same lowest-level organisational element, and are within 16m of each other, they'll share, but I expect that's not much use.

    Thing is, testimony from those that have driven tanks and other tracked equipment says otherwise. You have to be careful how you turn for various reasons, from throwing tracks to mangling your final drive. These are not tanks from Battlezone, and most of them, IIRC, can't actually turn by throwing one track into reverse with the other going forward; best they can do is brake the inside track.

  7. From my reading there were places in Russia where was impossible to dig a foxhole in the winter. The frozen ground was hard as wood. Only HE could make a foxhole in those conditions.

    There are places in Russia where you can't dig a foxhole in the summer. It's called permafrost for a reason :) Lots of places get frozen that hard in the winter.

  8. The Covered Arc command is your one true friend on the battlefield.

    :D

    Keep the facing the same, just keep a short covered arc on those mortar teams. They do seem to go into rapid fire mode according to their perceived threat level. But uber, infinty-minus-one variables may account for rate of fire.

    edit - one may be ... they don't think of themselves as holding the power of steel rain their hands... they are 4 guys.. and that's a freakin' tank... aaaahhh kill it.

    It's a change since pre-patch though, and not one that's going to make any bunnies happy. It was quite clear that mortars wouldn't engage with their tube unless you told 'em to. Maybe that was a mistaken conclusion, but it sure would've come up sooner that mortars are blowing through half their ammo load in a minute, I think.

    I'm starting to fear the code control is creaking, with all these apparent glitches with the patch.

  9. "HQ Support Team" in the US Parachute Rifle Company or "1st Team - HQ Support" in the US Rifle Company Weapons Platoon?

    The latter contains the Weapons Platoon XO and will form a new HQ if the Platoon HQ is destroyed, but otherwise it does not play a role in C2.

    It does seem to be eligible to call arty though, so it kinda supports the HQ by letting it stay with the mortars to provide the RT link as only it (or a vehicle) can.

  10. There is a difference between watching a 10-hour movie or five 2-hour movies. Or reading a 2000-pages novel versus ten 200-pages novels.

    Yeah, a 10-hour movie would need a break to attend to bodily functions. Or diapers and waitress service.

    Playing CMBN isn't really analagous to either of those passive passtimes, in my estimation. It's more like the difference between speed chess and standard duration games. Or the difference between 15-a-side rugby and sevens.

  11. First, thanks for the responses. We could take this argument the other way; what not have missions 500 mins long then?

    Why not, indeed? Playing a campaign of 5 100-minute missions can be a bit like that, after all. A pipe dream of mine is a huge 4km x 4km map covering the area of operations of a battalion or more on each side, with fighting backwards and forwards over the whole thing...

    I want closure on something relatively soon; this is why I would like to see more shorter scenarios. I have a plan for a scenario and would like to see how it works out. I play slow I think so that is part of it too.

    In my mind, I get lots of little closures out of a long scenario: it's a bunch if 10 minute (or shorter) tactical problems (jump that field; take that house; stalk that kitty etc) strung together and in parallel. I, personally, get more satisfaction out of including the tactical problems and how you string them together/coordinate parallel threads, rather than just having one or two to deal with in any one helping, then jumping on to another, unrelated, duo or trio of distinct situations.

  12. I think we are talking about this document (cannot open the original link).

    http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM5-15.44.pdf

    The foxholes described therein appear to give near-perfect protection to prone and even to kneeling soldiers.

    Is this what BFC is intending to model?

    Best regards,

    Thomm

    The foxholes do, but I seriously doubt that this is what BFC are modelling. You don't see troops standing in foxholes in the game ('less they're trying to shoot over something higher just in front of the position), they're always kneeling or prone. Which is why I said they look like the "prone shelter (not a fire trench)" on page 55.

    I think what they're meant to represent is some frenzied scraping with a shovel, rather than serious, methodical, by-the-book fortifications. At least that's what the visual representation seems to be, to me.

  13. During the foxholes are bust, no they are not debate I posted this link, it might be nice if BF could indicate which defence a foxhole, in game, represents.

    "Link to different infantry defences from War Dept 1941 (I assume German defences were not radically different)

    http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/.../FM7-10-I.html"

    I reckon they look closest to "prone shelters" which are "not suitable as firing positions". It'd be shiny to have that much variety of fortification.

  14. Hello:

    This is my first CM game and I am surprised many/most missions are so long. Does CMx2 force this in some way? It really takes some time to play a 40 min mission, not to mention the longer ones.

    Anyways I hope shorter scenarios, say 20 mins., will become more frequent. Any designers thinking this way?

    Thanks,

    Gerry

    I have to say I'm a bit puzzled as to the specific appeal of short missions. If you've got h hours per week to play, why does it matter whether it's n 40 minute missions rather than 2n 20 minute missions? It's not like you can't stop what you're doing at any moment in the course of the game...

  15. One drawback, and it is a considerable one, is that we can see if the building we attack has a back door allowing enemy troops to move in and out. And of course we know they cannot possibly use any windows at the back to move in and out no matter how logical it might seem. Perhaps in a future CM?

    It's usually pretty much an error to hide in a place that you can't get out of without exposing yourself to enemy fire. Unless you're confident that there won't be any return fire, whether that's cos the enemy is dead or they never knew to look in your direction...

  16. Source of info?

    Ancient recollection of an incident in Northern Ireland reported in the news during the Troubles. While propellant technology had improved a little in the 30 or so years between Normandy and Ulster, AIUI, the round the FAL fired was substantially similar, ballistically, to the M2.

  17. ...I would have started C and F at Veteran rather than Warrior....

    I don't think it'll make any difference to the outcome. The info you get from the 'not always generic' icons is available in Warrior if you click 'em, and faster buddy aid is hardly significant wrt outcomes. Slightly faster arty might help. but it seems to work for the enemy too, so you just end up having to push harder to keep out from under their mortars... Calling them "Skill Levels" is, I feel, a misnomer once you get past Basic Training; having info on weapons and posture of the enemy is a big help, and very useful to learn what effect you're having on the enemy.

  18. Am I missing something on qbs when you select mixed?From what I can see you can buy whatever you want on mixed, so mixed is more like the old unrestricted.In CMX1 when you selected combined arms, you received a certain amount of points to spend in each category,which would force you to have a combined arms.

    No, you're not missing anything. There are no "compartments" with limits to them, as there were in CMx1. You could buy all artillery, in a "Mixed" battle, if you wanted.

  19. As it is now, apparently, CMBN exists in a world where delay fusing for demo charges is extremely rare, as combat engineers seem compelled to blow stuff up while standing only a few feet away. Not a healthy practice.

    They're fine when it's only their explosives. It's when the Tricksy Foe augments their bang with some hidden goodies that they run into trouble...

    IRL, they had access to various types of delay fuses and remote detonation devices.

    I guess that's abstracted out into the "can't blow self up with own charges" thing, though you're right of course that it would also make it harder for the Tricksy Foe to arrange for a big enough extra bang to do demolishing engineers much harm.

    Of course, on the other side of the coin, CM is also lets engineers execute the whole set-prime-detonate process considerably faster than it probably could be done IRL for most situations, so in some ways demo charges are easier to use in the game than IRL.

    Frame charges for every occasion. Kept in pockets the size of Pluto... :)

  20. Hello womble, My experience in the game has been the opposite of yours. My troops have died like flies in buildings...

    Oh, that's happened too :) At one point I refused to let any team of more than 3 men go upstairs in any building, and that at Slow, with a very short cover arc, because it seemed almost as if troops moving any faster, or who tried to shoot back from upstairs windows were about as well-protected as a balloon on a long string... I've just been fighting around a few more building types since, so I know they're not all like that. In fact, where a building's walls are considered tough enough to bounce M2, troops in upper storeys seem less vulnerable to shooters below them.

    ...even through the side with no windows and I was able to do likewise through the same wall to enemy troops. How they could see each other, much less shot each other, I don't know...

    As I understand it (i.e in a very limited fashion) some blank-looking walls are considered porous, particularly if they're damaged. Also, there are a few buildings in scenarios where the graphics and where the engine thinks the openings are, don't match up.

    Do you know how you can tell in the editor which buildings offer the cover that you have described? I want to make sure I include a great proportion of those in the scenario I'm making. I thought that their exposure in buildings was simulated.:confused:

    Sorry, I'm an almost complete novice in the mapmaking department. I've only tinkered with a bit of elevation and some linear obstacles on the flat.

    Interesting, Germans (with 2 LMGs I presume) in a building vs US in the open end up losing the firefight? This would square with my experience of playing the German side I have to admit - I've been driven out of buildings by US squads in the open unless I have at least 2 to 1 squads. Still feel that MGs are undermodelled in this game.

    I've noticed that US rifle grenades are pretty handy for killing, suppressing and driving away enemy in buildings. But they're pretty uniformly useless in open field fights, it seems. Though 175m is a bit long for the grenadiers.

  21. I think maybe the difficulty level has soured my taste a little - I find it almost impossibly difficult. I like a game I can win, at least sometimes, and going from mission to mission in the campaigns getting my rear-end handed to me (more often than not), just isn't fun.

    The campaigns seem broadly regarded as at least "challenging", and C&F (the only one I've played so far) really throws some curveballs at you. QBs against the AI seem a lot easier, and I suppose against a human you're at least on an even playing field.

    I think this is part of my problem; the game needs to be fun, and perhaps the fun factor has been removed for me. There seems to be too many little niggles that really ebb away at my enjoyment...

    I have to agree a bit here. I am, emphatically, still having fun; I've always liked my fun serious, but what's eroding it is the so many "nearly" moments. Moments which seem to be "as far as it's going to get until the Bulge game".

    ...more and more I find myself easily distracted.

    I've been trying to force the 3/314th's way into la Haye du Puits for must be a fortnight now. It's not like I'm reloading all the time, either, just that each minute has to be thought about for so long I hardly get anything 'done' in any given session (not helped by the distances that need to be traversed, slowly to get to grips with the enemy), and it's starting to inhibit my starting the game up, not to mention making me unnecessarily reckless of my pTruppens' pLives...

×
×
  • Create New...