Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Posts posted by womble

  1. 10 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

    'This is what I call a nonsense assertion.' If you can hit something at a range exceeding of what is expected from a qualified rifleman, you need to be trained into spotting at targets at longer ranges of what is expected from a qualified rifleman. This is not nonsense but logic. Combat Mission doesn't give them any more spotting abilities, but a little better than an Elite FO in Edge of Darkness in SF2. Test it out on the pillbox, Sniper gets a full contact the FO if you position him next to the man with the scoped rifle doesn't. I don't suck my playing experience out of my thumb.  

    Is that in the demo?

  2. 10 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

    I rest my case. There is a difference between a Marksman and a Sniper.

    What case? Nobody said there wasn't. They said that the unit called "Sniper" in-game, at Reg-Norm-0-Fit would be better called a "marksman" and none of the benefits of increasing the soft factors are unique to Sniper units.

    The problem, I think, is of miscommunication.


  3. If you make a unit which has been given a "follow" command simply stop at the same time (not in the same place) as the element it is following, you shouldn't get much tangle, if each following unit is told to follow the unit in front of it (rather than the lead unit)... It wouldn't be unreasonable for an out-of-combat evolution to have most-of-a-minute wait to see whether the lead vehicle unbogged, and would stop the rest of the convoy driving obliviously into the fire lane, if a lead vehicle suddenly had a dreadful deliberate.

  4. 2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

    It is you, they go for specialist training and fieldcraft thoroughly familiar with flora and fauna and spot abnormalities other people miss. Snipers are marksmen but not every marksman is a sniper. You wouldn't even notice when a shadow is pointing towards the sun even though you may have 20-20 vision. You need a sniper to spot through concealment. 

    I think there's a disconnect here.

    @chuckydyke is saying what specially-trained snipers get taught. And is right.

    Others are expressing what the so-called "sniper team" as presented in CMx2 (at least the ww2 titles) represents and they are right, too. I would expect this to carry through into the modern titles, because I don't imagine the code has a way of improving the *pTruppe*'s accuracy just because of unit type (obviously their weapon will be modelled).

    Not all countries had established, formal sniper schools in WW2 where the game code was originated to represent. IIRC, only Russia and Germany. Other nations just picked decent marksmen out of the ranks of their riflemen and maybe gave them a rifle with a scope. A Regular-Normal-Normal sniper team represents the latter. If you want to get closer to the abilities of an elite Scout Sniper in any title, make them Elite-High-High.

  5. That's really weird.

    It'd be useful to have that hotkey bind available all the time (to put on a different key) to save having to stab a button with the mouse to clear timed Pauses without having to click/press multiple times.


  6. That's very odd. I'm surprised that the "plain indefinite pause" function even can be hotkeyed. Might be worth resetting the hotkeys.txt file to default if you've changed it at all... Has to be done with the program inactive, IIRC.

  7. 13 minutes ago, mjkerner said:

    While I agree that HMG fire doesn't seem to suppress like we'd expect, FWIW area fire does shift fire to the AS on either side of the targeted AS. 

    And there is *some* suppression in AS adjacent to AS where bullets strike, I believe. I think the determination (several years ago, so it may have changed) was that it was about half that of the targeted AS. 

  8. 1 hour ago, Erwin said:


    However, it's hard to see who would have whipped up the nationalistic fervor and anti-semitic extremes that Hitler did.  No Hitler, no cronies like Himmler etc.

    Someone would've. At least "enough" of that to get Europe into trouble comparable to what happened. There were people who could see what the harsh terms of Versailles would precipitate 20 years down the line, when that document was signed. The flavour of Nationalism might have been different, but the reason someone else didn't whip it up was because Hitler got there first.

  9. Some of these factors boil down to "the AI being able to assess what's good for its pTruppen" to a similar degree as a realTruppe can... Do I run all the way over there to be safe? Can I get out of this situation safely, or should I throw in the towel? Difficult questions for a basic rule-based system (which is all the CM TacAI seems to be) to answer accurately.

  10. 9 minutes ago, slysniper said:

    The next great sinister power will make Hitler and the Second World War look like school children as to what evils  mankind can do to one another. 

    'Course they will. If the Good Guys can stand on the shoulders of the giants who went before, so can the Bad Guys stand on the shoulders of the Ogres. And I'll say no more to avoid straying too far into politics.

  11. 1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

    I think Hitler and Princip were just symptoms of their times - killing them would not have solved the underlying tensions that caused WW1 and WW2.

    But maybe killing them would have delayed the world war for just enough time for the atomic bomb to have been invented, and this might have prevented the war or at least kept it more confined. Or just made it much shorter.

    Interesting hypothetical, there. WW2 being started (and very quickly finished) with Nukes... Probably the Germans getting there first, if they didn't drive half their top theoretical physicists out, which they might not've done if the Nationalist fervour that took over in the absence of Hitler had had a different flavour. Would they have started by taking out Russia? More "Lebensraum" thattaway, though not as precious to the Nationalist mind, perhaps, as Alsace-Lorraine. Or would the UK/France have felt the need for pre-emption if they found out the heavy water plants were about to produce a different "Final Solution" to which they had no answer?

  12. 4 hours ago, Ultradave said:

    It's not just "The Yanks"  I spent several years living in the UK as a consultant (along with about 15 other Americans) to their nuclear submarine program. Until we got used to it, we had a flip chart in meetings with abbreviation equivalents, with a lot of good natured banter as to whose term/acronym was the "correct" one.  The UK MOD/submarine program has just as many abbreviations and arcane terms as we do. Easily.


    Any specialist field has its acronyms. Precise language is important, and can often be lengthy. Abbreviations must cut meeting length down considerably. :)


  13. 3 hours ago, FogForever said:

    Thanks all, I am going to have to digest this.  Looks like quick with overwatch is probably the best approach in general.  I am playing the Sichenhausen scenario which includes entering and clearing a town with fairly limited number of troops.  I need to keep losses to a minimum.

    Oh, urban combat (or FISH and CHIPS*) is an entirely different proposition... "Minimum" losses are probably going to be considerable, if the defender is well-positioned. You'll need an awful lot of suppressive fire, breaching kit/demo charges and smoke. And you will still take losses. Just gotta suck 'em up.

    * Fighting In Someone's House and Causing Havoc in People's Streets - my favourite acroynm for FIBUA, OBUA, MOUT, UO or whatever you want to call it... :)

  14. 11 hours ago, Erwin said:

    The issue is that almost every CM game has serious casualties, whereas the examples mentioned above were not the norm for WW2 (ignoring other eras that are not relevant).

    Which does circle back to the point that CM isn't necessarily representing "the norm", but the "most intense" actions. Not that this covers the whole issue, of course.

    Troops having nowhere to run to has been the most devastating factor, IME. Which means they remain "in the game", and recover enough to be a nuisance, so you can't even be "humane" and set target arcs that ignore 'em; the only way to stop them plinking at your side is to take them out. I'm not sure why there's no "if a Paniced[/broken/whatever status is appropriate] unit hits a map edge, it exits" rule like in most tabletop figures games rulesets. How those get calculated into victory conditions would be a fairly trivial discussion.

    The AI "bull rush" tactics don't help either. They turn defense scenarios into turkey shoots most of the time.

    I was hoping the "driven off by weight of fire" reactions would have been tweaked during my hiatus, but no, a unit that's winkled out of its cover by suppression without being actually Broken still just retreats and sits in the open ready for the advancing enemy to pick off, rather than falling back towards some, any cover. They only flee to the next set of cover once they've had another shellacking and gotten properly Broken.

  15. 21 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

    Pick your troops for observing and do terrain sweeps, it is like finding sharks in the ocean. You need to go in the water to find one and the more people there the less chance to be pulled under. It is a matter of mathematics with two of you the odds are from 100% down to 50%. 

    Actually, it's better than that. If there are two of you and only one shooter, you can alternate popping up to observe for short enough periods that they will be less likely to reacquire you if they keep changing targets, as the TacAI will if they alternate dropping out of sight. Won't always work; sometimes a dogface will just whip off a snapshot if the spotting cycle is "just right", and nail someone, but pause-crawl-pause-fast-repeat with suppressive area fires while paused can generate forward movement in the face of opposition.

    That movement combo isn't faster than Move, for sure, but if the enemy are shooting at you, Move won't remain Move for long anyway.

  16. 5 hours ago, Bozowans said:

    I don't think this is true. At least not according to the manual. The manual says that units using Move have good overall situational awareness, and that the faster a unit is moving, the more their awareness is reduced, especially to their sides and rear. This does make sense, because someone who is running or jogging is probably not gonna be focused as much on looking for the enemy as they are on watching where they're going, so that they don't trip on something or whatever.

    That may be true. A few points in reply:

    • A static unit is even better at spotting than a moving one. Most of the time, the job of seeing the enemy is best left to the overwatch teams, rather than the travelling ones.
    • A unit that has dropped into "long grass" will become unsighted by enemies that have drawn a bead on them, and only subject to area fire until they pop up again. That they can't see the enemy that was shooting at them is mostly unimportant, since that's the job of the overwatch teams behind them.
    • Generally, I wouldn't want my exposed troops to stop and shoot back at even distant targets (with very little chance of effect); I'd rather they got on with getting where they're going than shoot at targets in cover who might just suppress them where they are, then pick them off lying in the open (unless it's a wheatfield or similar as previously noted).
    • Quick is still faster than Move in the long run, unless the mechanics have actually changed; they might've, since it's literally years since I ran any tests on it... So for "Tabbing about", I'd rather have my pTruppen double time it to the cover I want them to be observing from. It takes a bit more "micro" to make sure they don't get into Exhausted state, which does seem harder to recover from.

    It might just be that I've had a small sample size of using Move and seeing it used, but it led to poor results consistently, so I quickly dropped its use. But as noted, at sub-100m ranges, getting ambushed, it doesn't much matter whether you're at Move or Fast, you'd better have some overwatch with firepower enough to suppress your assailants or you're in terminal trouble. Which is why short rushes and going to ground is the "safest" way to draw fire for overwatch to ID enemy positions while getting closer to your objective. 

  17. For future reference, all crew-served weapons on mounts need to "deploy" before they can be fired. Mortars 60mm or bigger, HMGs, infantry guns and pack howitzers, and ATGs do. I don't know about ATGMs and I've forgotten whether the Brixia and trench mortars need the order giving. There are some exceptions: the HMG42 can be used "semi-deployed" as an LMG, for example, and I'm sure there are others. But to use at full effect, it needs to deploy.

    AIUI, like "Open/close up", you can only issue one Deploy (or undeploy) order on any given turn, but a Deploy order can be given at the last waypoint, so they'll arrive and immediately start setting up.

  18. My experience with Move is that it's purely for moving your footsloggers long distances, unmanaged without tiring them out. IIRC, it will never tire the truppen, so if they have to cross any rugged terrain, out of combat, it may have its use, but overall, Quick is more efficient: they get there way sooner than they would with Move, and are back to Rested before any troops that Moved the same route would have arrived, and they can fight while catching their breath. Their situational awareness is reduced under Move, and if they come under fire, as @domfluffsays they switch to Quick anyway. If you're ambushed, the slower you're moving when the first volley is fired, the more likely you are to be hit. My advice would be to not use Move when you are not in full defilade.

    For me, the drill in WW2 for moving across open ground is to make short rushes, with pauses at each waypoint. Elements should move in a staggered fashion so no more than a third of 'em are on their hind legs at any one time, with the others prone and spotting for returning suppression. In the CW environment with more lethal weapons being pointed their way, those rushes probably shouldn't be more than an AS at a time, but I've no experience in the modern titles to speak of, so that's just a guess and where I'd start if I absolutely had to cross beaten ground.

  19. 22 minutes ago, AdamPraha said:

    Moment where there is a "backspace ?I want to put it on the mouse I use it constantly to delete the route.

    I don't see a "backspace" anywhere?

    where is ?

    So program the relevant mouse button to generate a "Backspace". You can't edit the CM function of some of the keys, that don't produce (broadly speaking) alphanumeric output. So "Backspace" is fixed to "delete last leg of selected route" and "Delete" is fixed to "cancel firing order from selected waypoint", for example.

    But that shouldn't be an issue for this purpose. Just program Mouse 7 (or whatever) to be a backspace keystroke. I use a G700 with about 11 programmable buttons and it's the sort of thing I've got bound to my mouse.

  20. 25 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

    Something to put on the wish list. Once an ATG has fired you can't hide it, so the 'Hide Option' is meaningless. Say a limit of 25 meters would be reasonable before it is considered that the gun is abandoned. 

    Aye, the wishlist for CMx3 or maybe 4... Being able to spread your teams out a bit more should definitely be there, IMO.

  21. 3 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

    This could be solved by the 'Hide Command'. It would mean the crew temporarily leaves the immediate vicinity of their gun to seek shelter. They would return by 'Unhiding'. Needs a slight change in the coding. Or the developers could look at dispersing, the intention would be to rejoin. 

    Unfortunately, units are tied to be in one, and only one, action spot. A team can't spread out over two AS. Neither can a gun-and-its-crew. And given that the "Hide" behaviour would be limited to the same AS, the cover the gun is sited in is almost certainly the best available, when combined with any gun shield that's present. It's an engine architecture limitation, and one that is already considered in the simulation of HE blast, AIUI: pTruppen are prevented from spreading out as much as real meatTruppen can, so blast effects have been toned down "a bit" to compensate.

  22. 10 hours ago, c3k said:

    Check the ammo? Some of the German 7.92 is SmK, armor piercing. (I think I got it the abbreviation...right.)

    Yeah, it might be this if in one scenario you've had the truppen nab AP from somewhere and in the test they've only got normal rounds. Their assessment of the level of danger they represent to the target might be increased if they have specialist tools. Combined with soft factors... might be difficult to pinpoint the parameters of the combination...

  • Create New...