Jump to content

womble

Members
  • Posts

    8,041
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    12

Posts posted by womble

  1. An additional nugget of info: Hunt-ordered elements will ignore spotted enemy that they have been directed not to fire on. So if you give a partial Target Arc, spotted (or tentative contacts with) enemy of any kind outside that segment will not cause the element to halt, and any unit with a Target Armour Arc will ignore infantry contacts or spots for the purposes of deciding whether to halt their Hunt. Incoming fire will still cause the Hunter to halt, though.

    I think, again, this is more relevant for keeping your WW2-era tank-hunting elements from being spooked by distant infantry, given that it's potential suicide for even MBTs to blanket "ignore" infantry at almost any spottable range in the C21st time period. 

  2. On 9/1/2016 at 8:53 PM, MikeyD said:

    a scenario that had Landmark text banners 'Suspected Minefield' floating over mine areas. Because of half of the utility of a minefield is in the enemy knowing its there and not even trying to attack from that direction.

    There are BFC-provided scenarios for at least BN which do the same thing. It's from playing those scenarios that I know engineers can spot mines from adjacent AS.

  3. 6 hours ago, Pchandler43 said:

    THAT is what I was wondering. If there was a way to actually detect minefields. So by having a sapper/engineer/bobthebuilder unit sitting next to squares that contain mines, they will EVENTUALLY be detected?

    I'm sure this has been mentioned more than once before my post in this thread, and it's in the manual.

  4. 21 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

    I think it would be useful if it fired the 20mm (or both the MG & 20mm) on Target and just the MG on Target Light

     

    Indeed, I would have expected that to be the way things worked. I have vague recollections of this having been mentioned before, though, a long time ago. I wonder whether it was a thing that was fixed that then got unfixed, as occasionally happens. Or whether it's never quite made it to the top of the mending basket.

  5. 49 minutes ago, Pchandler43 said:

    ...to perform DETECTION and MARKING them for clearance later on, which is what I would like to see done in game.

    Look closer then. Because that happens.

    Engineers can spot mines from adjacent AS. It's just "slow". Slow, in that it takes a couple of minutes of careful, uninterrupted observation (much longer if they have to keep ducking incoming 7.92 rounds) to detect the presence of mines. Note that there are no "Achtung! Minen!" signs in game. All minefields are (unless announced by the scenario maker in some way) discrete, so deciding whether a given 64sqm of muddy ploughed field has been seeded with S-mines could easily take time.

    The "Mark Mines" movement command allows the engineers to, wouldn't you know, MARK mines not only for later clearance (i.e. not covered in the timeframe of the game) but to permit their and their comrades safer passage through detected areas of mines. This, too, is a painstaking endeavour which takes, if the sappers are uninterrupted, a significantly shorter time than I think is realistic. That's 64sqm of mines found and neutralised at little or no risk of mishap in 2-3 minutes by probably 3 Engineers at most in any given engineer team. If you take a best case scenario and have 4 Engineers working, and it takes 4 minutes, that's a metre square per man per minute. Is that really too slow?

  6. The mechanical elements needed to have mine clearance using extensible tubes filled with HE are already there, as can be seen by the fact that it is occasionally possible to arrange sympathetic detonation of mines when using Demo Charges to breach linear obstacles (if the obstacle is close enough to the mined AS). All it needs is for the "Blast" command to be valid in any AS, not just ones with breachable obstacles.

    A quick Google reveals assertions that the original intent of the Bangalore Torpedo's designer was to neutralise booby traps/UXO, while going on to imply that the primary use changed in WW1 when barbed wire became the primary obstacle to be defeated.

  7. On 8/19/2016 at 4:43 AM, MisterMark said:

    ...Fifteen min into the battle a tiger rolled in from a far flank.  I engaged it with 4 shermans, but the tiger ultimately won despite my efforts to attack it simultaneously from 2 different directions.   It was changing direction, rotating it's turret, coming in and out of cover and intuitively reacting to the biggest threat in each moment. On top of that, after the first line of infantry defending the objective were overwhelmed, a second wave of defenders seemed to activate from deeper inside the map to fill holes in the initial defense and counter attacked.   

    Fluke. The TacAI in CMx2 has no "intuition". It was directly, mostly randomly, reacting to your multiple-axis threat. It got lucky; not that a Tiger has to get that lucky vs the M3 gun. Some arbitrary decisions created an illusion of subtlety. This also occurs upon occasion with CMx2's TacAI. The second wave of infantry is also an illusion; the "operational" level of the AI isn't that sophisticated. Some other factor must have intervened.

    Sure, there are potential avenues to explore to improve the QB AI in CMx2, and there are some glitches around force placement and orientation, but even the creators are clear that the CMx1 AI was simple-minded compared to the CMx2 AI. And why would they throw an effective AI out, given that it's not dependent on graphics architecture, they wrote the thing from scratch and retained all rights to it, and how hard it is to write a good AI?

  8. Lots of good UI design ideas there. Hopefully some or all of them will be candidates for inclusion at some point, whether that be the inevitable 4.0, probable 5+ or the notional CMx3. I wouldn't hold out much hope until x3 though for some of the suggestions, cos the decisions are deep in the architecture and would effectively require a complete re-write of the non-game-engine code.

  9. 2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

    To be fair, he did suggest it be made optional, so I'm not sure why you're arguing against it so fiercely.

    I just wish they would make the camera go down to eye level.

    Because it's already an option that is available: don't use the tool. Easy. No programming time need be expended for this to occur. That the arguments in its favour are specious is also worth pointing out.

  10. 2 hours ago, noob said:

    The cherry on the "Titanium play mode" cake would of course be a ground level unit camera lock, thus bringing high ground and multi storey buildings more into play, and adding a new level of immersion to the combat, and a new level of tension to scouting with vehicles.

    And a whole level of frustration when you want to move around the map to other units. Or do any number of other things that the engine requires you to do from greater-than-ViewLevelOne. Yay.

  11. 5 hours ago, noob said:

    This would add a level of realism

    No it wouldn't. The waypoint LOS is there to represent the fact that you're "playing the role" of the commander of every element,  who, when he gets to the waypoint, would be able to see what he can see, and as he approaches the waypoint, have some idea as to whether stupid player-commander has put it somewhere useless.

    5 hours ago, noob said:

    and reduce the workload of the orders phase, thus speeding up PBEM games in general.

    Nope. It'd just make the workload heavier, since you need to eyeball (and would still be able to) the LOS from a waypoint, anyway.

    Don't like it? Don't use it. Don't want either side to use it? Find opponents that agree with you. The toggle is already there, for SP: your own self-control.

  12. No one's arguing that the APDS round wasn't effective. The 6-lber-armed Churchill's anti-armour performance was raised significantly by the provision of that round. But it was still superceded by a 75mm-armed version, for whatever (probably infantry-support-based) reason. And the 57mm in US hands fought the vast majority of its engagements without access to the special ammo, so any "general" assessment of the effectiveness of the gun as an ATG has to be conducted with that in mind, along with the counterpoint that it was an entirely adequate upgrade from the 37mm/2lber it replaced, at the time it came into service, capable of defeating the frontal armour of the standard German medium tank at the time and the flank armour of anything lighter than a tiger until the end of the war. Perhaps it was starting to become obsolete by the time of D-Day, but it still hadn't completed that process by VE-Day, so long as Panzer IVs were being produced as a major component of german armour formations.

  13. Antivehicular mines are completely unaffected by "Mark Mines" efforts. Antipersonnel mines in a "Mixed" mine AS will be as neutralised as usual (i.e probably won't go off if you Slow infantry through them, probably will if you Quick or faster).

    The only way to clear AV mines is to find something nearby that you can Blast through and get the mine to detonate sympathetically. Has to be in the same AS; some diagonal linear obstacles will suffice, or any barbed wire obstacle directly over the mine. Your sappers might get caught in the Blast, though, which can result in suppression, injury and death.

     

    Edited to add: I have to echo the advice not to attempt to mark mines in the face of the enemy. Your sappers won't ever even settle to the task if they're taking fire and will just be killed for no gain. Sure, clear mines that have been placed to deny you a position that's beyond the enemy's guns; changing the battlefield like that is a good move, often. But it's a waste of time and men to try and conduct marking of mines under fire.

  14. Some general pointers. They're based on experience in the WW2 titles, but the principles should still apply; holes in technique will just be punished much more harshly by the prevalence of automatic weapons in the opposition's squads.

    First-off: be absolutely sure you absolutely have to make a dynamic entry on the objective. Most of the time you can shoot the enemy out of the building, or kill them in place or there's an alternative position you can use that is not directly opposed. But if you have to close on the enemy and destroy them:

    Generally, yes, you "should" be splitting your squads into teams. While the weapons loadout of a modern squad might suggest that an even split ("Split Squad") is the way to go, you might find that it's still worth splitting using "Assault Team" first, to make sure one team has a good supply of grenades, since willingness to expend special equipment like grenades is based at least partially on how much of that resource the element has available. In general, buildings are too small for a full squad to safely exist within; a single grenade (thrown or rifle) will inflict multiple casualties on a squad crammed into one room.

    In order for a team to use the grenades they have to soften up the objective, it's advisable for them to stop outside the objective building for 10-15s, with a Target order into the building. If they have plenty of grenades, they'll toss these inside, and a subsequent immediate entry will find the defenders suppressed and cowering, generally. You can use a team other than the one which will make entry to throw grenades, but that can be difficult to coordinate when a turn break isn't conveniently available.

    Personally, I tend to use Slow movement for the assaulting team. I find that the high situational awareness (which in building entry doesn't seem to be impaired by terrain) and willingness to stop and open/return fire makes the clearance more effective. It also has the advantages of keeping the team from quickly reaching the far side of the building where they will potentially be exposed to fire from the "next row" of houses which probably won't have been suppressed yet, and of potentially keeping them from being spotted by enemy in that row.

    Once the team is in the building, I find it's worth giving them a short, circular Target Arc that covers the building and maybe its back yard. This is to prevent them recklessly opening fire on enemies they spot in the "next row", who may not have spotted them (because they snuck into their current location). Having the TA extend a bit past the building is to allow them to engage enemies which are discovered at very close range, who will probably spot the assaulting team anyway and might be in a position to do serious damage.

    Demo charges are marvellous for FISH. If you can approach the objective from a blind side (an adjoining building is ideal), the blast will suppress enemy in the next building very effectively, and will likely inflict casualties. Be aware though, that if the objective building is very large, there may be enemy far enough away to not be affected by the Blast. Also, be very aware of the levels on which the buildings are placed. An unfortunate limitation of the engine is that you will not be able to pass through a Blasted party wall if the two buildings are on different levels, and your engineers will path around the outside to make their entry, which could be disastrous.

    Some pitfalls:

    Possibly the most annoying pitfall is the presence of troops which have fallen back out of the objective (due to your suppression pressure), but which remain just outside the "lee" of the building. They are well placed to shoot your assaulting team down like fish in a barrel if they have recovered from the morale state which had them withdraw and haven't been suppressed by fires passing through the building. I'm not sure of the best advice to give in this case.

    Enemy on adjacent floors can be a nuisance. It's probably worth spreading the suppression love out a bit, vertically as well.

    Friendly fire from small arms of the base of fire won't, generally cause casualties, but it will build suppression. So don't have your assaulting team hang about for too long outside while you're still pouring in the fire. They obviously need time to do their own preparatory fires, but it's probably worth trying to step down the incoming in the seconds before the assaulters arrive to stack outside the door, as well as only waiting 10-15s for grenades to be thrown.

    Friendly fire from anything .50cal or larger, any HE from other elements and small calibre fire from firendlies that haven't spotted the team (this is a recently-discovered phenomenon) will cause casualties as well as suppression, so be very cautious about how you use them for support once you send in the clearing team.

    Not only does the objective need to be suppressed, but since your assaulting team is going to be exposed while chucking grenades, so do any positions which pose a danger to them at that point. This can sometimes require broad coordination.

    Hope this helps.

  15. 12 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

    I have not tested bazooka accuracy but I do remember that in CM1 the 'schreck had better accuracy on account of its higher velocity and I assume that has been carried forward into CM2

    This seems a reasonable assumption, given that the ballistics of the shot are modelled as best the engine can manage them, based on the best information about muzzle velocity and ballistic properties of the projectiles involved.

  16. On 7/20/2016 at 1:17 PM, Bulletpoint said:

    I think the problem is also that the game gives scenario designers quite limited tools to make those AI plans.

    For example, as I understand it I cannot design a QB map to say "ok, Group 1 goes here in the forest, that will preferably be infantry, then group 2 will be some kind of support weapon, which goes here where there's good LOS".

    The game can buy various formations and allocate them to various groups, but then it will put an AT gun in the middle of a forest, a tank in the middle of a city facing a wall, etc.

     

    Indeed. Having some sort of "role" field in the element database for the benefit of the AI, which AI script writers can attach to their groups so that plans can be made which take the capabilities of the AI force into account would be a major leap forward in the single-player game. Adding a data field and providing another (multiselectable) dropdown to assign roles to a Group in a plan wouldn't be difficult programming jobs, and the tags for role wouldn't necessarily have any direct effect on unit behaviour, only be a way of the QB designer assigning "appropriate" troop types to their plan elements. Deciding on what the possibliities for "role" might be, and assigning them to the units in the TO&E is probably the largest part of such a project :)

  17. 21 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

    AFAIK the game can't allocate units to those groups in a QB, it has to be done manually in the editor.....I suspect his work may be aimed more at beginning level scenario designers like myself.

    I don't believe that's so. My testing suggests that the game allocates formations, round-robin, to the available AI groups in the plan. And recalling my testing reminds me that (at least some of MarkEzra's) QB plans have had multiple AI groups in them from at least Market Garden, and possibly more like CMBN:CWF days. It is a huge weakness, though, that the game has no inkling of what troop types are good for; in one of my tests, the force selector chose an (immobile) AA battery, and plonked it into setup zones at the back with no FoF forward towards the enemy...

  18. 2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

    Again I suspect the disappointing nature of quick battles may be down to the very basic AI plans included with QB maps.....I Haven't spent much time in the CMBS editor, but in QBs from the other titles AI units are all attached to a single group and thus must all follow the same plan.  Most maps have two or three rudimentary but functional AI plans.

    I believe MarkEzra has spent a lot of time incorporating the larger number of groups in recent "official" QB AI plans in recent titles.

     

  19. 18 hours ago, japinard said:

    * I have lots of artillery but can't seem to call them in.  I know many say they need a spotter, but does the spotter really have to actually see an enemy?  I just want to call in artillery support to a vague area.

    As has been said, you either need to plot a "pre-planned bombardment" in the setup turn, have a TRP within 50m of the one or two loci that define the mission's area (doesn't have to be the same TRP for both loci if you're doing a line or area), or actually have LOS to the target area with the observer.

    18 hours ago, japinard said:

    * I want to move a AAA piece and I moved a truck to the front where the hitch would be, but I can't find a command to hook it up so I can move the gun somewhere else.  Is this even possible in the game?

    IIRC, none of the AAA "towed" pieces are actually towable. If you want mobile Ack-Ack, you have to buy it on a vehicle.

    18 hours ago, japinard said:

    * How do I resupply ammo?  Do the ammo bearers just need to be nearby?

    If you're on v3 and the right ammo bearers for the weapon are within a couple of AS, the weapon will use the ammo bearers' load first. And when they're empty you can send them back to a vehicle in the rear that has more ammo of the right kind, which they board, and "Acquire" and then return to the firing position, after which the TacAI will preferentially use the bearers' ammo again. If the right vehicle is within about 2AS, it will "share" its ammo with the weapon team too, but I'm not sure it'll be preferentially used like the bearers' is.

    "But what is the 'right' vehicle or ammo bearer?" I hear you ask. Simply, it's any that highlight when you single-click the weapon you're trying to resupply. Sometimes that'll be a whole platoon, other times it'll be a "Section".

    It is worth noting that ammo sharing occurs between all subunits of a "highlight group" (as described above), not just for crew-served weapons. Also, any element that can board a vehicle can do so and acquire the available assets that vehicle carries. So if there's resupply nearby, you might want to hop the MG on board as well as the bearers (or instead of, if the bearers have suffered some mishap or been told off to do rifleman things).

    Another method of resupply for "plain squads" is to split a small team off and send it to fetch ammo from a store.

    18 hours ago, japinard said:

    * How can I make more points available in quick battle beyond huge?  I'd like to have unlimited so I can use like 12,000 points, but huge points just seems to be 5,000

    The option of a "custom" battle size is an oft-mentioned suggestion for an enhancement by BFC. No joy to date, though :(

  20. 18 hours ago, japinard said:

    * I have lots of artillery but can't seem to call them in.  I know many say they need a spotter, but does the spotter really have to actually see an enemy?  I just want to call in artillery support to a vague area.

    As has been said, you either need to plot a "pre-planned bombardment" in the setup turn, have a TRP within 50m of the one or two loci that define the mission's area (doesn't have to be the same TRP for both loci if you're doing a line or area), or actually have LOS to the target area with the observer.

    18 hours ago, japinard said:

    * I want to move a AAA piece and I moved a truck to the front where the hitch would be, but I can't find a command to hook it up so I can move the gun somewhere else.  Is this even possible in the game?

    IIRC, none of the AAA "towed" pieces are actually towable. If you want mobile Ack-Ack, you have to buy it on a vehicle.

    18 hours ago, japinard said:

    * How do I resupply ammo?  Do the ammo bearers just need to be nearby?

    If you're on v3 and the right ammo bearers for the weapon are within a couple of AS, the weapon will use the ammo bearers' load first. And when they're empty you can send them back to a vehicle in the rear that has more ammo of the right kind, which they board, and "Acquire" and then return to the firing position, after which the TacAI will preferentially use the bearers' ammo again. If the right vehicle is within about 2AS, it will "share" its ammo with the weapon team too, but I'm not sure it'll be preferentially used like the bearers' is.

    "But what is the 'right' vehicle or ammo bearer?" I hear you ask. Simply, it's any that highlight when you single-click the weapon you're trying to resupply. Sometimes that'll be a whole platoon, other times it'll be a "Section".

    It is worth noting that ammo sharing occurs between all subunits of a "highlight group" (as described above), not just for crew-served weapons. Also, any element that can board a vehicle can do so and acquire the available assets that vehicle carries. So if there's resupply nearby, you might want to hop the MG on board as well as the bearers (or instead of, if the bearers have suffered some mishap or been told off to do rifleman things).

    Another method of resupply for "plain squads" is to split a small team off and send it to fetch ammo from a store.

    18 hours ago, japinard said:

    * How can I make more points available in quick battle beyond huge?  I'd like to have unlimited so I can use like 12,000 points, but huge points just seems to be 5,000

    The option of a "custom" battle size is an oft-mentioned suggestion for an enhancement by BFC. No joy to date, though :(

×
×
  • Create New...