Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

sburke

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    21,142

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    103

 Content Type 

Posts posted by sburke

    Question about LOS, AI and targetting..

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    To be fair, pausing for less than 5s would probably just slow you down, while not achieving much in the way of lead downrange, or situational awareness. It's worth noting that at any given waypoint, your troops won't arrive all at the same time, and the first ones there will get some chance to Spot and Aim and Fire while the laggards catch up. This will get you as much advantage as pausing for less then 5s would.

    After the first 5s, I don't think the game is determinable enough to plan to time anything with more precision.

    Yeah actually just having a waypoint is probably a 5s pause as the team regroups. One of the reasons you don't want a waypoint in a situation where your team may linger in the open.

    0

    CMFI new features: actual and needed

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    At least in the instance of Borg Iding it can be semi avoided if you don't click on a unit...not ideal but much better than the Borg spotting issues of CMx2.

    Mord.

    It can be, but as someone noted to me if you are trying to figure out which of your units has LOS on an enemy unit, the easiet way is to click on the enemy unit. :-( It is a use I find myself taking advantage of a lot. The only way to handle it is to cover the UI in your screen. In a small engagement it isn't really needed but as you move to company size battles and above there really isn't another option. Still I agree. It affects my knowledge, but does not affect my unit capabilities. Borg spotting on the other hand has an impact at the AI level.

    0

    Question about LOS, AI and targetting..

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    I'm new to the whole CM series and noticed a few oddities while playing this afternoon. Sometimes it appears that LOS isn't calculated correctly. I had a tank trying to take a shot at the top part of a building where some AI were spotted but the game kept insisting that I didn't have good LOS. I obviously positioned my camera to match that of the tank and I clearly had a shot. Sure, it wasn't that big but it was there nonetheless. Is there some limitation perhaps that tops of building can't be targeted? I've seen this happen numerous times. In situations where there's no question that you have a clear LOS, targeting works fine but certain situations where you're trying to fire just left of an obstacle for example give me the most trouble. Its almost as if you can't fire on someone else without exposing yourself first.

    I believe there is an issue with ordering a unit to fire on a building where it can't see the base of it. Unless it can actually see the unit that you want to fire at or the base of the building, you end up with some difficulty trying to target the upper floors. Unfortunate, but it is what it is.

    Another issue I've seen was when I had an AI soldier cornered between a building a cement wall and no matter what my commander team did, they could not hit the guy. We were maybe 8 meters away and had clear LOS. Why does the AI miss when they're really close to their targets? Is it because the engine is coded that way - almost to miss on intentionally like an RPG? I think in real life you would expect a soldier with even the most minuscule amount of experience with a rifle to hit their target by their 30th try. Can someone explain why this happens in game? That's just one example. I can put 2 guys in front of a whole firing squad and they wouldn't be dead right away. Half the people would miss for some reason. Just trying to understand why this is.

    This one I'd definitely need a pic or save. I am having trouble envisioning this situation.

    My third point is related to issuing commands. Aside from playing in realtime, is there a way to give a unit a move and target order in the same turn if the original position of the attacking unit didn't have a clear LOS? As an example, I had a few men in position behind a building. Obviously no LOS to the target. I wanted to lay down some suppression fire with this unit of men but it takes 2 turns to pull that off. I should be able to move my men 2 feet and then start firing on a target but instead I have to move them out of cover - simulate- target - simulate. It seems like the target arc could be used to mitigate this but that's not the same. I want them to start firing. I think there should be no limitations with what you can set up during your turn. If I want to move someone out of cover, suppress, pause, and then return to cover I should be able to do that. Am I looking at this game genre wrong?

    If your unit can not see the opposing unit, no matter what you can not in that turn issue a target order on it. What you can do is move, pause, area target and then move back. A little risky as you don't know what the other unit is doing during that period and you aren't actually firing at them (though the TAC AI may take over and have your units target them.)

    If you can not have someone else at least suppress the enemy unit, I would be loathe to just charge around a corner and hope for the best. I am not sure of what you mean regarding genre, but in Combat Mission you can not order a unit to target directly what that unit can not see. Odds are if you send that team around that corner blind and haven't applied some amount of suppressive fire on them, your guys will be the ones needing letters written for. If you have another unit with LOS to the area around the enemy you can have them area fire and that may be enough to give you the drop.

    0

    The Possibly Penultimate Peng Challenge Thread

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    I love being lectured about maturity and social skills by someone who clearly lacks both. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

    Steve

    As my Uncle used to say to my Aunt. "Joan if you are going to argue with the children, you have to win."

    Not gonna happen here. You just have to hope his meds will kick in or that he's texting while driving and smacks into a ditch full of horse s**t. I am hoping for the second.

    0

    Multiplayer forums on other sites?

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    CMFI new features: actual and needed

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    Crash to desktop is common enough I think when both of my computers with different hardware configs both suffer CTD with CMFI and not with CMBN/CW :P.

    Still it won't help getting it fixed if the info isn't on the tech forum. At a minimum I'd post your system specs, BF guys can take it from there if there is specific info they want to try and hunt down. I have twice had my system CTD only on the AAR screen and that is after a LOT of testing, popping back and forth from the game to my desktop to report stuff etc. I wouldn't consider it common, but there is something there. What it is and how easy or not it is to correct I think is largely dependent on us getting decent information to BF to allow them to hunt it down. Multiple posts that the problem exists don't do that (this isn't directed at you or anyone else, just a recognition that trouble shooting requires data.)

    0

    How to defend?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    I find it strange that one has to depend on the God's eye picture to play effectively after all the effort has been made to make the game more realistic. What sburke described above is an attempt to game the system rather than do anything realistic.

    I have no idea how you drew that conclusion. My goal was simply to open fire on his team which was in my teams LOS (that had nothing to do with any "god's eye" view, the team springing the ambush had spotted the team I wanted to ambush). I had them unhide as I didn't want to risk them waiting too long to open fire and I didn't target the other team as I wanted my team to be able to react if they saw something that wasn't currently visible. I actually prefer to allow the TAC AI to make decisions more often than not as I find it actually performs very well.

    In RL, why would the ambushers stand up to shoot after the attackers have just gone to ground, and then move away from their xnt defensive location to get shot down? What I see above is a failed ambush thanks to the system not allowing a sensible ambush to be executed.

    I can think of a lot of reasons. The most salient being the fact that my unit had accomplished it's main goal which was to spot the enemy closing. I am not sure how with no information whatsoever you decided it was an excellent defensive position. It wasn't, however it had been a good OP up until that turn.

    I think the above behavior was totally realistic and not gaming anything. The only problem with my plan was at the moment they went to split town they now were VERY visible to any other units that were moving in and I paid the price. In addition it was clear how close his infantry was and I had not much good reason to stick around and almost certainly lose a team. Making judgements of the actions I had planned required quite a bit more info than you actually have.

    In RT, maybe the above would work cos one can immediately PAUSE and adjust. But, in WEGO one has to fight the system and throw RL concepts away.

    I totally disagree. I don't assume that because my plan fails, it is immediately the game's fault or even that it would have worked so much better in RT. In this case I think it was a decent plan, but bad luck. If he hadn't immediately gone to ground it could have turned out completely different. In the Hamel Vallee AAR I had a team pull off 2 very spectacular back to back ambushes and get away without loss.

    I have absolutely no problem with that cos I have always known that the CM series is a great entertainment product not a great simulation. So, I don't expect a high level of realism. But, given that it is a game, the ambushes I still spring in CM1 tournaments (which are going great btw) are more satisfying and effective than the convoluted process described above which imo resulted in a more "unrealistic" outcome than in CM1.

    But, I emphasize, I love the game even with its many flaws.

    If you judge the game only by your success or not, I respectfully suggest that your evaluation parameters are severely flawed. This may not be what you intend to say, but it comes off as - If I can successfully ambush great, if I can't it must be the game's fault. As I noted before I have been able to successfully pull off ambushes in CMx2, just not this time. I have also been ambushed brutally on occasion by my opponents. If folks are having trouble doing so in CMx2 I expect either they plan poorly or have excessively bad luck. However even a good plan is never a guarrantee, sometimes s**t happens.

    0

    Mortar crews - combat effective troops?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    arse - thanks anyway

    LOL here let me put my cig out in your drink before I thank you for buying this round. :D

    Actually the answer isn't 100%. For touch objectives you do get notification. For straight VL's you don't. If you did it would essentially give you info you would otherwise not have - that an unseen enemy unit is nearby. In the first SoTH hill scenario you have some objectives (and large ones at that) that are labelled "secure xxxxx". The point being you are going to have to sweep the objective to make sure it is clear. A significant portion is wheatfield - and at night. It is pretty hairy. That is essentially true of most VLs. You really do want to sweep the area to make sure there are no hold outs especially in HTH play.

    0

    How to defend?

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted

    here's my 2 cents, way over inflated but what the hell that's the way things seem to work in the world...

    my problem with an ambush command that EXACTLY always unleashes an optimal ambush is it takes away from me the decision making portion. This is extreme I realize but other folks have been asking for formation commands - so when someone says I want a formation command for "defend" that has all my units set up their defense, how far removed is that?

    Right now no, the game does not always execute what you want perfectly, but the amount of options is pretty awesome. Knowing when to use them in combination and timing it is another issue. I had a recent ambush attempt on JonS. It seemed to me to almost be perfect. He had a scout advancing, I had a scout team hiding. I spotted his guys at the end of a turn very close. Cool! thinks I. Man I am just drooling at the pain I am about to inflict and I think I can get away scot free. So at the start of the turn I have them unhide and give them a decent pause to chew up his scouts and then a quick move out so by end of turn they are out of LOF again.

    I get the turn back... right at the start of the turn his guys have gone to ground, I now have no enemy in sight. Crap, okay at least my guys are gonna split...then I see the unknown unit icons rather close and I mutter "uh oh this isn't looking good", so my guys at the end of the pause stand up and start to take off and BAM! 2 dead scouts. I grumble and mumble and on with the show. Now if his guys had kept moving they'd likely be dead, then his other guys might have opened fire, but I was still in my foxholes so I had a decent chance of giving as good as I got. Luck of the draw.

    0

    A little confused on Italy v Normandy and engines

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    Isn't a game forum there to allow fans of the game, even fanboys dare I say, to have a chat and learn, have fun, etc. (Sometimes I am in stitches at some of the funny posts.)

    Being part of a game forum shouldn't have anything to do with using correct searching techniques, etc. We are tested at work on a daily basis. Why not just let people post questions and those that want can answer them?!

    Gerry

    Yep I think that about sums it up. Our community is small enough without us doing our best to make it smaller.

    0

    BigDork vs Tiresias - Seizing the Windmill - American Version

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    Thanks for reading and your comment. I agree that playing H2H can take some maturity and commitment. If I had been playing against the AI on my own without an AAR and my guys got blown up by a barrage, I can't guarantee I wouldn't just thrown in the towel and start over or reload. One thing I love about PBEMing this game is that you have to go on and it forces you to commit.

    That doesn't explain how I manage to do it. :D

    Seriously yeah I think playing a human opponent forces you to accept your losses and figure out what to do next rather than simply getting frustrated that you walked into an ambush or that a lucky mortar round just happened to kill your FO.

    Doing an AAR is a bit further. Letting everyone else see your planning, both good and bad and how you react to pressure. The best part though is finding an opponent you can share that with and it seems you and Tiresias have done so. It will multiply the value of the game for you many times over.

    0

    BigDork vs Tiresias - Seizing the Windmill - American Version

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    Yeah, I thought that was funny. Instead of a snarky comment, I'll post a commiserating comment. I'm in a pbem and am getting STONKED by some good artillery. I am, of course, asking my opponent why he feels the need to bombard an empty field. (I'm hoping he doesn't see the dozens of crosses sprouting in mid-air, or my broken remnants fleeing, or hear the screams of the wounded.) If I can convince him he's wasting ordance, maybe he'll stop...

    Ken

    rotflmao - ask him if you happened to kill his FO and that maybe you should keep a save for BF to show that that issue is still there. :D

    0

    A little confused on Italy v Normandy and engines

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    Being nice and considerate is all about "considering" the benefit of the doubt before judging.

    People have varying degrees of time, patience, internet skills, technical knowledge and some certainly do not hang out on the forums to absorb every detail.

    I notice that some people tend to treat everybody like they are some sort of borg collective of knowledge and protocol.

    I like the doctors "do no harm" policy and the saying "if you have nothing nice to say don't say it at all".

    I hate to say it but this forum in particular has a "reputation" in wargaming circles because of this kind of "guilty until proven innocent" approach.

    Just my 2c about how sometimes things go wrong on this forum.

    I hope it helps people realise what they are doing without being "judgemental" myself.

    LOL from what I've seen it is not confined to this forum or wargaming circles. People behaving badly is I think the new term for the Internet.

    0

    Time for an AAR forum?

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    We are getting a lot of AARs lately and it would be great if they could be gathered in one place like some other forums have. All this great entertainment is getting buried in the standard forum traffic of bitching, debate and game questions. A one stop spot would be really cool and also a great advertisement for the games themselves. How about it?

    Mord.

    I'll second that motion!

    0

    BigDork vs Tiresias - Seizing the Windmill - German Version

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    I strongly suspect I'll get burned too. Fingers crossed.

    Thanks for the comments, I was particularly pleased that I was able to pin the Americans down long enough to get that second bombardment in. The issue with the Priest is not so much how well it'll go up as what to hit it with. All I have is my Marder and the PaK40, which is unlikely to get the chance to take on much armour as the Americans seize the hill. This was always going to be the problem, but if I can keep on weakening the infantry, I may neutralise their capacity to mount an effective final assault on at least the higher VL.

    Although yes, it would be nice to see the Priest go boom. And the Sherman, for that matter.

    LOL well you are going about it with the right idea in mind. The weaker his infantry, the more incentive he has to risk the Priest in direct fire support and the odds go up that maybe you will get a shooting opportunity. The Marder is probably better used versus the Priest. The Sherman can shoot back really fast and the Marder needs to hit it right away. Your Pak has better odds of getting off more than a single round, but once spotted is vulnerable to his mortars.

    0

    A little confused on Italy v Normandy and engines

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    Just purchased CM Italy and installed it. But it appears that CM:N and CM:CF have to be upgraded through the separate later path/patch to get them to CM v2.0 ?? Or can I just copy over the scenarios and campaigns from the N/CF games into the Italy directories to be able to play them with the v2.0 engine and just delete the original N/CF directory?? A little confused on how the upgrade thing works IF you purchase Italy. Unless Italy also patched the original CM:N/CF files which was not apparent during installation.

    Would that it were so simple. :) I started trying to build a base map for CMBN using CMFI's capabilities, but realized I couldn't. Why? Data parameters. A scenario in CMFI has a start date that doesn't exist in CMBN so it won't accept it at all and vice versa. It isn't simply an issue of the engine, there is a lot more involved including building types, tile types, ToE issues etc. Even when CMBN is upgraded to version to this will preclude moving scenarios between the two.

    0

    Casualty question....

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted

    The interesting thing is the battles we fight at the CM level if applied to operational and strategic games would make for boring attritional games, whereas interesting games at the stategic and operational level make for boring overmatched tactical games. This is where the whole process of having a good op layer campaign runs into the meat grinder. Broadsword dealt with this by only applying the interesting battles for CM play. Makes for some fun scenarios that still have an influence on the op layer, but not having to fight a dozen battles that are either walkovers or getting pounded by artillery for 30 turns and then having to defend with what is left.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...