LukeFF
-
Posts
3,901 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by LukeFF
-
-
Enough to keep making games like this.
-
Thanks Luke. Good to hear you're enjoying them.
Yep, you did a really nice job with these. As a K98 aficionado, I like how you made some variations in the barrel bands and floor-plates.
-
I also have a lot of difficulty controling 2 assaults at same time! Especially when those 2 assaults needs to be done in some kind of coordination with each others!
That's what I'm struggling with and why I'm going to give WeGo another chance. Typically, if I'm assaulting two different objectives with forces on opposite sides of the map I either:
-Leave one of the two forces in place for too long (since I'm focused too much on the other one)
-Allow one of the forces to be annihilated by machine gun or mortar fire because I wasn't paying attention to that part of the map.
As it is, I typically only pause about once a minute anyways, so it's not like I'd be missing much by forgoing RealTime.
-
Separate weapon sounds for bolt-action and semi-auto rifles. I own both a Garand and a K98 (plus other WWII-era rifles), so I say with absolute certainty the two weapons sound distinctly different.
-
Great job on these. I never really liked how BF made the skins on the Garand and K98 with blonde, light-color stocks. Plus, it's nice to see some color variation in the weapons now.
-
"reduce the ranges at which more experienced troops open fire with SMGs "
I am certain that, following complaints on this forum, Steve said that this was addressed in the 1.01 patch. Has it not been or do you think it requires further adjustment?
I think it requires further adjustment. Less-experienced troops I can understand opening fire at 100+ meters (with the associated waste of ammo), but more experienced troops should be holding their fire until the engagement ranges are under 100 meters.
-
Re: LukeFF's test. Thanks for sharing, but a better test would be Unit A versus Unit C, then Unit B versus Unit C. It sounds like you ran A vs. B.
As mentioned, many, many iterations would be needed. Vary range/experience and run, run, run, some more.
I do plan on doing that, once I get some more time.
-
In all honesty, I don't feel you ran enough iterations of your tests to draw firm conclusions. CM allows enough variation of outcome from instance to instance that you need a rather large sample to be statistically meaningful. That said, your results are interesting and do not depart much from what I have casually observed in playing the game, namely that SMGs tend to be used at longer ranges than were probably the case in the real war, and also that they are more effective causers of casualties at those ranges. IMHO, SMGs should be deadly inside 20 m and effective out to 50 m, but rapidly lose their effectiveness beyond 50 m.
Well, I didn't have time to run tests for hours on end.
I just wanted to get a quick feel for how effective SMGs are at 100+ meters. TBH I don't think the modeling of the SMGs is that far off (many of the rounds fired had significant horizontal dispersion). The two main things, like I wrote above, that need to be done are to reduce the ranges at which more experienced troops open fire with SMGs and to reduce their chances of causing a hit at long range. -
My conclusions from these tests are twofold:
-Submachine guns on both sides are hitting targets well beyond their effective range. For the Thompson, an Average soldier can pin and hit a prone target at over three times its effective range. MP40s are doing the same at twice their effective range.
-Soldiers, even when they are set to Veteran skill levels, open fire at very excessive ranges with their SMGs. Even at 100+ meters, the soldiers in these tests happily fired away at the enemy as if they were at close range. The result is either a colossal waste of ammo or casualties for the other side. This should not be so.
-
Final Tests:
Range 155 meters, Average skill for both sides:
German unit was pinned 30 seconds into test. First German soldier was KiA 36 seconds into test. Germans never hit a target.
Veteran skill for Germans: First American was KiA 1:10 into test. Second American pinned but not hit. No Germans hit.
------------------------
Range 195 meters:
Average skill: No one hit.
Both sides Veteran: 1 American red wounded 3:45 into test.
-
Alright, so I ran the test again. This time, the range was 115 meters, which is outside the effective range of the MP40 listed in the manual (not to mention the Thompson, which is 50 meters).
With both teams set to Average skill:
The American team caused a German red wounding within first minute of the test. The second German was pinned in the second minute of the test.
With the Germans set to Veteran skill:
The Germans pinned the American unit about 30 seconds into test. First American was red wounded 36 seconds into the test. Second soldier was killed 10 seconds later. Both Americans were prone at the time they were hit.
This leads me to believe something isn't right. Thompsons shouldn't be hitting targets at twice its max effective range, and MP40s shouldn't be hitting targets so easily beyond its effective range, either.
-
Alright, so I ran some tests with SMGs. Two scout teams, each composed of two men. Germans with MP40s, Americans with Thompsons. Range was 90 meters. Wind was set to 0.
In the first test, both teams were set to Regular. Suppression of the Americans was noticeable within 10 seconds and rapidly increasing afterwards. With continuous firing, the first American casualty (red wounding) did not occur until approximately 1:20 into test. Second soldier was wounded (yellow) about 4 minutes into test. Horizontal shot dispersion was quite noticeable.
In the second test, I upped the Germans' skill to Veteran. The American unit was pinned about 30 seconds into test. First American casualty (red wounding) was about 35 seconds into test. Second casualty (KiA) 1:05 into test. So, skill level definitely plays a part in how accurate these weapons are.
Note: in both these tests, the Americans caused some suppression but never hit the Germans once.
-
I know coding animations is time-consuming, but can something be done about the firing animations for bipod machine guns? It looks really goofy seeing, for instance, German soldiers firing their MG42s and MG34s like they're an assault rifle.
-
I'm finding that the MP40 consistently causes casualties at the maximum limit of its range, and often there is a lot of foliage between the shooter and the target. This doesn't seem to be in keeping with the historical record, where the MP40's lack of range and rapid degradation of accuracy over 50+ meters spurred the development of the assault rifle.
Am I accurate in this assessment, or am I way off base?
-
I accidentally deleted my screenshot I took of this, but here is what was happening:
On the above-named scenario, if one tries to move troops (tanks or infantry) directly north across the western-most bridge (the one adjacent to the outskirts of town), the waypoint will stop at the middle of the bridge, and any additional waypoints will snap to the bottom of the river. I finally got around the issue by setting a waypoint in the field to the northwest of the bridge, but of course this was not where I wanted my troops.
Anyone else notice this?
-
It's OK to post the pics in a larger resolution.
-
I've had the same issue with this scenario (running an ATI 5970). Exiting and re-loading the scenario did the trick.
-
I don't understand what's wrong with an empty jeep with a radio doing the job. For all the game knows, you put that jeep-with-radio there for a reason.
A jeep with a radio doesn't do anyone any good if no one is in the vehicle and listening to it. I could accept that an empty vehicle provides radio contact to a mortar unit on the specific condition that it is in a square directly adjacent to the mortar crew (or about 10 meters max distance); otherwise, an empty radio-equipped vehicle should not be providing C2 capability.
I dunno what it's called in other militaries, but in the U.S. Army, they have a detail called "radio watch." That person's job is to monitor the radio and answer any messages received on it. I'm certain that's something they did back in the 40s.
-
I read Ambrose's "Wild Blue" and found it alright, but nothing that great. I've had his "Pegasus Bridge" on my shelf for some time but have never read it.
Band of Brothers, sadly, does have a fair number of errors in it, which seems par for the course with Ambrose.
-
SR-2: Any operational, radio equipped vehicle, whether it is dismounted or occupied, in a radius up to 20m to an onboard artillery unit will enable all HQ or FO units to call in indirect fire from that artillery unit, regardless of LOS or C2 contact.
See, this is where I have an issue. Under current conditions, an unoccupied radio-equipped jeep can provide radio contact to on-board mortar units, yet an HQ Support unit, which is outfitted with a radio and part of the weapons platoon, cannot provide that same contact.
This is just not realistic. A Weapons HQ Support unit, equipped with a radio and commanded by an NCO, should be fully capable of providing radio contact to on-board mortar units. Empty radio-equipped vehicles, on the other hand, should not.
-
That's all. So if you increase the US experience in the editor, be sure to increase the German's too
I may just do that. But before I go down that route, I'm going to give it another try as-is. I know I did some things the first couple of times around that didn't exactly contribute to success.
-
I assume when looking at the mortars, they are deployed and out of C2. Once they are in C2, and are deployed, you should be able to call in strikes.
I tried that, but once the weapons HQ is out of sight of the mortar teams, the mortar teams are shown to be "out of contact," even with the HQ Support team right next to them.
It sure would be nice to use the HQ Support team as a radio link for the mortars, because as of right now the former is just an "extra set of bodies." They can't command machine gun teams, either, and that radio they carry isn't doing a lot of good right now.
-
The big issue I have at this point is the Green skill level of the American troops, which mean they get spooked very easily. To me, Green implies troops that are either rear-echelon troops pressed into combat or combat troops insufficiently trained for, well, combat. As such, I may tweak the skill level in the editor and may try it again.
-
I was playing on the American side in the "A Delaying Action" scenario and setting up my mortar units. With my weapons section, I figured it would be best to keep the HQ section with the two MG teams and leave the HQ Support section with the mortar teams, since the HQ Support team had a radio. However, when I checked to see if my forward observer could call in mortar fire, the mortar teams were listed as being "Out of Contact."
Is it intended to be that way? That HQ Support team had a radio and was part of the weapons section (confirmed by double-clicking on it), and it was positioned right next to the two mortar teams.
I just wanted to get a quick feel for how effective SMGs are at 100+ meters. TBH I don't think the modeling of the SMGs is that far off (many of the rounds fired had significant horizontal dispersion). The two main things, like I wrote above, that need to be done are to reduce the ranges at which more experienced troops open fire with SMGs and to reduce their chances of causing a hit at long range.
tank obstacles clearance
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
It was a joke.