Vinnart
-
Posts
2,570 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Vinnart
-
-
In QB's I buy the mortar squad seperatly, and they come with bearer's with ammo.
-
This update contains the updated Marco Bergman graphics. It is compatable with v.2.01 only.
-
Not sure what you guys are talking about. The only HQ Support Team I see in my sifting through the TO&E doesn't have a Radio.
Keep in mind that C2 lines in WW2 were not very flexible. Radios were often not physically capable of receiving signals from other units with radios. There were distinct "nets" and either you had a radio capable of tying into it or you didn't.
CM is already too flexible with this compared to WW2 simply because we didn't want to spend too many precious development resources trying to "perfect" this aspect of the game. Though if there are specific problems that should be addressed, I can definitely take a look into it.
I need to know EXACTLY what Formation you're talking about and EXACTLY what unit can't do what with EXACTLY what other unit.
Steve
Steve, I think the way the radios work is good in that it keeps it simple. I think over complicating it would just add frustration over ease of use for smooth game play.
I just happen to have a HQ support unit here with a radio next to mortars in it’s own formation. The mortars show no C2 link, but if I move a jeep with a radio close by they do. It would seem that the HQ support unit should be a viable link for the mortars via it’s radio, but is not. For this reason I use the HQ support as a FO team, keeping either 4th HQ , or a radio vehicle with the mortars.
Here shown is 4th platoon HQ has no link with mortars even though HQ support has radio, is in formation, and is right next to mortars in the same formation.
-
So far so good in deploying weapons teams. This is what I am most glad about. Still feeling out the new MG's.
-
Don't use auto pick. Create and craft your own force. This is the best, and most fun way to make a flexible efficient force, and is a welcome feature. Thank you BF for bringing this system back after CMSF! I like the current system, and find I can get tight C2 in the way I put my force together.
-
I understand that one soldier can acquire the weapon of a fallen comrade. Does the same apply to a support officer in possession of a radio? (i.e. can an HQ/support officer w/o a radio acquire one in this manner?)
Yes they will pick up other equipment too such as radio's. I have a bit of a situation at the moment that deals with this. My Platoon HQ's radio man got hit, and a scout team next to them did the medicing. Now the only way I can get it back in the hands of the Platoon HQ is to get Pvt. Numbnuts killed so the HQ can medic him, and pick up the radio returning it to it's HQ. I hope more improvements in future build deal with better acquiring/sharing as there is no doubt in reality the pvt. would hand over the radio to the HQ.
-
Where's the heat on this one?
You and your opponent can agree to any set of rules you can reach mutual agreement on.
I think that is sum of it. As long as both players are cool with the perameters then it works out good with no one upset over whatever.
-
surrender? Pffft I have reinforcements coming, I have plenty more guys I have yet to get killed. Besides, it is when the whole plan is in the latrine that you get to see how you can turn the situation around. Besides vKleist is entitled to his pound of flesh and the best way I have to make sure I don't make this mistake again is to make it brutally painful.
RTFB Read the F"in Briefing - my new motto
I'm sorry. It sounded like you were getting slaughtered. By all means go get em! Sometimes one can recover, and still come back for the win. I had that happen my very first cmx2 PBEM. I had a total abortion of an ambush go wrong. I mean all my dudes totally freaked and ran off a hill from cover, and I still got the win with a come back down to the wire of the last turn. Things like that make for good battle drama.
-
Ha vKleist is wiping the floor with my butt right now as I didn't pay close enough attention to the briefing of the scenario we are playing. It was listed as allied attack which is why we selected it, however even a cursory perusal of the briefing would have told me different and I am paying the price for my incompetence. The scenario is Breaking the Panzers (Gee sburke, you think the title might have given you a clue...sigh). I am still blaming the designer for it saying allied attack, the alternative is to admit I didn't give the briefing a look nor bothered to consider the title.
Anyway the point is I am still sending turns back as quickly as I normally would despite my vision being blurred by tears as I watch my poor bloody infantry getting slaughtered. Oh the inhumanity!!!! Sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear plays "who's your daddy" with you hunched over some fallen tree with mud and leaves in your face. Oh and bears stink something awful. I know, I've had one in my car.
There you go sburke take your beating like a man! If your are getting trashed then I think you should either surrender, or go on the sneaky defensive and take as many of the bastards with ya till the time is up. No quarter given, non taken. I would not except a cease fire if I was your opponent.
The important thing is to learn from this mistake. In any battle though I would say that the person with more experience with the scenario/map has an edge in foreknowledge, and a better chance of the win. Rarely do two people play a map for the first time at the same time. That will teach you to always look at the objectives, and read the briefing at the very least of understanding the map especially 1st time playing it. I have gone against people who did not look at the objectives, and did your mistake so you are not alone.
-
The players I have a problem with are those who "disappear" once they start losing. Since I usually only play members of my club (and people trying to join), I seldom meet these people anymore.
That is how I prefer to destroy the will of my opponent vs putting an arty srtike on his start up location in set up turn to ruin the game before it starts. The pattern I have experienced is this:
Turn frequency starts at one, or two a day.
Dude starts losing, and turns come a few days a part.
Dude is really getting arse kicked, and sends a turn once a week or every two weeks, or disappears. Not finishing I count as a win by forfeit.
The other is consistently defeated who after a half dozen defeats in a row loses his will to battle anymore.
-
My pleasure guys. Enjoy!
-
All mine work except the animated text mentioned. Unlike most other mods this MUST be updated with each patch since it deals with a file that is changed with each build. I upload the latest compatible version which should be up soon.
-
No doubt it is a set up for future games. When one looks through the string text file they can see all sorts of stuff that is to be, or was. There is even stuff from CMSF. It looks like an efficient way to produce laying foundation blocks to work from to make variation from.
-
I think the Panther is the best tank all around in the game. Great speed, firepower, and armor. Optics are good too. I know I alway buy them when playing German.
-
3:1 is what is desired to win in a real attack. This is a nice number that fits in a nice neat little box in a perfect world. I doubt evey attack in real life fit into this ideal figure. In Band of Brothers 12 men attacked 40 men at Brecourt manor and won.
Even if this figure is desired in real life combat does that necessarily mean it fits into the game as far as balance gameplay is concerned?
-
I just upload the 2.1 compatible version. Look for it to be up soon.
-
As far as last minute rushes to a flag I recall cmx1 had it who ever had more power over the flag if was contested got it. This made for better play vs the entire VL must be cleared system IMO. I had a PBEM not long ago where I got a tactical win vs a total victory because he got one squad on the VL, and I had a whole company. This happened because the VL was very big. In this regard as the game is with this system smaller VL’s would limit this so it is up to the map maker’s to make good VL’s.
Despite what the official outcome said in the game described both my opponent, and I know It was a total win on my part so that is what I go by. I would look at it more that way in dealing with contested VL space with last minute rushes. Was it legit win, or B.S. win.
-
Buying about 20 TRPs, 3-4 FOs with Jeeps, and all arty?
Buying exclusively KTs and Jagds?
Using tank crews as assault troops?
Easy,
Have an agreement no TRP's before the game. I think TRP's should be scenario only. What will the FO's fight off my tanks, and whatever infantry that survive the arty with? Diversity prepares for any unexpected circumstance. The important thing is to agree upon certain things such as no targeting artillery in the set up turn unless it is the attacker in a attack/defend battle only, No purchase of air, TRP's and such.
I Haven’t played agaisnt KT's so I can't comment, but I'll say tigers with no infanty can be beat by superior #'s of allied tanks with infantry. Not saying it might be easy, but certainly possible.
ALL soldiers are infantry first, and specialty MOS second, so why not. Basic training/boot camp concentrates on this. I have heard of times where even cooks were thrown into the line. A better use of tank crews is as medic teams first, then have them as overwatch units. Have them pick up some different types of ammo first from a vehicle if you can before picking up weapons.
I say adapt to the uniqueness of the game environment because that is the reality, as it will not adapt to your reality.
-
I won it playing on both defense, and offence, but found the defensive a bit harder. The Shermans had a harder time taking out panzerIII than I expected with lots of ricochets. On defense I kept the engineers together, and put them on ambush in the woods located on the left side. They repeled the Italians, and added to my couterattack on the orchard toward the end. I think this is good spot for them in this scenario. Another good tip is to blow a hole in the tall wall to move troops to and fro from the woods and monistary in good cover. All in all it is a tougher job defending than attacking this map, but you can win either way.
-
In the pic I posted the mortar team was stationary with no movement order issued. I gave a face order, then deploy. The team is in a good position with enemy sighted across the field so there is no desire to move them especially since they were to be putting fire on target while some riflemen were to hit the side. Now the riflemen are in engaged without the mortar support. To get it to work as Paul said I would have to move one AS then try to set up again which doesn’t make it easy to coordinate timing, and quite frankly is too late for the current situation.
The bottom line is I hope they fix it soon, and there should be no need to add extra moves to work right. I know BF is working on it, and that it is a known bug, but that does not make it any less frustrating to deal with at the moment even during single play. Now I can either reload to try again to deploy at the spot I want adding the extra move, or play on with my fire support running right into enemy fire as did earlier in the game I am playing. At least this didn’t happen in a PBEM. My only conclusion is updating old versions is a bit more complicated than BF expected since I do not know of this issue in CMFI 2.0.
-
I just issue facing command prior to deploying weapon. Works for me.
I gave a face, then deploy here and the mortar guys are seperating. Sometimes I am having luck in deploying, and sometimes not no matter what sequence orders are given.
-
Update on Marcos graphics?
Last I heard from him he was having difficulty updating the graphics. For the time being this original version is still functional, albeit not as visually exciting with the limit of what can be done from the keyboard and character map alone. Any graphics are better than just all text.
-
Yes Agusto, The briefings have been improved since CMSF. They are clearer visualy, easier to understand, and easier to read.
As far as putting much time into the TAC map screen I wouldn't worry about it too much. The TAC maps really are not very useful beyond telling of objectives, reinforcments, and the occasional intel on enemy. The maps are too small, and one gets more from seeing the actual map from above. Does BF need to put more into it? I don't think so. I think the Normaldude aproach like I posted is just fine.I made an interactive one recently in photoshop for a battle, and found I didn't even use it. It was just something cool I thought I would need, but did not.
-
Good point Lt Belenko. I guess I never consider, or let the ratio bother me in that I have had ME battles where my opponent occupied the VL first, and I still beat him off of it to win. Sublime is also correct in that not being first to VL can be used to advantage too, but I do not allow TRP in ME games. I prefer actual spotting for artillery for both players. It is about getting best ground first, and not nessearily the VL first.
In Timmy’s case, or any newbie they probably are better off sticking to attack/defend t\rather than ME battles to learn the game. ME battles are not as cut and dry in approach.
campaign unballance with v2.01?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I am playing "Road to Montebourg" now, and find me being a bit more cautious as I am still feeling the MG's out. I never thought I would say this, but kind of want to run into a MG42 to see how it is now. I want to play more before I form the opinion of being too deadly effecting game play as artillery was when the game first came out. Sometimes realism will not play out well in gameplay due to other limitation of the game. This was the case with the artillery originaly . One round was killing entire squads. Not saying this couldn’t be possible in reality, but doesn’t make for good game play. This was because the men bunch up more in the game than in reality. In this case BF toned the artillery down, and it is a much more playable game. As for the MG's playing for some time is the only way to see if the changes work within the limitations of the game environment, or not. No doubt the force will revolve more around MG’s. There will always be cons with the pros no matter what. Example: faster ROF means running through ammo quicker.