Alan8325
-
Posts
583 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Alan8325
-
-
In CMx2, suppression and morale are separated. From what I understand from playing CMSF, higher leadership quality decreases the rate at which subordinates' suppression builds up and morale goes down under stress, and increases the recovery rates of suppression and morale hits. I'm not sure if it has any effect on spotting time or firing accuracy or anything like that. Those factors might only be determined by experience.
-
A "Command" level game
Haha, I wasn't hoping CM would turn into that. I was just saying that it wouldn't make sense to take player control away from units that are out of C2 unless there is more AI at that level that can do things like reposition in response to threats. Or another real person in the case of a multiplayer co-op addition.
-
Actually Alan, I would love for a player, when he loses C2 on any unit to actually lose all visual contact with that unit until he can get a unit that is in C2 in contact, visually, or otherwise back in contact with that unit (friendly FOW)
...alas, tis but a dream. But imagine the tactical repercussions.
Would be nice, but right now the player has to make almost all decisions for units at every level. Squad/unit level decisions like find hull-down position, pop smoke, move a team to the second floor, provide suppressive fire on a building or ridgeline, etc. are not normally passed down the chain of command, yet the player currently has to make those decisions for units in CMx2 anyway. I think until there's some level of AI controlling those, it wouldn't be fair to take control away from the player if a unit is out of C2.
-
Bil is definitely using his crews in a "gamey" way. There's not much we can do about this other than to hit the Morale to make them less likely to engage in combat. They are naturally not connected to the C2 chain (headphones aren't radios!) so whatever they see isn't passed along to other units unless they are VERY close (and likely spotting the same things on their own).
Have you thought about restricting the information the player has on enemy contacts that are made by friendly units out of C2? Perhaps on "Iron" difficulty, or whatever the strictest realism/difficulty setting in CMBN is, units that are out of C2 that make contact with an enemy unit would engage as they normally would, and the player could still see and control the actions of the friendly unit, but no info on enemy contacts would appear to the player until the friendly unit is back in C2. This limitation wouldn't have much of an effect on situations like Bil's sending a crew to fight another crew in the woods, other than Bil couldn't see who the friendly crew is fighting until C2 is re-established, but it would severely limit the gamey tactic of using crews or other units out of C2 to recon "distant" targets.
-
I'm probably wrong then. I just remember knocked out vehicles in CMSF were deliberately made "invisible" to fire that is incoming to another vehicle. It's probably different in CM:BN.
-
I'm not sure how that would be possible, given what Steve has said about how the game engine handles projectiles and hits. We've been told that the game explicitly traces the line that a projectile takes and what, if anything, it intersects with. The only way a shot could hit an AFV that is behind another AFV is if the shell goes clean through the first and comes out the other side *or* if the rear vehicle is sticking out from behind the front vehicle. Anything that's hiding behind another object, whether that object is an armored vehicle, house, tree, fence, etc. should receive protection from that object (as well as concealment).
The way it works in CM:SF is knocked out vehicles provide cover for infantry against all shooters whether it's other infantry or vehicles. Vehicles however are DELIBERATELY denied cover from other vehicles because the TAC AI system of aiming towards the center of vehicles means that the covering knocked out vehicle would receive an unrealistically high amount of incoming fire. In real life, a gunner could shift his aim to account for part of the target being obscured. In CMx2, the TAC AI can not currently do this. It can't aim towards the center of the VISIBLE area of the target. It aims towards the center of the entire vehicle. This is my understanding of why it's done this way. Someone please correct me if i'm wrong.
-
Yes they need those head phones so that can radio back and tell the other tanks what they saw on their little recon mission "gamey b%#^&%d" indeed !!
Does this mean using crews for recon has become an officially sanctioned CMx2 tactic?
I'm assuming from this post that you don't have CMSF with the Brit module.
-
Moving backwards in time from modern warfare to WWII, purchasing a bunch of infantry on a map like this is something that I VERY likely would have done prior to watching this AAR. On the modern battlefield with precision air strikes, ATGMs and RPGs infantry often have the power to one-hit kill most types of armored vehicles anywhere on the map. I haven't played a realistic WWII sim for a while now, since IL2 I think, and I'm sure I'm in for some additional rude awakenings when I start playing.
-
Ok Turn 12...she has all gone sideways. I now have an M4A3 (76), 2x M10s facing 7 working Pz IVs all but two have a Vet crew quality or better. My infantry are back in the woods looking at all these burning tanks and deciding that now is a good time for lunch.
Smoke, fall back and hope to get lucky.
As to the quality issue, but experience plays a very big role. Not only in spot-to-shot but spotting times.
(I am speaking out of school and I remind all this is a Beta BUT it does relate directly to this AAR) I ran a test with two identical tanks, one crew Reg the other Vet and the Vet came out on top 3 times out of 5. Crank it up to Elite and it is 5 out of 5 to them. In one test the Elite tank actually spotted about 2 seconds after the Regular (bad luck) but were so switched on they still got the first shot off.
Bil, check the Beta Forum for "Covered Arc"
What is the damage to the Sherman and M10 that received hits?
I'm glad to see crew experience coming out on top over superior equipment quality. I think that is how it should be in most cases except for those where equipment quality is largely lopsided (Tiger vs. Sherman for example).
-
I think it is apposite to return to a point raised in a SF thread, given The Capt's response. Does the 1 to 1 representation of units, each portraying more 'human' animations especially those of suffering, have an emotional effect on players? Seeing Moe Larry and Curly get slowly chopped to pieces was sad because it meant your plan was failing, seeing a far superior depiction of a squad being individually gunned down might take more of an emotional toll on the virtual commander. This in turn might lead to games in which the immersion levels are so high that commanders start to identify with there soldiers plight.
As a wargamer it's a subject I'm fascinated about. Will the suspension of disbelief, created by ever more 'realistic' depictions of human activity, in gaming, start to activate hind brain responses (core functions that could be called primeval), such as love (agape) and it's attendant protective responses? Who here would/could play a wargame that depicted, with frightening realism, the real effects of modern war and if we did, would we have to pay the attendant psychological price?
With highly realistic depictions of suffering it might happen the first couple of times, but I think most peoples' negative psychological impacts will be largely tempered by the knowledge that Moe, Larry and Curly will be right back in action the next time the scenario starts up again. Kind of like how Kenny dies in every episode of South Park.
As for the AAR, I would be interested to see what kind of damage the M4A3(76) has after the penetration in turn 11.
-
Since flamethrower units and fire/burning effects are on the to-do list for the WWII games, hopefully this will include graphical effects that translate to improved vehicle burning effects as well.
-
Thanks for the French TO&E info! It will be interesting to see what gets deployed in Libya as the operation progresses.
Of more relevance to the Syrian side of things news reports over the last day or so indicate something happening in that country though, as yet, relatively small demonstrations. Things could get very interesting there and, considering other news from the Middle East, right across the region. Hope this does not become anything bigger over the next few months.Paper Tiger's Road to Dinas campaign might play out in real life.
-
As someone who is more interested in modern warfare than WWII, I'm probably in the minority on this among modern warfare buffs but I'm perfectly OK with WWII taking plenty of development time before CMSF2. The CMx2 engine will improve significantly during this time which translates advantages to CMSF2, BFC will retain the interest of WWII fans which maximizes their customer base inside the relatively small wargaming niche, and I also like WWII even though I prefer modern and plan on playing the WWII games.
-
What does the French Marine (Troupes de marine) TO&E look like? For example what is the section size? Does it look more like a British rifle section or a U.S. Marine squad? I tried looking it up and couldn't find this info. I did find that the Troupes de marine are actually a branch of the French Army, as opposed to the Commandos marine, which are the French naval special forces and only number around 500. They too would be involved in Libya I would imagine.
-
Anyone know why England and France can't do a unilateral (bilateral?) no-fly zone in Libya? They, along with the Arab League members, are the ones who are clamoring for the no-fly zone most, and they each have formidable air forces relative to anything Qadhafi has.
-
Also more possibilities covering the early battles of the campaign where the Syrian air force might play a small role. Of course, one interesting possibility might be to say that the Syrian air force was originally thought to be destroyed early in the campaign but actually fooled NATO intelligence analysts because they used dummy aircraft combined with a few real ones while most of the real planes hid in hardened bunkers. As NATO forces begin to close in on Damascus and the above tank battles begin the Syrians pull of an "Air Tet" which should give NATO commanders some worrying moments...
Even later on in the war some interesting scenarios could come up with Syrian attack helicopters, which do not need airfields to operate, coming out of hiding from some obscure warehouse to take part in the battle. You could be on your way towards your objective with a platoon of Abrams when halfway through the scenario, the enemy happens to get reinforcements in the form of a couple of Hinds. Surprise!
-
What's even more funny is in this case the guy driving the BMP also probably calls it a tank.
-
Yeah, I have heard them call an IFV a tank. Anyone who knows anything at all about these things knows that a BMP, despite the fact that it does have a small gun is an IFV, not a tank. For most journalists anything that has tracks and a gun of any sort is a "tank" Perhaps a copy of Janes should be a standard issue for all journalists reporting from a war zone so they can learn to tell the difference
Like this?
-
I agree that SOF units would be great, but I think the problem with including them is that they don't use conventional equipment and tactics and these all change depending on the mission as well. This would all have to be modeled in CMSF to do them justice, otherwise they aren't much different from regular soldiers set at "elite" experience, which you can already do in CMSF.
In regard to Libya, there is a recent news article regarding fighting in the city of Misrata where pro-govt forces entered with tanks and were apparently pushed out by rebel forces later. This seems suitable for CMSF-scale battles and could make for an interesting scenario.
From the article:
"Some of the day's heaviest fighting was over the city of Misrata, where residents said pro-Gadhafi troops punched into the city with mortar and tank artillery and were pushed out five hours later by rebel forces. Misrata is 120 miles (200 kilometers) east of Tripoli.
Rebel military commanders intentionally opened the way for the government tanks to enter the city, then surrounded them and attacked the armor with anti-aircraft guns and mortar shells, said Abdel Fatah al-Misrati, one of the rebels.
"Our spirits are high," he said. "The regime is struggling and what is happening is a desperate attempt to survive and crush the opposition, but the rebels are in control of the city."
"Now the Gadhafi forces are trapped inside the city," he said.
A doctor reached by The Associated Press in the city's main hospital said tanks shelled its stores of medical supplies, setting them on fire.
The residents said the shelling was almost over by early afternoon.
The residents and the doctor spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared reprisals.
Four rebels and five pro-Gadhafi troops were killed, al-Misrati said."
-
I don't think T-90s would be much different from T-55s as far as a "no tank zone," enforced from the air, would be concerned. If the US or NATO intervened militarily it would be along the lines of eliminating the Libyan Gadhaffi loyalist air power, which would have to include destroying AA defenses on the ground. This would be the start, as it is what the rebels are asking for, then possibly the destruction of tanks if they happen to be assets that prolong a stalemate or tip the balance in favor of Gadhaffi loyalists.
With that said, I don't believe that the US or NATO would get involved militarily unless severe atrocities are committed against the rebels, such as the use of chemical weapons, or there is a clear, pro western leadership that has a high likelihood of emerging as the new regime after rebel victory. In Libya's case there isn't one at the moment, while in Egypt's case the military leadership, which is pro western, was clearly the power that would take charge after Mubarak's fall.
-
I read somewhere on these forums that there was a spotting bonus in that arc, but I don't remember if it was offical word. I haven't had the time to test it out.
-
As for spotting, blue vehicles are overmodeled just a little, IMHO. May be that Hummvee knew about BMP? Did someone spot it?
Except for the units equipped with the LRAS. They are as blind as your BMP!
EDIT: Are you using a target arc? With only two pairs of eyeballs in the BMP, perhaps giving the crew "direction" on where to spot helps more than in vehicles with more crew and/or better optics.
-
As far as AA (even on-map) being a threat to aircraft in CMSF though, I believe that that will happen at some point. It would, however, almost certainly be abstracted in a way that it's just implemented as a probability of a particular air asset disappearing from your CAS menu (been shot down) and maybe being unavailable in later missions, until replaced.
Unless an actual CMSF scenario is a ground assault against an AA battery however, modern AA would likely be far off-map from your little 2kmX2km section of ground. On-map AA, if we ever get it, would likely be a probability that an on-map unit such as the Shilka or an infantry man with Stinger would aim skywards and fire at the abstracted aircraft, with a subsequent probability that the aircraft is hit, and then a probability that it sustained catastrophic damage, etc.
-
In real life, the company and battalion commanders would be making many of the decisions that the player makes in CMSF, who has to make ALL the decisions from squad level, all the way up to batallion level.
I would place the higher HQs and XOs in good spotting locations in well-secured areas, as you are doing, and give them short cover arcs so that they don't open fire unless enemy units are in close proximity. I think this is easily in line with what happens in reality in terms of non-administrative involvement by these units.
A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Steve,
One thing I did not understand at all in CMSF (and CMx2) was how or whether a vehicle being knocked out is tied to component damage. I've seen vehicles get knocked out and, before the crew has left the vehicle, looked at the components and seen them all green. Also, I've seen vehicles lose almost all components and still not be "knocked out". Are the two types of damage (component damage and knocked out yes/no) totally separate from eachother? In other words, upon a penetrating hit does the system calculate the probability that certain components will be damaged and SEPARATELY calculate a probability that the vehicle is knocked out?