Alan8325
-
Posts
583 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Alan8325
-
-
I have mixed feelings regarding this. On the one hand sending suicide units to discover enemy positions seems gamey but on the other hand we are very limited by time compared to RL.
There are basically two ways of doing recon - stealthily observing enemy positions with scouts and FOs, and getting shot at to find enemy positions. In CM we unfortunately do not often have the time to do recon of the stealthy kind and therefore need to get shot at, which is done via either recon by fire from small units such as scout teams, or with easy to spot units that are cheap and of poor value (jeep/kubel) or so tough that they can take the hits (Tiger). In CMSF I found that often the only way to find enemy ATGMs was to let them open up on my M1A2SEPs.
-
I remember a few discussions about this in CM:SF. The main reason it is not currently modeled for vehicles is because the tac-AI wouldn't know how to position vehicles to take advantage/avoid the limitations of elevation and depression limits.
-
Although the probability that NATO forces will become involved in Syria is low, there is a higher probability that civil war will break out with defecting military units making a stand with protesters against Assad forces. This type of scenario is still "CMSF realized" in a RED vs RED respect. I believe most of the assets that would be used by either side are in the game, including unconventional combatants that could represent armed protestors and non-uniformed military defectors.
Below are some comments from one of the latest articles, suggesting that there is even some armour vs armour fighting already:
Refugees arriving in Turkey said fighting had also broken out among Syrian troops on Sunday as soldiers bent on destroying the area were confronted by others trying to defend the townsfolk.
Elements from one tank division had even taken up positions by bridges leading into the town in a bid to defend it, they said.
"The troops are divided," said 35-year-old Abdullah, who fled Jisr al-Shughur on Sunday and sneaked over the border into Turkey to find food.
"Four tanks defected and they began to fire on one another," he added.
Ali, another Syrian refugee who made it to Turkey, told a similar story.
"There is now a split within the army and you have a group who are trying to protect the civilians," the 27-year-old told AFP.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110614/wl_mideast_afp/syriapoliticsunrest_16
-
It think red tanks were undermodeled in CMSF. (or blue tanks overmodeled?
) I mean spotting. Unbuttoned red tank's commander sometimes didn't see Abrams at 300-500 m. It was typical, when red tank in ambush position was spotted by Abrams first. (I know about C2, it was not that case) It was OK in game about Syria, T-55/62s with green crews had no chances against M1s at any case. But if vehicles of both sides are comparable...
Agree with this. Also, accuracy and effectiveness of the AK rifles at very close (~50m) range seemed undermodeled when compared to the U.S. M4s as well. Seems like any automatic weapon putting out enough suppressive fire from a skilled shooter should be roughly equal at that kind of range, yet BLUE forces in CMSF seemed to always win suppression and get the upper hand, even against veteran+ RED guys.
RED artillery support, too, seemed inept in CMSF where in CMBN we are going back in time almost 70 years and BOTH sides have similar arty response times and accuracy that seem closer to BLUE capabilites in CMSF.
-
I guess a current day confilct similar to what Gibson is describing would be fun, but how would that really any different, equipment wise, than what we had? Also if you are going to do something in that kind of open terrain you've got to give us bigger maps!
Personally I think a mid 80's game offers up a ton of playability, and also a level playing field. The M1 (not M1A1), and M60's with a 105mm cannon, against T-80B's will make you sweat. Not too mention mostly M113's....
Just think about it BF
IMO the survivability of the M1A1/A2's in CMSF was a bit overmodeled, and the detection abilites of RED armor undermodeled, especially at the ranges we were dealing with. If I'm right, we should see more even fights, if not, well maybe Russia has better stuff now.
Also, the experience levels and doctrine of the RED side should be more even in CMSF2, where both sides will be ~veteran and allowed squad splitting options, as opposed to the veteran vs green type of matchup that was typical in CMSF.
-
I was hoping for China too but I guess since much Russian kit is already done it would allow for more development time to go towards advancing CMx2's capabilities, which is OK with me. I suppose China could hypothetically be included in a module or separate game as well, like how the Eastern Front in WWII will be a seperate game with modules from the Normandy game with its modules.
I personally like to play with "what if" scenarios with fully modern and near future kit so I'm totally for a modern/near future setting as opposed to 70's or 80's, but that's me!
EDIT: Actually, if/when CMx2 can do jungle environments, Vietnam and WWII Pacific would be pretty awesome!
-
I know it's a long way until CMSF 2 is even on the drawing board, but now having finally purchased CMBN and seen water, rain, European terrain/buildings I just wanted to express my excitement and hope that CMSF 2 will eventually come to fruition. Don't forget about those of us who prefer the modern/recent era. Oh and good job with CMBN!
+1! And upon returning to the modern era with all it's high-tech lethality, I hope we get larger maps, detailed visible damage to vehicles (a Maverick, afterall, doesn't leave a tank very recognizable after a direct hit!), more control over CAS requests such as choosing the attack vector, on-map aerial insertions and extractions, a return of Uncon forces with IEDs and hopefully more improvised weapons like molotov cocktails (fire should make an arrival to CMx2 at some point in the WWII games)... I could go on and on, but we still have plenty of time.
-
OK ... guys... playing the game with spotting tied to difficulty means that the game is more annoying.. not harder
1. if I playing on veteran and a rifle squad sees and enemy unit and then I click on another on my units, say a scout car. Just because the scout car is to far away to see or hear what the rifle squad can does not prevent ME - "the player" the one who is issuing orders every turn to "know" where the enemy is.
2. If even one of my units can see or hear an enemy it should always be marked on my map so that i see the overall tactical situation.
3. Since I can give orders to ANY unit at ANY time in real time play or every turn in turn based play... the idea of making me click on each unit to see what it sees does not add challenge or alter my tactics since I still retain the "GOD MODE" camera abilities to look all over the battle map and make decisions. WHAT it does is make me take extra time and slow down the game...
4 . Please make spotting a separate option so I can play the game against higher level AI without the time consuming BS of clicking on each unit every turn to see what it can see.
When you have NO units selected, all contacts spotted by any of your units will appear on your display. Simply deselect the unit so that you have none selected, and you will see all contacts.
Regarding impressions, I have only played the "training" scenario so far and I like what I see!
*Spoiler Warning*
I was moving a rifle platoon across that wooden foot bridge on the U.S. left side of the map when they got pinned down on the bridge, then subsequently came under fire from an enemy Pak40 AT gun at the far end of the map. After about 3 or 4 hits to the bridge, the bridge falls into the water insta-killing 2/3 of the squad! Bad place to get pinned and take fire from HE.
By the end of the scenario, that Pak40 had racked up 16 casualties and 1 Sherman tank. My most damaging units were the two 60mm mortars with 13 and 15 kills. -
The thing is that in CMSF, Recon troops are as good or as bad as any other unit, so they are really just weak inf with no special training - which is a shame.
I would hope that scenario designers would as a matter of course, make Recon and Sniper units of higher quality than other troops to sim the extra training. For some reason I have only seen that very rarely.
I would agree with this. In real life recon troops have specialist training in spotting while remaing unspotted themselves. In CMSF there are different general combat experiece levels but no simulation of specialist training and/or skills. All troops, including recon troops, generally obey the same spotting rules and spot as well and are spotted as easily themselves as all other troops, with the possible exception of Syrian spies, which are hard to spot due to their civilian appearance. To make one unit spot better than another, given the same type of concealment, one must boost the general combat experience of the unit to spot better.
Hopefully someday CMx2 will allow for even more breaking down of a unit's experience into some different variables that can be tweaked to make specialist soldiers! Things like combat experience, spotting, stealth, fitness (more choices perhaps ranging from -2 to +2), urban warfare (these units would fare better during room clearing ops), engineering, etc.
-
Yes, I believe so. But when designing a scenario it's possible to prevent that from happening by giving them reinforcements that never arrive. These count as part of their total force that determines when it's time to surrender. I do not recall which scenarios use this method, however.
-
Ah ok, thanks for that. Looking forward to having platoon/squad leaders in CMSF2, and also choosing whether squad leaders stay as commander of their vehicle or move out with the squad.
-
Metal note to listen to you more often
Ah really , didnt spot that in this circumstance due to lack of incoming fire. Thanks for the tip.
hmm , ok so i looks good but split teams is better. thanks again.
All true except for when you are playing RED and can't split teams (special forces and airborne excepted).
Then you have to use the "assault" command.Apparently it has to do with doctrine, where the squad is not trained to split into two independent fire teams. I personally would have rather seen CMSF go about it by allowing the split for RED squads and then imposing severe leadership quality penalties on team B, rather than just not allowing it at all. You can, afterall, use the assault command, which naturally splits teams for a limited distance, and also the HQ squad (which is simply a 9-man rifle squad that has the platoon leader attached) has a 2-man AT team hard-coded split out. That is why Syrian rifle platoons in CMSF have a 7-man HQ team and 2-man AT team. This is not a real-life organisation, but simply a concession to allow more flexibility in the game.
-
I think the Gill missile still needs fixing too. It's WAY too inaccurate and doesn't arc very high in the air to hit the top armor of targets. I believe it's performance is supposed to be on par with Javelin.
-
I would love to see a Nato/WP module, circa 1978-1982, for CMSF someday. A WWIII setting would open up all sorts of possibilities for battles around the globe.
BTW: Has BF said anything about their future plans for CMSF? Is the modern setting done, or will they continue to explore it?
Apparently there are plans for a CMSF2 with a modern setting in a temperate climate and more even sides, but that's about all we know.
-
I will probably play CMBN more because it is a more advanced version of the engine with more capabilities and two roughly even forces, but I will still play CMSF for the modern setting. Being able to play around with the equipment and tactics that are in use today, in a game that is more simulator than any other game out there, is attractive to me and I look forward to CMSF2!
-
A few changes here and there to "The Road to Dinas" to match a real life Syrian civil war should do it.
-
29, turning 30 on May 18th.
I still enjoy games like Starcraft(2), CoH and the occasional mindless FPS. Games like CM have much more depth than anything else out there and that is appealing to me right now as well. World of Warcraft has lots of depth in a different way, but I just don't play that enough anymore to justify the monthly fee, so I don't.
-
In CMSF trenches were actually in the terrain mesh which made them natuarally provide cover via LOF blocking from most directions, but they were not subject to FOW and thus viewable by an opponent who scans the map. One could, however, fire down one end of a trench line and naturally hit the occupants more easily.
My questions then, are these. In CMBN, do the above ground fortifications still block LOF, or do they just increase the chance that an on-target "hit" will actually count as a "miss"? Also, would one standing on one end of a trench line firing down it have better chances of hitting the occupants, as one would in CMSF, or is the hit "chance" the same regardless of where the shooter is standing?
-
The 3d models of the towed guns are certainly impressive!
-
WW2 arty smoke was all Willy Pete?
Edit: Ooo, maybe they are. It's the "casualties from just being in it" that surprised me: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm Says: "...Most smokes are not hazardous in concentrations which are useful for obscuring purposes. However, any smoke can be hazardous to health if the concentration is sufficient or if the exposure is long enough...Casualties from WP smoke have not occurred in combat operations..." It does go on to list the ways in which they could cause combat casualties, but that's extraneous. Is the casualty from smoke thing just a game fudge, like the HE effect nerf?
Perhaps CM is abstracting the incendiary effects of WP that would occur shortly after the burst of the shell. It's interesting that no casualties have been reported due to WP useage when the Wikipedia page on WP shows a clear picture of a WP "casualty". That said, in CM terms those injuries would probably represent a "yellow" casualty, as it looks plenty painful and severe enough to limit combat performance, but not bad enough to floor someone of solid mental toughness. Also, those injuries look as though they were sustained by being hit directly by burning chunks of WP released immediately after the detonation of the round.
-
No map generator because the terrain is too complex to make one that produces good maps, but IIRC there's a possibility of a tile-based random map generator being added in future titles. I guess it would consist of pre-made tiles, each made of multiple action spot squares, that can only fit together in a certain way, so things like roads and elevations connect correctly.
-
Does anybody but me think the balance of the scenario is a bit off? I mean, tyrspawn is kind of playing a la-de-da style here as he states several times during the video (no offense, tyrspawn!) - he is giving RT-style orders, not noticing his reinforcements coming in, not worrying about casualties much, he leaves his halftracks and their firepower in the setup area basically, etc....
Yet except for the (badly timed) appearance of the M10's at the end, the battle is a complete walkover, it seems. My guess is it could have been more or less won with mortars and the howitzer alone if tyrspawn had just emptied them on the village and other suspected enemy positions.
Don't know whether this is the final version of this scenario, but the way it was certainly seemed not to be very challenging to me.
Thoughts?
The infantry forces themselves seemed not too unevenly matched but until those very late M10s showed up, all the Americans had to do any damage to three Panthers was a few bazookas and one or two AT guns.
Remove the Panthers and I call it evenly matched. -
Wow, that second TD at 1:24:00 in the first set of videos sure got lucky taking at least 2 direct penetrating hits and kept going! One of the hits went straight through and out the other side. That might have been a rare circumstance where having light armor was a little more helpful than heavy armor.
-
Poop .
I'm not too bothered about 4km x 4km in CMBN, a WWII game, however I really believe the next modern combat title needs larger maps so that less weapon systems' effective ranges encompass the entire map, making anything visible on the map an instant target to anything else, basically.
EDIT: As I understand it, the current limiting factor is the nature of the LOS system, which is computationally intensive. It would need refinement, perhaps making use of parallel processing, to open the way for much larger maps.
) I mean spotting. Unbuttoned red tank's commander sometimes didn't see Abrams at 300-500 m. It was typical, when red tank in ambush position was spotted by Abrams first. (I know about C2, it was not that case) 
By the end of the scenario, that Pak40 had racked up 16 casualties and 1 Sherman tank. My most damaging units were the two 60mm mortars with 13 and 15 kills.
Upcoming Patch?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I think that's exactly it, the spacing. IIRC in CMSF all HE weapons are nerfed against infantry in the open to simulate the wider spacing between individuals that would be used in real life. The infantry in the game (CMSF), however, are limited in spacing by the action spot system and are depicted as closer together than they theoretically would be in real life.
In CMBN I recall that HE is not nerfed because troops tended to be closer together in reality as well. I suspect that the lethality of many weapons as well as the cover provided by different sources will be tweaked over time though.