PlatCmdr_too
-
Posts
21 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by PlatCmdr_too
-
-
The scenario is "FR-Hold until Relieved" and involves the wooden bunker on the U.S. side. I'll email my email address and you can respond in turn with yours to which I'll then attach and send to you the game file in question.
-
Yes indeed, that's the one, and what appears is also the same scenario. I wasn't aware it had been noted already, but do hope its fixed soon, along with my other issue concerning the teleporting troops after exiting a bunker...
-
I'm not a whiner or ranter but am pretty frustrated over a couple "glitch" issues in a current PBEM scenario based game I'm playing right now and would like to report these so we can have something constructively done to hopefully fix this in a future patch. I have no way of posting the content of these game files here, but would be happy to email them to the men in charge or even a Tester here if that works. Also, I should add that these occurred in a game that's loaded with the latest 1.01 patch.
#1: During the initial setup phase, after exiting a squad that I had placed into a wooden bunker, the squad was broken into two groups, with the larger group being placed in "no man's" land well outside of my setup area and alongside the edge of the map. The only thing I could do was issue them a movement command for the subsequent first movement turn of the game, but otherwise, I had no way of moving them back, even after saving and restarting the game. And sure enough, as the movement phase started, they happened to be directly adjacent to a group of enemy forces, apparently in my opponent's setup zone.
#2: While moving two squads across a foot bridge, they bunched up, then "fell" into the river they were crossing, and instantly became fatigued and stuck.
-
Thanks, your comment drew my attention to a missed detail, that the setup zones are static, which is now apparent when loading it into the editor. I assumed like most games, that this game would adjust to change the setup zones based on who was attacker vs. defender, rather than by what side was chosen. Problem solved, thanks.
-
With increasing frustration, I have twice now had an attack PBEM QB game (ver. 1.01) result with the attacker and defender zones being reversed at start-up, that is to say, the handpicked forces of my defending forces wind up setting up on the opposite side of the map from the area which is to be defended, clearly making this appear to be the setup zone of the attacker. I wish I had the ability to screenshot this, but don't, yet my description of this hopefully is clear enough. I can email this PBEM file to any beta testers or the like that would like to see this for themselves.
-
If there's no ground texture, there's no difference between the cover the ground offers and the same lack of texture not under trees. Trees are placed individually, and provide shade and a tree trunk in the way of concealment and cover. If the incoming is from higher up, the canopy might help too, but against level fire it's irrelevant. Being on an action spot that has trees on it doesn't make any difference except for the explicitly modelled and visible pixels of the trees themselves. You don't place 'woods' tiles or 'scattered trees' tiles any more.
I'm trying not to repeat myself verbatim from the other thread, because I see here a bit more detail of what the problem is that you're struggling with.
Fantastic, that clears that up. I was indeed viewing the foliage in terms of representative modeling not as being individual distinct features. I have to re-tweak my CMx1 way of thinking.
Thanks! -
The trees stop bullets and sometimes amusely HE rounds. If there is a tree(s) between whatever guy you are worried about and whatever the threat is then you are in "woods".
Great, well so much for the certainty of hiding in "cover," which again, is my vexation.
-
This has been explained before, and what I understodd was the following.
Stuff you can see on the ground provides cover and/or concealment on a pixel-for-pixel basis. So you can see that a given action spot has scrubby ground cover, or corn, or whatever (though actually identifying precisely what your pixeltruppen are trying to hide behind takes some experience). In addition terrain provides some 'micro-terrain' cover bonuses which are abstracted out. In general, you don't need to (indeed can't) know whether a given team or squad is 'in cover' or not, partly because some members of the team might be in a different kind of cover (even though they're on the same action point), and partly because the 'cover status' of an individual will be varied depending upon which direction the fire is coming from; how will the computer know which direction you're worried about at any given time? Also, cover from intervening objects will count, if it interrupts a LOS/LOF, and that's something else the computer can't predict for you. These issues get even woolier when you're talking about a Squad of 2-3 teams, each of which is usually on a different Action Spot, which could have no terrain types in common whatsoever. How would the game interpret this complex information for you?
However, it's also asserted by those as should know that your truppen will seek available cover in the action spot they are in, so you should be fairly confident that your troops are in the best cover they can be in whatever location you put them.
This is vastly different from CMx1 where the tile was a homogeneous 'cover type' with an abstracted 'cover modifier'. The game doesn't work that way any more.
I can appreciate the inclusion of micro-terrain elements such as terrain variation, various hard object obstacles, gopher holes
, etc, etc. that provide defilade affecting LOS/LOF and which would be impossible to represent on map in the form of pixilated features. I accept as you say, these features exist on any piece of terrain thus enhancing one's cover. My vexation however is in knowing whether or not my troopers are in the woods per se where there would be greater cover offered than out in the open, regardless of these unmmodeled features being present. -
I can appreciate the inclusion of micro-terrain elements such as terrain variation, various hard object obstacles, gopher holes
, etc, etc. that provide defilade affecting LOS/LOF and which would be impossible to represent on map in the form of pixilated features. I accept as you say, these features exist on any piece of terrain thus enhancing one's cover. My vexation however is in knowing whether or not my troopers are in the woods per se where there would be greater cover offered than out in the open, regardless of these unmmodeled features being present. -
Speaking of UI fixes, I hope the new patch also addresses the need for displaying additional unit position info as was standard with the CMx1 games, such as identifying if a unit is located in cover, such as "woods", "scattered trees" etc as the tree trunk modeling at present lacks ground texture and color to further define these areas, thus making it unclear whether your units are indeed in cover or not.
-
I'm now struggling with an additional difference between the two versions (CMx1 vs CMx2) as it relates to the way terrain features are represented. In CMx1, terrain such as scattered trees, woods, etc have patterned bases which makes clear where my troops are positioned, in addition to the user interface will identify where my troops are located, such as "open ground," "woods," "scattered trees," etc. In CMx2, while attempting to place my troops in cover, I can't tell half the time whether they are in cover or not as there lacks clear terrain boundaries and the UI additionally fails to tell me if my troops are in cover or not. I hope the patch addresses this issue, please fix or somefink!
-
With squads that are comprised of multiple teams, you should see up to three "boxes" (yellow, red and orange) when giving a movement order to the squad. These indicate the action spots that the respective teams in the squad will occupy and are oriented based on the direction of movement and the terrain at the destination with a tendency to align to linear features approached from the perpendicular. (There is a lighting bug currently that can make the red and orange boxes near impossible to see at certain times of the day).
There are two exceptions to the above for squads with multiple teams:
1. The "assault" order will show only the single yellow box on the action spot, but squads will still spread their teams over 2-3 action spots at the destination.
2. If you have multiple units selected (e.g. a platoon HQ and two squads), you may see only the single yellow box when issuing movement orders.
Quoted because I think this is the crux of the matter.Michael
Ah yes, this does help to define things better, with attention now drawn to this, I now can see a slight color difference between the movement boxes in the case of squads containing multiple teams. This remains hard to discern and was not immediately apparent.
Thanks guys for helping to clear this up a bit.
-
If I have got this correct the OP's mortar teams are firing their own small arms at the enemy as well as dropping mortar rounds. Can't say I have ever seen that myself and can only think he has got his mortars in very close, in which case they ain't going to last long anyway.
I am really not sure that putting mortars in the front line is good practice.
If you would like to see a demonstration of this, I experienced this during the "Mission 3: Battle Drill" scenario from the Devon - Basic Training battles. While firing at Hill 2014 from the instructed, "Base of Fire" firing spot, my mortar team also opened up with small arms fire at the areas of Hill 2014 that were within the mortar team's LOS. Perhaps too close by your estimate, but this fire mission was located in the area I was told to fire from as instructed by the game manual itself. I'll likely need to use HQ spotters to avoid this occurrence in the future.
-
Perhaps that is the issue. I would like to assume that if the movement marker "yellow boxes" is indicating I can move there, and these fall within the area contained by the "woods" during the movement phase, then I'd assume all units moving into that previously highlighted grid would naturally falls in place within that previously marked area. I suppose I'll need to then accept the yellow movement grid boxes as a relevant marker, not an absolute marker as to where these troops will end up once they conclude their movement. Or am I assuming too much.
As for the on-board mortar question, here's another issue. If for instance my mortar team has LOS to the enemy and fires upon them, is their position compromised more by direct fire in this manner than if they were to commence firing from this same position with the assist of a HQ directed fire mission using this same team whereby, even though still positioned with LOS to the enemy, the small arms then wouldn't come into play? I suppose I could playtest this too later when I get home, but was hoping for a quick response to save me the time.
-
... and, I am fairly sure that Steve clarified that if an individual dude looks like he is exposed then he _is_ exposed.
GaJ
GaJ, this may be Steve's explanation, but it still does not answer why this is occurring in the first place. I never had this issue with CMx1, as unlike in CMx1, my troop's movements are now limited to a yellow grid designate, which is fine, but inevitably, there often times remain troopers who appear to fall outside the cover afforded by say, the woods, thus giving the appearance that they are now in the open, as the adjacent terrain area they are now standing on appears to be just that.
I went with others suggestions and tried splitting my platoons into squads as well as using the face command but still am coming up with the same outcome. I suppose I will need to playtest this in a Hotseat battle and see if this potential exposure to the enemy is indeed occurring or simply a matter or perception based on the way the terrain is modeled.
As for the mortar issue, I'm still not convinced that the small arms fire these teams engage in during the mortar salvo isn't giving the position of the mortar team away. In CMx1, this was not the case.
-
Having been a longtime fan and player of the original CMx1 series I am really enjoying this CMx2 version of WWII battlefield play. However, having not played CMSF and being unfamiliar with the CMx2 engine has led to some vexing moments, and I hope a few of you out there can clear things up.
1) There appears to be a lack of clarity where troops are positioned on the map as many times squads appear to overlap the terrain grid they have been assigned to and seem to be in adjacent areas that in some cases lack cover thus making them appear exposed even though the other half of the platoon appears to remain in cover. Are these troops in the "open" truly so, or if I move the group into a yellow grid box within the woods, are they all technically in the "woods" even if some appear to overlap into open areas adjacent to cover? I suppose a simple marker/indicator such as "in woods" when clicking on a unit marker would suffice.
2) I also am struggling with some difficulty in determining whether or not a unit given a "deploy" order is actually going to carry out this order. Such is the case with deploying HMGs or mortars. A simple text "status" note much like which exists with the "pause" feature would be helpful on map when setting multiple waypoints/multiple command orders in knowing that this command will be executed within that multi-order sequence. In addition, I'm surprised there isn't a countdown timer like that existing in CMx1 for the setup time which would be helpful in determining the realtime status of that weapon during its setup phase. Am I missing something here?
3) My last question is regarding on board mortars. When assigning these to fire directly using their own LOS to target versus using a HQ spotter, it appears that the MG equipped troops assigned within the mortar team open up with their small arms while the mortar is firing, which I figure is then going to give away the position of the mortar team as a whole. Is there any way to fire the mortar in this manner by itself without the rest of the mortar team also firing upon the target with small arms?
Thanks!
Random Map Generator for QBs?
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
I've exhausted play on most of what I deem are the more interesting maps that came with the disk and was wondering why there was no random map generator included in this version as was the case with the CMx1 series of games?
Also, given this lack of unlimited random play maps, are there any online sites that anyone knows of where one can download some new, player created maps? Scenario Depot was my old go to but seems stuck on presenting maps for CMx1 games only.