Jump to content

Ryujin

Members
  • Posts

    667
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ryujin

  1. Interesting, didn't know that about evade and I've been playing CM on and off for forever. It acts differently then if I just say gave them a fast move away from where they're at? Sounds like it would have saved a lot of pixeltrooper lives. I'll have to experiment with that because I'd love a way to get them to run to cover when they decide to cower under fire in the open, mere meters away from a house.
  2. It's worth keeping in mind that units other than air controllers/FOs can call in support. For the US PLT HQ and higher can call in air/arty/UAV so they can handle some of the air while the JTAC handles the important strikes. For the Russians I don't know if higher HQs can call air (like COY+), maybe in the recon units. I think the US gets a pretty good edge in air flexibility, while Russians and Ukrainians probably need to use their air in groups. EDIT: Looks like only air controllers can call air for Ukraine and Russia, so that's a pretty big advantage for the US.
  3. Been playing Objective Delta as blue vs AI and red air has been going to town knocking out all but one of my strykers, JTAC, and PLT HQ even though I hid them as best I could in the woodline. Does the battle amount to pray one of your two stinger shots knocks down the jet or you're screwed or is there something I'm missing? I'm going to try to push through, but I feel like I messed up when it goes this badly . Certainty not like playing the US in CMSF, with both sides blowing the crap out of each other with air, this going to come down to an infantry only fight pretty soon.
  4. The problem is that CM often is a game about micromanagement, as you're required to make most decisions for every unit on the map and they can't be expected to do much more than pick targets on their own. The TAC AI sometimes does smart things, but it often has little sense of context or initiative. Personally while I'd love a decent AI you could delegate things to like the one in Command Ops (on a smaller scale), the next best thing would probably be more behaviors rather than direct orders to give the TAC AI some context rather than trying to guess at what's the best option for this situation.Steel beasts and flashpoint campaigns were both pretty good at letting you give behaviors to avoid micromanagement. Orders like assault and hunt are already pretty useful in CM for their built in behavior changes, more overall behavior orders on the special tab like screen, hold, engage, etc behaviors would be great. So you could pick between the unit being overall more aggressive and favoring better sight-lines over cover, vs say having the unit break away on contact and keep it's head down. There's already a lot of TAC AI behaviors like retreating to cover and picking stance that could be really powerful if we could influence them.
  5. My concern is that flanking or surprise won't just be about skill and tend to be unnecessarily difficult if your units insist on always announcing their presence by directly lasing the enemy before firing.
  6. I was wondering if there's any chance that vehicles will be smart about not lasing enemy vehicles if they don't have to, since laser warning receivers are used by every side. i.e. an engagement at only a couple hundred meters. It seems silly to give away their ambush at a range where they could probably hit without the aid of the FCS and I was kind of surprised that the stryker MGS in ChrisND's recent stream lased the T-90 at relatively short range. Also, wondering if lasing for Russian/Ukrainian precision artillery rounds would warn the vehicle?
  7. As far as I know there's no AI, it's just scripted by the mission maker. It just carries out the pre-scripted orders regardless of what happens.
  8. I thought most western tanks have ammo in hull storage. It's always been a big deal in sims like steel beasts, since for the M1A2 for example, about half your ammo is in hull storage. You get 18 ready and then you have to find a safe spot to turn the turret to the side to transfer to the ready rack. If I recall correctly the leopard had about 15 ready and a little over 20 in the hull. I don't remember anything like that in CMSF, but I could be mistaken.
  9. Looking like a good start, but I'd recommend a few things: -There are tons of free dirt/grunge/rust brushes out there, notably a few with dirt patterns (like you're stamping a picture of dripped mud). These make weathering something super quick and easy. For example Aris looks like he uses them pretty heavily for that detailed weathered look. It saves you a lot of time from doing it by hand and will likely look better, unless you're experienced with painting. For example: http://www.brusheezy.com/brushes/1176-high-res-dirt-brush-set -Consider where the vehicle will get dirty and from what. It's not going to be evenly coated in mud. For example you'd get heavier/thicker dried mud and dirt kicked up around the wheel wells. So that would be thick and splattered, possibly with fresh dirt still having some dark color to it. The upper and front of the vehicle will get some dust and such, but will be cleaner. The lower back too. This will also be lighter and less saturated. You can also get oil/fluid stuff around the engine, but use that sparingly. -You probably don't want to over do it. Some people like it looking like it was parked in the jungle for 5 years, usually with extensive wear/fade over the whole vehicle. You can go for that look, but I think it looks odd, especially so evenly over the whole vehicle and kind of undermines the effect with no contrast between weathered and cleaner areas. Doesn't seem right for Normandy.
  10. Yes it helps, but what my point is I don't know how much difference that actually makes if the gunner is scared and not aiming properly. Just popping his head up to the sight and letting of a quick burst or two. He may not be ranging it properly or taking time to line the bursts up well. He might not even be looking through the sight that much if he doesn't want to get his head up that high up. The key point is like you said, the first round should be close to where it's aimed. If the shot is rushed and it's aimed 100m long and a bit to the left of target, then the bullet will precisely hit that point of aim. Actually hitting the enemy is entirely dependent on proper aim by the gunner. Scared people aren't very good at aiming. The hit percentage should of course be better than an unsupported weapon, but I don't know if it's going to be a huge improvement under stress.
  11. There is first of course the question of point vs area target for those ranges. The second and more important point is that these are likely ideal conditions, probably from range shooting. For example the US Army considers the effective range of the M4 to be about 500m for point targets. Shooting from a bench rest on the range this holds up. However their data suggests that the hit percentage is about 5-7% at that range under stress(as opposed to around 85% firing from a bench rest). For them to even measure that shooting under stress data, it probably wasn't combat, just stress shooting drills. Shooting in combat would probably be even worse. Shooting under fire would be magnitudes worse. So realistically, you're probably looking at hit chances less than 1% at the listed effective range of the M4 in combat. Here's a link to that data (page 14): http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/c/downloads/215919.pdf Also, I'm not sure how much of a difference the tripod and optics would make, they certainly would help a bit, but the inaccuracy is coming from the gunner, not the gun. "Regardless of the range potential for certain weapon platforms, the human factor must be considered. Studies have shown that Soldiers can only consistently hit a human-size target more than 300 meters away 50 percent of the time or less on a qualification range. The numbers are significantly lower when a Soldier is operating in high stress environments.1 Therefore, whether a Soldier is firing a 5.56mm system with an effective range of 500 meters, or a 7.62mm platform with an effective range of 800 meters, what really matters is whether he or she has the skill to hit the target to begin with. Taking the human factor into account, one could argue that the “real world” effective range of a 5.56 system is similar to a 7.62mm weapon platform because the range potential of both platforms significantly exceeds the average Soldier’s marksmanship ability. This is not to say that exceptional Soldiers such as U.S. Army Snipers and Squad Designated Marksmen with specialized training are not fully capable of firing small arms to their maximum potential. " - Same source as above There should be more suppression in the situation ingame, but I can believe there being a pretty low chance of them actually hitting anyone until they got close.
  12. 3,827+ yard effective range for a MG34? .... that must be for area fire. And even then it's a bit optimistic. I can't imagine you could even see anything at half that range. Any hit would certainly be luck. The accuracy shown does look pretty bad, but in combat I can imagine missing by several meters to be pretty common (small arms hits at longer ranges should be fairly rare). I think it could be tightened up a bit, but you shouldn't get "on the firing range" accuracy either. The gun and tripod is only as accurate as the stressed out gunner. It just means he'll miss with tighter bursts.
  13. I don't think the difference in accuracy between a bolt action and semi-auto would make much difference to a rifleman. Most of the stuff I've seen from WW2 to modern day suggests that people shoot terribly under stress. The hit percentages, especially beyond something like 200m are very low. Both types of rifles are far more accurate than your average rifleman can shoot. (If I recall correctly taking someone off the range lowers their accuracy by a factor of 10, someone shooting at them/stress reduces it by another factor of 10 or something around that). Which makes the semi autos far more useful with the advantage in volume of fire. Although at the time and for some time after, there was a mentality around the riflemen making these calm long range aimed shots in combat. Experience from ww2 lead to a shorter range and higher rate of fire.
  14. HEAT = Shaped charge detonating on impact, "liquifying" (it's a bit more complex than that) some metal. The metal does the penetrating, the charge is just there to make the jet of metal. However, it'd likely have a bigger change and more anti personal utility both from charge size and a fuse that's more likely to detonate before the shell goes too far into the ground. Tanks/AT guns do fire HE if they have it. However if they run out or don't carry HE (like the 57mm mentioned a lot in this thread), they will fire all manner of anti-armor rounds at infantry. As far as AP causing casualties, I could see it happening even if it buried a bit (all it takes is one tiny metal fragment to hit something vital), but it should be pretty unpredictable. In my limited AP vs infantry experience, it does feel a bit too consistent for something burying into the ground.
  15. Since there isn't any enemy AI, the Shermans are extra weak if the situation can't be solved by brute force and/or numbers. Either build some wide flanking into the plan and hope for the best, or give the allies more Shermans attacking from different directions. I'm sure a human player could do much, much better. Since the "AI" is just scripted, it can't do any of the vital things like reacting to the panther or flanking. They'll just follow the script. Which means if you plan for this to be playable head to head also, it'll be hard to balance. The AI will need many more shermans than a player.
  16. There will be something called the "alpha channel" that controls transparency. You'll see the outline there, fill it in with black.
  17. A squad leaders leadership rating effects the men in their squad for example. As I understand it the leadership will effect whoever is subrodinate to them, even if they are in their squad/team (probably more so if they are in their team).
  18. I never said it's practical, but if your standing against one of the sides, so the blast leaves the vehicle, it should be possible with little risk from backblast. And no, I'm not asking that it be included in CM or anything, I'm just pointing out that it can be done. Not that you'd want to.
  19. Wouldn't he fire it standing up in the back, so there isn't anything behind him? Probably towards the back of the vehicle or where ever would make sure all the backblast went over the side. Why would you fire it sitting down in the vehicle? Aside from backblast, you have to stand up to see the target anyway. Firing while sitting down in back there would be bigger problems than backblast, like the fact you probably just fired the PF into your own vehicle as I don't know where else it would go. Unless you fired it straight up in the air.
  20. Someone has to take it with them when they dismount using the acquire command. Generally you'll want to give to infantry, not the crew. You do raise an interesting question about firing if while mounted. I don't know if the infantry in back can fire it from the vehicle once they've acquired it. I always have the squad fire it dismounted. On the other hand, I've never tired firing it mounted, but I suspect it won't let you do it and that getting within the tiny PF range of an enemy AFV with a halftrack will be interesting, to say the least.
  21. I was thinking of using the para models on the regular Brit squad. Since it would look more like their round helmet. Although they did have head wear that looked like the British helmet a bit. Though I'm no expert on the Japanese forces, the Brit airborne model appears to be the closest and maybe more common, as far as I can tell. They also have a looser, baggier look to the jacket. I'll pick it up eventually and in the mean time Coon Dog seems to be making good progress.
  22. I don't have the CW module yet so I don't think there's much I can do with regards to swapping at the moment. No airborne in the CW demo as far as I know.
  23. The problem isn't with scale entirely, but also the types of things the player has to worry about. Even for a team level game, the player shouldn't have to do extra management to babysit their troops through simple actions. Basic coordination of the teams when grouped as a squad could be handled by the TACAI via orders or states (squad level formations, spacing, etc as orders). The assault order is a step in the right direction, the more simple actions that can be "automated" the better. I don't mind managing the teams to actually implement my tactics, that's the interesting part. That's the core gameplay the player should be concerned with. Lots of waypoints and hand holding to do very simple things is another matter. Spacing and formations could even be as simple as steering behaviors to give flocking and offset pursuit while moving. I'd like them popping in and out of cover (around corners, over walls, etc). It'd probably help urban combat a fair amount. With bullets being 1:1, better use of cover matters.
  24. Yeah, the Japanese didn't field a whole lot of SMGs as far as I know. You can however swap the regular infantry model for the airborne one, so that you keep the regular squad equipment but get the appearance of the airborne. Fixed some camo stretching on the arms, new cloth texture and wrinkles, and camo colors seem better.
  25. But then they have to stop and sort themselves out at each waypoint and at best all you get is a tactical blob. You can also split up squads and move the fire teams in formation, but that multiplies the micromanagement and still doesn't address te teams themselves. You shouldn't have to fight the game to get some basic formations. Also, I'd like for my troops to be able to use building corners and other objects as cover (ideally you'd mark all the corners and etc with points for AI). And of course the number one on my wishlist is adding enemy AI.
×
×
  • Create New...