Childress
-
Posts
2,550 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Childress
-
-
Vehicle test. L to R: Truck, H8HMC, Stuart, & the M4AI(mid) the sluggard of the tank group. This test has less meaning than the inf one because it doesn't take into account turning speed and rough terrain aptitude. The map is flat and clear. Result: Fast is faster though not dramatically so and not, oddly for the Sherman. Make of it what you will.
-
Are Crack troops in better shape than green troops? Will they last longer before tiring out? Childress, time for some more tests :-)
I'm not getting paid for this! On the other hand, maybe it's time to check the Paypal account. You never know....
Next test: vehicle speeds.
-
I need to amend the results of the speed test I threw together. On watching it again in RT I noticed that Fast does enjoy a definite speed advantage, 30-40%, over the first hundred meters or so. But that edge evaporates when a significant stretch of ground is covered. So, yes, as a sprint, it has its uses.
Also I believe that although the endurance quotients could be adjusted altering the velocity would mess with the game's animations.
-
Don't see why either force should get the heavy stuff in a ME. Maybe the small on map mortars. It's all about a 'hasty deployment' situation, right?
-
The race is on! Quick on the left, Fast on the right. Seems like Fast has a bit of a head start, Chip.
And it's Fast (orange icon) by a nose! But they're ready for the glue factory, lieutenant.
-
logged a lot of "real world" in game action, it makes a difference, they definitely last longer.
I meant in terms of speed not endurance. The speed difference between Quick and Fast doesn't exist, apparently. The same seems to be true for vehicles.
I write 'apparently' because I didn't do sustained testing.
-
quick- what i just most of the time not as fast as fast but men can go longer at that speed.
I hope your right but a cursory test showed the two speeds, Quick and Fast, as identical.
-
Soldiers scout better on Move? Better awareness?
My issue is that some of the commands are insufficiently differentiated. Quick is supposed to be a jog and Fast a flat out run. In reality the speeds are equal for both commands (vehicles, too, it seems) but troops running Fast tire out much earlier. Apparently troops on Quick are more likely to return fire but I find the trade-off rather mild.
-
But that is my style of play.
Before others pooh-pooh the idea of editable way points, please play through a scenario in WEGO mode, if you have not already done so, and you will see why it would be helpful to have.
Maybe I'm just not that meticulous. I do play WEGO and don't see much of a chore factor.
Don't get me wrong, it would prove useful- sometimes. But BF has a lot on their plate and I think we'd prefer they'd address some of the alleged anomalies others have posted about. Too bad this forum doesn't support polls.
-
Not in the CMx2 releases.
Question: why is this important? Just backspace delete the last way point and plop down another one.
If I had a list of enhancements this would be about #96.
-
No red text.
-
Hmm... you've handed us a mystery! No 'pause', no yellow base, four men in the crew, crew aren't panicked/routed - are they? Is the AI actively firing on targets? I see everybody's got a mg in his hands. Is anything listed as 'broken' in your UI list? Theoretically the transmission could be smashed though I've never ever seen that particular problem in a damage report. Did you try cancelling the reverse order and reapplying it? You're right - its so... unfair!
Relevant facts of the case:
*The driver was killed, I believe, four turns ago.
*Morale was Shaken at first but now Cautious.
*The Veteran crew is in radio command
*Three of the blue damage boxes, I don't remember which, had turned light blue.
*The tank will accept movement commands but not carry them out. Have tried multiple, different orders. Reverse was the first and the last.
*(Prob irrelevant) I can make the tank will fire its main gun in the direction of the bocage, but the round hits before first.
-
Hehe. But it's been several turns.....
It's just so....unfair.
-
The driver of the Sherman gets taken out by- apparently- a shreck. The tank will never move again for the rest of the scenario? The commander can't jump in and back it up out of harm's way? The loader, the gunner? That's it?
-
By CMSF standards CMBN doesn't HAVE any bugs, just upcoming feature enhancements and tweaking of unit stats. CMSF had BUGS.
CMBN was a routine birth. CMSF was a preemie baby, the mother suffering from ruptured membranes and uncontrolled preterm bleeding requiring tertiary interventions.
But the baby eventually turned out OK.
-
If you want to test the protective value of the walls, either hide them, or even better, test them behind a wall with no windows or doors.
Another tactic is to garrison the second row of buildings in a town, leaving the ones facing the enemy line lightly manned with (sporadically hiding) scouts. On the downside one forfeits some juicy LOS opportunities.
-
You get the impression that the number of wargames that can provide a challenging AI opponent on the offence is pretty rare. Black Swan rare. Can't think of any offhand. Although some claim 'Battles from the Bulge' isn't too shabby.
-
Yeah, CBMN comes on as definitely more challenging, if not punishing, than the previous titles. At times it seems to require super-human restraint.
I just played a medium sized QB, auto-pick in a town, and was rolling to victory as the Allies. We brewed up all their vehicles, including two MKIVs and a hitherto untouched inf platoon was advancing in a carefree fashion to the low wall overlooking the victory location. Eight minutes to go. Suddenly there was a rocking explosions and twenty grunts lay dead or wounded. From total victory to major defeat in a single turn.
The only German units left on the end screen were a single functioning tank and scattered, panicked crews. No Allied kills were attributed to them. No mines. I have to guess that it was a prescient artillery barrage but there were German platoon leaders or FOs that I could find on the map dead or alive. Kind of a mystery. Any ideas?
-
Since the classic meeting engagement implies haphazardly deployed forces colliding unexpectedly on the battlefield it seems a bit bizarre, if not a contradiction in terms, to provide for a 'pre-planned' barrage.
-
The scenario maker delineates the exit zones, if any.
O/T: Are there any scenarios in which the player actually uses trucks in a tactical manner?
-
_My_ point is that at this early stage in the game's life we're all providing feedback about whether everything is "working just right", and my feeling is that this was a surprise, and didn't feel right.
GaJ
You're right: it's early. Your demur may or may not be well founded.
All of the previous CM titles needed a couple of updates to really hit their stride. CMSF a half dozen. Battlefront is composed of a small team, but they listen. I find that CMBN is their least troublesome release with the possible exception of CMAK- in which they were building on a series.
-
Battlefront is a small house. Maybe reviewers are conceding them the chance to release one patch before casting judgement. Not that the existing game is buggy, by any means.
Curious to see what score James Allen from Out of Eight gives CMBN. He lavished a perfect- and grossly premature- 8/8 on Shock Force.
-
A Combined Arms option for AI auto-pick: infantry and a a couple of tanks. 'Mixed' seems to yield eccentric results, for a couple of examples among many, pure amour or four batteries of Calliopes for a Small force.
-
Loading up a quick battle with the AI- an Assault- I discover that all the enemy foxholes are visible during setup. So I shelled them.
QB#024, if that makes a difference.
You win. I'll stop posting.
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
How hard is it for a scenario maker to simply put a patch of dirt under a bocage break? Prob realistic, as well, as it no doubt gets a lot of transit.