Wiggum
-
Posts
704 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Wiggum
-
-
Awsome !
...The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters...
-
I think many guys that posted screenshots (even the official ones) are not with max. setting + AF + AA.
Im 100% sure that i can play this game with the highest setting in 1920x1080.
Look at the screenshots from rockpapershotgun.com for example:
Looks dirty enough for me, everything else can be modded.
-
SOUNDS like we have some doubters. We can HEAR you, you know
Steve
Looks like my english is too bad to understand this...
Are Sound Contacts in CMBN ?
-
So you can see the penetration text on enemy tanks too ?
Is this a bug ?
-
Maybe the AI surrendering behavior should be tweaked, but being able to still fight is not needed in my opinion.
I think there should be a differens between routing (enemy runs away but you can still fight him) and surrendering (enemy gives up, no option to still fight him).
-
Sir yes Sir...sounds really US Army too me...
In the german army you call all guys above your own "Dienstgradgruppe" (rank-group) with Herr (Sir).
For example if you are a Gefreiter you dont have to say "Herr Obergefreiter..." (there always can be some exceptions from that) but you have to say "Herr Feldwebel...".
About videos:
...looks a bit like they cant handle a german MG...
-
By the way...
Its Fallschirmjäger not Fallshirmjager !
-
Great collection !
I would pay to shot all those WW2 weapons...
-
Sorry guys, have just done a reinstall and am in the middle of flavor objects at the moment so dont have time for a screen shot but basically we reduced the height of the dirt and added a layer or so of sandbags to the top...as a result I think they visually they look much more like a reasonably good reinforced position considering the compromises with regards to FOW.
Trenches have also been reworked with the new sandbags, in fact fortifications in general have probably been completely revamped from any screen shots you guys may have seen (older than a couple of weeks at least). Dan
...i want a screenshot !
-
So is there any official statement from Battlefront about this ?
-
In the end it would be the best to have at least 3 options for the cover-arc:
1. Kill them all
2. Soft targets only (not that important...)
3. Hard targets only
That way you are able to set up everything like you need it in a specific situation, i just hope such options are not that hard to do for Battlefront !
-
Having carefully set up/key-holed an AT asset, I really don't want it popping off shots at infantry scouts!
...yeah, this could be a real issue in some situations and lead to unrealistic results.
Your AT gun opens fire at those scouts and now the enemy knows your position = AT goes *boom*.
-
The problem is that Combat-Mission is a bit more complex then most other "RTS" games.
Now, i like complex games (simulations, wargames ect.) but i always look if there is a manual + ingame tutorial because it is a real pain to learn something just by try&error sometimes.
If Battlefront wants to get some new players without any CM experience to play this then they better add some kind of ingame tutorial, and please something better then the CMSF tutorial !
-
...i hope we will get those close-combat sounds like in the CMx1 games back !
That adds some more atmosphere to this kind of combat...
Animations are too complex, thats clear but some sounds should be easy to do.
-
At least i hope for a "TARGET" (use main gun and other boom stuff) and a "TARGET LIGHT" (only use light weapons) cover arc !
-
A covered arc for armored targets only is a must have if you ask me, who wants his Tiger tank open fire (and expose himselfe with this action) on a poor single US soldier ?
-
...just WOW !
Combat Mission looks so great on these screenshots !
-
I can remember that CMAK had a great tutorial (a pdf text file + a special scenario) !
You had to read the text where everything was explained, how combat works and what next step you should take in the tutorial scenario for example.
Now youjust had to do what you were told and could see the effects ingame...great !
I hope the Normandy game will have a similar tutorial.
-
Question about attacking mg's over an open field, are you talking CMSF or CMx1? Do you mean you won't "charge" the position? Surely you would have no problem attacking it from cover with a platoon split into 3 squads using today's grenade launchers and rpg type weapons?
...yeah, that was kind of a bad example.
I mean if the MG was in a dominating position, restricting movement to a objective.
But ok, bad example...
-
Isn't that a decision that a RL commander makes? Why would you want the game making it for you?
Not necessarily for me, but for the AI to surrender or route at x% casualitys (+/- something).
But if my men would not attack a mg over open field i could not do such a move even if it would let me win the game (because of the VP i will get by capturing this position).
I would have to accept my fail in this one.
-
Charles could change some things and within a day I bet you anything that CM would enforce realistic casualties as JasonC seems to think is so impossible for it to do because it is engineered. But I doubt anybody would be happy with it. All we would need to do is put in a feature that would stop the attacker if his casualties got beyond a certain % threshold. Piece of piss to do that. And for the defender, all his units would get up and run away when the % threshold was reached. Easy peasy.
But does anybody here want to play a game like that? No, I doubt it.
If this would be a optional Feature that the scenario designer or the player could choose i think i would like it !
-
Please Battlefront take you the time that is needed to make CMBN the greatest wargame ever !
If it means that we have to wait 3 months more thats fine for me. CMSF was realased way to early and that should not happen a second time.
-
Will there be a option for the scenario designer to have the AI to give up or route at a specific casuality level or if a specific object is taken ?
So if the player inflicts 100 casualitys to the AI or if he captures a dominating hill the AI will route (what would mean surrender). It would be up to the scenario designer how much beating the AI will take.
-
The ratio of KIA to wounded seems off. I would expect it to be the other way 'round. But every action is unique, I guess. What is it on average over many battles?
I can remember many CMSF battles with more KIA then WIA.
I always thought it should be the other way (more WIA then KIA) but for some reason in CMx2 it looks like most time you will see more KIA.
Scottie,That said, the reason attacks broke down, despite the urgings of battalion, company or even platoon leaders was when the surviing troops themselves said "F*ck this for a game of soldiers", went for cover and refused to be rallied. CM1 modelled ths quite well with the idea of global morale - take too many casualties and your people stopped listening. It isn't clear to me how well CMx2 replicates this.
Yeah, would be interesting if the Normandy game will have a better (or just a different) Morale system then Shock Force.
Trenches have also been reworked with the new sandbags, in fact fortifications in general have probably been completely revamped from any screen shots you guys may have seen (older than a couple of weeks at least).
So are German forces "better" on average?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I think its important to note the war is not meant ro be fair.
War is no sport like boxing, its more some kind of dirty streetfight where its about kill or get killed.
Sure, with CM we can create such "even odds" battles, but in a real war this usually did not happen because both sides try to be superior.
Because of that i think you just cant say that soldiers from country xy are "better" then others.
That hole think is just way to complex, so many factors are involved.
Sure, the german-army training was good and the tactics/doctrines were maybe superior at the early years of WW2.
But you have to take a look at the geographic location of germany and the manpower aviable.
The germans had to build "better" (aggressive) soldiers, weapons and tactics and attack surprisingly.
Because of germanys geographic location and his small population and exhaustible raw materials there was no other way to do this.
There is a good book about this, its called "The German Way of War: From the Thirty Years' War to the Third Reich".