slug88
-
Posts
349 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by slug88
-
-
I think darker definitely looks better. But once again, the best option is probably to just release both
-
I wish they'd extend the same concessions to BMP's so that half my HQ's didn't have to chase their platoons on foot.
-
So, for those of us who tried and failed to decipher the cat symbols, could anyone give a description of the event?
-
Or why not release both? I'd take the left, though. Looking excellent, by the way.
-
Pandur, I think I can confirm seeing the problem you describe with BMP-1's. I think it has to due with the change in 'target' and 'target light' logic introduced in a recent patch. I believe that, originally, a target light order given to a BMP-1 would have it use the coax, while target would give it the choice between sagger and main gun. However, the new paradigm, in principle, should have target corresponding to the sagger, while target light refers to both the coax and main gun. At least, this is the case for Bardleys and BMP-2s, which will use their 25mm/30mm cannons if given a target light command, and will deploy both cannon and missile if given a target command. My guess is that when this logic was applied to the BMP-1, the missile was assigned to the target command, while the coax mg remained the target light weapon of choice, leaving the 75mm in limbo. I think this is so because I've noticed BMP-1 will only use its coax mg for target light. So, perhaps when the tacAI is choosing which weapon to use against infantry in buildings, it references it's target light assignment, and hence the 75mm is never used.
[ June 05, 2008, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: slug88 ]
-
I agree, it would be better if we had something like force 1 and force 2, rather than red and blue, which can confusingly change meanings.
-
Sivodsi, it took a little while, but I finally recieved your message. I guess it will be our honor to play the first match of the hopefully long and prosperous existance of WargamerScout!
-
Scipio, great idea! I really hope this takes off. I've already posted my first challenge
-
That's a TURMS-T, correct? I believe those have the Kontakt-5 ERA (or one generation below). Perhaps the missile scored a direct hit on one of the tiles and was defeated?
BTW I really doubt that a near-miss from a Javelin would do much if any damage to a tank, even a T-72.
-
I disagree. Luck is certainly involved, but careful management will minimize its influence. I think the art of playing as the US is in eliminating the role of luck, and in attacking so decisively that the enemy never has a chance to respond. This can be quite difficult at times, especially in MOUT. To me, the satisfaction of executing a perfect assault, of taking a city block without a single casualty, is just as great as that which I would get from narrowly winning a hard fought battle.Originally posted by Pandur:there is more luck involved than anything else
your guys take the wrong turn once and you have some casualties more. -
In my view, when playing as the US, victory should generally be inevitable, which is realistic. You'd have to be completely incompetent to lose most of the campaign scenarios. The challenge, however, is not in winning, but in preserving your force while doing so. I'm not familiar with the demo scenarios, but I'd bet that those 14 casualties you suffered could have been completely avoided; it's quite possible to complete many of the challenging US vs Syria scenarios without suffering a single KIA.
Now, if you'd prefer a more traditional challenge a la CMx1, there are plenty of user made campaigns and scenarios that should more than satisfy you. Paper Tiger's Hasrabit campaign, which depicts a fictional Syrian civil war, is more difficult in places than any battle I've encountered in CM:BB. That is just one example among many.
-
Err, it says unarmored, not unarmed..
-
I've definately noticed that hiding units will not carry out face orders. Otherwise I haven't noticed any issues.
-
Nor have I, I've always thought that was a myth.
-
To counteract this, use hunt with a cover arc. This way they will only stop moving when they see an enemy within their arc (or when they come under fire from anyone). Note that you can make circular arcs by holding down shift while plotting the arc.Originally posted by Pandur:about hunt;
i dont know if area fire from own vehicles cancels hunt.
the only thing i can think about right now is that they see something somewhere on the map and cancel it becouse of that. if your man have a good view of the area, they often see some stuff far away you already forgott about or dont see currently, while in the area you are watching nothing happens and it looks like they messed up. that happens to me quiet often.
-
Remember that all US infantry have body armor. AFAIK, no Syrian unit that would use AK47's is equipped with body armor.
-
Um, they can, just give them a light fire order on the building before the assault move, they'll do exactly as you describe.Originally posted by Egoiste:why the covering team does not provide MG fire at front wall, and why the entry team does not throw a grenade..?
-
Ah, hotseat is a good idea, hadn't thought of it. Will do, though not now because I just got off work and I'm in the mood for some actual playing
. -
I suppose it could be a red issue. As I specified, my tests involved US Stryker infantry. Also, I doubt that difficulty level would affect it, since it the tests were on a flat, featureless, 300m long map, so spotting is not much of an issue. I played on basic in order to track the casualties of the opposing side as well as my own.
Dzrtfox, the latest figure you've given doesn't convince me that there is a problem, but it does convince me that further testing is necessary, for red squads. My suspicion, however, is that your results, again, are a result of complex factors and that the biasing could very well be realistic in a way. Remember, I've been arguin against the presence of an artificial bias.
[ May 13, 2008, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: slug88 ]
-
Oh, my glorious Gavin. I can't wait!Originally posted by Dragon67:My understanding is that the 1.09 will include the M113, King Tiger, water, bridge, civilians, and casualty evac.
-
DzrtFox, the problem is that your tests are still statistically insignificant. When I ran my most recent test, leaders died the first four times. Had I not run it another 16 times, I would have been convinced that leaders do die first. The point is that four times in a row, or six times in a row, or even 8 times in a row is all well within the realm of plausible coincidence. I have counted, and you have a total of 8 men dying in all the screenshots you've posted. In all my tests so far 233 men have died. So if we averaged our data, it would still indicate that there is no intrinsic bias.
You also have previous experience of this from months of playing, but the undeniable reality is that the human mind does not treat all data equally. If you play a battalion sized battle in which three different platoons lose their AT man first, it will stick out in your mind, especially if you've got enemy armor to worry about. On the other hand, how significant would it be to you if three more, or 6 more platoons lost riflemen first in the same battle?
Now, I do not at all discount the possibility that other factors may bias leader and specialist deaths in complex situations. For example, it's possible that heavily-laden RPG soldiers run slower than their squadmates, and so are exposed to fire for longer periods. Or perhaps leaders begin moving to their waypoint before the rest of the squad, and so by getting there first, they're more likely to die first. Mainly what I am contesting is that the game biases them artificially, which is what is implied when you state that HE and artillery is more likely to kill leaders than soldiers.
-
DzrtFox, you have 3 data points supporting your argument, while I have 20 refuting it. That's if you discount the first test, which contains far more, and which also contradicted your claim.
Also, note where those casualties took place. Each man was right next to a window. That's the discriminating factor, not the soldier type.
-
Alright, I've run a new test. Two opposing Stryker rifle squads face eachother at 300m. I play in realtime, basic difficulty, until the first casualty (red base) sustained by either side. Repeating the test 20 times, I found:
Leaders died first: 8 times
Specialists died first: 1 time
Soldiers died first: 11 times
The squads consisted of 3 leaders, 4 soldiers, and 2 specialists each. When weighing each type by by their frequency in the squad, a soldier is 3% more likely to die *before* a leader, and 450% more likely to die *before* a specialist. Ideally, if there's no bias, then these weighted percentages should each be 0%. Clearly 20 times is not enough for a conclusive analysis. But, again, the burden of proof is on your shoulders, since you claim there is a problem. Here is the scenario I created to run the tests:
-
I suppose it wouldn't hurt just to check, so I will run a few tests as you describe above. I will report shortly.Originally posted by DzrtFox:I would suggest going back and re-testing with your scenario, but this time check each squad the first time it takes a casualty. Those are the numbers I'm interested in.
Bradley IFV
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Weapons platoon (PKM's) riding in BMP-2 will not fit. There may be a problem with guards anti tank as well; I'll check.