Wrath of Dagon
-
Posts
174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Wrath of Dagon
-
-
18 hours ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:
Gun damage can mean a whole lot of things that don't involve any damage to the gun itself.
Anything that makes it impossible to lay or fire the gun is an m-kill.
Pretty fragile mantlet then. I don't believe it was penetrated since no one in the crew was injured or even suppressed in 3 cases. Also I noticed coax machine gun was out in every case as well, so even useless against infantry.
Btw, weapon controls whatever that means are at 100% in all 4 cases.
-
I'm playing Rites of Spring CMFR as Soviets against AI (latest update). Half way through battle 4 of my SU-100's have damaged guns. It's hard to believe the gun mantlet would be designed to deflect the shell into the gun! Something seems to be wrong with the model, perhaps the gun mantlet is convex instead of concave. Also one of the SU-100's was knocked out immediately, perhaps a lucky shot, but another one was abandoned by the crew and the Panzer IV pumped round after round into it but never destroyed it, seems like the armor in incredibly good (the gun was damaged of course).
-
Thanks, that's an excellent idea.Try using a movement waypoint to have the unit with LOS move to the "target". Then target fire with the desired unit at the waypoint. Then don't forget to remove the movement order. (I use SLOW as it is not hard to forget to cancel movement and at least SLOW usually is not fatal.)
-
So I'm probably wasting my time since developers don't seem to read this, and also I've already asked for this and was told I'm playing the game wrong, but I have more information now. At issue is area firing on a machine gun or ATG another unit has spotted, lets assume the player is using a tank. Once you click on the tank you don't see the target any more, so area firing on the target is a long and tedious process, you have to target as best you can, click near the target so you see it which shows where approximately it is relative to the target line, go back to the tank and click on it, go back to the target and adjust the target line as best you can, click near the target again and so on. I don't see what else you can do, since a tank often will not see a machine gun at all, and by the time he spots an ATG it'll be destroyed since ATG will almost always spot him first. Supposedly this is realistic since it hinders Borg spotting. But in fact when Soviet tanks supported infantry, once the infantry spotted a target, they would either fire a flare or tracer rounds at it, to indicate the target to the tank. Even if the tank didn't spot it at that point, it would still area fire on the indicated spot. They had to do something like that, or their tank support would be useless, in other words they behaved exactly as a player would.
It's not necessary to show the target to the tank since he shouldn't be able to direct target unless spotted himself, but the base of the target could be shown to help area target. Also the tank should get a spotting bonus once the target has been spotted by another unit.
-
Another thing, why is there no move to contact anymore? Doesn't make sense they keep moving after coming under fire or seeing an enemy. Hunt doesn't work well for this, it's too slow, they get tired too quickly, and they stop if they hear a shot a mile away.
-
It would be nice if we finally got topographic overlay option. It's quite hard to distinguish gradual elevations right now.
Also, why do the crews of knocked out guns still have the gun icon? That's very confusing, they should have the regular crew icon just like knocked out vehicle crews.
-
Would be best to provide an option for unencoded save import/export. Then people could mess around with it, try different stuff. No one's going to be motivated if there's nothing to try out.
-
What I do is unpause it, give an order, then immediately pause again, almost the same thing.Also, you can't give orders while paused. (That killed the game for me.) -
No, that's not everything there is to relative spotting. You may know where the enemy is, but your unit still doesn't. So he can't fire on his own, and you can't give him a direct fire order, only an area fire.It would be even closer to reality if you told the other commander where it was ( Teamspeak / Email ) and he totally plastered the WRONG bush/tree/hillock with mortar fire
@Wrath of Dragon - you say "even if I wanted to remove relative spotting" which implies you don't want to remove it, but you also say "There's really no reason not to show the same thing with the unit selected and with nothing selected" - but that IS the effect of relative spotting.
So really you're saying you're both for and against relative spotting
That's one reason I prefer we-go. During the turn, it's an actual simulation. During the command phase it's not, and can not be, no matter how you slice it the player is still an omniscient commander that doesn't exist in the real world.
-
@Baneman
That's what I mean by "break" the UI. There's really no reason not to show the same thing with the unit selected and with nothing selected, except have the un-spotted icons greyed out. Yes, there are ways of getting around that, but they're a pain, that's all.
Btw, the training mode does other things in addition to removing relative spotting, even if I wanted to remove relative spotting.
-
But the issue is not relative spotting itself. It's fine as a game mechanic, it's bad when used to break the UI. I wouldn't have a problem with not being able to area fire in certain situations, but if it can't be implemented as a game mechanic, it shouldn't be in the UI either. Because it just doesn't make sense. I have to restrain myself from area firing on something the mortar can see, but I'm expected to move an HQ to see that target so he can then call in indirect fire from that same mortar? Or else how am I supposed to deal with that gun? Just send tanks suicidally at it until I lose them all or knock out the gun? It's the logical inconsistency and the user unfriendliness of this feature that's galling, not the underlying game mechanic or the attempt at greater realism.I'm also content because the game has a way around this right now. I've mentioned it several times now and for some reason it hasn't ended the conversation. Which I think is telling
What is that suggestion again? The one I mentioned before? More than once?IF YOU DON'T LIKE RELATIVE SPOTTING, PLAY BASIC TRAINING
Why are we still arguing about something which already has a solution in the game that can be used right now, today?
If you have a problem with the title of that Mode, just don't tell anybody you're using it
Steve
-
But you don't just tell him to stop. You send him to a specific location based on your higher knowledge of where the enemy is located. It's the whole point of the game. Edit: Besides, you shouldn't be able to tell him anything if he's out of communication.
-
Yes, everyone would do #2 (because it's a game, not reality), therefore it's silly to try to break the UI to make it more annoying to do #2, which everyone will do anyway.I'm still flabbergasted that someone still can't understand the logic
I'll try again...In WW2 if a tank was trundling down the road, unaware of an AT Gun ahead of it which WAS known to some other unit, what would it do?
1. Continue to go about its business without taking the AT Gun into account.
2. React in some way, such as ceasing to move, reversing, popping smoke, pumping Area Fire into the spot where the AT Gun definitely is, calling in mortar fire, etc.
Assuming you're not insane, and therefore say #1, we move onto see this situation in game terms.
In a game, under the same exact circumstances as described in the real life example above, what would you as the player do given the same choices? Making what should be a safe assumption here, I'm going to presume that we're in agreement the player would do #2. Yes?
But neither is the game a perfect simulation of the real world. Things like time compression, lack of liason, prior knowledge etc, means that those things all get abstracted into the player's decisions instead of being explicitly simulated.If you are in agreement then you should be able to grasp that there is a fundamental split between realism and game play on an issue like this. The choice open to the gamer is NOT the choice open to the real world tanker moving down the road. So how to deal with issues surrounding the game situation from a UI standpoint?
The realism vs gameplay tradeoff is a fundamental issue for this kind of game, but making me LARP the behavior of my units depending on their in-game knowledge is not the solution. The whole point is to locate the enemy units then delploy reserves to destroy them, the way you do that in game will of necessity diverge from reality. Breaking the UI to make using an otherwise supported and reasonable game mechanic more annoying isn't a solution either.If Combat Mission were a brainless RTS game, where realism wasn't even remotely considered, then the answer is really simple. The UI should be optimized to make reacting to the AT Gun threat as easy as possible since there's no downside for the game as a whole (i.e. because realism isn't a significant issue). But Combat Mission isn't a brainless RTS game, and in fact that's why you are all here playing it and not playing Company of Heroes instead (note emphasis on INSTEAD). Therefore realism must matter to you. So why would you want us to optimize the game behavior to work against it's primary design goal? If we do it here, why shouldn't we do it elsewhere when any SINGLE player decides something is annoying him?
Any change in your perspective?
Steve
No, it's not a different beast, that's my point. Logically there's no difference between moving using knowledge you don't have and targeting using knowledge you don't have. In fact, you're probably moving him so he can target something he doesn't know about yet.Now, movement in this context is a whole different beast. You would have to be a seriously dedicated student of realism to do what @Wrath of Dagon is suggesting: To drive a tank through a hedgerow, into an open field that you as the player know is covered by AT assets through visual contact by other friendly units, but is not known by the tank to have such assets becuase it is out of comm with those spotting units. Such player-based control of realistic gameplay would be truly hardcore! -
@user38 That's what I meant by "other situations", but couldn't recall the specifics, thanks.
-
Another related problem is how the F12 key works. It selects the previously selected unit, but it also messes up the camera by rotating it to face the selected unit instead of leaving it in place. If it wasn't for that, you could simply find the desired location by deselecting, then reselect the targeting unit with F12 and target the spot. It's also a problem in other situations when you want to give a target or move order.
Btw, I'm still flabbergasted at the logic expressed in this thread. Apparently, if one of my units spots an ATG, I should just blithely drive my tank right into it because the tank has no way of knowing the ATG is there!
-
@stikkypixie
Because the units won't fire by themselves or be able to use direct fire, that makes a big difference.
In real life, if a tank sees an ATG and reverses, would he try to take it out by himself, or send a crew member to the nearest mortar to try to take the ATG out? What would be the more realistic outcome in the game?
Edit: If a tank sees and ATG and you then send an infantry squad to flank the ATG and try to take it out, is that also gamey? How do you recon? How exactly are you supposed to play this game if you have to constantly think about what each unit knows and only have him act on this knowledge? I bet no one actually plays it like that.
-
So you're supposed to area fire on suspected enemy locations, but not area fire on known enemy locations? That makes no sense whatsoever. Sorry, this is still a game, so tying your own hands makes no sense. The rationalization in this case is either the mortar team heard the gun or saw the muzzle flash, or a runner was sent from a spotting unit to the mortar to request area fire.
-
Sounds like demo early next week. Yeay!
-
So can we have an estimated date for the demo release?
-
Yes, please release the manual as a pdf, I don't have time to read it on the computer.
-
My theory is that Modern Warfare just isn't as much fun. Plus there's way too much building clearing. I want tank battles dammit!
-
That was seriously considered, but finally rejected due to the expected political fallout with their allies. Plus a lot of the Germans still believed they could win (a German offensive had never been halted except in depth), and they did come pretty close, another reason being they did not have a completely accurate picture of the strength of the Soviet forces, like not knowing about the existence of the Steppe front.On the Eastern Front I would have gone on the defensive after a consolidation in the Spring of 1943.Steve -
So is the armor quality modeled as in the picture above or not? You can have as accurate formulas as any but if the model they're applied to is wrong it won't do squat.
-
The distinction is important, since they pretty much lost in 1943. The later crazy actions can be explained as acts of desperation by someone who wasn't terrilby stable to start with.At the military leadership level the Germans were 2nd rate by 1944 (I'd argue 1942, but let's just say 1944).
What is that suggestion again? The one I mentioned before? More than once?
I'll try again...
Gun damage on SU-100
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
The situation is a bit unclear on the coax, some online sources say it had a 7.62 mm DT, which would make sense to get range on a tank destroyer. You can also see a hole on the left on the mantlet which seems like it's for a coax. Each SU also carries 710 rounds of 7.62 mm x 25, which however is wrong for DT since it's pistol ammo, why it would need that many pistol rounds is a mystery. The decals are also a bit ambiguous, two mantlets do have impacts close to the gun with a small hole besides them, meaning may be partial penetration? The other only has an impact far away on front hull. The knocked out one I don't see any impacts at all. Btw, I meant that weapon controls on all were completely undamaged, perhaps that was unclear.