Wengart
-
Posts
431 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Wengart
-
-
Ran a test map, five 200 or so meter wide sections 1000 meters long 1 HMG42 vs. 1 American Rifle Platoon Late.
Okay so I couldn't get the HTML to show up here, so I posted my spreadsheet here
KEY
DNE: did not engage
-->: The HMG team begins to fire small arms
TOTAL: total number of enemy killed
RESULT: what happened to the HMG team
Method: I played hotseat and started an American platoon 1000 meters from an HMG42 in a one story house. I then gave the American Platoon a quick order to enter the house. Whenever a squad stopped I would reissue the quick order.
The terrain was flat and made of grass.
I counted all casualties until the HMG was either knocked out or obviously not firing. (had I not the first regular team would have 5 more kills thanks to a prolonged burst from the team leaders MP40)
-
So I just ran a quick test German Fusiliers Platoon advancing at quick against a U.S. M1917 HMG and the 4 man ammo team in a trench. The MG caused 1 casualty at roughly 600 meters, another at 500, and finally killed 2 fusiliers who had entered the trench it was stationed in.
Meanwhile the accompanying riflemen knocked down 2 targets at 410 meters and then continued to rack up a further 7 kills until their position was overrun.
Thats 9 rifle kills to 4 HMG kills, although only 2 of those kills were outside of 10 meters.
-
I would assume they have been working on version 1.1 since the game went gold.
-
Since we're talking about the different uses of demo charges, having a unit run up to something you want a hole in (a wall or bocage) and then giving a blast order parallel to it will have the squad blast a hole and then run to the side. Instead of running through the hole and often to their deaths.
-
I recently played a QB where I had a platoon of airborne vs. a understrength platoon of P4s at night. With visibility being about 20 meters I managed to knock out 2 and immobilize the third, but I noticed that the airborne squads were not using their demo charges until all of their grenades were expended.
It would make more sense to me to use the heaviest AT you have when facing armor. Is there any reason they are not? is this something BFC would possibly look at?
-
I have a save of the tacai one, and I hope to get a save of the infantry movement bug later today
-
Yes, this happens far too often and very rarely does it result in the TC getting killed, and it's usually not to the squads benefit to get the TC to button up.
-
On several occasions after making it to their destination 1-3 men will run 10-20 meters back before turning around and returning to their position. It is also not unusual for 1-2 men in a squad to not move when given an order to move. Although placing a new order will get them to move.
Also I recently had a Puma choose to target a nearby 60mm mortar team instead of the Stuart which was 15-20 meters in front of, and would only engage the Stuart after it had opened fire.
-
Has anyone got CM:BN to work with the Steam community overlay? Whenever I try to launch it via Steam CM:BN crashes, unless I disable the Steam in-game community which kinda defeats the purpose of launching via Steam.
-
If you have, and launch the game via Steam F12 will do the trick.
-
It may be beneficial for someone who has the game dl'ed to set up a torrent.
Also if someone does others who have the game should seed it if possible.
-
I see your point, although I feel like it is something they could have done with their 3-4 years of development. I'm sure the betas would of had sometime to get it working well.
Anyway I'm currently more worried about vehicles habit to slow down when hitting a fence. I feel like that is something that just shouldn't slow down a 30 ton tank.
-
What were the Plt. HQs doing? It's not uncommon to lose radio contact on the move.
-
The Shilka made into CM:SF near the end so we may still see them.
-
Right now I think there is a saving throw of sorts going on for the infantry, but other than that there isn't much.
Anyway I prefer infantry, possibly with some tank support.
-
It isn't in due to the lack of proper AAA simulation. Although I wouldn't have any issue with it not engaging aircraft.
-
Being difficult to penetrate is fine with me, I would just like the chance to attempt to penetrate low bocage if the situation warrants.Is no use complaining that it is too hard to penetrate -
Because they are not always tactically a bad idea. It's a risk versus reward choice for the player.If something is possible, but always tactically a bad idea, then why model it?you still fail to answer the other issues raised on my first post.I don't have knowledge of how bogging is currently done, but assuming there is a % chance and this chance is always reduced by the same amount for each level of crew quality, then you could just do y% chance - x% based on crew quality.
C'Rogers, my point is there isn't any new development needed, unless there are limitations in the code that are not apparent to me. Play Busting through the Bocage and you will see tanks going through Bocage which has a damaging effect on the tank. At a minimum all that would be required is enhancing the damage, time, and possible bogging aspects.
Also just to be clear I'm talking about the low bocage.
Just for the record I understand that tank riding couldn't make into the game because of a lack of time and too many other features, which I have no issue with.
-
That was what this was for "Just to note, that although I am not fine with he too dangerous to be worth developing argument, i'm perfectly alright with the we just didn't have time argument."That's a misinterpetation of the reason why they're not in the game. It would've been easy to do tank riding VERY BADLY in the game, but there's a laundry list of inter-related behaviors (for both tank and infantry) that have to be worked out first before they're in the game successfully. Luckily, in Normandy tank riding was tactically insignificant so there was no pressure to do a rush hack job of it.Although rereading it I can see that I wasn't being very clear.
You keep saying this and yet I can not reproduce the effect you describe. I have today driven tanks through wire fences, wooden fences and stome walls with no damage or noticeable loss of speed. Please can you provide a save file to substatiate your claim.After doing some tests it appears that running through a fence does not cause a damage step to the tracks (from green to yellow). The few times I've gone through fences and paid attention I did indeed take a damage step, however they were all done under combat conditions so it appears that my tracks were slightly damaged before hand, and the act of running over a fence was enough to cause a damage step.
However, running over a fence still brings you to a crawl, which imo is uncalled for, and there doesn't appear to be any real difference between running over a stone wall and a wooden fence.
Also of note I appeared to have found a bug with vehicle path-finding. The collision pause is triggering when vehicles are 10-20 meters apart, and when they are not in danger of running into each other.
-
I think there is evidence of tanks taking on hedgrows directly and successfully getting over them, so no denying the reality. The big problem as I see it, is how do you accurately portray this in-game and is it worth the effort wrt enhancing gameplay?
Okay so we currently have the ability to drive over obstacles, fences, low walls, even bocage with a Cullins device. So if the code was flexible enough, and I suspect its not owing to the fact that wire fencing and wooden fencing slows down a tank as much as running over a stone wall and damages the tracks the same amount.
Then you could just slow the tank down some more and increase the damage done to it, and throw in a chance for bogging.
Tanks were developed in WWI to overcome a stalemate in the trenches, but this didn't mean mass infantry assaults stopped until the tanks came rolling along.What they did do was studies on how to blast thru the bocage and eventually how to cut thru it...odd if they could successfully simply drive over it.The argument that something was too dangerous and rarely done, is a bad one imo, for not including something in a game that is attempting to realistically portray combat. If it is a bad idea then players will learn quickly enough not to do it, but there are occasions where you want to run a tank over some bocage, and even though it might take 45-60 seconds and you might bog your tank or get it blown up It might be something you need to do.
Same with tank riders, not adding them in because it was rarely done doesn't cut it in my opinion. If I want to load up a platoon onto the backs of some Shermans and race across an open field and get everyone killed, that is my perogative.
Just to note, that although I am not fine with he too dangerous to be worth developing argument, i'm perfectly alright with the we just didn't have time argument.
-
Running over any obstacle damages tracks and slows the vehicle down.
wire fence
wood fence
low stone wall
low hedge (not to be confused with low bocage)
bocage with a cullins device
-
As far as I can tell its the same across the board. Which is rather unfortunate, because I feel like wire fencing, or wooden for that matter, wouldn't slow a tank down, and most definitely wouldn't cause track damage.
-
I don't see why crossing bocage sans cullins couldn't just be painful, 30-45 seconds, belly armor facing the enemy, possibility of bogging. It wouldn't be pleasant, thats why the Cullins was invented, but it gives the player more real world options and imo would make for more interesting bocage combat.
-
It seems that turn 1 fire missions, which do not need to be spotted for and are on target, cannot be delayed and are always fired immediately. Is there any reason we can't delay these missions, as I can think of no reason, historically, or otherwise why this would be removed.
Checking again this appears to only effect on map mortars.
Heavy machine guns and suppressive fire
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Thanks for the post Blackcat.
I ran two more test runs which are now also posted here
I'll run a test or two with TRPs however in my one test with a target arc the MGs opened fire earlier, however they were not more effective.