Wengart
-
Posts
431 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Wengart
-
-
Someone in the file factory thread is/was in the process of doing that, although a link to the .torrent file hasn't materialized yet.
-
In that case i like to assault by squads. I really don't like the assault command and have used only a handful of occasions.All true except for when you are playing RED and can't split teams (special forces and airborne excepted). Then you have to use the "assault" command. -
However splitting teams, imo is more effective since it creates 2 distinct units.
The assault commands allows the squad to move in fire teams, but they share suppression iirc so if the forward team is hit hard and quickly suppressed then the covering team will also be suppressed. Whereas splitting the squad into two teams insures that the covering team will not be suppressed if the moving team is.
-
+ improved PBEM exchanges
I'm not entirely sure how they've been improved. They are often 20mb or bigger and everything must be done manually.
-
(like paint ball but with plastic 6mm BBs and way more realistic)?
That is totally dependent on how much money you're willing to put into it. I play with a group and I believe the most expensive gun fielded is maybe 50$. For us airsoft is our unreal tournament while Paintball is our Arma.
-
Other end of the spectrum over here, I'm 19 and started playing CM when I was 17.
-
In the tab menus for defenses there could be a list of facings + the armor in mm of that facing and the slope of the armor at that facing.
Front: 100mm 30° Side:75mm Rear:50mm Top:20mm Bottom:20mm Turret: 100mm 15°
and perhaps under the main gun tab there could be a list of ranges + mm of armor possibly penetrated at that range for the gun.
500 Meters: 100mm 1000 Meters: 50mm 1,500 Meters: 15mm
This would allow the player to see at a glance what type of armor they had on a specific vehicle and the penetration power of the main gun.
I would like to point out that these numbers are completely made up.
-
There was an X-fire group around for CM:SF which worked fairly well, and a Steam group could be thrown together pretty easily. Just trade IPS and off you go.
-
In an AAR:"Aw man, in Highlander Hell, my panthers got wasted by my opponents 30 17 pounder AT guns. I don't think this game is winnable as the Axis."
Everybody else: WHAT!!!???
I suspect cheating would come less in the form of adding units/or taking away enemy units pre-game but more in the realm of removing FOW or something.
-
And that is why I might not be attempting to create many CMBN scenarios.
I'm sure there would be plenty of people who would be willing to let you use their maps for your own scenario. You could even use QB maps for a scenario.
So, does anyone have a feeling for what is "too large" i.e. when does the engine start protesting? Not that I am planning to do something really large just wondering.I think it less dependent on the engine and more so on the computer that is running the game. So when you design scenarios you should think who do I want to reach with this, because if it is a KM by 4KM map with 2 reinforced Battalions going at it you're going to cut a number of people off.
-
quoting failure...
-
I think you can give the engineers an order to blow a hole in the wall,hedge,whatever and then another movement order. This iirc will override the run through the wall part of the order.
-
I prefer elite mode, Iron just gets annoying. When selecting a unit you can't see your other units unless that unit specifically has los to that friendly unit. I guess it takes some of the all knowingness away from the player but the selecting and deselecting units gets terribly annoying after a while.
-
I didn't get a chance to see, but is the bolt-action animation finally fixed? In CM:SF the round would eject from the rifle as soon as the weapon was fired and then the soldier would work the bolt.
-
The crews still remain in the same AI group even after their vehicles are knocked out so they will continue to advance + that one crew just had their tanked knocked out.What's with the suicidal tank crews assaulting full infantry squads though?Normally I don't think it would be too much for the squad to handle, but they had managed to suppress themselves and take out one of their own men while firing AT at the Sherman. Rendering them largely helpless in the face of the crewmen at that range. (I would also venture to guess that the crew were of a higher experience or motivation since they seemed pretty on their feet when their tank was hit)
Disclaimer:
I'm assuming you're talking about the german rifle squad that was knocked out by the two 5 man crews.
Also I think AT grenades are not explicitly simulated so the generic grenade has gotten a boost in AT power.
-
Are AT grenades explicitly modeled? or are there just generic hand grenades?
-
I think it was an unusual circumstance where the German squad actually suppressed itself while firing AT grenades (causing 1 casualty in the process) then was unlucky enough to be hit by 2 tank crews at once.That banzai assault to the forest in the first scenario (min 38:55) after their tank being neutralized and making the German squad in the area surrender in the process is something to behold! Go tank crews! Go! -
I completely agree. And with any luck we will see some show up, I mean CM:A and CM:SF Nato got the ZSU.I'm not really interested in AAA in terms of firing at aircraft. I am interested in AAA in terms of ground fire though. There are a lot of personal accounts and small unit actions that involved AAA firing on ground targets and without AAA modeled those scenarios can't be created if you want them to be true to the historical situation.
You would be surprised by how many things you can simulate by just messing with the units present and their motivation/experience. Just off the top of my head it could be used to simulate some counter-battery fire or a surprise morning assault.What a beautifull solution, in my operation if the attacker requests an airstrike to support their attack on a hex and the defender has a FLAK battery in his OOB then i could do as you say, some dice rolling with the parameters being the shooting down of the plane/s at one extreme going through various degrees up to completely missing which would allow the plane unfettered access to the Axis forces ...thank you very much for that excellent suggestion -
Since there is no light AA in the game it is just left up to the scenario designer to work out its affect, if any in game.
For example the designer could cut the number of strikes in half (4 planes becomes 2) or he could reduce the experience and motivation of the pilots (representing the ability of AA to dissuade a pilot from making the run).
Hiding and fortifications, or was it smoke?Not sure what you mean by that but it looks like im going to have to use the air missions function in Normandy 44 to have air power in my operation at all without causing a mutiny
Your advocating feature creep, which in general is bad news. If we hold off on the release 4 weeks AA can get in. But wait! if we push it back another 2 weeks we can get tank riders! and in another 5 weeks we can get fire into the game! Then suddenly your missing the intended release date by 11 weeks.That fair enough, but if its not "impossible" to model in the CMx2 engine then "time" is the only reason to omit it and considering the length of time people have been waiting for this i cant see that any extra time would of been that bad unless its some esoteric reason that i am not privy to as i dont work in the industry, so if someone could explain to me why getting the game out in April rather than say June the 6th is so important i would be most gratefull as i dont like mysteriesPoint is at some point they have to call it quits and shove their game out the door. It just so happened that AA got stuck on the after release side of things.
-
I will be waiting patiently for the Panzer Mark II Luchs. He's such a plucky little guy with that 20mm cannon.
-
In purely victory point terms it doesn't but it helps to build immersion and create secondary objectives for the player.Once you've reached the point where your troops are hemmed in against the map edge with no place to hide, my guess is that you've already been totally defeated and losing the remnants doesn't matter. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your question.I have fond memories of playing Yelnia Stare on the CM:BB demo and spending just as many turns performing a fighting retreat to the board edge as I did actually defending the position.
-
2). As blue it's less of an issue as you can often return to your vehicle whenever you need something, but as Red I take anything and everything because chances are within the next 5-10 minutes whatever your troops were riding in will be a burning wreck.
-
I just did a quick test in CM:SF and have confirmed that destroyed vehicles do not block LOF when the target is a vehicle, however they will if the target is infantry.
I took two companies of red armor (T-72s) and used all but 2 platoons to create a wall between the 2 "test" platoons of T-72s and the company of Abrams.
The two test platoons were deployed so the first platoon would provide protection for the second.
This was the deployment, + are Abrams, = are T-72s the range varied from 200 to 350 meters.
+++
+++
+++
====
====
======
===
===
-
The thing is vehicles, destroyed or otherwise, do not provide concealment, and as far as the tacai is concerned a destroyed vehicle actually doesn't exist. So you would have situations where your vehicle would happily fire AP round after AP round into a destroyed tank trying to get to the un-damaged tank behind it because the destroyed vehicle doesn't block LOS.
So when anything is firing on a vehicle any destroyed vehicles in-between the firer and target are ignored. This is not the case for infantry however.
I've been playing CM:SF for a little more than a year and have confirmed this on multiple occasions.
Torrents for Demo HERE
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Thanks a lot for putting this up.