hcrof
-
Posts
1,107 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hcrof
-
-
+1 to that. It seems like a bit of an oversight to put in US radio chatter and not Syrian arty requests. Though seeing as noone knows what the Syrian FOO would say you would have to make something up.
-
Good point - I had thought there was something odd about the flight noise of shells but couldn't quite put my finger on it.
Should be pretty easy to fix too!
-
Editing time was up, so i will quite myself:
Too much Soviets (or glue sniffed) for me it seems :cool: We have 20% for suppressed, 50% for destoryed. Less is just harassment.
I don't understand. A defending unit takes 50% casualties (Destroyed) and yet doesn't quit (below 60% casualties). Surely then it isn't destroyed as it is still able to put up a fight?
Or is the unit just downgraded in size? Like a destroyed battalion becomes a company
-
A TOW screenie with some interesting objects: Hanged clothes, barns, piles of wood and yes, dead cows!
I'm looking at curved roads and trees that don't dissappear in the distance!
-
Interesting stuff there Michael - I hadn't known much about the subject before
-
Well according to the my book, the Soviets regarded 30% casualties as adiquate for 'suppresion'. Trying to achive more than that needs exponentially more shells so it gets to a point where they probably wouldn't fire at all.
For example, to achieve 30% casualties, apparently you need 3.28 times more shells than for 10% casualties. To achieve 60% casualties you need 14.38 times more shells per hectare (about 503-676 for well dug in infantry, depending on whether the guns are ranged in or not). Complete destruction isn't even on the charts
-
Well thanks for the replys guys - I am still not wholly convinced but at least I can see where I could be wrong. I will still wish for a compromise between the two results but at least I now know it is not a game breaker!
-
I didn't know they still did those tests these days!
But - I don't think the tests are comparable. Unless there was a way of making the cardboard targets 'harden up' then I don't feel that your demonstration can be accurate after the first few salvos because each salvo has an equal chance of penetrating a target.
In other words, I think your result shows casualties that are too high because cardboard targets cannot harden up after the first 6-12 rounds land on the position.
The reason why I chose 30% destruction is is because it is a conservative number and 35% destruction was achieved in CMSF with half the number of rounds.
-
The thing is, preparatory barrages are exactly what I had in mind, a really big map with a large force conducting a Soviet style attack. The attacker would have scary amounts of artillery, probably a battalion at least and the defender needs a chance of surviving long enough to put up a fight!
In my opinion, red v red has turned into a very important part of the game and although Steve and co have improved it a lot, it would be nice to see a little bit more development along those lines as well as releasing the next load of western forces.
I don't know how it would be possible to fix the results, I assume that the casualties are caused by people being too close to the edge of the trench so maybe it can be fixed by making sure that people stay right down in the bottom of the trench when suppressed by artillery, even if they are well motivated. Another suggestion is to slightly increase the angle of the 'cone' of the blast so that more of the effects goes over the heads of the infantry.
I remember reading loads of stories of commanders thinking that nothing could survive an artillery strike and moving forward, only to find people coming out of the woodwork and shooting at them! Its that reason why I brought the point up.
-
Well if you have any better information then do share it with us. I am not saying the Soviets were correct but they might have at least a ball park figure considering there was no shortage of clever mathematicians in the USSR.
I had thought that artillery was too powerful for a while but I wasn't going to say anything without some sort of proof. I have provided evidence and if Steve provides better evidence I will happily back down and accept it.
-
I have recently purchesed a copy of 'Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army' by David C Isby and it is a great book, full of useful info about Soviet Style troops. It also contains a number of artillery firing tables - containing information on how effective the Soviets thought their guns were so I decided to test the artillery in CMSF.
THE TEST
1 platoon of Soviet infantry was placed in an area of 100m x 100m, each squad in a seperate trench. The infantry was regular experience and fanatic to stop them running away.
1 battery (6 guns) of D-30 122mm howitzers was ordered to fire onto the area with the orders Heavy, Short, Armour. In total, 40-50 rounds where fired (I think). 95% impacted in the 100m x 100m area which is believable because the D-30 has a probable error of 24m at 10km range.
The test was repeated 8 times
Results
Units suffered on average 35% casualties
According to the charts, to produce 30% casualties on 1ha of hastily dug in infantry with ranged guns, you would have to expend 111 rounds of impact fuzed HE in a 'shock fire' attack (Heavy fire in terms of CMSF)
Is there any chance that artillery attacks like this could be toned down a bit? I could be wrong about this and messed up the test but I am in the middle of creating something something that uses this kind of attack quite a lot and it would be nice to have a change made if you guys at Battlefront think its necessary
. -
Elevation is not modelled. Apparently its so that you don't get into situations like the one you described and then get annoyed because its hard to work out whether the position you are in is suitable.
Having said that, I was able to shoot out the 8th floor of a building with a tank from 20m away (the gun didn't elevate far enough but the shell came out at right angles) so I personally think something should be done about it.
I think the game should be generous with the elevation/depression values but disallow the situation I mentioned. This would avoid frustration for the player but allow us to recreate the problems of bringing tanks into cities.
-
How about roads that dont go either 45 or 90 degrees? That would really make me love the editor even more!
-
For what its worth, I played the first couple of hours of this game constantly alt-tabbing to wikipedia. I was loving the way that I didn't need a manual, I just looked up the real world data. Most of the fun in a game for me is learning the system and how to best use my units and Shock force has now got me so much more interested in the military than I was because of this.
I think lack of information might drive some of the non grogs away but I don't think tooltips are the way to go. A tutorial campaign which eases the player in slowly might be better.
-
Tacwar - you can already toggle icons on and off, I think its shift-I of Alt-I or something.
I definately agree with you on the smoke and rubble - those combined would make for some very atmospheric street fighting! Someone also mentioned decals showing hits on vehicles, if that could be applied to buildings too then the combined effect would be awsome!
-
hagebono I have sent you an e mail, just get back to be and I'll send you the file you need
-
Steve, you have no idea how happy that post just made me!
-
I think nuclear weapons might be out of the scale of CMSF to be honest
-
+1 to that idea! Any chances of being able to fire out of the gun ports either side of the red IFV's too?
-
It happens in area fire too. Burning taxi's seem to attract fire a little too much in my opinion!
-
Meach, Im not asking for anything new here - you can already split off the anti tank element in US squads. Its just a simple solution to allow regular Syrian squads to defend with some of the flexibility enjoyed by everyone else in the game.
You can't 'leave' anyone anywhere because the squad does not split fully, just spreads out a bit. There is still only 1 floating icon for example, and movement orders affect the whole squad.
-
Thanks Steve for having a look at it.
Its not a perfect solution but I think it goes some distance towards realism whilst keeping the coding effort down!
-
Yes, your suggestion would be ideal but I don't think is is possible to do in a reasonable timeframe.
The thing is that command links only spread from the platoon commander to the elements under his command. A split squad is effectively 2 squads and each has a seperate link to the command HQ. This means that you could move the two teams in a squad far from each other but as long as they maintain seperate links to the platoon HQ they are OK.
This is not Syrian doctrine and AFAIK would take a large coding effort to change.
My suggestion keeps the squad whole so chain of command issues don't come up and therefore makes it easier to implement.
-
RSColonel_131st brought up the inability of Syrian squads to do logical stuff like split off the RPG team. The subject has come up before but this time I had an idea that would make all parties happy on this one. (Including me)
Basically, add the option to 'spread out'. After clicking the spread out command, the player then selects a direction and the second team will move 1 action spot in that direction. THE SQUAD REMAINS WHOLE and when the order is given to move, they close back up again.
When in a building, the direction command can be used to specify which side of the house the second team is to cover. The team will then move up one floor and cover that side.
You could have a similar button that just moves the RPG team.
Because of the nature of the command, the Syrian squad can only spread out when stationary and so cannot do anything that would go against their training, it justs adds a bit of flexibility to the defending player.
I can think of loads of ways it would improve realism and player enjoyment. For example, has anyone wondered why you get a really long trenchline with everyone bunched up at one end of it? Problem solved
.
Lacking in Self Preservation?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
It depends - A hide command will reduce spotting ability because only one person will look for the enemy at a time (most of the time, sometimes more or less).
On the other hand a short target arc won't affect spotting ability very much as far as I know.
Its all about context - at 300m you will stay unseen as long as you are in cover. If you are playing as the Syrians or close to the enemy you will need to hide more often and accept the loss in spotting ability.
I personally use target arcs with the Americans but hide a lot as the Syrians (and use dedicated spotters)