jbmtintin
-
Posts
72 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by jbmtintin
-
-
27 years old.
RT.
Because in RT you can pause the game whenever you want. This is useful to me because I do not like the limitation of AI: in RL people on the ground will - I think - act better than in the game. So I must micro-manage them thanks to "Pause".
-
Didn't notice that. But same idea: I remember that a spotter for Artillery support could not use a building as a target if the spotter can't see around the building - but obviously see the at least the roof of it. Is that normal?
-
Nice video!
-
Now you can't target sandbags at all. I think it would be nice if you could, the same way as bunkers and buildings. Then you could ruin the cover and the gun behind it would lose its protection.
It could solve the problem, I think...
-
Maybe because the sandbags in the game are only there to show that there are sandbags there
but not as they visually are on the screenshot, but really protecting the AT gun. It is a design "problem" I think, because it would be very difficult (?) to have each gun / machine gun... with its own visually adapted sandbags, don't you think? So you can see that all sandbags have the same looking, whatever the guys / guns / tank behind. Let's hope German and US soldiers did not say: ok, we have the regulatory height, we can stop this sandbags wall now... -
Yup - having a "blast - vehicle sized hole" command would be useful. Sort of sensible, too.
Yep, useful and sensible!
-
Another example...
-
This is what the gaps are for, but of course it's designer dependent. But I still think troops should be able to jump/climb over the small hedgerows and not need a gap or to blast it.
Yes... Again and again!
-
The "Patrone SmK" (Spitz mit Kern) as the 7.92AP in the game was officially called had a V0 of 785 m/s and could penetrate 12mm of steel - although I have not found (yet) at which distance.
Another "Patrone SmK/H" was produced until early 1943, but was cancelled since it contained tungsten. It penetrated 20mm of steel at 500m.
There existed also a "Patrone PmK" with a phosphorous incendiary core which could penetrate 7.5mm of steel.
And do you know what was the steel penetration of the regular 7.92?
-
Just sent an e-mail. Are there other people who will test that campaign (many thanks for making one...)?
-
So no I really don't think any of those mentioned is really an issue to be honest.
I agree with that. Deploying MGs is great, buddy aid too. Maybe only changes about Ammo bearers could be ok, if they can be splitted.
-
IMHO, the hedgerows in CMBN don’t provide the level of concealment and cover that they did IRL, and scenario designers sometimes don’t take full advantage of the defensive possibilities in constructing AI Plans or unit selection (for example, too few snipers and TRPs). So the resulting battles aren’t necessarily as nasty or bloody as they would have been IRL. But the rules force you to consider the tactical problems in a way that would have been more familiar to the American commanders at the time.
FWIW
Are you sure of that? I find very difficult to kill enemies behind hedgerows with direct fire, even with a tank. Maybe you did not have same game experience?
-
When I am fighting large battles, with a Batt+ involved, I always end up breaking everything down into a series of smaller engagements. For example, it is tempting to use an entire platoon of troops to recce an area when you have three full infantry companies. I give each Company an area of responsibility, be it on the attack or in the defense, and then break that down into setting up each Companies battle area by giving each platoon an area of responsibility. I then fight nine platoon size fights instead on one huge Battalion sized melee. I also don't waste anything in this way. More often then not, the problem I had before this technique was not using enough force to do the job, sending reinforcements in piece meal until they were slaughtered and having a ton of support elements laying around at the end. With the new way, I have my support groups engaged in supporting their charges, and all the firepower at my disposal is used.
Doing that, we need to have order to each team? So there is still a long time to give orders... But it is managed more easily than in a "real" battalion fight, as we have micro-fights, that is the idea?
-
I played this a while ago but don't remember it. In general you want to use the min necessary force to accomplish the job. And a reserve is always good.
I find it can work to set aside part of ones force and pretend you don't have em and try to fight better and more cleverly with a smaller force. When you have a lot of stuff there is temptation to throw em all in and this simply provides more targets for the enemy. Hope that helps...
Ok, thanks. It is a good thing to know that it is possible to win with forces in reserves, and not with everybody in fight.
-
I need help, there, for the 8th mission of The Outlaws (D+1), as there is too many troups there (20 tanks,...). What are your strategy in such mission?
- Do you let for example half of the force behind, as reserve, and attack with the other half?
- Do you send everybody to combat? But how are you managing all these troops (in CMx1 I was used to check and order my troops one by one, but it is pretty long...).
- ...
Thanks for your help! (and just tell me if another thread deals with that... I did not find one...).
-
Not sure that makes any sense jb.
As with most of the CMBN weird phenomena, it's not a big problem, but it's strange and confusing to "reach" for an AT team icon only to find it has no AT capability, and the actual AT team has a regular inf icon and it's hard to locate (in the larger scenarios that I enjoy most).
Yep, it just makes sense to explain a bug, which does not make any sense in itself!
-
If you want a quick peek with a vehicle, then set up a shoot-n-scoot. Move order from concealment very short distance forward. 5 second pause. Reverse back to original postion. Put in a Pop Smoke at the end of the Move order but before the Reverse if you are fairly certain there are enemy present. This makes the next few minutes easier for follow-on scouts.
Thanks for that... I never tried something like that, but I will try! Usually I just use two - or more - scout vehicles supporting each other and making little jumps... More often the first one is dead, but the second one has a chance to have his revenge.
-
One of the Assault teams had the AT icon even though it had no AT.
It is maybe because by default one of the team is an "Assault Team" and consequently the other one is an "AT Team" even if it has no AT weapon... Just a "theoretical" split, which becomes sort of a bug?
-
Your graphics must be a lot better than mine. I can't tell when my men are batting their eyelids.
At least you are more credible than me... -
The sooner the better, of course!
Thanks for the answer...
-
Heh, thank you, and there will be more! My next couple of projects will probably be larger-scale and combined arms, so you may not enjoy them as much, but I will return to the Devils' adventures, rest assured.
Any updates on your return to the Devils' adventures? Back soon I hope?
-
A big part of the reason for Devil's Descent being so fun was the scale of the battles, besides of course the decision making element.
When I load up a new campaign/battle and I see a mass of vehicles, I'm like, "oh boy.. do I want to deal with this?". The vehicle AI is absolutely terrible and hasn't been improved since the first one (it seems that way at least), and I hate dealing with the idiots driving my vehicles.
Controlling a few squads made me care more about each unit and it was much more involving. I felt like I was more personally involved.
Absolutly right!
-
Thanks for this campaign also, Blücher, this is simply the one I prefered (immersion, choices, not too many people...).
-
Ahhh... You know what... I may simply not have seen the reinforcing core guys, and ran the 25 defenders (who I assumed were the remnants of my core guys.) off the map and cease-fired. Don't think I saved that one either.
The briefing was confusing in that I got the impression that I would be linking up with the majority of the US forces, not a measly 25 guys. Seems counter-intuitive.
No worries, I enjoyed the other battles. It was a good training campaign. Altho' as I mentioned for some reason I didn't find the ATG's useful or they didn't fire for some reason. I know they were deployed. I may retry the town defense battle.
So, is it worth replaying the campaign and making different choices at the two "decision battle" interludes?? What changes?
I am so proud. I just put one team on the other bank of the river, up to the hill just behind hedgerow. They killed almost everybody from there, as Germans have nothing to hide and protect...
but not as they visually are on the screenshot, but really protecting the AT gun. It is a design "problem" I think, because it would be very difficult (?) to have each gun / machine gun... with its own visually adapted sandbags, don't you think? So you can see that all sandbags have the same looking, whatever the guys / guns / tank behind. Let's hope German and US soldiers did not say: ok, we have the regulatory height, we can stop this sandbags wall now...
At least you are more credible than me...
Authentic French farm names
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
As far as I am leaving in Normandy, I can give you a hand. Just ask me precisely something, and I'll try to help you. I think winkelried has a really good way to find names.
You must know that in Normandy there are not only farms (!), or not only with a "farm" name. There is a lot of "Hameaux" (hamlets in English I think, hameau in singular), which is a group of houses. They often have a single name without "farm" ("Le Foc", "La Rouxelière").