astano
-
Posts
93 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by astano
-
-
They should use a tombstone icon for dead and the red cross for wounded.
In CMSF (and by extension CMBN) this is moddable. There is a CMSF mod that leaves the red crosses for incapacitated and changes them to a darker skull and cross bones for KIA. I would imagine someone will come out with something similar before long for CMBN.
-
As it's the same engine, I would imagine so.
-
Maybe this was mentioned elsewhere and I missed it, but I'm curious to know what the quality of Elvis' and JonS's troops were?
-
...or split a large map into smaller ones, would also be fun...
This one at least can already be done, I'm pretty sure. Build your full-size map under one save file, change the map's dimensions until you've cut out everything on the map except the specific section you want, and then save it as a different file. You'll still have the original plus the small section.
The biggest thing the editor needs IMO - and probably also the hardest to implement - is a cut-and-paste feature.
-
ISTR in a discussion about this in the CMA threads that there is some abstraction. What's abstracted, I believe, is the graphical representation of someone standing at a window. So you can have one guy apparently shooting through the wall, but it is actually an abstraction of him shooting through the window, rather than literally displaying the squad members shifting to change who's firing out the window (which would require more TacAI and animations investment than it was deemed worth).
Put another way, troops can only fire out a window. But their visual presence at the window is graphically abstracted, and instead they look like they're shooting through a wall.
I hope I've explained that intelligibly. Of course, I can't seem to find the thread now, so I could be completely making this up.
-
The lack of waffles is nothing. It's been clearly established that by this point in the war, waffles were only nominally allocated in TO&Es. Practically, most units were never issued their waffles, and those that were found them inadequate for the task at hand and quickly abandoned them for the superior pancakes.
What will be upsetting is the lack of sporks. Everyone knows the critical role they played in Wittmann's breakfast before Villers Bocage.
-
What's you definition of accurate by the way. I think i'm quoting it as enough to get the heads down. Whizzing overhead, very close dirt churning, breaking branches over head.
(Also- there is wide variation of taliban quality)
Anyway- from what i've been reading definately not all your spray and pray types. RPG fire in particular, perhaps because of ranges, was widely varied in accuracy. However, depending on trajectory near misses counld land some way off. Also, RPGs caused significant supression and casualties at times.
You're probably more well-read on the subject than I am. Generally I'd agree that suppressive accuracy is good enough in combat. On the other hand the Taliban seem largely incapable of inflicting casualties with small arms (thankfully). The plural of anecdote is not data, but the number of comments and articles like the one I quoted previously make me wonder if in many instances Taliban fighters can even achieve that level of accuracy.
My first thought when I read your post quoted previously was about the amount of regional variation within the Taliban. Amazing that people who live in valleys a few miles from each other can be so different - I wonder if this doesn't extend to military prowess too?
-
Oh yeah, nearly forgot. The Taliban were mostly not hill-billies with an AK. Their SOP was prepared abush sites with planed concealed, dead ground type withdrawal routes, to the next ambush position. Also on the attack heavy fire while trying to flank again along planned routes. It was also noted that Taliban fire was on the whole accurate (mortars less so, but bracketing at times).
That's interesting. I've often read that the Taliban are tactically sophisticated but can't hit the broad side of a barn. I remember hearing, during the initial phases of last winter's Operation Moshtarak, that Taliban rifle fire was more of a nuisance than a threat. I recall there was some speculation that the handful of Taliban snipers that could shoot were all foreigners. Whatever came of that I don't know.
EDIT: Here's an article talking about Afghan marksmanship in general. Haven't found anything about the foreign sniper speculation again, but I seem to remember it was an NYT piece. http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/afghan-marksmen-forget-the-fables/#more-16713
-
As someone mentioned, we experienced CM1 players don't need the tables that much, but there should be legitimate concern about new younger players for whom WW2 is akin to Rome vs Carthage.
Unless there is little interest in the "new player market" it's surprising that there is so much resistance to useful aids. It's as if there is an experienced/military faction that wants the game system for itself and doesn't want any implication that CM2 is a game that could attract casual gamers.
Full disclosure: I've never played a CMx1 game, so I don't know besides what I've read here about how penetration data is presented in those games.
I'd argue that while accessibility to new players is a valid concern, there's also a (probably very large) element of self-selection in who plays CM games. Regardless of how much data you put into the game, the more "casual" audience is not going to be interested in games like CM for reasons unrelated to lack of penetration data. Those that are will probably be interested in the game whether it has penetration tables or not.
I'd actually argue further, like some others here, that gamers that usually play more casual games would be turned off by needing to consult data tables to feel like they're getting the most out of the game, or having too much data presented. For them it's probably easier to just remember what beats what, not decipher a table about it.
It's also not too far-fetched for less knowledgeable players to be less hamstrung by a lack of penetration data than I think they're being given credit for. World War II is still a big part of games and movies, and players will still know that Shermans are "t3h suxxorz" against all the uber-German tanks, and that tanks have thinner armor on the sides and rear. Even gamers who've played nothing more sophisticated than Call of Duty know that. What's more, potential customers who are interested in CM:BN are likely to have more interest in the subject in the first place than the average gamer, and are more likely to already have at least some notions about gun and armor capabilities and/or a desire to learn more about them.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see this kind of data in CM:BN. I think it would be a significant improvement over what's currently in CMSF. That said, I don't think it's an accessibility-denying cataclysm that will turn off new players. The steep learning curve of at (least semi-)authentic tactics is more likely to do that. If new customer accessibility is a concern, than I would say the resources are much better spent on an improved tutorial and manual (vice what was provided with CMSF) than penetration data.
Just my $0.02.
-
btw I read somewhere that in CM:SF the load-out of infantry doesn't affect theirs stamina and speed. True/false? And what about CM:BN? Are those overloaded ammo bearers sprinting like scout teams?
There were some tests run on that subject in the CMSF forums. The official answer was that speed is unaffected by the amount of weight carried but that recovery time is:
Correct, the effect of the extra weight is on the endurance, not the speed of the unit. ... -
I could almost stand to see CM:BN postponed by another year, just so I have more time to play CM:SF before it comes out. As another relative late-comer, I've barely scratched the surface, having yet to complete a campaign or most of the single missions, and with a dozen half-finished editor projects on my hard drive.
At this rate, BFC will be releasing things faster than I can play them. But if that's the worst thing I can say, I guess I'll take it.
-
Regarding the 5.56 or 7.62 is better debate. It started to look to me that squad weapons are becoming less standard. And that if we look at the brit and US there is a kind of a micro level combined arms mix going on. That seems to me to be the right way forward with a similar rationale as mult-cam.
That is, no one weapon is perfect for all sitations so compose squads/platoons with a healthy mixed bag of tools.
So a British section may have 5.56 SA80s with 40mm GL, LSW, and minimi. Pluse 7.62 GPMG, and Sharpshooter. Plus it may have attached or close by sniper and engineer attached.
And like Steve said wherever possible vehicles with GPMG, .50s and GMGs.
That's one point that usually gets left out of the which-cartridge-is-better debate, and (IMO) perhaps the best justification for keeping 5.56 as the standard cartridge. Not every soldier needs a rifle that has the 600+ yard reach of 7.62mm - that's why he has squad- and platoon-mates; as I understand it, besides GPMGs, platoons increasingly have "Designated Marksmen" with a 7.62 rifle.
If suppression is important, doesn't it make sense for the typical rifleman to be able to carry more ammo than less? I highly doubt that hajji is suppressed better when it's a 7.62 zipping past than a 5.56. And even if you were to argue (for whatever reason) that suppressive fire shouldn't be a consideration, accuracy is a problem under combat conditions, so you'd still want to be able to carry more ammunition.
So the lighter round, which you can carry more of, is a better standard choice, especially when (1) the platoon has organic weapons that can reach out and touch, (2) most soldiers probably couldn't hit a target past the effective range of 5.56 in combat conditions in the first place, especially if it's moving, and (3) at most relevant ranges*, as akd has said, the only way to kill bad guys dead is to disrupt the central nervous system.
*Of course, engagement ranges are longer in Afghanistan. Curious though if there's any statistics floating around about what distances even those are typically at. Still, I'd wager that 5.56 is "good 'nuff" for even most of those ranges.
-
I'd suggest playing the training scenarios in WeGo first. That's what I did when I first tried the demo - pick a move or other command, see how it works, and compare what the manual says about it. The obvious advantage of this is being able to make mistakes and use trial-and-error for choosing commands (and figuring how to do things like lock and unlock unit views) without being under fire, which only makes trying to learn the game more frustrating. Once you have a handle on the basic input of commands check the tactics sub-forum for more detailed advice.
Something like the JasonC CMBB lessons would be very usefull.They were what gave me a grip on CM1.
On that note, you could try watching the base game campaign walk-throughs to get a grip on tactics. Not sure how helpful they will be to learning some of the real nuts-and-bolts stuff, though.
-
I'm not sure exactly what that note refers to, but there are some changes to the weapons Syrian troops were carrying. In some cases they were carrying AKS-74s when they should have had AKMs, and vice versa. It was all very small stuff.
Figured it wouldn't be anything earth-shattering, but "Updated" instead of, say, "Fixed" made me wonder if it hadn't been changed to reflect real-world changes. Thanks!
-
Just nabbed this off the readme file. Some nice little fixes.
...
Miscellaneous
o Updated TO&E.
Anyone noticed what changes were made? Had a brief look-see in the editor and none jumped out at me.
Will Operations make a return?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
You are right that in CMx2 campaigns there is a series of unconnected maps. However, troops DO carry over from one to the next. The campaign features a set of "core forces" that can carry over their casualty, fatigue, and ammunition statuses from one battle to the next.
The scripting of these campaigns can be fairly dynamic though. For example, a different set of results can cause your troops to be reinforced or resupplied or bring up an entirely new scenario - that is, if you win Battle A and Battle B you can get Battle C, or if you win Battle A and lose Battle B you get Battle D.