Gryphonne
-
Posts
249 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Gryphonne
-
-
OK, finally wading into this one after sitting on the sidelines for now.
First of all, our testers are fierce advocates for the average customer. But I'll tell you what... if we had a tester that was unreasonable, single minded, demanding, and generally incapable of seeing anothers' point of view... we'd be looking for a new tester. Which means, our testers bring up things, debate us if we don't agree, and then they let it go if we give a definite answer. Customers don't have to do this, of course, but that's not a type of person that would make a good tester.
People must remember that there are few features in CMx1 that a clear and overwhelming majority of people consider "must haves". Just because one or more people found said feature to be the best thing they have ever seen DOESN'T mean that is the norm. This forum always offers a distorted perspective on this as well, since the most hardcore players (grogs and non-grogs as there is a difference) post. We've probably never seen more than a tiny fraction of our customer base posting here at any one time. Lobbying here, therefore, is taken as an opinion and not as a mandate.
The answer about armor penetration stats has already been given many times already. And yet the answer still is the same as before:
We are not putting in detailed armor stats into CM:BN because we can't just scoop out the data in CMx1 and have it magically displayed in CM:BN. It requires effort on our part and we feel that our effort is better spent on other things at this point. Will we have armor penetration stuff, in game, at some point? Yes, along with some other nice things that CMx1 never had. But not now.
In CM:BN now is pretty much everything that is in CMx1 in terms of information except outgoing weapons penetration data. Armor ratings are given in abstracted form already, which is about all that is really useful to most people most of the time anyway. What a vehicle is armed with is already detailed, as well as it's ability to function. Basic stats like speed and weight are also noted. If a vehicle can accept passengers, a count is shown for that as well.
Steve
Steve,
How are armor ratings displayed if i may ask? Are the armor ratings like the color coded bars that we've seen in CMBB and CMAK? Is it closer to CMSF? Or is it something entirely new?
Gryph
-
-
For us die hard fans, here is a... uh... historical example of command delays. Note the time it takes to comprehend what they are looking at and come to a decision (compared to how we could do it) heh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q32MrziPoTM
But, I realize that the RT fans just don't understand why we WEGO people much prefer it over RT.
**Some sort of time delays forever!**
Hmm, when you look at this video, isn't the "command" delay then already sort of "simulated" in you as the commander of those forces studying the situation and forming an appropriate response?
I mean, you would look on your screen, see the enemy movement, and would weigh certain options against eachother; after a while you'd click your units to perform action x. This may or may not take as long as it takes these guys in the video to do the same thing. Hence, here is your "command delay"..? I'm not saying it's an all time solution to the "problem", but when you look at it from this point of view it's rather intruiging.
-
More importantly can you run over AT guns with tanks? :eek: I recall this being possible in CMBO?
-
In one of the AARs, the comment was made "I couldn't tell whether my tank would be able to penetrate his in this situation", and the subsequent question
"Is the shell penetration and armour thickness data available to the player?"
GaJ
I remember being a sad panda when they mentioned that they would not include this in CMBN. So to answer your question:
"I don't think so"
-
I can answer the question about on-map indirectly. From the spotter's perspective there is no difference between on and off-map behavior. When you think about it, there shouldn't be because we're simulating the indirect fire, not whether the asset is on or off the map.
Fields can be arranged horizontally or vertically. Er.. I don't think diagonally, but maybe JonS can answer that. We also have fields with crops in them. This changes LOS conditions.
Steve
Thanks for the reply there Steve
Can't wait to see how this will work in game. One other quick question, will assigning a spotter also work on vehicle units such as mortar half-tracks or other on-map vehicle-based weapons capable of indirect fire in CMs scope? -
7: The Battle for the Bois de Baugin continued...
lots of stuff
HOLY COW that MG42 spews those tracers right after eachother!
I'm judging that the effect of an MG42 on the enemy's morale is quite devastating?Oh yes, almost forgot in my excitement about the MG42. When you give indirect or direct fire orders to on map mortars, can you adjust the pattern as well (line, circle et cetera)? What other adjustments can you give to on map batteries?
-
I suspect you're correct. I read a comment somewhere else on the intertubes about the AAR not showing anything interesting or something like that and my first thought was of that Fawlty Towers scene. "Well, might I ask what you expected to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney Opera House, perhaps? The hanging gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically..."
War gamers are a tough crowd and BFC have been around them long enough to not let things get to them.
Personally I can't wait for you guys to see this thing first hand. It will be very hard for anyone to not be impressed.
In other news I will try to get something up today. Creating the screen shots is a very time consuming thing and real life is slowing me down today.
I think the real beauty of a game only shows when you see the entire thing in action, and the various underlying items interacting with eachother. Low resolution (no offense) screenshots showing some stuff here and there isn't that impressive to people. Besides, it doesn't show off any new features (QB purchase screen, UI, et cetera). This is why people (myself included) will always keep whining.
A picture speaks a thousand words sure, but a video speaks a thousand times a thousand; and experiencing the entire thing yourself.. well, you get the idea. People will continue whining until they get their grubby hands on the real thing. And even then there will be hardcore whiners (grogs) missing the Bren tripod or the FuG-16ZS on the FW-190F-8 and such
As a comment to the AAR, i'm really enjoying it and really appreciate the time you guys invested into it. But as a tip of some sorts, I would have advised creating a slightly smaller, tenser scenario with less troops and going more into detail about the changes from CMSF to CMBN, trying to explain how the atmosphere differs
So not so much an AAR in terms of combat, but more in terms of features perhaps. Of course, you guys are also bound by an NDA which makes it more difficult too.. Oh well, maybe i'm just rambling
Regards,
Gryph
-
Nope
(padding)
Blast
(more padding)
-
Hi Gryph
I might get round to a detailed look at the sections later, but the short version is: no surprises. If you're familiar with German TOEs, you'll be comfortable with how they appear in the game. Most guys are carrying around standard weapons, but there is a scattering of rarer or unusual models, like the G43.
Funnily enough ... last night I was testing something for which I needed 3 units from either side, so I grabbed a typical German platoon and stripped off a couple of units, and an a-typical US platoon that only has rifles. I didn't need them to fight - it wasn't part of the testing - but once I'd finished what I was looking at I though "hehe - have at it guys"
This was a dead flat map, no cover, nothing. I just pressed go, and left them to it. In the first run the two platoons started at about about 20m apart, and the Germans - aided especially by their SMGs - quickly attained firepower ascendancy and then proceeded to wipe out the Americans. In the next test the platoons started about 250m apart, and the reverse happened. The SMGs didn't have the reach and were ineffective, the MGs got knocked out and suppressed, then the mass of Garands tore up the remainder.It wasn't a realistic test, and there weren't any iterations so no statistical significance, etc, but it did reflect what I expect to happen although I suspect with a slightly different setup, or a little bit of luck, in the second test the two German MGs would have dominated instead of being dominated.
Good question. Ammo is displayed differently in CMBN
Thanks for the answers there Jon
I'm quite curious to see how the sections look in detail. As far as your testing goes, I guess it sort of reveals the picture I was hoping to see
I really wonder what the optimum engagement ranges are for certain squads as the German are almost surely going to be outgunned at medium range by the large number of US (semi) automatic weapons. Unless an LMG42 or two can balance it out a bit of course. Can you comment more specifically on the ammo displays?
Gryph
-
JonS, some practical questions if you may answer these.
What does the TO&E look like for individual German squads? How many StGs or G43 do these guys carry around? Is this random?
In an era with mostly semi auto/bolt action rifles and the 1:1 modelling, do you notice a large benefit from having lots of automatic weapons?
Also, since I _guess_ that some squads may either have a mix of Mp40s, Kar98s as well as StGs, how is ammo tracked for all these individual weapons? CMSF for example only has two ammo bars making it impossible to see a third type of ammo in the squad..
Thanks for you time
-
i'm the last person to complain about graphics, but if you are going to do something about the look of that grass, consider also what the grass texture look like at those views where the camera is far above the terrain. detail texture is showing at too great distances or sumfink? it appears to give an unintended (i guess?) miniature table look (which may be cool for some players, perhaps me myself included) - like the map was a 1-2 meters wide board placed on lawn.
I hope the "underlying" grass texture is seperate so I can just make it black or somefink. I really miss the massive "clump" of terrain feel from CMx1 (just look at the map sideways); if you look at the map sideways in CMx2, at the edges you'll see that the world is paper thin. It looks rather silly imho; but I understand that it can't be changed.
-
I've asked this in the US thread too, if you are allowed to do so, could you post some screenshots with the unit info? Like, for example a screenshot of the Jagdpanzer with it's internal systems/protection and so on. Quite curious to see how this looks in comparison to CMSF. And even if it looks the same I'd still like to see it (I can't help it, but I love to drool over stats and icons).
-
2 questions:
Are you allowed to post screenshots of the unit info (like the one for the knocked out MG42)?. I'm quite curious to see what equipment the soldiers carry and how that looks. Like, more interface stuff would be nice to get the feel of the game
Can tanks drive over the wooden fences? I'm not even sure if tanks in CMSF can drive through the low walls.
-
I'm not the only one hoping they are not telling us all the added features then?
Does seem too long a wait for what we are said to get. Oh well, QB Cherry Picking will appease me a bit. But so much stuff not going to be included is not really adding to my happiness. So much stuff that I assumed to have only missed inclusion in CMSF because of the pressure to release is not even going to make CM:N three years on.
I hope Phillip Culliton can start making his presence felt soon because Combat Mission is starting to fall behind my expectations.
Exactly my thoughts. I was quite happy with the news about the second programmer and even the time delay was ok for me because it meant they'd implement all those features from CM. Right now it seems it's just CMSF with a different skin. A year for just the qb, water and bridges seems a whlote lot
-
Crap!
Two things I REALLY wanted back was fires/flammers and misidents. Bummer. Double bummer.
EDIT: Well I hope at least we have nixxed the ability to ID the 3rd platoon AB HQ from across the map. I should not hope for such things though.
Makes me wonder what still made it in, with more than a year over schedule you'd expect them to throw in some easter eggs at least. Instead, everything seems cut because it takes too long to implement.
-
Gryphonne,
Amazingly, several sources have them moving out on the 20th of June, but that didn't see right to me. You'd think they would have all this ready knowing that 66 years later, we would need to know these things.
Rune
That is rather interesting, you have any references to these? would like to check them out
I'm always amazed as well about the number of contradicting sources around when researching certain topics.. However, the real question us grogs should then ask is, why is the F-8 in when there are many other FW-190 jabo modifications around that probably really saw active frontline/ground support service
-
According to multiple sources...
After rest and refitting it flew U-boat escort, and then flew missions in the early days of the invasion of Normandy. It had FW 190 A-6s and A-7/R6s on strength, equipped with a single bomb rack under the fuselage.
SO may have been deployed, but again very few if any missions with the f8.
Rune
Well, the number of A-7/R6 seems to be very low (less than ten) and these are lost due to enemy action. The A-6 on the other hand are transferred to other units.
Quote from another source:
23 June 1944
According to the War Diary III./SG 4 exchanged its Fw 190 A-6s for F-8 models on this date. At this period Clermont-Ferrand seems to have dealt with the repair and delivery of Fw 190s to SG 103 as well.
and:
At 11.35 hours, 16 Fw 190s (my guess F-8s)took off on SG 4's last mission in the French interior, one aircraft losing its SC 500 bomb in the process. Thirty-five minutes later they dive-bombed two small villages east and south east of Valence: Léoncel and Saou. The 15 bombs dropped were reported to be well on target, with the former village damaged and the latter destroyed. They saw no traffic on the roads during their mission and all returned safely to Clermont at 13.00 hours. Since Avord is not mentioned in the reports and because the 9. Staffel had no operational pilots a day earlier, it seems probable that this mission was flown only by 7. and 8./SG 4.
In Saou the destruction included the vaulted nave of the 12th century parish church of Saint Mary.
At 16.00 hrs. Geschwader Bongart gave orders to prepare for III./SG 4's transfer to the Eastern Front. For its part, III./SG 4, asked Luftgau Westfrankreich, to forward all mail for FPN L 40934 to the Luftgau Post Office in Koenigsberg, East Prussia. At 22.30 hrs., Ltn. Klepke at Avord reported to III./SG 4 that the airfield was serviceable. The same officer also filed a strength return for the 9. Staffel of 11 (7) aircraft and 11 pilots (none of them operational).
source: http://www.ghostbombers.com/sf/sg4_6.html
So, the squadron is transferred out of France to the East on the 30st of June, and sees extremely limited action if any with their F-8s.
In any case, It would make me wonder why we have the F-8 then, whereas I think that jabo Bf-109s and A-5/A-6/A-8s are far more common and therefore more realistic to include.
-
Because it pleases the Americans who don't care about the far more interesting eastern front. (I'm American so I can say all I want heh)
Personally I'm glad this and Bulge are first in line before the Ostfront game, because by then the engine will be much further refined and perhaps by then we'll have things like moveable waypoints, ability to mount troops on top of tanks, co-play and wego w/replay
.2 words: wishful thinking
-
No earlier F-model Fw 190s (F-2 or F-3) operational with any Geschwader in Normandy?
Most of them appear to have been shipped to the Eastern Front and they were produced in very limited numbers anyway. It would appear that the jabo field modifications A-5/U3 (F-2) and A-5/U17 (F-3) were as, or more, common than the dedicated F-2/F-3. The only Fs present in Normandy therefore seem to be the F-8s operated by III./SG4.
Sadly, I have no information on the number of A-5s operating with the jabo field kits in Normandy.
-
Ummm the FW-190 f8 should NOT be modelled, since the airframe production didn't start till April 1944, and there wasn't any stationed in France with JG 26. I can post the combat reports showing all their FW-190 losses were the A variant if you would like.
Rune
The FW-190Fs were never distributed amongst Jagdgeschwaders as far as I know. However, III./Slachtgeschwader 4 was operational in Normandy and they appear to have received some FW-190F-8s. I don't know to what extent these have seen combat however; if they have, it must have been in extremely limited numbers.
EDIT: Apparently according to this website: http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/schlacht/biiisg4.html, III./SG4 receives 49 FW-190F-8s in June 1944 and are stationed around Laval, approx 100km South from Caen
But if the FW-190F-8 IS modelled, and it appears to be (judging from the TO&E), then my original question still remains, is the FuG-16ZS modelled too?
The TO&E listing for CMBN only shows the A-8 and F-8 though, no FW-190A-5 or Bf-109 Jabo mods.
-
Okay, here I am back with real-world data.
Set up a 2000 m x 2000 m map fully covered by trees, but otherwise flat and featureless. One tree was placed on each tile. To make the test more meaningful I put a reinforced US company on the map and ran it into two companies of Germans.
The game remained playable and all trees were drawn at all times.
I have a fairly new middle class laptop: Intel Core I5, 4 GB RAM, GTX 285M.
Best regards,
Thomm
That is pretty impressive. By playable you mean no real stutters and generally smooth? If so it seems to run smoother than CMSF even despite it being unpolished.
-
Sorry, but these questions are too specific for me to answer (NDA).
Best regards,
Thomm
I understand
Thanks in any case, maybe Steve can answer? -
I think that as a rule of thumb the maps in CM:SF are larger because of the open spaces in the desert. I shall try to see if I can "break" the tree renderer with a heavily forested test map. On "standard" CM:N maps, it works pretty well so far. But these things are really still very much subject to improvement and optimization.
Best regards,
Thomm
What would you define as a standard map for CMBN though? In size that is. And how much of that is foliage do you estimate; in comparison to CMSF?
Can't wait to see how this will work in game. One other quick question, will assigning a spotter also work on vehicle units such as mortar half-tracks or other on-map vehicle-based weapons capable of indirect fire in CMs scope?
I'm judging that the effect of an MG42 on the enemy's morale is quite devastating?
Calling artillery
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Also, will we hear the "background talk" (such as "fire mission, over") in the respective languages? I thought this added greatly to the atmosphere in CMSF.