Jump to content

Alchenar

Members
  • Posts

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Alchenar

  1. Well to do the full runaround - Combat Mission (particularly starting with Shock Force) has wanted to do urban combat but has implemented it in a way that lets the player do MOUT in full warcrimes mode with no penalty - or rather if there's a penalty it's for blowing up the civilian building but not for massacring the abstracted away inhabitants. A developer who wasn't righty fearful of the inevitable media outrage might implement the presence of civilians who can become casualties.
  2. I wrote my law dissertation on this case! There's lots of subtext that gets missing from most reports, but long story short they probably lied and it's unconvincing that the dead kid actually grew weaker much faster than the others. Custom of the sea was you were supposed to draw lots, they didn't, that's why they went on trial. The trial judge was a bit of a crusader who basically forced the jury into a factual verdict, then stacked the appeal court so that the answer to the facts was 'this is murder'.
  3. 1. More than 10 FPS when the cameral moves. 2. Actually just more FPS in general.
  4. And my retort there is 'the general situation of the real war is the Germans losing'. Anyway this whole argument would be irrelevant if Battlefront would just open up these values to modding. The community would pretty rapidly come to a consensus view on balance.
  5. I think we have a conceptual disagreement on rarity points. To the extent that I think they should exist at all, they should be to prevent someone showing up with 8 flammenwerfer vehicles or something. If we are positing a meeting between 2 armoured platoons from a US armoured and Axis Panzer division then it doesn't make sense to apply rarity at all. These vehicles were not rare on the Normandy front in 1944 in opposing armoured divisions. (I also just don't get what the aim of rarity is. Combat Mission does not have a competitive multiplayer scene. If you are playing a competitive QB then each side should get a free hand to construct an OOB from the points they have. If you want a specific historical setup then go ahead and build a custom scenario.
  6. I'm sceptical. A 1/3 larger force is a pretty huge tactical advantage where neither of these tanks has an advantage in speed, size or firepower really worth writing home about. I'd say the answer is 'six M4s, with maybe a bit of pocket change left over for the allied player that becomes relevant when we talk combined arms scenarios'.
  7. The only reason that unit cost should exist is for balancing QB battles. It might be a useful guideline for scenario designers, but it doesn't make any sense to be hardlocking away the kind of scenarios they can design. If you can agree with that logic (and I really don't think any other way of looking at it is sustainable), the only reason point cost should exist is for fairness. Rarity is useful to to keep MP OOBs within certain parameters and prevent weird cheesy nonsense. This is probably the most obvious instance in which the point costs are obviously very wrong - equivalent medium tanks should all sit in the same cost spectrum and the Pz IV and Sherman are about as close to equal as anything across the sides in the game. One of the best things battlefront could do for the MP community is open up unit costs for modding. They clearly aren't interested in spending time doing balance passes on point buy, at least let the community develop some consensus options.
  8. Yeah, I don't know where this weird strawman that appearing on Steam would make the game any different comes from (although pushing the buttons to make Workshop integration happen wouldn't be unwelcome!).
  9. If anything, Slitherine explicitly said in their pre-Steam days that the reason they didn't want to go on Steam or adopt a sales strategy was that only a certain proportion of their catalogue would survive there (because the rest was crap). So War in the East is a $70 game because it needs to be more expensive and less attractive than the bad games they have. Thankfully they've broken free of that mindset. Also Steam is a shopfront and advertising platform, that's the whole point. Battlefront should be encouraging everyone here to transfer their install on there (numbers attract attention), thinking about running a free weekend promotion (I think Shock Force is prime for that - you can't scratch the surface of content but a full weekend gives people time to decide if they want to open their wallet for something a bit different and janky looking), and then using that community to advertise the hell out of releasing the rest of the catalogue.
  10. The quite backfill colour is a bad idea, it makes it difficult to read the text.
  11. I'm in a group on another forum that does group VS let's plays of Combat Mission and after doing several rounds of CMx2 games the people who don't own copies were shocked at how different CMx1 is. It's actually really interesting to see people react to encountering these games fresh.
  12. Oh Battlefront aren't remotely on the same level. Just take a look at the DLC list: https://store.steampowered.com/app/312980/Graviteam_Tactics_MiusFront/ Professional customers pay for the game engine but customers pay for quality content, and Battlefront hasn't yet tried to cash in on that front. The silly thing is once you've got your game engine up and running that's the hard and costly bit, you can churn out campaign packs for comparative peanuts left, right and centre (see Command Ops, CMANO, Panzer Corps, etc etc). Meanwhile in the last year we've had one module for Fortress Rome, and in the last two years Shock Force 2 (which is a rebuild of old pre-existing content). Sure, Battlefront have chosen to spend their time on professional contracts (and I don't blame them, that's good money) but technically releasing something once a year isn't the same thing as what Graviteam or the other major players are doing and I don't think Battlefront would ever claim they were.
  13. It's pretty trivial to have a Steam Workshop that just downloads files to a particular part of the install folder, which is all that Combat Mission needs. I would bet the game will eat a few negative reviews (not the majority) for entirely legitimate reasons. In 2020 it's been unacceptable to require players to read a manual to understand how the game works for about 20 years. Before you 'yes but' me on this consider that there will be people with jobs buying games on steam who were not yet born when the mainstream games industry abandoned this approach. That's how out of pace the grognard niche is. I think the other big one will be performance. CM just doesn't run well, particularly when lined up against it's closest comparator Graviteam Tactics. e: I think the graphics themselves actually stand up pretty well and it's hard to reasonably ask for more (except maybe weather effects etc). Framerates will raise eyebrows though.
  14. Obligatory question for when this happens: have you decided whether to issue Steam keys to current customers to let them transition over to that platform? In case anyone hasn't used Steam and is wondering why - the quality of life improvement from never having to worry about installer .exes and getting automatic patching is something you'll never want to come back from.
  15. Yeah I'd suggest grabbing something like RevoInstaller and doing a full uninstall. Also troubleshooting: are the campaign files in your Documents>Battlefront>Combat Mission>Shock Force 2 folder? Narrows the problem down to know if the files are stored on your computer and the game is refusing to read them or if it's something else.
  16. Okay so to be absolutely clear: the manual is self-contradictory on what is hidden and what is not. A command described to 'detect and mark hidden minefields' is not obvious that it can only be used to target non hidden minefields. This is also literally the only move command that works like a target command. It's inconsistent with how all other controls work, if it worked like other move commands then you'd expect it to be a special form of 'hunt', which is clearly what so many new players expect.
  17. I love how your strategy for clearing mines is to have your squad of engineers stand and work right in front of a platoon of Abrams shooting downrange. I just came to the forum having experienced exactly the same issue. At a minimum it is completely intuitive and not really apparent from the manual that in order to 'mark mines' you have to actually see the mines first, and by 'see' them actually see them even if you 100% know they are there because the briefing and map tell you they are there. Right now the scenario is designed to tell you that CM doesn't handle mines well.
  18. My orders are gone, I put in a ticket at the helpdesk. This might be a bit awkward because my name and my email are the only things I can really use (other than dragging up bank records for transaction numbers) to prove I've actually bought the products I claim I have. Well that, and the fact that they're installed and licensed on my PC right now.
  19. Different circumstances. Cheating in MP is bad. But there's nothing really wrong with people messing about with the stats in their own games. Obviously self-delusion is self-delusion, but it's unclear why anyone following their Wehraboo fantasies to mod their own game should be stopped from doing so. Obviously if they're going to come online and claim that everyone's game should be modified so that the King Tiger has a layer of spaced Aryan superiority between its armour plates then they should be rightly mocked. But there's no virtue in shutting down moddability for the sake of having everyone play the One True Version.
  20. Oops, my bad. But still, there's no reason an IS2 should have any trouble knocking out a KT from any range up to around 2.5-3km, even a non-penetrating hit to the turret will cause enough spalling and internal damage to take it out of the fight.
  21. Because there weren't very many of them and the battlefield isn't exactly a controlled environment? It's just statistically unlikely to expect this evidence to be available when only 500 of the things were ever made, only a certain proportion of those went to the Eastern Front, and a hilariously large proportion had to be abandoned or destroyed by their own crews before they even got into combat because the engine broke or they ran out of fuel. And then we get down to the chance that a KT that actually gets into combat is actually on the same battlefield as an IS2. So the sample size isn't exactly huge, you know? We have the evidence we have, which is that in test conditions at 2.5km an AP hit from an IS2 can penetrate right through a KT turret. Note also that the tests with the D-5 85mm gun showed it could penetrate the front hull at 1km: http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/03/soviet-85-mm-guns-vs-tigers.html So if the KT couldn't be penetrated from the front in combat, one is left with the puzzling issue of why Soviet testing showed it could be, and why the Soviet tactics manuals for fighting Tigers say 'you should be able to penetrate it from the front from 1km away'. Finally as a side-note to the issue of penetration, one should not forget that a huge proportion of non-penetrating hits in testing caused spalling sufficient to eviscerate most of the crew and knock the tank out anyway.
  22. I presume it's a combination of: 1) TOW-2b having a range of 4.5km whereas the video says they fired the' HELLFIRE II missile from 6.4 km'. 2) Infolink with Apaches.
  23. EnsignExpendable (the guy who writes the blog I linked) is really good for this stuff. He's got access to a lot of archive material nobody else has, mainly because it's his job to research and translate the stuff. I really recommend getting in touch with him. He's also really used to the usual grognard forums arguments, from 'no, the KT was not an unstoppable uber-tank' to 'here is why German and Soviet armour penetration tables have different values' (hint: the Soviet ones are the right ones to use).
  24. When you are bundling out a Javelin launcher to every squad then that's your organic AT capacity. Putting a massive gun on a chassis that can't absorb more than light arms fire does not an AT capacity create. The Bradley has done okay in combat, but that's only because it got to fight Iraqi tanks with TOW missiles from beyond their effective engagement range. And in order to do that it had to be terrible at actually transporting troops. The job of the APC is to move troops rapidly around the battlefield/operational area while attracting a minimum amount of attention. If it's getting into fire-fights then it isn't doing its mission.
×
×
  • Create New...