Redmarkus
-
Posts
51 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Redmarkus
-
-
I had the same problems as those described by the OP. as well as very fuzzy text, after installing on a new gaming laptop with a wide screen external monitor.
I adjusted my Nvidia and program exe Properties settings as shown here and the game is now crisp and clear again.
-
I'm playing Road to Nijmegen using patch 4.02 and squads have been rushing through hedges towards enemy machine guns on a regular basis.
-
On 7/18/2019 at 11:02 PM, Warts 'n' all said:
Never trust anyone who calls himself "Red" but dresses in violet. He's either colourblind, or a liar.
Ha ha. You're right. I must get myself an avatar.
-
On 7/19/2019 at 2:20 AM, weta_nz said:
@RedmarkusI think in Engine 2 and engine 3? of the game that is pretty much what happened when teams/squads were under fire behind hedgerows etc. And they would pretty much get close to been wiped out before running backwards. So I am confident that battlefront will come up with a solution with the current bug
Yes it was. I'm sure they'll fix it too, assuming it's a bug and not a design choice.
-
I've had a few problems with this too. Troops running towards the enemy makes no sense at all.
-
I was experiencing repeated crashes after updating to 4.02. Eventually, I uninstalled fully, deleted all residual files (including mods), reinstalled to a different location and patched all the way to 4.02. I've had zero crashes so far this weekend after several hours of play.
-
I've been under small arms fire a small number of times. I never got up to run in any direction, or even crawled to better cover - I just tried to press my body as deep into the ground as it could go, eyes closed and whimpering to myself, 'God, God, God.' I wasn't special forces or SWAT; just a basic infantry soldier. Might be better if the game sprites just froze in place like me; 'suppressed', as the old infantry tactics manual describes it.
-
I'd really like to play a campaign of this nature. A couple of comments. My focus is on a historically convincing experience:
- Why not go for a series of Platoon-sized (ish) 'Byte Battles' with a PDF map to put them all in context? The CMRT Byte Battle tutorial scenario is a perfect size IMHO.
- Let the campaign follow a historical narrative. So your most recent platoon-level fight was a disaster, but overall the Division has advanced. Onto the next battle with another platoon.
- As the campaign progresses, both sides will start subsequent engagements with platoons that have suffered a degree of attrition - again, historically based.
- You don't win or lose a campaign in this model; you experience it. You know from the outset which side won or lost and now you'll get a better sense of why.
- I find the standard CM victory conditions to be a bit strange. Rather than declaring victory based on taking this hill or having that loss ratio, is it possible to configure things so that all battle outcomes result in a draw and the player is left to look at the situation and come to his own conclusions about success? I've played scenarios in which I destroy 16 enemy tanks to my one and still lose because there's still an enemy HQ unit sitting in a hut. What's missing from CM is the 'mopping up' phase of combat. Victory is generally not won outright in real life and may not even be apparent to the troops engaged.
-
Question: How do you spell 'dyslexic'?
Answer: dis-lex-ik?
-
Oh boy... Mission 2 and I was going great guns, in the middle of a two-platoon assault on the second objective, when my Stuka support conducted a Blue-on-Blue strike in the very centre of my main effort. I took about 30 casualties.
That was the end of that battle! Realistic though...
-
Absolutely brilliant Mod and campaign! Many thanks.
-
23 hours ago, George MC said:
Hi @Redmarkus
I appreciate you taking the time to expand on your views regarding scenario design. However, before I answer the point you make, here is a fundamental truth about stuff I design. Be warned I'm babbling back!
Cheery!
George
Hi George,
I certainly didn't mean to cause offence. I will hold my tongue and give the first scenario another go.
I have done a fair bit of modding and even some scenario design for a number of games over the years but for some reason I've found scenario creation in CM2 challenging.
Maybe you're right and I should focus on learning how to build stuff to suit my own tastes.
-
On 04/05/2016 at 0:58 AM, c3k said:
Sometimes the briefings are too long and just present as a wall of text.
This is a valid point. Military briefings are designed to be as brief and to the point as possible. The modern form has become longer, but a WW2 Orders Group at Company or Bn level had a very simple orders structure. I recall the 1970s form:
- Ground
- Situation
- Mission - short and simple, as in "A Company will seize hill 123 by 2200hrs."
- Execution
- Atts and Dets
- Admin and Logistics
- Command and Signals
Few parts of this were more than a paragraph and some bits were just skipped, as in "Gentlemen, the situation is unchanged."
-
On 14/05/2016 at 5:48 PM, MikeyD said:
One obstacle I see to scenario making is psychological.
I've been around a while and I've owned every title in the series. I used to make a lot of my own CM1 scenarios. I have made several attempts to build CM2 scenarios that cater to my wants, but I have failed every time. Make my own campaign? Probably never.
Call me stupid, but I find it just too difficult and complex a task.
-
On 02/05/2016 at 10:56 PM, Childress said:
Would it be interesting to portray, say a campaign, wherein the offensive side duly pushes back the defender and the score determined by how efficiently the attacking side carries out its mission? Or would that be boring?
Personally, that would be my preference. I play in order to get a better appreciation for the reality of historical or plausible semi-historical engagements, unbalanced as they might have been. I sorely regret not having a campaign or two to fight in which a well supplied Allied force wears down a smaller Axis force during a series of unbalanced engagements.
There are two philosophies to consider here:
- CM battles should be finely balanced and complex problem-solving challenges.
- CM battles should reflect reality, even when reality involves one side having a major advantage over the other.
I don't think that these are mutually exclusive approaches, but at the moment the balanced problem-solving mindset seems to dominate. The question is, is there an audience for the alternative?
-
23 hours ago, George MC said:
Sorry to hear that ?
Aye it does get tougher....
So I've been giving this some thought. What I certainly don't want to do is disrespect the energy and devotion you put into creating your wonderful scenarios and campaigns. So, this is certainly not intended as criticism. What I do want to explain are the things I personally look for in any CM action. I might be the only one with this mindset, so please just take is as one man's chain of thought.
As a former rifle company OC, my recollection of training and ops 35 years ago (some of my senior officers at that time were WW2 vets), is that the tactical situations we were required to assess were relatively straight forward; the enemy is dug in on that hill in platoon strength. Are you going right flanking, left flanking or straight up the middle? What's your fire support plan? How will you employ your attached elements?
A campaign was a series of such actions, taking various forms; advance to contact, hasty attack, reconnaissance patrols, ambush/fighting patrols, defensive night actions, deliberate attack, breakthrough and pursuit. The actions themselves were simple; suppress and close, reorganise, defend the ground taken. The complexity arose when attrition and low morale took effect, or when ammunition ran low while objectives still needed to be taken.
I guess that what I personally seek from any campaign in CM is a series of smaller actions that form a part of the whole but which are not necessarily designed as chess-like challenges. I don't believe that a majority of combat unit leaders have to make that many problem-solving decisions, or that many real-world actions hinge on finely tuned point scoring systems.
What I am really saying is that while smarter and more game-savvy players than I will waltz through a campaign like this, using all manner of highly intelligent ploys and moves, a more simple-minded player like myself, who employs conventional combined arms tactics, tends to lose on points. I'm not questioning the quality of the campaign or the massive effort that's gone into the documentation; I am proposing a different philosophy for campaign design.
Just ignore me if this sounds like babble...
-
2 hours ago, George MC said:
Maybe...
Or...?
Best of luck anyways
Badly knocked about by one invincible 45mm AT gun... I think this one is out of my league...
-
1 minute ago, George MC said:
Hi @Redmarkus I'd push on TBH - you took very few casualties (none that will make any odds) - so all is good in that regard.
If you check out the PDF (in the zipped campaign folder) you'll see a flowchart that shows you where you will end up. In your case your timeline slips and the Soviets know you are coming.
But you are still slightly in their decision cycle, so they won't be all that prepared, so all is still good - for now.
Ta! Will give it a go. Sounds like I need to expect poorly coordinated flank attacks by T34s...
-
37 minutes ago, George MC said:
Simples
Don't get spotted...
Ah... I missed that point. I only have to odd chance to play and I tend to just jump in without reading the full briefing.
Here's my final result. Is this good enough to push on, or should I replay the battle?
-
On 18/04/2016 at 8:03 PM, Redmarkus said:
Just found time to play the first battle in this truly excellent campaign. The scale is exactly what I had hoped for, and the map is a work of art.
However, I must be missing something. With 15 minutes remaining in battle #1, I had knocked out all of the Soviet tanks (I think), one armoured car, an AT gun and a good quantity of infantry for the loss of only 4 PzGrs and zero vehicles. All objectives/touch points had also been taken. I abandoned the touch points but I have tanks and infantry in strength sitting on both objectives.
However, I only scored a 'Draw' result, which was rather disheartening. Short of searching the woods for more enemy infantry and one armoured car I spotted running away, I'm not sure how else to improve my score...
Any suggestions?
-
1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:
To recreate that in the game, you can send out a scout team using 'hunt', while the rest of the squad follows using 'move'.
But I don't think the hunt command tires troops much really. At least not in Normandy. Maybe it was changed for CMFB.
I think it does tire them more in CMFB - at least that's my impression.
Yes, I do exactly that - scouts out.
-
2 hours ago, Sailor Malan2 said:
Also, the whole premise of this thread is a little odd. If scenarios are tested and balanced, the effects like slow move fatigue build up are covered. If your troops are tiring too fast, you are being excessively cautious maybe.
That would only be true if the scenario offers only one 'correct' tactical solution. If I opt to move through woodland instead of riding on the tanks down a road, then my troops will tire more quickly, but that doesn't make moving through the woods 'wrong'.
-
I do find it odd that 'Hunt' is so tiring though. The point man feels the pressure, but those behind him actually get lots of rest spells while he checks out the terrain ahead, does his listening drills, inspects the trail for mines and boobytraps, etc.
-
On 28/04/2016 at 3:05 PM, Duckman said:
I think games in general underestimate the effects of crawling. It is very tiresome, and even more so with gear and weapons over uneven terrain. So kudos to CM on that issue.
While on the subject, I think games also tend to underestimate the effect of mud and especially for leg infantry. Simply crossing a muddy field with gear is tiring and very, very slow.
+1 (I had 10 years infantry service). Crawling with combat gear is extremely tiring. You have to lug a heavy WW2 weapon along with you, ammo, water etc, while wearing a helmet. The ground is muddy, stony, painful to cross. Roots and brush keep snagging your gear, PLUS you're scared. You can't breath properly. You're under all kinds of stress.
Mud is horrible. Great clumps of it stick to your boots. Your feet weight a ton and pulling them out of the mud, especially when weighed down by your gear, makes each step hell. The two times I just wanted to die:
- While carrying a roll of barbed wire up a steep hill, plus all my normal gear.
- At 2am one morning while sitting in a flooded foxhole in winter conditions.
I would have welcomed a firefight, just to take my mind off my pain!
If anything, CM understates the difficulties posed by terrain, simply to keep the game interesting. If it was fully realistic, we would have 4-5 hours of moving our troops through mud and forests, followed by 30 minutes of actual combat before they either prevailed or pulled back a bit to dig in for 2-3 hours.
Or...?
Barbarossa Scenarios Released
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
I'm loving this. I always wondered why CMRT didn't start with 1941 campaigns/scenarios and build up from there.