A Canadian Cat
-
Posts
16,511 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
55
Posts posted by A Canadian Cat
-
-
I agree. I'm very sorry that it wasn't tweaked for H2H balance. It was tested extensively vs. AI so it should work fine for either side there, but the H2H testing results came in too late to make it into the shipped product. This is on me, and I do apologize.
Any plans on tweaking it and offering a "Sticking it out Redux" that is good for H2H play?
-
But Ben the camo helmet is a different shape from the others. That is why people think your mod changes the shape. But I suspect we are seeing a mix of helmet types in the squad. Can you clear up which it is?
Please,
Ian
-
Preview pics on page 1 have been updated. Also, here's another preview shot of a British airborne platoon HQ with optional subdued colored command buttons installed:
Those buttons look just like the ones in the preview images in your first post. Are those really the "subdued" colours? Just checking...
BTW I can hardly wait for this - thanks
-
Note to self: Never phrase a yes / no question with double barreled phrasing if Moon might answer it.
-
...you could do is use the landmark function to place messages on various locations with the victory conditions for that location displayed as text, so for example if there is a church in a town in an attack / defence battle, the message could say "Whoever occupies the church at the end of the game wins", that way you do away with points and have a simple win or lose battle.
But you could do that with the current victory point system too. There is only one occupy objective - just the church. Nothing else. Now whom ever occupies the church wins. No wordy land marks no nothing.
-
Who maybe has ever served in a unit with the spirit of such true leadership, will have experienced on his own the huge impact of that principle on cohesion, comradeship and discipline compared to units with bad leaders (those that only demand from others).
In reality this principle worked that good, that always enough volunteers were available.
Yep, when that kind of leadership is working there are often more volunteers than needed.
-
I designed both Buron scens. Feel free to PM me if you want, or we can talk about it more here.
Good to know. My friend and I are starting with "The Main Event" we figured it was a good idea to take the town before fighting off the counter attack:)
I quite like the idea of a little series of related scenarios. We only just started so the only comment I have right now is - holy cow those fields are wide open. Closing to contact is going to be fun (not). He says as he calls in the smoke...
-
I suspect they were worried about losing the only pair on binoculars...
That made me LOL - which is bad because I am at work:)
-
Are you saying that I should select the MG unit and then either press the "\" key OR click on the "Deploy" button [but not both]?
Yes. Select the unit and press the deploy button or its short cut key. If you do both the first one will deploy it and the second one will un-deploy it (if you will allow me to invent a word to emphasize the symmetry).
On my iMac, either action in my question causes the "Deploy" button to light up. The button always has a black border which doesn't seem to change, so I don't understand that aspect of your post.When it is lit up the unit has been asked to deploy its weapon.
I've had no luck ending a move order with a Deploy command. Before my unit gets to a location, I can't tell whether the unit will have a useful line of sight from that location.What I do is select the last movement way point and set the facing I want and the press the deploy button.
(I've read claims that, even though the targeting line starts from the starting location of a unit, it actually shows the LOS from the selected waypoint. That has not been my experience.)I am quite certain that the target LOS *is* being calculated from the selected way point. However that can still be confusing because the dark blue / red indicator of LOS blockage is pretty hard to interpret since it does not follow the LOS from the way point.
Also I think you are seeing one of the problems of the target LOS tool. It is basing its calculation on an assumed height of the observer which may or may not match the height of the guys once they get there (standing, kneeling, prone, riding a vehicle, looking though a gun sight, standing and looking out the top hatch etc. are all different heights). Plus, to have visibility (from the tools point of view) requires that you can see the center of the target action square.
These combine to lead to all kinds of "hard to guess what will happen issues". When you guys get their and lie down they cannot see anything at all. Or when you get there they cannot see the ground at the action square but they can see the tank sitting in the square.
The target LOS tool is really only a guide.
-
I've done that for my own scenarios, Noob, and have been working on one that I could release for the community, but I didn't think just stating in the briefing how long the defenders had to hold out before exiting would be too popular.
Wait a second! Can't we get this feel just by setting the scenario duration? The defenders need to delay the enemy for 30min. Create occupy or touch objectives towards the "back" of the map and set the scenario duration to 30 min. If the attackers get there before the scenario runs out the attackers win. If the defenders can prevent them from getting the objectives before the scenario time runs out the defenders win.
I think we can already do "defenders need to delay the attack for 30 min" type of scenarios.
-
Whoever creates the scenario can just mention in the briefing how long the defender is expected to delay the attacker for, if the defender succeeds they win, if not they lose, the exit zones are there to allow players to exit blown units and their total force in a realistic way.
Thanks for the clarification - I thought I was missing cool combination of victory conditions. Actually that might be kind of cool - touch objectives that are only available for a certain amount of time. After 30 min they disappear so if you cannot get there in time you cannot get those points. That might work.
-
Are you sure that they throw grenades to tank? Maybe they throw it to enemy infantry near the tank?
Because I have made the tests and soldiers and engineers refused to throw grenades/satchels to tank, while actively do this when target was infantry.
I cannot speak for throwing grenades from buildings but I have seen it happen twice now with infantry outside. Both times I lost the tank to multiple grenade hits - on the engine deck sides and underneath.
-
One quick note about the KT and Lynx model details. This is something that slipped through until the last minute and should have been caught. But we didn't think it was serious enough to delay the game for 2 weeks just to have better visuals for the two vehicles in question. They will be updated with the next patch.
Good call and thanks for the update. Also, that reminded me, I read that the Lynx is not selectable in Quick Battles. If that is true is that fixable in a patch as well?
-
That is part of the solution and it's the major stumbling block. Any time you open up the game to input from the user things get complicated fast. Not Earth Shattering Oh My God kinda complicated in this instance, but Charles and I probably exchanged 100 emails hammering out the design so that a) we have a system that works as expected and
the end user can't frig it up 
Ah the classic programming problem. Show me a design that is idiot proof and I'll find you a better idiot. Of course I usually don't phrase it that way when customers are around:)
-
About the rocking and rolling tanks, although it is obviously exaggerated it really doesn't bother me.
The look does not really bother me either - until... The other day I had a tank supporting infantry as they assaulted across a field. The tank came through an opening in the bocage and stopped just inside the field. I ordered them to fire and move at several points along the bocage. The first fire order came at the end of a quick movement and the gunner was all ready to go when the tank go there. He fired just as the rocking tank nosed down a bit. The result was instead of hitting the bocage where the enemy was the shell landed about half way between the tank and the opposite bocage - right into the middle of one squad's advance. Four blue on blue casualties later...
Firing on the move - my fault.
I am now very careful with how I get my tanks to support my infantry and try to make sure there is a segment of slow before giving the target order. So far so good...
-
. . . and still no "cover armor" arc.
+1 to that - it is in my top 20 too (at number 3 in fact)
I have noticed that bridge pathing is much, MUCH better though.
Excellent - while I have not personally seen some of the problems others have reported I am super careful about placing way points on each end of the bridge and avoiding any bunching up because of those reports.
Hopefully they'll have fixed the road bogging bug as well.
It is in the list of fixes - not sure if anyone has re-run any tests. I have to get to that... Frankly I would not give it another thought and play like it is fixed.
Also, without having read any notes, was there a patch applied to the base game along with the new one?Eh? The CW module applies the patch as well as the CW content when it is installed. The free patch only install has not been released yet but it is due soon.
-
Another thing i would consider is a method to avoid the need to come up with balanced forces by creating delaying action scenarios where time is the determining factor not points.
This can be achieved by giving the defender an exit zone strip along the rear edge of the map, thus allowing them to exit off the map when things got to hot as in a real battle, rather than being trapped on it and suffering unrealistic casualty levels or having to surrender.
Can you elaborate please? If the defender has exit zones then they can win by just rushing off the battlefield couldn't they? How do you reward him with points for holding on for x minutes?
-
what kind of results do you have so far?
How did you do? I have been cheering you on - quietly:)
-
<sip>
But what is the most effective order to close with and destroy a supressed enemy: quick, fast, hunt or assault?
Quick or Fast.
Eliminate Hunt because your guys will stop and forget the rest of their orders when they make contact with the enemy. Which means if your assault team is approaching the door and the see the target enemy in the building they will stop outside and engage them. Or worse if some stray bullet comes from another building they could stop and engage that previously unseen enemy.
Eliminate Assault because in this context you have already suppressed the building's occupants with other fire teams. All Assault will do is split up your squad and leave teams behind to provide covering fire for your entry team. But if you already have assets providing covering fire you don't need the squad doing the entry to provide its own covering fire.
I think in most cases I would go with Quick. Men moving fast get tired faster and the see less as they run hell bent. Quick covesr the ground pretty well and allows your men some ability to be observant.
-
My units dont seem to make much use of grenades, is there a special order for them to do so?
No, there is no special order for using hand grenades. Troops will use them automaticly. They have to be pretty close though. I see them using them a lot in the woods and buildings, or when assaulting a bocage line.
Rifle grenades on the other hand will get used if you use the Target command but not if you use the target light command.
-
I am hoping that Bill Lockton will re-write his mod to take the CW units into account.
Me to.
+1 to that
-
-
So then, any tips on making a whole platoon folowing each others?
If you want your hole platoon to move together then start them off in the formation you want and then use the same movement command Fast, Quick, Move or Slow and the will all stay together.
As you have seen Assault does not keep the formation and Hunt will not either. With Hunt when a squad encounters an enemy unit the will stop but other squads in the platoon will keep going.
However Hunt might be what you want in this case. The big problem for the attacker in the woods is creating the superior fire power you need when you cannot see very far. What often happens is on squad meets the enemy and get pounded. What you want is to have multiple squads meet the enemy. With Hunt your lead squad will stop and get pounded and the other squads will keep moving until they make contact to.
I have not tried it that way. I usually do the scouting ahead technique and then decide how to hit the encountered enemy after they are found.
-
They probably should not have upgraded without consulting you. And given that it is easy to have both an un-patched and a fully patched game installed along side each other there really is no need for them to go all in like that.
I suggest respectfully suggesting that they replay their last turn back in the old game.
I have one opponent who has declined upgrading our current PBEM and I am fine with that - I have both games installed and my file management program is happy to manage files for both games. So right now I have three games going using the 1.01 game and two with the 1.10 game.
the end user can't frig it up 
Problem with artillery fire
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Use the PDF rule book because on another thread we were all just reminded that there is no hard copy of the manual shipped with the disk.