A Canadian Cat
-
Posts
16,511 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
55
Posts posted by A Canadian Cat
-
-
For example, I'm trying to place four 81mm mortars, two sets each with a leader and two mortar teams. I can't place either of the leaders. When I try, both of them get paths to the locations I want. However, I can move one pair of teams immediately, but the other pair of teams gets paths. Why?
As previously answered this is caused by there being multiple setup zones. As far as getting the placement you want I stared a PBEM game of this scenario recently and had the same issue. Here is what I did. I placed the mortar teams where I wanted them inside their own setup zones (no movement orders for them). Then I placed the their leaders as close as possible to the appropriate mortar team inside the leader's setup zone. Then I gave the leaders a move order to where I really wanted them to be. In my case they were all set and ready to go after that first minute.
-
1. Can a scenario have units which can move but whose initial positions are fixed? If so, how do you identify such units, units whose setup area is a single point?
Yes. They will be outside of a setup zone. I have not seen this personally but from reading the manual about scenario creation this is clearly possible to do.
2. What is the benefit of being able to give initial commands during setup AND during the immediately following command phase?Your setup phase is both initial setup and first turn's orders. The next command phase you get is after the first minute of play.
-
I had another look at that picture blown up really big and look at that a pistol grip near the front. Very cool never seen one before - thanks akd.
-
Excellent suggestions YankeeDog I agree totally with your suggested solution for #2. There are several ways to make the amo sharing better between the MG team and amo bearing team. Wrek had a good suggestion too.
-
I guess campaigns is the way to reward realistic behavior in the long run, i.e if a defense resulted in defeat but paid off in enemy casulties. But, sadly, no campaigns or operations in H2H
Yes, that would be brilliant. So many quick battles and even scenarios end up in a fight to the last man when in real life the battle would have been over sooner due to high casualties.
-
What the heck is he armed with? It looks like a Sten except that it appears to have a pistol grip for the left hand up near the muzzle, like the early Thompsons did. Is this pic available in a larger resolution?
It is a Sten. What looks like a grip is the magazine. In this case he his holding it on a slight angle and what you are seeing is the side loading mag tilted downwards.
-
I thought when you order a squad to hide, they periodically do a spotting check from the kneeling level to simulate troops randomly poking their heads up to spot in front of them. Is not issuing a cover arc, and then ordering the squad to hide the correct way to set an ambush? Or is there something else going on to prevent this behavior?
Nope, if your guys hide they keep their heads down and don't spot much if at all.
I just experienced a disaster because I had two shrek teams hiding in ambush but I did not have anyone spotting for them (usually from a bit further back) and on team I un-hid when I realized my mistake and the sound contact symbols were 30m away. They managed to hit and destroy a half track before being killed by the squad. The other shrek team just died with their heads down when the other squad came upon them in the woods. To make hiding in ambush work you need to have someone spotting for the ambush teams (i.e. not hiding) and you have to remember to turn off hide for your ambush teams or they will not fire.
-
Either make low bocage passable (slowly at more risk ala way handled in CM) which would seem the easiest choice and would allow new players to deal with it as they expect.
Another alternative would be to beef up the look of the low bocage. Right now it looks like it would be easy to cross. If it were just a bit higher / wider it would be clearer that it is different from a hedge. I have learned to tell them apart but to do it I go to level 1 and move the camera around quite a bit to verify the burm and the width of the feature. It would be better if we could easily tell from level 2 or 3.
-
<snip>i think if they could have done so without outrage they would have ditched WEGo compleatly but had to include it for nostalgia reasons or some other weird reason.<snip>
I really hope that is only this one person's feeling. For me in a future game "no WEGO" or "no PBEM" = "no longer a customer".
-
If you the address between a IMG tag the picture shows up directly in the thread.
(not really HTML code)
[img=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6598654/Firing-.jpg]
then
-
OK I know how this is going to end - with me looking like a space cadet but I am going to ask anyway.
While doing some research a few months ago I stumbled on a sentence that indicated that after the Normandy invasion there was a plan to use paratroopers to help break out of the Normandy area. What I read was that the expansion of the area controlled by the invasion force was not expanding fast enough so a plan was hatched to use paratroopers to secure bridges inland the help facilitate the break out. It never happened because by the time the plans were ready the objectives were already secured by the ground forces. At the time I was trying to learn about something else and I failed to bookmark the link for later. Now I cannot find it.
I have spent two separate multi hour sessions trying to find the reference to that operation that never happened and I have come up empty. I have lots of bookmarks for other interesting stuff though:D
As I said at the being, this thread ends one of two ways: a) one of you says "sure I know all about that read this" or
many of you say "you are out of your mind there was never such a thing, you must have been smoking the good stuff".At this point I am willing to take the hit :cool: to my ego.
-
But are there higher resolutions available for free?
I looked into it - a yearlong subscription costs 12 or 18 pounds (sorry I forgot which). Which is pretty reasonable but I do not know how high a resolution that is. They say it give you access to four levels of zooming. I did not pull the trigger since I don't have a tonne of spare time right now. I did however save the link away.
-
While not having done any empirical testing, I have found that slowing the entire save process down has reduced the incidence of this.
1. Go to unoccupied corner of map, looking away from all icons etc, at level 1.
2. Count to 5
3. Press red button.
4. Count to 5 while slowly moving cursor to save file button
5. Press save file button ONCE and once only and do not touch anything.
I'll try anything to help things along. OK I am *not* killing any chickens or making any other physical sacrifice. But counting to 5 and rubbing my belly while patting my head... I can do that.
-
Well at least in the end we agree:) Thanks for the additional info.
-
I am still seeing this problem every now and then. I am playing PBEM with the 1.01 version of the game on a PC. The opponents that have also experienced the problem are also using PCs and the 1.01 version of the game.
To refresh everyone's memory here is the problem:
- You open the turn from your opponent and watch the disaster that came from your orders unfold in front of your eyes (or if you are lucky you watch the sweet success that comes from your brilliance - but that is rare for me)
- You press the big red button and issue your clever orders to get out of this situation
- Once you are happy with the orders you press the big red button again
- The save game dialog appears with your game name along with its new turn number ready to go
- You press the OK button and wait while the game does its thing
Then you go to the outgoing mail folder only to find no sign of the turn file you just watched the game create for you.
This does not happen every time and I cannot see a pattern of what I do before this happens. I have several PBEM games on the go right now and for most of them this has not happened even once. But for two of them Carbide Carbide and Bois de Baugin it has happened to me twice each and at least once for my Bois de Baugin opponent.
Are others stills seeing this from time to time? Can a tester or BFC let me know if this is a known issue? Is there anything that I can do that would help figure out what the problem is? I can send turn files. I can start saving turns before pressing the big red buttons so I have a game file before the problem occurs to send you. I can run a special exe for you if you want to gather more info. Anything you want I'll do it to help.
- You open the turn from your opponent and watch the disaster that came from your orders unfold in front of your eyes (or if you are lucky you watch the sweet success that comes from your brilliance - but that is rare for me)
-
oops wrong forum sorry guys
-
Cross posts there. Clearly touch objectives are handed slightly differently. If you touch them you get the points and surrendering does not take it away. In your case if your guys were already all casualties then surrendering would not make that any worse.
Interesting difference. So if your playing a scenario with touch objectives and all your guys are all ready dead then surrendering is not worse for you. However if you had guys alive surrendering would count them as casualties too. Or if you had men on an occupy objective you would give up the objective if you surrender.
-
As a test I created a tiny meeting engagement QB and let the computer pick forces. I fired up the game and rushed the objective. I got two tanks an MG team and a sniper team on the objective and saw no enemy soldiers. Then I saved. Then I surrendered.
Result is a total US loss. I lost no men I own the objective totally and surrendering gave the Germans a total victory.
Then I opened the saved game back up and this time I offered a Cease Fire.
Result is a tactical US victory. No points for causing enemy casualties but I own the objective which gives me the victory.
-
I think you might be right, I think that has been changed, it was CMX1 that did that, now with the new scoring concepts, surrender does not just give everything to the opponant, but I am not sure. Never use it enough to know how it works, cease fire is good unless the opponant has one or two men in a victory zone and is trying to take advantage of it.
Nope - don't do it. If you surrender you loose - totally. Just like in CM1
-
Yep, cease fire. You tell the game you want a cease fire (menu button, pick the cease fire command). Then you ship your turn off and your opponent dose the same. The game will end after that turn. A cease fire is better than a surrender because it counts the points as the game stands instead of giving a total victory to your opponent.
-
Wobin, good point about scale. I have to say though it really looks amazing.
Fuser, so about these 4096 size textures. How many of them are you going to make? Sounds like you are going to do the grass as an add on. What else are you planning? And just how many is too many; from a burning GPU point of view?
Yes, I realize that will depend on what graphics card one has. -
Will a new file help - we are 15-17 minutes into the game so I don't think we will re start? So, the 700 point bonus is that just straight up add 700 points?
-
Thanks I'll avoid reading the other thread until it is over.
-
One other observation about mortars: most CMBN maps are wayyyyyyy too open -- you can see right through copses of trees for hundreds of meters, settlements don't have walls or hedges, map designers didn't bother to put in gullies, ditches, elevated road or railbeds, etc. etc. that would otherwise break up the LOS. When most of the map can see most of the rest of the map, this massively favours the player with the most lethal ranged weapons, whether 88s or mortars.
Oh man and it can be unexpected too. I am currently in a QB where I moved a platoon supported by a few tanks into a forested area after an artillery barrage only to find a Stug 800m away can see through 200m plus of forest and pick my guys off. Yes, it is true I could have checked that but I did not because it looks like a forest so I figure it would behave like a forest - silly me.
After this I am going to be looking for some good QB maps where what you see is what you get. No more see through forests on the billiard table:)
many of you say "you are out of your mind there was never such a thing, you must have been smoking the good stuff".
those bugs/irrealistic things which ruin CMBN...
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Sorry to see that you are disappointed but please hang in there. There are many things that are different but the game is lots of fun to play. However it *is* different from CM1 (which are also still fun to play).
Yeah artillery is nasty and mortars are really nasty used in direct fire. This has been discussed a lot and the consensus IMHO is that they have it pretty much correct both in terms of accuracy and effect. The only thing that might be done to make it better would be to have the AI spread out squads a bit more than they are now. Bottom line if your guys are under an artillery barrage they will die fast. Conversely if you can get the other guys troops under your artillery barrage they will die fast too.
I agree there are some issues here but you can learn how to get the game to do what you want without the unexpected surprises. Here are a few instances that cause confusion and some suggestions.
Vehicles in convoy:
Yikes this is still a pain but give space between vehicles (more then you thing you need) and use pauses to make sure they stay separate. To avoid vehicle bunches and the inevitable "you first", "no you", "no you first", "oh never mind I'll just go around you" keystone cops routine that follows I start out my convoy with lots of space. Then in each command phase when I see vehicles getting too close I issue pause orders to the following vehicle and all subsequent vehicles. I religiously manage this turn after turn to prevent the bunching.
Also you can / should drive convoys in packets of vehicles. In real life this is how it is done anyway groups of 3, 4 or 5 vehicles form a packet and the whole convoy is made up of a number of packets. Each vehicle in a packet stays together relatively close like normal driving and they keep an eye on each other slowing down so stragglers can stay close etc. The separation between packets is larger and more varied. In the game this means that you have some extra space between groups of vehicles and you never have more then 5 vehicles that can get into one of those keystone cops moments.
Bridges:
Make sure you have a way point on one side of the bridge and another one on the other side of the bridge. And make sure you do not have a vehicle bunch up that happens near a bridge (see previous).
Bocage:
For infantry to prevent long surprising trips I also usually place a way point near the gap one side and the next way point on the other side of the bocage near the gap I want the guys to go though.
For vehicles off road:
Check that the terrain between way points is passable. You can do this as you place way points by moving slowly along the direction you want to go and watch for the ghost buster symbol. After a while you get better at recognizing terrain.
That would be great and is one of the most requested features around here.
Not sure about what you are seeing here - no comment.
Well first off are you sure it was not an HE shell? Also my understanding is that some AP shells did have some HE inside them. Plus buildings seem to be shrapnel generators which would explain a lot in this example.
Oh, there is a difference big time. The troops have their own AI that responds to what is happening on the battle field. Green troops will break, cower and run back much sooner than crack or veterans will. Trust me after playing this game for a while you *will* notice a difference. You will learn to pay more attention to CC issues with your green troops. You will also learn to make sure you do *not* ask crack troops to perform a suicide charge because there is a good chance they will try it.
Yep this can be a bit of a pain. The face command is your friend. If you move your guys to the action square where the cover is and issue a face command towards the enemy then the guys do a pretty good job of setting up using the sandbags etc.
Yeah, lots of debate on this one. Lots. Again IMHO the consensus is that unfortified buildings *are* more dangerous to be in and that churches do not offer enough protection. This has led to requests to make the churches stronger and offer a fortification that could be applied to houses to make them offer more protection. It has also lead to some scenario designers to add walls around the first floor of buildings to make them offer more protection.
Yeah, also and issue. This one has not been debated very much but suggestions have been made. Who knows what will happen.
Yep, CMBN gets this right. After much debate the consensus is that is how it was. If you saw the other tank first, you hit the other tank first, you kill the other tank first. Having said that if you play this game enough you will see lots of misses too. They do happen from time to time. And tanks do sometimes shrug off hits - even Shermans. So hang in there and you will see some amazing things. For example here is a PzIV and a Sherman killing each other:
It is OK only .50 cal and up can cause Blue on Blue casualties. But it is a good idea to manage your targeting to avoid wasting ammo and especially for the big stuff - which can cause casualties. I know just this morning in the Huzzar scenario I had a tank coming from one direction and a squad from another. The tank put a HE round towards the target and missed. Then the round landed in the trees right in the middle of the squad. It killed five or six guys.
Take advantage of what ever terrain is there to hide behind and keep their heads down. They do not spot. The do not respond to sounds close by - they just hide. Be careful with this command.
Well people do stupid things some times so do the pixel troops. Firing on open tanks to close them up is as expected. The consensus is that some of this needs tweaking like sniper assistants showing their position by firing SMGs early. Or team hunter teams using rifles when they should be holding their fire until the tank gets closer.
Yeah, that was tweaked in the patch. Lots of people thing it needs to be lowered some more. It is not clear if this is planned or not.