Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

SnakeTheFox's Achievements


Member (2/3)



  1. Hearing "wait for an update", at least from a non-developer, is about as non-constructive at it gets. What does it refute, establish, clarify, or otherwise contribute to a discussion on an allegedly flawed gameplay mechanic or bug, other than to demonstrate someone doesn't have an answer but wants to be confrontational anyway? I've noticed a trend on this forum, whereupon issues in the simulation are pointed out, but certain people will righteously defend it as the intended functionality even it it's absolutely ridiculous to presume that it is. Case being, a hazy sunset simply does not mean an 11 ton AFV can hurtle across an open field in front of 30 men and an unbuttoned scout car, then fire an autocannon 20m from their eyes, and maintain sheer invisibly all throughout. It also does nothing to explain (nor has anyone tried, unsurprisingly) why the halftrack had no problem spotting my own unit, even though they were stationary and he was moving, and they were more numerous and occupying a wide array of vantage points focusing on him. Also, I wasn't advancing, the halftrack was. My infantry were stationary, my unbuttoned scout car was stationary, and a single pair of snipers were "hunting" in his exact direction. The halftrack was hurtling at high speed across an open field in front of them, and the red line marks his general path towards the scout car/infantry (to clarify that he cleared easily 100-150 meters of ground without being spotted, and didn't fly out of the treeline to his immediate left, or something).
  2. For most of my life I've lived 5 miles outside of a rural town of around 2000 people, many miles from any major city. Light pollution affects almost everyone, of course, but I know what dark dark is, and it doesn't explain what's happening here.
  3. I don't see how that's constructive. Combat Mission, or indeed any long running game series, wouldn't be where it is today without people diligently discussing areas they perceive to be lacking functionality. I just want to make a small clarification, and point out that it's not the middle of the night. The battle started at dusk, so at best it would be 20 minutes into nightfall. The horizon was still pink (e.g. sunset/twilight) for me, and you can see that in the screenshots. An issue with graphical representations of night, perhaps, but regardless. I've been outside at night during varying conditions of visibility many of which are far, far worse than haze (as I'm sure most others have, of course), and have never been so completely blind that I wouldn't notice an 11 ton tracked AFV screaming across an open field, heading directly for me, so close I could hit it with a rock, and furthermore still not notice it after it had fired a burst of cannon fire into a nearby vehicle. I just simply can't rationalize this idea that anyone, especially 20+ trained and alert soldiers, could be so blind as to not notice something like that. And none of this even touches on the fact that clearly the system is functioning sporadically, because the SPAA made a B-line for the armored car and broadsided it. How can it see so well that it can move 150m straight at an unbuttoned, stationary scout vehicle which is facing it, and then engage it from less than 10m, all the while the stationary scout vehicle (and stationary and hunting infantry) can't see it? So to be clear, I am not debating that night and haze impedes vision, but I am contesting that it could not possibly impede it so drastically as to offer a scenario as ludicrous as this.
  4. Oh, come on now. Even being night, I don't see how a half-tracked SPAA vehicle can drive directly across an open field, park between 10 and 50m from a half dozen units (and so 30+ pairs of eyeballs) who are staring directly at it, and broadside an unbuttoned scout car from 10m away, and still only be spotted by one of those 6 units after firing. I can see better than that during a nighttime blizzard with one eye closed and one eye squinted. Although, being night, perhaps the bug that I am experiencing is that night hinders unit visibility a hugely unrealistically high amount. But I cannot logically accept that anything I just experienced was the intended, realistic gameplay functionality.
  5. I know this is a topic that has been done to death several times over, but lately I've been having more and more serious issues with spotting of all kinds: AFV to AFV, infantry to infantry, AFV to infantry, vice versa and everything in-between. In the most recent case I'm going to document, a German SPAA halftrack drove across an empty field, to within 10m of an unbuttoned BA-64B, several infantry squads in a treeline 50m from it, and even a "hunting" sniper unit that was moving directly at it maybe 15m away, and wasn't spotted by any of them until pulling up broadside of the BA-64B and firing at it. And even then, it was only spotted by a single one of a half dozen units staring at it; a command squad in the treeline 50m away. Now, the conditions of this fight weren't bad enough to warrant this kind of thing, but they weren't ideal either, so I'll list them: *Battle was a QB against AI *Realtime command *Veteran difficulty *Time of day was dusk *Condition was hazy *Unit experience/condition/leadership etc. was average/normal/baseline across the board (for my units, at least; I let the AI pick its own forces) *None of the involved units were actively engaged in combat or suppressed in any way And now two screenshots immediately after the SPAA was first spotted. On them, the red line indicates the direction the SPAA was headed as it approached my units, based on the fact that A: I spotted him 20 minutes earlier when he fired on my ground attack plane, and so knew his origin point, and B: I watched the "unknown vehicle" general area icon as it made its way down, which is why I sent the sniper squad on a hunt mission in its direction, to verify what it was. This is the BA-64B, which was unbuttoned before it was fragged, so the commander/gunner would've had his head fully out of the turret: http://i.imgur.com/xbiRq5z.jpg This is the sniper squad I had sent on a hunt order out into the field. They only hit the deck after the BA-64B exploded from the SPAA fire, but did not spot the SPAA after walking towards it (and it driving full speed towards them) for 10~ seconds, and didn't even spot it even after it had fired: http://i.imgur.com/buJzTG6.jpg I'm running some texture mods, but I can assure you the area the SPAA was driving over was a flat (if slightly overgrown) grassy field. Also, I'd offer a savegame, but the most recent save prior to it melting my BA-64B was made an entire 15 minutes prior, and it would be too difficult for me to recreate these exact conditions again. Anyway, it died shortly after firing from the one squad that did spot it, 50m away in the treeline. But this whole time it was only spotted by that one squad, and even then that was only after firing, not the entire 10-15 seconds it spent booking it across an open field. I know the game works on a "spotting check" system where periodical computations are made to see if a unit should be spotting another unit, but is there anything that can be done on the user end to make these checks more frequent or thorough? I've heard that the turn-based mode runs with a higher frequency of spotting checks, is this true?
  6. I haven't played the campaigns yet so I can't weigh in on this mission specifically, but every mission I've played that has had Panzer IVs squaring off against T-34/85s (and coincidentally, all times at long range) has been overwhelmingly in favor of the Panzer IVs. On "The Passage", for example, you get like 8 Panzer IVs at the start vs around 20 T-34/85s, and my IVs took out all ~20 of them with only 2 losses. Although naturally an anecdotal example, I feel the superior optics (and I believe superior ballistics) of the Panzer IV make it vastly more potent in long range shootouts vs the T-34s; it's in close-medium range that the superior numbers of the T-34/85s begin to really turn the tables, in my experience.
  7. Basically, for the most part, all of the memory that's being used by mods would be used by the default textures anyway, so in most cases performance is the same. High-resolution textures (I believe CMx2 supports up to x2 standard res) and other things that replace low filesize default items with higher fidelity ones will knock off a few FPS in total; but I have about 4gb of mods at the moment and there's maybe 1-2 frames of difference.
  8. I'm enjoying CMRT a great deal, and this is a really minor peeve, but why weren't these two iconic vehicles included in the CMRT release, out of curiosity? I understand they may not fit the specific historical scenario portrayed here (or maybe they do, I dunno, I haven't researched it that thoroughly, although I do know Jagdpanthers were used mostly on the Western front until early 1945, and that Ferdinands/Elefants were rare limited run vehicles); but considering their assets already exist, it surely couldn't have been too hard to just bring them over from CMGL and CMBN, could it? The game currently contains most of the elements necessary for a superb Kursk scenario with the exception of the Ferdinand :/ And the Jagdpanther just looks really, really cool :/ And no, Hetzers don't cut it :/
  9. Bit of a necro here, but why open a new discussion when one was already started? I would actually disagree, generally speaking I much prefer defensive tactics to offensive ones. Setting up ambushes, fields of fire, fall back positions, and especially when doing so against overwhelming amounts of aggressors, is altogether probably my most favorite activity in wargames. But to each their own, certainly. ... but having said that, this mission still kicks my ass. Three ATGs, two StuGs, two 'shrecks, and assorted Panzerfaust 30s doesn't seem like enough to take out what seems to be upwards of 40-50 T-34/85s moving at you in concentrated, coordinated waves. On my best try (the first one, oddly) I managed to take out 24 of them before they overran my defenses. I'll give it another try, but I get the feeling this is one of those missions that may only be winnable by exploiting a quirk in the AI strategy after memorizing it from several repeated battles. Still, losing in this game can often be nearly as fun as winning, in my opinion. As an aside, anyone who loves the gratification that comes from sneaking a Panzerfaust unit within striking distance of a tank and then knocking it out will absolutely adore this mission, because towards the end, that's all it is: perpetual 'faust ambushing.
  10. So according to the "Overview" page, anti-aircraft units (such as the Wirbelwind used in the picture) fire on aircraft. I just bought the game, but before I run into this tactical dilemma, my questions are three: 1) Can you actually see aircraft now? And if not, then does the firing of the AA at least reflect the relative position of the aircraft (e.g. if it's firing to the west, and seconds later a strafe occurs, will it also come out of the west)? 2) Can it actually destroy aircraft, or is it merely an aesthetic thing? And if it can, how is this calculated (considering the inherent randomness and luck associated with anti-aircraft warfare during WW2); is it totally random, or is there a complex script in place that takes into account the firing AA type in question, strafing/bombing aircraft in question, etc. 3) For Soviet aircraft, considering they're more-or-less "unleashed" upon the battlefield to seek and destroy, does the firing attract them to strafe the artillery's position, or have no affect on their spotting ability/targeting priorities at all.
  11. That's a good idea, but what I'm referring to is more the opposite, really. Basically I'm referring to a command where the unit in question is in position to ambush an unaware enemy at longer ranges, and aims their first volley more carefully, to maximize casualties on the enemy unit before they are combat aware and begin to seek cover, rather than simply firing quickly and suppressively (but consequently with less accuracy) as they do now.
  12. Which has nothing to do with the situations I am discussing, where the enemy is clearly observable and unaware of the ambushing forces presence. I'm omitting the rest because it clearly pertains to active combat scenarios, likely at close to intermediate distance, where the opposing force is equally aware of your position as you are of theirs, and not to longer ranged ambushes which is where carefully aimed initial fire is its most useful, especially in the era of bolt-action rifles. In your opinion, and without citing texts that have little to do with the situation I'm describing, do you really think a unit is better suited firing rapidly and with limited marksmanship on a target that is at the farther end of their effective range and clearly unaware of their presence, than they are taking the modicum of time (but more than 3 seconds) necessary to make their opening volley accurate (which, considering the enemy is not yet looking for cover, can easily be the most crucial) by carefully estimating their range. The former just seems too wildly counter-intuitive and illogical, I cannot see any advantages to it.
  13. If this is true then I stand corrected. I've personally never used target light, except when trying to keep troops from wasting bazooka rockets and such.
  14. I'm not expecting perfect accuracy at 800m from an untrained rifleman, but give anyone ample time to coordinate with their squad and estimate range and there would naturally be dividends in accuracy over merely firing on a few quick seconds of guesswork. You are presenting a false dichotomy, there is certainly a "middle ground" between firing using target reference points, and firing after only taking a couple seconds to guess how far the enemy is. Weapons that are carefully dialed to an estimated range are still certainly more effective than a weapon that is merely shouldered and fired on a seconds notice. That green troops would not be able to aim or estimate target distance as efficiently as crack ones would be easily modeled by having them gain less accuracy from planned fire. It's not like by implementing this command that somehow all units would need to have the same accuracy after preparing to shoot.
  15. That's a pretty unfair implication. Are you implying that troops in war are never ordered to fire carefully? Why would infantry weapons, specifically MGs and rifles, have sights that can be carefully dialed to specific ranges, if troops weren't expected to ever use them? I'm aware most infantry engagements in WW2 took place at under 150m or whatever that statistic was, but they're clearly there for a reason.
  • Create New...