MengJiao
-
Posts
160 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by MengJiao
-
-
Mentioned this a couple days back. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97681
I proposed something to the effect that their observations be delayed until they return within C2. Perhaps even a separate "map" for their intel, with the accuracy of their observations dependent upon experience, state of mind, etc..
Sounds like a very interesting feature, but I think it would be more for some kind of specialized reconnaissance team who could be given a route as much as several kilometers long to survey in a time period of about 30 minutes. I think the scout teams just represent basic infantrymen sent off on relatively routine "take a look" type missions -- a couple of hundred meters at the most in a 5 minute time frame.
-
What would be totally awesome is RT with a rewind capability!!!!
Some kind of record button would be nice. Like in IL2 or Rise of Flight.
-
Same as Gunnergoz. I try to keep things 'realistic'. I find it more of a challenge this way. However it can be rather a ball-n-chain when playing Humans . Although I must admit I haven't tried CMBN MP yet - still on the upward (re)learning curve!
So I use Scout teams but try to keep them within C2 sight or at least minimize their new 'orders' when they are. So practically they can be used to check out the next hedgerow or section of woods, but not as some sort of LRDG. I am continuing to split teams up very often, mainly to provide scouts and to separate the AT chaps to stop them using their 60mm rockets as indirect-fire! I was initially doubtful about splitting US teams up too much until a poster pointed out (and I confirmed through some reading) that US squads were trained in using the rule-of-3 for fire and maneuver. However I am still restricting my use of splitting when I have anything worse than "Regular" troops.
Same here. I use scout teams for scouting as in "go look up there (where we can see you) and see what you can see"...I also use them for getting ammo out of dismounted vehicles, or sometimes getting bazookas out of vehicles. I also use jeep and truck drivers for such things and for scouting. Of course you can also re-man vehicles (such as MMG jeeps and MG half-tracks) with scout teams. Usually I check out routes for platoon advances using scouts and drivers and sometimes ammo bearers.
-
I'm sure there's a philosophical question in there somewhere.
Like if a face falls in a forest is anything harmed except for the effort of alliteration's being wasted?
Perhaps the good Old US boys have adopted the good old Aztec Jaguar Priest discipline of skinning their enemies and wearing their skins?
-
Hi,
Because of my interest in the subject I still regard CMBB as the greatest wargame of all time in any format. Relative to the technology of the time I am still shocked a wargame could be so good, so historically accurate it was a form of military history
.But I consider the CMX2 engine a big advance on CMX1 so am confident that when the new engine reaches the Eastern Front the title of “greatest wargame of all time” will move to the new title.
In my version of the prefect world the Eastern Front would be the next title but believe it or not, and Eastern Front enthusiasts like me find it very surprising, but Western Front settings sell far more copies. They are more popular even in this niche market.
I'm prefectly happy to start off in Normandy. I think the commonwealth module is going to be even better than the initial chunk of CMBN, but I'm expecting the east front to top even that in terms of drama.
-
Nope. Infantry small arms ammo resupply is modeled, but vehicles resupply is not.
Reloading main gun shells into a tank's ammo lockers generally takes a little while. As such, I assume BFC concluded that this was a low-priority feature for inclusion.
You can resupply AT guns, but I haven't seen any tank resupply features.
-
I'd be alright with the chance to hit displayed as long as it is something that can be toggled on or off. If not, I'd rather not see it to be honest. You'll have to ballpark it just like they did in real life. If you're really close then odds should be good, if you're really far away...wellllll.
I load every squad and driver and ammo crew and scout team and sniper up with bazookas. I also add a couple of bazooka teams to each company. I figure they are like flares letting me know where the front line is. The rarely seem to hit anything, but the constant "shhupsppooonssh" sounds and tremendous arcing trajectories let me know the enemy is out there. I find them more noticible than rifle grenades due to the sound and usually higher arcs. Also since the infantry is going to shoot, they might as well shoot something that might make the enemy back up a bit.
-
"- a return of the command delay
- some sort of indicator of what type of terrain is what
- do different buildings have different defensive value? If so, some sort of indicator of which is which.
- small gaps in hedgerows are too hard to see. "
Well, I agree with the above - esp the fact that I see gaps in hedgrows, but when I order guys through them, they end up running into the open to use a gate. So what appear to be gaps are graphical illusion. It's very frustrating.
I also feel like the US armor (and maybe other Allied units?) are given some advantages like the US did in CMSF. They seem to get more accurate first shots off than the Germans and the Shermans are not as easy to kill as in CM1.
Some detailed studies (such as the Osprey Sherman vs Panther pamphlet) have suggested that the Sherman did have a significant advantage in getting off the first shot due to the gunner's having a wider view in his optics. For me, more realistic Shermans is a definite Plus.
-
Unit selection in QB's and the Editor are a mess.
I'm not having any trouble with selection in the Editor.
-
MikeyD, Speedy,
Let's put it this way : We are comparing two turn-based 3D tactical WWII simulating games. In that sense, CM1 series are the obvious standard, because, there were no other of such games. Hence the irrelevance to compare CMBN with CMSF.
Have a nice day.
On the other hand there weren't any games like CMSF before so it could also be the standard, hence the relevence of comparing CMSF and CMBN.
-
Then please tell me, how can a player recognize, if a tank is engaging in a firefight with another tank?
I'm never sure what is shooting at what, but in an example I've already used somewhere around here, I noticed some M10s shooting at something over a Kilometer away on a hill. One shot bounced high up so I assumed the M10s were shooting at Panthers and I moved some Shermans to get an angle on the area. Later it turned out that there had been Panthers up there and one had been knocked out and one immobilized while the rest moved on to more incredible adventures without doing any damage that I could find.
-
I really don't know how those RT player are able to do so in one continous move. Please tell me, they are pausing the game, aren't they?
I pause the game when something big and/or relatively unexpected happens or when I want to see if it is a good point for a save or if I want to unscramble some command problem.
If stuff is just blowing up all over, then I usually don't pause if things seem to be going well. I did pause one game to organize the rescue of a lieutenant and his jeep driver and get them back to a working radio.
-
I have to agree that i found the stats really useful in CM1 but now i don't think it is a relevant.
CMN seemed a lot less predicatable , I would never have sent mortars against a tank in CM1 however now, optics, radio and track damage make it viable. It is a lot less black and white now and better for it.
It's true. I think the game has come so uncannily close to reality in some respects that the world of frequentist statistics is not all that relevent.
-
I haven't missed the data tables and % hit chance from CMx1 consequently I can only conclude that they're unnecassary.In fact I'd forgotten all about them untill i read this post.
A basic rule of thumb
Panther kills well everything
Panzer IV kills Sherman
Sherman Kills Panzer IV
Tiger kills everything
Nothing Kills Tiger and Panther at least front on,side on you have a good to reasonable chance.
Have a go and see what happens,just like they did way back then.
I'm pretty sure that's the feel they're going for,it definitely works for me.
It's not that complicated.
I agree, but since I rarely know what anyone is shooting at, I'm perfectly happy with any shot from 1 kilometer that immobilizes a Panther.
Also, even a Panther has to spot you to hit you and if the first Panther fires smoke and blocks the LOS for the Panthers behind him while the shells aimed at him hit the other Panthers behind him who cannot see who is shooting at what either, then that's okay too.
I think in many cases the game is working on situations more complex than the player can anticipate from simple Gaussian probabilities anyway.
-
So far i have only played in RT mode, but all too often i find that i spend far too much time totally engrossed in some small scale action that i forget about all my other guys elsewhere on the field, and all of my best laid battle plans lie in ruins . I guess it's WEGO here i come (again).
I guess I like the problems with RT. I have some standard responses to parts of the battle that I can't pay much attention to: pull back, send out scouts, make sure they have artillery support.
In one recent battle ( home-made mod of Huzzar with more hills and a river name change), I saw the M10s shooting at something far away (around a kilometer anyway). I saw some of the shots bounce off so I thought there might be Panthers out there. I sent some Shermans to get an different angle on the target area, then I went back to saving a lieutenant who had gotten his jeep shot up on the wrong side of the Vire.
When I got back to check on the Panthers, they turned out to be Panthers alright, but they had gotten immobilized or knocked out without doing any damage that I could find.
So sometimes things turn out ok.
The lieutenant, by the way is doing ok and is back on the US side of the river directing some mortar fire at his former side of the river and his old jeep.
-
I think it would have to show target lines from each individual soldier, because that is the way the game is calculating combat. That would be a lot of lines. Any targeting you order just expresses a priority and only applies to soldiers that have LOF to that target.
The game design also presumes that you don't issue a lot of targeting orders -- that the TacAI is doing nearly all the targeting itself. So, presumably you should be able to keep track of what targeting you've ordered without needing target lines.
If I right about all of that, I doubt that BFC is going to bring a Show All Targets option back into the game.
Not seeing who is shooting at what can be disturbing in a big RT battle. I chalk it up to realistic tension and keep going. It often becomes clear eventually, though it does cause me to pull back units that look exposed and send out more scouts.
-
Are sandbag emplacements FOW?
I don't know, but my impression has been that they protect the guns pretty well from small arms and MG fire.
-
To be correct, Bagration was an operation, not a battle. And it were 400.000 losses on the German side, not 600.000.
But let's transfer the numbers into CMBN:
800.000 soldiers on German side vs. 2.300.000 Soviet side = 2,875 times attacker vs. defender for infantry.
less than 500 tanks : 4000 = 8 times more tanks for the attacker than for the defender.
Artillery and airforce around at least 10-20 times stronger. Let's say only factor 10.
Now set up a scenario with that relations in CMBN and tell me if you can achieve a ratio of losses of defender vs attacker of only 2:1...
QUED.
But in the actual operation the infantry superiority was less than 3:1 and the attackers inflicted at least 2times their loss on the defenders. Clearly the MG42 did not prove significantly magical in that set of battles.
-
I think other posters are correct that buildings seem to display more cover characteristics of wooden construction than concrete and stone.
the building thing makes intuitive sense to me. The building restricts fire and spotting. There aren't many buildings that a full US squad can shoot from.
Plus, the whole building is an easy targetting reference in terms of fire distribution: 1 mg takes one window, another the next and pretty soon the defenders are overwhelmed by fire.
I usually only defend from buildings in the reserve line (mgs, spotters, ammo carriers). Squads actively shooting -- I deploy them elsewhere if possible unless there's a lot of indirect fire. Buildings seem pretty good against indirect fire.
-
Why that? The Soviets hardly reached a 3:1 casualty rate in their most successful battles. Why, if rushing over open ground without support weapons already works with that ratio?!
And there is no need to speculate at all:
Just take a look at the human wave-attacks of the Soviets and how successful they were. There you find all the facts to study the impact of open ground and how effective HMGs are to stop attacks over open ground!
Well, if you line up enough stereotypes you can make anything sound plausible. For example, if you take the destruction of Army Group center as the most successful soviet offensive, the German defenders lost 600,000 and the attackers lost 200,000 or 1:3 in the opposite direction. So by your logic attacking at 1:3 should work fine. There you find all the facts to study the impact of open ground and how effective HMGs are to stop attacks over open ground!
-
Camouflage was essential for AT guns at all times. Unfortunately the only way to use this in the game is to place it close and or behind bush/trees.
I did a similar experiment using US 3-inch AT guns behind sandbag walls. 4 guns engaged tanks and halftracks at ranges of 2-400 meters for about half an hour as they emerged through some bocage openings. One gun was knocked out and the problem for the remaining 3 turned out to be running low on ammo, though it proved possible to run ammo up to them from behind another bocage line. Infantry and armored cars supprted the guns and probably occasionally distracted the attackers. The guns seemed to be spotting and firing much more quickly and effectively than the tanks that were moving through openings in the bocage.
-
Well, I had an awesome moment the other day, I can't find the thread with awesome moments so I'll just jot it down here.
Carbide Carbide map, Realtime, almost an hour into the map, I finally managed to cross the lefternmost bridge with some shot up infantry that I put in the houses near the bridge (playing US side) and two tanks with which I crept up on two Stugs in the bocage. With a lot of reloads and for at least half an hour I tried to take out the Stugs with the tanks then with some engineers with AT charges, nothing worked. I just couldn't find and angle. So finally I gave up, left the four tanks hiding in the bushes and went over to the other side of the map to work on the other bridge.
About 15 minutes later I hear a loud bang from the back. Whatta? I pan back to the bridge that I've already taken and I see one of the Stugs burning up, crew bailing out and screaming in German. Jeesus. I never gave an order for them to keep on trying or anything I just left it to that, no cover arc, nothing.... The Stug was in the same place I saw it last so they didn't move.... One of the Shermans crews FIGURED IT OUT and they blasted the Stug out of the Bocange just like that. I mean....are these guys ALIVE in my PC and THINKING or WHAT?????? it was creepy. I almost kissed them, they were just too little and too flat.
The little dudes are uncannily real sometimes. I was in realtime trying to figure out what was going on with somebody shooting at a company HQ. I zoomed up to a paratrooper squad sitting in some trees and I was about to give them a hunt order when one of them stood up, took aim with his M1 and shot a german running across a field about 75 meters away. The whole thing seemed creepy and yet dramatic, even melodramatic.
-
Good choice IMO. The battles are too short for subtle changes in weather to produce any sort of significant result.
I guess moving from the low ground beyond the forest, to slightly higher ground made it seem like there was more sun.
-
Dead impressed with this. I know it's early days - and yes, there a few little bugs to fix, but generally, isn't it amazing! I've only played 2 different battles too, but I've spent hours on it already. The last one really reminded me of that epic Hurtgen Forest battle out of 'When trumpets fade' - when hundreds of American soldiers are killed trying to take out those '88s. It was sheer madness as my little pixel men tried desperately to evade the guns and artillery screaming down on them. I barely managed to reach the train tracks (which are modelled so well too) before I was pinned down by machine gun fire and small arms. I lost 47 men and all my armour in the end and I felt it too! I love the way you can properly use natural defenses now, like embankments and cover from fire behind trees and such like. At one point I had individual men popping up behind an embankment taking pot shots before ducking down again. It felt like I was watching a film! I can't remember the last time I was so engrossed by a simulation! Or maybe it was CMBO?
Yep. Same here. I played the scenario you mention with the 88s and the train tracks. Tricky!!!! I love how the sun comes up and things get brighter
and if you punch on through to the central warehouses, the germans start scrambling. Brilliantly done battle and the game is fantastic.
Beautiful!
.
Carbide Carbide Scenario
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I second this. The map and the (same) one for Huzzar is one of the very best maps out there. I've been building successive mods/scenarios and changed the river to the Vire and added larger hills, but still, its the basic map that keeps drawing me back to do variations in the editor.