Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by JSj

  1. Agreed, it's clear on the splash screen, it clearly states game version and engine version. I was more thinking of other situations. There's been many threads here on the forum with people being confused about the difference between the engine version and the game version of a specific module.

  2. It gets confusing when there are two different versions given, one for the game, and one for the game engine. I wish this could be simplified somehow, maybe using the format of the first number being the game engine, and then the game version? So, if you'd update your game version 3.01, for instance, to game engine 4, it would be changed to 4.01.

  3. 15 minutes ago, sburke said:

    People already have trouble finding stuff that is clearly in the manual much less making it 5000 pages long to cover every little detail.  :D 

    Sure, I get your point. :-) But still, is really, for instance, the effect of being in Command and Control or not a "little detail"? This seems like a major game feature, and still there is no information on what this effect is.

    If I have troops in the front line engaging the enemy, and my HQ is out of contact, how important is it really to reestablish C&C? Should I risk moving my HQ unit over that open ground to regain contact with the troops? If the not-being in C&C combat penalty is, let's say 2% (and, also 2% for what? Accuracy when firing? Morale? Both? Or something else?), then of course not. But, if it is 500%, then hell yes! The real number is probably somewhere in between these extremes, but without knowing, how do you make the decision?

  4. It's a very short article, of course there was not space for all the details. But there are notes of the references used, and I am sure all the details can be found there. Also, I think the main point of the article is that sustained full auto fire is not necessary to achieve supression. Would you stick your head up to shoot back if a very accurate bullet passed just by your head every 3 seconds?

  5. 2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

    This is absolutely the case in CM as well.  Volume of fire definitely is what suppression is all about, in real life and in CM.  So yes, on balance a Bren firing single shots is *not* doing what it is supposed to do, and that is to suppress.  If single shot weapons were all it took to suppress a bunch of guys, then everybody would still be toting around single shot rifles.  Which is why the change in LMG behavior for the clip fed Bren, BAR, and Breda (possibly others) is definitely wrong and has been fixed.


    This is actually incorrect. You do not need fully automatic fire for supression. Did you read the PDF I attached in my previous message? (It's only 3 pages.) Here is the relvant quote for what the studies have found:

    "We can consider three cases: the need to suppress an enemy; the need to keep him suppressed; and the need to re-establish suppression once lost. In general, small arms fire has to pass within roughly a metre from the outline of the target to be effective. A small number of rounds passing through that area in a few seconds (perhaps 3 to 5 rounds in as many seconds) will suppress the target, or re-suppress him if required; whilst just one round every three seconds will keep him suppressed."

    The article also mentions that full auto suppression, for instance from a Minimi LMG, is often ineffective because of the poor accuracy:

    "Machine Guns in Suppression
    Perhaps the most damning findings, however, relate to differences between weapons. The British L86 magazinefed SA 80 Light Support Weapon (LSW), with its bipod, is extremely good at suppressing targets out to 500m or more and, in conjunction with L85 rifles, keeping them suppressed. That is principally because it is accurate enough for almost every shot fired to contribute to suppression. The L110 (Minimi) Light Machine Gun (LMG) performs far worse in such trials. At best, only the first shot of a short burst passes close enough to suppress. However, subsequent shots in that burst go anything up to 6m wide of the mark at battlefield ranges. Since perhaps 3 to 5 rounds in 3 to 5 seconds are required to suppress, a typical LMG gunner will rarely achieve suppression."

    Anyway, I am absolutely not against that the problem with Brens and the other weapons are fixed, as they were historically not often used with single shots, as far as I know. I just want to point out what the latest studies are showing. There is a good reason why the USMC is replacing the Minimi/SAW in their squads with the M27 IAR. Also, I would really recommend that you read the short PDF article, it is very interresting, and it lists all the relevant references, it's not an opinion piece.

    The real role of small arms in combat.pdf

  6. (Admin note! - an offhanded comment about a fix coming in 2018 generated quite an off-topic discussion in the 2018 thread.  I moved it here as its own new thread)

    On 1/5/2018 at 5:07 PM, Miller786 said:

    It is a problem because what's the point of a BAR if you cannot suppress the enemy with some automatic fire? you could shoot single shots just fine with garands.

    Actually, accuracy is what matters when it comes to suppression, not rate of fire. There is a study done on this, I have not managed to find a link to the article online, so I have attached the PDF here.

    The real role of small arms in combat.pdf

  7. 6 hours ago, Erwin said:

    Fascinating.  Thanks...

    However, I thought his proposal that the Bren was as good and better than the MG34 and 42 cos the Allies kept winning.  But, wasn't a large part of that the quantity of the Allied arty and sheer volume of stuff we had?

    Yes, I totally agree. This is the one argument in the video that I disagree with. The success of the allies of course had nothing to do with the MGs that were used, but was because of numerical superiority, air superiority, better logistics, and most of all, vastly superior industrial production capability.

  8. And, maybe going a slight bit off topic (sorry about that!), I would really recommend that those of you that don't know about Lindybeige check out his videos. He is mostly focused on older historical topics, but he has put up several really, really good WWII videos. For instance this one, comparing the Bren Gun and the German Mg34/42:


  9. 34 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

    Except that you still put the driver on the wrong side.


    About that, I used to think that the right side of the road is, well... the RIGHT side to drive on, too, as I'm not a Brit. Until I watched this video from Lindybeige. Very annoying video, as it is too logical, and makes too much sense. I want to come up with a counter argument, but I can't.


  10. On 3/20/2016 at 1:11 PM, markshot said:

    Here is something that drives me crazy!!!

    You cannot tell you per man so human behaving squad with the action squares:  DON'T GO THERE; THEY WILL SEE YOU; SHOOT YOU; AND KILL YOU!!!  Invariably, these guys just love to scurry about and cover all angles; especially those where someone is waiting to put a bullet through them.

    Now, you say, the omniscient I (player) knows that.  Well, if you are an AI simulation and you see a body bleeding out in a certain spot that was in good health the previous turn, what does that tell you about that spot?  Yes, I like the new game, and all the human like behavior, but it is not very human like go stroll over to you buddy who is spurting blood like it cannot happen to you.

    I would recommend that you look at this situation differently. Whenever one of your units moves, other units should be on overwatch, ready to engage any enemy that shoots at your moving unit. In this case, after you take a casualty, your overwatching units will open fire and kill or suppress the enemy, and therefore the soldier going up to the casualty will be able to give first aid without also being shot.

    Now, we all make mistakes, of course, so this ideal situation will not always happen. There are always going to be times when we take casualties, and there is no overwatching unit with line of sight and line of fire that can shoot back at the enemy. But instead of letting this drive you crazy, analyze the situation, and figure out what you did wrong. How could you have avoided the extra casualties, where should you have placed overwatching units that could have avoided this situation? Look at this as a learning experience, instead of a frustrating problem with the game mechanics.

  11. Yes, I have done some more testing, and I think that what I was seeing is the same thing as mjkerner. The reason why the WP was not placed where I clicked, but instead some distance away, is that some AS seems impossible to place a WP on. I tried dragging and moving the WP to the AS that I originally clicked on, and it could not be moved there, instead the WP jumped past it as I moved it.

    For me, this happens in the woods in the fire support area in the second training mission. So I am wondering if this is just normal behaviour for wooded terrain? Maybe some AS are just unavailable because they are blocked by the trees? Or maybe this problem only happens when there are fox holes or other structures around? There are quite a lot of foxholes in the fire support area in that training mission.

  12. 24 minutes ago, IanL said:

    Usually in terrain with lots of changes or near walls and fences. I usually don't change anything and the soldiers go to sensible locations.

    Maybe this is it. One place that I had this problem was in the training mission in the demo, sending the fire support guys through the woods to the foxholes in the fire support area. Maybe it was the crowded terrain there, with a lot of trees, and then the fox holes too. I don't remember seeing this problem out in open terrain.

  13. 1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said:

    One thing I have noticed that I never saw before is that when I go to place a waypoint for personnel on foot, the yellow square that is supposed to indicate where the WP is going to go and the ultimate position of the WP do not quite match up. That is to say, when I move the cursor and a yellow square is positioned where I want the unit to go, then click on that location, the white dot of the WP shows up just a little to the right of the location where the yellow square was. Not really a game breaker since I play in WEGO and have plenty of time to move the WP around if I need to, but it is a trifle disconcerting.


    Yeah, I noticed the same thing back when I was playing the demo (I haven't had time to get into the full game yet). I agree it's not game breaking, since you can always move the waypoint afterwards, but it's a bit annoying that the waypoint doesn't end up where the indication says it should end up.

  14. 7 minutes ago, snarre said:

    did crish sayed anything new info about game release on last night stream? im not yet looked video .

    He said that it is very, very close, but he didn't want to be more specific, in case something unexpeted happens that will cause a delay. I think it's very likely that it will be released this week, unless there is an unexpected delay.

  • Create New...