Crushingleeek
-
Posts
303 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Crushingleeek
-
-
but what about infantry guns like the leIG18? They should be able to indirect fire right? But they don't seem to be able to
-
I haven't been able to use the infantry guns for indirect fire either. bummer. but your explanations make sense.
-
But since you can plan artillery in the setup phase of any battle on to any blind spot, it pretty much acts as pre-registered artillery.
1). Not if artillery is designated as a reinforcement.
2). Since setup-phase pre-registered artillery comes in immediately, those target points should automatically become target reference points for the rest of the battle. Why could the arty teams have a target set at the beginning of the battle and then lose that reference and need extra time to target it again? (Again, not a criticism of designers, but just some thoughts. Since 80% of WWII casualties came from artillery, I think its worth hashing out for CMBN, whose devoted followers call it a simulation rather than a game!)
3). setup phase artillery, while certainly appreciated and useful, doesn't really completely "hit the spot" no pun intended. You want to do damage or at least suppress, but its more engaging in a developing battle. wiping out your opponent during the setup phase sorta puts a wet blanket on your game.
-
Agree. I have been including them abundantly in my new campaign, but I get the feeling that they are often forgotten in the scenarios i've played. Is that just me?
-
all valid points, I see them, esp. with regular infantry not being trained to call in arty.
I still have an issue with any arty-capable unit being required to see their target though.
You can imagine a defensive scenario where the defenders are, in fact, very knowledgeable about their terrain. Sound contact around some terrain barrier is established, and the FO knows where that must be emanating from - the small town just beyond the ridge. He knows what the coordinates are, and can call them in. But instead, as it is right now, he has to risk his life to get close to the down by getting up on that adjacent ridge (not to mention, closer to the arty target).
Sure, again, he cannot spot for the arty, but even without seeing the town, he should be able to direct fire there.
-
Why would a mortar unit target a location out of its own LOS if it had no idea any enemy was there? *Somebody* with a C2 link to the mortar has to observe the enemy, and let the mortar know that it would be a good idea to drop shells in the area. How else would it happen?
For a case where a non-FO/non-HQ unit is under fire, but is in C2 contact, why can't they radio in approximate coordinates of suspected enemy? It makes perfect sense that they could do this, but if they have no LOS, they can not redirect fire to improve accuracy (unless shells are falling somewhere they can see and obviously not on their suspected target). Also add on an accuracy penalty for such orders to compensate for the gamey knowledge of the map.
Blind fire is realistic, observing and spotting for them is not. Both of these in an ideal simulation should be reflected.
my arguments are theoretical, i'm not faulting the designers, but if feasible to change, I would definitely appreciate.
-
What would this solve? The primary issue, as noted, is the player's god-like perspective and ability to see everything that is happening on the battlefield that any of his units can see, anywhere.
One could argue that you are still being gamey and unrealistically god-like by knowing that one unit, let us say out of C2 contact, is under fire from an enemy unit and then moving an FO team into position to observe that area from which fire is coming. How could the FO team known about the distress the out of contact unit was enduring?
Thus, abstracting that lack of knowledge is just a nuisance to players who inevitably, are going to move that FO into position, which if you don't want to be a god-like commander, is unrealistic.
So, since both 1) allowing mortarfire w/o LOS and 2) moving an FO unit into position to direct fire for an out of contact team is gamey, might as well allow both, and let the true diehards resist the temptation (although no one would.)
-
1) Can you click on the arty icon? If not, arty is not (yet) available.
2) If so, what does the icon over individual arty teams say? "Denied," "Busy" "Not positioned" "out of contact"?
This will help us figure out why
-
i think patch allows the use of 4gig ram, before it was restricted to less, regardless of what your system was operating with.
how does this little program from cnet work?
-
It's pointless to send in mortar/artillery rounds if no one's there to see if the rounds are actually hitting their intended target.
But the point is, you could do it. Maybe it could be allowed, but you would not see any ground detonation graphics unless there was LOS to that spot
-
what does it say when you click on the arty icon?
"Out of Contact"?
-
Is there a way to lower the morale of your soldiers during a campaign mission if you take too many casualties?
Unfortunately not, but that'd be nice.
The way it is, you can offer one side points for casualties inflicted above a threshold, keeping your own casualties below a threshold, enemy ammo spent above a threshold, friendly ammo preserved below a threshold, and deteriorating the enemy's condition and preserving own threshold.
one could manually offer branching missions in a campaign based on the # of casualties sustained in a previous mission (i've thought of doing this), but its a lot of extra work and can get confusing to design.
-
I think in past discussions they said wounded, KIA, MIA are casualties. and for scoring purporses casualties are casualties. no difference between any of them.
it'd be great if wounded soldiers devolve into KIA without buddy aid, and you could allot scoring thresholds for KIA's only. Then there'd be a points incentive to help the wounded.
-
I wonder if I've been missing something since day one... Why can't you call in artillery fire from on-map self-propelled artillery (eg M7 priest)? Or can you?
I can only get them to direct fire, which doesn't sound right
-
good work. what about the difference in spotting times between DR and US?
-
good point
-
could 60mm mortars realistically throw a stug track?
-
I agree. When I first began playing, the multitude of question marks was quite confusing. Over time, I’ve become used to them and feel like I have a decent idea of what they represent.
Since I play wego the vast majority of my games, I have all the time I want to click around the map and get a good idea of what is actually where. With no friendly units selected, it seems that there is a “?” designating the last suspected position of nearly every enemy unit on the map.
As individual units are selected, question marks will appear, disappear, shift slightly or become spotted units. I think this happens as information travels up and down the chain of command and as a unit puts eyes on an area. Just because one unit can see that no enemy unit exists in a certain spot doesn’t mean this info has reached another friendly on the other side of the map that may have just heard from the platoon leader that there are targets “somewhere over there”.
I had a recent game where a jeep was destroyed and the occupants were all killed. When any of the nearby friendlies were selected, the question mark disappeared. I noted that after the platoon that destroyed the jeep moved on, the "?' never appeared when these units were selcted. But, when I picked units on the other side of the map, the "?" remained for the rest of the scenario.
I can see where the presence of a lot of “?” can be a problem in RT, but I don’t feel it’s an issue in wego.
sorry, didn't see that you already addressed it. neway, agreed.
-
I think you're seeing different ?s for different levels in the C&C - I see it as an attempt to simulate the confusion of situation reports in a battle.
Yes, if you hate the ?'s, you have to play on a easier level.
If you notice, if you click a unit that is right on top of or near a ?, it will disappear. This is because that unit knows there is nothing there. But the rest of your formation hasn't been relayed that information, so intel is such that there still may be something there. You'd probably argue that your unit in that vicinity should have relayed that info after some reasonable time, but just imagine all the information that has to be relayed across an entire company/btn/regt. Just see it as galaxy says, the confusion of situation reports.
-
heh, them outlaws didn't get to pick n choose, just complete your mission!!
-
Thanks for the praise. I have begun working on another campaign and will keep you posted. I agree with the coming to life thing
-
IIRC The Outlaws is a campaign that generally has pretty small engagements. I need to finish that campaign some time, I really enjoyed what I played of it!
Thanks, Blucher! Glad you are enjoying "The Outlaws," I definitely enjoyed making it. After a little hiatus, I've been working on a new similar scale campaign.
I also agree between platoon - company sized battles are my favorite. they are best balance between manageability and scale.
-
If I want to replace the sound file for marching troops, what do I have to name the .wav, .brz, or .mp3 inside my z folder?
Is there a list of these names?
I guess I'm saying, I forgot how the game knows what .brz goes to what function (background combat sound, gun sounds, voices, moving troops, etc.)
-
yes, there have been several threads dedicated to this bug. it has been acknowledged and being addressed.
Mortarfire by mapcoordinates?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I might be the 1%, but I sorta would...