Crushingleeek
-
Posts
303 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Crushingleeek
-
-
In other words, higher experience = higher ROF
agree? rebuttal, JonS?
-
nonetheless a great resource. posted by your outbidder? ebay outbidders are a pain in the @$$
-
Originally Posted by JonS
Also, lower experience troops will tend to fire more, more often, but less accurately/less effectively.
I don't know about accuracy, but in the game rate of fire is directly tied to experience level, with the rate increasing with more experience. I have only tested machine guns but I think it is true of infantry small arms as well.
Which is true: lower experience or higher experience firing more? Any insight would be helpful. Limited time outside of RL appreciates your help in identifying the truth!
-
Not bad! 1st and 2nd battalion casualties (KIA and wounded) numbered around 1000 men for the 116th "Stonewallers."
Highlight the following text BELOW with your mouse cursor (click and drag downward here) for potential spoilers/hints!
Make sure to use the sea wall as temporary cover!
-
i think that's taken into account at iron level
-
-
Thanks Slim!
excellent. That's about right. A Co. had virtually no combat-effective soldiers after the first few minutes of invasion.
There was an 88 gun situated right on the mouth of the draw raining hell on anyone and everyone, so Shermans had a tough time supporting their dying brethren, not to mention the mine-infested beach which made maneuver a horrible thing to do.
Head for the seawall. It reduces (not eliminate) enemy fire. Then think about whether you want to stay there or advance!!!
-
maybe you can start your signature with that last statement
-
TRP
TRP
TRP
TRP
TRP
TRP
TRP.
When the option's there, and it lets you do what you want, it's a bit ungrateful to complain you can't do it.
The fact that scenario designers don't often let you at the facility is not the game's fault, but represents the opinion that accurate fires out of spotting range (or access to eyes-in-the-sky) historically required more work than is usually reasonable for the scenarios that the designers are making. And they're making all the assumptions, so you can't really argue with that.
you make a good point, I often forget about the TRP (but I did remember in "Blue and Gray" campaign), especially since points are not an issue in single player scenarios/campaigns, but the ungrateful/complaint comment makes me want to argue with you a little bit...
I have nothing to counter with at this moment.
see me in the rebirth of peng you SoB -
Also: use conscripts for both sides.
thanks. will they break immediately? I'm looking for sustained shooting, for longer periods, perhaps more suppression, and less immediate casualties.
I'm probably getting ahead of myself (and what ppl are interested in), but I'm starting to think beyond 4 hr battles.
-
OK.... like it or not, unobserved "map fires" were generally done with a considerable amount of advance planning. I suppose, from a strict realism standpoint, you could argue that artillery fire should be allowed anywhere on the map, but with 2-4x the prep time if you don't have LOS to the target point, and then only for area targets of at least 200m diameter (converging sheaf point fires were almost never done without direct observation and correction of the aim point). 99% of players would probably never use this feature, though, so I can see why BFC didn't bother to put it in.
Great. Use Green forces with only a few Regulars. Give the player a very high "preserve own forces" incentive -- points in each battle for keeping his own casualties below, say, 10%. Also, make sure he knows he'll get very few, if any, replacements over the course of the campaign. For most battles, award a decent number of points for causing enemy casualties, but very few for terrain objectives. Even have some battles where there are no terrain objectives at all and the only goal is attrition. And lots of engagements where the objectives are very minor -- a patrol where your only objective is to touch any one of three terrain objectives, just to see what's out there, for example.
I could go on... basically, structure your scenarios and campaign to give the player a strong incentive to shoot a lot, risk only a little. That's what a lot WWII combat was like. Not all of it, but a lot of it.
Thanks. My concern is that in a green vs green battle, by turn 3, will all units on the map be broken, then command becomes a little frustrating. (ungrateful as we are to have the omniscient perspective)
-
Eh? Use "map fire" on turn 1 to simulate planned "speculative" artillery fire on suspected enemy positions out of immediate LOS
It really doesn't take a lot of imagination. Set up a scenario. Make terrain objectives worth very little, or nothing. Give both sides a high "preserve own forces" incentive. Give both sides plenty of ammo, especially medium caliber artillery and ammo-deep units like HMGs. Set a long time interval. This is a reasonable abstraction of the kind of conditions that exists on the front lines, a lot of the time.
1) turn 1 doesn't satisfy my craving. (Neither does a 4hour maximum time limit anymore)
2) You sound like you are talking about a H2H scenario. I want to make campaigns, which are single player.
-
See my rant about artillery strikes behind enemy lines awhile back;)
Rather, how its not really possible to do much in CMBN
-
An awful lot of ordnance got thrown around in WWII at "maybe" targets, with no particular maneuver goal in mind, just the gradual attrition of the enemy -- e.g., large area artillery strikes well behind enemy lines at suspected assembly areas, harassing mortar fire at suspected enemy positions, intermittent MG fire at suspected enemy OP positions to keep heads down.
See my rant about artillery strikes behind enemy lines awhile back;)
-
If you want to set up any play these kinds of situations in CM, you can. You'll note a very different balance of casualties to rounds fired if you do.
so........
How do we begin to simulate a higher firing:casualty rate?
-
oh sh#$. I jumped the gun by about a week
-
those airborne are scattered to all hell.
Any of you named "Ryan?"
-
Are you from Lodz or something?
-
i think that might set up more pissed off ppl than it creates happy ppl.
At the same time, on a sort of related note, someone brought up that statistic of 100,000 bullets fired for each casualty of WWII.
If that's true, the firing to casualty rate of the average engagement in CMBN is WAAAY too low.
How do we begin to simulate a higher firing:casualty rate? The only thing I can think of is engaging at longer ranges (for infantry).
-
I didn't know a light (green) damage to tracks doesn't reduce mobility.
don't think of light green as "damage." The speed of your tank indicates damage. Think of it as a dice-rolling modifier.
-
those 88's weren't there!
-
now, now. let's not make this another why we stopped playing.
-
I note that I win. I have the single, biggest difference-making adjustment that will make CM anything the hands-down grand-daddy simulator of them all.
Imagine playing another "human" opponent without the wait times of PBEM.
-
tell me how it goes!
I hope Villiers-Fossard will be ready by June 29. I really like this one
see me in the rebirth of peng you SoB
Changing ammo loadout in editor
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
thanks guys, for the accounts im too lazy to test. Works out well, since the division i'm enamored with currently (29th) was often greener the grinch. actually im going to try it now.