LemuelG
-
Posts
327 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by LemuelG
-
-
...Once the battle had moved on or the tank had been towed back from the firing line. All this is just beyond the scope of CM and I doubt very much that BFC will ever change that fact.
But you can beg for it all day if that's what floats your boat.
Michael
Beg? Spare me the condescending tones.. we have battalion-sized formations, four-hour battles, fields over two square kilometers in size, campaigns with carried-over forces, at what point exactly does the scope of CM become adequate to warrant the important tactical consideration of vehicle recovery?
Without bothering to drag up the voluminous amounts of info surrounding the subject, I'll say it fully justifies being raised in the "things you'd like see" thread, your objections are pretty unconvincing to me.
-
Repairing a broken track was an involved operation. The likelihood that it could be done in the time allotted to a BN game, and under fire, is vanishingly small. Either Achtung Panzer operates on a different scale from CM or they simply got it wrong.
Michael
Yeah, AP had it wrong - it was generally far too quick an operation; I want to stress that I thought it was mildly broken, but amusing and endearing all the same. But, Some prangs are easier to fix than others, and if I have >=1hr on the clock I'd appreciate someone putting in the effort - just abstract certain types of damage/boggings - is it irreparable? Or something fixable with a little bit of elbow grease? As commander I don't appreciate my vehicles getting bogged/disabled and having the crews do nothing about it - no point arguing that it didn't happen, even under fire. Vet crews could change a track in under half an hour, even on Tigers. These are things I think should be considered within the framework of this game, realism does not argue against it's presence - it demands it.
-
-- tracks left behind on soft ground due to tanks traversing
Yeah, but I'd like to see crews imbued with the ability to jump out and repair their tracks in the middle of a battle first, a la Achtung Panzer (nothing special, when the area is secure the crew hops out and starts wailing on their running-gear with hammers, a little while later they're good to go). And the way a broken track would unravel as the tank drove on, and leave it driving in circles was terrific. It's not like CMBN has nothing to learn from other games
-
Could just be a 'clean' and 'bloody' option? I'm not exactly pining for flying-limbs and showers of blood, but I wouldn't mind seeing guys being thrown through the air by nearby blasts, and if guys who had been killed by flamethrower weren't at least slightly charred it might be a bit disconcerting; what I mean to say, I suppose, is that excessive sterility detracts from the immersiveness of the game.
I might argue that any intentional toning-down of the gruesomeness of combat is done in the name of 'entertainment' and only succeeds in trivializing the events depicted in the game (and I might not, don't bother calling me on it
).Blood - yes. Illumination - yes. Flamethrowers - yes. Most realistic Sim possible - yes.
-
Great linky Lemuel. This does seem excellent info.
Stucco [rendered] seems a unlikely description for a stone built building but it is possible that at the time it was rendered. The current pictures show it as natural stone.
Armchair General has more to offer with more links and a discussion of tacticsa
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11655&page=4
Yeah, I gotta concede that - the manor building as it stands today is a pretty impressive stone structure, one of those French houses that looks like a little castle, it was exactly the same during the war (except it lost the front wall on D+1 to German howitzers). It must be noted that Dolan was not very specific on which building in the complex the Germans occupied, it could have been one of several.
The cover of this book has a good picture as-it-was: http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=h3qgjf5AhT8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=no+better+place+to+die&hl=en&ei=mxQEToinNoPqrQe_0sGeDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
I took two things away from that account I think are relevant to this debate: despite their stoutness, and utterly dominant positions overlooking the bridge, at no point in the battle are the houses in the manor complex utilized for anything other than a hiding place for some lonely German conscripts, and later an aid station was established there in a blind-spot; the second is that the German defenders who did use the farmhouse were isolated and destroyed with much more ease than those who took up positions in the hedges on the Eastern approach to the manor.
I have no personal experience with being in a stone house under fire, and no evidence on hand to back up my feelings but (much like OP), I imagine the stone would keep bullets in as well as keep them out, which (presumably) would create extra hazard due to stone splinters breaking off the interior and zinging around in any and all directions, along with all kinds of crazily-ricocheting bullets. Not exactly saying it's a death-trap, but certainly that there's no good reason to complain about your guys getting zapped when they holed-up in the second-story of a building in view of an enemy formation.
I presume there are some mild abstractions involved in the cover and protection of buildings due to limitations of the 1:1 modeling (lack of furniture etc, troops exposing themselves unnecessarily).
I would like also to know what is modeled concerning building-shrapnel, is it 'in there'?
-
Agreed. A little more humanity in the process would be nice, not necessarily crucial. It is not at all unusual for a tank to rotate, elevate simultaneously then lick a shot the very same moment it arrives in place. No pause to confirm, no adjustments, just whirr-vzzzt-kaboom! Again and again and again I see it, and it feels phony.
-
I was reading last night about a paratroop action against a Manoir - not a very big manor house in this case :
The article does have pictures and there are plenty more on the Web of the house and grounds. Notice that the idea of shooting the occupiers to death from outside the house does not happen!
Rather assumptive. When one digs deeper it becomes apparent that the Germans in the area didn't regard the manor as much of a defensive position themselves .
http://www.thedropzone.org/europe/normandy/dolan.html
Fortunately this account is replete with details of great value to a scenario designer (and the description of the manor as a "stucco-type farmhouse" hardly conjures visions of a fortress-like position). With all due respect to Armchair General, that article was rather inadequate.
-
I called a 'heavy' 'maximum' on my own company (they had reasonably ok cover, a few hedges, all of them moving on 'quick' through the barrage area at the time) and took about half a dozen casualties, it was really quite pathetic - a well-used light-mortar could easily have trumped the rockets. The concentration of fire was, in my view, entirely inadequate for tactical use. I see why they're cheap, no beef with that at all TBH. If your idea of fun is blindly blanketing the map in random rocket-strikes, I'd advise you to do that, if that floats your boat then good for you.
-
I gave the Germans in the first Hedgerow covered arcs and hide orders, playing Warrior level. None of the Germans could spot any of the attackers until the latter were right on top of them -- so, of course, they had no way of knowing if the attackers were within the covered arc.
Was it a 'big' bocage? If so it would be unsurprising due to the soldiers lying on their bellies being unlikely to see over the earthen berm under the hedgerow. Small bocage might be a different story?
-
I wish there were a condensed history of fortifications in CM games for those whom it passed by... I'd like to know the origins of the debate, and the design choices which lead to the current state of affairs. (anyone?
) -
But on the other hand, the defensive fortifications don't seem to work as well as I'd expect. Not only with trenches/foxholes but it has became quite routine for me to knock out bunkers with a couple 1917 MGs lately at maybe 300 meters.
Personally I hope BFC are working on resolving the FOW/deformed terrain issue sooner rather then later; like many I'm sure, I look at them (forts) with a bit of a cocked eyebrow... I'm not sure what to think really, though I do know they are currently not 100% satisfactory, for entirely obvious reasons.
-
Edit: Basically, the hide order is useless in CMBN. Worse than useless; Harmful.
I disagree, if your guys are being engaged by a reasonably faraway unit while in cover of some sort, 'hiding' is usually good enough to cause the enemy's visual contact to vanish, allowing you to make a discrete getaway (on their bellies).
But yeah, it didn't do OP any good... I'm not surprised, for me it means "don't fire, don't spot, just lie on belly and keep head down", and I am glad for that.
Shame bayonets aren't modeled, that would have been great at the end there... I mean, they pretty much had to jump in the holes with the Germans, and even then one survived till the end of video. So broken
User error.
-
We're all eagerly awaiting the arrival of AI triggers. At present, the AI is totally unable to respond to a developing situation. I can't wait to get my hands on that and see what I can make the AI do.
I hope this is a top priority for new features. Imagine it... give a formation an attack order, attach the condition: If (casualties>10%) Then withdraw, attack pointB; If (enemy touches positionX) Then team1 withdraws to line2, team2 flanks... it would be a revolution... surely it's pretty do-able with some bog-standard boolean expressions? Argh, I ache thinking about how great it would be.
-
No. I wish it were otherwise.
-
I am beginning to think I made those two missions a bit too easy now. Ah well... that's life.
I'm not sure, a human would never have let me handle them so roughly. I thought the German dispositions were really good, the AI just proves incapable of reacting proactively to his flanks being turned.
A StuG or ATG tucked in behind that road intersection (main road and farm road) covering those flanking positions would likely have stopped me moving up there so quickly... needs more traps
-
The TacAI is now smart enough to offset the aimpoint if this happens so subsequent rounds won't hit the same tree.
Thank the Lord. Will this also work with ground (i.e. when they're burrowing away at the crest of a hill trying to reach the center-mass of the hull-down tank behind, instead of aiming a bit higher)?
-
I estimate a week until the La Fiere scenario is released upon the wild.
How interesting, which action? What kind of scale?
-
I would assume that in this instance if the original crew didn't come back the gun would continue to be inoperable as the firing mechanism would now be missing? Is that what we are asking BFC to code now, following the firing mechanism for each gun to insure who has it? Will we then ask that firing mechanisms be scrounged? And then make sure the scrounged firing mechanism be for the appropriate gun type? And then perhaps we can scrounge a damaged gun for a firing mechanism for an abandoned gun?
Pandora is laughing her britches off.
Correct, the gun was inoperable until the crew (in this case only two of it's youngest members) returned with it's mechanism; in-game it is already impossible for someone other than the gun's crew to use the gun (something I fully accept, but don't really believe is entirely appropriate), I'm not sure where the problem is here.
I would rather crews use discretion, and avoid destroying their critical equipment at the drop of a hat, especially when it is possible and realistic for them to temporarily disable it (satisfying the goal of depriving it to the enemy if they do not return) and return later to re-crew it. Tank crews get to re-mount, why not gunners?
-
'Labrynth' can be really easy if you did well in 'Turnbull's Stand' - they're the same German units that you fought in that mission. A player who didn't do so well there would find this one a tad more challenging.
No wonder! I kept coming across solo Germans... IIRC, in Turnbull's my mortar team evacuated with 40-odd kills to their name
-
Normally when playing a Paper Tiger scenario I avoid road movement towards the enemy like the plague,
//spoiler
I had the same experience, and also Les Licornets - the roads were absolutely free, particularly Les Licornets (The Labrynth at least had some squads covering the road in my play-through) - if one has a spare fifteen minutes they can see the results in this little movie I made for some pals of mine to show em the game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhbIdXtYUyY
I thought it an obviously fatal flaw for the Germans in their defence, I only played it once so I'm not sure if there are other plans in which they lock down the road.
-
- Australia is not a country worthy of national pride
Bahaha, at least there is one objective truth in this thread
-
The "problem with pausing in rt is that you are now micromanaging in a way that is not realistic. Commanders would not have had that kind of control. It seems more gamey rather than adding more realism. One reason why I still like wego. But, I do do enjoy both styles.
Bruce
In real life your guys can navigate around a tricky corner without needing to have their hands held. I certainly don't see how WeGo is any more 'realistic' than pausable RT... because a potentially indefinite break in the action every sixty seconds is a totally authentic command environment?
-
LOS can be tricky as well. If you test LOS just on the ground out from your position you are laid up at, you might think you have no LOS in spots, because of the subtle rises in the ground. But when a tank or squads is moving across the same area they will be visible, because of the hieght of units. something i picked up.
Also, mortars, zooks and rifle-grenades will be able to draw LOS and fire on spots riflemen next to them can't. Try it out with Shermans at long range targets as well, they lob it pretty high and occasionally fire over walls or banks you might not have expected them too.
-
There are good and bad about fighting at night. Freedom from tactical air is a pretty good reasons; areas under enemy observation become livable again, allowing movements not otherwise possible/feasible during the daytime.
If we have night battles, we should have hand-to-hand fighting as well, noise security for infiltrators.
).
"Would be nice" feature list
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Firstly, I have never claimed 'broken' - 'would be nice' is an adequate expression of my feelings here. I'm trying my hardest not to educate anyone, one would hope the grogs 'round here would be aware that every unit in a motorized division has it's own repair section - a small and relevant example I have at hand would be the 12th SS - which was formed with a recovery company for each of the armored battalions in it's Panzer Regiment. While mainly rear-echelon, elements followed closely on the heels of the armored columns ready to deal with any and all maintenance needs, if a repair was considered do-able within a space of four hours it was carried-out in situ.
So it's not just about tracks, but any minor damage - of course I would like to see recovery vehicles, bulldozers etc... why not? "Too hard" is an acceptable answer, "outside scope of game" is not.