LemoN
-
Posts
412 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by LemoN
-
-
For me this game is it. If it wasn't for BFC there wouldn't be a ww2 simulation that I would bother playing. My worst nightmare is these guys deciding they don't want to do this anymore. Whatever complaints exist about CMBN they exist in an environment where there is no reasonable alternative. As we used to say about the Grateful Dead "they aren't the best at what they do, they are the only ones that do what they do."
Constructive criticism is always welcome and it is obvious you enjoy the game, so put some meat on them thar bones.
Thank god there IS an alternative now, a far superior actually. Namely Graviteam.
Which is why I won't shed a tear when BFC dies.
-
That's incorrect. "Seeming" to bottleneck the CPU, and CPU actually being a bottleneck, are two entirely different things. The CPU is not in fact Combat Mission's bottleneck in most cases. 3D games, 3D drivers, and operating systems are complex animals, and how they use / abuse resources collectively is rarely obvious.
In short, horrible coding and optimisation on a bad engine.
-
It's not something we can "correct", per se. We have made (and will continue to make) improvements that will help, but Combat Mission, whatever flaws you may attribute to it, is an extremely complex simulation and very large / complex scenarios are going to tax even top-end machines.
Actually making the game use more than one core would certainly help.
ATM the entire game seems to be bottlenecking the one CPU core it runs on, in the process having the same horrible performance with octocores with extremely powerful gfx cards... just as with an outdated weaksauce dualcore. I know that this is a huge task, but it's pretty much the only solution to the problem.
-
Again, another way to do LOOK at this is some panicky green idiot set off a panzerfaust in the middle of the squad. If CMBN did NOT do something like this once in a great while, then I'd be MORE concerned.
All of them are elites with +2 command.
-
that depends, if he was playing the americans he might have been quite happy. :-P
have to say that was damned funny, wasn't quite sure what to expect but when I saw that guy pull out the PF I suspected this wasn't going to end well.
I have never seen anything like that in my games. Being a computer program, if I play it enough I expect to find the occasional error, but yeah I can see that one being fairly distressing...not to mention what you other pixeltruppen were thinking... "wtf does he think he is ... oh s**t!"
I was playing Germans and it was just a random QB against the AI, so nothing of value was lost.
-
The three amazing feats of CM:BN.
1. Hand to Hand combat.
2. Amazing spotting and cqb fighting capabilities of soldiers.
3. The AI always knows what weapon is best for the job at hand.
-
I agree. I sometimes think I am playing a different game than other people. ATGs are almost always invisible until they fire at least 1 shot and usually 2. Tank commanders are blind as hell when unbuttoned and apparently can't see the enemy which the infantry right next to the tank can clearly see.
Yet I come onto the forum and hear people complain about tank commanders seeing too quickly and AT guns being easy to spot. I don't get that, though bunkers do show up quickly without firing a shot.
Of course there are loads of counter examples, that's what you get when you have a buggy and barely working spotting system.
I've had a tiger roll in front of a line of foxholes just 25m away, it fired at the units there (roughly a platoon and two 57mm's), the smoke from the explosion then hid the tiger (just 25m away) for three turns for all ground units while the tiger was happily blasting away at said units. And no, it wasn't area fire. I've had tanks spot infantry in ambush positions in a light forest with maximum trees at 100m+ while the entire LOS was blocked by tree stumps when zooming in ( it was nearly as dense as dense forest with maximum trees) at least 10 times in a single game, I've had ATG's in ambush position at the edge of a forest being spotted and killed with two shots each by buttoned up Stug 3's at 1500m without me being able to even react (WEGO, and I didn't even move them after setting up, and they were on hide), etc.
There are many odd things happening in the game, sometimes you have tanks and infantry being damn near invisible while happily firing away from an exposed position, sometimes you have units light up like beacons in the most extreme cover and camouflage imaginable. But for me (and many others by the looks of it) there is a problem hidden between those, namely tanks being able to spot too well in certain circumstances (it seems like spotting is mostly fine on more open maps) and infantry often being on LSD while they're supposed to be spotting.
-
I'd love to be able to purchase special camouflage for units, especially AT guns and tanks. One thing I'd also love to see is slit trenches and gun pits. ATM units in trenches seem to take massive casualties when under artillery fire, which is OK considering how damn wide and shallow the trenches in the game are. I'd like to see slit trenches that are very narrow and deeper than the ones in the game.
Good points. I think all defending units should receive a camouflage "bonus".I disagree with this. "Defender" may refer to virtually any type of scenario, from positions prepared for weeks or even months before the actual battle, to units being desperately thrown gaps the path of an enemy advance to plug holes in the front. Giving all defending units some kind of camouflage bonus is just as unrealistic as giving none a camouflage bonus.
-
lol
That list would be so big it'd cause the heat death of the universe.
You have to differentiate of course.
Having remote control spacelobsters is a different thing than having basic functionality like armour arcs.
-
They are very busy cranking out Commmonwealth.
You mean cranking out a paid DLC instead of fixing large problems with the game and adding/removing things that should/shouldn't be there?
What any sensible developer would do:
1. After launch, ask the community if there are any perceived problems or missing things.
2. If easy, tweak/implement and patch into the game, if not, move on.
3. Release Expansion that adds functionality that is not patchworthy.
3. ???
4. Profit!
Instead BFC seems to do this:
1. Release game that's barely working (CM:SF).
2. Tell the community that you'll implement improvements later.
3. Release DLC's en masse that don't add crucial functionality.
4. Release another game that has some of the improvements that should've been patched into the first game, still with many barely working things. (CM:BN)
5. Tell the community that you'll implement improvements later.
3. Release DLC's en masse that don't add crucial functionality.
7. Release another game that has some of the improvements that should've been patched into the second game, still with many barely working things. (Bulge)
8. Etc.
-
You'ld probably only be able to load the brass about 5-6 times before it starts stretching out too much. Pistol brass is more but rifle pressures just get too high. Black powder rounds are very light pressures so the reloads are definitely more than modern.
It really depends on the brass quality and the pressures involved on that particular load and the measurements of the chamber.
I've reused some 8x75 brass up to 12 times before I started to get case ruptures in the odd 1-2, at which point I dumped the rest of that brass load. I've also seen .303 rupture after 1-2 reloads due to the chamber measurements and the fact that it's rimmed, even though I didn't even fully resize them. Given the fact that the 8x33 has lower pressures than your regular full sized rifle round you should, with careful low pressure loads, get at least 8 or so reloads out of the brass.
Also, don't reload .303, it just ends in frustration if your rifle happens to have a slightly too large chamber (something which is very common with Enfields)
-
Yeah, $26 for 40 is NOT .22 cheap. I get 5.45x39mm for my AK-74 at $139 for 1060 of them. 7.62x39mm I've been picking up for $3.79 per 20.
So no, not cheap at all.
1.Buy 300 rounds
2.Reload them 5-10 times each
3.????
4.Profit!
-
I'm not keen on the importation laws of firearms from Germany but I'm thinking it's most likely not easy or even possible in regards to transferring ownership and shipping here without actually going over the pond, buying it and bringing it in personally.
Honestly, I've got no idea, but at least you guys can actually get them in full auto!
-
Meh, looks rather cheap tbh.
If you want the ultimate reproductions there's only really one company to go with. Their FG-42 even has the original Closed-bolt semi automatic and open bolt fully automatic system!
http://hza-kulmbach.de/index.php?lang=en
http://hza-kulmbach.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=61〈=en
Stuff they produce according to original plans:
MP-38
MP-3008
FG-42/I
FG-42/II
K-43
MKb-42 (H)
MP-43 I
MP-44
VG1-5
PS: 7.57x33 Kurst, never heard such a funny mix of 7.92x57, 8x33 and a mangled Kurz.
-
Kübel-8-rad?
D:
-
While it is true that Panzerfausts are really only emergency weapons (as is any handheld AT weapon, even today), I think that the game poorly portraying them (or their users rather) is a big part of the problem. Too often I've seen one of my tankhunters draw his MP to shoot a couple of 9mm's at that sherman just 20m away instead of hitting it with a good old faust.
Granted, if they actually manage to not be stupid and don't get spotted by the uber tanks (and if they actually manage to spot the tank quick enough) and if they actually hit then they have quite some effect. It's just far too many "if's" for my taste.
-
This specific comment I have to disagree with strongly. There may well be issues with spotting in MOUT and other close terrain environments, but having two opposing soldiers not spot each other for 30 seconds in such dense terrain is definitely possible.
I can't speak from actual military experience, but my experience playing paintball and airsoft definitely supports the idea that you can be literally right on top of an enemy in an urban environment, and have no idea they are there, for quite some time. In one particular incident, I was literally on the opposite side of an interior wall from a guy on the other side, for about 5 minutes. I only became aware he was there when he started to move to another position. In another, I was in an abandoned warehouse separated by only about 10' and a small sand pile from 3 guys on the other team for a good 2 minutes before we realized we were on top of each other.
And I've read accounts of similar incidents happening in actual combat, from Stalingrad to Fallujah, so I while I'm generally reluctant to draw conclusions regarding actual combat from paintball experiences, in this particular case, I think it holds.
The other stuff is interesting to debate. In general, I don't think CMx2's depiction of urban combat (which I played with much more in CMSF than in CMBN) is too bad. There are some UI "tricks" you need to learn regarding how to issue movement, pause and area fire orders, but overall I'm usually able to get units to do more or less what I want them to do, albeit perhaps with a bit more micromanaging than is ideal.
But there is certainly room for improvement, as there always will be... among other things, I do agree that there are some rough edges regarding grenade use, especially wrt building/room clearing. But at the same time, I am not generally in favor of a specific "Use Grenades" area fire order in the UI. Last thing the infantry control UI needs in this game is more micromanaging.
I know what you mean and didn't really aim my comment at these kind of situations.
What I'm really talking about is this:
1.)Squad assaults building (they don't use grenades)
2.)Squad wipe out the enemy whilst taking minimal casualties (or they get wiped out)
3.)Sole enemy survivor sitting in a corner of the building not being seen by the squad in the building (which is still fine)
now here comes the funky bit
4.) member of squad spots enemy soldier
5.) enemy soldier is blind and doesn't see/open fire
6.) member of squad shoots a couple of times at the enemy
7.) after multiple shots the enemy soldier finally see the squad member and kills him
8.) enemy soldier stays undetected for some more time
9.) they finally spot him and kill him
Either this, or they all get mowed down because they run in like idiots while there's an mg waiting at the doorstep.
Every army, be it WW2 or modern (although modern armies have far better drills when doing so) would clear a house while assaulting it, they'd be cautious and only after clearing the house would they settle down and get in position. And let's not even talk about they certainly wouldn't all just run through a door one after each other and all die one after each other like zombies.
How the game should handle houses like these with the current abstraction and non-existance of hand to hand combat and any other brains is simple. Abstract house clearing and the occupation.
1.) squad enters building
2.) squad disappears and building is greyed and the status changes to occupying house (or clearing or whatever) and everything happening in there is abstracted. Hand to hand combat, grenades, shooting, room clearing, etc.
3.) as soon as all enemies are dead (or the squad is) and there is some additional time for the squad to set up the house is freed up again and everything continues like normal.
If I'd have to say what pisses me off with CMBN the most then I'd probably say the 1:1 modelling inconsistencies and the resulting problems and weird behaviour. Some things are 1:1, some things are abstracted, and there is no logically sound line following it.
-
You surprised me with that comment. CM2 seems at its best in urban/MOUT situations. I can't think of another game or sim that comes close.
I have to strongly disagree.
CMx2's handling of close combat is quite horrible IMHO. Hand to hand combat is not even modelled, buildings are quite sketchy and horribly abstracted compared to all other terrain types, the spotting simply doesn't work in CQC environments (two hostile soldiers facing eachother... next to eachother, takes them at least 30 seconds to spot eachother sometimes... units don't use grenades to clear rooms, etc.
From my experience the CMx2 engine can barely handle fights inside larger villages, let alone towns and even cities. It's good for anything in the 50-2000m range.
-
Honestly, with the way urban combat and close combat is handled in the CMx2 engine I'd stay as far away from any urban settings as possible.
Barbarossa, Taifun, Zitadelle, Bagration etc come to mind.
But yes, I just can't wait for the eastern front... the western front (unless we're talking 1940) is so boring and overdone. :X
-
Hmm..not the same thing really, although I guess frequently used interchangeably. The ammunition issue would be muzzle flash and smoke obscuration, rather than muzzle blast (overpressure created by the escaping gases which can kick up dust and debris). Makes more sense if smoke obscuration was the issue, but again, I doubt there was anything special about the 76mm other than it using than lot more propellant than the short 75mm. If Allied ammunition was the issue, we would expect similar problems with the 17 pdr., 90mm, etc., although barrel length in combination with the ammunition can play a role.
Below are just two of my uneducated guesses.
I'm not entirely sure if the Germans also used smokeless powder within their AT guns, but if small arms are anything to go by then that would mean that allied guns would produce much more smoke than German ones, given the fact that they'd only use semi-smokeless powder. Also, I would suppose that the lack of a muzzle brake would kick up more dust directly in front of the tank instead of to the sides, resulting in more dust directly in the FOV under certain conditions.
But yes I agree, saying that you wouldn't see much if any obscuration after firing is, of course, complete bollocks.
-
Our dear leader Kim Jong-il is dead!
All hail our dear leader Kim Jong-un, may he lead Best Korea to victory over the capitalist imperialist swines!
-
Hardly normal as it's a pretty extreme derailing. But it puts some light on a not too uncommon phenomenon when driving armored columns up a road. The first few tanks can pass fine then suddenly the embankment slides down into a ditch taking a vehicle with it. Usually the tank or afv can just drive away but sometimes they get stuck. Roads are sometimes best avoided by armor if there's suitable terrain elsewhere (though that's in part due to the channelizing nature of roads).
A motorized march across several kilometers of dirt or gravel road usually leaves the roads in a complete mess (often the folly of the trailing support which is often wheeled). This of course changes from country to country as some build roads sturdier than others, and on the terrain in general.
There's a reason the Autobahns built in Germandy during the 30's were concrete monsters.
Of course, but what happened to the tank in the pictures above is clearly down to a large amount of water and mud, probably eating away at the foundations of the road. My point is that scenarios like this would either have to be represented by a special "damaged road" tile (say, 10 times more likely to bog, depending on weight?) or a muddy/swampy tile next to the road.
-
Pics of M1 sinking in an ocean of mud next to a road
I can't see how this would be a "normal road situation". In game this would have to be represented by a patch of swamp on the side of the road.
-
Cheers mate!
Although I'm not really interested in religious creation myths, they are quite amusing to read.
It's sad that it's a register only website, as I'm very interested in anything scientific, especially astronomy, physics and history. Guess I'll have to stick to my usual sources.
CW Improvements
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Oh, trust me, after taking a break from CM:BN for more than 6 months and coming back, seeing that there is still no patch to fix the game (but instead some yummy DLC that doesn't change much) and then trying to play some proper battles, just to see that the TacAI is too horrible to even make me believe I play a proper wargame, I realised that there's only one thing CM:BN is good for. Mindless QB's slaughtering AI once in a while.
I'll leave you on your high horse of arrogance concerning your historical accuracy for the moment, that is indeed very high, the thing that isn't is the realism. Tell me, how can a game claim to be realistic if it has casualty rates that far exceed reality and things like rambo tank crews that put even Delta Force to shame and blind and deaf soldiers that will ignore enemy soldiers right in front of them? How can you claim to be "unrivalled" in realism if you don't even have hand to hand combat and instead have to watch soldiers how they shoot at eachother with SMG's at point blank range... just to miss most shots? How can you claim that your game is realistic when you have the possibly worst implementation of CQC I've ever seen in a game that claims to be a sim? Tanks that magically take damage to their subsystems? Entire battles being lost because there's a single broken chickenfarmer hidden somewhere in an objective, while an entire army passes by outside the window? Soldiers running into a house in a straight line one after eachother, no grenade throwing, no clearing, etc?
I'll tell you one thing, your competitors may be lacking in some areas (mainly multiplayer) but they sure as hell are doing a LOT of things far better than you. Also, I don't give a toss about graphics and and eyecandy.
Also, "wanting you gone" isn't correct, but seeing how arrogant and obnoxious of reality you are I'm not going to shed a tear when you're gone. That's a difference, as I still have hope you'll get off your high horse and actually realise that you neither have the products of ~2000, nor the competitors.