WriterJWA
-
Posts
217 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by WriterJWA
-
-
illumination rounds/flares
+1 YES
I'd LOVE to be able to illum for night fighting!
-
Womble, on another thread, mentioned:
The new packs will add features which neither patches nor modules have ever done before. The prospect of getting a new UI, or fire or amphibious movement before Bulge is released is quite mouthwatering.Just for fun, what would be some of the features you'd personally like to see added to the game, either in the next set of released content or in the far future (2-4 years)?
Me personally, I'd love to see:
1. Amphibious capability
2. Anti-aircraft artillery
3. Melee
4. Off-map counter-battery fire.
-
Is this still live? (I'm currently at work...)
I've been thinking about how cool it'd be to have a TS channel to talk tactics, set up games, etc....
-
-
Thanks Mord. It now seems conceivable that BFC will see the light and realize that the PTO may be an attractive submarket, with a scale of tactical infantry action quite well-suited to the engine. And that creating a quality CM:Pacific game does not in fact require creating a massive new terrain set... caves, maybe. And some kind of treetop sniping platform.
Please don't get my hopes up! HAAHAA!
I'd LOVE a CM: Pacific game, and I agree that I don't think it would be too far a stretch to do it in the long term. With the mods, a friend of mine put together a loose facsimile of the Alligator Creek action on Guadalcanal. Obviously the M1 Garands had to take the place the Springfields, but it was a great little battle fought (I'm trying to get him to clean it up and post it in the repository).
There are so many overlooked tactical and terrain options to choose from in the Pacific theater ... from deep jungle, temperate, to almost desert-like conditions (see: Peleliu and Iwo Jima).
Granted, there are a few things that would need doing ... like building flamethrowers, a slightly better melee model perhaps, a little bit better defined water system for amphibious landings (I'd LOVE to play Tarawa), and some fortifications, but I think with the new games they have coming out, one or more of those will get addressed!
-
Me too! I've been playing some "old" CMSF scenarios and I'm definitely ready for the second iteration of modern warfare! If I read the post correctly, I suspect we'll be able to play older NATO v. WP-era OOBs, which will be awesome. Even if that's not true, the idea of fighting with modern forces in a European environment offers a heck of a lot of challenges! Can't wait!
Although ... I'd love to play a CM game where I could replicate a Fulda Gap-esque battle with an ACR against Soviet armored columns!
-
Level of effort depends on what kind of CoPlay functionality you want to add. I absolutely agree that supporting RT CoPlay would be pretty hairy. But I'm pretty sure the majority CM multiplayer is PBEM WeGo.
At the present moment, I think it is theoretically possible for multiple players per side to email a saved PBEM game back and forth in the Orders phase, with each player assigning commands to a specific agreed subset of forces and perhaps even observing an Iron mode honour system not to click on friendly units he doesn't command to preserve own-side FOW.
Replays can similarly be shared; it's just a matter of file naming. How hard would it be to write a set of subroutines or even a separate file sharing/naming program that automates the process, together with creating some text files that allow limited communications among allied commanders.
I agree that even with PBEM you could easily go down the rabbit hole of overcomplexity, trying to address contingencies relating to multiple layers of command, HQ/C3 disruptions, bad radio atmospherics, and yadayada. But it doesn't have to be that way.
In a related vein, you might also consider allowing some (or even all) units on both sides to be computer / AI controlled (assuming the designer programs this in), allowing players to command a small (and more manageable) force in a larger operation. That same functionality could also support CoPlay where only specific units are controllable/ clickable by a given player (password guarded), while the rest are not.
I've heard of these multi-gamer PBEM games. I suspect it works great for those who do play it, but I feel like it would be too slow a process to finish a game (IMHO ... and I don't want to split hairs). I feel like a 30 minute battle in RT would take days or weeks (size depending, of course).
I do understand that there is a lot of data that would need to be transferred from player to player, which would certainly make developing a larger MP system a challenge, but in a game that simulates a tactical battlefield, there is no substitute to RT (think: "OODA" Loops), especially when you have multiple subordinate commanders on the field ... different tactical styles, approaches to field problems, etc. I think it would be unnecessary to include a VOIP system (or simulate radio problems, etc...). That would be "a bridge too far," so to speak. There are plenty of third-party, low memory impact programs around for that (like TeamSpeak).
With both "big-house" games like Total War and Men of War and smaller indy game like Wargame: European Escalation and SOW: Gettysburg (it's virtually a whole new game with CoPlay), I find it hard to fathom that Battlefront wouldn't see the value in RT CoPlaying.
But... I'm not a programmer, either, so I'm sure there are things I'm not seeing, and I certainly don't mean to thread-jack. No matter what, I'm buying these !#@$in games!!
:D -
I am really excited about all this news! Really excited!
The updates... the new game "family"... the upcoming modules... just shut up and take my money!!! :-D
It isn't just the games and modules themselves that I like, it's where I can envision BF going in the long term -- amphibious, melee, different theaters (Pacific...), etc. I've been riding a nice little high since I read the news.
I do have a multiplayer question, though! Are their any plans to develop MP changes that will allow for more than two people per game? In some other wargames I've played, OOB's can be parceled out across a few players. For example, in the Civil War game Scourge of War - Gettysburg, a players can take command of brigades or divisions within a corps and coordinate plans. I would love to see, say, four players on one side each taking a rifle platoon with one man as the company commander, against four other players of a similar unit. Or maybe even in larger multi-company/battalion scenarios where responsibilities could be spread out over a few players. Add chat tools like TeamSpeak to the mix and you've got the potential for a heck of a night of gaming, team tourney's, etc...
-
Can anyone give me any pointers on getting through a particular scenario?
It involves Company E, 2/8, attacking across a small stream. I suspect it's the first battle of the last chapter. They come in piecemeal over the first 10 minutes or so of the battle. I have tried coming from both the left and right side of the map. I've also tried all sorts of combinations of suppression fire at various targets, but my squads get chewed up trying to cross that creek ... or the German mortars are on me and beat my base-of-fire platoons to dust. I feel like I'm about to break my keyboard in half! :mad:
Any advice?
Thanks
-
Well, since it's you, and your batting average is appallingly bad, the safe and smart money is betting "no".
I'm not really sure what your issue is, but you've offered little to no correct information since this topic began. Rather, you've done nothing but display snide comments and related nonsense of little to no worth.
The reason I started this topic, was to learn why aspects of the game were developed contrary to what can and does/did occur in real life, prompted by something I saw in a scenario. When I see elements of a tactical simulation (of any kind) not fit to the reality of the situation it's trying to represent, I tend to ask questions as to why. This is compounded by the fact that I 1) am a former infantryman w/combat experience, 2) have been to Normandy (in this case), and 3) know the history of the overall campaign. Having looked at your reading list under your profile, I find it dubious that you're not at least curious to find out the same, being the armchair general you seem to be.
I've been playing Combat Mission since CMBO, I love the series and jumped at the purchase of CMBN ... I wouldn't be here asking questions if I felt otherwise. It's the best game to represent the difficulties of modern infantry combat to date, in my opinion. I'm simply here to understand why certain elements of the game were done the way they are. If I've come off as snide in doing that, then I apologize.
So please ... either class up, or move along.
-
Because it is smaller only in height. It's just as thick and spiny and overgrown as the taller stuff. In fact, since laying a hedge (which makes it very resilient) takes height out of a hedge and uses some of it to create extra 'body' lower down, you could consider that a 'low' bocage has been more recently maintained than a 'high' bocage, so might actually be more likely to be truly impassable (fewer gaps) than a 'high' bocage.
So .... let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly. A decision has been made to treat everything basically as if it is the full-on, ten feet high, four feet thick (-ish) bocage, regardless if it's a chest-high hedge (which can be cross without demolitions IRL and quite as common in Normandy as the full bocage). Do I have that right?
-
Low bocage is slightly abstracted. There were game engine limits that mandated what height the model could be and still work as advertised. You shouldn't think of low bocage as the model then extrapolate what its attributes should be, you should think of low bocage as the attributes with a compromise model representing it. Low bocage 'is' impassible with vehicle LOS over the top, whether the 3-D model looks up to the task or not.
Yeah ... that's actually a pretty common occurrence with 3d tac games. Scourge of War does a similar thing with fences, walls, etc. However, why the seemingly black-and-white restriction to movement? The full bocage I understand ... that stuff is thick , but why replicate the same attributes for what is supposed to represent a smaller terrain feature?
-
The hedges in CMBN can already be traversed by infantry.
Different complaint from you, same problem. Why is that?
You're right. They can be. But only through the gaps in them.
Do you know me from somewhere ... JonS?
-
I just got back from Normandy a few hours ago (I visited two of the three sectors of Omaha, Point de Hoc, and Pegasus Bridge with the time I had there)....
Yeah ... the bocage in the game is spot on as far as traversing on foot. It's THICK. The waist-high hedges, though ... a man could walk over them easily. A ball has been dropped on that regard.
-
What scenario? Place Spoiler before you post....
SPOILERS!! *********************************************************************************
It's the ninth(?) scenario in the Road to Montebourg campaign. It's where D and E companies/502nd are required to push down to a creek, cross the creek, and take the opposite ridge where a number of pillboxes and machine gun emplacements wait in defense.
There is token infantry resistance on the ground before the creek which I have no problem suppressing and eliminating or forcing to surrender. I take very few casualties doing this. At most, I take casualties from the short German barrages when I don't advance fast enough.
Once I get to the last line of bocage before the creek ... that's where things begin falling off. The best way seems to be to advance up the left side of the map where full bocage runs all the way down the creek providing at least half the cover and concealment needed to get across. This approach, however, is blocked by the aforementioned superman wire obstacles and the scenario comes with no engineer support.
Going up the center is obviously madness as it invites fire from the whole range of guns left to right. So ... I've tried the right, which ensures that I'd only take fire from a portion of the ridge.
Unfortunately, however, the superman uncrossable mini-hedges force me to channel up toward one gap in the far bocage which is, incidentally, covered by a wooden bunker. I don't seem to have smoke rounds for the mortars and artillery and I can't naturally throw smoke grenades that far. Also, I've attempted to blast the bunker itself with 75mm and 81mm point mortar fire while suppressing the length of the back of the bocage with 60mm fire while also including a large portion of my force providing base-of-fire support from across the creek just before and during the assault across the creek. However, I'm still going up the channel and thus a single burst of German MG fire can cut down quite a few ... nevermind the overall break in morale in the assault force.
-
Ok ... artillery doesn't seem to destroy wire obstacles as mentioned here..... yeah. I also know vehicles don't work, either.
This is really killing game play for me. There are two scenarios where I have to do this BS frontal assault nonsense and, naturally, it's a bloodbath. I've tried every measure of suppression possible ... nothing.
I love 95 percent of this game. But this is a bit much. It's like the developers and scenarios designers just basically said, "yeah, f--k tactics." It's rather lame for a combat tactical simulation.
Sorry... not out to troll, but I'm really getting frustrated with this. Not being able to do things any infantryman can do, such as breach wire obstacles and scale hedges that are half the height of the average man is a bit ridiculous....
-
It was assumed when people were demanding to see barbed wire back in CMSF that they wanted it in as an actual obstacle and not just eye candy. What's the point of making the effort to code it up if infantry can then flow through like water through a strainer?
I guess what I would hope for is that infantry would have to stop at the obstacle and spend time using wire cutters. Perhaps indirect fire of lesser calibers and grenades could have a diminished chance of breaching a wire obstacle, or it takes more to do so, than a well-placed breaching charge would, which would fit with reality. The obstacle would still be that and would still pose a threat.
Believe it or not, however, infantrymen are and were trained to breach obstacles.....
-
This is already in, dick.
Yeah, what he said
I'll skip the name-calling and just ask: If it's in, how does one use it? I've attempted to breach wire-obstacles with infantry and indirect fire ... and can't.
-
I certainly hope the developers patch in a method for reducing wire obstacles with wire cutters, grenades, or indirect fire when engineers are not given to the player in a scenario. This whole forced "hey-diddle-diddle-straight-up-the-middle into defender-chosen avenues of approach because you don't have engineers" nonsense is gamey and, quite frankly, indicative of either a lack of research of basic infantry skills (even for WWII. See: WWI) or just general apathy for a crucial piece of realism.
Here's a question.... how is Battlefront going to handle the Siegfried Line? Will I need engineers for ever single scenario and be forced to "Pickett's Charge" pillboxes when I don't?
Sorry, I know I'm being harsh ... but it's a bit of a wiiiide oversight.
-
Probably because at least half the buyers for Battlefront are not Americans, most of them not so much interested in the Pacific theater.
Polo
I'd like to see statistics that prove that....
-
You want a game that is hard to get into try Empires in Arms by Matrix. Napoleonic strategy game. I bought it in 2007 or 2008 and still can't figure it out.
Or perhaps War in the Pacific: AE. It will likely take you over a year to get through a full campaign.
-
It would be great if there were eventually a Pacific game in the series, however I think the main challenge is that in the Pacific theater land operations were closely integrated with naval forces, which is really beyond the scope of the engine (as it was with CMx1).
The ships themselves, particularly the larger ones like destroyers, cruisers, battleships, and transports don't need to be modelled at all. They were, in many cases, miles off shore (10+ miles in the case of Tarawa). Any of the bombardement aspects can be handled much like off-map artillery is handled, just with their specific wait times applied, etc...
What WOULD need to be modelled would be the beaches and tides, but I'm guessing it wouldn't be much more than a play on water obstacles as they stand now. Once on land, the Marines/soldiers fought on their own without the Navy directly involved aside from fire support and supplies, the latter of which isn't graphically modeled, anyway.
-
I would absolutely LOVE for there to be a Pacific version of this game. There's all this argument that it would be boring, but I don't see how with all the emplacements and terrain ranging from jungle to volcanic rock, the vehicles such as the flamer tank and the amphibious tractor. Imagine trying to cross the Tenaru on Guadalcanal with a Marine raider squad and having one of your men eaten by an hidden alligator, then have to face a hidden Japanese Nambu machinegun emplacement and a sniper tied to the top of a tree. Or, imagine you're a battalion commander of the 5th Marines trying to get your men across the airfield at Peleliu, or a company commander looking up at Mount Suribachi. I think the tactical opportunities are absolutely endless!
-
Not sure if in this instance you were on the defense or on the attack, but if on the attack get moving forward before the Germans can bring their mortars and artillery down on you. Best thing to do tactically is get yourself in the gray area between the enemy line and the minimum safe distance of artillery fire.
If in the defense ... it's going to be kind of difficult to avoid, especially if static. You can split your squad up, but you'll have to spread them waaaay out to avoid the casualties nonetheless.
New features wish list!
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
+100 Mord for ruins! That would look great!