Georgie
-
Posts
612 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Georgie
-
-
I remember when I was playing the CMBO demo I fired a bazooka out the window of a small wooden house and the house caught on fire. Seemed reasonable. Maybe BF could allow firing zooks and shrecks out of windows but penalize with an occasional fire if the structure is wooden.
-
Yes, I'm reading this.
I read it last night but forgot to reply. It looks like a bug to me. I've sent it along to the appropriate folks.Great, someone that can really do something about it is reading the "bug" threads. Very reassuring.
-
After seeing some odd results in a recent game I decided to once again waste my time running some tests and posting the results in a forum thread that BFC will probably never read. But at least people will know how the game works and doesn't work and adjust their tactics accordingly.
First the control group: 5 Sherman 75s firing at 5 Panther As at 300 meters. I recorded the hits and misses of the first 100 shots fired.
Hits: 94
Misses: 6
Now the test group: Same setup except the Shermans are given a movement order going straight forward plus an indefinite pause order so that they never actually move. First 100 shots fired:
Hits: 31
Misses: 69
Uh-oh. It appears that when the game determines if a vehicle should receive an accuracy penalty for firing while moving, whether or not the vehicle is actually in motion at the time is irrelevant. All that matters is if the vehicle presently has a movement order.
I also did test with just a pause command with no movement order and saw the same accuracy as in the control group, so it is definitely the movement order that determines this.
This has some obvious implications for anyone using Shoot 'n Scoot or Stop 'n Pop type tactics with their tanks. Hopefully BFC fixes this. Hopefully.
Save game and scenario files: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4cs9xeyg66gvqbo/NHGeqLiQOO
Good catch Vanir, saves all of us that use a pause and shoot from a penalty.
-
Hence my sig. Conscripts are not trained on the thermal sights.
One of the biggest issues with tank spotting is the fact that stationary infantry is spotted the same as moving infantry.
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=105886&highlight=spotting
But probably the single largest problem is that infantry is actually spotted more easily than other tanks.
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1385985&postcount=28
Tank spotting is always going to be crazy until those issues are addressed.
Are you saying that the thermal sight spotting ability is in essence being carried over from Shock Force to CMBN and since a conscript would not be trained to use the thermal sight in Shock Force then his lack of training on the thermal sight is carried over to CMBN which works out that the CMBN tank has the correct sighting ability for WW2 if it has a conscript crew? Whew, and thanks for the links.
-
Is this a hold over from Shock Force where US tanks have excellent spotting ability?
-
Same, here.
-Would add that I don't think I've ever seen John be anything other than polite, enthusiastic and helpful in his presence on this forum.
I agree, he attempts to be helpful with all of his posts and I have never read one of his posts that was mean tempered or offensive which is more than I can say about a lot of posts that I have read on this forum.
-
NO, the problem is more than just prisoners. I can run a jeep with a crew into enemy territory. Jump out of the jeep, take my crew to go scout and find out enemy activity. But if I park the jeep in a good location, even though it is empty. it also continues to feed me information and line of sight info. to enemy activities until it is destroyed.
So there is some flaws in what provides info. to the player.
Hello slysniper, I noticed this also but it was with a Kubblewagon. It was a company headquarters and when I dismounted them there was no driver left in the vehicle, they all dismount on the same command and the vehicle still maintained line of sight. This was several days ago as I was working on a scenario. I've tried to duplicate it but haven't been able to so far but will keep trying.
-
It arrived in France the first week of September and saw first combat in October.
The answer to the Panther?!!
-
Was the Jackson tank destroyer used in the Italian fighting?
-
Anyway, I did like the concept that rarity would mean that if you choose that side, the rare units might or miight not be available.. If big cates only showed up in 15 % of the battles, that might change things somewhat would'nt it.
Good idea, "the luck of the draw", it would add a little spice to the game and be more realistic.
-
I'd want to hear more specifics of the situation you're imagining, but I'm thinking about the raised portions of Hell's Highway or whatever road is used as "Club Route" into Arnhem...
Four minutes for someone in authority to see the problem, issue the order for a blazing wrecked vehicle to be pushed off the road, under enemy fire, with its ammo likely cooking off all the while? I'd be skeptical of that. (If only AAA could respond that well in the peacetime 21st Century!)
Maybe pushing a still-flaming wreck off the road with a regular tank might have been considered too dangerous anyway -- XXX Corps had dozer tanks for purposes like that. But, given Murphy's Law, that dozer tank is likely never to be in the place it needs to be when a wreck happens, and probably has to fight its way through a congested column of traffic to reach the wreck site.
All of which is my way of saying wreck recovery/pushoffs/dozer tanks are something properly beyond the time and scale of CMBN. Do whatever you like in your games, but in mine I expect I'll be using a "wrecks block roads and single-lane bridges for the duration of the battle" house rule for Market-Garden (depending on the specific terrain and situation of course.)
I was considering any situation where a destroyed AFV would block the only road forward. I agree, it would probably take more time than the length of the scenario to move most destroyed AFVs. But, a delay of some sort would be better than no delay at all and it would still be good tactics to take out the first tank in the line but it would not effectively end the battle. Of course those that wanted to could agree on house rules for their games.
-
With the upcoming Market Garden module the "ghosting" will be more annoying with some scenarios. The only thing that I can think of that might work is to impose a time delay on the first vehicle that "ghosts" thru a destroyed vehicle. Maybe three or four turns or so. This would kinda simulate moving the destroyed vehicle. It would normaly take much more time to move a destroyed tank but at least there would be a penalty.
-
Given how important it can be to open up a gap, I'm happy to imagine this issue as a partial compensation for not being able to push wrecks outs of the way.
I agree. In CMX 1 wrecks could be pushed out of the way but can't in CM2.
-
Hello experienced and knowledgeable scenario writers. Does the Computer player AI have the same C2 limitations, requirments and benefits that the human player has. I'm building a huge scenario and I need to know if there is an advantage to positioning the computer player HQ units as carefully as a human player needs to place his. I posed this question in the regular CMBN forum but haven't got an answer yet. May be I was fishing in the wrong pond. Thanks in advance for any info.
-
I think he meant that do the spotting sharing apply to AI as well. If an AI unit spots my unit, can other AI units spot my unit more easily. SWAG say yes, but we can't be certain unless someone says "yes, because I programmed it so".
Yes, that is what I meant.
-
What would you do if you would be the gunner and someone says that there's a tank hidden behind a bush across the field, but you haven't seen it with your own eyes? You would try to spot it of course, because now you know where to look at.
In other words, it helps them to spot the enemy tank.
I rethought this and in real life your statement certainly makes sense but does the computer defensive AI make use of C2 spotting info? When you are playing against the computer and attacking does C2 afford the computer AI the same advantages and limitations that it affords the human player? I think that its important to know this because it influences the set up of a computer AI defense in the construction of a scenario. I've tried to find this info in the manual but haven't been able to.
-
With the situational awareness that tanks have in CMBN then communicating with them by hand signals should be fairly easy.
-
What would you do if you would be the gunner and someone says that there's a tank hidden behind a bush across the field, but you haven't seen it with your own eyes? You would try to spot it of course, because now you know where to look at.
In other words, it helps them to spot the enemy tank.
Great, thanks Gekkibi, that makes it worth the effort to create a C2 chain to the AT guns and on map mortars and MGs in a scenario. Gotta hand it to BF on the AI that they created.
-
Does an anti tank gun crew make use of enemy tank positional info that it gets from C2. For instance a tank is with in effective range of an anti tank gun but the gun crew hasn't spotted it yet. Will the gun crew look more carefully in the indicated direction and possibly spot the tank where as without the C2 info they probably would not have spotted the tank? Or am I dreaming again?
-
I agree with you, but lets not make this too complicated.
Example: If an infantry squad spots an enemy tank on a ridge line I bet they would use some form of verbal- or handsignals to communicate with a friendly tank parked just 5 feet away from the squad. At least this kind of spotting sharing should be possible in CM:BN.
Right now in the editor a single gun or tank etc can be attached to a battalion or independent company and they are included in the chain of command. It would be good if a company of medium or heavy antitank guns or any other independent company could be attached to a battalion in the same way.
-
I've noticed that spotting info will travel up the chain of command in the spotting organization, ie battalion or indepent company, from the spotter but will not be available as spotting info to another organization, ie another independent company or battalion. Is this the way its intended or is there a bug or am I doing something wrong?
-
Yes, thanks for sharing permanent666. Forgot my manners but agusto reminded me.
-
You could also reduce scenario length and put the guns as reinforcements which will never arrive in the same location as the guns. the guns will share ammunition even if they are not there. so if you want that the guns arrive later you have to put them in a different location otherwise they will probably have no more ammunition when they span.
Very interesting, might just work if I can get the time down to three hours, or just let the guns appear and take the chance that they won't have any ammo. Not very realistic to have them appear with no ammo but stranger things have happened. Ammo truck got strafed on the way in or ran out of fuel.
-
Unfortunately, we do not have ammo crates.
It is something I have been asking for, but am not sure if it is on any list of improvements.
Your ATGs will not last long anyway if there are direct-fire mortars on the map. Once an 88mm lets one fly, its position is known. It is only a matter of time before smoke or HE comes calling.
You can work around long battle times by "teleporting" new guns onto the map as reinforcements, already set up and in positions.
-
Thanks Sgt Schultz , that's what I'll do. Hope the load out will be patched to be selective in the near future. Hope Hope.
I read it last night but forgot to reply. It looks like a bug to me. I've sent it along to the appropriate folks.
AT gun bug
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
During testing of a scenario that I am making I noticed that a German antitank gun simply was not engaging what should have been an easy target before the "easy target" blew him away. Here is what happened. The gun was set up about 100 yards from a road. The road ran diagonally from right to left across the front of the gun and then made a 45 deg right turn. For the test I deployed a Sherman to the right side of the gun on the road and out of sight of the gun. During the test I had the tank on "quick" speed cross in front of the gun, navigate the right turn and then stop about 150 yds from the gun. The gun spotted the tank at about 90 degrees to its right and started to traverse the gun to target the tank, as the tank crossed in front of the gun the gun CONTINUED TO TRAVERSE TO THE RIGHT FOR ANOTHER 45 degrees and finally started traversing to the left to target the tank. It took so long to do this that the tank had plenty of time to spot the gun and knock it out. What should have happened is as soon as the tank crossed where the gun barrel was pointing the gun should have immediatly started traversing to the left. If it had then there would have been plenty of time to target and hit the tank before the tank spotted the gun. I wonder if some of the slowness that we have seen of a gun to engage a tank can be attributed to this?