Zels77
-
Posts
39 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Zels77
-
-
Great reply Glenn!
Points well made and taken on board. I grew up playing SL and then ASL, and I was STOKED when I discovered Battlefront, and blown away by CMBO and CMBB.
I'm not denying any of your valid points about how much work goes into making what is, by default, the ONLY game that makes a credible stab at being a strategy wargame (that isn't on a one-hex-equals-one-galaxy scale).
And it's for exactly this reason that I hold CM to THAT standard.
Tank commander vulnerability is one of several major issues with the game that alter its fundamental purpose - conducting a battle along historical lines.
My guess is that a good chunk of the blokes on this forum would be thrilled with having Zombie-driven T34's firing lazer-guided muffins at Jabba the Hut. I'm after a simulation of WWII infantry combat as it actually happened.
So when an LMG hiding 400m from unbuttoned tank can hit the commander with a snap shot (frequently), I lose interest.
I don't expect everything to be perfect, but I do expect the desire for real-world physics and historical accuracy to trump the quest for superior graphics, and flamethrowers.
Thanks again for your reply and happy hunting!
-
After spending countless hours playing CMBO and CMBB it turned out that the best part about CMBN was uninstalling it, which I did early last year.
In a fit of blind optimism I downloaded the CMFI demo this week to see whether any of the many fundamental flaws had been addressed.
It's still laughable how vulnerable unbuttoned tank commanders are to small arms fire from 100s of metres away.
The Madden series will never come close to realising its potential because EA Sports are quite content selling gallons of "snake oil" to 12 year olds who don't know any better - Red Thunder will be a glorified "roster update" with 95% of resources wasted on visual appeal.
Thanks for the demo chaps, you saved me the cash and time I would have wasted on Fortress Italy, Gustav Line and Red Thunder.
(cue the BF Denial Drones!)
-
Well first off again there was nothing listed in v1.10 addressing any issues regarding leaders. Womble noted something that might have had a possible related affect but only in certain given situations. Second your are replying to a beta tester who tells you there was no known bug (and he would kind of know seeing as he'd have been one of the guys testing) and telling him not only was there one, but it got fixed.
I dunno, but I'd be real hesitant on correcting a beta tester on what was fixed and what wasn't....
Mate I queried the issue ages ago and was told it was on the agenda to be fixed. I resumed playing when the patch came out and since then I've had very few issues with the same problem.
Not doubting that the game would cease to exist without your input, just putting two and two together.
On the list of fixes was something along the lines of: "more realistic dispersion from mortar shells".
-
Zels77 you just made the list. The "Reasonable and Polite" list. On the Internet that is a very short list.
You are welcome, sir.
I think there are a few blokes who might disagree with you!
-
two points here:
1. I am a bit surprised about the OPs esperiences with U.S. HTs since I am in a PBEM game now where I have a bunch of U.S. HTs, all with gunners providing covering fire from behind the front line and so far not a single one has been hit. How exactly are you using your HTs that you wind up killing all your gunners. :confused:
2. There was no "leader killing shrapnel" bug. Many players seemed to think that leaders are always being killed off first, but if you run multiple tests, you will see that it is spread out.
1. Same as you bud - pulled back behind front line providing covering fire or ferrying troops to better positions on the flanks.
2. There most certainly was a propensity for leaders to get hit from exploding HE that had nothing to do with they "but they're usually at the front of the charge" argument. It has improved a lot since patch.
-
I rarely post to the outer-board anymore, largely because from lengthy experience it generally is a bit of a waste of time....however on this one I will take a bite.
This thread is proof of the challenge with input/feedback from the "general population". This thread, at its root, is putting forward that artillery in-game simulation is inaccurate because it is weak and not realistic from a volume-to-effect perspective.
As per normal there are very few details to go on. "I dropped a bunch of stuff on some guys and they didn't die!" is really not something to go on for a small company to drop everything and chase down.
Now where the customer does come in helpful is in volume. If multiple cries of a problem come up then BFC and its dedicated team of highly paid Beta Testers will conduct a lengthy and encompassing campaign to chase down the problem.
Now back to the issue of this thread. Problem here is with arty there have been cries in both directions. Most have in fact been that arty, mortars specifically are over-powered and too accurate.
When faced with these sorts of things we actually test the guts out of mortars and arty, in buildings, in the open, in bunkers, behind hedgerows, in trenches and foxholes; you name it we ran the tests. We then look at the literature, historical vignettes and technical specs of the weapons in question.
Add to this roughly half of the Beta Team are modern veterans so the cry of "I have been under fire of "insert weapon" really doesn't resonate well. But we take into account RL experiences where applicable but we also recognize none of us were in Normandy in '44 so these types of things are a small part of the assessment.
BFC then decides if it is a burning issue in need of patch inclusion, a future issue that can wait or not an issue.
I won't speak for BFC but from the tests I ran arty was actually pretty damned good, one of the better implimented features of the game. If Steve asked me tomorrow what my advice would be, I would say not to mess with it in favour of other issue that are well known and "on the list".
It is not a requirement for the customer to offer "forensic proof" on every observation or suggestion. But their observation/recommendation is just that; their's. It is the sum of the whole that the BFC team has to wrestle with and often an individual observation is simply not enough to go on. It may have been an outlier or wild-card that happened for any number of reasons. Now if thirty customers come back with the same problem then it gets traction.
Message received, thanks for the response.
-
First of all, these things that you call flaws are actually bugs. It seems like you're accusing BF of designing the game in some warped version of reality, and that's totally absurd.
The best thing to do is to bring it to BF's attention without the attitude. They will investigate it and fix it if they feel necessary.
BTW, I agree that you may have a point with the HT gunner getting killed rather easy. Furthermore, I'd like to add that I have yet to witness any casualties on my Bren carriers although I've put them in harms way quite often, and this is while occupants firing out of the back are quite exposed. Since Bren carriers and HTs fill the same role and probably have similar armor and exposure, I would expect similar casualty rates. However, I'm seeing completely the opposite. Something odd is going on here IMO.
Cheers, I haven't played CW mate so I can't give any opinion on that.
-
Well, where do you think the enemy is going to aim when they're shooting at the halftrack? My money's on that they'll shoot at the guy who can potentially shoot back at them. And considering that even those parts of the gunner's body that are behind armor are only marginally protected, I really doubt that gunner is going to last very long.
Seriously. Against 7.92mm at ranges under about 300m, he's only marginally better off than if he were standing on the back of an open-bed truck holding a bedsheet in front of himself. He's got partial concealment, but very little cover. He'd be much better off lying prone in open ground; at least then he'd make a smaller target.
Point taken, but then do you agree that there should be a similar (if not higher) rate of casualty for stationary troops firing from behind a wall? A wall is obviously thicker than armour, but the gunner is in a moving vehicle and - though it's not depicted graphically - he would be doing everything possible to limit his exposure?
-
Hold on a sec... were's talking about American halftracks here?!?! That totally changes the equation.
Zels, I think you have some mistaken impressions as to the capabilities of U.S. WWII halftrack designs. It is completely accurate that occupants of U.S. M3-series halftracks are very vulnerable to small arms fire. The armor on U.S. halftracks is quite thin: All of the side ormor, and even parts of the frontal armor are only .25" thick, which isn't enough to reliably stop German 7.92mm at typical combat ranges. Even at a range of several hundred meters, 7.92mm will punch right through the .25" plate on a U.S. halftrack with a reasonably flat hit. Further, the protection offered to the MG gunner on American halftracks is often rudimenatary, at best. In some cases, as the secondary .30MG on some halftracks, there really isn't any kind of a gun shield at all; the gunner is very exposed when he is operating the gun. Not that this makes a huge difference when the gunner can be shot right through the armor anyway...
In short, U.S. halftracks are NOT "fire support" assets. They are battlefield taxis that provide a modest level of protection against shell fragments and distant, harassing small arms fire. You can sometimes get limited utility out of them in the fire support role against known, suppressed enemies, but if you expose them to anything more than harassing 7.92mm fire, the occupants will die.
Q.E.D.
German halftracks are a somewhat different topic; their armor is somewhat thicker, especially the frontal armor. But their level of protection is still not enough to fully protect occupants from small arms fire. You can be a little more aggressive with them than U.S. halftracks, but you still have to be very careful with German halftracks if you don't want to lose them.
Thanks for the reply Yankee. I'm not disputing any of the above, all I'm saying is that if there's one guy on a gun in a moving halftrack, it seems odd to me that almost EVERY time the HT - which is moving - takes fire, the gunner gets tagged.
I'm not surprised the HT gets hit, or that it draws fire, what I'm questioning is how it's possible that enemy troops, themselves under fire, are able to hit the gunner in a moving (lightly armoured) vehicle with such precision?
-
I did the opposite - caused a stalemate in the middle with infantry and used the HTs to cover the Germans exit routes. Also used HTs to ferry platoon to woods on right in a bid to outflank German positions.
Throughout, HTs at various ranges, at various speeds etc would come under fire and either suffer gunner casualty in first or second instance - pretty much if an HT got hit by small arms, the gunner copped it.
-
I think what he's referring to here is the situation where an enemy - often an AFV - enters your covered arc and sees you and you don't see him - even though that's mostly the only place you're looking.
You'd think that at least 90% - 95% of the time, the person with the covered arc should see enemy entering it first.
That's probably the thing in game that irks me the most, since it makes ambushes kinda hard to pull off. To my knowledge, BFC haven't commented on this yet
( ie. whether it can't be improved, or wont, or is in the pipeline or something in between ).
Spot on mate - seems like everyone except the unit with the perfect covered arc knows the enemy is there.
-
The biggest remaining issue with buildings is that the level of cover varies a lot between different buildings but in most cases there is no reliable means of knowing how much cover any particular building gives.
Yep agreed, that's what I'm talking about. Buildings are better, but at times they're a kill zone, imo.
-
So yeah, if you think you've found something wrong with the game that no one else is making an issue of you probably do have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But that can be done.
Fair enough.
-
And yes you are going to be asked for some data, plenty of us have not had your experience and would like to actually have something show that is it actually true rather than just accept it at face value.
Play A Strange Awakening as US. Empty the HTs, split the squads, and load the teams into the vacant HTs. Play around with the HTs in your assault in fire support of the main infantry force.
Good luck keeping those boys alive!
-
It's not science that a moving target is more difficult to hit a stationary one? Well then we've got no basis to argue because we're obviously stationed on different planets.
-
Nope, it's happened often enough - from front, side, back - for me to be sure. I'm not talking about driving the halftrack through enemy lines and expecting the gunner to be fine. I'm saying that exposed gunners in moving halftracks, that are a prudent distance (ie, they are not within range of panzerfausts etc), from the enemy, are canon-fodder for small arms fire - this is not the case in similar situations with troops behind a wall.
And your "but troops behind a wall are ducking and diving" argument applies to the halftrack gunner - it's not like he's standing up with a peacock-feathered headdress begging to be shot.
-
•Dispersion pattern of mortar shells is more realistic.
In my experience, leaders have become less vulnerable since the patch.
-
Against what criteria are you judging the relative vulnerabilities?
Against the fact that hitting a partially concealed moving target is more difficult than hitting a partially concealed stationary target. It's science buddy, not history.
A soldier behind a wall in LOS of enemy units is, in my CMBN experience, significantly less prone to being wounded or killed than he is if he mans the gun in a moving halftrack that is also in LOS of enemy units.
Womble: "Yes, but you can't expect BFC to address the issue unless they know the exact angle of the terrain all of the halftracks, in each of the scenarios and instances, were travelling on, what the wind conditions were, what the morale levels were etc. Basically, unless you are able to replicate the problem in BFC's offices, I'll have to assume you're lying."
-
That, I'm afraid, is a laughable assertion. HT gunners are sitting ducks except when the fire is from directly in line with their gun shield. They only have the gun shield to protect the tender morsels they have to stick up out of the superstructure of the track. Anything from off-angle has a good chance of being at an uncovered head and shoulders. Troops on the ground have microterrain to hide in, and that, as it should , gives significant additional protection.
Unless you actually understand the realism of HT gunners being more vulnerable than troops hugging the ground behind cover, your arguments will be significantly flawed.
You're right bud, I'm making this all up. You caught me. Well done Matlock.
-
Shall we put you down for a "Change some stuff, I don't know what, but just change it. For the realism! As I define realism!" then?
As per my previous posts, and a number of posts from other members, there is lots that needs to be looked at, such as:
- gunners in moving HTs (and unbuttoned AFVs) being picked off like sitting ducks
- there's too big a disparity between vehicle-to-vehicle spotting and vehicle-to-infantry spotting (how does a tank commander spot a truck parked behind bocage 500m away but fail to notice the MG team 50m away, in the same cone of vision, that is firing on him?)
- generally, buildings are a poor source of cover
- covered-arcs are unreliable with regards to spotting
- imo, the covered-arcs armor command should be reinstated
Is that enough Jon? Or is this the part where you ask me to furnish BF with forensic evidence of each gripe?
-
So... exactly what changes to the game would you like to see BFC make?
Hi VA,
Look, I'm sure you get a lot of arbitrary posts from kids who would prefer the game if the halftracks fired lasers and the infantry could morph into zombie wolves. But we're not all like that.
CM started out as the wargame to end all wargames based on an unapologetic drive for realism. Heck, the original game listed the various armour factors and angles for each AFV!?
That's what got me - a former ASL man - hooked.
Nobody expects you guys to get it right first time round and there are variables common to all simulators that will require BF to shape what is strictly realistic to make for a more realistic simulation - like the effect of HE indirect fire v infantry having to be downscaled to allow for CM's more condensed troop movement.
However, there seems to be an unwillingness from BF to accept criticism unless it's proven in a court of law.
Ultimately, BF needs to decide whether they still want to make the ultimate wargame, or just one more realistic than the competition has produced.
It's a bit like deciding whether you want to be the fittest obese man in the world, or the fittest man in the world - there's a big difference.
The most frustrating thing for me is not that there are glitches, but that BF seem to spend more time denying there are glitches than addressing them.
-
You guys can defend it all you want and poke holes in my strategy, which was by the book fire and maneuver, but the bottom line is that it's poor game mechanics and a huge turn off. How so many people can say otherwise blows my mind.
Some will say "bad luck" and I can deal with that, but when it happens over and over, in multiple scenarios then its otherwise. As I said in my original post, this is why I stopped playing this game the first time.
Well said.
-
Hi Yankee Dog,
I'm know I'm coming into this a little bit after the fact, but I'd like to make a statement and ask a question.
First, thank you for a well considered and presented reply free of the usual "don't dare question the game" approach.
Second, let's just say you're right, and this was just an extreme case of bud luck. Let's assume that this HQ squad was just lucky, and tough, and somehow managed to survive the heavy indirect fire and suppresive fire (in the open from what I understand). But what are the chances that all this good fortune struck the German HQ at exactly the same time that he pulled off an amazing feat of marksmanship to KIA the US platoon leader in a two-storey building?
-
Hiya Mike, I very seldom read these forums, but on the few occasions that I have posted concerns, frustrations etc, I've been amazed at the skirmish line of lawyer defenses that are thrown up to deny a valid complaint.
You clearly state that a German HQ unit, slammed by indirect fire, not only repulsed an assaulting squad, but also picked off your platoon leader in a second-storey building. And yet the reply you get from Culliton is "Are you saying that units in a treeline should be unlikely to survive five minutes of 60mm / 105mm fire, let alone direct fire from two full squads of infantry?" or "that units assaulting positions that had been heavily doused with indirect fire, were rarely repulsed?"
No Phil, what Mike said is in black and white - read it again if you didn't understand the question the first time.
Demos save you dollars, time
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
This reply from a "senior member" makes my point for me and outlines where the CM series is headed: all-action, no substance and appealing to kids.