von Kleist
-
Posts
25 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by von Kleist
-
-
vKleist if you are reading this, this is about what my guys are feeling right about now in our battle. LOL
I am absolutley reading this! This is fantastic! I mean the AAR not that your on the receiving end in our battle. I don't think anything we've played was this intense.
-
Very well said!
I'd like to clear something for Jon....
First example, very frequent situation:
As it is now: a tank moves and sees a distant infantry contact. It stops. After one second the infantry contact disappears and becomes a "?". The tank sits there for a rest of WEGO turn.
New logic: a tank moves and sees a distant infantry contact. It stops. After one second the infantry contact disappears and becomes a "?". The tank waits 5-10s and continues hunting forward, on it's designated route.
I like the second behaviour better. It's neded much more often than a "scouting" first one. I can scout with infantry better.
Second example - a guess, a rather rare one:
As it is now: a tank moves and sees an ATG gun, but only the TC spots it, the main gun has no LOS. Tank stops. It can not shoot at the AT gun, the AT gun maybe can and is shooting the top of it's turret. The tank is either killed, or doing nothing, or popping smoke and reversing after talking few hits.
New logic: a tank moves and sees an ATG gun, but only the TC spots it, the main gun has no LOS. Tank stops. It can not shoot at the AT gun, the AT gun maybe can and is shooting the top of it's turret. The tank is either killed, or doing nothing, or popping smoke and reversing after talking few hits.
Now, in the second example, including mentioned LOS problems - why would the new logic - "continue if the target is lost for more than 5 or 10 seconds" - be WORSE here ? The tank would be doing exactly the same things like now.
Nothing improved here, but nothing broken either - regarding LOS problems.
What I propose isn't a solution for LOS issues - it's solution for Hunt routes being "canceled" by momentary contacts. The LOS issues, the difference between spotting by TC and gunner is a separate issue I'm not even coming into. So please don't bring it as an argument against, if the tank behaviour in both cases would be exactly THE SAME. So not worse for sure.
And if you, personally, don't want the tank to continue on the route after the target disappears, if you prefer it to stay there, well, then you could use the "Move to contact" order. And if there is no "Move to contact" order (because the new "Hunt" replaced old "Hunt" and no orders were added) then.... maybe you are expecting too much ? Maybe you could get this behaviour you need in some other way - for example using a combination of other orders, or - better - just spot the target with another unit (infantry) and then move the tank with ordinary movement order to that place ? Well, use your creativity. Just as you are suggesting to me.
If I have to explain what a "perfect solution fallacy" is, then: it's not when someone "rejects the reality" - there is a differen word for that Jon
- but when someone likes the current state of some things so IN A DISCUSSION he rejects any proposed improvement argumenting that "it's not perfect". Only perfect solution would please him. (But we know, they wouldn't - he just likes the things to stay as they are, and demand for perfect solution is for him just an argument against any imperfect changes, so - in reality - against ANY changes.... because there rarely are any perfect solutions...). Now, it doesn't really fits that situation, does it ?
-
I think I know what Clark et al mean. I have occasionally experienced the same frustrating problem and it had nothing to do with placement next to an obstruction.
The CMBN C2 system sometimes exhibits um.. "weird" features and does not always function perfectly. Ya just gotta try different HQ's or move the mortars to a different location and suddenly the system works again - have never figured out the issue.
I don't design scenarios, however, is it possible there is a problem with the C2 links on the scenario design level?
-
Who here thinks von Kleist has a PBEM going with Lt Bull and is trying to get intel? You are a sneaky sneaky opponent vK!
Ha Ha! Wouldn't be the first time I have tried to get intel this way. Nothing like having a spy at the enemy Btn HQ!
-
I say we go easy on Lt. Bull. I've certainly had my moments of frustration with this game. Once I really look closely at the issues though, I mind most of the time, that it has something to do with the way I interact with the game, rather than the game itself. All of the criticisms that have been mentioned, from the clunky UI, to the Icons, and even the action phase/replay phase confusion, I believe have more to do with the individual than the game. I don't have any other explanation that explains why some people have trouble with something, and others don't.
I'll go ahead and address this, 'casue I know it's coming, those who say that it works the same for everybody, how could I interact with it differently. And that's precisely my point. Very few of us adopt the attitude of trying to get used to a different set up controls than the ones we're already used to. The camera controls are a great example, since there are plenty of ways to adjust your view, ie multiple methods on the keyboard, and the mouse! Try something thats different.
Lt. Bull, if you are really having that much trouble, could you post a video of you playing the game, and solicit some feedback. I suspect if it's that hard to tell where your pixeltruppen are, that you might not be mentioning something about the way you play that would make all the difference.
vK
-
There is no need to plot blast orders. If you move a team with demo charges next to an active enemy bunker or vehicle, they will use the charges and grenades against it.
I think you're right, just like in CMx1. I don't know why I didn't think of that.
-
What's the best way of infantry taking out a wooden pillbox? I sneaked up behind one with three guys carrying two demo charges but was unable to throw one in, like in the old days. I ordered it to land as close as I could but of course it had no effect. Then to make things worse the three guys charged after it, out into the open presumably as if they had made a breach in a wall/hedge. Somehow they managed to dive back into cover unharmed, under a hail of bullets from the four occupants of the pillbox!
Demo charges will work most of the time. I played Point du Hoc the other day and ordered a breach time to demo charge an occupied bunker from the back. I watched as the breach time tossed a demo charge at the bunker. The Tac AI of the breach time, observed that the first charge had no effect, so then tossed a second charge, which did the trick. This all in the same turn. When you plot the blast waypoint, be sure your team is behind the bunker, and place the waypoint just behind the bunker, so if it doesn't work, your guys will not run into fire. Just be sure you place the waypoint in the direction of the bunker, not through it.
Bazooka rounds work great against bunkers, 1-2 zook rounds should do it.
Also if you can manage to gain the bunker's rear, your guys will automatically lob grenades into it. Be careful, as usually this requires several grenades and you can run out very quickly.
-
@sburke,
Feel free to openly explain your plan including avenues of attack, planned force committments, artillery assets remaining, etc. I'm sure we'd all benefit from your comments on such a great map!:cool:
@snake_eye
I can't wait to get you our AAR, I've got lots of feedback and it's all good, but I'll get specific once our game is over. It's a monster! The clock is ticking, we're 2 hours in out of three, and the real bloodletting is about to begin. Although, sburke may have caught a stray neb round or two:confused:
-
Well, I obviously couldn't disagree with you more.
Fair enough!
I don't mean to come off as unappreciative of the example you provided! On the contrary I think it's fantastic! Having all of that at the side so I could tell at a glimpse if I needed to look somwhere in more detail would be very helpful. No, I cannot say that I've never had a granade issue, an artillery control issue, etc.
I see now that I don't make my point very well. I was intending to comment on playstyles. I can see that I'm the oddball, but I actually like what I consider to be a fog of war element, in that you don't always have total knowledge or control of whats happening at the ground level. I like the fact that I rely on the video for what's happening. For me it creates emmersion. If I miss something, I think of it as my own fault.
I think BFC has said their priority is to improving the UI, something we are both looking forward to. I think you and others more than I? I just thought it interesting that what seems to be an issue for the majority of players, is not that big a deal to me. So I guess I'm a little more educated now. Thanks for the reply.
Regards, vK
-
Honestly I don't have that much concern with the current AI, partly because I actually enjoy keeping tabs on the state of my units very closely. Probably a bit nuts, but it is in that close detail that I think the game shines and I enjoy following it. That being said I like the indicators on the icons, though the UI panel on your left would only function if you can expand and close units by organization.
This thread is one of the more interesting I've seen, although not becasue it deals with asking for more info with less clicks.
For full disclosure sake, I am a PBEM opponent of sburke and am generally in agreement with him on this point. We seem to be in the minority, so I thought I would discuss the opposing viewpoint in some detail.
I think what people ask for in terms of upgrades to the UI says alot about the different playstyles that are out there. I can see how everything listed in this thread would be very helpful for the RT player, when being asked to manage your forces and give orders must be done in a very short amount of time! Reflex decisions have to be made not only quickly, but with enough info to make those decisions good ones. I am solely a WEGO'er. I'm playing Die Ammis kommen right now, and for those of you who know it, you know it's a MASSIVE Scenario, with alot of force management. Even then, I sort of know where all my guys are, what they are doing and what the status is. When I receive a turn from my opponent, I thank god for the VCR controls, because I watch the turn more than once, almost always. I don't want to miss a 60mm morter screaming down on a position just because the camera was on the other side of the map and to far away to hear it. I jump back and forth, in the turn, to get to a particular time when I need to witness the action up close. It's probably a more methodical approach than some use, but it's a rare thing when I totally miss an event.
More to the point, I always have an intuitive sense of whats going on with any particular unit, even in a big battle. I sort of know generally, what a units morale is, ammo levels, what they can see and what they can't etc. I know this becasue if they were taking any actions at all, I just watched it on the video! I don't debate that the proposed changes would be helpful, I just would not need to use them that much. It's nice to know the status of an infantry unit over to the side and how many casualties they've taken. However, I'm more interested in how those casulaties were suffered, info that can only be aquired by watching what happened. I don't feel equipped to make good decisions for that unit until I know exactly what happened to get them to their current situation.
I'm not saying I don't like the changes that are being recommened to BFC, only that I don't think they would add alot of value, or information that we don't already know, assuming we watch the replay phase more than once, which I do. Thoughts?
-
FoW shouldn't really apply when you see the crew bail though.
I believe it should, lest the crew come back later and re-occupy the vehicle. I think I'd kick myself if that happened, since last thing I'd want is a panzer IV rampaging through my truck convoy full of ammuinition.
-
Pak40,
This is what I do now, It just takes more time. More time under fire isn't good. Just wondering if anybody had a better way.
-
Von Kleist,
I would also say that there is a game-side bonus to the way infantry moves about the CMN battlefield. The pathfinding may force the little pixeltruppen into files and easy-to-kill groups, but on the other hand it allows them to find their way around a really complicated battlefield pretty much all on their own. If you want to move a squad just by the most efficient way possible from one hedgerow to another one several fields awayt, you don't have to plot to the gap, then across the field, then turn at the next gap, then proceed to the next spot, etc. etc. You just pick a start point and a finish point and the guys will find their own way. Usually, they will find roads and paths and not crash into obstacles but walk around them.
Considering the complextity of CMN battlefields, this is a real benefit. It means that you the player can just tell your guys where you want them and, at least until there's going to be shooting, they get on with that quite well indeed. Mircomanaging when your guys are fighting may be fun for some, but micromanaging every single step of a multi-kilometer hike for every single squad is a pain almost for every one. The CMN engine is excellent at allowing us players to avoid that pain.
The price is, of course, your dudes clumping up when the shooting is going on. I personally dislike it, but as for me I think it's not a game-breaking problem.
(Just don't get me started on the HE rounds loaded with nerve gas, that one really irritates me even when I'm dropping shells on my opponent.)
If I'm wrong about any of this I'm glad to be corrected.
Thanks for the input all, and to clarify, I have enjoyed playing this game more than any other, IMHO of course. And it's certainly not broken. The point made above is a great one in that we can't have our cake and eat it to. I think the TAC AI does a great job at pathfinding. I have my own way of doing it, by plotting the appropriate waypoints. Just curious to get other thoughts on dealing with it.
vK
-
Hey all,
I was hoping for some input on this. I apologize if there is a thread about this, but I couldn't find one. The only other BFC game I've played is CMBO.
To the point: I notice that in CMBN, when you tell an infantry unit to move, say across a field surrounded by bocage, that I don't always get why they move the way they do. I typically find my self in a position where I'm behind my hedgrow, and the enemy is behind his. I have achieved obvious fire superiority, and determine it is time to perform a close assault on the enemy hedegrow. Often times, there is only one, maybe two breaks in the bocage, so I order a few units to quicktime it across the field, with follow on teams for support. If I were the platoon cmdr, I'd order the guys to spread way the heck out asap as soon as they left the gap in the bocage, so as to assault across the field on a wide front, and hopefully, minimize casualties.
When I plot the way point to the next hedgrow, the guys exit the gap, but continue to run single file all the way to the point where they take a diagonal route to their assigned place in the next hedgrow. While they're running single file, they are FRIGHTENINGLY Vulnerable. One well placed AT gun could take out an entire squad, decapitating them in column.
Obviously, you can plot other way points and spread them out, but that takes extra time and means guessing at the right pause length for them to advance together, etc. Anybody found a better way?
My point is that when infantry advance, they dont advance straight to the destination. They always seem to take the straight line first, then the diagonal portion next to get to a given way point. I don't remember it being that way in CMBO. Any thoughts?
-
I will send you my side of the AAR as well, although it might not be with the superb attention to detail as sburke:)
-
About every 7 for me... My brother with the same PC never has a game not save? I have had a game not save 4 times in a row once.... I save manually now every time (a real pain) but at least when the game fails to save I can just reload that file with all my orders already plotted.
It's about one in 10 for me and I do the same thing.
-
No he is wearing boxers not briefs. Comfortable fit.
Now he had gone to merely cautious, but still unable to do anything other than ponder the great mysteries of life - If nothing sticks to teflon, how does teflon stick to the pan?
In my current PBEM with sburke, I had a similar problem. I am expirementing with bunkers and if I can have their occupants bail out if they need to in advance of getting pounded. I tried the dismount command on a team that has not been under fire. The bunker is in good shape but upon recieving a dismount command, they do not leave the bunker. Can anyone offer any insight?
-
Yeah Steve, welcome back to the maelstrom! Please don't go back to farming however, we missed you.
As you pointed out, these types of posts are generally for psychological reasons such as a play for attention due to lonliness and isolation, and have little to do with the stated topic. So if we can all keep this in mind, and not respond, or just respond with compassion, then it will avoid all this back and forth stuff.
Wise advice, Chops, especially since I've never seen Steve even come close to a personal attack. And I read all his posts to learn more about how the game is designed! I'm going to take your advice and not even look at this thread again. Back to Road to Montebourg......
-
@ yapma,
I don't post that often, but you've provoked my interest! Even though I enthusiastically admit to being a HUGE fanboy of this game, I still must say, I agree with Broadsword. Your points of view may be valid, but the way you express them is downright poisonous. If you don't like this game, why do you bother posting on the forum? You add nothing constructive to the discussion. I'd at least like you to offer some alternatives if your going to bother to comment at all. I think "the leader" might appreciate that as well...
And what are you, the high priest fanbois, who speaks for God when God is too busy? -
I think what some players suffer from is being impatient, which is not limited to, but very much including School of Hard Knocks. I find that if I use the darkness to get engineers to clear the bridge area of mines and wire, and get MGs and Mortars in position, it's wiser just to wait for daylight, when spotting ability dramatically improves. If one can do this, and withhold a major infantry or tank commitment, surgical mortar strikes and massed machine gun fire can keep the enemy surpressed long enough for you to move just a few guys forward. Eventually this will reveal the AT positions, at which point mortars are brought to bear. The tanks move forward and its only a question of time.
-
Thought I would open a discussion about fighting in forests. Artillery can't be brought to bear effectively, and quickmoving reduces spotting to the point that you will almost always be spotted first and suffer the consequences. Walking doesn't get enough guys in spotting range quick enough before the unit drops prone, nor does hunting. The only tactic I have thought of that might have any success when you are the attacker, is using the pop smoke command for unit leaders. This obviously works only if the wind is blowing toward the enemy and even then the fight is only reduced to one of attrition and confusion. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
-
Welcome to the party! There was actually some brief discussion awhile back about how to build fire superiority that discussed this briefly, but honestly I think this one is worthy of a thread of it's own. I can't say I have an answer as I usually find the situation falling apart tactically and a combination of luck and timing contributing to decide who's still standing. Then you have a unit like Herr Probst who wages a personal war all by himself. That is one I can take absolutely no credit for. In Bois de Baugin, the German infantry can be incredibly fragile, but at the same time given a decent position and spotting the enemy first, pretty tough to root out.
From the little bit of experience I have had so far
I think that issue of who spots who first is a major contributor as the grenades start flying fast. I have found that on the defense, having your units hide can mean giving up that opportunity to spot your opponent first.
Smg and mp units can swing the balance due to the short range firepower they can throw out.
Foxholes can help but you have to try and position them so that the range they can be spotted from is within the range you want to set your target arcs for. Having them close to the edge of the treeline generally means they don't hold up well as fighting positions.
Speaking of target arcs, I generally set a 360 degree arc, otherwise I usually end up getting surprised.
Slope positions can be tricky as they can make it difficult to grenade your opponent. Being above your opponent can frequently mean your grenades go sailing past them - sometimes that works to hit the follow on forces, but don't count on it.
As in most tactical situations if you can somehow find a way to flank your opponents position it can pay off real well. The problem with woods is that while you are flanking them you may well be walking into an ambush.
I'll open a thread on this.
-
Okay, so this is my first post, but I've actively been following the forums now since before the demo came out. Overall, I'm favorably impressed with the discussions.
I'll fess up to the fact that I have been the opponent that sburke has mentioned playing now and then, and I agree very much with his take on Huzzar and Bois de Baugin. Since he and I both agree that our battles are less about winning and loosing and more the sheer enjoyment of watching the stream of bullets from an MG 42 whizz past, or your guys getting shattered by an artillery strike, (even if they're your own, thanks very much sburke).
One thing that I've noticed that hasn't been discussed, are firefights in the middle of woods, and the caution that must be excercised when in one. If any one has any suggestions on forest infantry tactics, I'd love to hear some input...
- but when someone likes the current state of some things so IN A DISCUSSION he rejects any proposed improvement argumenting that "it's not perfect". Only perfect solution would please him. (But we know, they wouldn't - he just likes the things to stay as they are, and demand for perfect solution is for him just an argument against any imperfect changes, so - in reality - against ANY changes.... because there rarely are any perfect solutions...). 
This is why I stopped playing...
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
OOOOO yeah I remember that one.... Ouch! That was me.