Denis1973
-
Posts
115 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Denis1973
-
-
some german pioneers took out 2 shermans at close range,less than 20m,with satchel chargesi
Actually 6-7 m. Tested by myself. Grenades range 13 m against tank, 25 m against infantry.
But all this at open, not from inside the building...
-
Just two points.
1. Why soldiers can't use grenades and satchel charges from buildings? I've made some test and no one want to throw grenade/charge through window on enemy tank. Nor from ground, nor from second (and upper) floor. While they aggressively use grenades from outside the house. What is difference for throwing a grenade from house and from open ground? Come closer to window, aim and throw. No backblast or something. Especially from higher floors - just unclasp fingers and it find it's way.
2. Panzerfausts. Yes, it have a backblast and generally couldn't be fired from inside the building. But how it happen in real life?
Lets imagine - german AT-man sit in the house. US armor moved down the street alongside. Hans wait, while tank passed the house, then run through door to street, aim and fire to panzer's rear. Then retreat to house. Mission accomplished.
What we have in CMBN? This trick can be done in real-time mode: wait while tank passed the house, then issue command 'run' to street and 'target' to fire at enemy.
But how can we do this in WEGO mode? Player must estimate the speed of tank, time when it is safe to run to the street, set cover ark to force pixelman fire at exact target... Almost impossible, I suppose.
So, maybe BF discarded that prohibition on firing from the building? At least for PzF-30, 30k and bazooka. Scherck have enough range to fire even from positions at open and really strong backblast, so it may be forbidden to indoor use.
-
AFAIR some year ago somebody on the forum posted a very useful table that compared units from CMBO and CMBN.
Can anybody make the same for CW module? I ask because not familiar with British armor, so any (maybe simplified) info would be very useful.
-
With all respect to one's sense of humour, why is CW? Isn't it called CommonWealth Forces - so abbreviation must be CF or CWF?
For confusion's sake, just call it the Commonwealth Module "CM."
Suppose that this CM makes more confusion because CM is abb for Combat Mission itself
-
Just curious - is it CMBNCW, or BNCW, or CMCW or something else?
-
It is no matter where you divide squads - in editor or during the battle. Half-squad always have moral penalty
-
All the same AFAIK
-
What you present is a situation where a sub-unit has been subordinated to another unit, but the sub-unit's C2 chain has not been adjusted to reflect the new C2.
That's a very different situation.
What is exactly different? I suppose that GaJ mean exactly this, not lone HMG deep in the forest without anybody around.
-
A simple test suggests itself: setup a unit, out of C2, and have friendlies around it. Do the same without friendlies. How well does it stand up to the enemy? (The tricky part would be trying to make the enemy actions equivalent.)
Will a unit fight better (keep their morale) in the presence of friendlies?
Already made this test. Here:
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=102411
Disappointing results.
-
the guy in the foxhole in the house benefits at least as well as if he were in a foxhole out in the open...
I suppose it depends on what is building. If infantry inside the barn or something with thin walls (penetrable by bullets) - foxholes provide additional cover.
If foxhole is inside of bullet-proof building it matter only if firefight started inside the building.
-
Can't agree with c3k
For example: let we have a rifle Co in defense. CoHQ ordered to 4th (weapons) Plt attach one HMG team to 1st Plt. So in battle the HMG commander must coordinate his actions (and receive target designation) with 1 PltHQ, not 4th PltHQ. But because of C2 chain is invariable, HMG still get info through 4 PltHQ, which can be out of contact. This problem can somehow be solved by scenario designer, but in QB - not.
-
put the 1/1 squad in a remote area away from all other units (out of C2 with everyone). I think you will get the same result because it is a global morale issue
Tested this way. As you (an me too) expected result was the same. Degree of morale drop depended only from how many casualties were in 1st PLT.
This issue somewhat surprised me. I expected more tactical flexibility from game. But now it looks like one step forward and one step back since it make possible to split squads but prevent (by morale penalty) to split platoons
And vice versa CM1 allowed to split platoons (1-2 squads can be put under the battalion or company HQ command, while others stay under PltHQ) and disallow to split squads (only with morale penalty).Can BF team allow both kind of splitting to provide more battlefield flexibility?
-
Obviously 1/1 squad is freaking out because all of their close buddies just got wiped out. Even thought 1/1 squad is out of C2 with their platoon leader, they are right next to the company commander who has a radio C2 with the 1st platoon HQ and 3rd Plt HQ who is witnessing the slaughter.
My point is that the 1/1 SQ must be in more good morale condition than 3rd PLT. Just because they only HEARD about carnage, not SEEN it.
In other words - what will be for one more impressive: look how his mates died right before his eyes or listen about this on radio or TV?
How many times have you run this test? It'd be interesting to see if the 1/1 squad gets panicked every time.Three times. Time when SQ got panicked varied slightly. And unit status at the end of turn too (rattled or panicked)
-
the way global morale works, which does not follow C2 and is instantly known like some kind of disturbance in the force.
I have expected that my forces can be thrilled by what happens with their mates right at theirs eyes. To check this, I specially placed 3rd Plt to allow them to see the carnage. But they are just in 'cautious' state, except one Sq that received some fire and casualties.
So this is known bug? I don't know this...Any chance to heal it?
-
If you pause the game while the rocket's in mid-flight you can see the two types of rockets have been modeled. M1 is firing M6A1 and M9 M6A3.
I mean that no differences between rockets stored in vehicles. AT-rockets from jeep can be fired as from M1, as from M9 launchers.
-
I have a trouble in one of my PBEM game and decide to make a test. Results looks for me as a bug o something strange.
Regular, normal motivation US Co without command modifications (0 for all commanders). 1st Plt (- one Sq) at open field. 3rd Plt slightly behind 1st under cover (stone wall). 2nd Plt, 1st Sq of 1st Plt, XO and CoHQ at rear area, behind hedge and can't see 1&2 Plt's.
Radio link between Co and Plt HQs established. 1/1Plt out of contact with Plt Hq but under command of CoHQ (eye&mouth icons)
Germans placed at ambush position to allow them to wipe out 1st Plt.
Game started. 1Plt(-) wiped out. 3Plt receive little fire and 'cautious', one Sq 'rattled'. 2Plt and CoHQ 'cautious'.
1/1Plt - 'panic'!!!:eek:
More than this, they CAN see the enemy position, as they are at frontline! Remember, CoHQ and 2Plt can't see nothing, even friendly 3Plt (I play at Iron level).
How this could happen? Communication between 1Sq/1Plt and 1Plt HQ is broken. 1/1Plt don't receive any bullet from enemy.
Here is two pics for explanation:
this is how battle looks for 1sq/1plt. Men are panicked and can see all enemy despite the C2 link is broken
this what CoHQ can see - nothing. Despite unbroken C2 link to 3rd Plt.
-
At first we must clarify the things.
1. It is NOT the M1 or M9 launchers penetrate the armor BUT it's rockets. And both can fire SAME rockets (M6A1 or M6A3 or T12).
M6A1 were the first and can penetrate 3 in homogeneous armor plate at 20 deg angle.
M6A3 were the improved version with hemispherical ogive (A1 have conical one) to prevent shear off. Penetration was the same
T12 rocket have the better penetration (as manual said 'at impact up to 30 deg can penetrate armor of all knowing enemy tanks')
Because in game we have 'AT-rocket' without type I haven't any idea about what model is exactly used. Maybe BF team throw light on this?
2. Two launchers tactically differed only at it's sights. M9 has Optical reflector sight. M1's sight is much simply with rear peep and front 3 studs for 100, 200 and 300 yards. Hope this difference simulated well in the game. Need to be tested;)
-
Calm down, comrades!
I just want the BF made some light and easy to coded improvements to CAS model. Working AA guns and so on require too many codework that must be spent on other, more important things, as YankeeDog said.
-
The Balance, yes. But at least a one third of scenarios are unbalanced because of historical reasons. And they big enough. But still lack aviation.
-
Small maps just ain't big enough to allow this and if CAS was included then you would get howls of protest as players experienced 'Blue on Blue'.
My offers makes air support very close to that we have had in old CMBB. Remember, there were not any 'radius' at all - target area were whole battlemap. Yes, this sometimes lead to friendly fire, but this is war, isn't it?
Another issue and which has been discussed is that arguably air support was more often used to harry enemy rear areas/supply lines etc rather than engage enemy front line troops.But air attacks at frontline are happened from time to time?
I'm not an expert on West front but at East front attacks often started after air strikes. Think this can be case at West too. -
By now I've played 30+ scenarios but no one of them have a planes. Why? I've read a forum and made some tests. My conclusion is: this happens because of three 'too's' - too fast to response, too precise, too deadly for a company-sized force.
Beyond doubts model of aerial strike were taken from CMSF with only slight alterations and suffered from this.
What is BF team can do with this without huge codework?
I offer:
1/ Increase the arriving time. Yes, Allied fighter-bombers operated from waiting zones, but pilots still need time to find a target on map, then estimate his own position, then identify target and so on. German planes forced to operate from small remote fields so its approach must take even more time.
So maybe an 10-20 minutes for Allied and 25-40 minutes for Axis planes arriving time would be good figures.
2/ Delete the 'point target' from air support menu. WW2 era forces lacked laser sights to show exact target for airstrike. The only exception are noticeable landmarks (bridges, tall houses etc.) and targets for preplanned strikes (it picked during ground briefing some time before take-off).
'Point target' still can be accessible for prepfire, if this is not difficult for coding.
3/ Restrict the minimal radius for 'area target' to around 250-300 m. Remember -no laser sights, only map and eyes.
Suppose that TacAI can select a viable target (like tank) inside target area.
This changes will have to make players use their planes mostly preplanned, at expected enemy positions, not to knock out suddenly appeared armor or something like.
-
So, this seems to be a bug with user menu. Because I suppose that when I hit hotkey unit must do something according to this particular hotkey, regardless of what kind of menu is open.
In other words, if I press J key, I must be completely sure that this forces unit to hold fire, not to dismount. And when I press [ button, unit must dismount, not break fire, isn't it?
-
Ok. I found the problem. Before I give a move order to HT, I give a cancel target order. But, I suppose, at this moment Special commands menu was open, not Combat command menu. And the same button (and, of course, hotkey) in Command menu is Clear Target while in Special menu - Dismount!!!
Pic
So this is my fault. But user menu may be a little bit more friendly
And of course I must have a possibility to cancel ANY given command. Now, if I mistakenly press Dismount, I simply must wait until next turn
-
I always suspected it was because I accidentally hit the wrong shortcut. Might be the case here as well
This was my first opinion too. But when it happened again, I was 100% sure about that I gave correct order.
More than this, in WEGO mode you just can't make both order (Dismount and Quick) during same turn! At first turn you dismount the crew, at the second you can order them to move. Am I correct?
And vice versa CM1 allowed to split platoons (1-2 squads can be put under the battalion or company HQ command, while others stay under PltHQ) and disallow to split squads (only with morale penalty).
I'm not an expert on West front but at East front attacks often started after air strikes. Think this can be case at West too.
Use of infantry AT-assets from the buildings (yes, again...)
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Are you sure that they throw grenades to tank? Maybe they throw it to enemy infantry near the tank?
Because I have made the tests and soldiers and engineers refused to throw grenades/satchels to tank, while actively do this when target was infantry.