Glubokii Boy
-
Posts
1,984 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Glubokii Boy
-
-
And what you're missing is that nobody would deploy an ATG in the setup phase in any other mode than "Fully camouflaged". Which is why every gun deployed in the setup phase gets a "fully camouflaged" spotting modifier. Already. Same as all infantry seek cover when static so you don't have to terminate every move order with Hide (which has freed up Hide to do something subtly different).
It just doesn't work as well as you think it should when the "hiding place" is "next to a bush on some rocky dirt" (I exaggerate a bit). So you would like BFC to modify the modifier. There's no point asking for an extra option, because it's already coded to give you that extra option without you having to do anything, and at no cost.
I might have explained what i mean in a wrong way...My idea is more like this...Fully camoflaged or not is not something every player should be allowed to choose for every gun without a cost...In QBs the prise for a FULLY camoflaged gun would be substantionally higher (requiring the player to think twice if they really need it or would a regular gun be sufficent allowing them to spend their points on other equipment...)
The greatest benefit to having 2 options for the guns would however be that the scenario designers would be able to choose witch of the two would fit best in any given situation...
- A scenario with a prepared defensive possition would probably do better with FULLY camoflaged guns
- A meeting scenario or 'hasty defence' might be better of with a REGULARLY camoflaged gun...
About the modifier...I'm sorry...i don't think that its working very well right now...The guns that are deployed during setup and that have remained stationary are also to easy to spot (my oppinion). The difference right now is not big enough. What i'm suggesting with my idea is that the difference in the chans of being spotted should be greater than it is now...
Reguraly camoflaged guns...cheap, risk of being spotted (like it is)
Fully camoflaged guns...more expensive, risk of being spotted (much less so)
Broadsword56s idea for a 'design' sounds good to me...
-
In the end though, we've already got camouflaged ATGs. Every gun is assumed to be so, if the conditions are right.
Still...Its not a rare ocation to be able to find them 'supriceingly easy' both in CMBN an CMFI...I agree though that sometimes they are much more difficult to spot.
What i'm proposing then is an option to have 'normaly camoflaged' and 'FULLY camoflaged' options for the guns.
Deploying them as 'fully camoflaged' would be avaliable only in the setup face
of the battle.
Like Amizaur mentioned...Atleast in CMFI good-, natural hidingplaces might be hard to find...In such a situation a FULLY camoflaged gun would be nice to have...
Taking this example with the second battle in the german capaign in CMFI...
The primary (and maybe most fun) task i had set for myself was to...
Locate and destroy- or locate and suppres the enemy AT-assets with my infantry before moving my armour forward...Looking forward to some difficult
infantry manuvering to be able to find them...
This part of the mission never happened...I found them all almost instantly while doing close to nothing...No intresting infantry fighting or reconacense needed...This FUN ! part of the mission did not happen...
I think that 'fully' camoflaged gun would be a big plus...
-
It occurs to me that the guns in the OP may perhaps have had to rotate, thus negating the spotting modifier.
That might very well have been the case but 'sneaky' aiming of the gun is not very likely to reveal their possiton (in RL).
If the gun had to be rotated 180 degrees or something then maybe that would make sence but in this example i'm pretty sure that the guns already face towards the open ground in the valley (where my visible tanks where).
-
Of course that if there are some nice bushes available that you can hide your AT gun in, then there is no need for additional camouflage. Even without additional camouflage, the gun will be hard enough to spot. Wit camuflage, it would be even harder.
But if the crew had to somehow set up their gun in area where there is no good natural cover, they would make their best to camuflage the gun SOMEHOW. This is where the camuflaged gun model is needed most - where there is no good natural cover.
I agree with this !
In this battle i mentioned the americans have hade some time to prepare their possition...The guns ought to be camoflaged
-
ATGs do get a camo bonus if they don't move, but it has to have something to work with.
Yes...i understand that...The terrain here is fairly open but there are bushes and trees around
The 37mm and 57 mm are quite small weapons aren't they ?
They ought to be fairly simple to 'hide' beside a bush or some trees or camoflage
with some branches or a camo-net for example...
-
hello
SPOILER ALERT !
I'm currently playing the german campaign...mission 2...
In this mission i have been given 2 tank platoons,some engineers and scout teams to attack the american possiton...
I'm sure the enemy will have a number of AT-guns so i keep my armour to the rear to start with and will try to find them with my infantry...
NO PROBLEM AT ALL...
Only after a few minutes i have located 4 enemy AT-guns (all of them as it would turn out)...All of them have been spotted from more than 500 meters away...2 of them even by buttoned up tanks...I don't think any of them have fired a single round.
The americans have had atleast some time to prepare their possitions (all units in foxholes and the AT-guns behind sandbags)
The AT-guns are of small caliber two 37mm and two 57mm...
Should they not be camoflaged enough to avoid (instant) detection from beyond 500 meters (by buttoned up tanks even) ?
I use my tanks and mortar to take them out before they have contributed to the enemy defence in any way.
I was thinking...maybe in the future we could have 2 versions of each AT-gun...one CAMOFLAGED and one NOT...
The CAMOFLAGED one being much harder to detect...
The NOT CAMOFLAGED representeing hastely deployed weapons.
this easy spotting of the AT-guns is lowering the FUN-factor i think (still very good and fun game though)...
-
I would like infantry to be able to deploy in and move through damaged floors in a multi story building...
-
I love the new terrain !!
The maps are absolutely beatiful...i have looked at quite alot of the QB maps...VERY, VERY well made...will for sure be fun to play on...love the way you can manuver the troops and find observationpoints and base of fire possitionsamong the the small hills, ridges and gullys..
-
If your mortar team is too close to the building it will be unable to fire. Think about it....
That was the reason...Makes perfect sence offcourse !
Thanks
-
Hello...
In the advanced training campaign (invasion at Gela) i have come across a LOS-problem..
- I move my HQ and the mortar team to the 2 story building (mortar deployed outside)
- I order my HQ to face towards the enemy (several windows in that direction)
- checking line of sight to the italian possitions by the bridge and the plowed field i get a
good (light blue) targeting line to pretty much the entire area.
- When i press the artillery-support button to set a target for my mortar i'm not able to set it anywhere in that area despite having a lightblue targeting line when checking LOS with the target command...??
-
The WITHDRAW command in CMx1 didn't work that way, and it wouldn't be very useful in this situation.
As you may recall, in CMx1, all movement orders were subject to a command delay. Exactly how much delay depended on a range of details. What WITHDRAW allowed you to do was get a unit moving more or less instantly, without command delay. The trade-off was a severe morale penalty. Units given a WITHDRAW often panicked even if they weren't under fire. Under fire, units often routed and became useless for the rest of the fight after executing a WITHDRAW order.
WITHDRAW was most useful in situations where a unit was not yet under heavy fire, but you suspected it was going to be very shortly, such as when you saw an artillery spotting round come in.
The best order for breaking contact in CMx1 was actually a retrograde ASSAULT order.
In any event, WITHDRAW isn't really relevant to CMx2, since there are no longer command delays.
OK...i remenber now...The NO command-delay was the big benefit of the withdraw command...Not needed in CM2 obviously...just an idea...
my thinking was that with a withdraw command the unit would make a last
desperate attempt to make it out of there and 'ignore' the incomming fire...but they should not be bullit proof.
With the fast, quick and slow commands they just hugg the ground and stay put (most of the time) until they are wiped out.
The withdraw command could be a 'ordered' ROUT of some sort
Like i said...no biggie...just an idea
-
I have not played any of the CM1 games for a long time now since they don't work very well with my new computer...If i don't remember wrong...In CM1 there was a WITHDRAW command you could use in such i situation...
Your unit would be able to withdraw despite beeing under heavy fire but would suffer some moral penalties...
Maybe this command could also be included in CM2 in the near future..?
-
eltorrente
Just checked..the mortars were avaliable as OFF-MAP artillery
SORRY ! (missed that...)
I was organizing the battalion platoon by platoon and companie by companie on the game map and could not find thoose mortars anywhere...
Waffen SS panzer granadier battalion (armoured)
Sergei
"The armored PzGren battalion is always fully armoured, the dismounted platoons just have left their halftracks behind."
Thanks
-
JonS
No...I don't want everybody to be the same when i PLAY the game...This kind of varaity is absolutely fine !
I just thought that checking in the editor might be a good way to learn how the various formations in the game were equiped and organized when they were at full strenth (100 % of their OOB).
Seeing this panzer grenadier battalion that i bought in the editor made me doubt that it really was at full strenth...
I just wanted to get an answer to that question...If looking in the editor like this would show me the fully equiped formations...And the answer is no.
"Think of 'Default' as what a typical unit in action might have, rather than what a fully equipped unit freshly painted out of the factory is supposed to have."
Thank you !
-
Hello Sergei..
Yes i understand that i can change them from mounted to dismounted if i wish but basically what i'm woundering is if the 'default' setup in the editor when i buy a formation gives me a 100 % fully equiped formation according to their real life OOB or do i get a somewhat depleted formation ?
The way i did it...I bought a Waffen SS panzer grenadier battalion in the editor...made no changes to it at all...checked that it is set to full headcount
and what i got was
A battalion that was only partially motorized... like i described in first post...and with
only two 81mm mortars attached to one of the weaponplatoons...the other companies have no mortars in their weapon platoons...
My question...Is THIS a fully equiped battalion...(guess not)
My thinking was that i would use the editor be able to look at the various formations
and 'see' how they where equiped and organized when at 100 % of their RL OOB but the
'default' selections in the editor does not seem to give me a 100% fully equiped formation...or does it ? am i doing something wrong ?
Thanks...
-
Hello Sergei..
Yes i understand that i can change them from mounted to dismounted if i wish but basically what i'm woundering is if the 'default' setup in the editor when i buy a formation gives me a 100 % fully equiped formation according to their real life OOB or do i get a somewhat depleted formation ?
The way i did it...I bought a Waffen SS panzer grenadier battalion in the editor...made no changes to it at all...checked that it is set to full headcount
and what i got was
A battalion that was only partially motorized... like i described in first post...and with
only two 81mm mortars attached to one of the weaponplatoons...the other companies have no mortars in their weapon platoons...
My question...Is THIS a fully equiped battalion...(guess not)
My thinking was that i would use the editor be able to look at the various formations
and 'see' how they where equiped and organized when at 100 % of their RL OOB but the
'default' selections in the editor does not seem to give me a 100% fully equiped formation...or does it ? am i doing something wrong ?
Thanks...
-
I have started to look at diffrent formations in the editor to get a better understanding of how they were organized...The organisation of some of the formations strike me as somewhat 'strange'...For example:
WAFFEN SS PANZER GRENADIER BATTALION (armoured):
The use of halftracks...
1st and 3rd companies have only their 2nd platoon and their weaponsplatoons
mounted in halftracks...1st and 3rd platoons are without transport (not even trucks).
2nd companie have their 1st, 2nd and weaponsplatoon mounted in halftracks
but not their 3rd platoon (no transport)
4th companie only has the weaponplatoon mounted in halftracks...none of the other platoons have any transport what so ever.
Questions that comes to mind...
- is this battalion up to full strenth (100 % of its equipment ) or has some equipment been removed to simulate losses and the 'normal' strenth such a
battalion would have during this time and place ?
if not...
I don't understand why they distributed the halftracks the way they did...some platoons in the companie mounted and some on foot...Would this not make it more difficult for the companie to fight as a unit (the foot-soldiers in one platoon having difficulty keeping up with the other platoons mounted in halftracks...atleast when moving longer distansis...
Why not keep 2 companies fully motorized and 2 on foot if there where not enough halftracks to equip the entire battalion...Especially the 2nd companie seems 'strange'...The entire companie except 3rd platoon is mounted in halftracks...Lets say 2nd companie gets ordered to do a flanking manuver...everybody is very mobile except 3rd platoon that gets left bihind and have no way of keeping up with the rest of the companie speeding away in their halftracks...
An other OOB question...Mortars
2nd companie is the only companie in the battalion that has mortars in the weapons platoon (two 81mm). The other companies only have HMGs and Stummels in their weapon platoons.
two 81mm mortars for the entire battalion ? Was that all they had ?
-
As the number of basegames and modules increase an ENCYCLOPEDIA would be a very nice thing to have to quickly find useful information about the various AFVs, weichles, weapons and formations...
It would be good if this encyclopedia could be accesable from all theese 3 locations:
main screen, in game, the editor.
In adition to the information provided in the manuals it would be a big plus if the encyclopedia could also show information on armour thicknes and slope angles for AFVs
and armour penetration at different ranges and slope angles for guns...Kind of like the unit info screen in CM1.
If i have not missed it...the manuals in its current form gives no information on armour thicknes, slope-angles and penetration capabilities of the guns...
-
Stikkypixie
I'm using your mod...It makes things better !
Thanks for your work (and all other modders)
The various mods sure brings improvments to the game
I will download Sergeis mod to and see wich i like better...
-
I would like a HOTKEY option to
- REMOVE FORTRIFICATION FLOATING INCONS
I feel that especially in larger battles they really clutter up the screen and make it more difficult to see your other units.
-
Womble...
"I certainly agree though that a shade more flexibility in the C2 tree would be good.
XOs do take over, but I think their role could legitimately be expanded in the time before their Old Man carks it.
It's a complex issue, though, as anything that gives more freeform opportunities to the player is."
I agree with this...Right now i don't really know what to do with my XO-teams...I have read that many use them as medics
and perhaps use them to bring more ammo up to the fighting squads...Maybe this is as it should be (like real life) but they do little in the way of helping
with maintaining C2 (expanding the COs command radious)..atleast to my knowledge.
The same with HQ support units...A small test i did:
I took an ordinary companie WEAPONS PLATOON and put the HQ-unit (equiped with radio) and the 3 light mortar teams
and placed them together...All have perfect C2...Then i placed the 2 machineguns and the HQ SUPPORT-unit (also equiped with
radio) close together but out of sight from the HQ unit...The HQ SUPPORT-unit has perfect C2 (connection with the PLATOON HQ
via radio). The 2 machineguns located on the actionspot next to the HQ SUPPORT-unit have no connection to the
PLATOON HQ...This i find very strange...Should not the HQ SUPPORT-unit (having radiocontact with the HQ) be able to keep
the 2 machineguns 5-10 meters away informed of the HQs intentions ?
"Seems to me that any scenario that has an "off-OOB" element picked from 'Specialist teams' has had some 'reassignment' done
So any US Armoured Infantry platoon with a BAR team per squad has been granted some 'reassignment'."
You are absoluetly right...
"I don't believe "reassignment" within the OOB of a "Formation" element is possible."
You can do it if you wish...Example:
- Remove the 2 machineguns from the companie weapons platoon
- Select the first platoon you wish to asign 1 of the weapon platoons
machineguns to from your 'bought' OOB list.
- change to 'specialist teams' and 'buy' a simular machinegun.
- that machinegun should now be asigned to the platoon HQ you have selected in the 'bought OOB' list.
- do the same with a second platoon
- You now have the weapons platoons 2 machineguns directly asigned to
a platoon each.
- the weapons platoon still has command of the 3 light mortar teams.
-
I do not agree, that reassigning units to other HQs before a battle is a good idea.
1. Scenario designers invest great amount of time to make the battles how they are. If you receive an organization that doesn't fit your wish, learn to life with it and make the best from it. This leads directly to
2. Making everything fit perfectly to the players tactical wishes is no good idea at all. A good part of the fascination of CM is a result of forced compromises and that things are NOT available as someone wishes. Learn to make the best from what you've got. Perfectly streamlined C2s would take away a very nice and important aspect of the game.
I see your point but i don't feel the same way.
1. in most scenarios i have played the designer has not made any or atleast very few changes to the default assignments...They often remove some platoons and other units that they don't want but thats it (not much in the way of reassignments that i can see...but thats absolutely fine though...
but i would like to be able to reassign them myself as i se fit.)
2. The way i see things is that i am after all the commander of my force and i should be allowed to deploy it the way want (unless i recieve some restriction from my CO...then that could be put in the briefing)...
I'm no military expert but i do think that it would be pretty common for lets say a company comander to tell one of his platoon commanders wich he is sending out on a patrol "things might get rough out there...I will give you a HMG from the weapons platoon to give you some extyra firepower"
3. If you have the option to reassign units doesent mean that you have to do it...and in a MP game you could agree to allow it or not...
"Naw he wants to be able to tweak the C2 structure as the player during the setup phase after starting a scenario.
You are right the scenario author can do this but not the player. Unless of course the player edits the scenario before starting it."
Ian...You are right..thats what i meant...I tried it the way MikeyD suggested and edited the scenario and it is doable but requires a bit of work...
-
MikeyD
Thanks for the tip...Maybe not as simple as beeing able to do it during setup in the game...but I will give it a try.
-
Hello.
Maybe this has already been mentioned but one thing i would like to see
would be the ability to reassign units to specific HQs in scenarios to like you can do in quick battles...
Examples:
Would be nice to be able to assign HMG and AT-guns from the weapons
companies to a specific platoon HQ.
Assigning a couple of snipers and a bazooka or two to a section HQ.
Giving a companie that gets a complicated task an extra platoon under its
command.
I understand that this might mess up the C2 links if you reassign units more or less every turn but if you could do it during the SETUP atleast...This would not be very different from the way it works in QBs now.
Maybe something like this (during the set-up phase):
1. you select the unit you want to reassign by left-clicking on it
2. to assign that unit to an other HQ you just left-click the HQ you wish to assign it to
3. the selected unit is now assigned to the new HQ and the new C2-net can
be 'saved to memory' when you press the GO-button for the first time.
camoflaged AT-guns as an option
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
That sounds even better !
This would require more work though i think...but i would not object.
I'm no programer but i think that the only thing needed to be done with my proposal would be to:
- INCREASE the 'stealth modifier' for the guns in the FULLY CAMOFLAGED version vs the REGULARELY CAMOFLAGED version.
- Add new graphics for the FULLY CAMOFLAGED guns.
This would only fix the spotting 'problem' with the AT-guns offcourse as oposed to your suggestion that would make a broader improvment (my oppinion)...