WynnterGreen

"We had to destroy the town to save it"

Initially I'd been placing various armour and infantry units out in the open and dropping everything from 81mm Mortar through to British 5.5inch (140mm) Guns at various distances from Gerry to gauge effectiveness in game. Later I decided to try the same tests with the units in town and in buildings. After a while I got distracted by placing the units 'plausibly' within the town and setting waypoints to make them look like they were 'going about their business'. That was quickly followed by a "MuHaHaHaHa" moment where I decided to hit 'SimCity' with a Naval bombardment to ruin their day. While watching the devastation, from a multitude of angles, I just as quickly started feeling sorry for the little pixeltruppen. 'Documenting' their demise, and my shame, felt like the right thing to do. I hit them with: 4 x 15" (381mm) Naval Guns 8 x 7.2" (183mm) Gun Troop 8 x 105mm Priest Howitzers

Agreed, some kind of integration and remuneration into the franchise [exe] is warranted. This isn't a cosmetic or vanity improvement to Combat Mission, it's an absolute must for anyone who plays Email games regularly. Definitely worthy of the recognition. In fact, I'd like to know if the 'donation' section on the 'GreenAsJade' Mod site sends the funds directly to the developer of [H2H Helper]. If it does, I'll PayPal him a $5 donation immediately. Buy that man a beer.

I was just mucking around with explody stuff in the game, trying to gauge the effectiveness of some of the munitions, somewhere along the way it turned into this.......... http://youtu.be/X4vvSF0LZcQ Thought perhaps someone might be interested.

Re: Urban Combat There seems to be a little interest forming around this idea, in light of which I'll expend a little more energy on the concept, do a few mock-ups in photoshop and probably give it a thread of it's own. Who knows, it might at least become a little food for thought for BF.

That's the point.... you could the same commands for an urban warfare 'mounting' system as are currently used for vehicles. Instead of 'mounting' a vehicle, infantry could be 'mounted' into fighting positions aligned against walls and buildings. This would be optional, like mounting vehicles. The unit could be left in the action spots available in the street, as is the situation now, or attached, 'stacked', against the wall of an available building using the same [mount]/[dismount] system currently used for vehicles. It would create a huge amount of new flexibility for units in urban terrain and uses an existing game mechanic, [mounting]/[dismounting], to achieve the improvement. The AFV [open]/[closed] equivalent in an urban warfare option would be having the unit set-up an observation, firing position at the corner of the building in the direction the units facing, or remaining fully concealed behind the wall.

Urban combat will always be a cumbersome and difficult proposition as long as the 'action square' is the games mechanism for locating units and movement. When a unit can't be formed up behind a wall because the action squares happen to be misaligned with the building, there's a fundamental problem with the physical mechanics of the game. The only thing I've thought of that might be a possible work around for the current game mechanic, and I have absolutely no idea if it's actually feasible, is to have some kind of option that allows units to be 'stacked' against buildings and walls. A mechanic that functions somewhat like mounting a vehicle, but instead 'mounts' the unit into a position hard up along the length of a selected wall. 'Mounting' a unit against the wall could also allow for coding to represent individuals taking up the firing/observation positions on corners. Equivalent to an individual becoming the gunner in a half track. 'Hiding' would mean the 'gunner' stays back and doesn't expose himself, or observe, equivalent to [open up] or [closed] in AFVs. Company of Heroes might be a bog standard mainstream market RTS, but positioning units in that games is infinitely more user friendly and functional than in Combat Mission, which is a shame. Sadly the entire engine is reliant on 'action spots', so it's extremely unlikely that we'll see much of an improvement. On of the best games I've played for urban fighting was a game called Full Spectrum Warrior, released in 2004. For it's time it was amazing. Modern era fire team, squad based game play with an emphasis on suppression, zone cover and movement. It actually initially began it's development through the US military to be used as a positive reinforcement of doctrine, recognizing that a high percentage of incoming recruits had grown up using entertainment software products. Later it saw a a commercial release. It's now a free download, sponsored by the US Military.

wow... ok... I've never taken higher than Veteran, High Motivation.

So do you think my opponent must have had the motivation for his crews dialled right up???? Because all three panthers had multiple full penetration hits without budging the crews.

Hey there. I just started playing PBEM games with a new group of people, a group that tends to play extremely armour heavy, at least compared to what I'm used to. It was a Medium Meeting Engagement, my opponent fielded: Three Panther VG Early and Two Stugs My Brits took: Two Sherman 75mm and Two Sherman 76mm I kept a log of the Armour engagement, as detailed below: 19 x 76mm HITs at Ranges 275m to 659m 4 x 75mm HITs at Ranges 401m to 492m 23 Hits to destroy one Panther. Not unrealistic, considering the number of hits to the weapon mount and front glacis. Someone with better knowledge might like to speak on this. You take your shots where you can get em' in a map full of armour, it's not like they're going to willingly present a flank to you very often. The Panthers made 4 Hits to destroy 2 Shermans, again not unrealistic. I have no problem with Panthers being hard to kill, chewing up Shermans with their 75s, or even being numerous on the field. However it seems to me, considering their survivability and the the regularly huge disparity in hit's required per kill, that Panthers are severely under priced for the purposes of force allocation. 3 Sherman 76mm are roughly the same price as 2 Panthers. It just doesn't stack up to me. Thoughts???? PANTHER (1) VG Early 76mm > HIT Wheels > 631m 76mm > PENETRATION Weapon mount > 631m 76mm > HIT Weapon Mount > 631m 76mm > PENETRATION Upper Front Hull > 263m 76mm > HIT Upper Front Hull > 275m 76mm > PENETRATION Lower Front Hull > 306m PANTHER > PENTRATING HIT on Sherman 76mm > Front Hull 76mm > HIT Upper Front Hull > 306 PANTHER DESTROYED > Para Satchel Charge through bocage. PANTHER (HQ) VG Early 75mm > HIT Lower Front Hull > 401m 75mm > HIT Weapon Mount > 492m 76mm > PARTIAL PENETRATION Front Hull > 341m PANTHER > PENTRATION on Sherman > Front Hull 75mm > PENETRATION Weapon Mount > 492m PANTHER > PENETRATION on Sherman DESTROYED. 76mm > HIT Weapon Mount > 432m 76mm > PARTIAL PENETRATION Weapon Mount > 432m 75mm > HIT Front Turret > 360m 76mm > PENETRATION Right Turret > 659m 76mm > PENETRATION Right Turret > 659m PANTHER DESTROYED PANTHER (2) VG Early 76mm > HIT Forward Top Hull > 359m 76mm > PENETRATION Front Turret > 359m 76mm > HIT Forward Top Hull > 382m 76mm > HIT Weapon Mount > 382m 76mm > PENTRATION Weapon Mount > 388m 76mm > HIT Forward Front Hull > 388m 76mm > PENETRATION Front Turret > 395m PANTHER > PENETRATION on Sherman 76mm DESTROYED. PANTHER DESTROYED > Para Satchel Charge in forest. Both Stugs were destroyed by immobilization by heavy 81mm Mortar barrage then Para infantry assault through smoke.

Was it a room or a closet?

Is this the reason why when you buddy aid an infantryman and recover a bazooka or shrek the aider INFURIATINGLY never takes the rockets, except for the one in the pipe????

How immensely boring....... 'Never losing' isn't the sign of a great player, or even a good player, it's a sign of a mismatched competition. You need to either change your opponents or incrementally add a force % bonus to your opponents until you're losing about 50% of the time.

The orange cloud is definitely a rigged charge. In the next video, where he's playing with a hellcat, he muzzle loads a potato and 'fires' it at a hillside. The same orange charge detonates on the slope.

Don't expect to have a challenging or tactical game vs the AI. It's a worthy turkey shoot exercise early on, a good way to learn how fire and movement work mechanically in the game and a great way to test the capability of different units. But the reality is, 'THERE'S NO SUBSTITUTE' for a human opponent. Gain some confidence by playing a few largely nonsensical games verse the AI. Then use this forum to find some other new players to have a human v human game. Play a few games verse a human and you'll soon be amazed by this games depth and complexity. Play a few dozen and you'll realize you've only been scratching the surface of it's potential. But, in my opinion, it doesn't (and can't) shine without a well matched human opponent on the other side. It's a game with many frustrations and significant flaws, but it's also absolutely unsurpassed in its niche and absolutely worth some perseverance.

I don't know about the coding issues either. But if it can be done for a tank, it can be done for an AT gun. And, in my opinion, currently AT guns are a largely unusable game asset because of a vulnerability largely caused by the inability to de-crew / re-crew. I completely accept that BF would like and possibly have plans for a better system for AT weapons. I'm merely voicing my opinion as to what seems like the most rational way to begin addressing the flaw. So, no swapping crews for AT guns either...... Because you can't move the foxhole? Because putting infantry into foxholes wouldn't be accepted as a 'fix' for having infantry that can't move out of the way when you know an arty barrage is imminently going to hit the action spot they occupy. Because, the problem is that AT guns are WAY to vulnerable because the gunners are tethered to the gun, not because they shouldn't die when arty lands on them.

I've got no problem with that at all..... If a tank can lose its optics I don't see why an AT gun cant be damaged somehow, or knocked out completely while the crew scatter to find cover. I'd be happy to see a unit re-crewing the gun have to run through 50% of the weapons 'unpacking' time as a measure of checking it over. But it's patently ridiculous that the gunners are tethered to their gun, unable to return to it if they take any action to preserve themselves. The real problem is that they're largely unusable and a bad choice as they are.

I only play H2H and I continue to throw them into the mix from time to time because I like the 'idea' of them being useful. But against a human, they very rarely pay for themselves. Being able to scatter the crew when the arty drops, then re-crew when it's done is an absolute must to survivability. There's no keyhole tight enough that human player can't soon be dumping mortars on it. Along with the cover armour arc (which is obviously coming), re-crew is the only thing that'll make AT guns move from an 'expect nothing' choice, to a potentially valuable asset verse humans players. As it is almost no-one ever uses them in H2H, which is a shame. To my mind it also means that in the crucible of the games most difficult format, human v human, the fact that AT guns are avoided seems to be evidence that they're broken as a option. We can de-crew and re-crew tanks, an ability that adds very little to their survivability, but the crew of a AT gun can't leave the asset then come back to it, which would vastly improve it's survivability. Personally, I do think it should be a high priority to fix, simply because there's an asset already in the game that no-one in the H2H community I play with ever uses because it's too vulnerable due to an artificial constraint. Just my 2c.

In a game I was playing recently I had a platoon mounting a truck, 1 guy refused to board and ran at full speed AWOL away from the transport towards the enemy lines. He eventually got killed 950m away from his unit. Meanwhile, his mates and the truck refused to move, because not everyone was on board.......

I've been thinking about this too. Rather than adding more Delay <Insert/Minutes>, I think what I'd like to see added is a <Hold Fire> option. As it is, if you call in a stonk with a five minute delay and realise some way in that the timing is going to be slightly off, you have to <Cease Fire> the mission and call it in again even if it's on exactly the same lay, with the same rounds and effect. There should be no need for trajectory recalculations or laying out and timing munitions etc. etc. A battery should have the option to prep, fire spotting rounds until fire for effect is ready to be delivered, then be held on that line indefinitely until the mission is required, or they're called away to a higher priority mission. The foward observer calls in the mission. Guides the spotting rounds in. <Hold Fire> battery on that line, until the stonk is required. Fire for effect on my call. <Fire>. A battery with a twelve minute delay in prep time shouldn't have to run another twelve minute prep for exactly the same mission because the delivery time needed to be delayed by two minutes. Similarly, a defensive battery assigned to fire on an area shouldn't have to run another prep for the same mission because the attack didn't happen at minute 15 of the battle. So long as it's not given orders to prepare for another fire mission it should be able to hold fire on that mission until it's called for. <Hold Fire> would mean you could also pause a mission part way through it's prepared rounds. <Fire> Battery burns through 25% of it's prepared rounds in its first two minutes of firing. FO calls <Hold Fire>, battery stands down but doesn't packup and go home. During the next three minutes scout's mission forward as the smoke clears, but get themselves pinned down half way across the intervening ground. FO <Fire> Resumes fire on same, Gerry hasn't had enough. Battery burns another 25%, rinse and repeat. If the scouts get through, the FO can call <Cease Fire> on the mission, or he can keep the battery trained on that line in case he needs to pummel the same area to destroy an expected counter attack. At the moment what we get is, sorry, we can't fire exactly the same mission without twelve minutes of everyone sitting around while we prepare, which is both unrealistic and an unnecessary delay to the game.

Hey there, I've been considering a purchase of ShockForce but I'd like a little info from some players. I'm only really interested in truly asymmetrical modern warfare. Small scale insurgent hit, run, delay tactics. IEDs, ambushing etc in largely urban environments. I've got no interest in hypothetical large scale conflicts or 'what if' invasions. I'm also only interested in Human-V-Human Wego play. I have absolutely no interest in playing scripted AI scenarios. Is there plenty scope and options for this type of play and a solid enough community of opponents interested in the same to have a regular game going? Cheers in advance for any info.

If they share ammo among all similar units, I suppose it doesn't matter. I thought changing the name was going to change the unit title, from 'Squad / A Team' to whatever it was that you wanted to use as the unit designation. But it actually changes the personal name of the team leader, from 'Otto' to 'Gestapo Hans' (or whatever you decide to call him). The ammo bearers have their own team leader, so don't get the name change.

Another question; If you purchase two identical units (which have ammo bearers) and attach them to a platoon, say a pair of PaK-40's, how do you tell which ammo bearer is assigned to which gun? Does it matter? Will they share ammo with either AT gun because they're part of the same platoon, or do they have to be with their own unit? If you use the option to rename the unit, the ammo bearers don't receive the new moniker. It seems the only way to differentiate is to make sure that every similar asset in the platoon has different leadership and experience.

I just did a quick search to find out if there'd been any discussion about communication and command variant vehicles, but came up with nothing. So I thought it might be useful to have a thread where quick questions could be answered or people could be directed to the appropriate sections of the manual to get information. So the question is; do command and communication variant vehicles (SPW 250/3, Half-Tracks for example) have an appreciable effect in game? If so, what specifically and to what extent? Is it mentioned in the manual anywhere?

Nah, you're still informed instantly that the contact is: 1st Platoon HQ Machinegun, or, 2nd Team MG Ammo Bearer, etc....