Pelican Pal

Another quick test and 60s of PKM fire did more system damage than an artillery barrage. In fact the two PKMs did more damage in 20 seconds. @BFCElvis Is there any internal discussion of this? Is it an expected limitation of the engine, design decision, a bug, oversight etc..? ------ To clarify the issue: Artillery has no effect on vehicle systems unless a direct hit occurs (tracks/wheels being the only exception). This has nothing to do with the KO rate.

From a current match in Black Sea: https://imgur.com/a/PTz6NOb In the article "Who Says Dumb Artillery Can't Kill Armor" its says: Being quite generous under current CM simulation of artillery against vehicles about ~6 rounds landed within "damage radius" of 3 BTR-4Es. If I expand out a circle covering 24 meters that expands to 15 rounds and respectively a 233% and 650% increase in "damaging shots" for the two shown BTRs. Now obviously not all rounds landing within that radius will cause damage but each round could. ---- Unrelated but the author of that article, Major (Retired) George Durham, passed away in 2014. https://www.beckerfuneral.com/obituary/4230914

I've some saved games showing this but when occupying a structure a single man will not stay inside the building. Instead he will step just outside the door often resulting in the man being shot and drawing fire to the squad that is otherwise concealed/in cover. I have saved games showing this and can send those along

Thanks! Would anyone have some information regarding how tracers would be loaded for light and heavy MGs? In particular how those loads may differ.

Ceasefires are secret within the game. As far as whether you tell your opponent it depends on who you are playing. Usually what will happen is that either myself or my opponent will throw in the towel and message the other. At that point we both submit a ceasefire since a surrender sets all surviving units of the surrendering player to "missing". Although I don't play for the end-game win-condition since it ought to be obvious how well you performed and the Major/minor/tactical victory/loss doesn't actually matter. I imagine some players actually do hold to that in which case you might want to keep it secret.

Ah, it appears I am a step off then. I thought the bipod MG42 was light and the mount the medium. But it would actually be: bipod -> MMG mount -> HMG

Anyone have information on squad-level machine guns tracer loadouts? My assumption is that at the squad level an MG42 or DP28 would have not have tracer rounds within their ammo loads or if they did relatively few. While tracer rounds would primarily be used with MMGs. Anyone have info on that?

You may want to register a forum account at Matrix since they now publish the game. https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=1252

This seems like a good time to link my tests. Artillery, while it does have effect on direct hits, lacks modeling against subsystems. IMO this is fairly important in a sim and doubly so in a modern setting.

If you are still experiencing your problem what I would do is install Steam and use it to install Black Sea. See IF the game runs. You can then uninstall Steam but seeing if Black Sea from Steam runs would give you some more info to work with. You might even be able to grab the Steam BRZs and put them in your Battlefront install.

Our definitions are different I suspect. The tac-ai is decent responding to direct stimuli upon itself. Yet that doesn't mean they have context or know what their situation is. e.g. a tank ignoring your target order to engage an enemy tank that suddenly appears doesn't mean that the tank crew has any idea of what their situation is. Just that they've got a new target that is higher on the "kill this" list. Using the tank example again. The tank will respond to stimuli and change targets to the enemy tank that appears. However, that same tank when their LWR is tickled will reverse out of good cover into an open field. During their reverse into that open field they will gladly drive past a fantastic concealed bit of ground. Another common example that comes to mind... a BMP gunner opens his hatch, fires, and then reloads his ATGM in a complex urban environment with enemy within 50 meters (or closer!). This is all stuff that shows the tac-ai has no idea what their contextually position is and why SOPs and weapon locks/activations would be beneficial. ----- To put it differently the tac-ai will react when you prod it with a stick but if you bring the pot to a boil they will gladly sit in it.

Really this is just more reason to have an SOP system. The tac-ai fundamentally have no context for what they are doing and don't actually know what their situation is. More player control is the answer to this problem since creating AI that has contextual knowledge is a huge ask.

Generally I do the same. However, I recently played through the Shield of Kiev campaign and wanted to reduce some casualties while "scouting" and noticed this occurring with regularity

There are two parts (well really three) parts to morale Formation: This is what you are talking about. As a formation takes losses they will become more brittle and high casualties over a short time has a shock value. Element: Any given squad has its own internal morale. This is calculated per-man (each man has his own morale) and the squad morale is the averaged morale of each man in the squad. Splitting a squad means that you get two separate elements with their own internal morale. Because the elements are smaller its easier for them to take a morale hit and I also think there is a C2 hit for the element without the SL.

I've been splitting some Ukr mech. infantry (the BTR-4 boys) and noticed that under the ADMIN tab selecting the scout team will create a scout team with the RPG-7. I would think that a scout team would be someone without your squads primary AT weapon.

Bumping this as the BTR4E is still showing quite a large spread

Just FYI if you've redeemed your game on Steam be sure to put up your review of the game too. Just noticed that Black Sea is rather sparsely reviewed compared to SF2.

iirc, and I might be wrong since its been a bit since I really got into a paradox game. They will have new features that require new content. So like Crusader Kings you can't use certain features that are limited to Islamic Caliphates if you don't own the DLC that allows you to play them.

Whats key, I think, is that the engine upgrades exist alongside new content purchases. Like there are two pretty common methods of doing things: 1. You get new features for free but new content is paid. 2. You get new content and features with a new purchase. Battlefront is taking this third path where new content is paid but so are new features AND the new features and content must be purchased separately. Like I can't recall a situation where I had to buy a feature pack in order to buy a content pack before. Actually until someone told me on the forum I was intending to buy Fire and Rubble and I had just assumed it came with engine 4.

Really what Battlefront is running into is that for the last ~10 years its become increasingly common for games to get constant updates for no additional fee. Arma 3, Darkest Hour, War Thunder, Verdun, Dota 2, Hunt Showdown, PUBG, Post Scriptum, Don't Starve, Half-Life, half-Life 2, Call of Duty, Command Ops 2, Quake II (now with RTX support), Due Process, Fall Guys, Hell Let Loose, Rising Storm 2, Red Orchestra 2, Heliborne, Planetside 2, Squad, Rainbow Six Siege, Counter-Strike, Battlefield V, Graviteam, Crusader Kings, hearts of iron, Stellaris, Kerbal Space Program, Prison Architect, Among Us, Barotrauma, Dead by Daylight, The FOrest, Killing Floor, Killing FLoor 2, Magicka, Left 4 Dead 2, Team Fortress 2, Stardew Valley, Talbetop Simulator, Terraria, Call to Arms, Mount & Blade, Unity of Command 2, Birgador, Fallen Enchantress, Mafia II, Superhot, Project Winter This is just a quick perusal of games and I'm sure you could fairly easy get a larger list but paid features isn't the name of the game. In many cases its actually part of the whole sales pitch that features are never paid for just content (Paradox has gone very heavily into this). To the point that what Battlefront doing is, in fact, not the standard. I actually cannot think of any games that sell features in the way that CM does? Anyway my point is Battlefront is going to bear a certain amount of critical comments because of that system since its effectively a strange thing to see in 2021. If this was 2005 it'd be fairly unique since patches were hardly even a thing but its a full 16 years from that point. I suspect that packaging engine upgrades with purchases would likely be seen more favorably than have them exist purely standalone. Since they would seen to be less of a blocker to new purchases. Effectively a wink wink nudge nudge to spend more rather than less. ---- Anyway I think it makes a bit more sense to read this as a buying guide rather than a history given that they appear to be spending more time trying to layout each game and module rather than talking about the actual history of the series. And in the sense of it being a buying guide the comment on the pricing makes sense. This quote gives it away pretty heavily. And each game gets a little blurb with sometimes inaccurate information. E.G. Market Garden module requires engine 2.0 when it in fact requires that engine 3 or 4 now. Unless you have an older engine 2 purchase?

Bumping since I figure people might have missed this over the holidays. I'll be running some additional tests with direct fire over the weekend and likely more airburst. Once Black Sea hits Steam I'll also run some tests over there but @Lethafacedid a similar tests in BS and found similar results.

Yes, I sorely miss that feature. Given that we only have rarity currently I am looking to it as the only real fix. We QBs have been languishing for more than a decade at this point and have yet to meet the features of CM1. My question was to ascertain whether it would in fact prevent you from buying armor. @Bulletpoint's response it appears that you currently could fill out an entire QB with armor even if all that armor had a rarity cost. This can be tested because a sufficient amount of armor does in-fact have a rarity cost. Actually I just realized I do have CMRT installed. Under STANDARD I can make a few lists for both sides exclusively with rarity cost tanks and points run out before rarity. Obviously there are other combinations where that is not true (IS-1s for example). But I am able to complete armor lists. Pushing rarity to LOOSE and I have even more permutations of rarity only armor lists. There are some (like an entire battalion of Panther Ds) that are out of reach. While I appreciate you have worries given the testing of the current system I cannot find any substantiation of your worries. It seems clear that were a low rarity cost appended to all armor (say 50-100pts at standard) then you could make full armor lists of varying vehicle types.

Assuming that all tanks have the common rarity cost you also could fill an entire list with tanks, correct? Assuming that none of them have zero rarity cost.

Combat Mission 1 (CMBB and CMAK) had the ability to set QB point allotments. For example, if you had 1,000 points to spend you could do: Infantry 50% | Armor 20% | Support 30% 500 points | 200 points |__ 300 points These numbers were adjustable by the player making the QB and this allowed you to create a mixed force that leaned more heavily on infantry for both sides. In CM2 they did not do that and instead we got the very simple (too simple) infantry | armor | mixed. Which is really a rather unpleasant step back. ------------------------------------- As far as rarity goes its actually a good solution because unlike points cost we can have some determination of it. We can set it to: STRICT STANDARD LOOSE NONE Given all armor a basic rarity cost so that they are then affected by this system would be fantastic since its the only reliable way for players to adjust layouts given that the force type is a joke. If you want to play a QB representing two armored Coys running into each other then LOOSE would be the setting for you. If you wanted to play a "standard battle" in the theater then STRICT would be the setting for you. But by having all these things at zero rarity you remove one of the few tools players actively have to shape QBs. Because right now I play on STRICT and that does jack all to many types of tanks even though tanks were uncommon. ---- Question? I don't have any of the CM ww2 games installed at the moment but is LethaFace's contention even a problem? In a QB is it possible to not be able to buy armor due to rarity? My gut feeling is that its not but it would force you to take more common tanks. Which again means that loosening the restriction ought to provide a solution.

Rarity points are criminally underused.