DasMorbo
-
Posts
227 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DasMorbo
-
-
I don't really get why you guys jump at me like you do?
Do you think I totally ignore all the great things Battlefront has come up with?
Do you think I don't see all the improvements?
Of course I do.
For example I was really eager to see nice little hit decals on my tanks in CMBN and thus was really hyped when the V3.0 upgrade came out.
But after playing a while I noticed the aforementioned flaws and have been waiting for a fix ever since.
Considering the last Patch for CMBN came out in November 2014 I got to the conclusion that there is no support for a looong while, if ever.
Same was my impression for CMSH - I have been waiting for a V2.0 and now V3.0 upgrade for one and a half years.
Now I am in the situation that CMBN is on the edge of unplayable for me and I can't buy any of the other titles for various reasons.
When I heard BF is making a title about the Bulge I decided to finally say something.
That is the whole story.
Just for an example:
This is what I am referring to in my first statement as botched pathing behaviour:
Clusterf**k 1
Clusterf**k 2
This happened with the port to V3.0. It is so dominant that it is hardly possible to use a workaround. You have to place waypoint as close as 20yards/meters apart to avoid it. And this slows movement down, as the troops use to pause for a moment at waypoints, when they get seperated.
Best regards
Olf
-
1.not make work on the engine mutually exclusive to new releases. BF needs a revenue stream, without that they aren't going to work on anything.
3. Be prepared for the s**t storm from folks who are already asking for more content.
to 1) I just want to bring this to BFs attention because, maybe some of the issues are due to the V.3.0 migration and can be easily fixed.
to 3) Already waaay into the discussion, just have a look at the posted link. Not too much poo-flying as of now, which I appreciate
-
Here is the most compact yet informative tactics tutorial I have come across.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ6dDlqye9Q&list=PLmW_vcwM_qxukdDjpfUEerpICUzTrTKek
Part II especially deals with a tactical problem similar to yours - attack over open terrain against dug-in troops with hMGs and ATGs
Hope it helps you
Olf
-
Hey everyone!
This is a thread which deals with some problems and bugs I mentioned in another thread. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120091-operation-tumbleweed/page-3
As it started quite a discussion I try now to migrate the discussion to this thread.
Thus the other thread isn't hijacked by off-topic discussions anymore and people know where to look if they want to re-read about this topic.
Here is my original post:
Posted 21 July 2015 - 08:57 PM
Oh no, not ANOTHER new Release.
Who is supposed to play through all this content? I am not even through all the game content of CMBN, and I own it for about two years.
Haven't they got enough to do?
I mean, have you looked at CMBN in its V3.11 state?
Pretty skewed if you ask me. Infantry movement behaviour is all I say.
They should keep ironing the older titles instead of releasing a plethora of unripe new installments that differ only marginally in gameplay...
Just my 2 cents.
Olf
And here are my key arguments when I say Battlefront should keep maintaining older titles.
Posted 25 July 2015 - 07:18 PM
The bugs I am referring to are the following:Fisrt of all the movement system is skewed - troops tend to bunch up way more than in earlier versions. You can spread out a whole platoon 200 yards wide and give them parallel movement orders and you have them all bunched up in one thick line after 30 seconds. Nice when enemy artillery is present...Secondly the Panthers (and some other vehicles) hit and damage registration is still bugged. This was present already in version 2.12. The vehicles won't get destroyed before receiving 3-6 partial and solid penetrations (by 57, 75mm, 76mm guns) even in areas which hold ammo and fuel. Just recently a Wespe 105mm SP gun received about 6 direct hits from 3 Churchills without showing any sign of reduced combat readiness. In this match I have one enemy Panther destroyed (5 solid penetrations needed) and 3 active (between 1 to 4 penetrations each). Just one is unscathed.Remember our match with your invincible Tigers. How many PIAT hits did they recieve with very little damage?Thirdly the spotting system acts really weird at times. You pile up all the spotting advantages on your side and the enemy still spots and shoots first. Just had a match (EDIT: in the CMRT Demo) where my Stug III with an unbuttoned veteran crew looked straight at a T-34/85 through some trees and bushes. The T-34 was at an 30° angel, buttoned and with regular crew. Guess who shot first and killed the Stug? This is really no single incident, with vehicles staring straight at other vehicles 150 yards away in the open, and no identification happening.That is about it.I will upload some pictures as references soon.So lets discuss! -
Ok, with so much to say by everybody I start a special thread about the topic.
Look out for it!
-
Oh yeah, I remember that stuart.
Still I would appreciate it if Battlefront would review the hitreg/damage system. To me it seems to produce results which are too random and incoherent at times.
I am talking of tanks getting their ammo racks and fuel tanks shot through without harm.
Maybe we should start a thread of its own on this?
-
Everyone seems to have their pet peeve, that 'horrible flaw' that either nobody else has notices or pops up once every hundred hours of gameplay. Wespes in my hands tend to turn into blazing infernos no problemo.
If you're playing CMBN and T34s are shooting up your Stugs then you have problems that nobody else has! For one thing, there are no T34s in the game, and over in CMFI players always complain about how blind their T34s are and vulnerable to hidden Stugs.Instead of mocking people right away, I normally ask if their statements are correct.
In this case it was a situation in the 'Combat Mission: Red Thinder'-Demo which, for your information, is based on the same engine as CMBN.
Funny that I bump into these flaws permanently playing CMBN.
-
Hey Guys!
I just wrote an email to Slysniper about this topic, here is a copy:
The bugs I am referring to are the following:Fisrt of all the movement system is skewed - troops tend to bunch up way more than in earlier versions. You can spread out a whole platoon 200 yards wide and give them parallel movement orders and you have them all bunched up in one thick line after 30 seconds. Nice when enemy artillery is present...Secondly the Panthers (and some other vehicles) hit and damage registration is still bugged. This was present already in version 2.12. The vehicles won't get destroyed before receiving 3-6 partial and solid penetrations (by 57, 75mm, 76mm guns) even in areas which hold ammo and fuel. Just recently a Wespe 105mm SP gun received about 6 direct hits from 3 Churchills without showing any sign of reduced combat readiness. In this match I have one enemy Panther destroyed (5 solid penetrations needed) and 3 active (between 1 to 4 penetrations each). Just one is unscathed.Remember our match with your invincible Tigers. How many PIAT hits did they recieve with very little damage?Thirdly the spotting system acts really weird at times. You pile up all the spotting advantages on your side and the enemy still spots and shoots first. Just had a match where my Stug III with an unbuttoned veteran crew looked straight at a T-34/85 through some trees and bushes. The T-34 was at an 30° angel, buttoned and with regular crew. Guess who shot first and killed the Stug? This is really no single incident, with vehicles staring straight at other vehicles 150 yards away in the open, and no identification happening.That is about it.The 'abandon older titels'-claim points in the direction that Battlefront is a very small developer. And with every new Installment, their limited rescources for technical support are spread further.I hear about the Shock Force Upgrade to V3.0 for the first time. An overhaul of that titel I have been awaiting ever scince Upgrade 2.0. So this point is somewhat less significant now.I still have the impression that the Upgrades for CMBN have been made quite hurredly with the above mentioned issues not having been noticed, due to limited rescources.Best regards -
Can't help with the problem but I know you need some patience - this forum isn't overflowing with users.
-
I would recommend to use the 'split team' command. It gives you equal firepower and mobility in both sub-units (given you have a standart 'two-MG42-squad').
If you use the 'Anti-tank team' command, you have one very small group with not much firepower and one with two MG42s - which is quite some overkill in my opinion.
This firepower is easy to neutralize as well - just one well placed HE tank round or a lucky mortar hit can strip you off your precious 'ammo throwers'.
Best regards
-
Thanks for all the PM-Answers!
Didn't expect so many answers in such a short time.
Demand fullfilled.
-
And your 2 cents are probably the only ones that BFC will make off your release strategy I am afraid... But I could be wrong.
I know they don't make a lot of money with this. Just look at the viewer numbers on their Youtube-Videos!
My point is, they are churning out games faster than people with a life can play through for the price of abandoning the support for the older titles.
I am stuck with CMBN because I don't have neither the money to buy new installments of the game nor a new PC to support the larger maps they come with.
At the moment I am in the situation to have spent 10$ for the Version 3.X upgrade to render a 75$ game horrible to play.
-
Oh no, not ANOTHER new Release.
Who is supposed to play through all this content? I am not even through all the game content of CMBN, and I own it for about two years.
Haven't they got enough to do?
I mean, have you looked at CMBN in its V3.11 state?
Pretty skewed if you ask me. Infantry movement behaviour is all I say.
They should keep ironing the older titles instead of releasing a plethora of unripe new installments that differ only marginally in gameplay...
Just my 2 cents.
Olf
-
Hi Folks!
Even though I am not active on the Forum , I am still around - and playing CMBN!
I am in the final stages of finishing the last Campaign I had to get through...
...and starting to get bored by the silly AI - again.
So who wants to play me in PBEM Battles?
I favour Scenarios, as I like realistic matches over balanced ones.
We can counter that by having re-matches or me taking the more difficult part.
My version is CMBN + CW V3.something.
A little note: I am pretty good at this tactics-thing.
Hope to hear from you!
Olf
-
That would be great!
-
I took a beautiful map, hacked it, and created a new battle. I spent, uh, 2 minutes adjusting for balance. Okay, that's a lie. All I did was hack it apart. The original is very good. Kharalyk.
You are not only guilty of reckless commanding (and tank driving) but also of reckless hacking!
-
c3k did it! Abrams is coming through smoke. And my spotters are on the move. I will make a video tommorow. My BTR with ATGM platoon is destroyed, Krizantema is under fire!
Hm... I am not sure.
Does he love cavalry style rushes on full speed by his IFVs?
(I like them too, but they finish badly usually)Too bad about your ATGM Boys as they will be missed dearly dealing with those Abrams MBTs.
You need to keep your Krizantema alive if you want to kill those thick-armoured trolling machines.
About my hints:
You figured it out on your own already, no need to help.
If there was jurisdiction for Combat Mission, c3k would be fined for reckless commanding.
This leads to my next point:
c3k should have played the Russians - it is more fitting his playstyle.
ATTACK!!!
Cheers
Olf
-
Hey DMS!
Want some little hint on the playstyle of your opponent?
There is an old DAR made by him, I could give you the link. It can give you an idea of his playstyle - which is very distinctive to say the least.
It might give you an advantage.
How do you think of it?
How do the other readers think of it?
Give the link now or just after the match?
Good hunting!
Olf
-
...
Each Abrams was 1,000 points. That's what I get for not checking qb points before tossing down a challenge. I had to drop from 4 to 3 Abrams. That really hurt. I want PAIRS of units to support one another. One pair watches, one pair moves. 3 tanks hurts...
...
What coward needs a buddy to cover him, when he can ATTACK!?
Threefold 120mm-devastation (powered by Rheinmetall) is all you need!
A milion thanks for digging up the old 'White Manor'-AAR!
Propably the must insane and entertaining AAR there ever was on the BFC Forum - up till now...
Cheers
-
Off topic:
Are we reading the same thread? I suppose that I could have missed something but I don't get the impression that anyone is saying Russians are evil. This is about the Ukrainian ROE in a game where they are facing off against Russian forces.
One thing I know is that basically all soldiers are just looking to get their job done and get home safe no matter who's soldiers they are. Sure there are some that do bad things but we should be starting from the reality that most guys just want to make it out in one piece.First couple of posts are very much in favour of the NATO having tight ROE and Russia does not. Guess Vladimir refers to that and the general negative tone towards Russia's aims and motivations expressed in this forum.
Even though I am German and thus on NATOs side I can understand his frustration. As for every conflict, both sides are responsible, and I don't read anything about that here.
Most people have forgotten that NATO has guranteed to Russia in the early 1990s, there would be no extension of the NATO towards the east at any time whatsoever. Look today: Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania, just to name a few new NATO-countries. I call that a clear breach of promise, and quite some responsibility for the conflict that evolves.
Don't get me wrong - I think the Russians have no idea of humanist freedom, that is why they love their suppressive dictator, plus they are severely paranoid against the west for no real reason.
Still no reason to stir them up like we (the NATO) did.
Best regards
Olf
-
LOL
Minute 1: I have a company.
Minute 2: Enemy Grad/MARS fires.
Minute 3: I have a squad.
Me: Let's attack!
Pixeltruppen: F**k you, sir!
Cheers
Disclaimer: This post is surplus, as everything has been already said, but I found it just too funny to write.
-
What was that Airborne dudes name who wrote that ridiculous Military-Sci-Fi stuff again?
Ah, John Ringo!!!
Just let extremely stupid and poorly armed alien hordes zerg-rush earth by the billions (Soviet Style) and put some highly motivated individuals with proper equipment*** against them and GET SOME!
I just remember the re-activated USS New Jersey firing improvised canister rounds in direct lay against hordes of no-brain aliens who couldn't breach the ships armour efficiently with their weaponry...
Stopped reading after 1 1/4 books.
***(with friendly support of your friendly Alien friends)
GET SOME
Olf
-
Hi Tryspawn!
Really cool you take all the effort to show the campaign in video!
...
2. Yeah figured that out after it happened! It's just an inconsistency with map design because in the first mission you can drive your tanks through dozens of trees in a super steep terrain - in the 2nd a little thicket of bushes can stop your movement.
...Refer to the manual - it says you can not pass 'forrest' ground tiles. So if you switch off trees in an wooded area you somtimes notice different ground tiles with shrub and twigs depicted on them, just like in a real forrest. Those tiles can't be traveled by victors. If the map designer on the other hand has chosen to place a wooded area on normal ground tiles, victors can pass. As tree placement is independent from ground floor type in the mission editor, you can have forrests that are passable to victors and those that are not. Learned this the hard way in a PBEM against Slysniper - so I didn't read the manual propably, too.
HI tryspawn, I'm a newbie at these games. I've been messing around with them since cmx1, im not very good. I really enjoyed your thoughts on how to approach the battle in video #1. I have no idea really how to approach a battle, since I have no military background; however I found your introduction on terrain and the scope of battle great. I will watch it again and again. I also found your videos on cmsf , this is what I need to become much better at these games, I really thankyou for making them, the manual doesn't do this part.
Al
Listen to the Lieutenant-Colonel!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ6dDlqye9Q
This is a link to a series of tactical training videos by ret. LTC Jeffrey Paulding.
He mastered tactics - if you know the scenarios he is playing, you notice he mostly plays the most difficult side - and keeps wining (against human players).
Once you are through these videos, you should know all essential concepts and everything else should come automatically.
...
Re: the Bradley crew, yeah, the behavior was absurd. I wasn't defending the behavior as logical, neither was I attempting to explain or defend any scenario design choices. I was only trying to offer a suggestion as to a possible contributing factor to the admittedly illogical behavior.
...
Battlefront says this is on purpose to simulate the irrational behaviour humans show under intense stress. You could get the impression it is just badly scripted AI.
Where the truth lies, is up to speculation.
But I like to think it is the former, as people go constantly nuts under fire.
Just read this book on this theme:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110131162412/http://www.gustavhasford.com/short.htm
Cheers
Olf
-
The Piper Cub wikipedia page (citing a 1945 magazine) mentions spotting ambushes. The Army Green Books have a few Piper Cub mentions. In the breakout phase, US armored columns would have eyes in the sky (the passage is not clear if they were fighter-bombers spotting or Cubs spotting for FB's). They were commonly used for artillery observation and intelligence, and while counter-battery work is outside the scope, some of it is within. As far as rarity, I think they were more commonly used in CM-type battles than King Tigers.
I read about the 'eyes in the sky' at Operation Cobra some years back and if I am correct these used to be CAS fighter bombers C2 linked to certain tank crews (company commanders and above I guess).
Just my 2 Cents...
Cheers
Olf
Problems in CMBN V3.11
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I am not that much frustrated as it sounds - this referred some other more rude comments and the amount of contra I am receiving.
About the amount of CMBN hours clocked, I have the game for at least 3 years now and have been playing near constantly with some weeks pause here and then. Before CMBN I used to play Close Combat and I consider myself a crack in wargaming tactics (wanna play me for verification?). As I have an old PC, I didn't switch to newer titels and thus stayed with CMBN all the time.
So I went through V1.0 to V3.0 steadily with my gameplay skills nothing but improving, and I haven't noticed this ever before.
IIRC downgrading from V3.0 to V1.0 means reinstalling. So this option gets ruled out as I am nearing my maximum activations. I could work it out but it is just too much work to fit into my real life, besides I have some PBEMs just about to start and I don't want to annoy these guys.
I am thinking about some tests though.