Heirloom_Tomato
-
Posts
1,421 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by Heirloom_Tomato
-
-
4 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:
I tried it once, never again. But, each to their own I suppose.
Why never again?
-
-
On 11/6/2019 at 2:18 PM, BornGinger said:
So if I make a quick battle with four territory objectives, no matter their value, for a meeting engagement each objectives value is 60% to unit casualty and 40% to terrain? If that is the case, should a hire VP be given to a territory objective which most likely the two sides will fight more fore and which will lead to more unit casualty? Or that doesn't matter so much?
If the main objective is going to be a key piece of terrain and if it had no points value the two sides would still fight over it due to the terrain advantages it offers, then I would say yes, make it worth more points.
-
@Kaunitz my $0.02 is the tanks in the game are not overpowered, it is you the player who is overpowered. I know earlier in this thread you mentioned the downfall of the all seeing player and the ability to tell units to area fire into places where they have no clue any enemy units are. Have you tried playing with @RockinHarry no enemy icons mod? It completely changes the way you play the game as it places you the player into a state of FOW, yet leaves your units with all the information you would have if the icons were on. It forces you to move slower, pay closer attention to the battlefield and reduces your reaction time. With enemy icons on, you can see where the enemy is coming from and a rough idea of what is coming at your men. With the icons off, you won't know what you are actually facing until every enemy unit is actually visible to YOUR eye. Enemy icons off makes any low visibility scenario an absolute nightmare to play.
-
The videos are a big help, thanks very much!
-
Hey everyone,
My daughter is doing a project for her English class and needs more information on the Second Sino-Japanese War. Can anyone point me in the right direction to some credible online sources?
-
Straight from the website:
MAJOR FORMATIONS (NOT A COMPLETE LIST)
Since the list is not complete, then it is possible aircraft are in the TO&E but have been left off the list. Which aircraft are not in GL that should be added in the new module?
-
2 hours ago, user1000 said:
no air support types listed
Going to need a little more details than this if any help can be given.
-
9 hours ago, 76mm said:
Yes and no...according to MikeyD, BF apparently also incurs a lot of brain damage determining OOBs and TO&Es for formations that I doubt anyone ever uses. I was simply suggesting that they could lighten their load by focusing on the OOBs and TO&Es for the basic building blocks (platoons and companies) rather than a lot of larger formations of limited utility to anyone.
Not sure with what my front preferences have to do with not liking it when games cover very narrow time frames and only a handful of units? I'd feel the same way if I preferred Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, or Italy. Three separate games covering the Western Front: CMFB, CMFI, CMFB, and in theory, four separate games for the Eastern Front--bleh. I have no problem with paying for additional content but want it to work together in one big sand box rather than several stand-alone silos. For me, having an editor is not every useful if there is little to edit.
You leave a question yourself: why do you care that I post my opinion of the games here? I've been playing these games and on this forum for many years, so feel free to express my opinions, and am not very concerned if they don't coincide with yours (the self-appointed "defender of the faith", I see). Last time I checked, the purpose of discussion forums is to, well, discuss?
Finally, in my view given all of the necessary abstractions/assumptions in these (or any similar) games for vastly more important topics such as LOS, sighting, troop reactions, terrain, C&C, morale, etc etc to claim that failing to use historically accurate officers' sidearms would reduce "fidelity" or "accuracy" in any meaningful way is pedantic in the extreme , unless your aim is to create a firing range simulator.
I am curious what titles you own?
The comments about not many units, formations being of no use to anyone, and very little to edit seem to me to be a very harsh description of the games.
I am also curious to know how often you use the editor to try and create scenarios of your own?
-
1 hour ago, markshot said:
Yes, I found (google) a lot of criticism of the QB. I just went in to the editor to take a look. They are filtered and they do have at least an AI plan which may not be more than an axis of advance and identification of good terrain.
If you went this far already, all you need to do is count the number of AI groups for a particular map, then purchase some units for each side and then add them to the groups. Bang! Done! Simple, basic scenario. Save it to your scenario folder with a cool name like markshot scenario 001 and the go make another, and another and another. Do like @MikeyD does, change the time, date, weather, ground conitions and see how much of a difference it really makes. By the time you have made 15 or so quick ones, they will start to blend together and playing them will be a treat. For another option, select only equipment you haven't used yet, it changes the game completely when you take armored cars instead of tanks, light mortars instead of 155mm howitzers.
-
Glad to see my men were doing a good job of causing you grief even with the little information I had to go on.
While I haven't played around too much with the invisible icons since, I think it adds an amazing perspective to the game. You can still move the camera anywhere on the map, zoom in close and check out what units you see, but keeping track of it all and not seeing something yourself certainly adds to the FOW. I would highly recommend players try it out in a H2H battle with someone they trust.
Thanks for the battle and mods @RockinHarry, I hope it was as much fun for you as it was for me.
-
22 minutes ago, sburke said:
Tea kettles?
If they didnt include them in Market Garden or any of the Commonwealth modules yet, I doubt they will in the modern titles.
-
What version of the game are you playing? You should be able to tell by looking in the bottom right hand corner of the main menu screen. The most up to date version is 4.02
-
2 hours ago, IanL said:
Come on guys this is a CM3 wish list thread. So far only about 10% of it is even remotely interesting. You guys can do better - I think
Here are my top 3 choices for CM3:
1. The ability to place terrain tiles, trees, buildings, roads all in 3D view. I would like to build the entire map, including laying out AI plans in 3D.
2. The ability to create an AI plan for a map or scenario by saving a play through. For example, I create a scenario and layout the AI plans for the defence but no plans for the attacker. I send out the scenario to several players who try their best to defeat the defenders. Each of those playthroughs is saved and imported into the scenario as an attack AI plan. This will also allow players to swap AI plans with other players. A sort of single player, H2H mode if you will.
3. More of everything EXCEPT graphics. My kids are growing up in the generation with the best graphics processing available and some of the most visually stunning games ever made. Guess what they love to play the most? Minecraft. Anyone take a look at the graphics on Minecraft recently? It is the freedom to do what they want in the game that is appealing and not the graphics that keep them playing. I want a true sandbox mode where I the freedom to put any unit from any title up against each other. I want to see more tanks, more infantry, more experimental equipment that almost certainly never saw any action, airplanes, helicopters, larger maps, brigades vs brigades, you name it, bring it on! Keep the mod abilities in the game so those of you who do want to see every rivet and screw in every gun, the inside of every tank, right down to the grease zerts, can have the ability to mod to your hearts content. Just please dont give us 6 amazingly rendered vehicle models, 3 for each side, and then call that a game. If the graphics don't get any better than what we have now, but we have more freedom and more choice, that is a win for me.
-
When you applied the patch, were the mods in your mod folder? If so, try removing them, reinstalling the patch and then putting your mods back.
-
10 hours ago, ishfar94 said:
It's really weird. I can't understand how the accuracy works with the Gill. Some missions it works absolutely flawlessly, some missions it can't hit anything.
What is the experience and leadership level of the troops who keep missing?
-
They are exclusive of each other, so no you do not need Commonwealth module for Market Garden.
-
@RockinHarry this was on the cobblestone streets right? I would guess it is an abstraction as has already been suggested. The explosion on the cobblestones caused lots of rock chunks to fly up and your guys died from a rock to the head.
In the same battle, I have a guy who was WIA from a mortar round striking a tree in front of the house he was hiding behind. I assumed a branch was shattered and a chunk flew up high in the air and came down, impaling the guy in the legs.
There is a lot of calculations going on under the hood and there will always be things needed to be chalked up to bad luck.
-
2 hours ago, jrb045 said:
Just ordered the bundle and cannot find where I can download the game at. Please help.
You should recieve two emails, one with the purchase order and information and one with the game key and a link to the download. Double check your email, including your other or junk folder as sometimes the emails end up there.
-
@WhiteWolf65 the answer is actually in your own post. CMBN covers the war in NW Europe from June 6 to September 30 1944. Since the Archer did not see service until October, it is beyond the scope of CMBN. CMFB is going cover the war from October 44 to May 45 and should have the Archer when Commonwealth forces are added. As has already been mentioned, it will be showing up in the next CMFI module.
-
2 hours ago, LiveNoMore said:
The object of the Germans is to take the town and all it's road intersections and destroy the paratroopers. The paratroopers want to stop or slow the German advance and get away with as many men as possible.
If I understand you correctly, the Germans have the focus of taking the town back at any cost, while the Americans are to inflict as many casualties as possible while taking the least themselves. The town itself is less important to the Americans than slowing down the Germans and making them pay is. If I have your overall plan correct, here is how I would consider setting up the scoring.
For the Germans: 1000 total points
No friendly casualty points.
Set terrain objective point values at 800 of the total points.
Set Enemy casualty points at 200.
For the terrain objectives, if using four objectives, set the values as 40, 80, 160 and 520 points each. The 520 point objective will be the one furthest from the start point.
This should give the German player a great desire to push into the town as over 50% of their total points is tied up in the one objective.
For the Americans: 1000 total points.
Friendly casualties set at 400 points
Enemy casualties set at 500 points
Terrian objectives set at 100 points. Using the same ratio as for the Germans, you would objectives worth 5, 10, 15, and 70 points each. The 70 point objective will be the rally point before exiting the map.
Give the Americans an exit zone but no must exit units. This will allow them to leave the map, preserving friendly casualty points and denying the Germans points for causing casualties.
To encourage the American player to stay on the map and fight it out as long as possible, set the Germans to arrive on the map in waves of reinforcements. The player would either need to decimate the first troops or make sure to hang around long enough to engage as many enemy as possible.
Playtesting will determine what the threshold levels should be for the casualties.
-
14 hours ago, Howler said:
Is anyone able to provide an update to the issue reported by @Falaise concerning a reproducible evade in the CMBN Roadblock scenario? He's able to show US troops rushing forward through a hedgerow gap 10 out of 10 times in patch 4.02.
His post ...
Is it considered a fault? Of so, what corrective action should be expected?
I have been looking at this one and trying to get the same results, it doesn't always happen when I play the same battle. I hope to have some time tonight to look deeper at it.
-
1 hour ago, CanuckGamer said:
So, has this "bug" been fixed or is there a patch to fix the patch coming out? Your first sentence referencing BFCElvis indicates that it has been fixed but then your second sentence contradicts this. Regardless, I consider it to be a signficant issue.
This issue is one that has been very hard to nail down. While some people have been able to spot it every time they play a battle, the next player never has a problem. I was able to build a test map showing the problem and a fix was made. Since 4.02 came out, the test map I made has seen zero incidents of this bug showing up. So my comment of the issue being fixed was in relation to the 4.02 patch.
It appears the issue has not been solved in all circumstances. I have loaded the Scottish Corridor campaign and have seen the issue happen once in 5 attempts.
The training scenario Roadblock has also been posted by @Falaise and @domfluffas a battle where the issue shows up. I have loaded this battle and so far have been able to make the men flee into fire, BUT not every time. In my opinion, there is an issue but nailing down the specifics of what causes it to happen will be difficult.
Last night I built a new test map, 12 German HMG 42's versus a single green American squad placed at a gap in bocage. I tested with them in and out of C2. NOT once did they break and run into oncoming fire, even when their status was broken. I added some 81mm mortar fire to see if that would do anything to make them flee and they still stayed put or crawled safely to the rear.
I am about to head out to my parents for Father's Day so I won't be doing any further testing until later tonight. If anyone is seeing this issue show up in different scenarios or maps please post them here. If it is a specific combination of elements causing the problem, the more examples available will help to increase the odds of finding the problem.
-
Annoying withdrawal towards the enemy behaviour
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
@usgubgub Can you please send me a link to your scenario? I have spent a bunch of time trying to recreate situations where this problem happens and would like to see your setup. If nothing else, I can submit your scenario to hopefully help find the problem.