Bulletpoint
-
Posts
6,898 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
20
Posts posted by Bulletpoint
-
-
I'm assuming though that I would be able to see 'more' units and/or have better info on spotted units if my company HQ is in C2 with the platoon HQs.
well, isn't that exactly what happens? Platoon A on the right flank spots something, that info goes from the squad to the platoon leader and then to your company HQ, then back down to Platoon B on the left flank?
-
Two important things I just learned reading this thread after a year of playing the game ignorant of it:
Units share info locally. So if you bring a weapons company HMG and sit it next to an infantry squad from another company, they will share spotting info. Very useful if that's true
Company HQ can be used to command squads who lost their platoon leaders. I always just kept the higher level command sitting back and never participating, but I guess if your company HQ dies your whole company suffers some penalty?
-
Sorry for reviving this old thread, but I just started playing this recently and have been restarting it two times already. Leaving these notes for anyone else googling this mission.
It's one of those annoying maps where you're not given a proper briefing to match the situation, and you feel the 'hand of god' against you - the layout of the map seems to be designed to maximise the enemy position while leaving you no avenue of approach. Also, the action square system means that your infantry can't take advantage of the railroad slope, and your tanks can't really get a good hull down, since either they will be one square too far back or they will drive up on the railroad proper, fail to depress their main gun, and be sitting ducks for the enemy AT.
There is however a bug (?) that helps the player, in that there are a few action squares at the starting area where there's LOS through the dense forest, your mortars can fire from here directly at the two 88s at the railroad and take them out.
-
I'd love to know the answers to all this myself.. Will keep an eye on this thread.
-
I think the problem with artillery historically has been that you need a direct hit to be effective, and as accuracy was poor, that meant lots of shells needed to saturate the area. I'm not asking for artillery to be unbalanced or unhistorically deadly, I'm just asking for artillery to actually do real damage when you do get lucky and hit your target.
-
Did some prep fire of this forest, later I spotted this gun firing on happily though it had clearly taken a direct hit from a 105mm artillery shell.
Please help explain this to myself.
-
I think you forget an important detail: the game doesn't take into account prolonged exposure. For example, in the game, bunkers are invulnerable to artillery. You could fire millions of shells at a bunker, and it would never be destroyed, even though in real life, millions of direct hits would eventually tunnel into the strongest bunker. Likewise, a tank would be cooked by standing in fire for hours, but in the game, each burst of flamethrower is seen as a short individual attack that doesn't have time to heat up the tank. Heck, even pistol shots would destroy a tank if you shot enough rounds at it (might take a thousand years but eventually the armour would be eroded)
-
If suppression is more effective in the targeted square, this would seem to imply that for most efficient results, target every second square.
-
Are units suppressed by shots hitting neighbouring action squares?
If you want to suppress a whole hedgerow, 20 squares long, do you need to target each of those squares individually at the same time?
-
Unless the scenario file itself is updated then the error will remain forevermore.
It seems this is the cause then.
-
I just played the Deville mission, and had some frustrations trying to enter two adjoined barn buildings. While trying to enter the one that did have a barn door, the troops refused to enter the door, but ran around to the other side, into enemy fire.
Then later I found out that if I ordered them to enter the other barn, without any visible entrance, the troops would simply run through a brick wall and enter the building just fine.
I know that CMBN is pretty old by now, so just curious if these small but frankly infuriating bugs have been ironed out in the sequels ?
-
It seems a limitation of the current code. I'm sure that Battlefront could fix it if they wanted to, but it seems they have other priorities ..
I thought about some examples of how the ability to re-man the gun could be exploited by the player, but after thinking some more, I wasn't sure if it was really "exploiting", or "being clever".
-
Just like in real life.
Looks like Dilbert had a grandfather or two fighting in Normandy
-
Just a thing to remember: If they start the blast order sitting up against the hedge, they will blast that spot before moving to the end of the blast order orange line. If they start just one action square away, they will blast the first object they encounter along the orange line.
I had them blow up a haystack once, while their friends were under fire and desperately waiting for the hedge to be blown
Some cursing is inevitable while dealing with engineers... -
I think it's a valid point that the enemy tanks should not turn around in the middle of the battle simply because the scenario designer assumed that they would be reversing, not turning... it seems this detail slipped through scenario gameplay testing.
-
But it hasn't been like that for a long time, its only in Red Thunder with Russian Pltn hqs, please give me another example.
I started a thread about it some time ago: http://battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=110231
-
It's no excuse that it's been like that for a long time.. for a game that does such a great job at realism, it's a bit silly that you can call in artillery just by yelling really loud at the sky
-
My Vet company commander team's tank gets immobilized I want them to evict a lower ranked or lower rated tank team: 'Get out. We're taking over'. Surely not an uncommon event. On the other hand, didn't the command vehicle have more elaborate communication equipment?
I guess they could do it if they had higher rank.. but in reality, people don't wear badges saying "I'm green", "I'm regular", "I'm a veteran".
So unless the entire company knew each other really well personally, how would they know they were not trying to take over a tank crewed by better guys than themselves?
Also, unless you're really fanatic, you would probably prefer to lay low a bit after your tank is blown up and you barely make it out alive.
So, yes, it's the "god hand of the all-seeing player" who wants each soldier to be fighting like Rambo. The soldiers shouldn't necessarily agree.
-
Ok, all the witty stuff has already been said - I guess it's time to stop beating a dead horse
Seriously though, I remember playing an old game called Close Combat (like Combat Mission but in top-down 2D), and it had dead cows lying around in the fields, killed by shellfire. I liked small details like that, gave you an idea of the bigger war raging around your isolated mission.. really helped with the immersion.
-
Hmm, memories. About 30-35 years ago I was watching some WWII movie set in the ETO with my Dad (well, I was watching, he was mostly napping) and the typical all-American dogface squad was performing something akin to walking fire toward a German position. I asked him if he ever did anything like that (he was a BAR gunner/27 Div/PTO), 'cause it seemed both dangerous and fairly stupid. "Ehhh, once or twice, when we were pretty sure there were no Japs* around."
I don't know if he was BS-ing me or what.
*sorry, he was not a big fan of the Japanese
Thanks for asking straight at the source (although indirectly!). After reading more about the maneuver, it does seem like something dreamt up from behind a desk far behind the front lines...
Can't help but laugh thinking about your father snoozing at the cinema, that war movie must have seemed a thin cup of tea compared to being there himself
-
There was a Discussion about bunkers. Crew Fighting when leaving them or the Front Slit Discussion. What has changed?
Inquiring minds want to know
Myself being one of the curious ones. -
Thanks for reading the AARs and I'm glad you are getting something out of them.
Thanks for providing them. I'm also enjoying your "tactical problems", even though I'm no beginner any more, I find them useful. Will be watching for new ones.
-
Thanks for your thoughts, as always. I might do some tests with this later.
-
Sorry to be that guy who just won't shut up
But I was reading about the Browning Automatic Rifle on Wikipedia, and it says something about a doctrine of "walking fire" - allowing the gunner and his squad to advance towards an enemy position while firing at a steady rate to keep the enemy down. Basically a 1-team fire and maneuver.Is this something I can do in the game, and if so, what's the best way to go about it?
My guess is it would ideally work something like this:
1: Suppress from cover
2: Issue a walking move order towards the enemy position, while keeping a fire order on that spot
3: Watch as your BAR-team casually walks up to the suppressed squad and kills them all.
A Lesson in Using Mortars: spotting IS important
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
To be honest it sounds like a problem that's been discussed here before.. barrage wildly off tagert even after spotting rounds etc. People seem unsure if it's a bug or working as designed. I'm personally with the first group.