Pewpewchewchew
-
Posts
35 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Pewpewchewchew
-
-
Is that Battledrill blog still being updated? Looks as if nothing has been changed for quite some time.
-
One big "lump" I think some people run into is accepting that losses will occur. Don't qive up the when your initial force runs into the enemy and takes a few hits or even routs. Sometimes that drive for a perfect match bogs you down in the idea that an expert player won't lose anything during the match.
-
I think they'd have to drastically revamp the infantry combat for it to work. IMO close combat isn't something the CM engine handles very well. For the jungle terrain, they'd have to really tie down the abstractions to what the players see or else it'd be really frustrating advancing forwards. Aside from that, the infantry would also need to have a very good tactical AI that uses rugged terrain and suspected enemy locations to a much greater degree.
-
Very nicely put together, can we get an overhead shot of the map?
-
Noticed This in CMBN, same problem of sorts.
-
I find using short 10-20m quick commands with long 20-30 second pauses seem to work nicely. I find that in these areas the main thing is spotting the enemy,with a long pause I find my troops spotting enemies farther than grenade range with really saves on casualties.
-
"Transparency" "acknowledgement" "petty" "pretentious" "intuitive". Sounds like a modern political speech. Are you running for office? You know lots of buzzwords.
BFC is under no obligation to explain their business decisions to you, me, or anyone. They will do what they think is best for the continued growth and prosperity of their business.
Many of us here have been trying to tell BFC what to do/explain themselves since the late 1990s. Good luck.
Doug, I'm using words that communicate my thoughts in a concise way. I feel like those words give the impression I want to communicate and I don't feel as though they are either complex or vague in their meaning. I agree with you that Battlefront is under no obligation. I've said multiple times in my post that I'd like to hear them. Furthermore I've already acknowledged their right and said that I'd like to see a response even if it is just to decline speaking and explaining.
Rather than examining my diction, or restating something I already recognize please contribute something like Vanir or Ian that adds to the discussion.
-
I'd really like to hear Battlefront's 2014 take at this, either their reasoning or at least a statement declining or listing why they can't say for transparency and acknowledgement. I think that would close up the steam discussion here in a prompt way that's also intuitive.
Currently, I think that the discussion on Steam's cons and its community is a tad petty and pretentious. At the end of the day, that discussion takes a very exclusive stance on the topic of video games, something that really shouldn't be fought over or even taken that seriously. In light of that discussion, I think that it'd be better to have a presence and invite anyone who wants to participate rather than shun "kids". Arguably, war games give younger audiences more of an educational, or rather functional means of entertainment over traditional games. I mean war games do incorporate a good deal of history, and critical thinking.
More interestingly, I'd like to see Battlefront take advantage of other online sites like namely GoG and Kickstarter programs. If they have the corporate rights and all that, I'd like to see the other CMx1 games on GoG and some of the older games like Shock Force on there as well. Speaking of Kick-starter, I think it'd be a nice way for Battlefront to measure what the community wants and also a means to fund, create and maybe contract some projects that may not be feasible otherwise. Namely, the DCS community managed to fund two modules, a WWII one and a Mig 21 module.
-
I personally like the SU-76 a lot. It's not the best "tank" in any means for for the amount that you can bring its definitely something.
-
I saw CMBO on GoG.com under the related games there. It looked pretty fun albeit dated for 2009/2010.
-
Firstly try reconnaissance by fire. There's really no need for stealth at the point of a village assault. That was one really big problem I had some time ago. Secondly, Check if you have any demo charges. I think in that campaign you get a platoon of pioneers as a core unit. If there are troops holed up in buildings with at least a side without windows I'd just blast in there, pinning and kill the most of not all at once. Thirdly, in general it'd be better to just force the enemy out of the buildings and kill them outside. Try to "isolate" buildings with your troop's line of slight. For example, if you find a building complex full of enemies try to surround every angle of the building so that once the troops bug out, they get cut down in the streets.
-
-
In CMFI happens the same. I remember playing quick battles in cities and most of units were located outside the buildings.
I just did a quick test on this. The AI seems to be doing to same thing to a lesser extent. The AI did garrison about a platoon in some buildings however the vast majority was not. I don't recall this happening in CMFI in the eariler patches however.
-
I've been trying to pick out a few QB battles to play and I've noticed that the AI appears to love forested tiles to the extent of avoiding objectives and buildings. After a few trials on village and town maps I thought that this might just be an issue with these maps with clustered buildings, however this applies to cities too. In the attached screenshot, you'll find that the battalion of Russian defending infantry has exactly zero formations inside buildings, they seem to prefer the little shrubs and even to open terrain.
That screen shot was made on the Attack setting, with Germany Attacking with a single spotter unit and a battalion of Russian infantry. The map is picked out by me, it is the second small city map on the list. The time and weather is set to random and rarity on none. Both sides had preview option on infantry only.
-
If you have a strong CPU, I would go with Bandaicam. FRAPS, DXstory, and a whole lot of them are loss less recorders which spares no expense in quality at the expense of HDD usage. Video encoding from loss less video will take at the very least an hour and a half for about 30 minutes of video for internet quality at least. Then you'd have to spend the time uploading. With Bandaicam, it'll encode as it goes, the quality isn't as great however it doesn't really make a difference for internet video.
-
On the offense, I'd would go heavy on engineers and demo charge armed "breach teams". Sadly IMO, the way close assaults are done are just terrible. The best way I've seem a building taken is to just use suppressive fire on anything you see and demo charges to smoke out buildings with few windows.
-
Which makes alot of sense really...
Right but this is in ranges short of 100m, the sounds and flashes would be enough to draw attention.
-
- Spoiler Alert -
I'm playing the Angriff scenario, and I just can't seem to take out this tank protecting the Repair Shop objective. The other enemy tank in the picture seems to have lost it's main gun. The one I'm trying to knock out is hidden behind some trees and bushes. The far group of tanks can't spot that tank either due to the foliage or something. Anyway, even with friendly tanks being knocked out ,they still can't find that tank despite the sounds it's making or the muzzle flashes. The PZIV flanking moves up but it can't spot the tank either until it reaches the location of it's death.
I could try sending tanks around the edge coming from the direct that the main gun less tank is facing, though from experience the same thing would happen, my tank will always spot the tank less an a few meters away while the enemy tank already has a lead on turning its gun.
-
Also don't forget they do have the ability to step in and support a platoon in the event the platoon HQ is lost. They just have to be in audible range, That means you are either using that platoon in reserve or your company HQ is getting close to the firing line. The company HQ primary function is to coordinate the assets to allow the platoon elements to fight the battle. Use them to call in arty support from a nice safe distance so your platoon HQs units can stay in proximity to their squads to keep them in the fight.
Putting your company HQs together is just asking to have an arty strike decapitate two companies. Let them coordinate through BN like they are supposed to.
In theory, what could be done with two independent companies then? Would it work if you put some of the supporting units from the two groups next to each other, in audio range of one another and an HQ relaying information? So then one HQ in the first company can relay information to the squad, which then relays it to the squad in the other company, that squad passes it into it's command structure.
-
With the coming of Red Thunder I feel like information sharing is more vital than ever considering the tank spotting changes and soviet morale. I've tried searching for these answers but most of what comes up is either vague or from the CMx1 engine or the line of modern games.
1. Information is shared by both location and command, correct?
2. When information is passed through command, how does it flow up and down the ladder? I'm under the impression that it goes all the way to the top then is sent back down. So if this is the case then how does the game handle multiple battalions in QB or cut-off companies in an battalion. Does any information sharing come about when say I combine a battalion of tanks and an infantry battalion in QB?
3. Similarly, if the battalion HQ is killed, do all of the companies under it stop communicating with each other even when the company HQs are in range of one another?
4. Can information be relayed from squad to squad to squad rather than HQs? In theory if I span the width of a map with infantry, could spotting information be carried from one end to another without any command links, just infantry squads adjacent to one another?
Edit:
5. More so about C2, I see conflicting answers about what the green lights mean for C2 links. If a squad shows that the C2 link for company and battalion is green but not for platoon then that would mean that the squad is connected to company and above but not the platoon HQ correct? Or does it say that the platoon HQ is in C2 with company and battalion and therefore the squad is out of the loop with everything due to it's lack of connection with platoon HQ?
-
Buy flame throwers, replace crews with flame throwers, charge positions.
-
With RT coming out soon, I think it'd be good to pick from a front you like most. Personally I play the combat mission for it's infantry, with that said I enjoy Battle for Normandy the best. I find that the Bocage battles are decently easy against the AI, they're fast paced and well adjusted.
-
Soviet Storm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A6UWkK2U4s
I think this person has all the episodes on Youtube. I used to watch the series while doing cardio. I found it really objective and it wasn't so much interviewing historians and such but a narrative which is nice.
-
We'll we can scale down the time to 45 minutes or 30 minutes depending on preference, though the time frame for finishing a match needs to stay the same. I can't really drag this thing out for too long.
Non-gameplay improvements to CM
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
It'd be nice to see the ability to make preselected forces for quick battles. Going one step further, it'd be really cool to let the AI use these force selections from the player's pool. Going even further, being able to set different filters such as battle size, map type, rarity, attack versus defending role, would be extremely neat especially if the AI recognizes and uses those settings accordingly.