Jump to content

H1nd

Members
  • Content Count

    280
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

H1nd last won the day on January 13 2015

H1nd had the most liked content!

About H1nd

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 11/28/1987

Converted

  • Location
    Finland

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I would like to experiment a bit so bear with me. First of all I would like to play a really huge QB with a large map cropped from mastermap. For the starters I am proposing a map cropped from the excellent stoumont mastermap with the terrain around La Gleize as the battlefield. It is a large and heavy map so only people with good hardware are wanted here (sorry!). Next experimental bit: I have always found the QB point limits very restrictive, especially for the defender. There is just so little points to go around that you can't really sacrifice any for field fortifications which I
  2. I am actually quite at loss on which version to play at this point for least broken gameplay. Previous version made singleplayer pretty much easymode, all you had to do was send a few rounds at the enemy and they would run away to some hidey-hole and the MP was such a huge forced pause-panic control micromanagement hell that I am not looking forward going back to the 4.00 version. To remember how things were before that, one needs to start remembering stuff from over three years past.. and then there is the fact that If my memory serves, we had to pay for engine 4 upgrades for CMBN. At this po
  3. At this point I am quite baffled how this could get through the testing. This issue with troops charging towards enemies when evading is very obvious from simply just playing the game as you normally do. I have been trying out the revised road to montebourg campaign and aside from first mission I have seen this issue come up in all scenarios regularly during normal gameplay. It is just plain and simply broken. Not as badly as it may have been before but broken nevertheless. For H2H games it seems that the remedy is once again using the pause command (exploit?) to stop troops from fleeing. But
  4. From quite a lot of experience on messing around with fortifications (I think i may have some sort of dug in troops fixation) I am pretty sure that the troops do need to be actually inside the foxholes to get the cover bonus. Most casualties seem to occur on men left outside the foxholes or moving out of the foxholes on their own so I am pretty sure it is important to try to get the men actually in to the foxholes to give them any extra cover. What is happening in the picture: I would say that the road bank is overriding the foxholes as preferred position for the men. Much like the already me
  5. preregistered target points are also very good tool to mitigate artillery call times and from my understanding are part of eastern military doctrine in both attack and defence. If possible you should plan your attack with preplanned turn one artillery fires and also use additional pre registered targets in key terrain features along the planned axis of attack so that you can call in artillery where needed in matter of minutes. The emphasis is methodically planning your offensive action and trying to anticipate enemy counter moves and defensive strategy.
  6. Hmmh you might be right. Usually I just crop down some maps or pre existing scenarios for custom multiplayer QBs, but I think I have also used master maps and some of my own maps without AI plans in same way. I remember that I have ran into some problems before with this, but I think that was due to QB map being set as ME when I was selecting attack in QB menu and thus it did not show up as selectable map. Which is in fact one thing to remember: you need to make QB version for each battle type that you intend to use the map with: One map for assault, one for attk, one for probe etc...
  7. All tho you can naturally use your map in h2h multiplayer QB without AI plans but terrain objectives are recommended there as well :>
  8. Well somebody is a real pleasant fellow. Yes is is true that I might have missed the point a bit since yes english is indeed not my native language and also because every time there is a talk on the forum about infantry engineers breaching minefields, wich you definitely can not do in CM games, since marking is not breaching in sense of clearing a mineless lane through the damn thing, there is immediately somebody popping up with the "Its not in scope of CM something something.." like literally every freaking time. Whole discussion on whether it might be reasonable to add the ability for engin
  9. Funny how this was major part of all the training we did in FDF Combat engineers, to get through minefields, in combat, in matter of couple of minutes. But yeah.. totally not in scope of Combat Mission. And we did not even have any fancy vehicles to do that...
  10. ooo the master maps in CMFB are sooooo goood. Was the Noville one of yours? In any case they are all really fantastic. I have been thinking about finding an opponent to play some "for fun" mini campaign series of QBs in them. The Noville map for example can easily support series of 6+ medium sized quick battles I think. All in all yeah.. making big maps is a real pain in the back, especially if you are bit of OCD perfectionist like me.
  11. In CMBS especially I envision some nice scenarios involving breaching a minefield under fire with mine plows and rollers and have the mech infantry come pouring through the breach while arty and fire support hammer down on the enemy.
  12. Yeah, I have been about at this before as well. Personally i'm content if we just could get the mine clearing vehicles in the games at some point like the functional sherman crab in CMBN.
  13. Well I am a trained combat engineer and a reserve officer. When it comes to breaching minefield to keep the assault going I do have a plenty of training. But it all really comes down to the specifics of the task. One can't simply state that demining is out of scope of CM. What do you guys really mean by that? Demining, mine removal, minefield breaching.. what ever you want to call it takes time proportional to the size of the task. Just like anything else. You need to clear a path through simple hastily laid AT-minefield with no AP-mines, minefield is 50 meters deep, has probably mines in abou
  14. I am still strongly disagreeing on this one. Finding the mines (marking them) is the most time consuming part of real life demining. Just a small block of tnt with a time fuze can take care of most at-mines once found. Any self respecting combat engineer squad should always have them on hand when supporting a advance. You can also just manually move the mines away from the way of vehicles once they are located but better use rope and hook in case they are booby trapped.
×
×
  • Create New...