Jump to content

domfluff

Members
  • Posts

    1,765
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

Everything posted by domfluff

  1. Oh, and somewhere in there the CMSF 2 UK, Dutch and Canadian campaigns will presumably be released as well.
  2. "Very close" is the most recent word, from within the last week. The sequence of events will be: Engine 4 patches CMFI Module CMRT Module That's all the current information, but there's no suggestion that work on them has been stopped, quite the reverse.
  3. Sometimes it's also useful to use it when dismounting ifvs. The squad will debus, one team will hang around the vehicle, and the other will run off to cover, which is far faster than you can do manually (unless you pause accurately enough to manage this at end of turn, but that's piling on even more micro, and some more failure states as well).
  4. The issue with that, is that if you're assaulting into the objective with a short bound, you'll have a half the squad providing cover, whilst the other moves up into grenade range. That part is fine, but then the support-by fire squad is going to follow them, regardless if that is a good idea or not. If the assaulting element gets wiped out, then the supporting element is going to charge directly into the same fire, and you'll likely lose the squad. That's partly what I mean by unpredictable - you're setting up the pieces and rolling the dice. You might get away with it, or indeed in some situations (with sufficient security) it might actually be the best option, since you'll be able to get the whole squad across in under a minute, without relying on estimating travel times and putting in the correct pauses, but it's risky. As I said, I do use the order. It's rarely in scenarios where the move is the actual focal point, but as a way to automate bounding overwatch easily, it's not awful.
  5. Although I do use Assault (and Hull Down, which wasn't mentioned in the vehicle stuff above), the main issue is the lack of control - you can't determine precisely where your teams are going to stop, or how fast they're going to advance. Sometimes, that's fine. Over short distances, from cover, etc. it can be as good or sometimes even better than doing it manually - the advantage over the manual method can be speed, since the one-minute turns can limit your impulses. The main advantage though is decreasing the cognitive load. That's no bad thing for Combat Mission - it's already a game that asks a lot from you as a player, so having tools to help can be helpful sometimes. It remains the case though that Assault is usually inferior than planning the moves by hand.
  6. Pretty smart. The basic rule is that speed trades for security - the slower you are, the more likely you are to fire. Slow - This is going to be a crawl. Being prone, there will be less that the pixeltruppen can see, and it's tiring, but they'll be harder to spot in return. Hunt - This is tiring, but the pixeltruppen will stop if they receive contact. Ideal for moving in close terrain, worse if moving in the open. Move - This is the only Move order that will recover fatigue - all others will worsen it. On being shot they will Quick move to the next action spot. If they spot the enemy, they're likely to fire back - Move orders have a decent chance of spotting the enemy, but not as good as being stationary. Quick - This is a good default move for when contact is made. They'll usually try to complete the move before firing, but they will fire on a target sometimes. Fast - This is the move to use if you need to prioritise movement. Dashing across a street, running away from indirect fire, etc. They will prioritise movement above shooting. Assault - This automates bounding overwatch, in a way that's a little hard to anticipate or control. The squad splits as per the "Split Squads" command, one element Fast-moves and the other remains stationary, leap-frogging to the target. It's generally better to do this yourself, but I do make use of it. In terms of automated "react to contact" - if they cannot spot the enemy, and have no contact markers, they won't know where the enemy fire is coming from. From their perspective, if they can't see the enemy, and just know they're being fired at, then what they do will depend on their move orders. Under Hunt orders, this will result in them stopping in place. Move orders will convert to Quick, and Quick and Fast orders will remain the same. If the incoming fire builds up too much, then they may remain pinned in place, or later retreat to nearby cover. Where they retreat will depend on contact markers as well - the Tac AI is good at finding a spot out of LOS, but not in understanding context. This can lead to a squad suicidally running in the "wrong" direction, since it didn't know that the enemy were there, or that the route they chose to take in panic would take them through the line of fire of something worse. So a number of things will happen all at once, when in contact, and it can be difficult to parse precise behaviour. This is why it's important to split squads and provide adequate support - if you're fired on unexpectedly, the targeted element probably won't be able to defend itself effectively, so it'll be up to the other elements or squads to bring the situation under control, giving the first element the time and space to recover.
  7. Now, I think I have observed armour and infantry facing towards known spotting markers by themselves. If that's accurate, then that's quite right - it'll speed up spotting and also reaction times when shot (since shooting is faster then turning + shooting).
  8. Ah yes, thank you - the work that MOS:96B2P did on that is invaluable, but it only concerns how the information is shared, and not the consequence of that. Now, it's "reasonable" to assume that the shared contact information helps in subsequent spotting, but there are lots of other counter-intuitive mechanics in CM (like leadership not spreading to subordinates, or fatigue not affecting accuracy), so it would be good to have something vaguely quantifiable as to whether this is actually the result, and how much it helps. To quote the above thread: The AI can't shoot at tentative contacts but it can generally acquire a confirmed contact quicker if it has a tentative contact to begin with. (This is my opinion from playing the game I have not experimented with it.)
  9. Sure, but without any contact markers or spots to react to - what else are they going to do? They have nothing to fire at, and haven't had enough incoming fire to either go to ground (the next response), or run away out of LOS (and won't know where to run to, since they don't know what's firing at them). If they get fired at whilst Move-ing by an enemy they can actually see, they'll have a chance of returning fire, rather than running around blind. Typically, the element that makes contact will be the last to figure that out though.
  10. Units in C2 (or just nearby) can share information in the form of spotting markers. There's been an assumption that being given a spotting marker for a unit that you haven't seen yet (e.g, a scout unit passing the location of an enemy AT gun to a friendly tank), allows you to spot that unit faster. Does it? How much? I've tried setting up some tests for this, but haven't gotten very far in proving this so far, and I'd be interested in some theories for how best to go about testing this.
  11. Another couple of points on US MGs - US Armoured infantry, would typically have a pair of them, as "one squad", but designed to operate in two teams, alongside a 60mm mortars. This is pushing down assets to the platoon level that would be on the Company level for mainline rifle platoons (although perhaps assigned to them in practice), since presumably armoured infantry need a degree of independence. With the way C2 and information sharing works, assuming that there's a game effect to sharing spotting markers (which is not actually clear, but is a reasonable assumption), then a pair of MGs from the same platoon as the infantry will work better with each other, and the platoon in general. Further, static, tripod-mounted MMGs and HMGs are never going to work terribly well in bocage, even if they were standing up. The GPMG concept that the MG 34/42 pioneered has massive advantages in flexibility (although compromises in weight of weapon system, and weight of ammunition that the rest of the squad can carry). US troops can have a rough time in bocage because of this - the BAR isn't really an LMG, and although the Garands can put out a lot more firepower than bolt action rifles at close ranges, it's often not as much as an MG42 or two in practice.
  12. The other advantage to "Move" in general is that all of the movement options exchange speed for spotting ability - "Move" is useful if you want to keep an eye on things, but also need to make progress (again, rifle platoons are designed for manoeuvre).
  13. Yeah, it's just about fatigue. Fatigue doesn't seem to have much or any game effect aside from moving (counter-intuitively), but it definitely limits how fast you can move, which in practice means "how fast you can get away from the thing killing you", so I often find it more useful to "Move". Not in all situations, of course - "Quick" or "Fast" is useful for covering short periods of open ground, like streets. "Slow" is great for sneaking up, or for cresting hills. "Hunt" is mandatory for expected contact in close terrain, e.g., in woods. They are lower to the ground, that will cause issues. CM works on pre-calculated elevation levels to determine LOS with the Target tool (which is why it works instantaneously - there's a pre-calculated LOS grid that's drawn when the map is created), and "crawling" is one level below standing. US HMGs are probably considered "prone". That won't necessarily mean that the gunners can't see - Line of Fire calculation are done from the actual model. That's why a squad might sometimes have no Target line available, but some or all of the squad might still be firing at the target. True, but I think it's a little more subtle than that - Moving troops will Quick or Fast move to the next spot if they come under fire, and don't have any contact markers - i.e., "something shot at us, but we don't know who, where or what". Default behaviour then is to follow previous orders, which seems pretty plausible to me. If the Move commands are short, and especially into cover, then it's not normally a death trap. Obviously, as above, there are scenarios were Hunt, Quick or whatever are more appropriate, but I do think it's a useful default, even along routes which are not cleared.
  14. Randomness is often expressed as something unwanted in strategy games, but I'm usually of the opinion that this is completely wrong - randomness done properly can add realism and depth, whether this is a die roll, card draw or RNG. My usual example is this: a real-world platoon leader will receive their orders, and have trained with battle drills and so forth to carry out their mission. They can make long-term plans, with multiple objectives. Nevertheless, in practice they'll crest a hill and suddenly everything will go to hell - they'll frequently need to frantically *remake* those long-term plans in the face of the unexpected (hidden MGs, inaccurate maps, minefields, indirect fire, a horde of angry sheep) So, I think randomness adds realism and difficulty to the whole thing, rather than being a negative. It can cause frustration ("why can that suppressed AT gun kill my Panther"), but that's no different from reality really.
  15. Oh, quite so. The soft factors in the above scenario are set to Regular (there's nothing unusual about them), and although the first team goes to ground pretty quickly, the squad as a whole can recover the situation and gain control. Part of the reason for splitting squads is that the immediate effect of suppression is worse than the effect that spreads between units, so having your lead element panicking or cowering doesn't mean that the majority of your squad is, and if they are properly deployed then they can give the lead element the protection and time it needs to recover from the initial shock and start controlling the fight. Green troops would require more hand-holding, of course - there are limits to how much you can expect from them, and I typically (especially with CMSF Uncons or reservists) assume that a green or conscript unit can deal with one goal, maximum, rather than setting goals and follow-on targets.
  16. It would be nice, but I can understand why they wouldn't. The two modern games cover the two tactical extremes pretty well - symmetric and asymmetric warfare. CMSF is a reasonable stand-in for Iraq, Afghanistan, the Syrian civil war, etc. etc., and CMBS will pick up most symmetric scenarios, including the war in the Ukraine. There's also a consideration about the number of games that Battlefront can support, or that we're happy to pay for. Would a 1985 game add more to the line than a 1943 North African one? What if you had to choose? Opinions will differ, of course. I do think a 1985 (or 1979) game would be interesting, and quite distinct from CMBS. I'm not so certain that it's better than any of the other options for CM titles.
  17. That's actually not what I've found in general. Indirect fire is definitely the better option, but it's not actually mandatory. Out of curiosity last night, I made up a version of Bil's scenario, replacing the HQ team with a proper MG42 HMG, on a tripod mount, with decent siting, in cover and in foxholes. Clearly that scenario was just made significantly harder, but it was far from impossible - I'd typically take a total of two casualties, but the same principle of suppression and fire and movement worked fine. There was a little more variance - there was one run where the squad had no idea where incoming fire was coming from, so they milled around in a blind panic instead - but the most common result was one or sometimes two losses. This is a lot more than the zero or sometimes one that the base scenario typically offered. Now, that position is not 100% in the HMGs favour. They're out of C2, have no flank security, and they're at much closer ranges than the HMG could operate (i.e., they are within decent rifle distance), but I think the point holds that a single rifle squad is more than capable of dealing with a lone HMG position, and maintaining combat effectiveness to continue with the mission (there's a fair amount of time pressure in that scenario, since you need to get on with the main task). Tempted to make a video of this. * You're quite right about the German squads being more flexible though - they do suffer for the extra ammunition the pixeltruppen carry, but a GPMG is a powerful thing. Whether volume of fire or accuracy is more important for suppression is an open question though - certainly a Commonwealth rifle squad have the tools to put out more accurate fire than a German one, who blow them away on volume. Honestly I think it might be something of a wash - if the MG gunner is cowering, that's the vast majority of the squad's firepower suppressed in one go, which is certainly not the case for a US squad.
  18. There's a fair chunk of randomness in CM, so you can produce unexpected results. I was testing the effects of C2 on suppression, with two identical Syrian squads a couple of hundred metres apart on ridge lines, one of which was in C2 to a platoon leader. The results were encouraging - both squads suppressed each other fairly symmetrically, but one recovered a lot faster, winning the overall firefight. ...except for one test, where the out-of C2 squad was mostly dead or cowering, except for one chap with delusions of grandeur. That soldier managed to kill pretty much the entire enemy squad by himself, and survived without a scratch.
  19. Bil is (obviously) accurate that the correct attack procedure for a US Rifle squad in this scenario would be Fire and Movement. The reasoning behind that is that the US squad lacks an effective LMG, so the burden of suppression falls to the rifles instead. Fortunately, those rifles are M1 Garands... That means that the situation will be that the lead squad will be cowering or panicking, without spotting markers or other information. The other two teams will be area-firing on the known HMG position, giving the lead team the chance to recover, and join in the suppression. Then, a team will dash forwards a few action spots, ideally into cover, with a Fast order, whilst the other two teams are keeping up the volume of fire. This Fast order should have a Target order on the end of it, so that the advancing team can add to the fire when they finish moving. When this team is sited, another team will move forwards. Small arms are more effective the closer you get, so the end result is a mounting volume of fire on the target, ending when a team is about 30m away, and can start throwing grenades to clear out the target. Once you've cleared the target, you usually want to attack *through* the location, which will allow you to provide some security, or to pick up any stragglers that have retreated from the spot, and might have something nasty like grenades or an smg. If this were a Commonwealth squad, you'd divide instead into a base of fire, and a manoeuvre element. The base of fire would be a three man Bren team, usually supplemented by the platoon leader's two inch mortar. This LMG team would keep up the fire continuously until the assault element arrives at the target. Symmetric fireteams (Panzergrenadiers, Stg.44 or SMG squads) can do either, situation depending. Each move involves risk, so a frontal "fire and movement" assault can accept more risk than the "fire and manoeuvre" of a static firing element and a flanking team.
  20. @Erwin ? I know you organised collections of everything - is it possible you have: CMTP-INF001-Infantry Squad Attack.btt CMTP-ARM001-Tank Section Attack.btt Knocking around for CMBN?
  21. Also, worth pointing out that CMFI "2.0" is "Engine 4", I believe. Just to confuse you.
  22. It never occurred to me to check, but the previous CMFI module Gustav Line has this: "A licensed version of Combat Mission Fortress Italy Base Game is required for Gustav Line. It is recommended you have Game Engine 4 installed, however Gustav Line will work with Engine 3. No other Modules or Packs are required." Gustav line was released when Engine 3 was valid, so it's very likely that the new module will require Engine 4 when it is released - I would imagine that the AI plans in the scenarios will take advantage of the engine 4 tools, for example.
  23. The inevitable comment will be about truly worst-case scenarios - what to do when your squad is under fire from multiple HMGs, pinned down in the open and generally having a miserable day. To quote Prachett's General Tacticus - "How to Ensure against Defeat when Out-numbered, Out-weaponed and Out-positioned" "Don't have a battle" You need to put a lot of work into avoiding these situations before you get into them, and have a plan for extricating yourself once you are. Sometimes, it all just goes wrong. Some combination of smoke and running away might help, but if you're in a no-win situation, by definition you'll have limited available options.
  24. Your platoon or company MGs aren't going to be much use deploying under fire. You can do it, but it's not ideal. MGs serve a number of purposes (and there's a lot of subtlety in their use), but one obvious one is that they can move to hold ground that a rifle squad has recently taken, freeing up the squad for a future task. Rifle platoons are designed for manoeuvre. Bil used to have a good tactical exercise here, with a Squad Attack: http://battledrill.blogspot.com/2013/09/infantry-tactical-problem-001-squad.html This file (and the armour one) is no longer available - if anyone has a copy, I'd appreciate it - but it involves a squad on the march and allows you to practice all of this quite effectively.
×
×
  • Create New...