Jump to content

mbarbaric

Members
  • Posts

    178
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mbarbaric

  1. soviet training missions are great way to understand how they operate. Reading the briefing is one thing, but seeing it unfold (if executed well) is real eye opener. i was used to ww2 titles and only western front which always used limited artillery. however, in soviet doctrine, artillery is absolutely crucial and used in ungodly amounts compared to anything I've experienced previously (i'd say, soviets use the arty as it should be used).

    the downside (from gameplay perspective) is inherent need to fire from all vehicles during the advance. This is very laburous if you have whole batallion of troops but also crucial to success as you need all that firepower to allow for relatively quick attack. 

     

  2. 42 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

    From the American side they saw the battlefield as presenting them with a 'target rich' environment. The Soviets looked at the same battlefield and saw overwhelming offensive firepower deployed. Sure, you've got a dozen enemy tanks in front of you like a shooting gallery but they're all shooting back - at you!

    I am baffled how much stick soviets get for their approach. I appreciate it even more now that I've learned more and saw how the all combined arms fit together. although, soviets really miss helicopters in  this game. hope new engine reslves air units.

  3. Whoever tried Soviet training missions from scenarios knows how potent that can be if well executed (well, under ideal circumstances). Here's a short US Army educational video on  Soviet Breakthrough tactics.

    I am sure there is some guy in the US Army Education branch slapping his forehead thinking "I wish I had Combat Mission Cold War" 4 decades ago.

     

     

    Side question. This video, nor Soviet training scenarios, mention it but hear me out:

    The Infantry company follows behind the tanks and shouldn't deploy if not forced. However, once they have to deploy to take over some key terrain, is the second wave supposed to wait or they just run over positions the first company is attacking? To complicate further, infantry company is expected to lose some vehicles so how do they follow the advance? When is the batallion supposed to reorganize?

  4. russian artillery is really the key. It might be hard for people who only played WW2 titles, but now you finally get more than enough of artilery. So, really use it on highest firerate and maximum length you will still have 15 minutes of continuous downpour. Just make sure to have good observation spot and roll and adjust that artillery around the battlefield like it is fishing pole in a pond. It does wonders.

  5. 6 minutes ago, KungFuTreachery said:

    I'm having some trouble seeing how to properly execute Soviet deliberate attacks in the CM engine - doctrinally the tanks are supposed to lead the advance with the infantry behind, but it seems to me like this will generally just get the tanks killed. My normal habit in CM has been for infantry to screen the tanks.

    I am also not clear on this. My understanding is that about 300-400m from the objective, the infantry dismounts their trollies and procedes providing close support for tanks on foot. Their vehicles remain behind laying area fire on known, or asusmed, enemy positions. The training missions offer really nice playground to see that in action. It is quite a sight having a tank company supported with mechanized infantry running down the hill with the artillery barrage in the distance and smoke on the flanks.

  6. 19 minutes ago, RockinHarry said:

    Exactly! Another keyword is simplicity. That map overlay just needs the prominent terrain features. No multi color this and that and overload with unnecessary info. Sort of sketch map, black and white (or black on grey to make it more eye friendly). I personally don´t even need victory locations and their values shown. Prefer figuring out "important" terrain for given mission myself. That´s part of the challenge and mission designers IMO should avoid giving a player too much of a prescribed play path. This also allows for much greater flexibility in setting up a mission in general.

    Battlefront should create a tool that automatically reads the terrain from the map and creates a simplified sketch-up of key terrain, hamlets, woods, roads, hills, valleys... :D 

  7. 10 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

    yep, didn´t mean I won´t appreciate any the extra (setting the mood) and maybe interesting historical info. I find the CM briefing screen layout is just not well suited for the overall tasks. Also considering with high screen resolutions all the text is not fun to read through with small fonts. I´d wish for more flexibility here. One screen just for text (scaleable) and other screens just for maps and graphics (making full use of set screen resolutions). But that´s a topic for many the wishlist threads.

    love your improvement ideas. I'd like to add another one, though.

    When I am in the mission, scouting terrain (especially in CW with many beautifully huge maps) I can't count how many times I wished I had topographic overlay. How much easier would be to read possible routs of advance, defensive positions, covered approaches...  Really wish it would be standard to add a topographic map either in the briefing, or even better, as an overlay on the terrain that can be toggled on and off.

  8. yesterday I watched US training video about T64/72 and how US are supposed to deal with it. As some in this thread already mentioned, the video said the commander is buttoned down due to chemical threat. so that is that I guess. Will link the video if I can find it again.

     

    found the video, quality is quite poor but it is interesting.

     

  9. 1 minute ago, IICptMillerII said:

    You’re wrong. And being antagonistic does not help anyone or anything, especially yourself. 
     

    The LOD issues are being addressed in the first patch. In fact, I believe as of right now most of them are fixed. 
     

    The reason the game shipped with them is because, for techno wizardry reasons I will never understand, when the final release candidate was built, something caused some LODs to get a little wonky. We figured that it was not worth delaying the release of a game for a minor graphical issue that has no effect on gameplay, and only occurs on certain models and in lower graphics settings. 
     

    I think we made the right call. The response to Cold War has been overwhelmingly positive. And I think BFC hitting a release target has been very positive as well. Further, most feedback on bugs has been very polite and professional, and I think we have done a good job of responding and addressing these issues. A patch is being worked on as we speak that will fix these issues, and some other issues that were the result of very constructive feedback. 

    great to hear that was a technical issue and being worked on already. 

  10. 8 minutes ago, Kevin2k said:

    Let me add this:

    I don't have to tell you which distance-lods are present or missing in any CM game. Just extract all mdr files in the brz archives and make a list of them.

    About them malfunctioning, or their effect on frame-rate, it is very hard to check as an end user. There are no functions available in the game to check this, so it is all just anecdotal observations from people with less powerful Graphics cards. There needs to be something to debug this on the dev-side, maybe there already is, but the CMCW team hasn't used it for sure ;)

     

     

    actually, you can check the distance where the detail disappears if you use target command. For me, the grass disappears at about 100m from the point of view at about ground level. didn't check other details (trees, roads) nor considered how the height might influence the LoD.

  11. i am by no means expert but, judging by their gung-ho doctrine, i'd assume commander is most likely expected/ordered to be unbuttoned at least up to 300-400m from the enemy line when the tanks get close support from infantry. this is me only guessing though, hipefully someone with actual knowledge chips in.

  12. 2 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

    Roads and railroads have always looked terrible for me (1070 here) in all CM games. I started experimenting with some massive maps a while back in CM:BS and came across the same issue of trees disappearing in the distance.  I'm not sure I buy the DirectX/OpenGL argument rather than it's a limitation on the CMx2 rendering engine that hasn't been addressed.  I would think it really hasn't been an issue until we started getting these (awesome) big maps in CM:CW.

    indeed. all ww2 titles have smaller maps and, while visible, it is not nearly as prominent as here. It seems the ground detail (grass) disappears 100m in distance and everything after that looks like those poker tables. really breaks immersion.

    sometimes games have a file where you can edit technical details and make custom settings for these things. 

  13. hello,

    i find it quite restrictive how the level of detail disappears as you zoom out of the battlefield. and frankly, it looks quite ugly not having trees or ground detail on the far side of the map. 

    I have all the details on max but i find this still not enough. I wonder if someone knows if there is a way to force the game to use more generous levels of detail?

     

    Thanks!

  14. 10 hours ago, Ryujin said:

    I'd imagine a looking through up through trees with what I presume is a fairly small wavelength radar is going to be a mess. Radar can't see through solid objects, trunks will be an issue for sure and at a small wavelength my understanding is branches and such would also give you clutter. 

    The radar is to find the target at long ranges day/night/low visibility and give tracking data on the target to aim the guns. 

    thanks for explanation, you're probably right. certainly I have no understanding of that equipment and your description explains why it wouldn't shoot. will make sure to keep that thing in the open.

  15. I'm in the same tank with you :D 

    only advice I can give is to, in general, position the tanks on the flanks and not in the center so they get angled shots. in 2 fahrbans scenario, perhaps one tank in some keyhole position in the center where the tank is protected with buildings. I've tried to push one m113 into the woods to the right flank but that got toasted while travelling. the rest of the infantry and their transport in the forward buildings in the center but on the cover arcs to engage any infantry. tows/laws outside of the buildings, especially to cover the road on the right flank that can't be seen from your initial position due to that woods on the right. APCs in key holes behind those advanced buildings in the center. those, as their infantry, on cover arcs (not longer than 200/300 meters) to protect the open terrain if the enemy manages to slip tank protection and gets that far.

  16. 4 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

    Fascinating interview with a former US Army Pershing II launch officer in Germany.

     

    refering to old politicians and power they have, a famous singer of ours said, "I wouldn't give my 80 yrs old granny to mess with nuclear bombs"... from that angle, a 23 yrs old with a missile command is a valid choice :D 

  17. 10 hours ago, Artkin said:

    My last post, sorry for derailing the thread everybody.

    I won't be uploading anything. Everyone has the tools to do it themselves.

    Thanks.

     

    rarely annoying after all the fuss you've created. btw, maps are quite a delicate thing containing a  lot of info. it isn't a deliberate attempt to keep them out of other games, it is just fiddly. battlefront explained this specific map problem in a podcast here:

     

×
×
  • Create New...