Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Rinaldi

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,186

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Rinaldi

    Unofficial Screenshots & Videos Thread

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    14 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

    steepdate,

    The trajectories looked extremely odd to me, more like Javelin than TOW, though it looked as though they dropped back down for terminal phase. Color me perplexed.

    Regards,

    John Kettler

    New TOW 2Bs have a top down function, they are in game.

    "The TOW-2B has a new top attack capability: the missile still flies straight towards the target (instead of a plunging top attack like the Javelin), but instead of hitting the closest surface the missile flies above the target and shoots tandem explosivelyformed
    penetrators (EFP) vertically down towards the target.    "

    - Manual

    Great video @steepdate.

    LT7LxOq.png

    From a  PBEM that did not end well for me. The reverse slope produced results initially but I was tilting at windmills, ultimately. A lesson to fall back sooner learned.

    0

    Has It Been Changed in CMx2?

    in Combat Mission Fortress Italy

    Posted · Edited by Rinaldi

    In sum: Yes, it has changed. No, these problems do not persist.

    The rarity system now in game is a much more accurate depiction of the realities of a theater on its default setting. German howitzer artillery is generally too expensive and too slow to react to be worth much for defensive fires, whereas the US artillery is the fastest responding in game. Target Reference Points offset that, as they should, but these also incur a rarity cost. American 81mms generally have upwards of 80 rounds plus WP; whereas German trench mortars (120mms) iirc don't have more than 30 rounds. The 'mountain' 81mm is also in game for the Germans now as a company-level asset for several formations. Purchasing a 4 gun battery, be it pack-75s or 105s, is not going to break the bank for an American player, taking the larger Self-Propelled batteries is when it starts to get problematic. The Americans also have more options; in lieu of a full 105 battery a platoon from a cannon company can be purchased for 105 point fires at a much more reasonable cost than their nearest equivalent LeIG and ScIGs (if memory serves).

    Further it must be said that the armor coding is much better than anything you will see in CMx1. Solid shot to the Panther's turret from 76s will pen or partially penetrate upwards to 800m and will often knock the Panther out. Shermans can take hits on the mantlet at excessive range from Panzer IV and Pak40 - 1000m and 1400m, respectively. The game does American armor justice, when handled skillfully and with their much more flexible fire support you'll find you can generally out-do the opponent, even if they have cats. Panzer IV H and Js are nary a worry and can be engaged conventionally. This is anecdotal but I find Sherman's situational awareness to be much higher than their counterparts as well, crew skill aside. If that is actually modeled it would reflect the higher FOV sights available to the Sherman's gunner; giving it an extra pair of eyes over, say, the Panther, which did not have such. Given how well CM captures the maxim "he who sees first..." that's worth mentioning.

    Heavies are much rarer. I can count on one hand the amount of times an opponent has taken them against me. They're often simply not worth the trouble; as most people would rather have 6 StuGs instead of 1 Tiger, even in the smaller scenarios. If a unit isn't there, its not available. A good example of the rarity system in action; try taking E8s in Nov. 1944, then try again in Jan. 1945. It's almost impossible to in the latter, but quite manageable in the former.

    Telephone communications are now abstracted; you'll notice HQ units without radios can still ask for fire missions. This is a representation of laying lines.

    OOB in general is vastly improved, and if Steve is to be believed, still very much improving.

    0

    Ukrainian infantry combinations

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by Rinaldi

    To be fair as well, we give the people calling for Russian equipment that's only now being produced or is of insignificant quantities quite a bit of flak for suggesting this and that be in game. I can only do the same for people calling for the Ukraine to get fancy toys that are in minuscule amounts.

    It's good to remember videos and parades show the theoretical best, not what's on the ground.

    The UA in game already gets two huge concessions in the form of OPLOT-Ms and BTR-4Es; both of which are capable of peer or near-peer performance to the BMP-3s and T90AMs. The only thing I'd like to see the Ukrainians get is maybe Ravens.

    6 minutes ago, IanL said:

    Having said that I suppose you can put forward the request to be able to represent what is on the ground now in the game going forward. I have no idea how BFC feels about that idea.

    I'd rather have them stick with their current divergence, frankly. I suppose personal opinions differ greatly on this.

     

    0

    Road to Nijmegan Campaign

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted · Edited by Rinaldi

    12 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

    'Kobayashi Maru' for combat missions.....Actually I think that's the coolest thing ever in a CM game, but you are right that it would need to be explained very clearly in the briefings. 

    One of the reasons I hate writing briefings so much is that I know I will inadvertently omit something that seems as obvious as day to me (as scenario creator) that the player (who, not being a psychic as a general rule) will have no clue about, in fact I've had something like this happen just tonight. 

    Couldn't agree more. I'm of the opinion that every mission doesn't have to be a brow-furrowing challenge. I also hold the opposite though, if a scenario designer can get away with making entertaining, though not particularly challenging missions, then they are also capable of making missions that are near-impossible to win that are just as entertaining. I particularly liked "NEDFORCE" because it provided the British player with the opportunity to retreat; giving a player a chance to know when he's beat and quit gracefully is something I wish more scenarios would do.

    Writing briefings that tell a good story and provide actual useful information usually result in page-long tomes, and you inevitably get someone who loses half a company of men to some clearly stated threat. They complain about it, and then you find out they didn't read the briefing because "I'm not reading all that." A fine line to walk.

    0

    Russians Underpowered, US Overpowered in CMBS?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by Rinaldi

    Perhaps @panzersaurkrautwerfer wasn't explicitly clear enough for y'all but making the game reflect current deployable formations and equipment would not help your quest to seek balance. If anything, it will make it worse :rolleyes:. The M1A2 in game is only upgraded in so far that it has HEAT, AMP and ERA (which we already have shown, repeatedly, is far from 'fantastic.') whereas the Russians have been given a totally-real-we-swear tank in the form of the T90AM.

    Really the only faction that stands to see a marked change in their situation would be the UA; and much for the worse.

    0

    Question regarding M1919A6 and Bazooka M9

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted · Edited by Rinaldi

    Can't speak to the M9; but the A6  will only be seen with Paratrooper rifle squads and Air-mobile weapon platoons. You cannot get it as a MMG among the standard rifle battalions. To my knowledge you can only get the M1919A6 as an issue MMG in Final Blitzkrieg and that is if you set all equipment to 'excellent.'

    It may have changed, I haven't played an Airborne formation since 4.0 came out.

    0

    Russians Underpowered, US Overpowered in CMBS?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by Rinaldi

    In the context of CM, yes absolutely. I would not take anything as 'fact' (speculative or otherwise :)) with anything less than at least a 100 sample size in game, and that is being very liberal.  It's lead to considerable differences in results from those who did considerably less testing; which basically leads me to throw your reasoning out the window immediately. Presuming I fully understand where you're coming from; you're suggesting that the game really doesn't have many variables and ultimately if x then y in all instances. That would be perfectly sound if I held it as true, but I don't.

     You say the game follows a logic - well yes that's a painfully obvious statement to most. Part of that logic is "standard" deviations (always an odd phrase) that give us something approaching RNG. It's quite observable, and would be ever so much more so observable with an adequate sample size :D. I wonder if I did the RPG test 200 times in a row precisely as you asked, would the result actually model your hypothesis? Perhaps when I'm home I'll indulge you, one of us will be vindicated. Besides, as Ian indicates below, ordinance effectiveness versus spotting effectiveness are very different beasts; the latter has many more variables (such as the fact that it operates on a cycle) that we cannot control as players.

    As I said: I could set my watch to threads of this types. It's not limited to Black Sea. Every 6 months or so there is an inevitable individual with a bone to pick whom swings for the posts viz. the Panther, Russian SMGs (Why are my UBERMENSCH losing to these PPSH armed plebians!?)* or some such other tank or weapon they percieve as under-performing and they give us a very modest test and sample size that doesn't stand up to even a bit more scrutiny. Or even worse, a case in which they are getting their ass handed to them by lady luck in a single instance and decided this was the straw that broke the camel's back.

     

    * That thread was almost as entertaining as this one - almost, but not quite.

    0

    Russians Underpowered, US Overpowered in CMBS?

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by Rinaldi

    12 minutes ago, Sorrow_Knight said:

    (actually  I don`t think, that "if they feel they need it, there is enough ERA sets to install it on EVERY tank, APC or IFV of task force, or batallion).

    Yes, and that's the crux of the thread; its once more what a bunch of people 'think.'

    They're too busy whining to think critically. Perhaps if they did, they wouldn't be making so many Russian widows. To quote Squarehead: :mellow: First off, if you believe the US in-game (as the developers have imagined their FICTIONAL scenario) has deployed every single Abrams and IFV in its inventory to Russia than I am truly chuffed. They have more than enough ERA to equip an HBCT - and that is being conservative. The entire point of CMBS is a limited full-spectrum war between the absolute leading edge of the Russian Federation and the US Army; it would follow that both sides put their best foot forward (as, indeed, the Russians have done time and again in their post-collapse conflicts). Pesky logic getting in the way!

    I'm sure if and when the developers feel the need to add  in second echelon forces, as in they head-canon an escalation of what was clearly meant to be a limited war (RTFM people, they scripted out every possible end game for their own scenario) then I'm sure we will see ERA-less tanks, M1A1HCs, etc.

    I don't care what you all 'think' - I am much more interested  in what you know,  but so far I've just seen speculation, and rather poor speculation at that.

    0

    Mounted Halftrack infantry under fire

    in Combat Mission Red Thunder

    Posted · Edited by Rinaldi

    4 hours ago, bruno2016 said:

    sorry I sent the above msg wrongly by trying to quote.

    So I will reply globally.

    @Rinaldi. Thanks for your reply, I wont take it personally of course, Just I believe ASL was not wrong and also ASL never said HTs are assault guns either. As to why they were accompanied by tanks, I would rather say the other way 'round: tanks were accompanied by HTs to provide infantry support and eventual assault of the enemy positions, with mutual cover fire of course. 

    Fair play, won't argue with this. In fact, I agree. So forgive the slew of qualifying statements I'm about to make about the rest of the post.

    4 hours ago, bruno2016 said:

    If you believe usual 9 mm  can easily penetrate 10 mm armor (please give any link to documentation showing this), then why doesn't the game show any armor penetration or spalling at least then? sorry this is not a consistent behavior, whatever the simulation of the game tries to do. As stated in older messages, that is probably because the game considers carried personnel have their heads exposed. Back to the discussion....

    So I'll preface the following with the reminder that I agreed the stiff animations were not something I was willing to hand-wave either, having said that:

    penitration2161.jpg

    This is for ball. Further reading that suggests stronger pen values. Whether you accept the source is your perogative, of course.

    "The 1939 US Army specification for M-2 .30-06 AP penetration is .42" (11mm) of armor steel at 100 feet."

    The M3/M5s were a bit more thin-skinned than the 251s (which had about 6mm at their lightest points). Well within parameters for punishment if you're trying a hot dismount. Doubly so given the proliferation of 8mm AP for sustained fire MGs.

    Anecdotal and secondary sources are, at best, conflicted I will admit. Suffice to say however, that with notable exceptions (such as the much written about charge at Troyes and Assensois, covered in Armor in Battle) most US armored documentation I've read tend to stress dismounting your armored infantry in defilade rather than in the face of the enemy.

    4 hours ago, bruno2016 said:

    Now I agree with the statements that 200-200 m is a safe range and workaround for the behavior of the game, more than as a reproduction of reality. 

    I understand you're arguing with good faith and your logic in the first paragraph is sound, but dismounting at stand-off distance isn't some expedient we're forced to accept for gameplay purposes; its just damned good sense. It's also more typical than atypical useage of these units.

    Again I wish I could say I'm not arguing from experience but given I've linked to an AAR where I repeatedly dismount in the face of the enemy with no losses I'm not sure what to say. Hot dismounts, even in Black Sea where the Bradleys can feasibly shrug off 2A28 fire has a lot of planning and masking fires behind them.

    I generally agree that the animations are utter trash, but they've never been too gamebreaking for me asides from losing the occasional one man or so from potshots at range. This is subjective, and you have every right to moan about it - you may have had a much more distasteful experience with them than I have.

    EDIT: Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. I think its agreeable to say that, you can get punished much harder than in reality for bravose use of halftracks. I can agree with that uncontroversially.

    @JoMc67

    On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 3:33 PM, JoMc67 said:

    Actually, you are not to far off there, Wicky...CMx2 Soft Skinned Vehicle Crews tend to last longer then lightly Armored and can get in for close range support.

    Joe

    This is a joke right? What an empty gripe.

    0

    Hull Down & Partial Hull Down Advantages

    in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy

    Posted · Edited by Rinaldi

    9 minutes ago, IanL said:

    Yes but the green troops will also miss smaller targets more easily due to the same effect. So, if you make sure you have green tankers and I make sure my tanks are hull down I might come out even further ahead than I might otherwise.

    IMHO you are better off using real world tactics than trying to game the system.

    + Infinity

    All this talk of playing to the Panther's strengths is all well and good but its basically operating your vehicle in a way where you're deliberately being seen and being hit, which is something I cannot wrap my head around.

    I also question the idea that its somehow better to take Green crews because they're less accurate...Green crews firing at hull-downs tend to miss by miles on the first several shots is my counter-point to that argument :^)

    0
×
×
  • Create New...