Kaunitz
-
Posts
410 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Kaunitz
-
-
I'm looking forward to peeking around corners!
I'm currently working over some weapon-sounds that I'm not happy with. The vanilla sounds are unfortunately rather bad. Mods help a lot, but some sounds are still a bit weird. I'm going to collect my additions here and at some point I might request to register as a modder at the cmmods site and "release" them as a package.
Here is my first attempt: the MG 42 sound. I got the base sound from a reenactor's video on youtube and edited it with audacity. I tried to come up with an okay mixture of "pop" and "noise". Judging from videos, the MG 42 seems to be rather "noisy" though. Sorry for the clipping, but if you want make firing sounds drown out other sounds (engines, voices, etc.) and if you want to make them audible over the whole battlefield, you need to amplify them over the top - otherwise the engine fades them out by far too quickly.
-
I've been playing a bit lately (engine version 4 just came out? Yippie!) and I came upon two things that I wished were part of the game:
1. "Dug-in" tanks. I'm not really a modern warfare expert, so I don't know the proper name of it. I'd love to see if we could buy and place some parapets made of earth for our tanks - artificially made hull-down positions protecting three of the four sides of the tank. Often, as the defender, I get the feeling that I would not let that tank stand in such a position concealed but not covered at all. I feel that this is really missing from the list of fortifications at our disposal.
2. This is something that came to my mind while playing Black Sea: I think it would be interesting to have some kind of "bail out/re-man" option for infantry-manned support weapons (recoilles AT guns, deployable ATGMS, AT guns, etc.). Often, I get into a situation in which the crew dies horribly because, instead of seeking cover and hiding asap after having fired their weapon, they start to pack up their weapon (otherwise they can't move!), while one of their tank-targets has all the time of the world taking its aim and knocking them out. Also, would an unmanned support weapon be more difficult to spot?
-
Hey Gamma, are you still interested?
I'm not a very experienced player but I'd love to test my luck/skill against a human opponent. I prefer tiny/small - medium scale battles (not exclusively armor) in all kind of terrain - preferably not exclusively urban though. I'm open for all kinds of scenarios, but I prefer clear roles (attacks/assaults) over meeting engagements. As for the factions: I don't care.
Over the next few weeks, I can play 1-2 hours per day in the evenings (more on weekends) and I'm based in Europe (Austria).
-
Hallihallo! Noch Interesse vorhanden? Ich wäre für eine rundenbasierte Partie zu haben. Ob email/file oder per direkter Verbindung ist mir egal, habe aber gelesen, dass man sich bei der direkten Verbindung den Zug nicht in der Wiederholung ansehen kann, sondern nur einmal live?
Würde kleine bis mittlere, eher Infantrie-lastige Spiele bevorzugen (so in die Richtung 1 platoon bis 1 company, mit APCs oder Panzer-Unterstützung). Reine urbane Settings wären zwar nicht meine erste Wahl, aber wenn sie gewünscht werden okay.
Ich habe Black Sea (oder Red Thunder oder Italy/Gustav Line oder Final Blitzkrieg) im Angebot, bin aber - was Multiplayer-CM betrifft - totaler Neuling. Ich sollte die nächste Zeit regelmäßig jeden bis jeden zweiten Abend (so ab 21.00) zumindest 1-2 Stunden Zeit haben. Bitte bei Interesse antworten/melden!
lG aus Wien
-
2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
About the LOS thing about standing or being prone, I think an alternative to manual controls would be to use the unit facing command. Say your guys are on a hill and they could get LOS to a location if they just stood up. You could then click "face towards" and click the e
xact square you want them to have LOS to. The TacAI could then decide to stand up the guys in order to achieve the LOS, but still have them drop back down if they took incoming fire. This solutions doesn't currently work in the game - as far as I know, clicking unit facing and then on a specific place on the map just changes a unit's compass direction towards that point, and doesn't take into account LOS.
This would be nice. I don't know which one would be (theoretically) easier to implement: a "stance-switch button" or "stance-selection according to desired LOS".
45 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:While I think most of your ideas are at least worth thinking about, this one I don't like. Recon by fire was a common practice during the war and SFAIK still is. I'd say leave the current system alone for now.
I think recon by fire would not suffer a lot if the effectiveness of fire at "non-contacts" was reduced or had a chance to target an adjacent square (with the exception perhaps of obvious landmarks, such as buildings). There would still be some suppression, just not as much. The question is: What is and what should be the purpose of "recon by fire"?
Since target area-commands can be used for both, "realistic" recon by fire/precautionary fire (I use it myself a lot!) and "unrealistic" targeting of enemies that your own units should not even be aware of, I think a middle ground would be a good compromise:
confirmed contact: very effective fire / suspected contact (or a square close to it): effective fire / non-contact: comparatively ineffective fire
Maybe it would be good to automatically make "area-target" target an actual area (5 squares?) instead of a point (single square), unless it is a landmark/building. This would still make area-fire effective, but it would take more time and give the "defender" better chances to get away.
45 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:It may no longer be part of the game, but I could swear that after CMSF came out someone posted screenshots of exactly this happening. Since I avoid playing heavily urbanized battles, I've had no opportunity to see if this is still included.
Shooting or spotting? Sounds interesting!
-
4. What about peeking (or even shooting - with one man) around a corner in urban settings? I assume it would be incredibly hard to get that into the engine and might be consiedered a bit too "micro" for the engine's scope. But I think it would be nice if a unit positioned at a corner would get some LOS around the corner - it could very well be low quality LOS, only giving you suspected contacts, not confirmed ones. The current method - moving the whole unit "around" the corner blindly and potentially exposing them to devastating fire - has little appeal.
5. I applaud CM to the relative spotting- and also the information-sharing system. As we all know, however, it can't be brought to full effect because the player can still let units area-target spots without good reason (the firing unit has no suspected contact-marker there). The player = god problem prevails. So I still wonder if the whole information-thing could be enforced to actually produce effects and have a high influence on how the game is played. There is such an awesome communication-system under the hood, yet players don't really have to pay attention to it if they don't want to. I guess it has been discussed ad infinitum, but why not allow area-targeting only on/close to spots with suspected contact markers? For precautionary fire on suspected positions, players could make use of target reference points. The maps are not that huge so that a few TRPs should suffice to cover all the obvious spots on the map?
Or else, what I'd like even more: give area-fire directed at a spot at which a unit has no "suspected contact-marker" a chance to be directed at an adjacent spot (instead of the original target) or make the fire much less effective to simulate the same effect.
-
Hello!
I'm a big fan of the series and have released some videos of my latest battles on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/user/TheKaunitz/videos). However, in my games, I came upon a few things that I think might be improved. Not CM:FB-specific, more related to the engine/whole series:
1. I'd like to be able to chain multiple "target briefly"-commands (i.e. multiple area targets) together in one turn for a stationary unit. Some weapons should be able to "spray" more than a single actionsquare in one minute/turn. E.g. in 1 minute, a MG should surely be able to control more than a section of 5 meters? Right now, the only way to do so is by moving units back and forth "on the spot" to give them multiple waypoints with a new target for each waypoint. Needless to say that this is fiddly and does not work for certain weapons (infantry-handled MGs that have delploy-times). Alternatively, I've often wondered what would happen if one changed turn-intervalls from 1 minute to 30 seconds.
2. I'd like to have control over infantry's stance (prone, kneeling, standing). LOS of a unit (to determine whether it is allowed to area-target or for indirect-fire-missions) seems to be calculated according to the current stance (of the majority of soldiers of? the unit leader?) a unit which is almost entirely a matter of contingency. It's not impossible but rather unelegant and very fiddly to get the desired results sometimes. E.g. if I want my FO-team to have a LOS over a ridge (so it needs to be standing), I need to give the unit a movement command after a 45 seconds pause so that it will be moving DURING the turn intervall, so that at the start of the next turn it will be moving=standing and have the desired LOS. Other than that, soldiers do whatever they like: some stand, some lie prone (even though this means they have no LOS and don't fire like the rest of their unit). The only way you can influence their stance is the "hide" command (which will make the whole unit go prone reliably). I think that LOS is by far too important to leave it to chance and coincidence.
3. Certainly more ambitious and more "fluffy"/superfluous: Some kind of incentive to evacuate wounded soldiers. Buddy aid is nice, but I'd like to see some incentive to and some way of transporting wounded soldiers (to an exit point?).
Improvement suggestions
in Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
Posted
More sound-files: the MP 40 and Soviet SMGs (PPSh and PPS-43 use the same sound-file):
MP 40 video
Russian SMGs video
I'm not entirely happy with the Soviet SMGs. It's tough to make them sound good because of the sheer quantity that are being fired off by those SMG squads.
Kaunitz_RussianSMGs.rar
Kaunitz_MP40.rar