Jump to content

Artkin

Members
  • Posts

    3,415
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Artkin

  1. 32 minutes ago, Jackal2100 said:

    1. I don't "abuse" CM. Don't accuse me of something that is untrue.

    2. How the game is "meant" to be played? I didn't know there was a right and wrong way to play a game, other than by the rules you set up with your opponent beforehand and those imposed by the engine itself.

    It wasn't directed at you. Don't play like a cheeseball in general. 

    But what's funny is that you did abuse this mechanic against me in the PBEM we are currently playing. So yeah, you abuse it. 

    Your opponent could buy all javelin teams and wipe the field of your troops, or he could buy a balanced force and have a decent game with you. Be decent unless your opponent is indecent.

  2. 4 hours ago, Jackal2100 said:

    If your vehicle sees gunfire coming from a bush, you should be able to shoot at it even if you can't see the gun itself. To assume that vehicles should just stand still and get shot without response is kind of ridiculous. 

    I'd advise you to watch combat footage and see just how blind modern day equipment is. Vehicles are not able to see muzzle flashes like a human eye can. 

    CM already has a mechanic if a vehicle spots an enemy. The turret will turn and the entire vehicle will rotate toward the threat IF it gets a partial, a sound, or a full contact. Or even if it gets hit and can determine where the gunfire is coming from.

    That's not even what I'm talking about. 

    I never said that "Vehicles should just stand still and get shot without response".

    Don't put words in my mouth. Don't abuse CM's interface like a cheese ball either. It's not how the game is meant to be played.

  3. 13 minutes ago, A Canadian Cat - was IanL said:

    I know it is common for us to call them sound contacts but they are not all sound contacts. They are unclear or unestablished contacts. Sound is one way but just spotting something but not being sure what it is exactly is also depicted by the same symbol.

    Sure but the vehicle in question usually isnt getting the partial spot. And it makes no difference to a player who plays this way. 

  4. 4 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

    And I'm trying to explain that it would be the greater of two evils. By a very wide margin.

    My PBEMs still represent a very small sample size. So whether unrealistic uses outnumber realistic uses or not, I can't say. But what I can say, with an extremely high degree of confidence, is that the game (in all modes) would be far less realistic without it. How often has your lack of use of the target command been unrealistic?

    Not very unrealistic. Also my opponents have no problems with the rule. I also rarely play with regulars or higher veterancies who instantly stop shooting the millesecond enemies die.. especially in houses/buildings. 

  5. 4 minutes ago, Jackal2100 said:

    Do you consider sound contacts a good enough spot for area fire? If I see an atgm fired from a position and hear the crew there, but don't see the crew itself, would you consider it wrong to fire at the area? I would imagine the area fire would be quite logical.

    No lol in no universe is a running vehicle getting an accurate sound location and pinpointong the exact location of the enemy. Similarly c2 is no excuse for this unless youre playing CMBS as the Americans who have a battle managment system in their vehicles. 

    Area fire would be fine if people use it logically. You can maybe determine the angle of the fire within a certain few degrees but thats only one of three axises covered. You also have distance and height. Over a long distance that shootet could be absolutely anywhere. 

    If the vehicle had a spot, they would engage the target. It's that simple. Otherwise you might as well go play Wargame or Armored Brigade. 

  6. 1 minute ago, Centurian52 said:

    It's not perfect. But you are overstating the problem (you can only issue orders once a minute in H2H play, and units still need to have a line of fire in order to use the target command), and ever worse problems would be created if you removed it.

    To give an example of how much worse it would be without the 'target' command, in one of my battles in which I'm defending hedgerow country I sprung a couple of nasty ambushes against my opponent. I had my pixeltruppen hiding with short target arcs until his scouts were nearly at my end of the field, and then opened fire. Afterwards I repositioned my teams (which I think must have looked like I was abandoning the hedgerow to him), had them resume hiding with short target arcs, and I was able to repeat the ambush on the next group of soldiers to cross. If there was no area target command I would be able to repeat this tactic again and again with complete impunity. There would be absolutely nothing my opponent could do about it. You can't possibly tell me that that would be more realistic than my opponent firing into my hedgerows with everything he's got, spots or no spots (which he has very wisely, and very realistically, started to do)?

    As I said it's the lesser of two evils imo. The exploit I mentioned is applicable in almost every situation whereas your example is very limited in scope (Thickly hedgerowed maps). You similarly can't possibly tell me that the area target command is more often used realistically in PBEM than not. 

    In just about every PBEM experience I've had people use it to laser target my infantry teams with vehicles that have no buisness in that engagement. 

  7. 35 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

    Well, I have to disagree with this and @Artkin. What you describe is *exactly* what I'd do in real life. 

    But, hey, make any rules you want in agreement with your opponent.

    Taking away that capability, to me, would remove a perfectly valid tactic. I'd do that even without the TOW firing from the woods. Ooh, look, treeline ahead. Blast it with whatever we've got to keep their heads down, while I have maneuver elements close in. Is it really that much different than putting a smoke screen in front of the treeline even if you haven't spotted anything? Pretty much accomplishes the same thing.

    Dave

    It's not possible in real life lol. 

    Tanks instantly sniping infantry the second an infantryman sees them 1km away? A t-72 sniping the exact position your hidden atgm is in?

    Lol, come on man. It defies reality and puts CM on a worse level than armored brigade. 

  8. 14 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

    Can you explain more? I don't get this one. If you are on offense, you would call fire along a treeline, hammer a village you plan to assault, etc. On defense you'd target areas where the enemy could be assembling for an assault. Can't hit a whole patch of woods because you can't get a LOS to the middle of it. I suppose you could target the open in front of the woods and overlap into it. 

    I see nothing wrong with targeting an open area the enemy has to cross to attack you with everything I've got, and hoping that that timing of the FFE works with the enemy crossing that area. Catching enemy in the open with artillery is a goal, not something that should be eliminated. 

    Maybe I'm missing your point or objection (certainly possible - it's early, I'm wet from walking the dogs and need coffee 🙂 )

    Dave

    It's raining here too, same area as you. 

    Brille already explained it but yeah using your tanks to kill things without seeing them.

    For instance you have a tank with red optics, but you still use it to area target known infantry locatioms across the map. I'm sure you can imagine other situations where this is abused. 

    Theres no way to allow area fire but prevent people from snipinging infantry this way, so a hard rule - removing the feature for MP- would be the way to go. 

    It's the lesser of two evils.

  9. 19 minutes ago, Brille said:

    Well the way I understand it is that Combat Mission is abstract in a lot of situations. So a simple line from A to B might be not just that simple or the terrain is not as flat as it is depicted ingame.

    So fields or even roads may have bumps and rocks in them, sometimes a slope or a pitch here and there. On a driven out dirt road you can have 2 tracks on the sides with a high middle strip. An inexperienced driver may dig the belly of their vehicle on that strip, while an experienced driver would know how to position his vehicle to not get it immobilized. Those little adjustments of the vehicle/tanks position you don´t have in CM. It is just an abstraction.

    I understand and have already mentioned the deviations in tiles that arent visibly represented. In a wheat field this should be almost impossible to distinguish. In a grass field this should be exceedingly obvious. 

    Even experienced tank crew have found themselves surprised in combat conditions... i.e. excerpts from Cairus' Tigers In The Mud. 

    This is why I set my crews to lower veterancies, so they perform closer to what I've read. Tanks are definitely hard to see out of, and I dont think being highly experienced makes that big of a difference insided an armored box with little windows. 

  10. 22 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

    Well you say that, but my talent allowed me get out main skidder stuck in a hayfield just driving to the woods.  The other driver immediately came over and said the ground in the center is always softer after a rain storm so have to skirt the woodline to avoid getting stuck.  You would not know that without some experience.

    I'm not saying there's no problem, but I frequent the Steel Beast forums as a player.  There are dozens of former and active tanks commanders and drivers.  They all talk about getting stuck and throwing tracks.

    The steel beasts players are probably using vehicles that have completely different tracks too. An abrams/leopard 2 tracks are flat padded and are better for road surfaces. These tanks have more aggressive treads which are better for offroading - including t-90a's tracks. Also the ground conditions were set to very dry. The center of CM fields are not going to be more wet than the exterior.

  11. 10 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

    In RL, in Steel Beasts, and in CM, inexperienced drivers should bog at higher rates that veteran drivers.  I used to drive skidders, tractors, and bulldozers in the woods of Maine.  I guy driving a skidder a few years compared to me with a month of experience is a world of difference in speed and knowledge of where not to drive a skidder.

    Notice how I didnt post a screenshot of a forested area. 

    You wouldnt even be able to distinguish divets or holes in a wheatfield/tall grass like this. 

  12. No, it's not about expectations vs reality. 

    The fact is if you set the crew to a higher veterancy they wont bog much at all. 

    Somehow magically green or conscript troops will bog doing the same thing. That  can be driving through mud - more understandable - or driving on a dry surface at a slow speed in a straight line - less understandable. 

    I am doubtful there is much to be skilled at when driving in a straight line. Considering that terrain deviations are done in 1m intervals that means at most the random abstracted terrain devations must be less than 1m. 

     Dirt underneath that is pretty much going to be squished flat unless it's totally bone dry, and even still, it shouldnt be causing total track failure at slower speeds. 

  13. @MarkEzra CMRT, I already said the scenario in the picture was CMPE. But a similar issue happens in cmrt, surprisingly to a lesser degree. 

    No matter the scenario, this is obvious when you play open maps. Green and conscript troops immobilize at relentless rates even at normal speeds and the simplest of.manuevers (I understand the game can't distinguish bogging due to manuevers). 

  14. 1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

    I had a coworker long ago who was an old WWII Pacific jungle fighter. After spending years island fighting he pulled a Yossarian and decided he wanted to survive the war. He hit on a strategy. When his unit was up to go on patrol he'd hop in the units sole Stuart light tank to do 'regular servicing', drove it to a nearby patch of sand, pulled a sharp right turn and Oops! The tank shed a track! Sorry guys, I've got to stay behind and fix this. Worked every time.

    That's not what happened from my screenshot. There's no weaseling around this. We run d8 and d5 dozers at my job all day every day, and they have never shed anything. Driving forward should not cause as much bogging/immobilizations as it currently does.

     

    23 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

    There is no evidence that plotted speeds influences bogging.

    Yes it does. It's not about map design. Sand is not the same as hard dirt.

  15. Theres absolute nothing special about the scenario, play as germans. The same rate of loss will occur within 2km from the start line. The bogging rates in this game are not based on reality. If you doubt it, look at the operational map, toe and loss rates of the prokhorovka fighting. Of the dozens of publications I've read/listened to - bogging has never been mentioned (Except one time during the dniepr offensive? when a soviet tank corps lost 90% of its vehicles to breakdowns over a couple hundred km march). While I do believe it should be in game, the rate is ridiculous at times.

    https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/23frsllsqwzevkgz138ah/001-IISS-AI.btt?rlkey=jcucmm1zj2b9vq1w36fazpnqe&dl=0

  16. If bogging was THIS bad the PROKHOROVKA OFFENSIVE would have completely petered out within 11km judging by how many tanks I lost. 

    They didnt use roads and they didnt lose 9% of their tanks every 700m to the ground conditions. 

    Come on guys. Really...? 

    Edit: Forgot that this was in a different game as I'm playing two pbems on the map currently in cmrt. This is from cmpe so I can't provide a turn.

    Instead I can provide the map and a small scenario for cmrt. The statistics remain true though, 2 mbts lost for 23 moved.

  17. Four vehicles immobilized within 700m of the corner starting zone. One mtlb, one bmp-3, two t-90a. Everything except the bmp-3 was set to "normal" speed. Bmp-3 was set to "Quick".

    This is completely insane, why haven't you guys fixed this yet. This isnt fun, nor is it realistic, it's a joke.

    really.png

  18. 5 hours ago, Laurens said:

    Can someone help me? Every time I run the installer on my Windows PC for normandy it gives the same error message.

    combat mission battle normandy installer\*.brz' does bot exist.

    I have already tried turning off the firewall and security. because it is a temp file. I read this somewhere but it doesn't work.

    How do I solve this problem?

    If it's a .temp or .part file I think means your download failed at some point. 

    .part 100% is an incomplete download. Not sure about the temp. 

×
×
  • Create New...