Kozlice
-
Posts
109 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Kozlice
-
-
1 hour ago, Badger73 said:
Okay. That helped me better understand your meaning. I still think the game does so now. In your example, the mortar direct fire aiming point would be the top of that wall. In the game, mortar rounds fire in a small but variable pattern around that aiming point; some long, some short, some left, some right. The blasts suppress the enemy. Shrapnel has a pretty good chance to kill or wound. I think the effort to calculate, code, test, and finalize such a small tweak in the game incurs costs to Battlefront which far outweighs negligible benefits. To me, there are far better uses of programmer time.
Yea, I certainly did not assume Battlefront will really consider this, I thought this was just a "dream out loud" type of thread. But I do not think adding a few meters to that (arbitrary?) extra behind-line-of-sight distance will need much coding, testing or calculation...but then again, what do I know. And you are certainly right that suppression is still there and the not perfect accuracy will eventually get a round or two far enough.
1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:The following might be interesting. In May 2015 I experimented with US mortars in CMBN.
I had a fire team, a mortar team and a spotter all in the same action spot facing a ridge. The fire team could target /about up to the crest at 112 meters. The spotter, spotting for the mortar team, could target 135 meters (approximately 23 meters past the crest of the ridge). The mortar, using direct fire, could target 161 meters (approximately 49 meters past the crest of the ridge).
That was a few game engines ago and have not re-tested recently.
That actually made me wanna do some experiments myself
1a: A building?
1b: No problem, 50 m extra, exactly the range you are talking about
2a: Another building
2b: Nope
3a: Inf. line of sight, around 40 m)
3b: Mortar, only 10 meters more
There is obviously more factors involved than I have originally thought, and it is a bit confusing now
-
I see, I guess you are right, but I can't say I have noticed such behavior on tanks before. I also use more frequent waypoint placement when needed, but this situation did not seem like one; will pay more attention to that next time, thanks!
Also, already done and won, or rather the German armor won it for me
-
37 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:
In the screenshots the Panther starts facing west. It seems it was ordered to pivot 90 degrees to the south and then cross the train tracks and then ..... just stop on the other side or did it have to continue to drive to get to the waypoint? About how far from the start position in the first screenshot was the first waypoint placed? If you remember.
In any case, it is frustrating but if you are able to figure out what caused this you can probably prevent it in the future
.
EDIT to add: From the screenshots and previous discussion I assume (I shouldn't do that) that the crew was not under fire, suppressed or panicked etc.
The waypoint was about 100 meters away to the south, there was no need to use Hunt, my mistake there, but I do not know if that would have changed anything. Also you are correct, the tank was not under fire.
It wouldn't have been such a big deal for me at all had the tank not bogged because of this course change.
-
I am not trying to argue about the realism of the concept, but there is an approximation in the game of a mortar being able to, say, put a round behind a wall that is in it's line of sight. That approximation is achieved through allowing to directly (when I say directly I obviously mean that a mortar still fires like a mortar, with an arc, just without an FO correcting the shots) fire slightly behind it's direct line of sight. Very slightly.
What I wish we had is just a maybe double of that very small distance of being able to fire behind the line of sight. As the whole concept is rather an approximation, I do now know how I could justify in realistic terms, but I could provide a screenshot or two from a PBEM, where this distance limitation was rather very "artificial", and I would have loved to literally get just <10 more meters of "behind the line of sight direct fire"
-
3 minutes ago, MANoWAR.U51 said:
Nobody with at least minimun cultural aspiration describes Middle Eastern ethnicity with "brown people".
I take no offense in being described as brown, same way my white friends do not take offense in being described white. Some hella irrelevant arrogance there.
By your own definition, terrorist is someone waging war by terror, as an example targeting civilians, a rather political concept, somewhat out of CM games scope. Maybe you can re-read what you initially wrote and see how you are implying that middle eastern partisans = terrorists, which is simply wrong.
-
17 minutes ago, Badger73 said:
Please explain/justify; they cannot fire directly nor adjust direct fires against targets they cannot see.
Mortars CAN fire directly, slightly behind their line of sight - I would like that slightly to be slightly more, even if it comes at the price of accuracy. I do not think grenade launchers can do indirect (indirect being slightly behind their line of sight - same way as mortars, not indirect as in called by FO) fire in game at all - which is something that happens in real life
Does it get implemented, now that it's "justified" lol?
-
Obviously cannot show you the actual order anymore, but it was to go 90 degrees to the left and take a position there. This is what happened instead.
-
Would be nice to be able fire mortars and automatic grenade launchers somewhat further behind their line of sight.
Would also be nice to have the "review" stage combined with "giving orders" stage, as sometimes it is difficult to keep track of what happened in the last turn in that particular location to give orders to the troops located there. In bigger battles (battalion+), I actually have to write it down
-
I know I am being pedantic, but how would anyone be a "terrorist" in that hypothetical conflict? Sorry, but **** that brown-people-hating term
-
Arguing with him is half the reason I registered here...if you are reading this, come back Olek! It is all about that CM love
-
In the PBEM in question in this thread both US and German tanks decided to find a better way to cross the tracks when ordered to cross them perpendicularly. The Panther (on "Hunt") ended up driving into some ditch instead where it got bogged
-
You know what I want
On 3/19/2018 at 3:50 PM, Badger73 said:Lol, need a proxy to hear this in Germany. They could make an exception for Rommel
-
CM community is one of the few places on the Internet where you can expect the honor rule to actually work out
-
-
I think he gone
-
I'm pretty sure I've once stumbled upon an AAR or some team discussion/chat thread on fgm that basically had the same typa thing going on - maybe you can try your luck there to get this going (my spot reserved
)
-
"1 up" rule is literally from Red Thunder manual, not that you can't play it the way you want, just sayinnn
Radios do only come at battalion level though
-
Been lurking since day one, looks very very interesting, cant wait! (no need to apologize lol)
-
On 5/21/2018 at 5:40 AM, MOS:96B2P said:
I'm hoping by the end of this month to have it out the door.
02.06.2018
The hype is real
-
The flag is much older though, so one can dream (about a rebel formation on the blue side)
-
I know I know, was referring to the flag on the door of that BMP.
-
22 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
FSA is in?
-
Would be especially cool to have captain players (company commanders) to do the tactical battles and majors/lt.colonels to do operational planning and decisions. Would need a lot of people though.
Not sure if I have all the time needed to be your sole opponent but sign me up for a team role.
-
+1 to "Focusing"
. 
)
New features curiosity
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
Another interesting situation, I suspect relative elevation might also have something to do with it
LOS for reference
Just over the crest
A bit further
Even further, slightly elevated but out of LOS of the mortar team