Jump to content

chi-chi

Members
  • Posts

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

chi-chi's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (1/3)

10

Reputation

  1. Just hopping in to let @Lt Bullknow that you've described many of my complaints about mirrored engagements far more eloquently than I've been able to.
  2. Admittedly I haven't played QBs in 3-4 years but I did play with people who used them pretty consistently and the end result was that I would try to avoid placing my men in obvious positions. Ideally this means that my opponent has wasted points on a TRP and still needs to call in via-LOS with the additional penalty of missing some points. Its sort of the "Church tower question". Do you place your FO in this very obvious position with a great field of view but risk him getting killed almost instantly?
  3. Art style is mostly a question of how you use it. The Japanese tend to have a better handle on using animation to engage with mature themes, Grave of the Fireflies and This Corner of the World being good examples. Both of which I think would lose quite a bit if they were live-action. Personally I'm not a huge fan of how rotoscoping looks though because it tends to have an issue with scale. Both literally with backgrounds feeling too large and in that the actors who have been rotoscoped tend to feel out of place to their backgrounds.
  4. If you don't currently own CM:RT I would wait for the module to release. You might be able to pick up a discount by buying both together.
  5. I do believe there becomes a realism issue with delays as you increase how granular the game is. In CM1 there was certainly some give and take but the AS was 20 meters and the game was fairly abstract. CM2 has reduced the AS to 8 meters and is far more granular - the point that which window a man is looking out of can be critical. So how do you differentiate between realistic delays and unrealistic ones? Because at some point during any scenario it is very likely we are giving orders that the "boots on the ground" should be naturally making. For example, a ditch is one action-square away -- it shouldn't take a 30 second orders delay to move from the open into the ditch when its that close as most anyone would be able to recognize that the ditch is superior to open ground.
  6. Again its really going to depend on which titles you play, which scenarios you play, and some playstyle determinations. I've made this complaint before but it does happen that my men end up fighting enemy troops who were cowering and recovered in the same action square because they ignore them.
  7. Odd question but I was playing CM:BB from GOG a few weeks ago and couldn't get it to play in any resolution greater than 1024x768. If I went above that much of the game screen would be black (and hence unplayable) anyone have a solution for this?
  8. I think many folks are too focused on how close combat can look cinematic. Combat Mission games look decent but they've not been competitively "good looking" for nearly 5 years, if not more. What they are is good looking for a wargame and that is the bare minimum they need to be and so far they are clearing that bar. I mentioned earlier that it could CC could be tied to the action square & a simple update on the unit ticket (bottom left) saying "close combat" would be sufficient and avoid any unsightly animations while also allowing the players imagination to fill in the gaps. Earlier some folks mentioned the CC is indeed rare and while I agree its rare I also think it would be worthwhile to sim in Combat Mission since CM tends towards focusing on determined attacks. Essentially its would end up being more common in CM because CM is almost constantly representing relatively rare events. In the context of a relatively rare event there is no need for any animations for the system. In fact additional animation work to make men more realistically take cover or hunker down when in vehicles would be a much better use of time since that directly impacts the effectiveness of cover/vehicles.
  9. Again I don't think there is a particular distinction between modern and ancient combat in that sense. I think what has changed is the scale of fighting now is so much larger that the the morale ripple effect is being caused at an operational level rather than within the eyesight of the common soldier. Because at some level you are attacking against the enemy weakpoint. CM just represents the single cohort making the attack rather than the whole army shifting its attack towards that point. Think of the opening ~3-4 weeks of Operation Barbarossa. The Soviets essentially experience a total collapse with formations fleeing the front, formations lost in the hinterlands, poorly done "last stand" assaults, etc.... Panic is induced not by causing men within eyesight of others to run but men 50km away to run. ------------ To engage with your original example some. In Combat Mission the area we fight on might have held an entire army in ancient history but now holds just the equivalent of a legionary cohort. ------------ The distinction in my eyes is the extension of the operational arena. Rather than having single armies be fully committed to an area that is within a few days walk you have forces extended for multiple hundreds of km. Contiguous fronts. Army sizes, for the most part, have been increasing but its not until the late 1800s with the rise of industrialization that contiguous fronts could be established.
  10. Personally I don't think you have this correct. You are still (or at least should be) attacking the weakest position the enemy has in order to force their stronger elements to fallback or be destroyed. Essentially a pocket. However, in a modern setting you no longer have a single army that covers a few miles (at best) but a contiguous line that goes for hundreds of miles across the entire front. That means that your tactical and operational are far more separated than it is in an ancient battle.
  11. It obviously does hurt when your MG-42 man fires two rounds and then is out of the fight during the critical moment. The importance of having a full load increases as you go farther back in time and you have fewer critical weapons. One of 8 guys with assault rifles needing to reload is rarely an issue. The only many in the squad with an automatic needing to reload, on the other hand, represents a dramatic swing in capability. I've put many hundreds (if not thousands) of hours in CM2 since 2008 or so and I've yet to see a tactical reload. It may be that they do happen but just quite rarely or it may have been a weird on off instance you say. But I can't say that I've seen them happen while I can say that I've seen men begin fights after rest periods with nearly empty guns. ------ As far as actual implementation visually I would be fine if the bottom-left hand ticker (spotting, reloading, aiming, etc..) just said "melee". Mechanically just have it only occur for men sharing an action-square and have one of them end up okay/wounded/dead and the other end up okay/wounded/dead. Given that these discussion do not guide future commitments I don't think it particularly matters. Talking on these forums, outside of bug reports, is something I see as equivalent to bull****ting at the local bar in pre-pandemic days. You have no expectation that your bull****ting is going to do anything yet you do it anyway.
  12. It depends a lot on what maps and what games you are playing. CM:RT, for example, is very open but once Fire and Rubble releases players will likely be running into more prolonged indoor and close combat. Continuing that if someone mainly plays QBs in dense terrain they are going to see the lack of close combat crop up far more often than if you do rural areas. Edit: It doesn;t help that your guys refuse to do tactical reloads. I'm sure we've all seen a soldier turn the corner and spot a pack of enemies only to fire a single round and then need to reload. Overall I think is one of the weak points we get into with CM. It is doing 1:1 which is cool but also brings about a slew of issues that you might not otherwise have.
  13. Fundamentally Combat Mission does not look great. Don't get me wrong its pretty good for a wargame but relatively to all games in existence its not great. I've looked at various visual mods and they make it look better but they don't fundamentally improve the visual experience to anything I would consider modern. So I don't mess with it since the effort expended to track down and add the mods isn't worth the gain. You also get into some uncanny valley as you improve textures but still have iffy LODs, and animations. On the other hand I almost always install UI mods because I find that they transform the experience and make the game better to play. For me the only difference may be if you can add mods via the Steam workshop as it would literally make it a one-click affair. But essentially the effort made to track down mods and install them isn't worth the visual gain in Combat Mission. I play CM for the gameplay and if I want something that looks like WW2 I'll load up Hell Let Loose. ------ Back when I first got Shock Force in 2009(?) I would get down to ground level for each and every second of combat. But I've been playing the same game off and on for nearly 11 years. Sometimes I'm in Eastern Europe, Normandy, or Syria but I can only watch the same low-level shoot out so many times. I still do go down to ground level when something really weird occurs. Like a howitzer shell dropping into the open hatch of a Bradley or a tank shell penetrating multiple vehicles. But for the bog standard "I've been shot" I don't bother anymore.
  14. I believe the hot key is ALT-p to show all movement lines at the same time. This will allow you to see where everyone is going without needing to click on each squad individually
  15. Quick is the best method we have currently but its not uncommon to see guys run over spotted enemies rather than engage them. Its usually enemy troops who are cowering so my guess is that the TACai doesn't judge them as a high enough threat to stop movement towards the waypoint. In most instances the enemy is still cowering when the soldiers reach their waypoint but its not uncommon for the cowering enemy to recover and engage them.
×
×
  • Create New...