RMM
-
Posts
355 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by RMM
-
-
1 minute ago, Redwolf said:
What I mean is that I want this mode to be faster than the generic indirect fire interface in CMx2. Basically I'd like the CMBB/CMAK mechanism re-introduced.
Also with a price rise for on-board mortars, of course
Ok, yes. Agreed
-
5 minutes ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:
You didn't even have to call for fire in CMx1, just plot the fire direct from the mortar team with the Target command. Worked just like they had LOS themselves.
Ohhh, well absolutely that would be perfect! Maybe I should look into some CM1 games, despite the lessor graphics. On the other hand, that's why this forum thread exists, and God willing, the developers are taking notes.
-
On 11/8/2021 at 2:21 PM, Benni said:
1. Better fighting from the vehicle. Armored infantry should use small arms fire to secure the flanks of their vehicle when penetrating the enemy (untill firing is forbidden)
I think they already do so, but it also depends whether they can be CE or not. Hmm, will have to check the next time I come across it, but am pretty sure I've seen truppen firing from vehicles they're riding in.
-
On 11/8/2021 at 12:02 PM, Ultradave said:
As they like to say in the Army, "it depends on the situation" Most of the time spent is calculating firing data, once they receive a call for fire. You're just saving the time for the RTO to write down the call for fire data. HOWEVER, if the mortar section has LOS to the target, and the mortar hq is directing them, like many light mortars (60mm for example), then it's different than plotting and calculating. They'll know what to put in to achieve the estimated range so response is really quick. If they have to plot, like almost always an 81mm section or larger does, then it's going to take a couple or more minutes. IRL you'd pretty much never have your Co mortar section set up in LOS of the enemy. Just a bad idea.
Dave
Fair 'nuff, but it still seems like the mortar's immediate HQ should be able to call in OBA from one of their own units much quicker than even the Co. HQ.
-
On 11/8/2021 at 10:55 AM, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:
This used to be so in the CMx1 games and I really miss it, if the on-board mortar were in C2 with a HQ unit they could call in direct fire from the on-map mortar as long as the HQ had LOS. In fact the tutorial for CMAK had you do that very thing: drive a HQ and mortar up to a ridge, set the mortar up behind the ridge, HQ peeks over the top and mortar fires direct to knock out an AT gun if memory serves.
MMM
Right. Well, you can still do it, my issue is the time it takes. The mortar's direct HQ gains no time benefit from being in visual, or at least, verbal C2 command as the company's HQ that has to radio the mortar's HQ, etc. The mortar's HQ should have, essentially, instant access, particularly if it's in visual and/or verbal C2 range.
-
On 11/8/2021 at 10:00 AM, Redwolf said:
Yes. Instead of LOS we could also use the in-command link, which we already have.
Right, but at the mo, it can still take more than 5min for a mortar HQ to call in fire from one of its own units that it actually has visual, C2 contact with, which obviously, doesn't make a lot of sense. Or did I misunderstand what you wrote?
-
Another suggestion along the lines of arty issues:
Shouldn't a mortar's direct HQ be able to have an almost immediate response (ie. at most a minute) to an OBA request is the mortar is actually in their LoS? It seems bizarre that a company's mortar section should have no faster reaction time to a request from their immediate HQ that is in sight, or at least in speech-contact than the Company's actual HQ that has to go through that mortar's HQ for access?
-
On 11/7/2021 at 6:10 AM, chuckdyke said:
I gave one example Campaign Hammers Flank play on Iron. I plotted where I know an MG42 position was in a Foxhole. Completely unaffected by 30 Katyusha barrage which went all over the place by the way but some exploded nearby. One of my own troops was injured on the other side of the river. Preplanned barrage from now on have a delay and I will confirm first there is an enemy presence. I still have my doubts but I have no problems with it as hypothetically they can have shelter. Easy to test if you do testers mode and no doubt it will be effective. TBH I have my doubts when you play the AI on Iron.
So, I'm left, still confused. Are we saying that a pre-planned barrage will not have any affect against AI truppen unless there's an observer with LoS to it?
-
On 11/7/2021 at 9:37 AM, Redwolf said:
All things considered it will be better to make preplanned barrages in v5 immutable (no adjust, no cancel).
Wouldn't agree. As @Sgt.Squarehead points out, they were/are certainly adjustable in RL.
-
On 11/5/2021 at 2:23 PM, IanL said:
What he concludes is 100 percent incorrect. Preparatory fire can be effective and cause casualties.
Good to hear, coz that would, otherwise, be more than a bit ridiculous; although he was referring to playing against the AI, and @chuckdyke did say he'd done a test where troops were unaffected by arty that was not actually sighted (ie. preparatory bombardment). so... ?
-
3 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
Just a replay to test 30 Katyusha rockets right on the spot where I know a foxhole with an MG42 is. Sure enough nothing happened. I think you need a contact first before area fire becomes effective. It is the protocol I use now. That is when you play the AI. Call the strike move to contact with infantry before the adjustment phase.
I supremely hope that's not the case; otherwise, what's the point of plotting preparatory arty before the first turn of the battle!
-
5 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Try area targetting them with a tank.
Fratricide is strictly HE related as far as I can tell.....Once something explodes in CM the game engine no longer cares which side it was on.
There seems to be a grey area when it comes to calibers between .50cal (12.7mm) and actual HE rounds that start at the 37mm caliber. One thing to note is that all calibers of friendly fire will pin friendly personnel, even small arms.
-
1 minute ago, Commanderski said:
Currently it takes the same amount of effort for tanks to go through a stone wall as it does to go through a wooden fence. Maybe it's a programming issue but a wooden fence would hardly be noticed by a tank going full speed.
Would like to see something more realistic in that area.
One tactic worth considering when it comes to penetrating stone walls, not all of which can be broken through by AFV's - use the MA to blast a hole. Have timed it with a US 75mm, and it takes about 20secs (approx 4 to 5 shells). The hole is big enough for infantry to move through, and if it needs expanding for vehicles to traverse, just blast another hole adjacent, but remember to keep vulnerable personnel (inf. and CE crews) clear enough of the explosions!
-
14 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
Makes no difference I tested it out. Units won't fire at friendly units they are in full contact with. Fratricide happens during area fire. The scenario I tried it out on BN Tutorial campaign. On Iron so you need to spot your own units first. To find contacts the Hunt Command is a poor choice in my opinion.
Agreed. In general, I use the Move or even Slow command to recon forward. Particularly with vehicles, Hunting is done at too fast a pace. Plus, Hunting tires the Truppen quicker than Move.
-
On 9/14/2021 at 3:21 AM, BornGinger said:
Now let's go to playing the game:
10) It would be great if there could be a cellar to some of them. This would be useful in scenarios where one party's defense line goes through, or very close to, those houses. If the attacker would use a lot of artillery, especially just before an assault of tanks and/or infantry, the defender could rush his troops into those cellars for shelter. There weren't always bunkers or pillboxes in hastily arranged defense lines during WW2, so cellars would be useful. And as bunkers and pillboxes are so easily spotted in the games, defenders inside cellars could hopefully be more of a surprise for the attacker.
11) Another thing about buildings. If the buildings wheren't only one large box with one or more floors but instead one large box divided into different sections on each floor, the destruction of buildings being shot at would have a more proper look and the floors would be more functional for the defending troops inside a building if the building was being destroyed section by section. The result of this would be that the ruined buildings could still be used for defending although some sections were in ruins. Another good reason for this could be that the house to house fighting could become more challenging for the attacker as each floor would have two or more sections (rooms) to clear of enemies.
12) If we could position AT-guns inside large enough buildings and barns, with parts of the walls missing so they can shoot from inside them, the fighting in the game would be more like in WW2 times. The Germans and Russians, and probably the Brits and Americans too, used this way of positioning AT-guns. They seem to often having had the doors to the barns not completely closed or the holes in the walls covered a bit to conceale the AT-guns.
13) Another thing that would be great would be to be able to hide AT-guns and tanks behind ruined buildings so they can be positioned on the side of the building facing away from the enemy, see the enemy through the holes of ruined building, and shoot at the enemy with the shells going through the holes of the ruined building.
The way it works now the inside of buildings is a blocking entity with some kind of invisible wall so the direct fire line gets blocked as soon as it enters the inside of a building even though there are large holes in the walls.
14) To protect the infantry much better, the games would preferably get the kind of shelters which were built into the soil and covered with logs and dirt for some protection against artillery shells. These kind of shelters, and pillboxes, would hopefully not only offer more protection to the defenders but also be harder to spot.
15) It is also a bit silly that 75mm light infantry guns and different AT-guns are so slow to move around. From watching documentary WW2 footage it is obvious that the repositioning of them should go much quicker than they do in the games. The speed in which the crew is able to reposition an AT-gun or a 75mm light infantry gun could often make or break a defensive situation in a scenario.
Below is a test of moving different guns forward 40 meters on a flat and grassy surface. When comparing those minutes of movement to what is shown in the video clip above it's obvious that the crew should be able to use at least quick movement when repositioning their guns. The dash movement should most likely be possible to use too, at least for the 75mm light infantry guns.
Moving Guns 40 meters
German 75mm light infantry gun IeiG18 2.30 minutes
German 75mm light infantry gun IeiG37 3.15 minutes
German 50mm AT-gun Pak 38 4.00 minutes
German 75mm AT-gun Pak 40 4.20 minutes
German 76mm AT-gun Pak 36 5.00 minutes
German 150mm heavy infantry gun SiG33 5.00 minutesUS 57mm AT-gun M1 3.30 minutes
US 76mm AT-gun M5 4.20 minutes
16) One of the most annoying things in this game, and something that removes the fun of playing it, is the sometimes stupidly bad line of sight function.
Many times a team of infantry, or an armoured vehicle, can be positioned two rows of trees deep into a forest and not see the enemy which is standing, or rolling around, just in front of them and many times a team of infantry or an armoured vehicle can be positioned behind a dense forest with bushes, corners of houses, telephone poles and other things between the other side of that dense forest and the enemy with thats unit being able to see the enemy and even shoot at them.
If you're standing in a part of a forest which is for example two or three trees distance away from the beginning of the forest, you are able to see what's standing or rolling outside of it.
And as far as I know a dense forest gets darker the deeper you look into it from a position outside of the forest. All the things between a forest and a person or a vehicle standing far away from the forest are also making it near impossible to single them out among the blend of different colours and shadows.
So to have a unit being able to see through a dense forest and all the things between the forest and the enemy seems a bit strange, especially if it is part of a game which some people call a good simulation of the reality.
17) A similar notice can be given to windows in houses and how easy it often is for a force to see what is inside the house even from a quite good distance away without using a binocula. From inside a house one can easily see what is happening outside the window as long as it isn't too far away. But if one is standing on a field or a road, even quite close to a house, it isn't always easy to see who or what is standing or sitting inside a house unless they are standing close to the window or the lights are turned on in the evening. Unfortunately the game's line of sight function doesn't show this.
The picture above is showing US soldiers rushing forward in an attack. The house to the left is on fire and so is the ground in front of it. I read somewhere that houses and ground on fire used to be part of the earlier versions of these games and it would be great if that function came back.
18) To have the ground and houses, and maybe even trees, sometimes being able to start burning if they have been hit by a bunch of high explosive rounds or if a vehicle has been hit close by would make the game more fun to play.
If BFC is worried that some players would exploit this function I'm sure there will be some H2H player rules about this. BFC could also make changes to programming the AI-groups and make it possible for the scenario designers to move the AI-forces out of an area if there would be a fire in the woods. I read somewhere that both the Soviets and the Germans put woods on fire especially to force the enemy to leave those areas. So to exploit this function in a game should maybe not be frowned upon too much.
19) Trenches and foxholes that are more correct. Trenches could be a bit deeper so the troops have to stand up to shoot and don't have to crawl to avoid being shot at. If there was an animation which have the troops moving while slightly bending over, they would be able to walk in those deeper trenches to avoid being shot in the head or chest.
To have trenches more correct would also make trench fighting with the troops more fun and interesting while they carefully move along the trench line and clear corners where enemies might lay in wait.
Foxholes could preferably be deeper, single ones and more spread out instead of being shallow and in close groups of four as they are now.
20) It shouldn't be so easy to spot trenches and foxholes. If foxholes and trenches were made different than they are, moving your troops towards or beside them and being shot at would be an unpleasant surprise and not something you expect.
21) If a heavy machinegun-team is wiped out of their pixel life and a squad or a team of other soldiers are close by or are moving into the area where the hmg is standing it would be great if one or two of the men in this squad or team could move to the hmg and use it instead of having the hmg being viewed as abandoned.
22) When talking about machine gun teams I'd like them, and all other troops as well, to be able to move backwards a short distance instead of having them turn around immediately before they move to another position behind them. If you for example have an MG-team that you want to move back a bit to a better position, the team could be able to move to that position backwards instead of having them first turn around 180° and then move. To have troops being able to move backwards a bit would way avoid having them get shot in the back.
Infantry that are tactically retreating doesn't always have to do that by immediately turning their back towards the enemy but could also move backwards a few meters while on the ready to shoot while doing so before they turn and move away.
In a book about the German army during WW2 is mentioned the words "We went on long marches, carrying all our gear... We even had to practise retreating in a series of backward leaps — a skill which might always come in handy". I get it that those backward leaps were exactly the movement backwards during a tactical retreat while keeping their eyes open for attacking enemy soldiers.
23) It would be great if the armoured vehicles, like for example halftracks, could reverse a bit slower. Just as lorries, armoured vehicles and tanks can go forward in four different speeds it could be useful to have them reverse in different speeds. To reverse a halftrack slower could be useful if the crew want to use their machine gun when they are doing a tactical retreat and that way support the infantry which is falling back with them.
24) And to have tanks and other vehicles being able to reverse without shooting out smoke grenades every time would be great too.
25) Infantry units that are using the slow movement (crawling) are often not aware or their surroundings but only aware of what is on the ground. I have read on the forum that units see what the animated troops look at. As the troops who are crawling always look down and thus have their eyes on the ground just below them, they often miss to notice enemy vehicles and troops being fairly close.
26) I wish vehicles wouldn't get stuck in a splash of mud as easily as they do now when the weather isn't soaking wet. Dry weather, damp weather and cold weather would most likely not have the mud sticky and deep enough to cause them to get stuck, especially not if the splash of mud, which is one mud tile, is by the road and there is only one or two mud tiles where the vehicle is going. Mud on the fields on a day with very wet and rainy weather or after a long period of rain would more likely be more treacherous and cause vehicles to get stuck and immobilised. This would especially be true if the vehicle has went over more than two mud tiles as it takes some time for the mud to build up under a vehicle.
If an AI-tank with AI-tankriders would get bogged down and immobilised the result is that the AI-tankriders sit on that AI-tank throughout the scenario. It would be preferable if AI-tankriders could jump off a tank by themselves if it has become immobilised, or been standing still for too long, and later on follow their AI-groups movement orders to make the battles more enjoyable.
It isn't fun to have a look at the map after a battle is over and see a large bunch of soldiers sitting on vehicles that have got stuck in a splash of mud in the beginning of the battle.
27) Armoured vehicles could determine better when to use HE and when to use the MG. It happens sometimes that one single enemy soldier who is running away or popping up from a foxhole for a look is being shot at with HE when it would have been enough to use the MG. A bit stupid to waste HE on that.
28) It would be useful if the different gun crews were be able to abandon their gun and later on man it again. It sometimes happen that a gun crew is being attacked which makes them run for cover just to have the threat gone and them unfortunately not being able to return to and use a fully functional gun.
That's it for my list of changes.
Absolutely love these suggestions, particularly in regards to placing ATG's in buildings. That's a long overdue, missing feature of the game and should also include AFV's. After all, there's plenty of historical precedent for that too.
I do think that foxholes and trenches, the way they are currently portrayed in the game do detract from their protective abilities and make them more visible.
Possessing and being able to use abandoned weapons is also, an absolute must! As well as being able to get ammo off of enemy casualties.
-
On 9/14/2021 at 5:28 AM, chuckdyke said:
Abandon also means that they disable it. A gun unit could be split like we do with infantry. Split the gun away and split the crew. They can find shelter and can rejoin the gun. With abandon itself I don't have a problem.
I've mentioned this issue too, and I still disagree. If a crew is taken out, they don't have the opportunity to disable the SW. This inability to use 'abandoned' weapons is a definite drawback to the realism of the game. Disabling a weapon takes time, and is a very deliberate action that's not done by men getting killed or running away broken. I really think this is something that needs to be seriously reconsidered; it's just not realistic as it is now. If a weapon is to be disabled, then that should be a command that takes up the unit's time. I know, I know, more commands, more micro-management, but that's also my point, and I think @BornGinger's too. During combat, SW's are far more likely to just be dropped than disabled, which is precisely why it would be a much better default to allow other unit's, even enemy one's to repossess the SW. ASL used penalties for SW's crewed or picked up by other/enemy units making it more likely the weapon would be 'broken' (jammed). That would be far, far more realistic.
-
Well, for some reason, I can't edit the original post to change the link, so here's the YouTube one instead. Pls forgive the jerky quality, it's my first video capture attempt!
-
What goes around, comes around!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0eqjuxiev3vc8nr/What comes around goes around.mp4?dl=0
-
Drivers, alone in vehicles with armament (eg. M20 armoured car or jeep with a mounted MG) should be able to 'Open up' and man that weapon.
-
Awesome. Thanks guys. Yeh, I've moved 'em all into a separate Master Maps folder, and we'll see.
-
Hi all. I've been going thru and cleaning up my scenarios folder from a bunch of dupes and mis-matched files v's actual scenarios, and I'm also seeing some master map .btt files therein. In particular, I notice that Umlaut's Bailey Bridge contains two map .btt files that are to placed in the Scenarios folder. So, do some scenarios or mods use more than one map file, including these master map files?
-
- Speaking of OBA, when there's the ability to have 'pre-arranged' fire in the setup phase: the ability to create a rolling barrage?
-
So having given up on GIMP coz of import and export isues, http://greenfishsoftware.org/gfie.php did work right away.
@kohlenklau somehow, I missed your suggestion about free paint. Apologies, but look like this greenfish makes it even fewer steps.
-
On 5/25/2021 at 9:39 AM, IanL said:
LOL that's a great way of putting it.
I know people have figured out the settings for GIMP and Photoshop to save a BMP that will work in game but I never have. I got frustrated trying to get Photoshop to work and eventually just switched to the Greenfish editor: http://greenfishsoftware.org/gfie.php
It's default settings for Windows BMP files work for me in game.
Yup, finally got around to trying this out, and it was done immediately on the first try! Thank you for relieving my angst sir!
Engine 5 Wishlist
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
Oh, Amen! I like to correct or edit some of the scenario texts and the whole original has to be deleted and the new typed in its entirety. No cut-n-paste or clicking on one place to correct or change a word spelling!