Jabble
-
Posts
113 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Jabble
-
-
16 hours ago, Chibot Mk IX said:
In WEGO game this can be done in an ideal situation, it has restrictive condition so most of the time I would not suggest to do that. It is preferred to have Jav team hold fire. then at the end of the turn the intended target is in sight. When issue the order, give a target or armor target arc. In CMBS JAV team needs 15 SECONDS to finish lock/launch. So give a withdraw order then put 30 Seconds pause (20s pause is also an option , but it could be risky).
35 minutes ago, Khalerick said:Displace/egress order would be nice. For PvP, it would be a massive buff for defenders.
I think it would most benefit the irregulars from Shock Force -- imagine being able to shoot an RPG and then get the hell out of dodge ASAP instead of evaporating instantly in the face of BlueFor's reaction.
Thanks guys, at the moment guessing the timing seems to be the best we can do. FWIW I've put a request in the Engine 5 thread to add a 'react' posture that would enable a unit to relocate ASAP after firing.
-
10 hours ago, JM Stuff said:
...Seriously from Steve Wilson or only Porcupine Tree I can recommand for sure
Anesthetize
In Absentia
solo Steve is for me too quiet songs !
Thanks, will look them out!
To change direction a little, here's something to appreciate the M60A2 being in the game:
-
4 hours ago, eniced73 said:
Not exactly sure what you are talking about. What I am saying is that once said scenario or QB map is created the author would either test any possible "problem" areas by firing it up in the game or ask a couple volunteers to test out before releasing. What I am saying is that if these scenarios are being play tested by the "QC" committee from BF then they should be doing the testing. Yeah, sometimes things get missed but everyone knows pathfinding is an issue with this game and should be high up on the list of things "to check".
Ah, I didn't explain myself well. You're right when you say that pathfinding is an issue with this game, whereas with some other games it isn't. That's to do with the underlying data structure which represents the map in the game. Every such data strucuture has pros and cons - it's always a tradeoff - and a different structure that makes pathfinding easy would almost certainly make worse other aspects that are important to this game. To change that underlying structure in an existing game (e.g. at an engine upgrade) would mean breaking direct back-compatibility, as all the old scenarios would have been built with the old one. Just think how the new MS flight sim is completely incompatible with the old one (FSX) - the addons for one do not work in the other.
Hence we're likely stuck with the current model for the for the foreseeable future. However that doesn't rule out engine enhancements to mitigate the issues, such as an iterative segment verification function, maybe.
-
2 minutes ago, WhiteWolf65 said:
I completely agree that it is just a game and it is meant to be fun to play. But going back to what AttorneyAtWar said about MRLS rocket artillery...
I understand that - but would such scenarios be fun to play? Much of the challenge of CM is a bit like a chess game - a limited number of tools can be used in a myriad of ways, all the while retaining a certain enjoyable balance. It strikes me that introducing MLRS may well be possible, but it would make an off-map luck-based agent the overwhelming factor in deciding victory or defeat, somewhat going against the field-scale wargame that is CM. Now on a larger theatre-sized scale it would make more sense and there's plenty of such games around, but that's not what CM is.
-
22 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
I don't have CMBS I understand the Russian forces have ordnance comparable with western forces. Whether you play WW2 or 21st century I would employ as much fire power as possible. Basically, SMEAC and METT-TC. Situation yours and the enemy, Execution Who, What Where. Administration and Logistics. Control and Communications. Always look at METT-TC. In the 21st century games I used MBT as if it were WW2 tanks. It is an entirely different beast. Only one way to drive them full speed they shoot more accurate at 3km than a WW2 tank standing still at 500mtrs.
Yes, the various tech levels are on a par, more symmetrical than CMSF2. However, that doesn't mean every scenario is so balanced - there are plenty of challenging ones involving a lightweight group trying to deal with a heavier adversary, like the above one I mentioned. You can use a toolbox in many different ways.
-
18 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
My MBT's like Abrams, Challenger or Leopard 2 use smoke. Your MBT's can shoot through smoke lots of Syrian armor can't. Artillery has smoke. The fun started under Patton he used to engage Tigers with smoke (White Phosphor) and HE. I think you like to make the Jav team your heroes. Enemy MBT's react on your armor first that is the time to employ your Javelins. Combined arms are the key and make sure your C2 is working.
I'm currently playing through the rather good "Phase Line green" in CMBS, where I have a few Strykers (with Javs on board) but no MBTs. While I might wish for something heavier, there's no cavalry to the rescue. The map has plenty of trees & reverse slopes, so opportunities are there to scout, hide, dash and take out enemy armour. Much of the fun of CM is to find solutions with the available toolset, and a few engine enhancements to better reflect reality would help that.
-
55 minutes ago, WhiteWolf65 said:
Then how can BFC justify that cluster munitions are within the scope of the game? A barrage of cluster munitions can take out a large chunk of any size BFC map. I'm just trying to make sense of what BFC is doing with these games. Don't get me wrong, they are and always have been great games. If they weren't, I wouldn't have been playing them for 20 years or so. I forgot one NATO country to include in any subsequent CM:BS module, the UK. I like Challengers a lot. Okay, onward and upwards.
A game is still a game - no single wargame can hope to cover all aspects of theatre warfare. It could be that the 'niche' of CMBS isn't appropriate for MLRS fire as it would entail scenarios that aren't fun or challenging to play. Turn 2 - everybody dies - scenario over.
-
1 minute ago, chuckdyke said:
You can smoke before he fires if it is available, the unit has thermal sights. Same with NATO MBT's they have thermal sights. Page 62 of the Base Game manual. The Javelin is equipped with an infrared imaging (I2R) system. Combined arms is the answer. Smother the AO with smoke once your intel is complete. NATO units can look through smoke.
If I have a spare smoke-dispensing MBT hiding in the trees I'll probably just use APFSDS instead of a Jav
But sure, having some infantry with smoke grenades seems a good idea - I've never thought to look if it's there.
-
1 minute ago, chuckdyke said:
You can throw smoke to launch the missile. It has thermal sights, and you can look through it. 15sec you can make it 15, 30 or 45 seconds.
I've just checked a save - my Jav team has no smoke - nor do any of my infantry units. However if they change the game to make it a deployable weapon (have you requested that?), maybe they could add that too.
But you'd be unlikely to throw smoke before firing - if a target suddenly appeared all the concentration would be on tracking, prep and firing, in case the opportunity is lost. Once the missile is away then throw smoke and scarper. Which means that for an automatic 'fire+relocate' reaction that smoke throw would be included. Is it actually doctrine for Jav teams to use cover smoke anywhere IRL?
-
4 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
I would say yes, Deploy and Pack up you look at 15 sec each way. He has a thermal sight so popping some smoke maybe an idea. It is I see an opportunity weapon. I give vital units 45 sec pause and let them make their move in the last 15 sec of a turn. One square on hunt usually does the trick.
Very much agree an opportunity weapon. That would make sense - throwing smoke to cover packing up and making a sharp exit.
The problem with specific delay timing is that it has to mesh with the opportunity - if the target appears in the last 15 seconds that opportunity is lost. Not just there, but many other occasions where we plan moves that would not exist in reality, to get around a problem with the WEGO time slice.
Hence IMO an automated reaction is a better idea than any artificial 'gaminess' to solve that problem. The enemy AI would react the same way too, so no extra human advantage there - just a more realistic sim.
-
19 hours ago, Erwin said:
True, it's not as intuitive as it could be... Us old-timers forget CM2 has a steep learning curve.
It's not bad though - there's plenty of abstraction and it's mostly done in a clever way that preserves what is important. Some games have a much steeper learning curve - think of "Command: Modern Operations" or the recent "Shadow Empire".
-
19 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
It is the nemesis of all ATGMs TOW, MILAN, SAGGERS to name a few. They require the operator to stay with their weapon. Javelin is way ahead in comparison. ATG's in WW2 they were on borrowed time once they fired, 57 mm was about the mobility limit. I pointed out for a new game engine you should have access to the emergency buttons during a turn. But you just can't sprint while carrying a Javelin launcher and a spare missile.
So maybe CM has got it wrong? They allow Jav teams to Quick Move (not Fast), though they tire quickly. The game already includes deployable weapons that take some time to pack up before moving - should Javs be included in that group?
Anyway I'm not asking for any new superhuman powers - I'm just asking for a) the ability to do some teamwork by coordinating missile launches, and b) to react to certain events during the WEGO minute using standard in-game actions, where time is of the essence. That reaction idea is not just for ATGM teams but for all units, e.g. a Stryker MGS will want to duck behind cover if it gets the first shot in against a tank, or a scout will want to back away quickly if it turns a corner and bumps into a mile-long armoured column.
-
22 hours ago, JM Stuff said:
I like after the ordeal from him and others also...
Man you have mine LP from before I was thinking there were lost for ever...I liked also AlPaProject in the eyes the famous tales mystery...turn of the friendly... and robot this was the ones that I had so not so much !
Jethrothull not so much STramp Kansas Marillon yes
From years ago I dont remember when gplus exist I post everys days music on a forum and had over 3000 everydays 5...I wish to do it again....today is only gplus in my mind all is gone !
Let me show you a band group more modern, that I like very much, I don t know if you know it with Steve Wilson, full of diversity of rhytms...
Indeed I think Turn of a Friendly Card is possibly APP's best, though there's strong competition amongst their later works. Gaudi is possibly their best 'moody' album. The early stuff was still clever but experimental and somewhat patchy, though allowing Woolfson to master his own version of Spector's "wall of sound" later on.
Ah yes - Steven Wilson - very talented. I don't (yet) own any but heard much on the radio, like his Porcupine Tree & Blackfield offerings, as well as solo. Another artist I'll probably investigate further at some point - I have a tendency to buy several albums from one artist at once, to compare the range. Can you recommend 3 Wilson albums to start?
But Wilson's very modern - definitely too late for this Cold War thread!
So to counterbalance I'll add in some more Yes (in their pop phase) from 1983:
-
10 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
It comes down to tactics. A Javelin was not meant to 'shoot and scoot' it takes about 15 seconds to aim and lock on target then up it goes and says: "Here I am". If you can lock on to something, something else can lock on you. I have no personal experience with the Javelin and see it as an expensive precision mortar. Once it is off and flying it is up to the operator to get out of the situation. That is also basic he should think of his tactical deployment before. You can shoot from buildings and foxholes with this weapon distance 1km-3km. Looks a lot better to shoot from hard cover. The tank sees a block of apartments a mile away but is very unlikely to spot the operator. Another idea use it to support your own armor during a melee. Like they say in Australia on its own they stand out like dog balls.
Sure, but tactics are what you make them. Blocking choke points has been happening since at least the Battle of Thermopolae in 480 BC, and overlapping arcs of fire has been around since the early gunpowder era. No reason to abandon such well-proven tactics now just because we have new technology.
Using a Javelin (or other ATGM) doesn't necessarily attract attention if you're well hidden - it's only once you fire that your position is obvious and it's time to scoot. Certainly if you can choose a distant firing point so much the better, but that's not always possible - the geography is what it is.
I'm not saying I would use such ATGM overlap often, but it would certainly be useful at times and the only reason it's failing is because of a game limitation that doesn't exist in real life. Or even in other games. Hence I feel it's a fair request.
-
9 hours ago, Erwin said:
And if you'd read my post from a couple days ago, ya woulda gotten there faster...
It's worse than that - I did read your post yet the information didn't go in! Now I even remember reading it in the manual, but I think my brain suffers from ROM-syndrome sometimes. To say fair I maybe forgot it as it's a feature I seldom find a use for - more commonly I have to be careful timing the mount-up before departure.
-
8 hours ago, JM Stuff said:
nice I didnt know about this band
what kind of genensis do you like ? for my part the old one with PGabriel...
I also think the early Genesis is the best, the most creative, but as members left (Gabriel, Hackett) that creative process diminished. While not so "prog" I do think they remained as a good rock band for a while, including Duke and even up to Abacab, but after that got a bit boring. I'm not very familiar with Gabriel's work outside, except for his best known works - maybe I should explore more there. Hackett has some good stuff too.
Other from that era are still around, such as Jethro Tull, Alan Parsons (post-Project), Supertramp's Roger Hodgson and Marillion. Fish (ex-Marillion) has some good solo work, and even Kansas (wayward son) are still touring.
There's a bunch of internet radio sites specialising in Prog Rock, such as The Musical Box, Prog.fm and Progzilla - good places to find out what's new as well as hear old favourites.
One of the widest ranges of style has got to be the Alan Parsons Project, from spiky electronica through haunting ballads to soft rock - here's one from 1979:
-
4 hours ago, IanL said:
Yes. With no orders on the vehicle select the passengers and issue a Special | Dismount order. Then issue normal move orders for the passengers followed by orders for the vehicle.
Hey it works, thanks! I suspect like most people, I'd previously only dismounted by choosing a waypoint.
-
5 hours ago, eniced73 said:
Shouldn't the quality team or creator of the scenario / map have "pathfinding" on the checklist before release?? I don't think the consumer should have to test.
In a perfect world, yes. However bear in mind that once you lay down a data structure that can be edited by users, you can't change then that structure without throwing away all those user scenarios too. To make a map with reliable "lookup" pathing may mean using a rather different structure which would break compatibility with the current one. As many users would be up in arms about that, the best that can be done is some sort of computational method to test relevant path segments. Which means probably not at the time of simply laying down paths, as there'd be quite a performance hit.
Maybe it could be done when there's a new game version, not just an engine version which maintains back-compatibility, but I'm not expecting that anytime soon.
-
7 hours ago, JM Stuff said:
Dont tell me you are also a fan from YES, I am also a great fan and pricipaly this one
, Tormato Drama Fragile... ,this is a part of my sad moment ,cos I had almot all from them in vinyls, taking place in my cupboard like my clothes to dress me now !...
Indeed YES! Plus many more from that era - ELP, APP, Floyd, Genesis, solo Wakeman, etc... I had most of Yes on vinyl - in one of those boxes that disappeared - now replaced by CD. Now I bet they still can be bought second-hand on vinyl, but what a price!
I'm heartened that the genre is still very much alive with modern bands flourishing, like Magenta, Southern Empire & Mostly Autumn, and of course many of the old players like Anderson, Stolt and Hackett still tour (well, before Covid).
Here's Southern Empire covering Yes's "Roundabout", originally from the '70s to keep it thread relevant.
-
I'm a grazer - a bit of everything, but probably more Prog Rock than other types. Any group with a 5-disc concept album and Roger Dean cover art
Though also a bit of jazz, older pop, classical and even tango. I don't "get" the modern stuff at all, though - I've become like my grandparents!
-
3 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
Javelins on special about the same price as a T55 tank. Use two Javelins and the Russians are way ahead. But here comes the pitch, an updated T55 tank is also equipped with ATGMs shooting through the gun barrel nowadays. I agree with @Erwin in this case. Better have them at different firing positions.
Different positions still make them vulnerable if they're both within sight of the surviving tank. Mostly they just die from coax or HE fire, one after the other before either can reload - or the WEGO minute finishes. And there's currently no shoot-and-scoot (though that's part of my earlier 'react' request) so killing both quickly is the only way to survive.
-
Just now, JM Stuff said:
Ha ha Mr ripper @Jabblewhat you have to say to your defense ? (Just joking)
don't move the knife in the wound, people is already sad enough that I dont keep it !
Hehe - I've already paid good money for the music - I just want to choose which device! Maybe it depends on jurisdiction, but many allow personal backups.
-
3 minutes ago, Erwin said:
I thought there was copy protection on the CD's. (Believe it or not I have never tried to copy a CD to a HD.)
None that I've encountered, though it may be out there somewhere. I guess it's more likely to be on the modern high-volume sales stuff. Even Windows Media Player has a built-in ripper, though it's not so versatile. But I don't buy modern pop these days so maybe that's why I don't see protection.
-
20 minutes ago, Erwin said:
Perhaps look at doctrine? Maybe two ATGM's would never be placed that close together (neither would any number of units) as a single (un)lucky shot could KIA both.
Not so close that they'd get caught in one blast, but close enough to watch the same area. It seems unlikely that in real life they'd not have some sort of plan for dealing with multiple targets without wasting a limited supply of missiles.
But hey - it's our game - we get to decide the doctrine!
Can't trust plotted paths at all !?
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
Ah, I see what you mean - fair point!
I still have a suspicion that the nature of the map 'cells' means that if a tester finds any one path to be OK, moving one of the waypoints even by a single cell might mean the path becomes problematic, as the step-by-step calculation which tests for collisions would be different. As such it's difficult to guarantee that any narrow point can be free of such problems, despite testing. Hence it might be a worthwhile idea to allow players the ability to test a segment they've plotted themselves.