Jabble
-
Posts
113 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Jabble
-
-
4 minutes ago, JM Stuff said:
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=camel+Snow+Goose&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
last vers on youtube 2018 this can help you ?
That's the album, and there's a 2013 re-recording. I buy CDs as I'm old-school, though I do digitise them for convenience. OK, if I were really old-school I'd buy vinyl...
-
5 minutes ago, JM Stuff said:
Never see them also, but I like it very much, like I told you, but principaly this track, and only this version nice to know a fan of Camel !
You've put me in the mood - I'm aware there's a modern version of "Snow Goose" which I don't have, so time for some shopping!
-
I've never seen them live, but their live albums seem much more "enthusiastic" than the studio versions.
-
Ah but if they're covering a choke point, the targets only appear during that WEGO minute and it all happens very quickly. The moment they fire they give away their position, so survival becomes much less likely. By the time I get a chance to direct fire during the next command phase, they're already dead because they left the second tank alive.
-
And how could I forget Camel's "West Berlin"? Seems appropriate in this thread somehow.
-
58 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
Target Arcs. We must real bide our time when plotting the next turn. Even using the face command makes a difference,
Target arcs won't do it if the tanks appear in roughly the same place. ATGM teams are most useful when covering choke points, so it's not practical to divide them up into tiny arcs. It would require guessing precisely where each tank is by the time the trigger is pressed, so that each tank is in a separate arc.
What would happen in real life? A commander would say "Team A take out the first tank, Team B the second". Hence I reckon that's what should happen in the game too.
-
The ability to coordinate ATGM launches.
Problem: 2 ATGM teams are beside each other and in contact. 2 enemy tanks appear, one in front of the other, and both teams fire at the first tank almost simultaneously. The first missile kills it, so the second is wasted. The second tank kills both teams before they can reload.
Solution: Allow an option that limits the number of teams engaging any one target.
The game logic should 'know' how many ATGM teams are capable of engaging any one target, so it only allows the first to do so. The second is then free to engage any other target. It makes sense that this limitation only applies to teams in contact with each other or a common commander.
If the target survives the first strike, then the next team becomes free to engage it if it's not already engaging a different one.
If you've ever played Command: Modern Operations, there's a default option where only one aircraft will engage any one target at a time. If there are multiple targets, different aircraft will each pick a different one. Only if a missile fails to kill may another aircraft then engage that target, if it's best placed to do so. Something similar here would be useful.
-
3 hours ago, IanL said:
...The solution we really need is one of more of 1) show a no move cursor as you hover over gaps so you know and 2) have a better WISIWIG for gaps.
The stated request for a path preview is not likely easy (it requires full calculation of movement) and can turn out to be wrong too. Here is what I mean by it can be "wrong": movement in the game works by having a unit calculate the path to the next way point when it gets to the end of its current move order. This is important because units calculate their next movement path based on the reality at that moment not the reality at the beginning of the turn...
What about checking one chosen leg (through a gap) by incrementally stepping through that internal "reality at the moment" path? If the game can do it at run time, why can't it do so on a limited scale at "verify" time?
I get that it can't do it in the same way as the terrain cursor, as that simply looks up the value of the terrain map at one point. Lookup vs calculation.
-
I'll throw in one from the late, great Mark Hollis, 1984.
-
On 3/8/2021 at 8:46 PM, MikeyD said:
That was the battle of Ben Het. I vaguely recall reading the Pentagon became alarmed by reports of just how poorly M72 LAW performed in that battle.
Even before that was the Battle of Lang Vei, where the NVA used PT-76s to overrun a special forces camp during the build up to the siege at nearby Khe Sanh. The defenders managed to knock out several with M72s, but had many misfires too.
-
18 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
The way to prove a point. I had it in RT Engine 3 at the time. Since then, I dismount a feature away from where my objective is. Apologies to @Vergeltungswaffe sometimes a little thing changes. It is like 2men scouting missions now they peek from two corners of a house. Thanks and happy gaming.
Don't worry, we'll all get horribly confused when Engine 5 comes out!
-
23 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
@Jabble It is not hard to understand. To dismount before the AFV moves you select the passenger unit and then click dismount, if you want to dismount after the AFV has moved you just plot a move order. The unit will then move after the AFV has completed the move order. However if the AFV moves under a 'Hunt' order and stops because it has sighted an enemy unit the hunt order is automatically canceled and hereby the dismount move of its passenger. As the dismount applies at the waypoint which has just been deleted. Long time since I have been caught like that, security, and recon. Before you commit an AFV with passengers.
I've just tested this in CMBS on Elite, using the Training Campaign. Sent two units down to meet the Bradleys, mounted up, and sent the wagons hunting to a point near the red team. I ordered the troops to dismount to a point near the end of that path.
However the Bradleys stopped as soon as they saw some reds, far short of their destination, and the troops dismounted and walked the rest of the way.
-
2 hours ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:
You always have to take into account where you want the passengers to go. But that's a smaller risk than watching them melt on a burning vehicle.
True. But if they survive, I'd prefer them to act more like soldiers with a plan than tourists out for a sightseeing stroll
1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:You will see if the hunting AFV stops because it is engaging its passengers won't dismount. They will dismount only at the planned waypoint.
I believe you're right that they won't dismount while the vehicle is engaging, but I've seen soldiers dismounting when the vehicle stops because it has signed an enemy it can't engage. I'd suggest that the correct response would be to stay inside so that the journey can be continued next turn. However there may be circumstances where the soldiers should dismount and engage, e.g. an AT team. If the response is configurable, maybe that could be be achieved.
-
20 minutes ago, RMM said:
Yes. As I wrote, and have added to Engine 5 wishlist - the game should vet our plots as we order them. I think the delays that might be caused by it's having to crunch that info at the time of the orders being issued would be a much better, much better situation than finding out only when a game gets utterly ruined!
At the very least there could be a 'verify' utility after a path has been plotted, alerting the player to anything that ends up different from intended. If this is a specific command then it won't affect the performance at path issuing time.
-
2 minutes ago, RMM said:
It's an odd experience for purchasing online downloads though. I've never had to wait a couple of says for the download. Usually, as soon as it's paid for, it can be downloaded. Weird.
Maybe the hamster needs to be fed before using its treadmill to power the back-end payment system.
-
1 hour ago, Vacilllator said:
4 days is longer than I've experienced, so hopefully quicker. Steam is okay, but not for WW2 titles yet.
True. Plus, Steam takes their cut so BFC should get more if you buy directly. With direct purchases you can still get a Steam key via the Matrix/Slitherine store.
-
Here's my tuppence-n-quarter-farthing worth:
1) A linear LoS tool.
Should be easy to use frequently, e.g. click on a point of ground, then on another; it should tell if there's LoS between the two. An enhancement would be allowing for height, e.g. 2m above first point to 3m above second point.2) A React posture for use within the WEGO minute.
Problem: some encounters within the minute result in unrealistic responses, e.g. a hunting scout encountering a tank just stops and stays in the danger zone, or a static ATGM unit stays put after firing. Dismounts from a stopped hunting vehicle continue on foot to their original destination.Solution: create a React posture that determines how a unit will react to different levels of threat. For example a scout encountering a low threat will just continue on its route, or a stationary ATGM team spotting armour will fire then immediately relocate along a predetermined path.
There would need to be a relative threat level applied to each encounter, taking into account attack & defence capabilities. Hence an infantry unit would not see an ATGM team as a major threat, whereas a tank would. Proximity would be a factor too.
A scout hunting along a path could see a far-off infantry or tank unit and ignore it, continuing its hunt. Conversely if it encounters a closer threat it could retreat along a predefined path. An infantry unit hunting through forest encounters an enemy infantry unit, so it stops and fights.
Reactions wouldn't be limited to the Hunt command, they'd apply to any movement or to a stationary unit. Hunt should be considered a careful, eyes-peeled move, so any reaction could have bonuses applied. Hence a hunting unit encountering a normally moving unit should have the advantage of surprise.
I'd suggest four main responses:
Continue (ignore)
Stop and fight
Stop (if moving), fire once, then relocate
Relocate immediately (retreat)Any relocate path would need to be programmed into a waypoint to be available; like arcs they could be inherited along the sequence until instructed otherwise. Similarly it could be programmed into a stationary unit, such as an ATGM team's getaway route after firing.
These are all actions within the current engine - this proposal would just add them as conditional to events during WEGO play.
-
9 minutes ago, RMM said:
Tks
Yeh, the details of it could get drowned in the weeds, but in general, I think a good case can be made for investing in the Hunt command that way while having a separate Advance to Fire order.
Yep we'd definitely want that result facilitated, it's just establishing the best way to do it. What would happen IRL if a unit encountered an enemy? Why would they continue to the intended destination? I reckon that would only happen if the encounter was worth ignoring, i.e. it's not a high threat. In the game that reaction could potentially be configured, so it would just continue as intended with a new red icon now visible. But a configurable reaction could also take into account a non-ignorable contact, similarly reflecting a real-life response of fight or flight.
-
4 hours ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:
You always give the infantry a move order in that situation so that if the tank stops, they jump off and move away.
Indeed so, but usually you plan your dismounts to leap off at the end of the journey and go to a nearby advantageous position. If the vehicle is halted some way before that then the dismounts have a long walk, quite likely over dangerous ground.
Whereas if you prepared them to react to an early halt, they could move to some contingency cover position or maybe just hit the dirt and fight back, rather than wander nicely in front of the enemies' gunsights to their original destination.
-
5 hours ago, RMM said:
What's that thread please, because I've been posting these 'Feature Request' strings, since I couldn't find one. I'll start posting such things there too, but yes, it's fun to debate them here too.
I don't know that pause and edit really would become laborious to be honest, certainly not as long as one were to also incorporate the automated reactions we've discussing herein. I don't play RTS either, least not since Total War games, but there a real, definite need for proper automated reactions in that for sure!
I agree that the current Hunt command doesn't seem to really spot or hunt all that well when it comes to vehicles. As I mentioned previously, vehicles move at the same speed in that as the Quick command, which is quite different from how infantry do it. I get the impression that vehicles don't really hunt any differently than normal, Quick movement.
Here ya go:
OK, pause and edit might be made to be quite easy, but it would break up the whole idea of a commander biting his nails during that WEGO minute where he's just an observer. Plus, the devs would have to develop such an edit method, which I'd guess isn't trivial.
The idea of WEGO is to break up the battle into useful chunks to balance commanding and action playing out, to best simulate real life combat; mostly that works well. This is just one of those situations where it results in unrealistic behaviour - temporary paralysis when a reaction would happen IRL - so it would be good to come up with solutions that still fit within that WEGO time chunk approach.
-
Agreed. I suppose I think of hunt as 'move but keep your eyes peeled and be careful'. Adding sensible reactions would surely improve the behaviour of encounters during any type of move, but if it's during a hunt the unit should be in a better position to carry out its consequent actions as it's not being caught by surprise. All sorts of modifiers could apply.
-
1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:
@RMM We have WeGo and RTS. They could have something in between. The game pauses but you can only edit the units which were on hunt. Making suggestions is easy to rewrite the engine is not. Happy gaming ☺
There's a request thread for the next version of the engine, so you never know. Before throwing in some ideas I thought it might be worth fleshing them out here a little.
That pause & edit is interesting, but it might become too laborious or distracting if it happens a lot, whereas if some things can be abstracted and automated it would preserve the free-flowing WEGO mechanism. I don't play RTS so not sure of implications there, though.
I don't see that reaction should be limited to hunt, e.g. that case of the stationary ATGM team waiting patiently. IRL units moving normally would still react to encounters too. Hunt should give some real advantages though, such as faster detection of enemies and reaction time, something that could make all the difference in some cases.
-
50 minutes ago, Erwin said:
A new command is a good idea...
The more I think about it, I reckon it should be a new posture rather than a command, though it would have response-based commands/instructions associated with it.
An example: say we decide on 3 threat levels for any one unit - low, med & high. A scout unit is hunting along a track, the last waypoint (and hence current leg) has posture defined as "Ignore low threat", "Stop and fight med threat", "Relocate from high threat". A relocate path/destination has been set, associated with that waypoint.
So, it first spots an enemy scout unit some way off- low threat, so carries on. Next it spots an infantry unit a bit closer - that's a medium threat so he stops moving and starts shooting. Then a tank appears, triggering the scout to relocate along that predefined path.
Another example: an ATGM team is stationary at a location. It has posture "Ignore low threat", "Relocate on med threat", "Fire and relocate on high threat". It sees enemy scouts, so ignores. It then sees an enemy tank appear within range, so it fires an ATGM and immediately relocates along its predefined path.
If such threat levels can be established then one of several responses could be pre-assigned to each of them, associated with a waypoint or current location. Hence it wouldn't be limited to any one type of movement, rather like how arcs are used at the moment. Hunting would just become a 'careful' movement with quicker awareness/response to threats than other types.
It'll be a little more complex with respect to primary weapon & target types, in that an ATGM team would only shoot-n-scoot on armour, whereas it may run away from approaching infantry without firing.
-
15 minutes ago, RMM said:
Well again, I think an automatic pause at the relocation point would take of that. The flip side is that I may (and do) want units to move forward in Hunt mode, taking their time to pay attention to their surroundings, but then, if they keep stopping every time they see a unit, regardless of it's later disappearing, I would want them to continue unless it were of a significant enough threat that the game already factors that into unit reactions.
A 'react' command should be configurable, so if a Hunting team spot something that's not an immediate threat they could just continue. It's only if a 'withdraw' reaction is triggered that they'd relocate, presumably because they encountered a significant threat. The trick will be how to add such configurability to decide that reaction.
I suspect that once a withdrawal has occurred, it's less likely that the player would want to continue the original route & postures. In which case it wouldn't be worth the devs' efforts to implement preserving that, especially if they could be working on something else we value more.
[Music] Setting the mood
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted
Indeed, now vinyl is for enthusiasts - electronic is so convenient for everyday use. I mostly bought my vinyls when CDs came in and everybody was selling off their "old tech" cheaply. Unfortunately I lost most of it when it "disappeared" during a flat move
I'm still replacing parts of it on CD when I spot the bargains.
OK if you own a warehouse!
I still like to own the CDs (just in case!) but I rip everything to HDD to actually play them as it's more convenient and the only way to put them on a portable player. I miss the cover art from the vinyl days though.