PEB14
-
Posts
783 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by PEB14
-
-
13 minutes ago, Vacillator said:
Hi Pierre, in the Editor the objective values match the list in the bottom text, not the list in the graphic. That agrees with @benpark's explanation.
Spasiba, Comrad !
It's important, because it means that destroying enemy tanks is not the goal, but a way to achieve the real goal, which is terrain occupation!
-
1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:
The solution would be simple, change combine to uncombine as an option. So you would always be able to form 6 men into two teams.
That would be great indeed.
-
Hi,
(I post this in CMRT subforum but it basically applies to all WW2 games)
In a previous post I complained about Panzergrenadier squads that I didn't like. Playing again and again with the German, I've discovered that, in fact, I don't like playing with German infantry at all, for the very same reason: their 2-teams squads.
And thinking about it, I really believe that the game fails to model late WW2 German squads. Let me explain myself.
From a very broad point of view, one can divide squads into three main categories.
1) The Allied, big squads, that are divided into three teams. They are by far the more flexible.
2) The Russian and Italian squads, that cannot be split or can with potential penalties. Minimal flexibility.
3) The small squads, that are divided in only two teams: mainly the German squads.
There is a very realistic rationale behind the two first types, related to doctrines and the quality of NCOs. By example, Italian NCOs were notoriously bad (as far as I could read), and Russian ones were delegated relatively low initiative. On the opposite, in 1944 the US NCO were well-trained and empowered with more responsibilities.
What about the Germans? As far as I know, they have the reputation to have had the best NCOs during WW2; additionally, more initiative was delegated to lower ranks officiers and NCOs in the Wehrmacht than in any other WW2 armies. While this may not be as true at the end of WW2 than it was at the beginning, one should nevertheless have at least as much flexibility with German squads than with the Western Allies ones.
But in Combat Mission it is not the case. Send German scouts and have them killed, you get stuck with big 6-men squads that are no more flexible at all, and which additionally are perfect preys for handgrenades, US light mortars or soviet smgs.
From my (limited) experience, it makes the German squads less flexible in attacking that any other (save for the Italians, obviously) army. In defense, it doesn't matter, but when attacking you basically either scout with full teams, or assume the risk of losing squad flexibility forever - which is completely unrealistic.
The solution to what I consider to be an issue is very simple:
Let's file a suit for BFC to split the German squads into 3 teams !!!
(In fact, I believe it would be better and even more realistic not to consider scouts as teams, but that would mean adding a kind of fourth team to all nations and hence heavily modify the game engine).
-
2 hours ago, wyskass said:
I've been playing CM for a few years now, with long breaks between sessions, and am finding this among the most difficult "games" I've played. it's the most frustrating and challenging game I've played. I'm a long time, cyclically returning war game enthusiast from Arma, to CMANO to HOI4 for enjoying the full range of scale. I seek the most realism, challenge and immersion. Of course the more realistic the model the more it requires proper tactics and strategy. Realism doesn't always equal fun and while I have read some Army and Marines publications to some degree, there are hundreds of pages of tactics that a military education teaches. I feel lacking in proper employment of Cav, Armor, and maneuver tactics. Which brings me.. Who of you reads and applied published theory and tactics here?
I've been incorporating patience with scouting -> indirect preemptive fire -> maneuver forward -> directe fire -> assault, but even with awareness of general principles I get frustrated. Not actually losing, but feeling my casualties are a result of bad choices.
How many of you are successful in Combat Mission by your own sense without any military tactical education (pro or personal)?
is there a common sense I'm missing in become successful?
How many of you have read Army or Marine published manuals about Armor, Infantry, Mortars employment? is it transferable to here?
Is trial and error something you enjoy or do? with reverting to last saves after mistakes?
Interesting post!
I'm only playing the game for 18 month and haven't read tactical manuals; but I clearly have watched various tutorials regarding realistic and proper tactics, and I feel that the better way to learn is to PLAY, again and again, experimenting all the way along the guiding lines offered by basic tactical advices.
By the way, I consider it's also worthy to play against the AI to experiment proper attack methods (a lot less regarding defense as the AI is too weak to lead good attacks).
-
I'm surprised that a stock scenario that old still shows such a discrepancy of victory conditions:
It's worth patching IMHO ( @benpark I think this is up to you!
).
Anyway, could some good soul have a look and tell me what are the correct VC for the Soviet? I don't wanna sneak into the editor when starting a PBEM…
-
7 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
If there was any German superiority in tank optics in WW2, it's not modelled in the game.
Sorry but I strongly disagree. I made a test a few months ago, and in open terrain, with all parameters equald (experience, motivation), it appears clearly that the German tanks spot fasters and hit sooner than the Soviet ones.
I've not made the comparison with US tanks though, but were German optics significantly superior to the US ones at the end of the war?
-
5 hours ago, Vacillator said:
This also happens against tanks. My US engineers managed to chuck a demo charge under a Flammpanzer III recently - I had brought them up behind it and that was it. From memory at least two crew jumped out but they were taken out by the engineers and possibly others who were not impressed with the thought of recently being on the BBQ menu.
Indeed. Have you played the Kasserine Pass scenario from our friend @kohlenklau?
This one ended into a bloody mess. Out of AT weapons, I had my American engineers storm a German tank (or Italian-built SP gun? I don't remember) and destroyed it with demo charges, but they were wiped out by the tank crew which wore an incredible arsenal of weapons… smg and the like… Crazy event in a crazy scenario…
-
7 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
I don't even think you use the blast command against bunkers? Just getting the engineers close enough should see them throw the demo charge automatically.
Well, I don't know why but my (German) engineers seem to be reluctant to throw their demo charges against bunkers (they're probably waiting for the Führer's Wunderwaffen). So when I get tired of waiting, I help them to do the job using the blast command…
-
God I like this game…
(Whining mod start)
But there are a few things that make me crazy. One of those is the "Blast" command. Having it as a move command is really a bad, bas, VERY idea. It leads to so many stupid situations!!!
The last one in my case: busting a bunker with the Blast order. Once the bunker gets blasted and destroyed, the blasting unit runs like crazy against the bunker wall. Obviously, the bunker inoccupants get out, but whereas the bunker busting unit shall have ambushed them, the fight turns into a senseless melee and the bunker inoccupants gain the upper hand !!! (They got shot by other units in the vivinity, but the blasting team got wiped out). Completely irrealistic (I mean, it could happen, but it happens in CM nearly every time…)
Not the first time and certainly not the last, but the "Blast" command is certainly one of the first command to revamp!
(End of whining mod…)
-
18 hours ago, Vacillator said:
I forgot I had smoke turned off once. That didn't go well for me.
Anyway, glad you got it sorted.
I did worse. I started to play a CMFI game in "no tree" setting for a few turns. I was somewhat puzzled that the enemy might be so close without having been spotted…
-
15 hours ago, A Canadian Cat said:
Windows should be WYSIWYG. With with the caveat that soldiers don't perfectly shoot out of them but pretty close. Your reported example should not happen. Sometimes the view from the windows don't cover where you wanted or perhaps expected but the windows shown on the building being on the wrong side is *not* supposed to be how things work.
I may be wrong, but things are a little bit more complicated. It happens (at least to me) regularly that a given position inside the building doesn't provide a large view towards outside. It seems to be often the case with MG teams, and more particularly in upper floors with attic-like windows or sides with a single window. In order to be sure that your units inside the buidling are in position to cover the direction you want, you'de better use the "Face command" at the final waypoint inside the building like shown below:
In that case, I'm sure that my guys will face towards the east and their field of view will be large because there are three windows. With a single window, the field of view might have been restricted.
-
18 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
Ok, scratch all that, because it seems all this only works inside the editor as long as you are "deploying" the forces in the preview. The moment you save the test scenario and play it like a regular battle, things start to get weird.
Hi @Bulletpoint,
Just FYI I did the tests in game mode using a specially edited map, not in the preview mode of the scenario editor.
18 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:So basically, as long as you place the mortar platoon leader among all the mortars of all sections, any section leader can call in fire from any point of the map, even without radio or C2. Definitely seems like a bug. The attached FO cannot call in anything if out of C2.
If who is out of C2? The FO or the mortar?
-
1 hour ago, George MC said:
Goid to know I’m understandable. I mind trying to access a weather forecast in Talkeetna and the woman looking at me dumbly before asking ma pals if I was speaking English. She then proceeded to shout at me slowly re what time to come back at!
Excellent!
By the way I'm wondering what the Alaska accent might look like…
-
19 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
I just tested it I swapped the Platoon HQ for his Company HQ and the Platoon HQ who is in C2 (By Radio) with his Company HQ can't call for indirect fire. The Company HQ with Radio is sharing the same square with the mortar. The Platoon HQ is the only unit which can enable other units to use his embedded mortar for fire support. I wonder or the same applies with US units.
That's getting very weird because in my case it works. See below:
The HQ amidst the mortars is the Co HQ. As you can see there is no C2 between the Plt HQ and the Co HQ but the Plt HQ can call the mortars for indirect fire (so can the radioless Section HQ and the FO).
I've no idea why, but in the example above the mortars are in C2 with their Plt HQ: they are out view and voice and have no radio! But the light is red with the Co whereas thr Co HQ is 10 meters from them.
That's why I don't like on-map German mortars. Always a pain to get them work properly, ya never know why i works (and why it doesn't either…). The US have radios everywhere so it's much easier.
-
On 2/1/2024 at 4:03 AM, Erwin said:
(...) It gets a bit boring always playing scenarios/campaigns that attempt to be accurate historically - when one normally can only be really accurate at an operational or strategic level.
I somewhat disagree here!
I don't see why one can only be really accurate at an operational or strategic level? I think on the contrary that it's a lot more difficult to be accurate at strategic level because of all the considerations that shall be taken into account (logistics, politics, etc.) at this level. While at tactical level you basically only need accurate map and TOE to be accurate.
While historical accuracy doesn't matter very much to me for individual scenarios (if only because it's very difficult to create a balanced scenario for H2H and be historically accurate), I like to play historical campaigns to get immersed into historically accurate situations.
I'm not much into what-if stuff, but that's clearly a matter of personal taste.
-
6 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
The HQ of the mortars is too far away. The radio of the HQ is not part of the C2. Other units need it for fire support.
Yes that's my point. C2 is not enough (apparently not even necessary), radio shall be close enough.
I've not tested whether the radio must belong to the command chain or if any radio can do the job.
-
I get your point about being in C2 with the platoon HQ and not the section HQ. But I confirm that this is not enough, though.
Here, the mortar is in C2 with its Plat HQ not his Sect HQ based on the green lights:
But the Plat HQ is too far away and the FO cannot call for indirect fire:
I tried with the Co HQ and it works, so it seems that you only need a radio close to the mortars to call for indirect fire, which is basically what is written in the manual:
-
10 hours ago, Myles Keogh said:
Noticing that many American rifle squads in CMBN are now equipped with two BARs instead of the standard issue one. Is that a fairly recent change? I don't remember that being the case not too long ago. Ever since I got CMBN in 2011, it was always one BAR per rifle squad and the only way to get an additional one was to buddy-aid the fallen BAR man of another squad. But now that's no longer the case.
Over the course of the fighting during WW2, many American units found ways to acquire extra BARs. This practice became so prevalent that it eventually two BARs per squad became "standard" which is reflected in late war US Army of CMFB. However, would it have been common during the early days of the Normandy fighting?
Anyway, I'm just curious about the reasoning for this change in CMBN.
According to this source:
https://www.battleorder.org/post/usa-rifleco-1944
QuoteThe Company HQ was allotted five Bazookas for issue at the company commander's discretion (enough for local tank defense of the HQ and each platoon). Six M1918A2 BAR automatic rifles and six M1A1 Thompson submachine guns were added to this weapons pool on 30 June 1944
This is in addition to the 1 BAR per squad allotment; so I guess this should explain the reasoning. But it seems that official TOE never changed until the end of the war so this allotment should be similar in CMFB.
By the way, and off-topic, scrolling through this interesting web page leads to that:
QuoteGenerally speaking, if the squad was divided, it was divided into half-squads of six men (although it could be divided into any combination all the way down to single soldiers depending on the situation). These divisions were usually colloquially referred to as the Rifle Team (with the Assistant Squad Leader, Rifle Grenadiers, and Riflemen) and the BAR Team (with the Squad Leader, Scouts, Automatic Rifleman, Assistant AR, and Ammo Bearer). Although Googling the Rifle Squad's organization will give you graphics showing an Able (SL/Scouts), Baker (BAR Team), and Charley (Riflemen) three-team structure, this was more reflective of the squad's order during the march than close combat. Documentation on the topic suggests that Able would join Baker, which reflects the more common half-squads used for fire and maneuver. Still, there is little evidence that the Able, Baker, and Charley terminology was actually used by units in the field. Teams were also not considered "basic units" and were more situational concepts than the squad generally.
This confirmed that the team structure in CM engine is much too rigid to reflect reality.
-
4 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
He must be in C2 with his Platoon HQ (Radio).
Not sure what you mean by "in C2."
In my test, C2 doesn't matter. If the Platoon HQ (Radio) is not close enough from the mortars (e.g., a couple of tiles), NO indirect fire allowed, even if in C2.
In my understanding, for a mortar to be in C2 he must see or hear its Section HQ, not Platoon HQ.
According to my tests, It's only the presence of the platoon HQ radio in the immediate vicinity of the mortars which allows to use them for indirect fire, not the C2 status of the mortars.
-
I've always found that 81mm German mortars are a pain to use so I made a quick test (which should work for any of the three other WW2 games as the 81 mm platoon structure is similar).
The unit structure of the infantry battalion's mortars is the following:
Company HQ (radio)
- Platoon HQ (radio)
-- Section HQ (no radio)
--- Mortar squad (no radio)
(There are two sections per platoon and two mortar squads per section, but it doesn't matter for the test).
I tried to call for the mortars indirect fire using either any of the HQs above or a FO attached to the company.
It appears that there is only one condition to be able to do so: the platoon HQ must be placed next to the mortar squads.
Section HQ have no importance in the process, they can be at home drinking a fresh beer, which means mortars' C2 status has no influence on its hability to fire.
It leads to a weird situation: as long as the platoon HQ is next to the mortar squads, you can have the radioless Sections HQ out of view of the mortars, calling indirect fire !!!
So the fact that the Section HQ has no radio forbids it to call for indirect fire if the platoon HQ is too far from the mortars, but the Section HQ can be on Mars or Venus and still call for its own mortars's indirect fire through some mysterious channel?! Weird, weird, weird…
-
I already commented on YouTube the quality of the tutorial!
I hope you'll point out some details regarding initial placement as well: devil's in the detail! In particular, how getting precise position for defending unités, painting set-up areas or not, how wide, the issue of definding units facing properly behind walls and hedges, etc.
I noticed that you finally decided to let us hear your voice… and it's much better this way!
I think to remember from one of your previous post on the forum that you were reluctant to do so because of your (Scottish?) accent?? If so, as a non-native english speaker, I can assure that there is NO such issue!
Thanks again!
-
13 hours ago, Heirloom_Tomato said:
Many, if not most, of the members here would agree, while playing CM against the AI is fun, playing against a live opponent lets the game truly shine.
While this is generally true, in fact some scenarios are finely tune for a well balanced play of one side against the AI, and hence are not interesting to play H2H. This is why theblitz database is of great interest!
-
3 hours ago, BFCElvis said:
I understand what you're saying. And it would apply today.....tomorrow...etc....but what about a year from now? 5 years now? When most people who own the game, but not the Pack, already have the 4.05 patch installed? Or 4.09 patch? And they decide to purchase the Pack? It happens every day and has been this way for years.
Don't bother too much with me whining…
It works perfectly fine the way it does! In fact I was just susprised to read that no download is required while in fact a download is required… for now. Nothing more.
Now I've downloaded the patch, purchased the BP2, and I'm very pleased with what I get!
In fact I have a much more interesting question for you: does the patch include only BP2, or does it include some bug fixes as well? I must say I missed the release notes if any are included…
-
7 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:
All releases for the past few years have followed this process. The home page of the website doesn't get updated until the uploads have propagated the servers for a while but an announcement is made on our forums. And if it was sumfink with pre-orders they get first crack at it.
The just released 4.05 patch contains the content. This is the way new Packs and modules have been released for a years now. The confirmation email sent with a purchase states it.
So if I get your point, there's no download for BP2 but one must download a patch instead...
It makes more sense than no download at all anyway...
Bug Tracker Thread
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
OK, so just an additional terrain objectives and a slight difference of balance between them.
Thank you!