Jump to content

Combat Mission ww2 Africa?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Maybe I will start buying Steve some books and send him some uniforms of the players there. Maybe he will soften, what you guys think?

Throw in some Nam books and tiger camo while you're at it...I'd kill Emyrs (though he might not enjoy it) to get my hands on a CM version of that! Somebody has to bust this no Nam wall down...I'd much rather it be Battlefront than some COH RT clone.

But yeah, I'd dig seeing a PTO game or any of the other theaters/times mentioned. It's ALL cool and interesting to me.

Mord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I must be in the minority...I love Normandy and the Bulge, but think I am played out of Market Garden, maybe even the Bulge. (How many Bulge games have I had over the years? 3-4 in cardboard, at least as many with pixels.)

The western front lasted less than a year...there's four years of eastern front battles to draw from. Finnish Front! Sebastapol!

With CM2 or better I would love Barbarossa; Summers of 42 / 43 / 44, anytime. Give me the wide open steppes...

I didn't find CMBN til late last year. I was still playing TalonSoft's Eastern Front...a game engine well past its prime. But those divisional level battles were awesome...

I agree with you here... they should begin with 1941 for Russia at the very least.. however how can they do winter or summer at the same time with the new engine. I mean the battles around Leningrad would be crazy as well as possible attack on Moscow early. Summer of 42 start is ok but so many early epic Tank battles of 1941 would be lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking for myself, I want CM:BN modules to cover ALL of WWII plus the Korean war. North Africa, Market-Garden, the Bulge, Italy, the Balkans, the war in Russia start to finish, large (Okinawa) and small (Guadalcanal) islands in the Pacific, and combat in Korea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CM1fan! How could you forget to mention Russia! :D Once the Russian Front titles start appearing, it's goodbye from me to everything else (except CMSF2 perhaps). I'm only doing WW2 West Front because there's no WW2 East Front yet. Having said that, and since we're likely to have to go through Market Garden and the Bulge title before we ever see an East Front game, there are a lot of very interesting battles still to cover. If I'm going to do anything for these two games, I'd prefer to focus on something less well-covered than the city fighting in Arnhem for example. This game doesn't do city fighting very well I'm afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please elaborate.

It doesn't simulate the ad-hoc hardening of buildings, mousehole charges are rare as hens' teeth. Some of the spotting is very hard to believe (spotting units crawling about the far face of the interior of buildings across the street, at night, and putting accurate fire on them) the interior abstractions make it difficult to have any meaningful input, which while realistic at the platoon commander level isn't a lot of fun; might as well just roll some dice and count how many 6s each player gets. Use of corners isn't well handled, and tanks have Spider Sense. You can't put ATG/IG/Tanks in buildings. Ammo resupply is clunky, and the RoF factors in the game mean that at the close ranges of MOUT, you need to resupply.

Those are just some of the factors that I can think of/which have been raised here. I'm sure people with more experience in the real thing and its simulation in BN could add to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ The biggest issue to me is that only the PIAT can be fired from buildings. German and American troops have little to no defense against tanks in urban combat, when it should be the other way around. Sure, they can run out into the street with bazooka and hope for the best, or hide behind a corner and wait, but both of these strategies rely on luck as much as anything.

CMSF handled MOUT extremely well in my experience, with the big difference being that it was suicidal to move tanks and other armored vehicles into urban areas without an infantry screen.

What would it hurt to abstract in that the infantry knocked holes in the wall, opened the doors/windows, and whatever else it took to fire an AT weapon from within a building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ The biggest issue to me is that only the PIAT can be fired from buildings.

Fausts can be fired from inside too. And Rifle Grenades (for what good it may do you against a Panther... :) )

What would it hurt to abstract in that the infantry knocked holes in the wall, opened the doors/windows, and whatever else it took to fire an AT weapon from within a building.

That's quite a lot of abstraction. From previous discussions on here, accounts of this sort of prepared ATRocket firing position indicate that they were rare, and time consuming to construct. If you can knock holes for the convenience of your AT teams, why not for the convenience of movement? I'd be happy with some sort of "if there's a wall missing on the model, you can use an ATR from the floor that's more al fresco than it was when it was built" kind of abstraction, not some arbitrary constant "setup time". Plus some sort of fortification for purchase and placement beforehand that represents crowbar and hammer work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's quite a lot of abstraction. From previous discussions on here, accounts of this sort of prepared ATRocket firing position indicate that they were rare, and time consuming to construct. If you can knock holes for the convenience of your AT teams, why not for the convenience of movement? I'd be happy with some sort of "if there's a wall missing on the model, you can use an ATR from the floor that's more al fresco than it was when it was built" kind of abstraction, not some arbitrary constant "setup time". Plus some sort of fortification for purchase and placement beforehand that represents crowbar and hammer work.

Okay, maybe not knocking holes in the walls, but opening windows and stuff wouldn't be much of a stretch, and I thought there was conflicting evidence on this anyway. I wonder what BFC uses as its information source for this design decision? Edit: Couldn't you fire from buildings in CMBO? You just risked setting the building on fire or something?

Agreed that at least being able to fire from buildings where an entire side has been blown away should be possible. Then you could blow those up with charges and set up a few positions in preparation for a defense against armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not have any real life experience but urban fighting really interests me so it was one of the first things I tried in the game. My friend and I have fought several urban battles now and I admit to some disappointment. Some comments on your comments below and further discussion about what I think will help below:

It doesn't simulate the ad-hoc hardening of buildings,

True, but the buildings in the patch seems stronger - or the troops are positioning them selves inside better now than the original game. Couple that with the fact that I learned to split my squads and spread the teams over the floors in buildings at ALL times. Makes this a lot better.

I would like some fortification ability for buildings - I think it would be great to buy building fortifications like you buy trenches. Having said that I can live without this.

mousehole charges are rare as hens' teeth.

Not sure what that is can you clarify?

Some of the spotting is very hard to believe (spotting units crawling about the far face of the interior of buildings across the street, at night, and putting accurate fire on them)

Yep spot on.

My other big gripe for urban fighting has to do with the action square to action square visibility requirement for area fire. What this means is that a tank in a street can target spotted enemy soldiers in buildings down the street. But when those soldiers duck or run suddenly the tank can no longer target the front of the building with area fire. Even though they were just putting rounds on that very building face moments ago.

The problem that causes is that as I am clearing a street my armor support cannot fire at the face of buildings down the street while my guys move to the building next door.

Yes, yes I can hear the tears - armor is already to powerful:D

Which brings me to my opposite gripe - tanks being able to target enemy soldiers on the sixth floor of the building they are parked beside. I know why they gun elevation is not modeled and I understand why. I get it. But I don't like it in a close quarters urban fight. I wish some bright person could come up with some limits that would not break the AI but would allow me to safely have solider's in upper floors when the bad guys tank is on the street below.

What I want is for it to be a bad idea to just drive tanks down streets with out coordinating infantry support.

<snip> Use of corners isn't well handled, and tanks have Spider Sense.

+1 Oh amen to that did I say +1 already?

You can't put ATG/IG/Tanks in buildings.

Allowing some of that would be cool yes. I am not sure if this necessary for good urban fighting but it would be nice.

Ammo resupply is clunky, and the RoF factors in the game mean that at the close ranges of MOUT, you need to resupply.

Some changes here would be nice yes. Again I think this would be good for the game overall and not sure if it directly effects urban fighting.

Those are just some of the factors that I can think of/which have been raised here. I'm sure people with more experience in the real thing and its simulation in BN could add to it.

Probably the single biggest issue I had with my urban fights was the maps. So, let me start by saying I mean no disrespect to the map makers. I have tried it. Clearly it takes an iron constitution to create a good map. So far the maps I have fought my urban fights on, have not been good enough.

The problems of infantry not surviving long enough in an urban setting to punish poor use of tanks is real and the factors mentioned above all play a role. But, I submit another large factor, is with map design. For infantry to dish out the proper punishment they need to get close to enemy tanks and fire their AT weapons from some kind of cover. The maps I have used lack enough cover in the streets, twisty alleys that tanks cannot drive down.

I have lost tanks to close assault - yes I was using tanks recklessly and I was punished, just as I should have been. So I know that infantry can destroy tanks if they survive getting close to them. An urban map that is more like a real urban environment would go a long way to making urban fights more fun. IMHO.

To improve urban fighting the goal to strive for is to make it harder to just drive tanks down streets without coordinated infantry support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Mousehole charge]

Not sure what that is can you clarify?

As the trusty interwebs put it: "British Second World War slang for a prefabricated explosive charge consisting of a wooden frame with explosives at each corner and in the middle designed to blast a hole in walls large enough for a man to get through."

This link:

http://www.specialoperations.com/mout/moutpoi21.html

is a more modern document showing the slang has crossed The Pond in the intervening decades :)

The only analogue we have in the game is the Demo charge. I got the impression (so long ago now that I can't for the life of me think from where) that if a unit was going into a town, they'd have more of these things available to them than I've ever seen in a scenario in the game, and they'd be spread out amongst the "Line platoons", not as separate "Breach Teams". The charges involved wouldn't be anything like enough to achieve the earthmoving feats of a Pioneer/Breaching Team demo charge as currently modelled. Also, units heading into urban terrain, if possible, would be issued with extra grenades.

An extension of the inventory management system would allow for the purchasing of special additional equipment before the game, and its allocation to units. It wouldn't be a huge stretch to add a "satchel charge" (smaller than a Demo Charge, and proportionately less destructive, though there are minumum limits due to the way buildings are modelled) to the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the interior abstractions make it difficult to have any meaningful input, which while realistic at the platoon commander level isn't a lot of fun;

What do you need? Stairways, furniture, chandeliers, and water closets? ;) Fine for a first person shooter but CMBN is a squad/platoon game. Interiors are just chrome at that level. And we'd get the next module in 2015. BFC spends enough development time fine tuning the interior of tanks.

They've already promised to 'do more' with buildings in the future. MG and Arnhem will stress test house to house fighting to a greater extant than what we have so far. We might be pleasantly surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know much about urban fighting...

But one thing strikes me when I look like some troops are assaulting a building. In a situation that there are several soldiers inside of a building, and a group of enemy soldiers (a squad) approaches the building, then before assaulting the inside they often just came close to the building and all of them starts shooting at the building and the defenders inside of the building.

Those soldiers inside also try to shoot from windows but first, not all of them are close to windows so not all of them can shoot, and those who can shot from windows are outnumbered and seem quite ineffective in shooting at the enemy standing 20m out there in the open ground, while getting heavy casualties themselves.

What is strange for me is that it seems (as I remember it) like ALL the soldiers in the building are targeted (even those not at windows, but hidden beside walls and closer to center of the building - just trough the walls, even those at higher floors.

And ALL of the soldiers inside were getting supressed, wounded and killed (not only those standing at windows, but all of them - by bullets passing trough the walls).

Of course I can agree that rifle bullets sometimes CAN penetrate some kinds of walls and supress, wound or kill people inside, but to make it effective against a larger building first one would have to know WHERE to aim, where the enemy soldier is exactly behing all those walls. A spread, area fire of a squad would be dispersed on whole building (walls) and maybe even several condignations, so I think such "blind" area fire would have little chances to penetrate walls at exactly right places to kill many of defenders, unless the atacking team is equipped with several machineguns.

Do the attacking soldiers, being close enough like 10m, actually SEE the enemy soldiers inside the building, even trough the walls ? And can target them ? Or do they "see" only those defenders standing at windows and shoot only at them (at windows) ?

Same question for the defending side - do the defending soldiers, hidden inside the building behing walls, actually SEE the enemies that are 10m or 20m outside of building ?

Also, those poor ones standing at windows and - usually ineffectivly - trying to fight those outside in the open - if it really happened IRL that they would be so supressed by enemy fire, that they would be unable to defend the approach to the building, wouldn't they rather back up from the windows to internal walls and only toss grenades outside, and setup a defence inside the buidling, waiting for the atackers to show up in doors and windows ? Especially in a large building - because in small ones the hidden defenders could be finished with just grenades tossed inside.

Also, those soldiers that are inside, especially those on higher floors - if the enemy fire was so intense, that it was penetrating the walls, wouldn't they quickly back up to center of the building, lay on the floor (on the floors they would get protection from it), and only defend key positions like stairs, at least for the time of the suppresion ?

But I consistently see soldiers inside buildings, even on higher floors, being killed by rifle or MG fire from atacking enemy squad.

Or by MG fire from a tank which "sees them trough the walls" and kills them with MG also trough the walls. Sure, a tank could kill them with long MG bursts even trough the (not too thick) walls in many situations - but if the tank gunner knew where to aim, at what part of the wall ! How the tank gunner can see them trough the walls it's beside me... is there EVER a window on the path ? Are those soldiers so stupid to not keep away from windows if a tank is shooting at building ? If a tank is aiming ANYWHERE close to the room I'm in, I would dash or crawl for another room and beside a solid wall, before the tank puts a HE into that room...

The virtual soldiers seem to be much less survivable than real soldiers.

Real people, especially brave ones, can quickly adapt to changing sitiation, make a dash for cover, quickly change positions. Real soldiers can wait for good moment, fire quickly from a window and when spotted - and expecting hard response - run away or jump to next position, in seconds being several meters away or behind another wall, so a reply in form of MG burst cutting the window (and trough thin wall around it), or even a tank shell, would not hurt them.

Virtual, CMBN ones would stay in place shooting (or covering) untill the reply in form of MG burst or tank shell kills them. They would only crawl away if they believe it's time to withdraw.

It seems for me that the computer soldiers in CMBN can be either unsupressed - and try to fire at the enemy (even if they have to stand in the windows and are getting quickly killed that way), or be suppressed and just lay down trying to cover - but not able to change individual positions or find a better place to hide.

So the computer soldiers - at least those with better trainging and experience - they should either get some more sophiscated AI, that would allow them to better handle the cover, to quickly change positions after firing if outnumbered (or move to cover after firing), to quickly crawl away (or even run away) if they see a tank that is aiming at their position, and some things like that. If the AI of the soldiers is able to "find" them a firing position and "find" a cover, then for sure it would be able to find them a SECOND ALTERNATE near-by firing position and alternate cover, and switch them quickly if in danger, or after firing.

Or... all those things would have to be abstracted by making the troops in buildings just "more resistant" and "less prone to supression" or "smaller targets" or "harder to kill" or "harder to spot". Effect would be similar, only because there are graphics and animations of individual soldiers and bullets tracked, then such abstraction would mean that sometimes we would SEE strange things and soldiers that were hit and "should die" would not die.

But I believe they could fight a little more "intelligently" - at least if there is less than 100 of them fighting (actively, with those complicated alghoritms actually used) simultaneously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the argument for limiting Zook and Shrek fire from buildings but it might've been better if that was limited to smaller house type structures...say a certain sized footprint but then allow them to be fired from the bigger buildings, ones which would have less interior walls packed in close. There's a few that look like warehouses that come to mind...not to mention the big churches.

Mord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you need? Stairways, furniture, chandeliers, and water closets? ;) Fine for a first person shooter but CMBN is a squad/platoon game. Interiors are just chrome at that level. And we'd get the next module in 2015. BFC spends enough development time fine tuning the interior of tanks.

Which just goes to show that MOUT isn't CMBN's strength. It can handle it, and produce a satisfying end result, but it's a bit (more) of a "black box", compared to the rest of the game. You put troops in one end, and get a result out the other.

What I "need" (too strong a word; "would hope for getting some attention in future iterations," would be closer to the mark) is for the model to be more consistent. Like Mr Leslie says: fire at a building when you can see troops, but not when you can't... WTF? Spotting anomalies, though there are those in the open too, and I can't help wondering if they're linked somehow that make a mockery of even careful tactics.

They've already promised to 'do more' with buildings in the future. MG and Arnhem will stress test house to house fighting to a greater extant than what we have so far. We might be pleasantly surprised.

We might. We can hope. I'll not be handing BFC's bat and ball back if they change nothing about urban combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I "need" ... is for the model to be more consistent. Like Mr Leslie says: fire at a building when you can see troops, but not when you can't...

Not sure I agree. The proper tactic, given some variables like force superiority, may to pepper a building from which fire has been observed or that is suspected of sheltering the enemy, with one's own, concentrated small arms fire. Current visual certification not constituting a sine qua non.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I agree. The proper tactic, given some variables like force superiority, may to pepper a building from which fire has been observed or that is suspected of sheltering the enemy, with one's own, concentrated small arms fire. Current visual certification not constituting a sine qua non.

Whatever. There are times when stuff happens that really oughtn't. I'm sure you can think of reasons why it might've been "reasonable" while I try and explain every detail of the situation, and we can iterate eventually to you being convinced or not, but funk that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, that's missing one of the major points of the conflict. Infantry-only fights just change in rate of casualty infliction per trooper between the Indian Wars and Vietnam. Either that, or they're musket line v. musket line (though at least those usually have cavalry and artillery involved). The attraction of ww2 for me is that it's the first conflict where armour is a standard feature, and the combination of foot, mounted and gun troops in infinite variations. For me, infantry only fights stop being interesting above the platoon level, so CM isn't the appropriate tool to play with them.

What's particularly fascinating/unique about their infantry warfighting though? The culture and background, granted, are interesting, but I'm curious as to the main points of interest that you'd see in a CM-scale game.

I don't know what's interesting about being shot to bits on open sand...

Well Womble, aside from the banzai charges, cave fighting, fight to the last man, jungle fighting aspect I cant think of anything else thats fascinating. Oh wait ya, flamethrowers, guerrilla tactics, burning jungle, bayonet fights...etc. ;) Sadly I think I will need to win the lottery to bribe BFC to actually make this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...