CM:BN Market Garden BETA AAR #2 - ALLIED

[Wodin]

My worry with MG is the stop and go traffic you get on roads..but on bridges you want to motor across.

Also has the urban improvement been verified yet? Is it the RPG from building or an ambush order? Maybe you can finally push wrecks out of the way, instead of drive through them?

I expect Cpl Carrot will deny it if we guess it anyway.

[Cpl Carrot]

I can't image Battlefront would condone me deliberately lying/misleading you guys. This is my first AAR for them (and you) and I hope not my last. I am waiting for some evidence before I let you guys know exactly what one of the changes is. Unfortunately we are now caught up turns wise and Johnsy is away again so I may have to rethink my plan.

[AlexUK]

I can't image Battlefront would condone me deliberately lying/misleading you guys. This is my first AAR for them (and you) and I hope not my last. I am waiting for some evidence before I let you guys know exactly what one of the changes is. Unfortunately we are now caught up turns wise and Johnsy is away again so I may have to rethink my plan.

Well that's it - completely lost the plot now - this is worse than Alice in Wonderland! Are you playing with us Cpl Carrot??

[womble]

...I am waiting for some evidence before I let you guys know exactly what one of the changes is...

Which evidence, if it's "non-PIAT MANPAT can fire from inside buildings with some chance of deleterious effects", may end up not being forthcoming if no Shrecks or Fausts end up getting fired from inside any buildings...

[kensal]

Well at the very least we now that there are at least two urban combat improvements

[Cpl Carrot]

Which evidence, if it's "non-PIAT MANPAT can fire from inside buildings with some chance of deleterious effects", may end up not being forthcoming if no Shrecks or Fausts end up getting fired from inside any buildings...

And that is the conundrum I face. So here goes: One of the urban combat improvements is that infantry anti tank weapons (Bazookas, Panzerfausts, Panzershrecks) can now be fired from buildings, with negative affects being applied to those around the launch. This can be suppression, injury or both. Weapon type affects the degree of the negative affect.

It has never been my intention to play with you guys or drag things out (and I don't like just ignoring questions you guys ask). I expected our turn rate to be higher and therefore increase the likelihood of showing off this change.

[Vanir Ausf B]

OH THANK YOU GOD (i.e. Steve)

[Juju]

Wow, that's pretty significant! Significant enough to break my lurker status! Thanks!

[Buzz]

One of the urban combat improvements is that infantry anti tank weapons (Bazookas, Panzerfausts, Panzershrecks) can now be fired from buildings, with negative affects being applied to those around the launch. This can be suppression, injury or both. Weapon type affects the degree of the negative affect.

Impressive improvement! Thanks Cpl Carrot.

[para]

Thank heavens above Gunna be a lot of metal smoking around Arnhem very soon. Well that's one urban improvement, what's the others? can't keep waiting for Johnsy

[iMolestCats]

Wow, that's pretty significant! Significant enough to break my lurker status! Thanks!

Look! Guys, its a lurker! Get him!

[Childress]

Thank heavens above Gunna be a lot of metal smoking around Arnhem very soon.

But it will be German tanks doing the smoking. PIATs were always able to shoot from bldgs. Keep moving, nothing to see here.

[Ithikial_AU]

Awesome news! Thankyou Steve and Dev team.

[Fizou]

And that is the conundrum I face. So here goes: One of the urban combat improvements is that infantry anti tank weapons (Bazookas, Panzerfausts, Panzershrecks) can now be fired from buildings, with negative affects being applied to those around the launch. This can be suppression, injury or both. Weapon type affects the degree of the negative affect.

Great news indeed! Thanks BFC!

[Seedorf81]

Elation everywhere, it seems, on the AT in houses improvement.

But how long will that last when those who are so happily rejoicing have to attack with armor against "dug in deep, city defender infantry"?

We're gonna see a whole lot of "urban burnin' tanks", I reckon..

[Oddball_E8]

Elation everywhere, it seems, on the AT in houses improvement.

But how long will that last when those who are so happily rejoicing have to attack with armor against "dug in deep, city defender infantry"?

We're gonna see a whole lot of "urban burnin' tanks", I reckon..

Or a lot more of this:

I know for sure that I will be levelling more or less every building in towns now, just like I do when facing brittish infantry

[Seedorf81]

Yeah, and them pixelcavalry tankieboys must be thinking "F#*k that Steve! But thank God he didn't give them flamethrowers!"

[Oddball_E8]

Yeah, and them pixelcavalry tankieboys must be thinking "F#*k that Steve! But thank God he didn't give them flamethrowers!"

I remember fondly the times i used flamethrowers with effect in CMBO

All three times during a span of 2 years of playing...

[Sim1943]

And that is the conundrum I face. So here goes: One of the urban combat improvements is . . .

And the other is hand to hand combat?

[Fenris]

I remember fondly the times i used flamethrowers with effect in CMBO

All three times during a span of 2 years of playing...

But they are excellent tools for city fighting and I used them often in CM1 games in city/town fighting. Out of towns they ain't so great... Unless mounted on a tank.

Really hoping they can get into the game at some stage.

-F

[Childress]

And that is the conundrum I face. So here goes: One of the urban combat improvements is that infantry anti tank weapons (Bazookas, Panzerfausts, Panzershrecks) can now be fired from buildings, with negative affects being applied to those around the launch. This can be suppression, injury or both. Weapon type affects the degree of the negative affect.

Will the moment of firing be determined by the player? Or the TacAI? If the former the player will always choose to open up, side effects be damned. The payoff is just too juicy. If the latter is this behavior most common among Green and/or highly motivated/fanatical troops? One suspects the grizzled vet, considering the cost/benefit ratio, proved more hesitant.

It's great the urban defender has more options, but, examined closely, this enhancement may degrade realism. Every source indicates that firing these weapons from within structures was not considered optimal- though it definitely happened. Which explains why BF took so long to put it in.

[Vanir Ausf B]

One suspects the grizzled vet, considering the cost/benefit ratio, proved more hesitant.

I think it would be more the opposite. The wizened vet would be the more likely to make the correct calculation that firing from the cover of a building is less detrimental to his health than running out into the middle of the street and then pausing to fire while in full view of every enemy soldier in the area. It would be the fanatics who would find the latter more appealing.

However, I do suspect BFC is going to over-model the likelihood of injury or death when firing from buildings, at least initially. In reality the chance of that happening was quite small since there are really only two ways to hurt yourself or someone else when doing it: firing with a wall or similar obstruction within the minimum safe clearance area behind the weapon (which is 10 feet for a Bazooka, for example), or firing when a friendly soldier is behind the weapon. It is a bit nonsensical to only model this chance of injury when firing from indoors since these circumstances could and did occur in all sorts of other environments. A soldier outside of a building firing with the breech end of the weapon up against an outside wall or parked vehicle is going to be done for the day. Same with soldiers firing from within foxholes or trenches. But the game presently allows firing from these locations with no chance of injury or even suppression.

But I'm presently still too happy about this huge change in the right direction to worry about it before I see it in action

[bisu]

I am wondering what the consequences of this improvement will be for H2H, in cases where one of the players will have MG installed and the other not..

[Vanir Ausf B]

That type of game rules change is like bug fixes in that it is actually part of the game engine version rather than exclusive to any content (module). So anyone who installs the next patch will have it whether they buy MG or not.

[PhilM]

That type of game rules change is like bug fixes in that it is actually part of the game engine version rather than exclusive to any content (module). So anyone who installs the next patch will have it whether they buy MG or not.

As someone who is fully patched, upgraded and be-moduled, and will anyway buy MG as soon as downloads are out, I ask only because I'm confused (!), and out of academic interest: but will this be actioned as part of a - free - patch, or as part of a - paid for - upgrade?

As (arguably!) nothing was broken before and therefore not being fixed, but rather a game engine enhancement, this seems more like an upgrade?

Is there any chance that something is hard-coded into the unit characteristics to take advantage of the engine change, and thus units from the MG module, or amendments to old units, are required before it will work?