Urban Bone

[weapon2010]

Great news about all the tweaked features, but #6 stands out as most significant and impactful to the game, as tanks spotting ability is reduced.3, 4,5, and 6 combined will make life what it should be for tanks in an urban environment.Dangerous and lethal.

[Holman]

I'll say. I just got off a conference call with Steve, Phil and AKD. From now on all my posts will be stickied. Including the upcoming 'Inter-species miscegenation:the hidden rainbow?'. It will rock your world. Keep an eye on the General Discussion forum.

You *do* know what happens to prophets when they overplay their hand, don't you?

[Pete Wenman]

I do have to say I was chuckling when Childress wrote that original prediction. Because unlike you, I knew he was right

Steve

I think Steve is referring to this statement

From 4/6/13:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Childress

Prediction: BF is in the process of addressing of gun elevation- and depression- restrictions and will have a rough and ready fix in time for the Market Garden module and Arnhem.

and not this one

Parsing the words it seems to suggest next Monday as a likely release date. Or there'll be another terrorist attack. Your guess is as good as mine.

P

[PanzerMike]

These changes really do have an impact on the game. Good stuff.

[Waycool]

Makes sense monkey stand down.

I think Steve is referring to this statement

and not this one

P

[Michael Emrys]

I'll say. I just got off a conference call with Steve, Phil and AKD. From now on all my posts will be stickied. Including the upcoming 'Inter-species miscegenation:the hidden rainbow?'. It will rock your world. Keep an eye on the General Discussion forum.

Good lord. Back to beaver tail are we? That guy with alphabet soup for a name should be delighted, along with our resident cat molester.

Michael

[Childress]

Makes sense monkey stand down.

That's a bit rash, I think. N is nearly always correct. His bookie, Big Easy Raoul, tells me he was 15 and 1 against the spread in last weeks NFL games. But, true, he's not infallible; he took the Packers -7 against the Bengals. Who could have predicted that ending?

[A Canadian Cat]

and not this one

P

Yeah but he quoted that one...

[Childress]

1. Crews of heavy weapons are now even more reluctant to use their sidearms than before. No more 500m potshots from mortar ammo bearers or the like!

But sometimes you need to use these troops as regular infantry.

[sfhand]

But sometimes you need to use these troops as regular infantry.

I usually let my troops choose their own targets so this sounds like a beneficial change to me. If I want to use support troops as regular infantry I'll be more than happy to assign targets but until then I'd usually rather they hold their fire; it seems like a good trade off to me.

[BletchleyGeek]

4. Vehicles trying to engage targets at point blank range have their time to target increased. This helps the system better simulate the problems AFVs have in seeing/engaging targets that are almost literally on top of them. Like assaulting infantry, for example.

... snip ...

6. Vision blocks and periscopes have had their capacity for spotting knocked down a bit more, thus making it harder/slower to spot things than before.

These two changes will be a game-changer (for me, at least). Unsupported AFV's should be substantially more vulnerable now. Thank you very much, BFC

[Childress]

Mortar teams are usually (always?) riflemen. Do they carry side arms? And they don't carry extra shells in QBs

[Holman]

Mortar teams are usually (always?) riflemen. Do they carry side arms? And they don't carry extra shells in QBs

Mortar teams and ammo carriers usually have rifles or carbines.

In real life, what was their job when enemies were within (long) range? Obviously the gunner and loader are operating the piece, but were the others free to open up with their rifles? Perhaps they were mostly busy moving shells, keeping in communication with spotters, and watching the fall of shot.

Of course they're no longer busy with any of that when the mortar is wrecked or out of ammo. But would real-life commanders fling them into the firing line the way we usually do?

[iMolestCats]

I think they were just security incase the enemy got to close. My grandpa was part of an 81mm platoon in korea, and he would always talk about how boring it was guarding the mortars. I mean its not like these medium mortars were right next to the action. Although he has talked about few times about when there would almost be a breakthough they would get thrown into the action.

[Michael Emrys]

I am less certain about the armies of other nationalities, but in the US army the gunner and asst. gunner were armed with pistols. Other members of the team carried rifles or carbines.

Michael

[Childress]

Whatever their official role they currently function as ad hoc rifle teams in CM 2.1- if they're not lugging mortar shells.

[weapon2010]

Question about 4 and 5: Does this mean that if a tank is trying to engage infantry at point blank range and at an unrealistic elevation that the 2 delays will combine? essentially doubling the spotting delays?

Cant wait to put a shrek up high and hide him until the tank is right underneath to test this out.

[Battlefront.com]

Question about 4 and 5: Does this mean that if a tank is trying to engage infantry at point blank range and at an unrealistic elevation that the 2 delays will combine? essentially doubling the spotting delays?

As I understand it, the penalties are cumulative.

As for what ammo bearers do in real life... they are there to support the weapon. They are NOT there to engage the enemy with their rifles unless it is to protect the weapon's position from close assaulting enemy infantry.

In game terms this means that weapons teams, within LOS of an enemy unit, will not take fairly ineffective potshots at (quite likely) superior enemy infantry units. All that does is get attention. The bad kind

Generally speaking, a weapons team that is within short range fire of enemy infantry should be withdrawn. To help this out everybody in the unit will attempt to take shots at the close in threat with the hope that it drives them to ground, thus allowing for withdrawing.

Steve

[bisu]

There was another issue specifically concerning mortar teams.. It was the situation where after indirect fire target order has been given to the mortar to engage suspected enemy in a specific area, the supporting riflemen started to fire their small arms as well thus immediately giving away position. This problem significantly limited the use of mortars at smaller distances.. Has this issue been adressed somehow?

[agusto]

As I understand it, the penalties are cumulative.

As for what ammo bearers do in real life... they are there to support the weapon. They are NOT there to engage the enemy with their rifles unless it is to protect the weapon's position from close assaulting enemy infantry.

In game terms this means that weapons teams, within LOS of an enemy unit, will not take fairly ineffective potshots at (quite likely) superior enemy infantry units. All that does is get attention. The bad kind

Generally speaking, a weapons team that is within short range fire of enemy infantry should be withdrawn. To help this out everybody in the unit will attempt to take shots at the close in threat with the hope that it drives them to ground, thus allowing for withdrawing.

Steve

I often order ammo beares to area fire onto a specific target. Will they still accept long range (like 250m+) area targets after the MG module? IMO surpression is one of the keys to victory, so i want as many of my men to shoot in the dirction of the enemy as possible. If i dont want my 2nd line troops to attract attention i usually give them short covered arcs.

[Pak40]

There was another issue specifically concerning mortar teams.. It was the situation where after indirect fire target order has been given to the mortar to engage suspected enemy in a specific area, the supporting riflemen started to fire their small arms as well thus immediately giving away position. This problem significantly limited the use of mortars at smaller distances.. Has this issue been adressed somehow?

This is a baffling use of mortars IMO. If your mortars are far enough away from the direct threat then the new changes will keep your mortars from firing. However, if your mortars are firing an indirect mission while enemy troops are "at smaller distances", then they are fully justified in firing their weapons. Perhaps you need to put your mortars behind cover if you're going to use them in the indirect roll, otherwise you might as well use them in direct fire mode to eliminate the closest threats.

[Battlefront.com]

There was another issue specifically concerning mortar teams.. It was the situation where after indirect fire target order has been given to the mortar to engage suspected enemy in a specific area, the supporting riflemen started to fire their small arms as well thus immediately giving away position. This problem significantly limited the use of mortars at smaller distances.. Has this issue been adressed somehow?

As Pak40 pointed out, this is not how mortars were used in real life except for emergency situations. If the enemy is 250m that's probably your last chance to pull your mortars back before they get pinned down and neutralized. Even then it's pretty risky if you don't have favorable terrain conditions.

Having said that, the problem is addressed because the small arms of the mortar team should not fire at 250m. That is considered outside the sphere of "self defense".

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I often order ammo beares to area fire onto a specific target. Will they still accept long range (like 250m+) area targets after the MG module? IMO surpression is one of the keys to victory, so i want as many of my men to shoot in the dirction of the enemy as possible. If i dont want my 2nd line troops to attract attention i usually give them short covered arcs.

I'm pretty sure, but don't remember now that I think of it, if dedicated Ammo Bearer Teams utilize this new behavior or if only Ammo Bearers directly attached to the weapons team do. IIRC the Ammo Bearers in their own Team can be told to target something 250m or beyond, but the Ammo Bearers manning the heavy weapon itself will not. Usually heavy weapons teams have at least 1 or 2 Ammo Bearers.

Steve

[bisu]

The problem I have mentioned was already discussed before:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=110210

Some quotes from there:

..And depending on terrain and visibility conditions, a light mortar can definitely stay unspotted when firing just the mortar tube at sub-300m. But small arms fire will definitely get it spotted. Not sure if this is technically correct, but this is how the game models it.

I have read a lot of accounts of how frustrating light & medium mortars were for infantrymen to deal with in the bocage -- from what I've read, mortars were often positioned close enough to the line of contact that it was easy to hear them firing, but they were still virtually impossible to spot. Apparently, every time the "thunk" of a mortar being fired was heard, everyone and their mother took cover, because no one knew for sure where the round was going to come down.

Maybe that makes it more clear what I have in mind. It is not so difficult to imagine such encounter especially in Normandy: a light mortar setup behind a berm of a bocage , and 250-300 m away suspected enemy behind another bocage strip. You could efficiently target the enemy with the tube only and remain unspotted as long as the accompanying riflemen wouldn't open fire and make a lot of noise. Currently this is not possible in game.

[James Crowley]

Something for you to chew on while you wait for Market Garden to be released...

5. Similar to #4, vehicles that try to engage targets beyond their realistic elevation restrictions have further targeting delays. Yes, yes, yes... we know that this isn't the be-all-end-all solution to the forever (i.e. since 1999) problem of not explicitly simulating elevation restrictions. But at least there's now something whereas there wasn't anything other than whatever game variables happened to be in play (which usually solved the problem anyway). We had a very, very, very long discussion about this and it was decided that the new feature works pretty well and is certainly better than nothing. And nothing was the only other viable choice for us, so that's that

Steve

A great addition but will there be any additional visual clue as to this kicking-in?

I ask only because I can imagine situations in which your tank fails to fire at a theoretical target and you have no idea whether this is because the gunner has no LoS; the crew are inexperienced or shaken; your tank is buttoned down and/or there is an elevation restriction at work.

Could be difficult to put the situation right if you have no idea as to the actual nature of the problem - some thing which the addition of these types of hidden modifiers, as good as it is to have them - tends to exacerbate.