More Bulge Info! (and a few screenshots...)

[MikeyD]

 

You sure a Jumbo with flamethrower ever existed? Never heard about that one.

 

I had wondered that myself and put up a bit of a fight over its inclusion. But they managed to come up with a couple reliable references, (including one photographic) to prove its existence. Can't argue with that! American flamethrower tanks are hardly tactically significant in the theater (this ain't Okinawa) but they're something to play with if you choose to.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

I had wondered that myself and put up a bit of a fight over its inclusion. But they managed to come up with a couple reliable references, (including one photographic) to prove its existence. Can't argue with that! American flamethrower tanks are hardly tactically significant in the theater (this ain't Okinawa) but they're something to play with if you choose to.

 

Was it just a normal M4A3E2 with one of those bow MG replacement type units?  I too have never heard of a flamethrower Jumbo, there were a few flamethrower types that more or less could go on any Sherman, imagine it'd be one of those units.

 

Which makes it rather less exciting given the limited range of those weapons systems.  Wonder if we'll be able to borrow some Churchill Crocodiles in future modules (considering the historical precedence for same, could be good times!)

[WriterJWA]

Any shot at getting Nebelwerfers as an off-map artillery source?

[MikeyD]

Yeh, it was the kit-installed bow mg flamethrower that nobody much liked. Its been awhile since I glanced at the reference but they may have been only something like one per battalion, if that. The game's also got a plain-Jane Sherman with the same flamethrower kit installed.

[MikeyD]

Nebelwerfer? I thought they've always been in the game. Nebelwerfer 41 and 42, 159mm, 215mm, 301mm.

[LukeFF]

Any shot at getting Nebelwerfers as an off-map artillery source?

 

 

Nebelwerfer? I thought they've always been in the game. Nebelwerfer 41 and 42, 159mm, 215mm, 301mm.

 

They've always been in the game. 

[WriterJWA]

Ok... I suck. It's been a while since I've played. For some reason I was under the impression rocket artillery wasn't included.

[womble]

Ok... I suck. It's been a while since I've played. For some reason I was under the impression rocket artillery wasn't included.

That's probably an artefact of the "American rocket artillery is ludicrously underpriced in QBs" phenomenon: since it's "common knowledge" that Xylophone is to be left out of QBs, it's easy to see how you could conflate that with "No rocket artillery is allowed" and that over time morphs into "no rocket artillery". The underpricing applied, IIRC, to Russkie light rocketry too, but I believe they corrected that. I can't recall whether they changed it in BN as well...

[John Kettler]

MikeyD,

 

A Sherman Jumbo flamethrower tank does seem a bit extreme, but it's really not all that much different from the Churchill Crocodile, which is, I recall, very heavily armored. As for rocket artillery, I have a different question. Given the maps are now so much larger, will we be able to rocket artillery on the map? A Nebelwerfer 41, the 15 cm vanilla flavor of Nebelwerfers, doesn't even reach 2 kilometers. 21 cm Nebelwerfer 42 will fit on an 8 km long map, for that weapon has a range of 7850 meters. In turn, isn't it time to also look at providing on-map, Indirect Fire capable versions of such things as the leIG 18, the sIG 33 and such?

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[akd]

In turn, isn't it time to also look at providing on-map, Indirect Fire capable versions of such things as the leIG 18, the sIG 33 and such?

 

 

Isn't it time you actually played the game instead of commenting on it.

Edited April 21, 2015 by akd

[kch001]

Any chance of adding a hull down / turret down indicator (i.e. you indicate the facing at a waypoint and then the indicator could show red/red or green/red or green/green)? Also an arc indicating the LOS would also be great when planning waypoints so that you can better plan routes that we are hidden.

 

If we could have temporary camouflage in the game, then it would be great too. Ideally I would like to be able to camouflage vehicles and troops further during the set up. It should not be something that you could do during the battle due to the time it takes, but I think that a heavily camouflaged StuG or machine gun team should be much harder to locate than it is now.  

 

Similarly if we could have prepared positions for vehicles then it would be great too. 

Edited April 21, 2015 by kch001

[Nidan1]

Italian smgs more like. Beretta M38/42s are found regularily in the mud of the Hurtgen Forest and the Ardennes.

A lot of units in the Arnhem area were equipped with them as well, but we don't see them in the MG Mod, do we?

[Ts4EVER]

Yeah, but why not? I'd imagine a hand weapon is a lot less work than a whole new tank and it would add some diversity to the infantry.

[womble]

Any chance of adding a hull down / turret down indicator (i.e. you indicate the facing at a waypoint and then the indicator could show red/red or green/red or green/green)? Also an arc indicating the LOS would also be great when planning waypoints so that you can better plan routes that we are hidden.

 

If we could have temporary camouflage in the game, then it would be great too. Ideally I would like to be able to camouflage vehicles and troops further during the set up. It should not be something that you could do during the battle due to the time it takes, but I think that a heavily camouflaged StuG or machine gun team should be much harder to locate than it is now.  

 

Similarly if we could have prepared positions for vehicles then it would be great too. 

Neither of the first two is likely to be included in the Bulge game, since they're significant engine modifications and Steve has said Bulge is going to be v3, not v4. I wouldn't hold your breath for either of them in any case, since:

 

1. they're not likely to be as useful as you might think, given the limitations of the LOS tool, and would give misleading information often enough to be dangerous: there's a tendency to rely on that kind of automation more than the current "wave the mouse pointer around and get a general idea", which inherently communicates its approximate nature. Having a nice blue arc, or lack of it, to show where you can and can't see from any given waypoint would be seductive and arguably counterproductive.
2. That sort of blanket information doesn't seem to be the sort of thing BFC want to provide for us. They consider, it appears, that the player already has more information at their fingertips than they should, along with more control of their troops' actions than is entirely desirable, both for unavoidable game reasons. Automating the judgement of LOS would seem to go against their tendencies.

[kch001]

I guess I will just have to get better at using target arc to plan my movement   Do you have any tips?

 

The camouflage and vehicle position should still be doable as I guess it would be an object in line with foxholes or bunkers. I must admit I am not quite sure how camouflage could be done, but maybe they can use it as a hide command. 

Edited April 21, 2015 by kch001

[c3k]

Any chance of adding a hull down / turret down indicator (i.e. you indicate the facing at a waypoint and then the indicator could show red/red or green/red or green/green)? Also an arc indicating the LOS would also be great when planning waypoints so that you can better plan routes that we are hidden.

 

If we could have temporary camouflage in the game, then it would be great too. Ideally I would like to be able to camouflage vehicles and troops further during the set up. It should not be something that you could do during the battle due to the time it takes, but I think that a heavily camouflaged StuG or machine gun team should be much harder to locate than it is now.  

 

Similarly if we could have prepared positions for vehicles then it would be great too. 

 

Turret/hull down indicator will NEVER happen.

 

Other games have hexsides which specifically give hulldown status from a certain direction (e.g., if the incoming LOF crosses the hulldown hexside). Then there's a to hit modifier and any hit means turret hit. Neat and tidy. Is hulldown for a Tiger the same as hull down for Stuart? Meaning, a wall 1m tall gives more cover to the Stuart than to a Tiger. Are they both "hull down"? What if the ground slopes down behind the cover. A tank 10m back has more cover than a tank 1m back. Are they equally hull down?

 

As well, the game does not model each tank's specific viewing port. (I'd like THIS to be changed before ANYTHING else in the game.) Each tank has certain "generic" spotting heights. That's the ELOS system. We get some interesting effects in the game in certain outlier cases because of it. (I understand and agree with the reasoning for doing this. The LOS table needs SOME simplifications in order to process any game map before entropy cools our universe.)

 

Because the game takes a very granular look at unit locations and exposure, a hull-down meter will never be useful. It requires a "hull-down from WHERE?" to be answered.

 

 

Temp camo: I -think- there is a bonus to units which stay in their setup location, representing such a thing. Hmmm. If not, there should be...with an icon representing the status.

 

Ken

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

RE: Jumbo 

 

It makes sense though, I mean given the fairly anemic performance of the US tank flamethrowers, having something that can actually make it to the target seems reasonable.  All the same imagine it'll have a pretty high rarity given that both the Jumbo and US flamethrowers in europe were not at all common.  

[kohlenklau]

For CM and BFC, what type stuff is done in "early alpha" versus say alpha and then beta?

 

I gather that Beta testing is where the written scenarios are playtested as any other scenario to see if they are well written but also as a means for the beta testers to report spotting goofy stuff specific to the new family? 

 

And the whole while til almost the final release candidate test starts, the art and some other stuff can be just dummy stand-ins while little glitches are tweaked to fix a dude's hand sticking out an odd location? for example...

 

So, if my vague idea is correct, part of me is happy that they're only/still in early alpha because if we were just getting warmed over CMFI GL leftovers for dinner, they'd be like "here it is..." but all of them focusing on Bulge means a lot of work is being done. Right? Maybe?

 

EDIT: I suppose many people have a "favorite battle"...mine is most probably the Ardennes Offensive. I feel like a kid on a perpetual Christmas Eve...

Edited April 21, 2015 by kohlenklau

[womble]

I guess I will just have to get better at using target arc to plan my movement   Do you have any tips?

First tip is "Don't use 'Target Arc' for planning!" I'm sure you meant "the Target command", just joshing. No tips on use, per se just advice to remember that it's not perfect because it:

1. uses the current posture of the unit you're testing for to check from. So if you have troops which are prone, and check from a waypoint near a low wall  for example, it may seem like they won't be able to see past the wall when they get there, which of course they will. The wall example is trivial. It's when you get declivities and foliage which affect LOS in a more subtle way that this can be an issue.
2. uses the centre of the Action Square where the waypoint you're checking from is, and it's possible that LOS could be drawn sometimes from the places pTruppen actually end up.
3. targets a spot in the centre of the Action Square you're checking visibility to (I think it's a meter off the ground, or the ground itself) which means that it might indicate that you can't see anything there, when in fact even a kneeling or standing pTruppe or any vehicle might be tall enough to be seen.

 

 

The camouflage and vehicle position should still be doable as I guess it would be an object in line with foxholes or bunkers. I must admit I am not quite sure how camouflage could be done, but maybe they can use it as a hide command. 

 

Conflating the camo and vehicle position changes is unwise. Vehicle positions could be done, as you say, in the same way as trenches, foxholes and sandbag walls are currently done. Slightly more difficult to bury a tank hull convincingly in the ground without actually burying it in the ground though, and I don't expect it will be done if it just looks hinky. I can see that there might need to be code changes to accommodate the slightly more complex targeting behaviour that vehicle targets need: defining where the centre of visible mass is located would need some additional algorithms because the "vehicle position" objects won't be just terrain bits like currently dictate "hull down" etc.

 

But having one element give another element a "concealment bonus" analogous to the ATG "hasn't moved" bonus, or the concealment advantage conveyed by high experience might be something that's harder to put in as a quick patch.

 

 

Temp camo: I -think- there is a bonus to units which stay in their setup location, representing such a thing. Hmmm. If not, there should be...with an icon representing the status.

 

I am under the impression that this bonus is only applied to ATGs (maybe all on-map field pieces). Unless the manual has changed or was incorrect in the first place.

[Pak40]

 

Neither of the first two is likely to be included in the Bulge game, since they're significant engine modifications and Steve has said Bulge is going to be v3, not v4. I wouldn't hold your breath for either of them in any case, since:

 

1. they're not likely to be as useful as you might think, given the limitations of the LOS tool, and would give misleading information often enough to be dangerous: there's a tendency to rely on that kind of automation more than the current "wave the mouse pointer around and get a general idea", which inherently communicates its approximate nature. Having a nice blue arc, or lack of it, to show where you can and can't see from any given waypoint would be seductive and arguably counterproductive.
2. That sort of blanket information doesn't seem to be the sort of thing BFC want to provide for us. They consider, it appears, that the player already has more information at their fingertips than they should, along with more control of their troops' actions than is entirely desirable, both for unavoidable game reasons. Automating the judgement of LOS would seem to go against their tendencies.

 

 

I agree with both your points, especially #2. I am of the mind that games like Combat Mission are designed to mimic reality to whatever degree is possible within the budget of the game developers and technology available. Giving more information than would be available to a real life unit is not only unrealistic but it's also an unnecessary cost to the developers that have a limited budget in a niche market.

 

This also goes for the LOS from a waypoint feature. Unfortunately this has already been implemented. I think unrealistic tools such as this should not be implemented. We already have the ability to zoom anywhere on the map at level 1 and do this. Do we really need a tool?

[AttorneyAtWar]

This also goes for the LOS from a waypoint feature. Unfortunately this has already been implemented. I think unrealistic tools such as this should not be implemented. We already have the ability to zoom anywhere on the map at level 1 and do this. Do we really need a tool?

 

With the way certain hedges and wheat fields block LOS in strange ways, yes we definitely need an LOS tool.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Raptorx7

[John Kettler]

akd,

 

If I had the requisite neural circuits online, rest assured I would play. Presently, it takes a great deal more specialized brain processes and level of concentration than I have. Also, am so run down it takes little to overload my ability to correctly take in and effectively use visual information. You have no idea how fortunate you are to simply be able to sit down and play. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[akd]

akd,

 

If I had the requisite neural circuits online, rest assured I would play. Presently, it takes a great deal more specialized brain processes and level of concentration than I have. Also, am so run down it takes little to overload my ability to correctly take in and effectively use visual information. You have no idea how fortunate you are to simply be able to sit down and play. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

 

Then stop commenting on development needs for a game you know almost nothing about.

[womble]

 

This also goes for the LOS from a waypoint feature. Unfortunately this has already been implemented. I think unrealistic tools such as this should not be implemented. We already have the ability to zoom anywhere on the map at level 1 and do this. Do we really need a tool?

Unfortunately, the game doesn't work without it. You need the Target tool to be available at future waypoints so you can give orders for a minute. To be able to give an element "Move over there and fire" (necessary for so many situations) requires that the Target tool be used at a distant waypoint to initiate the fire order, and that in turn means the Target tool has to report (as far as the limitations of the LOS mechanic that apply to the situation allow) accurately. It's also a "necessary evil" to allow your squad leaders to have any capacity for terrain appreciation: think of it as "What will my SL see when he gets there?" Note that the camera is even more approximate than the LOS tool, since it doesn't get down to footslogger eye level, has to be pushed through obscuring vegetation that the unit will be able to see through when it's adjacent, and is operating at a significantly reduced resolution compared to the actual Mark One Eyeball it's simulating.

[Baneman]

I'd still like to see the LOS tool separated from the Target tool ( as in CMx1 ) - because an unarmed unit cannot check LOS since it cannot target.

 

I get my trucks/jeeps/etc. into a lot of trouble as a result - especially if I don't have any other armed vehicle to check LOS with.

 

Unlikely to happen though. Just one of those niggly things.