A Canadian Cat Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Most interesting. I am fairly certain that this is not random. I also strongly suspect there is no logic behind it either. When I say it's not random I mean there is computer code for combining teams and that code will execute the same way each time. When I say I don't think there is any logic behind it I mean no one sat down and figured this was important enough to create a series of rules and a specification for how to handle this type of situation. Decisions were made while coding that determine which set of orders are set on the final recombined squad. It could be the last team that joins wins. It could be the first team wins. It could be that for target orders there is a priority. Any one of those is possible and you probably can experiment and figure it out. I don't really think that is worth anyone's time but some one might find it interesting. The above is total speculation on my part - based only on my experience with programming computers not my experience with the game or any insider knowledge. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nik mond Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 On 5/25/2016 at 9:29 AM, Vencini said: I'm testing a scenario. WEGO. It's night and this image is with "ALT-B" on. I know that HQ units, soldiers equipped with heavy guns and others, are primary objectives for the AI (it fires them first if possible)...snip ...The American tank faces three German tanks. The first one to identify the American tank is the infantry, the second one the German tank on the left and, finally, the German HQ tank. My question is : Did the American tank choose to fire to the HQ German tank (two shoots) and not the "number 2" (much closer) because the AI knows that "It's an HQ objective"? I find there is usually a good reason for that. The HQ tank may have just moved and been revealed. Even a small change to facing or rotation. In this game often anything that moves will be a priority target. And there are enemy infantry nearby. Also, its hard to see, but the ground elevation looks to have placed the HQ tank higher. Line of sight is physically modelled, so (silhouette) could be a contributing factor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerner Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 The leader's orders take precedent, Vencini. I've never noticed any different behavior, anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vencini Posted January 25, 2017 Author Share Posted January 25, 2017 Hello Thanks for help and answers After a little more of test, I found that armor cover arc has preference when re-join teams. So if you have different (color and shape)cover arcs in a section, and you re-join it, the final cover arc is the bigest armor one When you re-join teams with yellow cover arcs (different shapes) , the unit which is the base of the re-join, is took as reference for the cover arc of others. For example, this two man recon team has this cover arc. They move first into position. Then, the number 2 team (with his own yellow cover arc) moves into (1) position, and they acquire (1) cover arc. Finally, (3) move into (1&2) position and changes his cover arc too. With the area fire thing, it seems that red fire order, prevails over the yellow ones Nothing like a little healthy auto testing... Best regards 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerner Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 My answer is a good example of observer bias, lol. Thanks for testing, Venice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vencini Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share Posted February 1, 2017 Hello One user of the Spanish forum "punta de lanza" faced this situation : One M36 tank destroyer versus a Tiger II. December 1944. 450-500 meters. The M36 penetrates two times the frontal turret armour of the Tiger. The M36 cannon is an 90 mm. M. 3 T-7 with standar AP ammo, which is able to penetrate 129mm at 30º from 457 m. The frontal Henchel turret armour of the Tiger II is 180 mm with 20º slope The penetration of the Tiger II armour seems far difficult with this data From wiki : " The T30E16 HVAP shot was capable of penetrating 221 mm of armor angled at 30 degrees from the vertical at 500 yards" The T33 and T30E16 were only issued in very small numbers towards the end of World War II He also made a youtube video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU1fe8CrF5o&feature=youtu.be He demanded to put this info in the battlefront forum. So...What do you think ? Something to look at or is the way it works ? Some kind of explication ? I'm far to be an armour expert, but always interested about learning. Thanks for help, answers and explications. Regards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) It's the armor quality. Combat Mission generally rates late war German armor at either 90% or 85%. These ratings are hidden in CM2 (they were listed in the unit stats in CM1) but they are there. WW2 Ballistics lists the KT front turret as 185mm at 10 degrees slope so we'll use that (I'm not sure what numbers the game uses). That translates to an effective resistance of 190.6mm against 90mm APCBC, but 190.6 x .85 is 162mm and 90mm M82 at 2800 fps penetrates 164mm at 500 meters. Edited February 1, 2017 by Vanir Ausf B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 I recall awhile ago asking Charles about armor on the Hetzer. I believe he said the armor on the bow is classed only mediocre but the armor quality on the sides was just plain lousy. So they're not just controlling armor quality for vehicles but for individual plates on the vehicle. I may be misremembering but he may have mentioned something about typing in Brinell hardness numbers into the game vehicle stats. I was like "Whoa!" There's soooo much more going on under the hood than we can guess at. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vencini Posted February 13, 2017 Author Share Posted February 13, 2017 Thanks for responses and help. Much appreciated This is not a question about the game. Is there out there anyone playing CMx2 battles with a second plane strategic game ? I read in this forum that people are trying to create an strategic game for CMX2. People trying to use PzC and CMX2 and even Combat Mission Campaigns (not finished yet) Playing isolated scenarios HvsH is fine, but I had the fortune of playing in a couple of home-made campaigns and I loved it. A role play touch, two players teams discussing about strategies and finally playing it with CMX2... We're a Spanish team interested in playing this kind of game (if exist). So, if you need a team to participate in a project, players to test rules or something like that, please send me a PM Thanks and regards 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted February 15, 2017 Share Posted February 15, 2017 It is sort of happening here - follow the links in the first post of the thread to get the whole story: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vencini Posted February 15, 2017 Author Share Posted February 15, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Combatintman said: Edited February 15, 2017 by Vencini can't delete this one 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vencini Posted February 15, 2017 Author Share Posted February 15, 2017 2 hours ago, Combatintman said: It is sort of happening here - follow the links in the first post of the thread to get the whole story: Lots of thanks ! I knew that they were working in this project but I overlook this tread... Thank you ! I'll read it during the day and If they need testers, we will try to be part of... Regards 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vencini Posted February 16, 2017 Author Share Posted February 16, 2017 Hello I was helping another player to understand "camera Controls" (Page 11-12) I I think I found two minimal misprints (3.01 game manual) First paragraph : "...by selecting Options in the menu menu and then selecting..." Second paragraph (RTS) : "...right-cliking on a unit floating icon with the right will bring up..." regards EDIT : how can I delete my own forum messages ? Thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted February 16, 2017 Share Posted February 16, 2017 1 hour ago, Vencini said: EDIT : how can I delete my own forum messages ? Thanks You cannot. All that you can do is edit them and delete the content but the message stays. Also you can only edit your posts for a limited time after you post them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vencini Posted February 18, 2017 Author Share Posted February 18, 2017 (edited) Sorry if this was discussed yet. I was reading this post and I wanted to make some questions about. It will be possible to do that ? If not, it's a technological problem ? It is not in the spirit of the game ? you can fire at will at the 1º floor of the house, or the wall behind the low bocage, even if the LOS/LOF tool of the game tells you the objective is too much degraded or obscured by an obstacle. Apply that with another similar situations You fire at, under your responsibility. You know you will spend ammo, show your position, distract your AI from other treats, or lots of another bad things... The order keeps firing to the first floor building, your projectiles impact with the low bocage (some of them pass through it and hits the wall behind). You keep firing until both obstacles (low bocage and wall) are destroyed, and the AI continues with his order : to fire to the first floor of the house, now with clear LOS / LOF Obstacles have yet "armor points", because we can destroy them in game, as well as they can be trespassed by some projectiles So, is this option viable or it is impossible to apply ? You can fire wherever you want (free fire order, I don't know how to call it) but, at the same time, the LOS / LOF tool is telling you that you don't have a clear vision of the objective To take advantage of this hypothetic use of the fire order, what do you thing about the possibility of choosing the ammo with a button ? (sorry for the real time players) Maybe an editor option of "can't target this objects??" to explain the "band of brother's" situation "we have orders to not damage civilian buildings" (even if they know there is an enemy tank behind a corner house?) or some kind of penalty points for spending all ammo ? A youtube video of the sburke's action with Brit paras? I upgraded recently to 4.0 and I had a problem with a lost data file. I send a ticket to tech support and they solved it very fast. So I want to thanks them the quick help thanks for responses regards and good week-end Edited February 18, 2017 by Vencini 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted February 18, 2017 Share Posted February 18, 2017 I'm on mobile only so I cannot give you the link to the discussions about targeting limitations with buildings. If some one else has them, I have posted them before, they might come along and share them. I have a couple of comments and then depending on how this thread goes over the weekend I can add some more. I am not 100% sure what you are asking vs telling so forgive me if my comments miss the mark, let me know what I am missing: We usually call it area targeting. Tanks will use HE ammo automatically for area targeting, along with the MGs. Bocage will not be destroyed by direct fire HE. Artillery won't either but that is an engine limitation. In your secenario I would expect that you could target just infront of the bocage, not the wall, not the first story of the building (duh, wall blocks LOS), maybe the second story (see thread about issues with targeting buildings with partial Los in links I have not provided:-), you should be able to target the top floor of the building. Yes, shells targeted to the bocage will frequently travel through and strike the wall and then, once the wall is destroyed, the building. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vencini Posted February 18, 2017 Author Share Posted February 18, 2017 Thanks for the response. I'll try to explain myself - What do you think about the possibility of firing anywhere on the scenario ? You can put a fire order through no matter what obstacle. The LOS / LOF tool is just that, a tool that is telling you that it is not a clear shot For example, we, as tank commanders of the pic above, want to fire to the first floor of the building behind the low bocage and the wall. That is not possible now, but what do you think about the hypothetic possibility of a fire order in the first floor ? For example : Fire order on the first floor, in spite of the low bocage(I was on FB, so change it by a tall one or another LOS / LOF obstacle) and the wall. The tank keeps the fire order on the first floor, but projectiles impact in the low bocage first (or whatever), until it is destroyed. The fire order on the first floor continues, and now, the obstacle is the wall, that finally is destroyed too. At the end, the tank still has the fire order in the first floor of the building, that is now been hitting by the tank projectiles. It's like "drill" in one direction with tank fire, until finding the original fire order objective -It will be never possible in the game? Do you think is a game-breaker ? A technical limitation ? A gamey use of the fire order that will never be implemented ? No realistic ? - What do you think about a button to change AP / HE / smoke..? Now it works fine, but implementing this button on the game, is pushing the thing too far ? My English it is not very good, sorry if my message is wrote in a unnatural way thanks for answers. Regards 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted February 19, 2017 Share Posted February 19, 2017 9 hours ago, Vencini said: -It will be never possible in the game? Do you think is a game-breaker ? A technical limitation ? A gamey use of the fire order that will never be implemented ? No realistic ? Ah I see what you meant. It is definitely not a game breaker and not a limitation persay. The design intent is to make the game behave like real life as much as possible. In real life the tank commander gives fire orders based on what they can see. They do not have the God's eye view that we have. 9 hours ago, Vencini said: - What do you think about a button to change AP / HE / smoke..? Now it works fine, but implementing this button on the game, is pushing the thing too far ? I don't think that they will ever offer switches to pick ammo. The crew picks the appropriate ammo already. Smoke is a different target command but HE, AP, HEAT, APDS, etc is likely always going to be picked by the tac AI. Just my opinion of course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vencini Posted July 8, 2017 Author Share Posted July 8, 2017 Thanks for the reponses There is a list of "gamey actions" on Combat Mission x 2 ? For example , this one from the Battlefront site ""Gamey" is a situation where you exploit loopholes in the software to achieve an objective. For example, rushing crews or unarmored jeeps forward only to be shot up by the enemy, but in return get recon information about the enemy’s positions is considered gamey by some. It should be pointed out that what one person considers "gamey", another person might not. So if you play head-to-head against another human opponent, you might wish to lay some ground rules up front." http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=641&Itemid=508 Let's imagine, I want to play an official / serious / no gamey scenario against another human opponent / in a tournament. There is a basic no-gamey list, to present at, before starting the scenario ? Could you help me to build a list, with the usual gamey tactics ? If this list exist yet, could you give me the link or send it to me ? You can play as you want privately, against the AI or against another human opponent who wants to play this way too. But what about the player who wants to play in a conventional way ? Will ever a military officer, give the order to a vehicle crew of a suicidal advancing recon mission ? Could a person who give that kind of orders, become one day an officer ? Could a soldier refuse to accomplish that order ? Thanks for help and regards For example : 1) Rushing crews or unarmored vehicles forward only to be shot up by the enemy, but in return get recon information about the enemy’s positions 2) ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 There can be no definitive list of gamey actions since humans are devious and can always come up with something new. All one can do is set up some parameters and if an oppo keeps acting in a way that you dislike, never play that oppo again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StieliAlpha Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 On 8.7.2017 at 10:01 AM, Vencini said: Thanks for the reponses There is a list of "gamey actions" on Combat Mission x 2 ? For example , this one from the Battlefront site ""Gamey" is a situation where you exploit loopholes in the software to achieve an objective. For example, rushing crews or unarmored jeeps forward only to be shot up by the enemy, but in return get recon information about the enemy’s positions is considered gamey by some. It should be pointed out that what one person considers "gamey", another person might not. So if you play head-to-head against another human opponent, you might wish to lay some ground rules up front." http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=641&Itemid=508 Let's imagine, I want to play an official / serious / no gamey scenario against another human opponent / in a tournament. There is a basic no-gamey list, to present at, before starting the scenario ? Could you help me to build a list, with the usual gamey tactics ? There are indeed too many different actions thinkable and possible, to develope a list. I remember, a short while ago, there was a discussion, how to use bailed out tankers. Some people opted to use them as scouts or even to detect minefields. Others opted not to use them at all and let the AI handle them. I personally prefer to give them a secondary defense job, like move them into a suitable building and letting them stay there, but move them elsewhere if required by the situation. Some people are against shooting wild, without specific target. I like do use that to distract the opponent. On the other hand, I am not a friend of "mad last turn rushes", made just to deny your opponent a victory objective. A general thought: Obviously, there are completely different gaming philosophies around. Some play CM very competitively as a game, saying "everything which is not forbidden, is allowed". Others try to play "as realistic as possible", whatever that means. The best way to avoid "gamey actions", is to make a very general agreement with your opponent at the beginning. If it works out, fine. If not, look for somebody else next time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 Most folks consider it unsporting to fire at the enemy's setup location on the first turn. There are some exceptions: 1.) If the enemy is in a prepared defense and this is a planned assault, then first turn artillery would be assumed to be a natural extension of pre-battle planning. 2.) If you can SEE the enemy, then, after the first turn, you can call in artillery on that location. There are several threads about this. The best technique is to communicate with your opponent first and have a conversation about what each of you prefer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 On 2/18/2017 at 3:39 PM, IanL said: Bocage will not be destroyed by direct fire HE. Not to be that guy, but actually it will, it just takes absurd amounts of ammo I think it needs around 70 rounds of 75mm or 45 rounds of 105mm. According to numbers I found online, 70 rounds of 75mm HE carry a total of around 48 kilos of pure high explosive. For comparison, a demolition satchel charge weighs around 11 kilos, and that's including the bag, detonating system, etc. So, using direct fire, it takes more than 4 times the amount of HE to blow a hole in the bocage than when using a demo charge. Of course engineers would dig the explosives into the bocage and blow it up from within, increasing the explosive effect. But then again, tank shells are delivered at twice the speed of sound and use a slight time delay of 0,15 seconds in order for the shell to penetrate into the embankment before exploding, so I suppose that's comparable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 On 2/18/2017 at 5:51 PM, Vencini said: - What do you think about the possibility of firing anywhere on the scenario ? You can put a fire order through no matter what obstacle. The LOS / LOF tool is just that, a tool that is telling you that it is not a clear shot I think it's a good idea at least for buildings. Because there are so many situations where a tank can clearly see a building, and would have clear shot to the ground floor, but in the game it cannot shoot, simply because there is a slight obstacle in front. Also for forests I think it would be nice to allow tanks and infantry to target farther into the forest. Of course most of their bullets would be blocked by trees, but it would be easier to blind fire straight into woods to suppress enemies hiding there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 33 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said: Also for forests I think it would be nice to allow tanks and infantry to target farther into the forest. Of course most of their bullets would be blocked by trees, but it would be easier to blind fire straight into woods to suppress enemies hiding there. You can kind of do that now, since a portion of bullets and shells will penetrate deeper than the aiming point. I've used that to get at units that were just beyond spotting range in forests. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.