Michael Emrys Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by redwolf: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: There's something I just noticed for the first time, but it may have been in BB and I just didn't catch it. If you look into the interior of the HTs, there is a detailed instrument panel. Looks like Dan or somebody put in some time on this. Well, so do they work? Do they display realistic RPMs? Did you make sure the speedmeter matches actual speed modulo historical variances in instruments? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 I think some people are just in love with omnispotting. They like the insta-spotting that was in CMBB. The reason that ATG are unrealistic, is because of shared spotting. Once spotted, twice dead. Do you really think that an ATG in a tree line that ceases fire during a battle, after firing one shot is labeled with GPS coordinates and that information is broadcast to anyone with an LOS? IRL, an ATG would rarely be pin pointed like they are in the game. A better game mechanic would be a 'sound-flash-contact' that may be close to where the gun really is. Want to pepper the tree line? Go ahead, but don't think that you know exactly where it is. ATG were greatly feared on the eastern front more than tanks. They could not be spotted as easily and needed precision HE fire to deal with them. It was easier to deal with a tank with AP fire than a ATG with HE fire. In a desert/open environment, ATGs would not stand a chance under CMBB modeling. I believe the game has made significant changes to the spotting/identification routines. And it is Goooood! I was thinking that I would not buy CMAK. After playing the demo, and seeing the inexpensive price, I would not only buy it but also a CMBB updated version that uses CMAK technology. [ November 23, 2003, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Fair question: how spottable IS an ATG from 100/200/300/400m away? Even one that is taking 2 shots a minute? If it's 10m back behind the edge of the woodline, can you EVER really pinpoint it? I ask this in a complete vacuum of ignorance - I truly have zero idea about this, although I assume it's nigh-impossible. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 I noticed that the structure of the US company is different. In fact, the company HQ is now ten men instead of six. Not only that, but there was a six man HQ squad too! The US platoon commander is also five men. Regarding AT guns ... the blast from the firing of the gun will kick up lots of dust when it fires so an AT gun should probably be pretty easy to pick up after a few shots no matter how much concealment is available. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by ASL Veteran: IRegarding AT guns ... the blast from the firing of the gun will kick up lots of dust when it fires so an AT gun should probably be pretty easy to pick up after a few shots no matter how much concealment is available. Even with muzzle-braked guns firing from non-dusty cover? I've never seen a real cannon fired. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Most WWII 75mm and smaller ATGs size (height-wise),were much less than a standing man. Many were about the size of a kneeling man when emplaced. Two branches from a tree would greatly reduce its shield signature. In a tree line, or set back in scrub or other vegetation, it would be a very difficult target to detect. Its main giveaway is its flash/dust/smoke upon firing. In an active battlefield with many weapons firing, HE landing and confusion; it would not be the dead giveaway it is in CMBB. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugilist Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Well I am sure the ATG/borg spotting thing has been done to death, but in most scenarios I've played you can get around this by ensuring the weapon has adjacent mg and mortar units with identical LOS to quickly suppress enemy HQ spotters for mortars. I think the response to ATGs by AFVs was well tweaked in CMBB to increase the tendency of AFVs, however well armored, to reverse instantaneously upon sight/contact. I never thought borg spotting was as bad as it is sometimes made out to be. I rarely notice/am annoyed by it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Is it just me, or does it seem that units, especially tanks, are now switching targets a whole lot more? I know there has been a lot of discussion back and forth over the years about how "sticky" targetting should be, and I'm wondering if BFC has tweaked the algorithm once more. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by Haohmaru: As it was slowing down it veered to the left side off the road it was on. I love the vehicle physics in CM, now all we need is rag doll physics for the infantry casualties I think the vehicle 'physics' are not especially loveable in CM. If you look at the way vehicles start, stop, turn and cross obstacles from an animation point of view, it's obvious they haven't done much a study of the way vehicles look while they're moving. All of these things look a bit wrong in CM. Sure, there are a few effects, like swerving when hit, which come off pretty well, but on the whole it's stiff. If you take a look at the advertising movie for battlefield command's upcoming game, you'll see what nicely modelled vehicle physics can look like with the pzIIs overrunning a French defensive line.. Not that I think this reflects negatively on CM, of course. I'd much rather have good modelling 'under the hood', than eye candy. Good animation is an art in itself. Now if Pixar studios could just detail a guy to BFC... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 I know at least one guy from Pixar studios play CM and is a member of this forum. We can keep hopes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by Ariel: I know at least one guy from Pixar studios play CM and is a member of this forum. Who is he? I have a question about Finding Nemo. Were they modelling (invisible) water currents? For example, if a fish uses its fins, were the effects the fin has on the water (such as little vortexes, pressure changes etc) factored in, even though it's not directly visible? (in order to lead to its effects on vegetation, sand, or other fishes' movements). Everything hung together too well to believe they just 'drew' everything. [ November 23, 2003, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebulon Pleasure Beast Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by CMplayer: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ariel: I know at least one guy from Pixar studios play CM and is a member of this forum. Who is he? I have a question about Finding Nemo. Were they modelling (invisible) water currents? For example, if a fish uses its fins, were the effects the fin has on the water (such as little vortexes, pressure changes etc) factored in, even though it's not directly visible? (in order to lead to its effects on vegetation, sand, or other fishes' movements). Everything hung together just too well to believe they just 'drew' everything. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by oneirogen: Have you seen Finding Nemo? The animation is just totally brilliant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebulon Pleasure Beast Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by CMplayer: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by oneirogen: Have you seen Finding Nemo? The animation is just totally brilliant. </font>Nope, haven't seen it. The only new movies that have come out that I've watched have been the LOTR ones. Quite offtopic. Animations like that in CM would be a wet dream for me, though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterX Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Michael Emrys: Is it just me, or does it seem that units, especially tanks, are now switching targets a whole lot more? It appears they're overiding manual fire instructions more frequently. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by CMplayer: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ariel: I know at least one guy from Pixar studios play CM and is a member of this forum. Who is he?</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by PeterX: Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Is it just me, or does it seem that units, especially tanks, are now switching targets a whole lot more? It appears they're overiding manual fire instructions more frequently. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Heres a fun test. Spoil'r Play Line of Defense with Germans and 200%. This should give you 4 ATGs. Leave everything else behind the hill for now so it has no LOS to the battle. Position the ATGs so they have supporting fields of fire. If you have played the game as Germans already, you should have an idea where the tanks will come from. Take both FOs and position them so they can blow the woods on the left to pieces and stop infantry from messing up the experiment. Save a few arty rounds to throw at the tank mass, not to destroy but to button them up. Take some LMGs to suppress the tank commanders also. Once they button up, they usually don't come back out. You should notice that ATGs, if they limit the number of tanks that can see them, can start attacking and survive more frequently. When they pin from incoming fire, there will be LOS breaks so that the tanks 'lose' them. If they survive to the end of the turn, hide them (if they are still drawing yellow lines) and this will further reduce LOS lines to them. Attack any tanks that are on to other ATGs and can't be stopped. a successful 'jump-off' is when all ATGs can fire at the same time at a good target. Always save one in hiding to help one that has been 'over-spotted'. A great place for ATGs is behind the wall by the big building. Scattered trees are marginal but woods are OK. Try to position ATGs so they are not facing the whole area of likely enemy tanks at once. The main fields of fire should be across the front and interlocking. Tanks that are not buttoned up will be on you like flies. They will still 'insta-spot' and nail the ATG. The AI, by the way, appears to use a bounding overwatch technique with its tanks. I say a shoot and hide order would be nice. Perhaps a shoot, pause, hide combination. [ November 23, 2003, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 Originally posted by Wicky: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by PeterX: Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Is it just me, or does it seem that units, especially tanks, are now switching targets a whole lot more? It appears they're overiding manual fire instructions more frequently. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterX Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 I think BFC went a little too far in reducing stickiness But that mitigates Borg Spotting a bit. So that's a good thing, right? (Confused :confused: ) This phenomenon appears to be more apparent when the tank is buttoned. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Just a quick note about cannon firing and signatures. Cordite is not black powder, there is a lot of ejecta in the muzzle blast but not a lot of what one would really regard as smoke. If you are looking directly at a gun firing you will see the blast pretty easily, expecially if the crew has taken no steps to reduce dust from the ground. This signature will dissapate quite quickly, within a matter of seconds, so if you are distracted by other things, like a battle, then it is very easy to miss. Locating a gun in a woodline does provide quite a bit of cammo but also really reduces the effectivness unless the crew has a lot of time to clear lanes of fire. A lot of woodlines here in Europe tend to be all or nothing affairs, either somewhat ornamental windbreaks or thick treestands. Putting a gun more than a few tens of meters back will render it almost useless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsquared Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Played the Allies in the Italian scenario. Seemed that even fully "buttoned up" I had a inordinate number of "shocked" tank crews. Anybody notice this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snarker Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Two things I've noticed: A vehicle fire spread to the brush in the desert scenario. I've never seen this in BO or BB. In the Italian scenario the first time I started it as the Germans I had a 'no fog of war' view to every Ami unit despite 'extreme FOW' being chosen. When I started the game, the AI apparently knew where I was also. It pounded my hidden AT gun to dust. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAsta_KFC Posted November 24, 2003 Author Share Posted November 24, 2003 Originally posted by mcsquared: Played the Allies in the Italian scenario. Seemed that even fully "buttoned up" I had a inordinate number of "shocked" tank crews. Anybody notice this? That's because your TC's are getting picked off by the crack sniper hiding somewhere. There was something mentioned earlier about keeping your tanks buttoned. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wol Posted November 24, 2003 Share Posted November 24, 2003 Nice job guys, but a few bugs/features/questions, I have played the first scenario from both sides and the Italian Job from the AMerican sid 1) Covered arc bug with grants? I set a vehicle CA with my grant, and waited, the Hull gun promptly opened up on some inf miles away and gave away its position! 2)set area target as main gun, and fired only with 37mm 3)set area target as other, and still did not fire SA 75mm 4)Anybody know how many grants in Tunisia had the M2 rather than the M3 guns? 5)seems that both guns are KO together with gun hits. 6)I believe that early US optics were rather poor, although I HAVE NO SOURCES TO HAND, if this was true, is this modelled in the game? 7)likewise Hogg claims that early US 37 and 75 ammo was especially poor, is this true and is it modelled? 8)What experience class do you have to be to use gyro stabilisers? 9)I see the return of .30 AA mgs. I see that they were all omitted in CMBB on Soviet tanks, as far as I can tell only because of a lack of slots. We still only have 4 slots, can this be fixed? 10)I am curious to see how the sub-turrets on the CRuisers will work, can they target independently now? liked the game but very sad that it is two US scenarios (I know you guys won the war, and probably yanks will be the biggest buyers but really!) It was just a little like playing CMBO again, what an opportunity lost to do Wavells Western desert offensive! Thanks BTS 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.