Jump to content

So, what will be fixed/added in 1.08 ?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How about a toggle to give more specifics in which weapons system/munitions to use, i.e. for air strikes have a choice of JDAMs, Mavericks, strafing run, etc,

For tanks, main gun sabot, main gun heat, coax, etc

For bradleys: 25 mm cannon, MG, TOW, etc

Instead of the awful heavy, medium, or light mumbo jumbo.

Also, I think a replay feature for real time games should be a high priority for 1.08 or a future version.

How about an adustment to make troops on roof a little less vulnerable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about a toggle to give more specifics in which weapons system/munitions to use, i.e. for air strikes have a choice of JDAMs, Mavericks, strafing run, etc,

For tanks, main gun sabot, main gun heat, coax, etc

For bradleys: 25 mm cannon, MG, TOW, etc

Instead of the awful heavy, medium, or light mumbo jumbo.

Also, I think a replay feature for real time games should be a high priority for 1.08 or a future version.

How about an adustment to make troops on roof a little less vulnerable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about a toggle to give more specifics in which weapons system/munitions to use, i.e. for air strikes have a choice of JDAMs, Mavericks, strafing run, etc,

For tanks, main gun sabot, main gun heat, coax, etc

For bradleys: 25 mm cannon, MG, TOW, etc

Instead of the awful heavy, medium, or light mumbo jumbo.

Also, I think a replay feature for real time games should be a high priority for 1.08 or a future version.

How about an adustment to make troops on roof a little less vulnerable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Taki:

A Comprehensable Small Arms Modell. Some things just dont really work out as they should work (like 3 US Squads fighting FUll Auto 1 Syrian Squad and get more Casualties then they do).

And an Overworked Moral and Supression Modell. Units recover way to fast from Supression.

I have to agree about something being "off" with the firefights. Too many US casulties even when you are pounding the hell out of the source with a huge firepower advantage.

Also, and this has happened many mant times, when I hit a target in a building with a .50 cal the fire seems like it is not even going through the walls. I have targeted troops on balconies with .50 cal fire with no effect. Comeon now....

Otherwise I am very impressed. Just needs some tweeking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Taki:

A Comprehensable Small Arms Modell. Some things just dont really work out as they should work (like 3 US Squads fighting FUll Auto 1 Syrian Squad and get more Casualties then they do).

And an Overworked Moral and Supression Modell. Units recover way to fast from Supression.

I have to agree about something being "off" with the firefights. Too many US casulties even when you are pounding the hell out of the source with a huge firepower advantage.

Also, and this has happened many mant times, when I hit a target in a building with a .50 cal the fire seems like it is not even going through the walls. I have targeted troops on balconies with .50 cal fire with no effect. Comeon now....

Otherwise I am very impressed. Just needs some tweeking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Taki:

A Comprehensable Small Arms Modell. Some things just dont really work out as they should work (like 3 US Squads fighting FUll Auto 1 Syrian Squad and get more Casualties then they do).

And an Overworked Moral and Supression Modell. Units recover way to fast from Supression.

I have to agree about something being "off" with the firefights. Too many US casulties even when you are pounding the hell out of the source with a huge firepower advantage.

Also, and this has happened many mant times, when I hit a target in a building with a .50 cal the fire seems like it is not even going through the walls. I have targeted troops on balconies with .50 cal fire with no effect. Comeon now....

Otherwise I am very impressed. Just needs some tweeking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I think sometimes crappy Syrians are given an advantage because they technically have heavier calibre small arms, but instead of being too overwhelmed and suppressed to fire them, they are able to blast away and gain an unfair advantage through building penetration etc. It's always more likely that poorly trained and motivated troops will not stand their ground but run away or surrender. I guess this sort of thing will be tweaked along the way.

I would like to see a surrender implemented, but I'm pretty sure this has already been knocked on the head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I think sometimes crappy Syrians are given an advantage because they technically have heavier calibre small arms, but instead of being too overwhelmed and suppressed to fire them, they are able to blast away and gain an unfair advantage through building penetration etc. It's always more likely that poorly trained and motivated troops will not stand their ground but run away or surrender. I guess this sort of thing will be tweaked along the way.

I would like to see a surrender implemented, but I'm pretty sure this has already been knocked on the head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I think sometimes crappy Syrians are given an advantage because they technically have heavier calibre small arms, but instead of being too overwhelmed and suppressed to fire them, they are able to blast away and gain an unfair advantage through building penetration etc. It's always more likely that poorly trained and motivated troops will not stand their ground but run away or surrender. I guess this sort of thing will be tweaked along the way.

I would like to see a surrender implemented, but I'm pretty sure this has already been knocked on the head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In CMx1, we had one unit attribute: Experience. Now we have two: Experience and Motivation. I wonder if this is why we see the Syrians blazing back at the US even when under heavy fire? Often the Syrians in a scenario are Uncons with low experience but high, extreme or fanatical motivation. I'm not saying it's right but could this explain it?

As a corollary to this, I wonder if the way to reduce US casualties in the game would be to give them high experience but low or very low motivation? Presumably this would make them cower/take cover more frequently, which with the new enhanced LOS system would very often take them completely out of sight of the enemy.

I'm assuming here that "low" motivation is not a derogatory term but rather the instinct to get out of sight and into cover when under fire, which the Uncon Syrians seemingly lack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In CMx1, we had one unit attribute: Experience. Now we have two: Experience and Motivation. I wonder if this is why we see the Syrians blazing back at the US even when under heavy fire? Often the Syrians in a scenario are Uncons with low experience but high, extreme or fanatical motivation. I'm not saying it's right but could this explain it?

As a corollary to this, I wonder if the way to reduce US casualties in the game would be to give them high experience but low or very low motivation? Presumably this would make them cower/take cover more frequently, which with the new enhanced LOS system would very often take them completely out of sight of the enemy.

I'm assuming here that "low" motivation is not a derogatory term but rather the instinct to get out of sight and into cover when under fire, which the Uncon Syrians seemingly lack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In CMx1, we had one unit attribute: Experience. Now we have two: Experience and Motivation. I wonder if this is why we see the Syrians blazing back at the US even when under heavy fire? Often the Syrians in a scenario are Uncons with low experience but high, extreme or fanatical motivation. I'm not saying it's right but could this explain it?

As a corollary to this, I wonder if the way to reduce US casualties in the game would be to give them high experience but low or very low motivation? Presumably this would make them cower/take cover more frequently, which with the new enhanced LOS system would very often take them completely out of sight of the enemy.

I'm assuming here that "low" motivation is not a derogatory term but rather the instinct to get out of sight and into cover when under fire, which the Uncon Syrians seemingly lack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cpl Steiner,

The Uncons are supposed to be jihadists, right? If so, they may not be very good, but they are likely to be dogged, probably fanatical, defenders. And why shouldn't they be? They're either defending their homeland or are acting in defense of the Arab world in general, and Islam in particular, against the latest incarnation of what they perceive as the Crusades. Never underestimate the power of the 72 virgins!

I think you simplified CMx1 a bit. CMBO had troop quality, command state (in command or not and how good's the HQ), modified by casualties and tactical position. CMBB added fatigue state, which allowed us to do all sorts of wonderful things, such as modeling the veteran, but exhausted, Desert Rats. They could now be represented by assigning a high troop quality level and a less than fully functional fatigue state. Thus, they could fight well but likely not long, since they tired more easily. Actually, this accurately reflects what senior leaders eventually figured out. You get the best combat performance not from the old pros like the Desert Rats who've been in action for years, but from the newcomers who know little of war, are full of p#$%

and vinegar, are spoiling for a fight and aching to prove themselves. Likewise, troops not acclimated to the desert could be modeled with built-in fatigue hits, which are also useful for troops underfed or thirsty. There are now enough variables modeled that many situations can be depicted which couldn't before.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cpl Steiner,

The Uncons are supposed to be jihadists, right? If so, they may not be very good, but they are likely to be dogged, probably fanatical, defenders. And why shouldn't they be? They're either defending their homeland or are acting in defense of the Arab world in general, and Islam in particular, against the latest incarnation of what they perceive as the Crusades. Never underestimate the power of the 72 virgins!

I think you simplified CMx1 a bit. CMBO had troop quality, command state (in command or not and how good's the HQ), modified by casualties and tactical position. CMBB added fatigue state, which allowed us to do all sorts of wonderful things, such as modeling the veteran, but exhausted, Desert Rats. They could now be represented by assigning a high troop quality level and a less than fully functional fatigue state. Thus, they could fight well but likely not long, since they tired more easily. Actually, this accurately reflects what senior leaders eventually figured out. You get the best combat performance not from the old pros like the Desert Rats who've been in action for years, but from the newcomers who know little of war, are full of p#$%

and vinegar, are spoiling for a fight and aching to prove themselves. Likewise, troops not acclimated to the desert could be modeled with built-in fatigue hits, which are also useful for troops underfed or thirsty. There are now enough variables modeled that many situations can be depicted which couldn't before.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cpl Steiner,

The Uncons are supposed to be jihadists, right? If so, they may not be very good, but they are likely to be dogged, probably fanatical, defenders. And why shouldn't they be? They're either defending their homeland or are acting in defense of the Arab world in general, and Islam in particular, against the latest incarnation of what they perceive as the Crusades. Never underestimate the power of the 72 virgins!

I think you simplified CMx1 a bit. CMBO had troop quality, command state (in command or not and how good's the HQ), modified by casualties and tactical position. CMBB added fatigue state, which allowed us to do all sorts of wonderful things, such as modeling the veteran, but exhausted, Desert Rats. They could now be represented by assigning a high troop quality level and a less than fully functional fatigue state. Thus, they could fight well but likely not long, since they tired more easily. Actually, this accurately reflects what senior leaders eventually figured out. You get the best combat performance not from the old pros like the Desert Rats who've been in action for years, but from the newcomers who know little of war, are full of p#$%

and vinegar, are spoiling for a fight and aching to prove themselves. Likewise, troops not acclimated to the desert could be modeled with built-in fatigue hits, which are also useful for troops underfed or thirsty. There are now enough variables modeled that many situations can be depicted which couldn't before.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Lanzfeld:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Taki:

A Comprehensable Small Arms Modell. Some things just dont really work out as they should work (like 3 US Squads fighting FUll Auto 1 Syrian Squad and get more Casualties then they do).

And an Overworked Moral and Supression Modell. Units recover way to fast from Supression.

I have to agree about something being "off" with the firefights. Too many US casulties even when you are pounding the hell out of the source with a huge firepower advantage.

Also, and this has happened many mant times, when I hit a target in a building with a .50 cal the fire seems like it is not even going through the walls. I have targeted troops on balconies with .50 cal fire with no effect. Comeon now....

Otherwise I am very impressed. Just needs some tweeking. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Lanzfeld:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Taki:

A Comprehensable Small Arms Modell. Some things just dont really work out as they should work (like 3 US Squads fighting FUll Auto 1 Syrian Squad and get more Casualties then they do).

And an Overworked Moral and Supression Modell. Units recover way to fast from Supression.

I have to agree about something being "off" with the firefights. Too many US casulties even when you are pounding the hell out of the source with a huge firepower advantage.

Also, and this has happened many mant times, when I hit a target in a building with a .50 cal the fire seems like it is not even going through the walls. I have targeted troops on balconies with .50 cal fire with no effect. Comeon now....

Otherwise I am very impressed. Just needs some tweeking. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Lanzfeld:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Taki:

A Comprehensable Small Arms Modell. Some things just dont really work out as they should work (like 3 US Squads fighting FUll Auto 1 Syrian Squad and get more Casualties then they do).

And an Overworked Moral and Supression Modell. Units recover way to fast from Supression.

I have to agree about something being "off" with the firefights. Too many US casulties even when you are pounding the hell out of the source with a huge firepower advantage.

Also, and this has happened many mant times, when I hit a target in a building with a .50 cal the fire seems like it is not even going through the walls. I have targeted troops on balconies with .50 cal fire with no effect. Comeon now....

Otherwise I am very impressed. Just needs some tweeking. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh.

So it seems that roughly half the forum thinks buildings don't offer enough cover, while the other half thinks they offer too much cover.

Guess BFC must have it about right. :D

For myself, I'm not really sure. . . whether I'm playing Red or Blue, when I put MY guys in buildings, they seem to get wiped out easily by just small arms fire, but when I'm trying to take out enemy infantry buildings, I can throw all sorts of ordnance at the building without killing everyone inside.

I do think it's instructive to read AARs from Iraq, particularly MOUT stuff like Fallujah. You don't have to look very hard to find accounts of US Forces throwing all sorts of ordnance at enemy-occupied buildings without completely killing, or even stopping return fire.

Cheers,

YD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh.

So it seems that roughly half the forum thinks buildings don't offer enough cover, while the other half thinks they offer too much cover.

Guess BFC must have it about right. :D

For myself, I'm not really sure. . . whether I'm playing Red or Blue, when I put MY guys in buildings, they seem to get wiped out easily by just small arms fire, but when I'm trying to take out enemy infantry buildings, I can throw all sorts of ordnance at the building without killing everyone inside.

I do think it's instructive to read AARs from Iraq, particularly MOUT stuff like Fallujah. You don't have to look very hard to find accounts of US Forces throwing all sorts of ordnance at enemy-occupied buildings without completely killing, or even stopping return fire.

Cheers,

YD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...