riptides Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Flipping amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riptides Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Oh, what's hanging on your muffler? I would expect it to get hot, and either burn off or cause a minor smoke screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Man, this is really heating up! I am reading both you guys' stuff and drooling all over the place...(BFC's gonna owe me a keyboard). It's a real nail biter. Mord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 A little attention on one element... With a company or so up on Hill 154, and a couple of platoons with tank support spotted on the cart track on my left, there’s not much the scouts forward of la Campagne on the D-28 can do, so I start leap-frogging them back to the buildings. It takes several turns as first the scouts move back 30-40m and prop, then the ‘schreck team moves back through them, and so on. Eventually both teams arrive back at the hamlet, where they provide a welcome fillip. It's worth mentioning, I think, that Jon was able to do a retrograde tactical movement while in close proximity to enemy forces. All of us CMx1 players should appreciate how difficult this was in CMx1. I attribute this to the more precise terrain and the Relative Spotting system in CMx2. With an abstracted system you have to weight everything towards the average otherwise you get too many outliers. With a less abstracted system you can set up the conditions so that you get a wider range of realistic possibilities but yet not suffer a significant increase in outliers. The subtle interplay of the new engine's features are why we expect many CMx1 guys to find CM:BN's infantry fighting to be more realistic and more fun than CMx1, yet not be able to put their finger on exactly why. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 A little attention on one element... It's worth mentioning, I think, that Jon was able to do a retrograde tactical movement while in close proximity to enemy forces. All of us CMx1 players should appreciate how difficult this was in CMx1. I attribute this to the more precise terrain and the Relative Spotting system in CMx2. With an abstracted system you have to weight everything towards the average otherwise you get too many outliers. With a less abstracted system you can set up the conditions so that you get a wider range of realistic possibilities but yet not suffer a significant increase in outliers. Steve What does that actually mean sorry ? outliners ? you have gone all technical on us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromit Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 What does that actually mean sorry ? outliners ? you have gone all technical on us What Steve means scottie is that under CMx1 it was nigh impossible to have orderly "cover and move" retreats (or advances for that matter) as JonS has described. The old CMx1 "grid" was too large (20x20 Steve?) combined with the spotting system to allow such manuevering without producing a high number of what we players would term "stupid" outcomes... i.e., (no, no, no idiots!! Not THAT way!! aww shi..) otherwise known as outliers on a probability curve. Or somefink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 scottie, BORG spotting also plays a great role here, since in CMx1 if you tried to retreat those units in close proximity to enemy forces, as soon as someone spotted them, EVERYONE spotted them and that was it. They were toast. In CMx2, if one or two enemy units spot the retreating scouts for a few seconds and get off a few shots, they would more likely make it to safety, since there is no (un-gamey) way to target them with all the nearby units at once. Also, in CMx2, due to 1 to 1 representation, enemy units would most likely spot only individual soldiers (not the entire point-sized team) from time to time, if at all, and CMx2's individual bullet tracking would then further reduce the effectiveness of potshots against the retreating scouts, as opposed to CMx1, where any shot in the vicinity of the units would have a chance of hitting them. On the other hand, if they were spotted by a Sherman, they would still be in trouble . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnersman Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 It's also called "marketing". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
para Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 scottie, BORG spotting also plays a great role here, since in CMx1 if you tried to retreat those units in close proximity to enemy forces, as soon as someone spotted them, EVERYONE spotted them and that was it. They were toast. In CMx2, if one or two enemy units spot the retreating scouts for a few seconds and get off a few shots, they would more likely make it to safety, since there is no (un-gamey) way to target them with all the nearby units at once. Also, in CMx2, due to 1 to 1 representation, enemy units would most likely spot only individual soldiers (not the entire point-sized team) from time to time, if at all, and CMx2's individual bullet tracking would then further reduce the effectiveness of potshots against the retreating scouts, as opposed to CMx1, where any shot in the vicinity of the units would have a chance of hitting them. On the other hand, if they were spotted by a Sherman, they would still be in trouble . Ahhhh lovely jubbly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferpa1967 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 A little attention on one element... It's worth mentioning, I think, that Jon was able to do a retrograde tactical movement while in close proximity to enemy forces. All of us CMx1 players should appreciate how difficult this was in CMx1. I attribute this to the more precise terrain and the Relative Spotting system in CMx2. With an abstracted system you have to weight everything towards the average otherwise you get too many outliers. With a less abstracted system you can set up the conditions so that you get a wider range of realistic possibilities but yet not suffer a significant increase in outliers. The subtle interplay of the new engine's features are why we expect many CMx1 guys to find CM:BN's infantry fighting to be more realistic and more fun than CMx1, yet not be able to put their finger on exactly why. Steve Now understand better why in CM2 you decided to put the battle designer in charge of the AI . In fact more the simulation become realistic more difficult become to create a decent AI as opponent . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barkhorn1x Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Question regarding this photo of the ricocheting round. If the round failed to penetrate then why the big explosion FX? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I noticed that too. This doesnt look right, a smaller flash, and some debris flying would be more realistic, even if the AP penetrates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 If the round failed to penetrate then why the big explosion FX? Dind´t most standard AP rounds, like the APCBC Pzgr. 39 have explosive fillers? If so I imagine it would be the explosive charge going off at impact (or rather just after impact). M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Does CM:BN model this? A tungsten or 50mm ap for instance will make no explosion on impact?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Ahhhh lovely jubbly Yeah, sometimes I suffer from logorrhea . I hope my point came across, though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
para Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Yeah, sometimes I suffer from logorrhea . I hope my point came across, though... Music to my ears mate :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 What does that actually mean sorry ? outliners ? you have gone all technical on us It's a statistical term. You gather data on a specific phenomenon and plot the data points on a graph. Most of them will fall pretty close to a smooth curve, but some, for one reason or another will not. They are called 'outliers' because they lie outside the curve. Depending on what is known about why they fall outside the curve, they are usually simply discarded as irrelevant to the resulting equation that describes the curve. That's what Steve is talking about when he says, "With an abstracted system you have to weight everything towards the average otherwise you get too many outliers." Or at least that is how I understand him. Can't always be sure about Steve. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 8, 2011 Author Share Posted January 8, 2011 If the round failed to penetrate then why the big explosion FX? Remember this is a still image. In the playback it is a brief, bright flash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 You know Jon, a video would answer all of these questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 8, 2011 Author Share Posted January 8, 2011 Yes. Yes it would Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 8, 2011 Author Share Posted January 8, 2011 10: Buddy Aid In this post I want to talk a little about Buddy Aid. During the abortive counter-attack by the first platoon on the scene in the Bois de Baugin, one of my grenadier sections was rapidly reduced to a strength of just three men. What’s worse, they were armed with only two rifles and a MP40. However, two of the casualties – one dead and one wounded – were lying just 8m away, and crucially one of them had been holding the section MG-42. (larger image) You can see the MG lying there beside the casualty. The body in the distance is one of the Americans. The guy in the foreground must be getting a bit queasy, watching his mate bleed-out. Just. Over. There. With things temporarily quiet, I decided to try and retrieve the MG42. Oh, and render some buddy aid. I had to think hard about how I was going to get them there, even though it’s only 8m. I know there are Americans out there, and lots of them – about a company’s worth. I also know that maximum visibility is just a little over 20m. The three feasible options were Quick, Slow, or Hunt. Quick would get me there, well, quickly, but not very stealthily and not very tactically aware. Slow is much stealthier, but I was worried about them coming under fire and crawling themselves into an early grave. That left Hunt. On the first turn they got spooked by some firing about 30-40m away to their right and went to ground again only a few metres further forward. The next turn, though, there was no firing and they quickly got on with the job at hand – retrieving weapons. And patching up sucking chest wounds. (larger image) Here you can see one of the riflemen keeping watch, while the other two attend to the wounded and retrieve the all-important MG. Dead guys are usually pretty quick to clean up with Buddy Aid, but wounded can often take several minutes. I wasn’t too keen to be hanging about, and since the dead guy had the MG I knew I might have a hard decision to make about fully treating the wounded section member. But, one minute later, and ... (larger image) .. success! The three men now have a rifle, an MP40, and an MG-42, which has dramatically increased their firepower, and that of the platoon. Now I just need to pull them back a few metres back into the platoon line. That’ll be Quick since I want them to get the heck out of there, and they’re moving into a known safe area. Update: they made it back! Edit: these images also nicely show the pick-n-mix approach to personal equipment that's giving soldiers some individuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 So the squad will pick up the needed weapon BEFORE they do the buddyaid to the fallen troop? ...or do they do the aid first and THEN grab the weapon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 8, 2011 Author Share Posted January 8, 2011 So the squad will pick up the needed weapon BEFORE they do the buddyaid to the fallen troop? ...or do they do the aid first and THEN grab the weapon? They get the weapon once the BA has been rendered and the body disappears. In this case the MG was with the dead guy, and dead guys are pretty quick to BA. Initially I thought I might have to abandon the guy who was wounded - who only had a rifle - if it was going to take too long to patch him up. But I got lucky and they were both done pronto. Treating them both means I would also have picked up more ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Great DAR Jon. I do wish that they would grab the weapon FIRST before and BA is done on WIA or KIA. I mean it is very important to get these weapons back online to avoid further WIA/KIA. It has been a small bug/whatever in CMSF and I was hoping they would adjust this for CM:BN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 What? you rate a piece of metal junk more than your kamaraden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts