List of Changes I would like to see

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

List of Changes I would like to see

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> Tech Support >> List of Changes I would like to see

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

List of Changes I would like to see - 7/18/2010 3:03:01 PM

SkyStrike

Posts: 29
Joined: 6/9/2010
Status: offline

List of Changes I would like to see implemented with the next patch.

1. Merging Battle Groups

-reservist/green BGs would always merge into more experienced ones, f.e. SS.

-When merged the new BG would have a full open roster to purchase troops to.

-the merged troops would directly transfer to the roster OR they would come as FREE troops to the force pool OR 100% of their original (not halved) requisition cost would be immediately given to the new BG so that the troops could be purchased from the force pool.

2. Seeking Cover aka "Ants in the Pants"

Most teams, when moved will take AGES to settle down and usually even run/crawl around and far away from their original location, meanwhile exposed. I would like to see the "seeking cover" and the restlessness disappear entirely or to be drastically shortened. Surely a person can just drop down and shoot if the situation calls, but here they just seek cover for minutes and eventually crawling to bad positions. Even mortars stop firing to seek cover and then start the moving around and soon they cannot fire at all..

3. Taking cover in buildings

-Teams in any kind of buildings have almost 0 cover as it is. I would like to see that when troops are hiding/ambushing, they would have a lot more cover when in buildings. Currently a ground level MG can easily kill a team hiding in the middle of a 3-story building.

-currently tanks do not seem to fire at 2-3 story buildings at all, even if there are people openly defending and firing.

-enemy teams firing/defending are like snipers in the past CC series, they are unseen. I would like to see the ambush broken once firing starts. I want the team that is defending/firing visible to nearby enemies.

4. Weapon Handling
Apart from the terrible "Seeking Cover" bug, there are a number of things to change:

-Light MGs take as long setting up as heavy.. surely this cannot be so..

-PIATs never hit anything and their accuracy seems to be as bad from a laxed and fearless state as any other. They really couldnt hit the side of a barn from 10 meters on a tea party!

-grenades almost never hit anything, and if they do they hit your own guys too. in CC2 3.4 there was a minimum range, aswell as maximum, that they wouldnt nuke themselves. Also even if you walk next to an immobilized StuG you have only like 1% chance to kill it due to "bad aiming".

-talking of immobilized StuGs, it seems they're not so immobili after all. They do not move but they can still fire their maingun to amazing front angles, not just directly ahead. Check this please.. also make the StuG turn smoother, those were killing machines, but a basic tommy boiler/sherman seems able to pop one with a single shot from half a kilometer while on the move, while the stuG is turning and trying to track it.

-a reloaded PIAT/"game starting PIAT" should be ready to pop out immediately. But indeed even if it is reloaded they cannot fire but take their IKEA instructions from their pockets and start constructing them from lego bricks. A reloaded PIAT should be firing ready, even with walked with a few meters...

5. bo defenders

-see 1. for merging them..

-extra: the merge should be OPTIONAL!

-once a bridge is defused and immovable guns are destroyed, they should be able to move..

6. Retreating

-there should be a possibility to retreat from battle. I want a white flag/retreat button.

-with the retreat button I want to see a confirming question that asks if I really want to retreat and an estimate if I would lose zero or five or all soldiers when doing so..

-AI is never able to retreat, but always gets disbanded, even the relaxing BG is disbanded, even tho it had nothing to do with anything.

7. Multiple BG battles

-surely if 2 BGs are attacking in one square, it should be a bigger attack, especially if they attack from different direction. Still you get only 1 BG which sucks. Resting the other should be optional.

8. Panicking

-with the setting "always obey orders" and "never act on initiative" soldiers act like they should, except that they never panic and they have the "seeking cover bug" that I explained in 2.

-basically it is possible to halt a whole BG smoke covered crawling advance with a single panicking reserve guy by just firing into the smoke: All move orders get cancelled.. How stupid is that?

-with the "always obey orders" soldiers should still get pinned and panicked. You can have another check-box for "always fearless". I just want my orders executed and not interrupted.

9. AI

Basically every battle as the underdog takes 15 minutes of watching TV as nothing happens...
I want:

-AI to pursue Victory Locations relentlessly

-weaker AI to seek ceasefire and seek to defend it's victory locations.

That way there would always be a BATTLE OR CEASE-FIRE. Not WAITING. This relentless attacking everyone can compensate by making the AI have more troops, if they so desire.

10. Battlemaker

-a single battle BAttlemaker where you can make a user battle of one map, where you select troops AND/OR requisition points and deployment for each side. These could then be played head to head or against AI.

11. Multiplayer

-I'd like this game added on GameRanger.

12. Invulnerable/vulnerable units

-some halftracks seem super resistant? I know they are too weak in the other games, but maybe too strong here?

-AT guns die instantly.

-Sherman tanks fire super accurate shots from the move. Shouldnt the tank being stationary/on the move have something to do with accuracy?

-penetration, please check the damage caused by hits, seems it's always 1 shot 1 kill, whatever is shooting.

That's all I can think of now.

< Message edited by SkyStrike -- 7/18/2010 4:01:30 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 7/19/2010 12:35:41 AM

Ivan_Zaitzev

Posts: 49
Joined: 6/19/2009
Status: offline

I would like to have the option to split battlegroups, but it�s too late for that.

(in reply to SkyStrike)

Post #: 2

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 7/19/2010 1:31:56 AM

kojusoki1

Posts: 172
Joined: 1/6/2009
Status: offline

well... merging units is an "easy thing", when comparing to spliting, so I think it is realistic that you cannot split BGs during operation.

(in reply to Ivan_Zaitzev)

Post #: 3

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 7/19/2010 1:55:57 AM

squadleader_id

Posts: 302
Joined: 10/29/2006
Status: offline

Actually...I think it's quite realistic to split larger BGs into several smaller BGs during an operation.
In LSA you can merge different types of BGs...like say AB with Armored...or Waffen-SS with Heer...you should be able to 'split' these BGs back into their 2 original BGs (maybe with some penalties).

(in reply to kojusoki1)

Post #: 4

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 7/19/2010 1:56:17 AM

jomni

Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

For boring battles: More time compression options. 'Fast' is not enough.

_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to kojusoki1)

Post #: 5

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 7/19/2010 2:27:29 AM

kojusoki1

Posts: 172
Joined: 1/6/2009
Status: offline

merging means" "ok guys, put all your stuff here, join your sections/platoons and listen to your new squad leaders"
Spliting means: Take enough man (how many), ammo (how much) and gear (what kind and how many). IMHO its imposible to be done on the frontline - logistic wouldnt allow for that. Merging is way more simply.

But I have been never to WWII so I can be wrong:)

(in reply to squadleader_id)

Post #: 6

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 9/3/2010 4:36:02 AM

michaelbaldur

Posts: 4774
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kojusoki1

merging means" "ok guys, put all your stuff here, join your sections/platoons and listen to your new squad leaders"
Spliting means: Take enough man (how many), ammo (how much) and gear (what kind and how many). IMHO its imposible to be done on the frontline - logistic wouldnt allow for that. Merging is way more simply.

But I have been never to WWII so I can be wrong:)

we are talking about battalions ...which is a self-sufficient unit ... it would be very easy for a brigade/regiment commander to order a battalion to attack a target or move somewhere ..

and it would be very easy to find out how many battalions each unit had ...1 para brigade had 3 battalions ..

in the game the 1 para brigade is already split into 2 units: the 2 battalion and a under strength brigade with the 1. and 3. battalion.

I can�t see why you can�t split the 1. para brigade into: 1 battalion, 2 battalion and 3. battalion.

for game purpose the brigade HQ is simple split between all 3 battalions ...

then you can merge the brigade back again with just 2 battalions. only at 2/3 strength and with 2/3 of the brigade HQ staff ..

and I don�t see why you can�t merge 3 battalions from 3 different us airborne regiment into a new regiment(one that have already been split)
they all speak American. they were trained at the same base I USA and they have the same command structure

< Message edited by michaelbaldur -- 9/3/2010 4:43:31 AM >

_____________________________

the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

if you have questions or issues with the game, just contact me on Michaelbaldur1@gmail.com

(in reply to kojusoki1)

Post #: 7

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 9/3/2010 11:22:52 AM

kojusoki1

Posts: 172
Joined: 1/6/2009
Status: offline

well as I said I have never beem to any kind of war, but I just can imagine that on the frontline there is just no time for such thing and too much disorganisation. I mean WWII - today communication is certainly better.
From other hand you are right - so maybe spliting units would be possible only on maps without enemy presence?

(in reply to michaelbaldur)

Post #: 8

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 9/18/2010 7:45:32 PM

RakSep18

Posts: 3
Joined: 9/18/2010
Status: offline

hello guys ...
its really nice and informative post....
i just liked it....
thanks for your information guys ...........

_____________________________

nse intraday

nse bse

(in reply to kojusoki1)

Post #: 9

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 9/19/2010 5:42:10 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

IMHO..... 2,3,4,8,and 12 should be looked at for sure. any idea whats being considered for the next patch?

RD Steiner

(in reply to RakSep18)

Post #: 10

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 9/29/2010 11:14:08 PM

topper6

Posts: 66
Joined: 1/21/2009
Status: offline

I had my hopes up high for this title since i bought this one aswell. Have been a CC-fan for a long time. Although there are some things i would like to add to the list here, except for those thing that i agree with the original poster:

1. Some vehicles and AT-guns STILL is in "saving ammo"-mode although they have fired one round. Say for instance the Daimler with the xx-mm main gun, after one shot it goes into "saving ammo" and you have to put them into ambush-mode before they reload.

2. Pathing is still HORRIBLE. Is it something in the code that makes it impossible to fix this? And also the jerkiness i would love to see gone.

3. Movement speed of all units is way too slow compared to real life, and yes i have been there in real life with a Carl Gustav recoilless on my shoulder and an H&K assault rifle running around, and you just don't move that slow.

4. Although the first poster wrote it, i also wan't a way more aggressive AI and/or smarter.

5. The bazooka has a bug(?) what says "Four-shot salvo completed", even if they use small arms, and then the team goes into defending mode. Also if i order a bazooka to fire at a spot, i want it to use the bazooka, not small arms.

TY in advance.

< Message edited by topper6 -- 9/29/2010 11:24:11 PM >

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 11

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/14/2010 5:26:59 PM

topper6

Posts: 66
Joined: 1/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: topper6
1. Some vehicles and AT-guns STILL is in "saving ammo"-mode although they have fired one round. Say for instance the Daimler with the xx-mm main gun, after one shot it goes into "saving ammo" and you have to put them into ambush-mode before they reload.

3. Movement speed of all units is way too slow compared to real life, and yes i have been there in real life with a Carl Gustav recoilless on my shoulder and an H&K assault rifle running around, and you just don't move that slow.

4. Although the first poster wrote it, i also wan't a way more aggressive AI and/or smarter.

5. The bazooka has a bug(?) what says "Four-shot salvo completed", even if they use small arms, and then the team goes into defending mode. Also if i order a bazooka to fire at a spot, i want it to use the bazooka, not small arms.

TY in advance.

To clarify nr 1: When a gun have depleted their HE-ammunition and you select them to fire on soft targets, it won't reload the AP-ammunition unless you give the defend/ambush command or move the unit. This even if it has full AP-ammunition. The Daimler doesn't have any HE-ammunition so it goes into saving ammo directly after the first round fired from the gun.

Nr 5 is still present with the latest patch.

Henrik

(in reply to topper6)

Post #: 12

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/22/2010 8:30:44 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

the newest problem i see is that an MG squad from 2 to 300 m [ and i dont think range is the issue ] can kill an A/T gun or howitzer ! cut down the crew in short order. not real realistic per say.

(in reply to topper6)

Post #: 13

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/22/2010 10:14:23 AM

Andrew Williams

Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

quote:

huh????

I'll answer here or over there... oops 43 seconds too late or is that too early?

_____________________________

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 14

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/22/2010 10:41:48 AM

Q.M

Posts: 1823
Joined: 3/13/2003
From: Townsville QLD Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: STIENER

the newest problem i see is that an MG squad from 2 to 300 m [ and i dont think range is the issue ] can kill an A/T gun or howitzer ! cut down the crew in short order. not real realistic per say.

How is that? I can employ the beaten zone of an mg to use stones and other dross as lethal ricochete, spawl etc. Aim at the foot of the (thin) armoured sheild and allow (basic) physics to take control.

Even a quick unaimed sustained burst at the sheild can produce surprising results due to the various openings, sigths etc in the sheild, once again ricochete.

You say range is not the issue? At 1100 metres I can employ plunging fire in a beaten zone of 80 metres wide by 120 metres length on an area target. Mulitiply that by eight sustained fire mg's firing on the same bearing at the rate of 1500 rounds per minute. I would say my mg section has that tgt well and truly covered, surpressed and neutralised.

Direct fire? Use the terrain and effect of the weapon as your strenghts. Surpress that A/TK gun to the max and you are bound to score some hits lethal or damaging results.

Either way, I consider (know) the mg used in a surpessive role will defeat a static A/TK gun hands down.

Realistic? Yes.

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 15

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/22/2010 6:59:30 PM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

you have 1st hand experience at/of this i take it QM?
i didnt say it was totally unrealistic......i said it was unrealistic per say......
i wasnt in ww2 but i do read allot of history. i read alot of german accounts of ww2.....what i dont read about in 1st hand accounts is suppressing a gun with MG fire and wiping out the crew to a man in 10 seconds or less. yes thats what just happened in my last game.
i agree that the idea is to suppress the gun and possibbly kill a crew or wound some. all the pictures ive seen of A/T guns is they have reasonable cover from the gun shield, even a lower hinged gun shield at the ground to counter recochetes. the gun shield MUST be able to stop an MG or rifle round or whats the point of the gun shield?
usually a gun is in a prepared positon of some sort.....dug in..sand bagged......yes ive seen this too in my games .....a prepared postion that the PC puts the gun in......crew wiped out by small arms fire over a min or 2...in all my cases from being shot at from the front.
quote Direct fire? Use the terrain and effect of the weapon as your strenghts. Surpress that A/TK gun to the max and you are bound to score some hits lethal or damaging results. end quote i agree some lethal hits or damaging results......not crew wiped out to a man.
ive seen in all the other CC games, guns impervious to small arms fire .......no damage at all...nada. this isnt correct either. im looking for something in between here.........a supressed gun that doesnt get the crew wiped out......1 or 2 crew maybe over sustained fire. BUT if we cant change this some then ill go with this over a gun that is bullit proof.

what are other players seeing? what do you guys think?

(in reply to Q.M)

Post #: 16

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/22/2010 9:21:41 PM

RD Oddball

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline

I guess it depends on the direction the fire was coming from or the AT gun was facing. Anything from straight at the front would severely limit the protection the front shield offers and quickly reduce to zero as you move around the side. Not to mention the gaps in some AT guns front shield. Most are very thin and likely don't hold up for very long under direct fire from AP rounds. I certainly wouldn't want the only thing between me and 1500/min rounds of bullets to be a mere 1/3" of an inch of steel. Regardless of how far in the ground our weapon pit was.

From the stories Mark has told me and pics I've seen I'd say you can trust his account as being factual. IMO taking into account all the other factors in the game there's a good balance the way it's set up. At some point changing things will completely throw that balance out of whack. I now think twice about allowing MG's free run of the battlefield as is possible in previous variations of the game.

But we're only three opinions among the handful of others that have been offered theirs out of the hundreds or thousands that own the game. We'd certainly like to hear other feedback if there is any.

So I'll reiterate what Stiener said. What do you guys think?

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 17

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/23/2010 12:23:20 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

well......id rather you matrix lads spent the time on the tank vs tank data issues i suppose....but lets hear from some other players.......

(in reply to RD Oddball)

Post #: 18

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/23/2010 9:17:12 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

well heres the latest.....been playing a H2H GC as the allies. what were seeing is the static Bg's flak guns are near useless. mortor and small arms fire kill them in short order. we played at best and all the way up to Grave.

my opponents CC experience is as a newbie but we have played 3 or 4 battles and an extensive op i put together. he is no newbie to PC wargaming. so he pretty much knows what he's doing and im helping him along also.

Flak guns of 50 mm or less are supposed to fit in buildings. were finding they dont seem to fit in many. the flak 88's dont seem to want to set up in hedges or woods very well and im cutting them down like cord wood. my 60 mm mortor took out 2 of them at best in less than 5 mins...maybe 20 rds max, combined, to kill 2 88's at about 200+ yds.
at son my sniper and a 30 cal took out an 88 in a prepared positon from across the river at maybe 800yds? ok the sniper is supposed to do that so im sort of ok with that but the 2 88's he had did minimal damage to me and the houses i was in.

at Grave the germans have control of 2 flak towers that are coded as weapon pits...so you would think decent cover?? there was a 20 mm flak gun put in each tower...one on each side of the river. both were put in defend. the closest flak tower also had inf support close and a leader. i took out the gun in the closest tower in 30 sec with a 30 cal and a mg squad shooting at it. it never fired and the flak gun across the river with CLEAR los never fired either. german morale broke.

at Valkenswaar with XXX corps the germans had a/t in a prepared gun pit. [ they defended the map so they get a gun pit ] i shot the a/t gun crew to peices with 2 inf squads in about 2 mins. the 75 mm gun did little or no damage to me and the building my 2 squads were in after hitting the building 4 or 5 times.

at veghel, when i set up inf on the top edge of the dike / raised road, using it as cover , i was NOT able to get los to shoot...i had to set up ON the road top, in the open, to get los to shoot????? i have seen this before on other maps.

so heres the questions Oddball and Steve and any one else who hasnt lost interest......

1] tell me how were supposed to use these flak guns so they dont get wiped out.....is it beacuase of the poor german morale that there just crap??....or is there a flaw here?? i already spoke to the a/t guns above and got shot down. i think theres a flaw here the PLAYABILTY with these guns so far blows.

2] whats with the prepared gun pits and flak towers as far as cover goes?? there does not appear to be any any ideas?

3] why dont large caliber guns do any serious damage to a building and the occupants? if a building wood or masonry got hit by a HE 75 mm rd there would be bits every where!

4] whats with setting up inf on the top edge of a dike / raised road, and using it as cover??? it makes perfect tactical sense. there raised and are supposed to give a view and LOS because there higher. you can hid down at the bottom of them and they give cover, so....

5] why dont guns of any size seem to be able to be placed in any kind of defensive cover? like in a woods..there always on the edge and get no cover....in a hedge...they wont go in a hedge....if behind a hedge or wall they cant shoot over it. it seems to me that im always having to place my guns in the damn open because i cant hide them.......so they get spotted and wiped out in short order. perhaps im doing it wrong? guns seem pretty useless so far.....enlighten me.

i see these 5 issues as serious flaws in the game and playibility of the game and i think they need fixing. so what are we going to do?

any one else out there seen these issues? speak up please

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 19

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/24/2010 2:56:23 AM

Tejszd

Posts: 3437
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline

I'll attempt to explain #4:

To me it makes sense that the troops can not see. If you are on one side of the road, you can look across or at up angle but can not really look down at much of an angle creating an area you can not see.

O/--------------------------------------
/ /---------\                 \O/
//-----------\                  |
/--------------\            /\

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 20

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/24/2010 7:48:29 AM

Q.M

Posts: 1823
Joined: 3/13/2003
From: Townsville QLD Australia
Status: offline

Dead ground. The best cover you can get in open terrain. Cover from view and cover from direct fire.

A diagram based on the above excellent typing demo:

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Q.M -- 11/24/2010 7:56:16 AM >

(in reply to Tejszd)

Post #: 21

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/24/2010 8:02:48 AM

Q.M

Posts: 1823
Joined: 3/13/2003
From: Townsville QLD Australia
Status: offline

Armour in defile. Survivability.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Q.M)

Post #: 22

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/24/2010 8:06:58 AM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

ok.....#4 makes some sense to me now thats its explained, but theres a 2 story building on that map that one would think you would be able to shoot at from that position on the top edge of the raised road. the 2 story building is higher than the raised road. and theres still no LOS to it.

QM......how about a lesson in a/t gun survivability that pertains to the actual game of LSA. what do you do with your a/t guns in the game?

< Message edited by STIENER -- 11/24/2010 8:09:43 AM >

(in reply to Q.M)

Post #: 23

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/24/2010 8:25:56 AM

Manu

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/22/2010
Status: offline

personnaly I use the flak and at guns in ambush position behind a house or an obstacle so it can take out ennemies who move in the line of sight of my guns. But it is true that the guns are very fragile (or the mortars are very powefull ;)

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 24

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/24/2010 8:48:00 AM

Q.M

Posts: 1823
Joined: 3/13/2003
From: Townsville QLD Australia
Status: offline

Hi Stiener.

Try to employ as a long range weapon. They have the guts to do it, just wait for the opportunity tgt to present itself at range. Close contact? Site in an indirect location, behind a structure etc, wait for the tgt to present itself and give it the money shot in the flank/ass.

If possible site in pairs with a reasonable distance between and fire in multiples at the ambush. The tit for tat fire can confuse the AI/opponent and expose a flank/weak spot. You may loose one but not both on a single engagement. Multiple armour? Hold you fire until the optimum tgt is presented, otherwise hunker down and watch intently. At the first hint of reaction fire both guns and pray...or hope your sprites have faith! Keep your eye on the remainder.

Single guns. Long range, good cover from view. Remember that good players or even the AI at time will always follow the golden rule of sending flank support (grunts) in with every armour asset. This means that your gun may be observed long before you get the opportunity to act.

Best practice? Enfilade from a defilade posn. Get behind cover and shoot the flank.

Always try to employ as a flank weapon, not head on, you will never win.

Always have a mortar ready to lay smoke. Always have grunts nearby. Dont forget that guns may attract mortar and off board support, be careful and dont crowd the gun emplacement with grunts etc as these will become collateral casualties in the event of retaliation.

Last hint. Never rely on your guns as the winning piece in your strategy. Employ as a tool but dont not rely implicitly on it to break or hold the opponent. Remember that a fantastic battle plan put into practice only last as long as it takes until the first shot is fired, after that?.......well history speaks for itself.

Others will have different strategies that work for them. Me? I dont use the guns unless I have to. I would rather draw the armour in and ambush with a close in weapon of choice. I prefer up close and personal contact. Close Combat that is

Hope this helps.

< Message edited by Q.M -- 11/24/2010 10:35:48 AM >

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 25

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/24/2010 3:39:44 PM

xe5

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: STIENER
3] why dont large caliber guns do any serious damage to a building and the occupants? if a building wood or masonry got hit by a HE 75 mm rd there would be bits every where!

The area circled in red on the image below is about as much damage as youd expect from a 75mm shell on a masonry bldg. The CC bldg with the stone rubble damage boxed in red is the also the damage from a 75mm shell. The CC damage rubbled 36 square meters of a 24 meter tall bldg to a debris pile 2 meters high.

Which example of a 75mm hit shows the most "serious damage to a building"?

If there were a dozen troops in that real bldg, I'd estimate their odds of survival from that lone 75mm hit would have been pretty high.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to STIENER)

Post #: 26

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/24/2010 3:58:37 PM

STIENER

Posts: 857
Joined: 1/7/2001
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline

thanks QM....couple more questions
1] do you find that the guns do not HIDE well in LSA? in buildings and woods and hedges etc or not hide at all?
2] do you find that 50 mm and less size guns do not find many large buildings to hide in in LSA
3] do you find that guns are easily spotted while there in an ambush situation?
4] do you find guns less usefull in LSA than in other CC games..WAR....GJS etc

thanks xe5
im betting thats a AP 75 mm shot and that the shrapnel inside the building in that area was deadly. whats a wooden building look like you think?
i was taking multiple shots from an 88 in variuos typs of buildings...i was taking hardly any casualties.
do you think LSA properly reflects building damage and casualtys??

(in reply to xe5)

Post #: 27

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/25/2010 10:45:02 PM

hikarumba

Posts: 2
Joined: 11/25/2010
Status: offline

ABOUT TERRAIN FEATURES
I have been having this issue too. (from STIENERS point #4.

In many instances I place a unit behind some cover only to find that I can not shoot from the position due to the lack of Line of Sight. It seems to me reasonable that if a squad is placed at the top edge of a piece of terrain, such as a raised road, that it would have a defensive benefit and also be able to shoot form the position.

I understand the explanation but this is not really the issue. The cases that I mention are when I can't fire at ANY distance, even distances that would not have that shadow effect for the line of sight.

I'm fairly new to the game. I've experimented with inching squads forward hoping to place them on the top edge or ridge line of the defensive sweet spot. I haven't been too successful with this so I'm guessing that it doesn't exist.

ABOUT GUNS

Also, I'd like to ask the best way to use guns. So far I've had such poor results with AT guns, Flak guns, etc that I'm not certain that they are worth the expense in terms of taking up a slot in the unit roster. They are destroyed within a minute after being spotted; by mortar or small arms fire.

Some buildings protect them but then reduce their field of fire to the point where in most cases they are easily avoided once their positions are known. ie. first time they fire. It may be that I am just missing something and the light will turn on when I catch on to the correct way to use them.

I've been at a loss as to how to position them effectively.

Thanks.

(in reply to Q.M)

Post #: 28

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/26/2010 1:26:15 AM

emperor peter

Posts: 72
Joined: 11/18/2009
From: Genk, Belgium
Status: offline

Some of my findings & thoughts:

Guns: If they fit I prefer to put them in buildings. The others, I try to hide in forests, if the spot is good they sometimes stay hidden. Ideal is an outgoing dark green line of fire.
Weapon pits are terrible, they offer no protection or concealment. They are worse than a grass field IMO. I try to avoid getting guns entrenched at all times.

Mortars and to some extent MG are very (too?) powerful. This is worsened by the fact that buildings seem to offer much less cover then in previous versions of the game.

Sometimes my AT teams (PIAT, Bazooka or Schreck) hidden in buildings are immediately spotted by the enemy, i.e. they get shot at the first second of the battle, while ambushing. I've also noticed this in CC:WAR. Doesn't seem to happen every time, but often, not sure why.

Routing soldiers and crews sometimes rout the wrong way. Towards an exit VL that's enemy controlled or near enemy units.

Vehicle pathing is good now, but my infantry always run on roads too. I order them to run adjacent to a road but instead of using the trees, hedges, ditch or houses by the roadside as cover, they run on the road itself, which is often elevated and this gets them killed.

Soldiers take too long to get in firing position after moving. Especially when they are fired upon they should stop "seeking cover" and instead do something sensible (like fire back or hide).

The AI does stupid things on the strategic map. It stacks BGs that don't need stacking and attacks all the time, it never fights delaying actions or just defends. Example: On the 18th, I ordered my 505th PIR in Beek to move to Nijmegen Bridge, but KG Euling also engaged me and the battle happened on the Beek map. This KG should focus on holding the bridge.

(in reply to hikarumba)

Post #: 29

RE: List of Changes I would like to see - 11/26/2010 2:31:05 AM

Tejszd

Posts: 3437
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline

Mystic_Snake for your soldiers use Move instead of Move Fast. With Move Fast they will move onto the element(s) that allow them to move the fastest.

< Message edited by Tejszd -- 11/26/2010 2:44:22 AM >

(in reply to emperor peter)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> Tech Support >> List of Changes I would like to see

Page: [1] 2 next > >>