Close Combat Series :: View topic - Utah v2 is announced (once again)

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> CC5 Utah

#1: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: Dima,

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:52 pm
—
Playing TRSM for so long with Stalky (and other able CC players), we’ve got pretty bored of those tanks heavy battles on basically same maps again and again so we started to think about something new.
For some time Stalk continuously kept pushing on me (as I lost all the work I did for U2 couple of years ago) and finally he managed persuading me – Utah 2 (by me and Stalk) is planned to be released on June 6th.

Utah 2 will be a major remake of Utah 1.3.

It will sport:
-reworked GC.
-many new maps.
-all the old maps will be checked for coding mistakes, etc.
-all the data will be revised.
-virtually all the infantry teams for both sides will be revised to be more historical.
-infantry teams will be organized as close to their historical training manuals and tactical employment as possible in CC5.
-many new teams.
-most of the team names will be changed to be more historical.
-all the vehicles and guns will be revisited.
- new vehicles and guns added.
-all the FPs will be revised and reorganized.
-new BGs for both sides.
- medium mortars will be grouped in pairs.
-etc.

Thinking of 12cm/4.2inch mortars. Making them as powerful as they were ruins gameplay (IMO), especially against ATGs. So I can see 2 options for them:

1) remove them from mod.
2) making them not able to KO guns - which is unrealistic but will help to balance things a little bit.

Any questions, comments and ideas are welcomed.

#2: Author: mooxe,

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 1:14 pm
—
Option two is better, but consider limiting them more than they are now. One or two per those battalions. Limiting ammo and making the mortar static are some more ideas...

#3: Author: 7A_Woulf, Location: Sweden

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 2:10 pm
—
Great news guys! :ok2 Already looking forward to this update mod, but it means that I need a weeks vacation this summer! Wink

Can only agree with mooxe about the mortars. Smile

#4: Author: Pzt_Mac, Location: Oregon

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:49 pm
—
Great news! Utah has always been one of my favorites.

I like Mooxe's suggestion - lesson their effects and ammo.

#5: Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:57 am
—
Great news and great to see CC5 modding is still alive and kicking! Very Happy

#6: Author: Polemarchos, Location: Polemarchopolis

Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:08 pm
—
great now i will have the dilemma to choose between TRSM and Utah v2 as my favorite mod... hehe Smile

#7: Utah Mod Author: Hetser, Location: rigaud quebec,canada

Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:26 pm
—
Wow! What a project, when do you sleep...at work like the rest of us?

How close to actual reality are the existing maps? Would it be possible to "massage" the new mod in that direction? (I must Google-Earth the region).

Let me know if there is some help needed in the art department or whatever.

#8: Author: DAK_Von_Manteuffel, Location: Zaragoza (España)

Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 10:49 pm
—
Great news! :ok1

Greetings

#9: Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 8:37 am
—
wiliam,

Quote:

How close to actual reality are the existing maps?

some are v close some are not.

Quote:

Would it be possible to "massage" the new mod in that direction?

that was the initial idea, but we only had 2 new "historical" maps for now. So other will be custom made just for enchancing gameplay.

Quote:

Let me know if there is some help needed in the art department or whatever.

if you could make maps or vehicles - that would be really great!

#10: Author: 7A_Bjorn,

Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:26 pm
—
historical FJ (weapons, team composition) would be good cause I like SAS but the FJ are ridiculous almost every guy has an auto weapon and they are close to invincible Smile

I like the data in TRSM - in Utah I didn't like the 88's data very much but the 88's in TRSM seem good.

#11: Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:27 pm
—

Quote:

historical FJ (weapons, team composition)

they are pretty realistic in current Utah - thinking of minor polishing.

Quote:

I like the data in TRSM

initially TRSM received Utah data - now it will be vice versa Smile

Quote:

- in Utah I didn't like the 88's data very much but the 88's in TRSM seem good.

yeah, 88 in current Utah is too powerfull vs infantry IIRC.

#12: Author: 7A_Bjorn,

Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 8:12 pm
—
Dima,

very cool - I like the comment that Utah v2 will get TRSM data.

My main problems with SAS were the FJ weapons, shrek long range accuracy and power, but I liked the maps. Sounds like Utah v2 will be just what I've been hoping for!

Bjorn

#13: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:40 pm
—
Sorry guys,

it will take more than expected.
First of all i got my first baby so dont have same amount of free time.
Second we decided to take some TLD maps for U2 and although we expected the mistakes, we thought we could fix them rather quick, but it appears that Stalky needs huge amount of time recoding these cool painted maps - looks like all should be recoded from stratch.

Anyway, new BGs and FPs are finished. Weapons and vehicles are finished. Teams and graphics is almost finished.

Will show some pics following days.

#14: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: squadleader_id, Location: Soerabaja

Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:18 pm
—
Great news, Dima!
Looking forward to the pics...and the final product!
BTW, how about that VetMod (VAI mod) you promised? Wink

#15: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: Troger, Location: L4W's place, Australia

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:04 am
—
Sounds good Dima, hoping you finish this project up. Show some pictures! I'm interested in a re-worked strat map.

Cheers.

#16: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:02 pm
—
im pretty sure stratmap won;t be reworked for this version.

#17: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:01 pm
—
btw, 12cm/4.2inch are represented as FO in U2.
Each side has different features for FO Smile

#18: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: SenSei,

Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:30 pm
—
Quick note, moving a 4.2 is a bugger. (think stationary target)

#19: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: kweniston, Location: Netherlands

Posted: Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:27 pm
—
Looking forward to V2, and congrats with your first kid!

#20: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: Ost_KinsK,

Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 10:29 am
—
I love Utah mod, and for me as the new maps of Bloody Omaha Mod would be welcome. But please, decrease the power of flaks 36 and 37, and 150mm tank, and leave the most vulnerable ATguns to mortar fire and against infantry Smile

#21: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: Digs, Location: Ontario, Canada

Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 10:39 pm
—
Are you going to add some new weapon sounds and menu music Dima?.

#22: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: Digs, Location: Ontario, Canada

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:00 pm
—
The unit pictures are nice in the menus, but their hard to make out in-game.

#23: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: buuface, Location: Thailand

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:37 am
—
Hi Dima
Just wondering if you're still working on this? or has it taken a back seat for now

#24: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:57 am
—
Hi Buuface,

It will be there this year.

#25: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: buuface, Location: Thailand

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:29 pm
—
Thanks for the reply!

Which game are you making it for?

#26: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:26 pm
—
TLD

#27: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: tripwire, Location: Florida - USA

Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 6:01 pm
—
Awwwwwwww...... Sad

#28: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: Tejszd, Location: Canada

Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 6:48 pm
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

TLD

YES!!!!

#29: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: platoon_michael, Location: Right behind you

Posted: Sun Mar 10, 2013 9:10 pm
—
Yes indeed,
Cause that means it will work on WAR.

Yea Baby!

#30: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: Gunsche,

Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:18 pm
—
Hello Dima,
anything on Utah 2? Haven't heard anything about it since your post on the changes in the forcepool (a screenshot on a 17.SS BG too if I remember correctly too).
Would love to play this, I've always had something special for the Normandy battles Laughing

#31: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: Dima,

Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:26 pm
—

Gunsche wrote (View Post):

Hello Dima,
anything on Utah 2? Haven't heard anything about it since your post on the changes in the forcepool (a screenshot on a 17.SS BG too if I remember correctly too).
Would love to play this, I've always had something special for the Normandy battles Laughing

Nikin and me are really busy with our real life and I kind of got bored with Normadny after BfC, so switched to Stalingrad...

but who knows Smile

#32: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: Gunsche,

Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 9:24 pm
—
A shame to hear, but hey, It's your freetime to decide what to do with.
However, as you said, I can hope Wink

Out of curiosity, how far has Utah 2 come?
Any chance to glean at the data for the remade american and german paratroopers teams? Laughing

Could be quite usefull to someone, nudge, nudge, wink, wink Wink

#33: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: Dima,

Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 9:42 pm
—

Gunsche wrote (View Post):

Out of curiosity, how far has Utah 2 come?
Any chance to glean at the data for the remade american and german paratroopers teams? Laughing

Could be quite usefull to someone, nudge, nudge, wink, wink Wink

there was a big difference between US Para teams in June and September, especially in terms of equipment, f.e. BAR was standartized by September while in Normandy it was not authorized but used by 82nd.

6.FJR had a different organization and equipment either. In Normandy the squad was based on 2 6men teams (IIRC): both with 1 leMG (which was anything from MG.13 to MG.42/FG.42) + 2 MP + 2 Kar. IIRC in Septmber they had 5 men teams (10men squads).

#34: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: Gunsche,

Posted: Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:13 pm
—

Quote:

Yupp, got it covered, even got in the panzerfäuste for the 82:nd. Am I right in that the 101st didn't jump with any BARs in Holland? I know the 82:nd developed a way to jump with BAR, but they didn't pass this technic on to the 101st?

Quote:

6.FJR had a different organization and equipment either. In Normandy the squad was based on 2 6men teams (IIRC): both with 1 leMG (which was anything from MG.13 to MG.42/FG.42) + 2 MP + 2 Kar. IIRC in Septmber they had 5 men teams (10men squads).

This I didn't have a clue about, need to do some more research on german squad organization Wink

#35: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 7:49 am
—

Quote:

IIRC in Normandy 82nd overran a stock of PzF near St.Mere-Eglise. Any account they jumped with PzF in Holland?
Doubt they jumped with BARs (as it was too heavy and cumbersome), most probably they were dropped in containers like M1919A4 and AFAIK both units used BARs during MG.

The standard squad for MG would have 12men with 1 M1919A4 + 2 M1C + 2 SMG (M3A1 was preffered over M1A1) + 7 M1R (2 of them with grenade launchers). BAR was unallocated weapon in weapon reserve so could be used in place of one of M1R. Some M1903A3 were used instead of M1R as well, mainly for rifle grenadiers or sharp shooters (a-la squad marksman rifle).
Also in August 1944 1 designated sniper (M1903A4) was authorized for each Para Platoon.

Quote:

This I didn't have a clue about, need to do some more research on german squad organization

you can check the german squad organizations in BfC Smile

.
but basically:
Grenadiere - 9men (1 leMG + 1-2 SMG + 6-7 Kar (1 with SB)). Sniper rifles were very rare in squads as the production could never meant a demand for scopes, pretty same was for SMG thus 1-2 instead of 2 authorized.
PzGrenadiere: -
Typ43(gp) - 12men (2 leMG + 2 Pi + 1 SMG + 1 G41/K43 + 6 Kar (1 with SB)).
Typ43(mot) - 13men (2 leMG + 2Pi + 1 SMG + 1 G41/K43 + 7 Kar (1 with SB)).
Typ44(gp) - 10men (2 leMG + 1 SMG + 1 G41/K43 + 6 Kar (1 with SB)).
FJ - 10men (2 leMG + 2 SMG + 6 Kar (1 with SB)). FG.42 was in short supply and could be used either instead of Kar or leMG.

If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask as like someone has told "The information not shared is lost" Smile

#36: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: Gunsche,

Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:19 am
—
Can't quote any sources atm, but remember reading that the 82:nd ABs' stock of fausts were mostly used up in the OMG campaign and later restocked from ammunition dumps in Nijmegen.
It can't be that hard to stuff in a faust or two in a drop container, right?

Besides, it's not like im giving every squad a faust. Only 4-6 squads/BG have one.

Quote:

The B.A.R. was an effective and devastating weapon and immediately after WW2, the 82nd and 11th Airborne Divisions incorporated them into their TO&Es and devised a method of jumping with them fully-assembled, and strapped alongside the parachutist's leg, muzzle down.

from http://www.101airborneww2.com/warstoriesintro.html

I guess thats where I got combat jumps with BAR from, so never mind Wink

I'll PM if I have more questions, which I will undoubtly have later Wink

#37: Re: Utah v2 is announced (once again) Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:54 pm
—

Gunsche wrote (View Post):

Can't quote any sources atm, but remember reading that the 82:nd ABs' stock of fausts were mostly used up in the OMG campaign and later restocked from ammunition dumps in Nijmegen.
It can't be that hard to stuff in a faust or two in a drop container?

yes, should not be a problem if they have they were available Smile

Close Combat Series -> CC5 Utah

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1