Jump to content

semmes

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About semmes

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. semmes

    Detection/Magic = Experiment

    It is hard not to go on... because I must say I am confused now. By IanL: " My own opinion is that realism could be improved if spotting was taken down an order of magnitude - I mean you see way way less enemy soldiers - and if soldiers pulled back much sooner when loosing a fire fight. But that would make the game not very interesting. " Realism is not very interesting? Or is it that... how do you call that game?, you've got a hammer and there's a box , from time to time a head pops out, if you hit the head you get a point... is that what we -happy few, wargamers are interested in? I think in that topic somebody was complaining graphics are not good enough, so... maybe it is and I am in the wrong business. Quintili Vare, legiones redde!
  2. semmes

    Detection/Magic = Experiment

    Without any intention of starting all this again and by accident... I was deploying one MG in a wood, the Pl commander was outside in the open 60m away, the MG couldn't see him, actually couldn't see beyond 31m but the commander could see the MG all the 60m, some blue, some grey, some reverse slope. Nobody was hiding. I went to the Experiment map and depending on the trees, orientation or individual soldier -but mostly following the command line- they cannot see outside but you see them inside; not always. Maybe everybody could test this while deploying, I had enough.
  3. semmes

    Detection/Magic = Experiment

    Still... after all those topics about "spotting is overly generous", "concealment is under represented" I was hoping for some kind of... maybe, as the LOS for a squad level (WWII) combat simulation it is no that superior. Let's see the next game. Regards.
  4. semmes

    Detection/Magic = Experiment

    We agree to differ. Great, but the next game is going to be TacOps with graphics or a shooter? Nobody plays chess because it is... difficult? Iron Level is there because... it is more realistic? or just because it's not a ton of work? not nearly as good ... that's an opinion isn't it? or can it be proven?, a test? the theme that runs through it is you hardly ever see your enemy *at all*, real footage maybe? a truly realistic spotting system would be like... I think we get the "game" part, at least I don't expect my laptop to blow up with every explosion. Ah, no worries. You were too subtle for me. Acknowledgement and acceptance are not at all alike. There are two kind of people, first those who can draw conclusions from incomplete data. This is starting to sound personal, it's only business. There's pro/cons to the way foxholes and trenches are in game: and the pros outweigh the cons. Yes I was reading those ones and again I'm afraid I disagree. The mound stays there, so I have a target, I don't care how beautiful the target is -or the terrain under the target. If a guy in a foxhole takes cover he disappears and the foxhole with him. near a house?... I don't think I used the word "near". An ATG actually touching the house, half of the gun protected and hidden by it, with a 90º firing arc? 200m... I am scared to ask but have you been looking at a wood from 200m away, even on top of a ladder?, because I am sure you have seen pictures of those sharpshooters. the at all part ...I thought that was the whole point of the topic. What can a tank commander see? Let's say you've got a market study and a decision was made... this is not the same as: this LOS -meaning concealment/LOS/LOF/spotting- is superior, the most balanced between playability and realism, between a rewrite and Legolas as an individual soldier. All this is just an opinion -maybe not those 200m. I like TacOps I don't like shooters. This is a good game, I was playing something call... maybe... "Operation Star", if that is were this is going I do think it's a mistake, we've got that already. The original idea was great. That decision, has been made? Expectations tended to outrun execution. S. Foote.
  5. semmes

    Detection/Magic = Experiment

    Trenches are parapets, rifle pits are mounds, I cannot deploy an ATG hiding behind a house in a shooting position, is this "superior"? Being able to see a sniper hidden in a wood 200m away has anything to do with "like"? We'll meet some sunny day in the next game.
  6. semmes

    Detection/Magic = Experiment

    Sorry, you mean like the silliness of playing veteran level or warrior level? "I don't think" that one step closer to CMBB LOS is going to make the game unplayable and I disagree, this LOS is not superior, even if this is subjective. You are right, a lot more people buy zombie-shooter games... but let me guess, a decision was made to get this game closer to a 1to1 game and all this talking is irrelevant. I wonder if the acknowledgement of how it is is not the acceptance of how it is. Any fool can obey orders. Fisher, R. N.
  7. semmes

    Detection/Magic = Experiment

    If only they had made a game or two...in all those years.
  8. semmes

    Detection/Magic = Experiment

    Were're thinking along the same line. About the test... I have tested that my impressions were correct, posts have confirmed that, how unreal the spotting is going to while moving or to the side... we know is unrealistic, hugely.
  9. semmes

    Detection/Magic = Experiment

    I have tried less tanks, more trees and bushes and lower quality crews, it doesn't work. I'll try even less tanks, more ATGs and even more foldings in the terrain but I am not optimistic. My impression is that CMBB is a lot harder for tanks. LOS through trees was limited, concealment was effective and spotting was difficult. CMRT solved the huge (IMO) mistake that when something was spotted it was spotted for everyone, this is why I bought this game. My impression is that rules are different for spotting beyond 400m. MG/ATG shooting at 800 or 1000m don't receive direct fire -what about muzzle flash? If so, can't they be implemented all along? Can LOS/LOF/spotting from CMBB be implemented with this graphics? I cannot remember any shock and horror from TacOps, even if graphics were... well... you know. As a friend of mine was saying, we were able to put a man on the Moon, can we get a bit less of graphics and a bit more of concealment? Somebody said that there are 2 levels: easy is when you play against the AI. Well, don't teach Area Fire to the AI. You have to wait for 10' to receive the artillery support you requested, 3' at least, that's 3 turns. I would say player's interests are high. What about another tab in options: -fantasy spotting -spotting -realistic spotting/concealment. This sound like a wish list now, sorry. This game is as it is, the only thing is to acknowledge how it is.
  10. semmes

    Detection/Magic = Experiment

    ... as long as I can shoot into the smoke. If I see smoke I see a target. Syria is very nice but I'm fighting in Polish woods. Spotting is probably overly generous in some situations, we agree but it is in balance we don't, kind of subjective isn't it? with the rest of the game more than not not. All three post: spotting is too generous and it was harder. No worries, now I know, I just need to play in a different way, it's only buildings, trees and bushes are unimportant. because there's only so much we can do before we lose players' interests. Have you tried? I play this one because I don't want to play a zombie shooter. The British Army always fights its battles uphill, in the pouring rain, at the junction of two map-sheets. Field Marshal Slim.
  11. semmes

    Detection/Magic = Experiment

    They are or they are modelled at night? -muzzle flash. Well... it was about "hiding" not about time. Actually more about what tanks can see, not when. systemically undervalues cover, that's like saying we did it wrong on purpose and we are not going to change it? it's never going to be exactly realistic, wait, it is a game? a bought a game to play a game and OMG it is a game! ( Right know I am playing veteran, not warrior because I don't want to wait for 10' for arty support, it's a game after all) realistic spotting would cripple the AI, so you are saying that what they should do -even, have to do- is to teach area fire to the AI? sounds like a great idea, thanks. The very first post was a question: can this be avoided? No. It is happening -so my impression was right- and there is nothing you can do about it. (Until CM98, CM7, CM10?) Regards. Il est d'usage que Dieu soit du côté des gros bataillons. Roger de Bussy-Rabutin.
  12. semmes

    Detection/Magic = Experiment

    So it's "better" to move as a cloud of smoke because they cannot see you? I haven't been dealing with tank vs tank that much. Another funny thing is that if there are trees in front of a house I cannot shoot at the house, I cannot see it but I cannot shoot at the trees -so, hitting the house. Let's imagine I've got a MG in front of the house and a lieutenant on my left is telling me to shoot at the trees ...because he sees the house ...forget about orders. And you can change the house for a hill with crop tiles. I wonder if in the next improvement -of graphics- they could improved something else that graphics. (I'm coming from CMBB) To Amizur: Yes, of course I can but can't you? Sorry, the point of my test was to see -pun not intended- if my impressions were correct. I wasn't planning a wish list just to see if I have to change how to play... and forget reality most likely. Blind as a bat is highly accurate, tanks have radar in this game. Regards. The British Government may condone an inefficiently conducted campaign, it might overlook a lost battle or two, but not under any circunstances nor for any reason would tolerate an expensive campaign. D. R. Morris.
  13. semmes

    Detection... magic?

    Thank you for your modesty. You read the "nobody was moving" part? ... and they were not shooting in the test. If killings in war are ever unnecessary. Patton.
  14. semmes

    Detection/Magic = Experiment

    Sorry, something happened up there. That's 5s after opening the hatch. Well, it seems that "hiding" doesn't mean hiding -unlike Brexit means Brexit. All infantry depolyed as hiding, nobody is moving, nobody is shooting. Crews Green/Regular. Bush 3 Wood/H-wood 2 or 3 trees per tile. Combinations of tiles [Crops] [Bush] [Wood] [H-wood] [Bush/Wood/H-wood] [Bush/H-wood] [T-grass] [Dirt] In general terms, not always the same test but funny, same results. Regular crews seem to be able to see 50m father away than Green. At 100m or even 150m you are NOT hiding. (One tank commander let's call him Legolas, was able to see a sharpshooter at 200m in the rim of a heavy wood.) It seems to be as efective to deploy in woods as in crops. (Anybody expected anything different?) Infantry skillful enough to leave no traces when deployed in crops but they will always choose a place where they can be seen if deployed in the outer line of woods. (They need more training.) Your'e hinding only in the 3rd line -tile- of trees. (Wondering how good is your LOS compare to a tanker outside.) The tank is looking at you, if you move or fire it will see you even farther and farther away. (IMO). This is after 20s I don't need more trees I need wide, wide woods. If there's any tank in sight, forget about it.
×