This is why I stopped playing...

[akd]

No, a suppressed unit should not be able to observe or fight effectively. A unit with one or two ticks on the suppression meter is definitely not suppressed.

[YankeeDog]

No, a suppressed unit should not be able to observe or fight effectively. A unit with one or two ticks on the suppression meter is definitely not suppressed.

OK; great. That's a start. In general, I agree with you but until we have something that can be actually measured in some objective way this is still a subjective evaluation. Just when is a unit not able to "fight effectively"? Does this mean, say, a 50% reduction in outgoing fire capability? 80%? Completely incapable of putting out any outgoing fire at all?

And assuming outgoing fire capability is a reasonable standard for judging if a unit can "fight effectively", then we need to figure out how to measure this. Perhaps we could create a test where units are given an area fire order, and then measure their ability to continue to execute the area fire order, while under fire themselves from mortars, artillery or whatever. In the game, at least, this might be a doable test, and would probably be a reasonably objective standard. If unit A not under fire puts out 40 bullets/minute, and identical unit B under 60mm mortar fire puts out only 20 bullets/minute, then we could say that unit B is "50% suppressed".

But in any event, we don't know the benchmark used in those diagrams earlier in the thread, so as of now we don't have any basis of comparison to "real life". Could be that the standard used to quantify "suppression" for those diagrams is similar to what I described above. Or, it could be something completely different.

[Amizaur]

If we could only ask Those Who Know....

[Rocky Balboa]

If unit A not under fire puts out 40 bullets/minute, and identical unit B under 60mm mortar fire puts out only 20 bullets/minute, then we could say that unit B is "50% suppressed".

I'm all for testing these things but what would a test like this really show us? If you could produce a test that shows a 60mm round can cause 50% suppression when landing within 50 meters, what other factors would influence this in game? Intervening terrain, entrenchment status, weather, leadership, unit training, and even unit morale before the round lands could all be factors that could effect how much suppression a unit should accumulate.

Even BF probably couldn't answer these questions because even though they coded the engine, the variables are just too numerous to reliably account for to give an absolute answer.

[YankeeDog]

I'm all for testing these things but what would a test like this really show us? If you could produce a test that shows a 60mm round can cause 50% suppression when landing within 50 meters, what other factors would influence this in game? Intervening terrain, entrenchment status, weather, leadership, unit training, and even unit morale before the round lands could all be factors that could effect how much suppression a unit should accumulate.

Even BF probably couldn't answer these questions because even though they coded the engine, the variables are just too numerous to reliably account for to give an absolute answer.

Valid points. I think the best even the most exhaustive tests could do is give an idea of whether or not in-game results were in the game general ballpark as the results you would expect given what real-life military weapons performance estimates say. Beyond this, it would be very difficult to refine things further.

[JonS]

I'm all for testing these things but what would a test like this really show us?

I agree. Something that immediately occurred to me is that for Yankeedog's proposal it is critically important /who/ gets suppressed. Assume a German section with 10 men - 8 rifles, 1 MP40, and an MG42. Say you suppress 8 of the 10 guys, that's 80% suppression. Right?

Well, no. If all 8 suppressed guys are carrying rifles, then despite achieving a high degree of suppression on that squad, the MP40 and MG42 are still firing, and the effective fire of that squad is barely effected. And it's the same if 'only' the MP40 or the MG42 is still up in association with one rifle - the sections firepower is definately reduced, but it is still formidable. Even with 9 guys are cowering, if the one guy with his head still in the game is carrying the MP40 or MG42 then you're going to have big problems.

On the flipside, you might get lucky and suppress only two guys but those two are the ones with the automatic weapons. Result! With minimal effect on the overall section you've completely gutted it's firepower.

So what does all that tell us? Well, I think it tells us that even when you do everything right, and you achieve significant suppression, there will still be times when it isn't enough and you'll run headfirst into the buzzsaw. And, similarly, there'll be times when you'll balls it up but get lucky, and be able to carry the position anyway.

That variability isn't a flaw. It's a feature.

[Moon]

That variability isn't a flaw. It's a feature.

This should be our new slogan, really. It is one of the major differences between a simulation like CMBN and table/chart based strategy games. Some people who grew up with the latter and got used to the relative predictability of it seem to have issues from time to time with the oddball outlier you get in CMBN. That's not to say that CMBN gets everything right. There is room for improvement, no doubt. Probably always will be. Which is a good thing. Some day we want to sell a CMx3

Martin

[Crushingleeek]

Some day we want to sell a CMx3

Martin

you moved up release date to Q2, 2012 right?

[Rocky Balboa]

That variability isn't a flaw. It's a feature.

Of course we all know that Cpt. Mike could have run afoul of a nearby dismounted crew with their experimental disruptor pistols and this could have been the sole cause of his squads failure to take the objective.

[Apocalypse 31]

Instead of wishing that pixeltroops in CMBN would act like real Soldiers, I should wish that real Soldiers were as immune to indirect fire, as they are in CMBN.

I ain't got time to bleed

CM3???

[Vanir Ausf B]

Immune to indirect fire? Man, we are not even playing the same game.

[Crushingleeek]

trigger: "Morale of unit 'A2' of player axis is less than rattled, then set waypoint objective 3 for unit A2 of player axis."

script that should satisfy everyone here, fanboi or critic

[JonS]

script that should satisfy everyone here, fanboi or critic

Yep. As long as everyone is cool with the release disk containing the giddy total of 4, maybe 5, scenarios that can be played against the AI.

[YankeeDog]

trigger: "Morale of unit 'A2' of player axis is less than rattled, then set waypoint objective 3 for unit A2 of player axis."

script that should satisfy everyone here, fanboi or critic

... Which will work unless the Allied player pulls off a deep flanking or envelopment move, interdicting the route back to waypoint 3 for axis unit A2.

Any way you look at it, triggers would be very complicated to implement and get right. Not saying I don't like the general concept, mind you...

[Childress]

... Which will work unless the Allied player pulls off a deep flanking or envelopment move, interdicting the route back to waypoint 3 for axis unit A2.

Any way you look at it, triggers would be very complicated to implement and get right. Not saying I don't like the general concept, mind you...

Wise observation.

[The Instigator]

I like stories..........

[Paper Tiger]

Instead of wishing that pixeltroops in CMBN would act like real Soldiers, I should wish that real Soldiers were as immune to indirect fire, as they are in CMBN.

Actually, I think we see a lot more realistic in-game behaviour from our pixeltruppen when they are Green with Normal morale. Regular/Normal troops are a tad too good IMO. Fine for Modern Era troops but I'm not quite as sure that it's so appropriate for WW2.

One of my favourite Schwartznegger movies BTW

[ChrisND]

Instead of wishing that pixeltroops in CMBN would act like real Soldiers, I should wish that real Soldiers were as immune to indirect fire, as they are in CMBN.

I ain't got time to bleed

CM3???

"I ain't got time to bleed."

[akd]

OK; great. That's a start. In general, I agree with you but until we have something that can be actually measured in some objective way this is still a subjective evaluation. Just when is a unit not able to "fight effectively"? Does this mean, say, a 50% reduction in outgoing fire capability? 80%? Completely incapable of putting out any outgoing fire at all?

And assuming outgoing fire capability is a reasonable standard for judging if a unit can "fight effectively", then we need to figure out how to measure this. Perhaps we could create a test where units are given an area fire order, and then measure their ability to continue to execute the area fire order, while under fire themselves from mortars, artillery or whatever. In the game, at least, this might be a doable test, and would probably be a reasonably objective standard. If unit A not under fire puts out 40 bullets/minute, and identical unit B under 60mm mortar fire puts out only 20 bullets/minute, then we could say that unit B is "50% suppressed".

But in any event, we don't know the benchmark used in those diagrams earlier in the thread, so as of now we don't have any basis of comparison to "real life". Could be that the standard used to quantify "suppression" for those diagrams is similar to what I described above. Or, it could be something completely different.

That is way overcomplicating things. You can look at this on an individual basis, so there is no need to come up with some formula for unit suppression. On an individual basis, a man that cowers and stays cowered for some reasonable amount of time is surely suppressed, a man who only momentarily ducks or doesn't take cover at all and continues to observe and engage the enemy surely is not. I am under no illusion that tests could show a 5, 10 or even 50% discrepancy. My only concern is an impression (not tested) that in a situation where a field manual (for whatever it is worth) suggests a 90% probability of significant change in behavior, in the game there is a 0% chance of significant change in behavior. I am particularly concerned about the effect that this has on the casualty rates of units in defilade cover.

To put this in other terms, my impression (again not tested, and maybe not worth testing) is that in CMBN a near impact from a single HE mortar round has the same morale effect on a target as a near impact of a bullet or short burst of bullets.

[YankeeDog]

...On an individual basis, a man that cowers and stays cowered for some reasonable amount of time is surely suppressed...

OK, then what is "some reasonable amount of time"? Until you assign it a number, you're still talking about a subjective impression.

What would be really nice to know is what the U.S. Army's definition of "suppression" was for those diagrams. Then we'd have something to work with, and come up with an approximation of in-game. I'm sure they had one. Army research studies don't generally decide category definitions like that based on the researchers' gut feelings.

"Gee Bob, I feel like I would have been suppressed if I was within oh, say, about 20 meters of that explosion. So let's call that 90% suppression."

Not likely that's how they did it.

[Pak40]

That variability isn't a flaw. It's a feature.

This should be our new slogan, really. It is one of the major differences between a simulation like CMBN and table/chart based strategy games. Some people who grew up with the latter and got used to the relative predictability of it seem to have issues from time to time with the oddball outlier you get in CMBN. ...

Martin

This was basically the point I was trying to make. There's no formula for 100% winning success in CMBN. It seems like CPT MIKE expects that if he applies X tactic to Y target he'll always get Z result. And he may enjoy that type of game better, but it certainly not realistic like he's claiming. IMO, it so formulaic that it hardly seems any different than old school RTS games.

[Apocalypse 31]

Your analysis of me is incorrect.

I'd just like the AI to perform the way a human would if they had just received 15-20 rounds of 60mm and 105mm HE mix.

That's all.

[noob]

Your analysis of me is incorrect.

I'd just like the AI to perform the way a human would if they had just received 15-20 rounds of 60mm and 105mm HE mix.

That's all.

Not all humans are the same.

[Destraex1]

There is something that is called an average though

Cpt Mike is not saying this was a one off. He did not stop playing after one game, but after many.

[dieseltaylor]

Originally Posted by Moon

This should be our new slogan, really. It is one of the major differences between a simulation like CMBN and table/chart based strategy games. .......

Martin

But I like games better than simulations. Garbage-truck-simulator-2011

http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/games/865987-garbage-truck-simulator-2011-review-readers-feature