Jump to content
semmes

Detection/Magic = Experiment

Recommended Posts

On 1.05.2018 at 10:19 PM, semmes said:

To Amizur:

Yes, of course I can but can't you?

 

Of course I can and probably will do, when I find some time to spare. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1.05.2018 at 11:43 PM, Vanir Ausf B said:

More generally, Combat Mission systemically undervalues cover and concealment for infantry. This has been known for more than a decade. Things have been tweaked a bit more towards reality here and there over the years but it's never going to be exactly realistic since to some degree it is a deliberate design choice (from comments made by BFC) in order to keep the length of CM battles from approaching that of real battles and because strictly realistic spotting would cripple the AI since it does not know how to identify and area fire at suspected enemy positions (which is what constitutes the majority of real world shooting).

So they could give us an option - "realistic spotting" vs "normal spotting" to choose....  :-/.   I guess "realistic spotting" parameters would have to be developed and fine tuned first (hundreds of hours of testing) to be available even as an option.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, Amizaur said:

So they could give us an option - "realistic spotting" vs "normal spotting" to choose....  :-/.   I guess "realistic spotting" parameters would have to be developed and fine tuned first (hundreds of hours of testing) to be available even as an option.... 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, semmes said:

Can LOS/LOF/spotting from CMBB be implemented with this graphics?

No. Well not in a straight forward way. CM1 games were designed to simulate reasonable outcomes. The spotting and much of the firing was abstracted quite a bit as was the concealment and protection. The new CM2 games are designed to be closer to a 1 to 1 simulation where the outcomes depend on the context of the individual soldiers, tanks and bullets etc.

To nit the graphics into CM1 or the modelling in to CM2 would be a rewrite. And while I don't speak for Steve I do agree with him. CM2 is superior in every conceivable way over CM1 including anything you don't like :D

7 hours ago, semmes said:

This game is as it is, the only thing is to acknowledge how it is.

Oh and one more thing: accept how it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Amizaur said:

So they could give us an option - "realistic spotting" vs "normal spotting" to choose....  :-/. 

Well aside from the obvious silliness of two ways to play the game I don't think we realize what a truly realistic spotting system would be like. Have you seen any in combat footage (real not actors or reenactors)? I don't watch a lot but the theme that runs through it is you hardly ever see your enemy *at all* . I don't think the game would actually be playable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, IanL said:

Well aside from the obvious silliness of two ways to play the game I don't think we realize what a truly realistic spotting system would be like. Have you seen any in combat footage (real not actors or reenactors)? I don't watch a lot but the theme that runs through it is you hardly ever see your enemy *at all* . I don't think the game would actually be playable.

What is conceived as "sillines" or "unplayable" by one man, may be seen as a good solution or an interesting game for others...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Amizaur said:

What is conceived as "sillines" or "unplayable" by one man, may be seen as a good solution or an interesting game for others...

Very true. But Battlefront needs to sell the game to more than just one man. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IanL said:

Well aside from the obvious silliness of two ways to play the game I don't think we realize what a truly realistic spotting system would be like. Have you seen any in combat footage (real not actors or reenactors)? I don't watch a lot but the theme that runs through it is you hardly ever see your enemy *at all* . I don't think the game would actually be playable.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, semmes said:

Sorry, you mean like the silliness of  playing veteran level or warrior level?

No that is not what I meant. The veteran vs warrior levels are a different kind of silliness :) . The changes to the shooting to make it truly realistic vs what we have now would be silly because it would be a ton of work and a very different game. 

 

Quote

"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.

No going all they way to totally realistic would be unplayable. CM1 games were very playable for sure. Great games. But their simpler spotting was not nearly as good as what we have in CM2.

Quote

I wonder if the acknowledgement  of how it is is not the acceptance of how it is.

? Not sure how acknowledgment is anything like acceptance. I acknowledge that there is crime in y city but certainly do not accept it. I acknowledge that the spotting in the game is not perfect in all ways but I accept it and play accordingly. 

Acknowledgment and acceptance are not at all alike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, semmes said:

Trenches are parapets, rifle pits are mounds,

That is just appearance. The engine allows you to see all three D terrain features at all times. Anything that alters the terrain mesh is visible to all. Therefore the foxholes and trenches need to be above the terrain.

They are supposed behave as if they are real trenches and foxholes. You will see that there is frequent debate about how well they do that and tweaks have been made. Right now they represent thing pretty well in my opinion.

Queue the decenters ;)

15 hours ago, semmes said:

I cannot deploy an ATG hiding behind a house in a shooting position, is this "superior"?

?? Sure you can what issue are you having with setting up an AT gun near a house?

15 hours ago, semmes said:

Being able to see a sniper hidden in a wood 200m away has anything to do with "like"?

200m ? That's not very far. That is infantry fighting distance. Get those snipers out at 400 or 500m. Don't forget those WW2 snipers are really just above average marksman operating on thier own. They are not uber camouflage experts with a lot of extra training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's pro/cons to the way foxholes and trenches are in game: and the pros outweigh the cons. Games like Shock Force, Afghanistan, Graviteam etc. have actual deformation of terrain when creating battle positions but that's (a) a mapmaker level prerogative and/or (b) impossible to hide in fog of war. I'd rather have slightly goofy looking mounds that do the job just as well and are not spotted and flattened with artillery turn 0.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We agree to differ.

1 hour ago, IanL said:

...a very different game.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, semmes said:

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.

You tell em, Semmes, and keep up the good work :-)

Now, on a more serious note...I agree fully with your assessment having a Sharp in Woods being spotted at 200 meters...If it ever does get spotted, it should take several turns.

Edited by JoMc67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IanL said:

The engine allows you to see all three D terrain features at all times. Anything that alters the terrain mesh is visible to all. Therefore the foxholes and trenches need to be above the terrain.  

This is good information and is something that is probably not known / understood by many players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Do Bunkers still bed into the terrain?  Always hated that TBH.

Yes, if they're on a slope. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, semmes said:

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

OK I've been called worse. That is pretty much all there is to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4.05.2018 at 9:00 PM, IanL said:

Very true. But Battlefront needs to sell the game to more than just one man. :D

And this is the reason they should give us those spotting options we talk about, that YOU think are not needed ;P.

Edited by Amizaur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×