Jump to content

A Plea to Developers


Recommended Posts

I've been playing Combat Mission since about 2002, when I discovered Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord, and since then I've owned every CM title produced with the exception of Afghanistan. I think it's arguably one of the most engaging digital simulations of a tactical battlefield out there. It does a better-than-fair job modelling, in broad strokes, the principles of fire and maneuver, combined arms combat, supporting arms, and C3I.  

Having said that. . . There are areas where the game really breaks down in representing a lot of facets and attributes of the weapons and behaviors of troops on the ground. Here are a few examples I've seen:

  • The complete inability for spotters to call in indirect fire on point they cannot physically see. This is something combat arm officers and NCOs are taught to do as a matter of course. Calling in artillery fire on positions that are out of LOS can been done with somethings as simple as a grid mission and adjusted by sound. It's not ideal, but it can, and has, been done. I should be able to call in fire behind hedgerows at any time regardless of its position. The only detriment is the loss of accuracy. (As an example, this lack makes a scenario set in the Hurtgen Forest all but impossible to represent accurately.)
  • The inability for engineers to search for minefields ahead of their discovery by tripping them. Engineers should be able to attempt to clear a lane through a suspect minefield at any point in the game, not just when a minefield is discovered. There are far too many scenarios in all the modules that show minefields in the briefing only to rob the engineers the agency to deal with them. That's remarkably unrealistic. (This is excluding flail tanks, of course.)
  • There seems to be a misunderstanding of the toughness of armored vehicles. A 64,000 lbs AAV-7 or a Stryker, or other armored or even remotely armored vehicle, should not be burdened into changing direction when faced with a masonry wall. They might have to slow down, but they are not generally impeded by them.
  • Infantry squads are remarkably inelegant with their fires. This applies more to modern combat, but squads given a marksman rifle should be able to detach that marksman to perform precision fires instead of the whole squad or team just blazing away haphazardly at targets. While suppression is important, aiming in a huge component to modern infantry fires. These guys are some of the worst marksmen. 
  • Infantry should be "spot-able" in buildings. Troops are not static. Infantry attempting to spot their opposite brethren in urban environment should not have to expose themselves to fire just to find them. I can't count how many times I've had spotters looking at a town for great lengths of time to find nothing, only to uncover a large troop formations in the buildings once I expose myself. I'm not suggesting it's easy to spot troops in built-up environments. It's certainly not. But it's not binary, either.
  • Dumb grenades. In once scenario I had a squad below the rise where a German squad sat with an MG blazing away at friendly troops. They were well within grenade range, but they could get an LOS to the squad do to the shape of the terrain. In order to kill that squad I had to basically charge my guys, and lost a few in the process, when in reality a volley of hand grenades should have been enough to disrupt the Germans. But I couldn't throw them because I couldn't see them. In another examples, a Marine squad was working up on a house where a Syrian squad sat. They were able to get to the house undetected due to the lack of windows on three sides of the house. However, because I couldn't do something as brainlessly simple as throw a grenade into the window n the fourth wall, I had to rush into the house the hard way... And lost two guys before the Marine recon squad broke and ran into the open where they were summarily executed.
  • This brings me to another point.... I think this may be in the process of being addressed, so forgive me if I'm repeating a soon-to-be-fixed flaw, but troops don't helter-skelter into random and dangerous directions when they come under fire. More than likely then go prone and remain in place. I can't count how many times I've had troops bolt into the open when they come under fire only to die needlessly.
  • In one scenario I had a squad in a field of tall grass and they came under fire. The only guys who were able to return fire were the guys who were kneeling. The rest couldn't draw an LOS and therefore couldn't fire. Were their squad members mute? Could they not tell their fellow soldiers the direction of fire and relatively range? Where was their squad leader? Why wasn't some form of ADDRAC statement issued?

These are just a few of dozens I've seen. While I recognize there are limitations in programming that might make some of this challenging, here is my plea: A lot of this could be alleviated with getting a better understanding of combined arms warfare, a better understanding of the limitations and attributes of the weapon systems, and how troops operate and behave in the field. Just reach out to Marine Forces Systems Command, or even one of the Marine divisions, or contact the U.S. Army Training and Education Command or one of its combat divisions and see if there are field manuals that help better explain how these work. Ask to talk to combat officers and engineers and artillerymen to get a better feel for their capabilities in combat--what they can do and what they can't. While there are lots of merits to this game, there is an equal amount of what seems to be pure fantasy (both in the game and in the forum) over what actually happens on battlefields--how long things, how attacks and defenses are planned and executed, and a whole host of other tactical considerations. Contact their public affairs folks and their unit historians; I have no doubt in my mind you would be given reasonable access to make a better game. You will undoubtedly find them remarkably receptive and open.

Please understand, I love this game. I wouldn't have spent time writing this if I didn't care about it in some way. It's just frustrating to see a game *this close* to getting it right, only to toss it away. Just my 2c... 

Thanks for indulging me. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, WriterJWA said:

 

  • The complete inability for spotters to call in indirect fire on point they cannot physically see. This is something combat arm officers and NCOs are taught to do as a matter of course. Calling in artillery fire on positions that are out of LOS can been done with somethings as simple as a grid mission and adjusted by sound. It's not ideal, but it can, and has, been done. I should be able to call in fire behind hedgerows at any time regardless of its position. The only detriment is the loss of accuracy. (As an example, this lack makes a scenario set in the Hurtgen Forest all but impossible to represent accurately.)

Well they can call fire to locations that are just outside their LOS - behind a hedge or hill and the game does have TRPs to simulate calling down fire on predetermined locations. Those could also be used to simulate what you are talking about.

So, while true you cannot call fire on an arbitrary grid the game goes some way towards simulating what you are talking about.

9 minutes ago, WriterJWA said:
  • The inability for engineers to search for minefields ahead of their discovery by tripping them. Engineers should be able to attempt to clear a lane through a suspect minefield at any point in the game, not just when a minefield is discovered. There are far too many scenarios in all the modules that show minefields in the briefing only to rob the engineers the agency to deal with them. That's remarkably unrealistic. (This is excluding flail tanks, of course.)

True combat mine clearing (more equipment and explosives) would be a great add. Just FYI engineers can find and mark mines with out tripping them. If they remain in a location for a time they will spot adjacent mines on their own.

9 minutes ago, WriterJWA said:
  • There seems to be a misunderstanding of the toughness of armored vehicles. A 64,000 lbs AAV-7 or a Stryker, or other armored or even remotely armored vehicle, should not be burdened into changing direction when faced with a masonry wall. They might have to slow down, but they are not generally impeded by them.

This has been talked about a lot. Actual tankers (yeah the guys commanding things even heavier and with tracks) have chimed in to say they would *not* breach walls and fences as a matter of course - it is far to risky. Even if it was possible and happened in real life I don't think we are ever going to get this in the game.

9 minutes ago, WriterJWA said:
  • Infantry squads are remarkably inelegant with their fires. This applies more to modern combat, but squads given a marksman rifle should be able to detach that marksman to perform precision fires instead of the whole squad or team just blazing away haphazardly at targets. While suppression is important, aiming in a huge component to modern infantry fires. These guys are some of the worst marksmen. 

Cool idea - a new squad split: marksman.

9 minutes ago, WriterJWA said:
  • Infantry should be "spot-able" in buildings. Troops are not static. Infantry attempting to spot their opposite brethren in urban environment should not have to expose themselves to fire just to find them. I can't count how many times I've had spotters looking at a town for great lengths of time to find nothing, only to uncover a large troop formations in the buildings once I expose myself. I'm not suggesting it's easy to spot troops in built-up environments. It's certainly not. But it's not binary, either.

?? Ah frankly I think the game has this pretty much OK. Not because I agree with what you said but because that is not my experience at all. I'm playing All Flights are Delayed and stationary infantry are spotting enemy in buildings - not all of them but some.

9 minutes ago, WriterJWA said:
  • Dumb grenades. In once scenario I had a squad below the rise where a German squad sat with an MG blazing away at friendly troops. They were well within grenade range, but they could get an LOS to the squad do to the shape of the terrain. In order to kill that squad I had to basically charge my guys, and lost a few in the process, when in reality a volley of hand grenades should have been enough to disrupt the Germans. But I couldn't throw them because I couldn't see them. In another examples, a Marine squad was working up on a house where a Syrian squad sat. They were able to get to the house undetected due to the lack of windows on three sides of the house. However, because I couldn't do something as brainlessly simple as throw a grenade into the window n the fourth wall, I had to rush into the house the hard way... And lost two guys before the Marine recon squad broke and ran into the open where they were summarily executed.

Yeah, specific grenade commands have been requested. Maybe. The thing is there are lots of situations where I *do* see squads throwing grenades. It is unlcear to me that this is really wrong the way the game has it now or if it's more that people wish they would use them more.

9 minutes ago, WriterJWA said:
  • This brings me to another point.... I think this may be in the process of being addressed, so forgive me if I'm repeating a soon-to-be-fixed flaw, but troops don't helter-skelter into random and dangerous directions when they come under fire. More than likely then go prone and remain in place. I can't count how many times I've had troops bolt into the open when they come under fire only to die needlessly.

This is likely not going to go away fully. Troops are not going to read your mind and do what you want them to do. That's in a perfect game that is bug free. Recognize that AI pathing is challenging and there are defiantly issues that are not ideal (aka bugs) these kinds of behaviour are going to be there for at least some situations.

Having said that the new patch will reduce the number of times troops decide to withdraw which will mean we will get to see less of these instances. So, kind of a mixed bag here - it will get better but it's not going to be prefect.

9 minutes ago, WriterJWA said:
  • In one scenario I had a squad in a field of tall grass and they came under fire. The only guys who were able to return fire were the guys who were kneeling. The rest couldn't draw an LOS and therefore couldn't fire. Were their squad members mute? Could they not tell their fellow soldiers the direction of fire and relatively range? Where was their squad leader? Why wasn't some form of ADDRAC statement issued?

Yeah grazing fire would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, coachjohn said:

I like the indirect. In today’s satellite era - we can place ordinance anyplace with a sighted.

Doesn't need to be present day with all the cool toys either. I was an artillery officer, before the days of GPS and digital anything, so my experience is actually much closer to WW2 and Korean War techniques than present day. We would call fire on grid coordinates that were not observable. You can calculate firing data to anywhere. Look at the map, hear some vehicle noises and conclude they MUST be coming down that road that's behind the treeline. Of course, both in CM and real life, you could be way off, but it takes no longer to compute firing data to an unobserved point than to an observed target. Either way, the FO is passing grid coordinates. The difference is that unobserved, you FFE immediately. No adjustments possible. Another example would be looking at the map and making an educated guess as to where their mortars are set up, like at the edge of a far treeline. Linear FFE on the treeline.

Now normally on offense or defense you would have recalculated TRPs, and then could call shift missions off of those, and you can do that in game. Not too many scenarios give you TRPs, but in QB they are certainly available to purchase.

So there's my FA perspective, from someone who was a FIST Chief, Battery Fire Direction Officer, Brigade Fire Support Officer, FA Battalion Asst S-3 (S-3 is operations), and Battalion Fire Direction Officer. I've called for, planned, calculated a whole lot of explosions  (this pedigree is for the guy in the other thread who seems to be under the impression that BF had never talked to a military or former military person 🙂  )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can target outside of LOS if you first place a target reference point on the map. This is meant to directly simulate pre-plotted map coordinate firing. Place TRPs on a suspicious buildings or a line of hedges or crossroads or ditches at startup. (in CMSF2 QB they're 75 points each).  TRPs also work for direct fire, simulating guns that have got their range and elevation tables worked out for those locations.

  A number of those suggestions fall under 'Be careful what you wish for'. A poster elsewhere was complaining about the high lethality of artillery. If the game is altered so your force can be chased around the back of the map and killed off without even coming in contact with the enemy that's liable to bleed-off any fun you derive from playing. I've noticed scenario designers don't exactly overload their scenarios with TRPs. Theoretically they could have placed a TRP on every building on the map to simulate map coordinate firing. But they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

Doesn't need to be present day with all the cool toys either. I was an artillery officer, before the days of GPS and digital anything, so my experience is actually much closer to WW2 and Korean War techniques than present day. We would call fire on grid coordinates that were not observable. You can calculate firing data to anywhere. Look at the map, hear some vehicle noises and conclude they MUST be coming down that road that's behind the treeline. Of course, both in CM and real life, you could be way off, but it takes no longer to compute firing data to an unobserved point than to an observed target. Either way, the FO is passing grid coordinates. The difference is that unobserved, you FFE immediately. No adjustments possible. Another example would be looking at the map and making an educated guess as to where their mortars are set up, like at the edge of a far treeline. Linear FFE on the treeline.

Now normally on offense or defense you would have recalculated TRPs, and then could call shift missions off of those, and you can do that in game. Not too many scenarios give you TRPs, but in QB they are certainly available to purchase.

So there's my FA perspective, from someone who was a FIST Chief, Battery Fire Direction Officer, Brigade Fire Support Officer, FA Battalion Asst S-3 (S-3 is operations), and Battalion Fire Direction Officer. I've called for, planned, calculated a whole lot of explosions  (this pedigree is for the guy in the other thread who seems to be under the impression that BF had never talked to a military or former military person 🙂  )

The core problem here is that it does not interact well with the player as god problem and the map as contained arena problem.  Drive one guy in a Jeep fast down the road and he will probably die, but you’ll know exactly where to place your indirect fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, absolutmauser said:

For the artillery issues, you can set a barrage anywhere on the map prior to the first turn, and you can delay it so it doesn't come immediately. Maybe not what OP is hoping for but maybe helpful!

The fifteen minute delayed barrage is a favourite of mine, gives you time to get your guys 'eyes-on' with short arcs, all ready to properly cut loose once the artillery induced running & screaming begins.....Priceless!  ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, akd said:

The core problem here is that it does not interact well with the player as god problem and the map as contained arena problem.  Drive one guy in a Jeep fast down the road and he will probably die, but you’ll know exactly where to place your indirect fire.

Well, that and 'map fire' was notoriously inaccurate during WW2.  For one thing, especially on the Eastern Front, the maps that a unit might be using could date from surveys done in the previous century (assuming a unit could obtain a map at all).  I have even read accounts where units were using tourist maps with no grid instead of actual survey maps in order to figure out where they were.  German units frequently complained that their maps had almost no bearing to what they were actually seeing with their own eyes either because the surveying wasn't done as well as it could have been done or because the area in question had changed over the course of the fifty or one hundred years that the map was originally made.  You combine bad maps for the calling unit with bad maps for the artillery unit and your map fire mission could be falling almost anywhere.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

Well, that and 'map fire' was notoriously inaccurate during WW2.  For one thing, especially on the Eastern Front, the maps that a unit might be using could date from surveys done in the previous century (assuming a unit could obtain a map at all).  I have even read accounts where units were using tourist maps with no grid instead of actual survey maps in order to figure out where they were.  German units frequently complained that their maps had almost no bearing to what they were actually seeing with their own eyes either because the surveying wasn't done as well as it could have been done or because the area in question had changed over the course of the fifty or one hundred years that the map was originally made.  You combine bad maps for the calling unit with bad maps for the artillery unit and your map fire mission could be falling almost anywhere.  

The western Allies had quite good maps and survey data, though, and "map shooting" definitely was done. I don't know if you'd want map shooting done at a target within a few hundred meters of your infantry though, especially if a spotter was on hand!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with the artillery thing. A while ago I read a memoir of a company commander in WW2 and he described walking artillery fire onto distant enemy positions just by the sound of it. He hit something too because he saw something really big blow up on the horizon. Artillery is obviously really, really loud and you can hear the shells flying through the air. Experienced soldiers can often tell where a shell is gonna hit before it even hits just by the sound it makes in the air. They'll know whether it's incoming or outgoing, and they'll know if they need to take cover or not. I don't care if artillery called in outside of LOS is inaccurate because sometimes you don't need it to be accurate.

Also, for years I've wished they would add the ability to adjust the length and intensity of fire missions in progress. If I order a long, slow harassing mission on suspected enemy positions and accidentally start hitting a really important target (like a huge infantry concentration that I didn't know was there before), I want my FO to start yelling into the radio to keep firing and speed it up. I can't do that though. I would have to cancel the mission and call in an entirely new one and wait for spotting rounds to hit a target they were already hitting just a minute ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, absolutmauser said:

The western Allies had quite good maps and survey data, though, and "map shooting" definitely was done. I don't know if you'd want map shooting done at a target within a few hundred meters of your infantry though, especially if a spotter was on hand!

Not true.  During the Normandy invasion they were using Michelin maps and once the breakout occurred they were largely off the grid of the maps they were provided.  Spot on about the proximity item there though. :P  

That being said I think a lot of us would like some adjustment to arty capabilities- keep in mind in any wish list however is they have to work to some degree for the AI as well.  Most of the requests I see these days do not take into account most folks are still playing single player and that obviates a lot of issues for BF as to good game design versus RL requests.  They do conflict frequently.

For example the OP posted again on an AAV breaking down walls ignoring responses on his other thread that in game that would mean heavy vehicles constantly hitting high walls and immobilizing (not to mention the one tanker who responded and said no way does he want his tank being used as a battering ram.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sburke said:

Not true.  During the Normandy invasion they were using Michelin maps and once the breakout occurred they were largely off the grid of the maps they were provided.  Spot on about the proximity item there though. :P  

That being said I think a lot of us would like some adjustment to arty capabilities- keep in mind in any wish list however is they have to work to some degree for the AI as well.  Most of the requests I see these days do not take into account most folks are still playing single player and that obviates a lot of issues for BF as to good game design versus RL requests.  They do conflict frequently.

For example the OP posted again on an AAV breaking down walls ignoring responses on his other thread that in game that would mean heavy vehicles constantly hitting high walls and immobilizing (not to mention the one tanker who responded and said no way does he want his tank being used as a battering ram.)

I shall defer to your tongue sticky out and keep reading, then! 😃 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 7:36 AM, WriterJWA said:

These are just a few of dozens I've seen. While I recognize there are limitations in programming that might make some of this challenging, here is my plea: A lot of this could be alleviated with getting a better understanding of combined arms warfare, a better understanding of the limitations and attributes of the weapon systems, and how troops operate and behave in the field. Just reach out to Marine Forces Systems Command, or even one of the Marine divisions, or contact the U.S. Army Training and Education Command or one of its combat divisions and see if there are field manuals that help better explain how these work. Ask to talk to combat officers and engineers and artillerymen to get a better feel for their capabilities in combat--what they can do and what they can't. While there are lots of merits to this game, there is an equal amount of what seems to be pure fantasy (both in the game and in the forum) over what actually happens on battlefields--how long things, how attacks and defenses are planned and executed, and a whole host of other tactical considerations. Contact their public affairs folks and their unit historians; I have no doubt in my mind you would be given reasonable access to make a better game. You will undoubtedly find them remarkably receptive and open.

Please understand, I love this game. I wouldn't have spent time writing this if I didn't care about it in some way. It's just frustrating to see a game *this close* to getting it right, only to toss it away. Just my 2c... 

Thanks for indulging me. 

 

 

You seem to be under the impression that BF has no contact with folks in the military.  You are... well way off.  Quite a few of the beta testers have done service and Steve has a whole other set of contacts.  In addition your own observations for example on the issue of AAVs has been countered on your other post by no less than someone who served in armor.  CM is designed with some very severe limitations mostly caused by the sheer size of action spots and a wish to not kill the player with micro managing.  A few of us have commented about the problem of troops going prone for example in wheatfields.  Makes it really hard to use actual tactics there.

If you want a really realistic game that conforms to actual battlefield experience I suggest you go dig a trench in your yard.  Then move to some other yard and do the same thing again.  Do that a lot over the next month or so then open the game and fight one battle and start over. (that is a joke :D

Seriously I do understand some of your frustrations, many of us do.  There are limits though as to what can be done in the engine and while BF continually looks for ways to enhance it, their priority list of items doesn't likely match yours (or mine for that matter :( )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

31 minutes ago, sburke said:

Not true.  During the Normandy invasion they were using Michelin maps and once the breakout occurred they were largely off the grid of the maps they were provided.  Spot on about the proximity item there though. :P  

I stand corrected, having consulted the relevant sources! 😃 DESPITE the lack of good maps, though, the Allies were very fond of map shooting in the Normandy campaign, especially the British forces. Nonetheless, at the ranges depicted in CM:BN I don't think I'd want a lot of predicted fire put that close to my company! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Map fire, from what I can tell, was typically used mostly during periods of positional warfare and for the purpose of harassing rear areas when rations or supplies were being delivered or brought up.  Perhaps a few missions might be fired at enemy HQ units located with radio intercepts and the like.  The maps they would be using would be artillery maps that are created by units in the area and would probably include some ranging fire to confirm coordinates.  I'm not sure there are many examples of a unit just showing up in a location and an hour or two later calling for a map fire mission on a crossroads that nobody had ever seen using a map where the coordinates and locations weren't confirmed by aerial recon or some other means.  Even in a situation where you have the correct coordinates such things as barrel wear for individual artillery pieces will cause the rounds to land in unpredictable locations and with nobody spotting where the rounds fall the firing unit would never know.  There are accounts where British artillery were firing missions thousands of yards short because barrel wear was unaccounted for.  If that happens during a map fire you could have the correct coordinates dialed in but your FFE will still be way off target. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sburke said:

You seem to be under the impression that BF has no contact with folks in the military.  You are... well way off.  Quite a few of the beta testers have done service and Steve has a whole other set of contacts.  In addition your own observations for example on the issue of AAVs has been countered on your other post by no less than someone who served in armor.  CM is designed with some very severe limitations mostly caused by the sheer size of action spots and a wish to not kill the player with micro managing.  A few of us have commented about the problem of troops going prone for example in wheatfields.  Makes it really hard to use actual tactics there.

If you want a really realistic game that conforms to actual battlefield experience I suggest you go dig a trench in your yard.  Then move to some other yard and do the same thing again.  Do that a lot over the next month or so then open the game and fight one battle and start over. (that is a joke :D

Seriously I do understand some of your frustrations, many of us do.  There are limits though as to what can be done in the engine and while BF continually looks for ways to enhance it, their priority list of items doesn't likely match yours (or mine for that matter :( )

I hear that... I do. But while I recognize (and did so in the original post) that the engine poses certain limitations, there seems to be some base-line factors that are missing that fit with basic practices on the battlefield. I'm not asking for a look-see-smell replica of a battlefield. No one should want that. But I would certainly like it if the equipment and men behaved in ways that fit with battlefield psychology, modern (or historical) TTPs, doctrine, and the limitations of the equipment. This points to my earlier post about the minefields. 

Regarding the AAV/armor question, there seems to be this notion that just because a thing was frowned upon by the crew who has to fix the tread means that it wasn't done at all and shouldn't be by players. If I'm a platoon commander and I'm tasked with taking an enemy held compound with one entrance, and I don't have explosives, I am 12/10 going to ask my AAV attachment to create a breach in a place elsewhere than the enemy's principle direction of fire and he'd more than likely do it. The chief overarching problem in the attitudes toward this game, and I think what's at the core of the things that cause me to question its development, is that the men seem to fall second to the equipment, which is patently false. If it's between the possibility of an armored vehicle blowing a track or me losing guys trying to rush a fatal funnel of fire.... I'm risking the track. 

This game is trying to replicate what combat operations are like and then asks me to throw away tactics and techniques that are designed to preserve lives while accomplishing the mission. Bear in mind, I'm not over here in tears every time one of my dudes gets killed. That happens. But I do get a little ragey when I have to lose guys because the game has robbed me of tactical considerations that would be commonplace on the ground, and the forum largely justifies it as arbitrarily as "outside the scope of CM" or "if we did it then player would just take advantage of it." 

Edited by WriterJWA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WriterJWA said:

Regarding the AAV/armor question, there seems to be this notion that just because a thing was frowned upon by the crew who has to fix the tread means that it wasn't done at all and shouldn't be by players. If I'm a platoon commander and I'm tasked with taking an enemy held compound with one entrance, and I don't have explosives, I am 12/10 going to ask my AAV attachment to create a breach in a place elsewhere than the enemy's principle direction of fire and he'd more than likely do it. The chief overarching problem in the attitudes toward this game, and I think what's at the core of the things that cause me to question its development, is that the men seem to fall second to the equipment, which is patently false. If it's between the possibility of an armored vehicle blowing a track or me losing guys trying to rush a fatal funnel of fire.... I'm risking the track. 

This game is trying to replicate what combat operations are like and then asks me to throw away tactics and techniques that are designed to preserve lives while accomplishing the mission. Bear in mind, I'm not over here in tears every time one of my dudes gets killed. That happens. But I do get a little ragey when I have to lose guys because the game has robbed me of tactical considerations that would be commonplace on the ground, and the forum largely justifies it as arbitrarily as "outside the scope of CM" or "if we did it then player would just take advantage of it." 

You are still missing the main point.  Once you allow a heavy armor vehicle to breach a wall, it will always breach a wall.  Essentially that means MOUT maps with armor would become obsolete (and a lot of other maps) because the armor would always be running over walls and eventually be immobilized.  You HAVE to understand interaction of single player AI with any suggestion.  Just because something could be added doesn't mean it should be added if it causes significant other issues in the game.

but yeah I do get ragey myself when something I know could be done in RL can't be done in game, but that is true for every single game out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sburke said:

Once you allow a heavy armor vehicle to breach a wall, it will always breach a wall.  Essentially that means MOUT maps with armor would become obsolete (and a lot of other maps) because the armor would always be running over walls and eventually be immobilized.  You HAVE to understand interaction of single player AI with any suggestion.  Just because something could be added doesn't mean it should be added if it causes significant other issues in the game.

I see your point, but I think you're forgetting that tanks can already run over small walls and hedges. And those obstacles already cause damage to the tracks. Nobody thinks that's a problem, as far as I can see. The AI sometimes drives a tank through stuff like that, but it's very rare that it gets immobilised from it.

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, WriterJWA said:

If I'm a platoon commander and I'm tasked with taking an enemy held compound with one entrance, and I don't have explosives, I am 12/10 going to ask my AAV attachment to create a breach in a place elsewhere than the enemy's principle direction of fire and he'd more than likely do it. The chief overarching problem in the attitudes toward this game, and I think what's at the core of the things that cause me to question its development, is that the men seem to fall second to the equipment, which is patently false. If it's between the possibility of an armored vehicle blowing a track or me losing guys trying to rush a fatal funnel of fire.... I'm risking the track. 

@WriterJWA brought some good points in his post. But, I'll address the (cut-down) portion of his subsequent post, above, first.

Yes, I'd love to be able to knock down that tall wall with my tank or AAV or BMP. @sburke made the point that once it is allowed in one case (tall wall surrounding a compound), it must be allowed in all cases. Like, the case where you click on your AAV to FAST to a point 500m away. And then the AI sends it careening through 7 different walls to get there...and it immobilizes on the 8th. Or, the Player can breach a tall wall with an explicit order to do so, but the TacAI cannot (because of the careening through walls needlessly issue).

Artillery: TRPs have been beaten to death. Toss a TRP every 200m on a map and you can call arty anywhere you want.

The other option is the at-start arty call. Right now, it is limited to 4 time delays; 0, 5, 10, or 15 minutes. In a 4 hour scenario, simulating a British set-piece attack with multiple arty lifts, this is woefully inadequate. I'd like to see user-selectable time delays for any arty setup on the initial turn.

Grenades: Yeah. Spot on. Grenades should use the same "slightly out-of-LOS" algorithm which is allowed for on-map mortars.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, c3k said:

Grenades: Yeah. Spot on. Grenades should use the same "slightly out-of-LOS" algorithm which is allowed for on-map mortars.

They already do. You can order a team to target a spot on the other side of a tall wall, and they will throw across grenades even though there's no LOS. However, they only throw about 1-2 grenades every turn, which is usually not enough.

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

They already do. You can order a team to target a spot on the other side of a tall wall, and they will throw across grenades even though there's no LOS. However, they only throw about 1-2 grenades every turn, which is usually not enough.

and it works for an AI player as well. Area target within grenade range (30m or 3 AS) from currently held position. Can be done from behind a wall or any other suitable reverse slope position (i.e raised railroad embankment, dikes ect.) Quite nice. B) 

Edited by RockinHarry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

They already do. You can order a team to target a spot on the other side of a tall wall, and they will throw across grenades even though there's no LOS. However, they only throw about 1-2 grenades every turn, which is usually not enough.

Thanks. I (obviously) was unaware of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...