Fools rush in ...

[markshot]

... where angels fear to tread!

I have noticed a disturbing tendency among both squad and teams, when positioned near a wall and the enemy is shooting on the other side.  Occasionally, 1-2 soldiers will hop over the wall to shoot it out from the other side.  And sometimes, they come back, and sometimes they don't.

First, in RL, going over a wall is a risky proposition.  You increase your target profile.  One theory as to why Picket's Charge was such a disaster was there was a log rail fence on the way to The Union lines.  Rather than pulling the fence down, soldiers were going over it by scaling, and momentarily becoming very good targets.

Second, you lose the cover of the wall if you are on the wrong side.

Why do they do this?  Is there a soft factor called "death wish"?

Thanks.

[Warts 'n' all]

This is going to have me humming Bow Wow Wow's version of "Fools Rush In" all day.

[Bulletpoint]

4 hours ago, markshot said:

I have noticed a disturbing tendency among both squad and teams, when positioned near a wall and the enemy is shooting on the other side.  Occasionally, 1-2 soldiers will hop over the wall to shoot it out from the other side.  And sometimes, they come back, and sometimes they don't.

You noticed one of the issues with the game. It also happens when moving along a low wall or hedge - some team members will decide to cross to the other side, with bad results.

[StieliAlpha]

On 12/16/2019 at 5:41 AM, markshot said:

One theory as to why Picket's Charge was such a disaster was there was a log rail fence on the way to The Union lines.  Rather than pulling the fence down, soldiers were going over it by scaling, and momentarily becoming very good targets.

A little off topic, but I strongly doubt THIS effect of the fence was significant in the scale of the battle. 
The key issue of the failed charge was probably, that it was not a very good idea to advance a for a mile, while crossing open terrain and being under fire.

However, the fence was certainly detrimental for the cohesion of the crossing units.

[grungar]

On 12/28/2019 at 4:54 AM, StieliAlpha said:

A little off topic, but I strongly doubt THIS effect of the fence was significant in the scale of the battle. 
The key issue of the failed charge was probably, that it was not a very good idea to advance a for a mile, while crossing open terrain and being under fire.

However, the fence was certainly detrimental for the cohesion of the crossing units.

              that fence was a disaster for many reasons not the least of wich a mile charge would be exhausting with the fence only compounding the issue.  hurdling the fence would have been most efficient but still exhausting. maybe the brave pixel troopen behave the way they do because of spacing issues in the ai?

[StieliAlpha]

On 12/31/2019 at 7:20 PM, grungar said:

              that fence was a disaster for many reasons not the least of wich a mile charge would be exhausting with the fence only compounding the issue.  hurdling the fence would have been most efficient but still exhausting. maybe the brave pixel troopen behave the way they do because of spacing issues in the ai?

Hm, I referred to Gettysburg only.

But coming back to the OP, I tend to say, what we see in CM is an approximation only anyway and not intended to reflect „reality“ in all aspects. I.e., the guys on the wrong side of the wall, are an illustration for whatever could go wrong in the situation. E.g., somebody sticking his head out too long, or a part of the wall crumbling, etc. It certainly looks awkward, but wtf?

[grungar]

23 minutes ago, StieliAlpha said:

Hm, I referred to Gettysburg only.

But coming back to the OP, I tend to say, what we see in CM is an approximation only anyway and not intended to reflect „reality“ in all aspects. I.e., the guys on the wrong side of the wall, are an illustration for whatever could go wrong in the situation. E.g., somebody sticking his head out too long, or a part of the wall crumbling, etc. It certainly looks awkward, but wtf?

maybe they are scouts and i know you meant getty  

[JoMac]

WTF, also means getting back to our game...Oh never mind, your probably still in Sunny Saudi for awhile :-(

Joe

[Sgt.Squarehead]

3 hours ago, StieliAlpha said:

But coming back to the OP, I tend to say, what we see in CM is an approximation only anyway and not intended to reflect „reality“ in all aspects. I.e., the guys on the wrong side of the wall, are an illustration for whatever could go wrong in the situation. E.g., somebody sticking his head out too long, or a part of the wall crumbling, etc. It certainly looks awkward, but wtf?

Very succinctly put IMHO. 

+1

[markshot]

12 hours ago, StieliAlpha said:

But coming back to the OP, I tend to say, what we see in CM is an approximation only anyway and not intended to reflect „reality“ in all aspects. I.e., the guys on the wrong side of the wall, are an illustration for whatever could go wrong in the situation. E.g., somebody sticking his head out too long, or a part of the wall crumbling, etc. It certainly looks awkward, but wtf?

That raises an interesting game design debate.

If you bill your 3D presentation as an accurate representation of reality as opposed to a partial/sufficient representation of reality with quite a few abstractions, then I think it is fair game to criticize those two soldiers who are on the wrong side of the wall.  The developers certainly have cast their game engine in the first camp, "accurate representation" right from the first day.  With statements such as 'CMBO/CMBB/CMAK modeled cover for each tile as an abstract statistical phenomena; where as CMBN/CMFI/CMRT/CMFB is if you see a few trees in an action square, they are, in fact, present and one is in cover relative to small arms fire from the other side of them.'  So, I  think things like soldiers on the wrong side of the wall are fair game for critical comments, because they break the philosophy that the developers themselves exposed.  That's my take.

Finally, as CMx1 has "borg spotting"; I have decided to refer to this as CMx2 "quantum tunneling".

Edited January 2, 2020 by markshot

[StieliAlpha]

12 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

WTF, also means getting back to our game...Oh never mind, your probably still in Sunny Saudi for awhile

Joe

Nope, meanwhile back in cold Germany. I‘ll come back to CM next Tuesday. But we should start a new one, unless you enjoy slaughtering my hapless infantry.

[StieliAlpha]

29 minutes ago, markshot said:

That raises an interesting game design debate.

If you bill your 3D presentation as an accurate representation of reality as opposed to a partial/sufficient representation of reality with quite a few abstractions, then I think it is fair game to criticize those two soldiers who are on the wrong side of the wall.  The developers certainly have cast their game engine in the first camp, "accurate representation" right from the first day.  With statements such as 'CMBO/CMBB/CMAK modeled cover for each tile as an abstract statistical phenomena; where as CMBN/CMFI/CMRT/CMFB is if you see a few trees in an action square, they are, in fact, present and one is in cover relative to small arms fire from the other side of them.'  So, I  think things like soldiers on the wrong side of the wall are fair game for critical comments, because they break the philosophy that the developers themselves exposed.  That's my take.

Finally, as CMx1 has "borg spotting"; I have decided to refer to this as CMx2 "quantum tunneling".

I agree, the guys on the wrong side of the wall should not happen. Same as many other graphic glitches. Like tanks driving miraculously through trees. Or showing the tank interior, when the tank is in the sectional plane of the view.

[markshot]

1 minute ago, StieliAlpha said:

I agree, the guys on the wrong side of the wall should not happen. Same as many other graphic glitches. Like tanks driving miraculously through trees. Or showing the tank interior, when the tank is in the sectional plane of the view.

That is also an interesting an interesting design debate.  Does the camera exist in the 4th dimension or in the game world?  The 4th dimension (CM) definitely has advantages.  You have to admit it is nice to pass in and out of building exterior walls without looking for a door.

On the other hand, Graviteam's camera, exists in the game world.  I complained on the tech support forums of 3D stuttering at ground level in the locked squad view.  Well, it did seem like a graphics bug to me.  I finally figured it.  When running in close formation, a squad mate kept hitting the virtual camera holder in the back.  It was not "stuttering", but "bumping".  But the advantage of game world is that the camera more naturally navigates features of the virtual world.

I am kind of undecided as to which is optimal.

[Falaise]

the engine has nothing to do , this type of behavior it is developed with 4.01 and partly only resolved with 4.02

under the effect of the suppresion the teams cross the wall, the hedge or leave the trench, particularly annoying with CMBN
this has already been reported

[Bulletpoint]

On 1/2/2020 at 8:11 AM, markshot said:

Finally, as CMx1 has "borg spotting"; I have decided to refer to this as CMx2 "quantum tunneling".

I think of it as a highly advanced "virtual idiot simulation"

But yes, I'd also REALLY like to see the wall-hopping behaviour fixed.

[Warts 'n' all]

I assume it will be CMx3 before the "wall hopping" will be fixed. As things stand troops will occupy an AS as best they can. Currently it is not possible to design a wall that runs down the side of an AS, only across the middle. 

[markshot]

This is another thing which is frustrating with CMx2 is this need to micro-manage everything while denying me the ability to be precise with my orders.

I mean sometimes there is a crater and the terminus of the movement order falls right on the crater; which is generally good for a team who knows how to follow orders.  But other times the terminus just fights me and it 3-4M from the crater.  Now, I would like to say to my men, who should at least have the TACAI common sense to play tic-tac-toe with Google's Deep Mind Neural Net, but more likely they will take cover along the rim of the crater ... and there is more ... like when there is a neat cluster of sand bag positions waiting for them, and they settle between the sandbag enclosures rather than into them.  After 60 minutes with these guys, you really understand how they managed to become cannon fodder infantry.  I mean no one was going to put them behind the controls of a P51-D.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I think you may be taking what you are seeing too literally.....I suspect (althought I do not know for sure) that the men between the sandbags still receive a cover benefit for them, it's just a representation of the situation rather than a direct model of it (as very neatly summarised by @StieliAlpha above).

[markshot]

Right.

So, about that crater are my men taking cover in the crater or are they exposed on the rim?  How does one know?  (I think CMx1, you could use the LOS line and it would give you exposure information.)

Thanks.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'd like to know the answer to that question too TBH.

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, markshot said:

(I think CMx1, you could use the LOS line and it would give you exposure information.)

That's how I remember it as well.  IIRC when you selected a unit it would tell you exactly what terrain it was in.  Another feature I miss in CM2.  But, I think the explanation for removing this feature is that it allowed the layer to have too much info and the designers liked creating more uncertainty.  Kinda like in CM1 when you selected an enemy unit a pop up window told the player the % probability of hit/to kill and there were charts showing exactly the firepower of weapons at certain ranges - so a player could select the right weapon(s) to use in a particular situation.  

[markshot]

Well, I am not asking for Paradox style rollover tool tips that break down all the calculations.

I just want to know if my team is taking cover in a crater when I see them near the rim?  Is this just a short coming of the rendering subsystem?  I can live with it; I used to develop systems for a living too.  But if they are not in cover, then I should certainly move them to some place safer, since it would mean that they are lying prone in the open.  (Perhaps, all they have is a 1-2 minutes at best before someone walks their shots to their exact location.

So, despite my friend's, Beta Bil's comment, I don't think I am "anal"; just a responsible officer. 

[Erwin]

IIRC for craters and foxholes at least is that if the units are in or around it they receive the cover benefit.  However, this works best if they are split into teams.  A full squad may not fit into the "action square" of a piece of cover like that.  In that case it could be that some guys are not in cover.

[markshot]

I have been fighting in teams mainly due to the flexibility of positioning them and that it is easier to find cover.

Also, if the enemy have tanks and I have no tanks, no ATGS ... I can do inch worm (lead/trail) bounds such that the team with panzerfausts is always in trail so as not to risk those precious weapons.

So, this question actual arose in a Whermacht split team situation.

[BletchleyGeek]

An old thread I had bookmarked

Maybe @akd can reflect on what has changed if anything over the past seven years.

There was also a very good discussion on the topic of cover and "micro cover" (which is the concept analogue to terrain fire effect modifiers used by Command Ops @markshot) but I can't find that (or those?) threads. 

It may sound obvious but the most solid cover in the game are obstacles like walls or hedgerows and terrain. More recent maps tend to often represent terrain elevation in a more nuanced way, and the value of reverse slopes etc is better accounted for in scenarios.