Sergei Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 So you can't place foxholes, trenches etc during set-up; they only come as part of a map? No, foxholes are placed where the defenders are placed in setup just like in CMx1, and I don't understand why Redwolf wants to imply otherwise. Currently trenches are not placeable but they will be in CM:WW2, although they will be visible to the attacker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[hirr]Leto Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Hmmm. The "us versus them" way of thinking seems to be deeply ingrained in a few members of both the "fanbois" and the "haters" group. Unfortunately, this causes a disproportionate amount of damage. Not that it will change; this is just an observation. Best regards, Thomm All people with TOO MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS... IMHO. ...the damage (if any) caused is to egos, and is completely superfluous to the discussions here. Cheers! Leto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Leto;1123829']...the damage (if any) caused is to egos' date=' and is completely superfluous to the discussions here.[/quote'] Nah, it drags down good threads, in my opinion. Best regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[hirr]Leto Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 No, foxholes are placed where the defenders are placed in setup just like in CMx1, and I don't understand why Redwolf wants to imply otherwise. Currently trenches are not placeable but they will be in CM:WW2, although they will be visible to the attacker. Exactly why I have to place trenches as decoys in CMx1... and move my troops into "rocky terrain" hiding for their lives when the Soviet 122's come flying in en masse right on top of the trenches. My opinion: two kinds of trenches: regular: cheap, camoflouge: not as cheap. trenches like any other terrain element should be spottable as per unit spotting rules based on distance and terrain placed. Camoflouge trenches are spotted at half the regular distance. Foxholes MUST BE spottable on the spotting of the unit using the foxhole... or the dilemna posed above with the Soviet 122's smashing defenses like GAWD-ZILLAH is repeated. Cheers! Leto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[hirr]Leto Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Nah, it drags down good threads, in my opinion. Best regards, Thomm I can scan through the detritus. It doesn't bother me. Cheers! Leto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker765 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 It's graphical presentation. They have the effects of actual foxhole, just like the trenches have the effects of actual trench (ie. not just waist-depth ditch). I don't believe this is a true statement. Given that the ballistic path of a bullets and shells are tracked the soldier that is laying above the ground in a shell scrape is treated differently than one that is dug into a hole that covers the majority of his body with dirt. I would like to be told I am wrong by Steve though. I would also like to know if the fallback foxholes, etc will be supported in Normandy. And if they can be placed by the defender during setup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I don't believe this is a true statement. Given that the ballistic path of a bullets and shells are tracked the soldier that is laying above the ground in a shell scrape is treated differently than one that is dug into a hole that covers the majority of his body with dirt. I would like to be told I am wrong by Steve though. I would also like to know if the fallback foxholes, etc will be supported in Normandy. And if they can be placed by the defender during setup. AIUI the ballistic tracking thing only applies to vehicles. For infantry there is still some abstractions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 No, foxholes are placed where the defenders are placed in setup just like in CMx1, and I don't understand why Redwolf wants to imply otherwise. Currently trenches are not placeable but they will be in CM:WW2, although they will be visible to the attacker. I don't believe this unless I see it stated by Steve or Moon. All I have seen is Steve evade the question by waffeling and dragging it towards something else (towards the question as to whether you can dig during gameplay, which nobody ever asked about but he why not pretending that's what the whiners want?) So, setup-placed foxholes that are subject to FoW? Yes or no? It doesn't get any simpler than that. And this question is a little more fundamental that Bren tripods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker765 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 AIUI the ballistic tracking thing only applies to vehicles. For infantry there is still some abstractions. From what I know the only real abstraction in the ballistic tracking system is that friendly small arms fire will not harm your own soldiers. But, once again, I am curious what the true answer is. I sometimes get confused on what is true 1-1 representation and what is abstracted in CMSF and it would be nice to know. My experience with shell scrapes seemed to indicate they were more along the 'ranger graves' than foxholes, but I could have just been getting unlucky. Steve? Are soldiers in shell scrapes treated as being underneath the ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londoner Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 No, foxholes are placed where the defenders are placed in setup just like in CMx1, and I don't understand why Redwolf wants to imply otherwise. Currently trenches are not placeable but they will be in CM:WW2, although they will be visible to the attacker. That's great news Serg! I too thought RW meant no customisable slit/trenchs would be included! However are you inferring user placed trenches will now be visible from the get go, instead of when approached ala CM1? That would be a shame..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 It will be abstracted as it is in CM:SF now. I had a very nice design where Runners were explicitly simulated (they are as relevant to modern warfare as WW2 or any other for that matter). I called them "Boomerangs" because they would not be under direct player control. Unfortunately, the AI necessary for this to work is way, way out of our reach. So all we will be able to do is use the current C2 system, which already has "runners" abstracted in it. So I assume it won't be simulated that a hurrying runner might get his legs blown out from under him by a random near-miss mortar strike and thus not reach his destination? To hypothesize, how will this abstract simulation of runners work? Let's say you have half a dozen men (one half of a split US rifle squad) a couple hundred meters forward of the MLR in an observation post, and they spot a company's worth of enemy troops moving into position at the near edge of the forest 500m ahead. Assuming that the unit in the observation post in this instance (IRL an observation post might be provided with a field telephone or even a radio, or at least they would have a flare pistol with which the signal the troops in the MLR) has no direct communication with its parent HQ (or with parallel units), an abstracted runner leaves the unit, and after a time period equivalent to a man running/jogging the distance between the unit and the HQ, the HQ receives the information. What about TacAI-controlled flare-pistol signalling, for units which would have neither a radio nor a field telephone? Don't get me wrong, though: I'm looking forward to the subtleties and challenges in combat afforded by (reasonably) accurately simulated WW2-era C2. in WW2 the light mortars are only possible in an on-map setting because of their shorter range, therefore they must be shown on map. I recall a few huge maps in CM:BB and CM:AK with spotters for medium (81mm/82mm) mortars where the maps were rather larger than the mortars' maximum range, and the mortars were off map. Boobytrapping is currently possible in CM:SF using IEDs. *** POSSIBLE SPOILERS *** In playing "Afghani Stan" the other day, I had my SOF operators storm the Taliban-guarded buildings. They cleared two buildings without loss, but as they were hustling out of the second building on their way to the third, click BOOM -- a third of my force taken out with a tripwire-triggered IED. Ouch. *** END SPOILERS *** Foxholes can't be dug DURING a battle. That wasn't possible in CMx1 either, though of course you couldn't play a 4 hour long battle either Four-hour-long battles in CM:Normandy?! Wouldn't that necessitate tactical resupply? In CM:SF, if a squad runs low on ammo, you have 'em hustle back to the nearest Stryker/Bradley/etc., but how would this work in CM:Normandy? Some might say that tactical resupply is beyond the scope of a WW2 CM game, but why would that be? Even if CM:Normandy has games no longer than those of CM:SF, your troops could still run out of ammo long before they have a chance to reach the objective (or before the enemy has stopped trying to steamroller them). And what if (for example) an AT gun runs out of ammo halfway into the scenario? Would it have to be abandoned (with a view to saving the crew from being overrun or taken out from a distance)? (I understand that the way's it worked in CMx1 was that crewed weapons could be provided much more ammunition than the weapon's crew could carry, to simulate stacks of ammo boxes at the weapon's dug-in position.) Rest, refit, reinforce, redeploy, etc. should all be possible within a 4 hour battle. But to do that we'd have to add all kinds of different units, game mechanics, and user interface. Which is why I look forward to seeing CM:Campaigns (or whatever it's called) finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 ...(towards the question as to whether you can dig during gameplay, which nobody ever asked about ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Nice job I did with the quoting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Probably none. The assault boats in CMx1 were a horribly rough hack which we don't want to repeat again. Other types of water crossings are outside of CM's scope and won't be simulated. Agghhhh! I really, REALLY wanted to see an updated version of the crossing at Nijmegen. Hail Mary, Full of Grace . . . Hail Mary, Full of Grace . . . Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 That is what I thought he was asking in the first post to this thread. Have I misread this question? If the poster was referring to the placement of foxholes why would the length of the scenario matter? So Steves "waffling" was really just answering the question being asked. Now you are asking a different question. Let's see what his answer is to that. Fair enough? That's a pretty high end waffle statement in itself Carry your beta badge with pride. Steve knew very well what we want to know. He's been dodging the same question for almost a year now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 So Redwolf you are saying that Cid250 was not asking if you could dig in during battle in the quote I posted? Here is the quote again so you can reread it before answering "In defense... will be available again the "fox holes" for individual soldiers?. A soldier can dig-in in less than one hour, will be that option available for scenarios longer than that?." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 So Redwolf you are saying that Cid250 was not asking if you could dig in during battle in the quote I posted? Here is the quote again so you can reread it before answering "In defense... will be available again the "fox holes" for individual soldiers?. A soldier can dig-in in less than one hour, will be that option available for scenarios longer than that?." Why don't you stop waffling and answer the actual question? Everybody here (maybe not cid) knows what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 And by the way Wolfy... I understand you have asked a question you have not recieved an answer for it yet. All I was/am saying is that you were wrong when you said no one ever asked about digging in during gameplay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 And by the way Wolfy... I understand you have asked a question you have not recieved an answer for it yet. All I was/am saying is that you were wrong when you said no one ever asked about digging in during gameplay. So are you actually blind or did you just skip over all the other posts asking about the setup question, in this very thread, and other threads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 That's a pretty high end waffle statement in itself Carry your beta badge with pride. Why don't you stop waffling and answer the actual question? Well well well, Aren'y you 'Mr. attitude' today. We're discussing a future game while you're holding a Senate subcommittee hearing. Say hi to ex-Beta tester Dorosh for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Why don't you stop waffling and answer the actual question? Everybody here (maybe not cid) knows what it is. Why are you coming at me? Sergie posted an answer and you said you wouldn't believe it until Moon or Steve say it so why would you then expect anyone else to? I don't get it. I posted about a completely seperate comment you made. You are connecting the 2 and telling me I am waffling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Well I guess it's not "straight answer" day. Sorry but the bits that Steve leaked in the past indicate Sergie is plain wrong. I really hope the silence means that BFC still debates whether to put them in or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I note that it is still February. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Well I guess it's not "straight answer" day. Sorry but the bits that Steve leaked in the past indicate Sergie is plain wrong. I really hope the silence means that BFC still debates whether to put them in or not. Redwolf, you're just ridiculous if you think that anyone here is interested in playing riddles with you. If you want straight answers, then make straight questions. If you have information that others here don't have, then please tell us instead of acting like a dick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Redwolf, you're just ridiculous if you think that anyone here is interested in playing riddles with you. If you want straight answers, then make straight questions. If you have information that others here don't have, then please tell us instead of acting like a dick. The straight question is very simple and nobody ever obfuscated anything about it: do we have foxholes and/or trenches that are placed in setup and that are invisible to the attacker unless spotted at appropriate distances? You have said yes, but it goes contrary to what Steve said earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts