Fred

"...While other publishers go chasing the Twitch crowd, we here at Battlefront.com only wish to make great wargames for people who like engaging their brains instead of just physical reflexes. ..." Thats what BTS says about it: from wargamers for wargamers. And, btw, I think the graphics in this game are not only average but are great! And with all the mods of those skilled people around it even gets better. BTS will, as someone said it before, do it "right" again with CM2. They always did (and I own all games ever created by BTS; their flight wargames are even today the best ones around). Fred

Mikey, it is very simple; there already is the command to fire smoke. So if you need to smoke a position, you can order it. And when one wants to fire (AP or HE) at a target, there is the target order. See the example above with the PV IV; firing smoke at enemy infantry when ordering HE fire (via "Target") is simply a bug that should be fixed. Fred

bump...

thats what I say: a bug in the logic of using smoke. I hope that Charles find the time to fix it. Fred

well, I forgot to mention it's v 1.1 and I have a game save to proof it (but most people here know what I'm talking about). This is neither smart behavior nor "war is hell" stuff, it's simply a problem with the coded routines. And it should be fixed. Or players will continue to shoot smoke missions to get rid of this ammo type...(not a smart solution but the only solution in v 1.1). Fred

Well, here is what I wrote on the TECH board: "some minor problem with units firing smoke when not ordered to do so. Tac-Sit: A Pz IV H (VET), with more than 40 HE rounds (and 8 smoke rounds) got the order to shell some britisch infantry 240 m away(normal Target order). There was no other threat around, only this infantry in a foxhole in the woods. The very first thing the Pz IV did after hitting GO, was to fire 2 smoke rounds at the infantry, instead of HE. Then it fires HE, but not for long because its own smoke rounds screened the infantry from further fire! This happens with other vehicles too; firing smoke INSTEAD of the ordered HE ammo, even if there is no threat (like in the Pz IV example)." Here is what Madmatt said: "The smoke logic is based on two main points. #1 HE is is not having much of an effect on the target and #2 The target is actively engaging another friendly unit. Many people come back with the same argument that "Had the Ai followed my HE order it would have killed the target", well the TacAi will sometimes disagree with that assesment since it sees that the HE wasn't doing enough (or any) damage. In that case it tries to help out a friendly unit by smoking in the threat. Keep that logic in mind when you see smoke being used. It's not always perfect but than neither is war." Sorry Madmatt, but I want that Steve and/or Charles take a second look at it. You are wrong. In my example, the infantry was not firing at any one, so the only one that was helped was the infantry being screened from further fire (I hear the british, polite as they are, saying "Thank you indeed' to the the Pz IV). And Madmatt, btw, a 75 mm HE shell has some damage potential on infantry... A lot of people here, like myself, now usually fire some smoke missions on some remote place(!) on the map simply to GET RID of the smoke shells, so that in an important situation the tanks do fire HE as ordered (what they do when they have no more smoke rounds). I guess that was NOT the intention of Steve and Charles when they implemented this "behaviour"! Firing all smoke in a nonsense action to get rid of it sounds as if CM has a problem in this way. I would like to hear Steve and/or Charles (if they have time) to comment on it and to fix it. BTW, it happens often and it almost always helps the enemy infantry...they are always glad about a smoke screen in front of tanks... Fred

very interesting discussion. And it seems as if both sides better had used scientists instaed of soldiers if they are for a win (germany tried, but the V1 and V2 were not very decisive). Charles stated it. In all the elaborate formulas, charts and tables about ballistics it is the human factor that makes the difference (if it comes down to 1 or 2 meters). Sometimes its just luck (chaos theory anyone), or a perfect hit but the round was a dud. Implementing some clean "out-of-the-real-world" charts and formulas would not make CM any better, but more predictable. And there is nothing like "predictable" results, just probabilities, according to current scientific views, especially on a place ruled by chaos, called the battlefield. Fred [This message has been edited by Fred (edited 01-19-2001).]

yeah, was is Manx or Madmatt, who said "there will be only one game that will beat CM as best wargame ... and this will be CM 2..." Fred

FAQ and very simple; this kind of movement tactic is not implemented in CM. It will be AFAIK in CM2-Beyond Barbarossa... and btw, making holes in european buildings was a time consuming and not too easy job, to get a whole squad+support weapons from building to building... Fred [This message has been edited by Fred (edited 01-19-2001).]

I checked the site, but no "Tanks in the street" scenario. Where have you found it?

Anyone knows the russian flamethrower ROKS-2? This ft tube was designed to look like an ordinary russian rifle, while the fuel was contained in a device looking like the usual infantry backpack. The single reason was (quote from "War Machine"): " ... if there was one tactical lesson learned from WW1, it was about the fact, that an identified FT team draw the fire of all weapons in sight on them". So, CM is right on target Fred

Well, the german halftracks are my fav toys, even if they are very vulnerable. To counter this, there are two maneuvers you could use. 1. Keep them out of harms way. Wait until all major threats( to a halftrack) are either identified and engaged or destroyed. Then (usually in the second half of the battle) use them to hunt down infantry or to lay suppressive fire with their MGs (or other weapons). A mobile, light armored MG platform is a nice thing and you can afford to loose one or two. 2. Move them fast from cover to cover in concert with your tanks. Use them as they were planned to be used: as infantry carriers with enough armor to protect the soldiers from small arms fire to take them to the hot spot. Anyone remebers Fionns famous "dash'o'death"? Shooting at a fast moving halftrack while there are tanks around( that are probably firing at you) is difficult. Fred

Madmatt, please allow me to disagree. In the main discussion board are a lot of people that experienced the same as me regarding the use of not ordered smoke screens. Look at my example; after firing two smoke shells, the Pz IV (Veteran) fired some HE shells, before the smoke screened the Britisch soldiers (that were no threat to anyone). These two HE shells made the guys leave their position, so 75 mm HE is quite effective vs. infantry targets. You will find other examples of this behaviour (that almost always helps the enemy!) in the main discussion board. Maybe Charles can take a second look at the code logic, if he has some time Fred

seen it too, posted a bug report in the tech board section. Fred

seen it too, posted a bug report in the tech board section. Fred

Hello, some minor problem with units firing smoke when not ordered to do so. Tac-Sit: A Pz IV H, with more than 40 HE rounds (and 8 smoke rounds) got the order to shell some britisch infantry 240 m away(normal Target order). There was no other threat around, only this infantry in a foxhole in the woods. The very first thing the Pz IV did after hitting GO, was to fire 2 smoke rounds at the infantry, instead of HE. Then it fires HE, but not for long because its own smoke rounds screened the infantry from further fire! This happens with other vehicles too; firing smoke INSTEAD of the ordered HE ammo, even if there is no threat (like in the Pz IV example). A bug? Fred

I've seldom experienced any problems with the fire discipline when using an ambush/hide combo in v.1.05 Maybe this is a problem with the beta version??? If yes, it should be addressed in the final. Fred

Can anyone confirm this behaviour, before I download the beta patch? 200 m for a hidden squad...sounds like a problem we already had in an older build of CM. Hmm... Fred

Interesting point...but... out of command in CM means out of command range of an officer(superior HQ). The squad still has its Sergeant and Corp. So it is able to react on its own , even if running, firing etc. The adjustment in decreasing the command range should be appropriate (i.e. minor). But a good idea to make C&C even more important. Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

I recently played the "Commando Skorzeny" and "David&Goliath" scenarios. Both were created by Clubfoot (and can be found at http://combathq.thegamers.net/depot.html The scenarios are about Sturmbannführer Skorzeny and his elite troops. This is the guy who liberated Mussolini from the Campo Imperator hotel, where the Italian Dictator was held. These two scenarios show, that commando type missions are possible with CM. Concentrating on just a handful of units (all elite, to be sure) gives the gameplay that flavor you would expect from this kind of commando operations. Small, tense and exiting, elaborated maps ... a great job by Clubfoot! If you are in commando style actions, download them and enjoy. Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

I'm with Madmatt on this one. If it is OT, lock it. There are billions of other rooms/forums/boards to discuss ethics/politics/whatever. This is about CM and it should stay that way. Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

Scott, an ambush is a powerful tool to annihilate a superior force, so there must be some restrictions in using ambushes. To be in Command is just a restriction that simply works! Assuming that all HQs have radios (as all tanks), there is no problem to target an ambush that was set by an infantry HQ. Does it work in the game? Yes. So there is no inherent inconsistency in my opinion. No need to fix something that is not broken... Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

Lusername, what is your point? Just a little trolling? Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

More ammo for Vets??? After all, Vets need even less ammo to do the job at hand! Thats why we call them Vets. Ammo in CM is abstracted. You don't have 40 "rounds", but 40 "bursts". A lot of tactical wargames use "bursts" and it works quite nice. Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pham911: Also, units can target a marker while in command, then have the HQ either get killed or move away, and the ambush still stays in place, even without the HQ's being in command range. Once again, the units are acting independantly during an ambush. Am I way off the mark here, or does this not seem right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are way off. If my Lieutenant said, "Target this bush for an ambush", he can simply move away, but this bush is still there and so I target it. Fred ------------------ "I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission