Huron

Fionn, with the risk of rubbing salt into your wounds, I really think you should have started a new thread with that last post. I haven't seen anything like what you describe on this thread. Regards /Huron [This message has been edited by Huron (edited 12-09-99).]

A related question - does the tank actually try to create a smoke screen, when it fires multiple rounds? I haven't tried this extensively, but it looks like the tank fires pretty much on the same spot. Any resulting screen seems more like the result of bad aiming than pre-planning. Huron

JonS has a good point. We're all going to have different opinions on what's gamey. (And more often than we'd like, it depends on if we were on the recieving end of it or not. ) To add my two cents, SS_PanzerLeader, I don't think the given situation was gamey. The moral of the crew is modeled. This, in some way, determine how it can and will react to surprises and extraordinary situations. In your case, with great valour. Huron

There's an intersting table about the effectiveness of German infantry AT-weapons on this site, that somebody mentioned on the board earlier: http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust4.htm In the current table and time, of almost a million Fausts and Schrecks supplied to the troops, they only accounted for 350 out of some 8000 confirmed armour kills. There are some if's and but's to these figures, explained on the page. The whole site is a very good read about infantry AT weapons, IMO. Huron

Marcus, Yes, I've been thinking in the same way too, which would explain some things that have happened. Even though it suprises me a bit, if the AI mis-calculate it's movement like this. (At one occasion, even two lone HQ units assulted rather un-supported during a turn.) But I chose not to bring up the subject of how the AI sometimes squander it's troop and commit them piece-meal, since I think it's been improved since the beta demo. I read somewhere that the AI now prepares and coordinates it's attacks better. Regards /Huron

Most of the times, when the AI's support teams have been leading the attack, many of my troops defending a village were already spotted, since they were firing at other units. So I don't think it's a matter of Fog of War here. I believe the support teams have used up their ammo and thus usefulness, so the AI sends them in to draw existing fire, spot additional hidden units and lure them into firing. Anyways, rightly said, we don't know how the AI will behave in the final game. But my main concern is that I can see this tactic developing for human players in stand alone scenarios, throwing "useless" units and vehicles away, to make things easier when assulting. (I don't mean sending units that are still combat effective to certain death.) If the VP for support units are the same on a man to man-ratio as for ordinary grunts, this sacrifice would make sense in game terms. It's worth the loss in VP's (usually only two men) to get better recon info, blow a possible ambush and/or take fire off of the assulting units. A way to avoid this could be to have significantly higher VP's for support crews, as a deterrent. Even better, with a special VP value if they are out of ammo or otherwise considered combat in-effective by the game. It's hard to say what the current VP ratio for grunts vs support units is. But judging from the AI's behavior it seems low, since it often throw away support units. This said, maybe I'm overly concerned and this turns out to be just a minor annoyance. Support crew wrecking seems so far the only gamey thing, but if too many of our carefully planned ambushes and defences are spoiled by charging artillery spotters and the like, ah, (sigh) well... Huron

Originally I was thinking of bringing up some issues with the AI's tactics and strategy, but a search showed me that a lot of problems seem to have been adressed since the demo. One thing I didn't find mentioned, though, was that the AI applies some gamey tactics at times. When I've been on the defensive in the LD and Reisberg, the AI comes waltzing in with mortar or bazooka crews first, before the real attack begins. I'm assuming it does this with units that have used up their ammo, to scout the village and blow ambushes. (It also often leads the attack with HQ units well ahead of the rifle squads, but that's more stupid that gamey, I'd say). Anyway, what I'm getting to is, how will the problem with gamey tactics be adressed, both for the AI and for human players? I imagine the campaign will prevent yourself or the AI from sending some superfluous units to certain death, but what about stand alone scenarios against other players in LAN or PBEM? Could the victory points (kill points or what you call them) for units like mortar crews, spotters etc be upped (maybe they already are)? For that matter, to who am I asking these questions? I guess BTS, primarily, but it would also be interesting to hear comments from those of you that have played a lot of scenarios, especially with the later builds. Is gamey tactics even a minor problem? The reason I ask, is that to me, the thing that has the most potential for irritation in any wargame that claims realism is gamey tactics. Yes, I know, everybody is going to have a different opinion on what gamey tactics are, depending on what they consider realistic. And the realism we're talking about here is more on a human level, if a commander would send his men into certain death or not. Not to mention how willingly they would carry out those orders. "Yeah, that's right, soldier! That's the plan. You just drive this halftrack at full speed down the road to that bridge over there. The rest of us are gonna stay here and see what happens..." ( Sorry, Fionn, I couldn't resist it. I know you've given your thoughts on that incident, but it's also what I'm talking about here.) Regards /Huron PS. Just to clarify, I should define what I mean and understand "gamey" to be - a thing/tactic that works in the game to achieve some sorts of success, but that is unrealistic. And then again, there's the question about what's realistic (sigh). But at least on that, we should be able to reach some sort of consensus. DS. [This message has been edited by Huron (edited 12-03-99).]

Luckily, I'm a European then, Fionn. And to prove it, I now agree with your disagreement and with BTS. I still think there could be situations in the game, somewhere between when a bogged down tank gets out by itself in a few turns and the half a day it takes to tow it if it's completely stucked and immobilized. Situations that could make for interesting command decisions. But... Fionn makes a good point with his 1%/50% argument. Yes, if it makes gameplay or modelling imbalanced, I can only agree with you. I can also understand BTS, when they say it's not worth bothering to code such slight chances. At the same time it makes me sort of relieved, that I wasn't totally out in the blue with these improvised towing operations and that maybe they could be done. (Okay, okay, 5-10 minutes was very optimistic, even in the best of circumstances, it seems. )) "Byt hey, how long can it take to throw them a hooked wire...?" I thought and remembered times in winter when I've towed my car, conveniently forgetting the time it takes to tow a ditched lorry, for example. Finally, I'd like to say some words of appreciation to the grognards that regulary post on this board and to the people at BTS. From what I've read, it's nice to see that ordinary gamers, with maybe historical interests like me, can bring up issues about the game and have them discussed, without being considered totally ignorant or instantly hit in the head with hard military facts. This could so easily have happened, but instead I find this board (compared to my experience from other message boards) to be very refreshing and informative. Also, it's simply amazing to see how active and responsive BTS is here. Thank you /Huron

I've had this happen to me twice on different games in the demo and both of the time the squad was in a rubbled house. Since my other units were unaffected, it seems like it's the rubble causing the bug. Something to keep in mind playing demo PBEM. Huron

Thanks for the reply, Fionn, Well, I have to elaborate on what I had in mind a little. I choose to spoke about vehicles earlier, to keep my post short, since it was really just me getting excited and thinking out loud. Maybe a tank or a HT could try and help another one that's bogged down. A little push to see if it get's out or maybe 5-10 minutes to throw it a wire and try to tow it out. As for infantry, aye, I realise pulling out tanks are no job for them. But maybe they could assist lighter vehicles (even halftracks, not sure how much they weigh?) if they get bogged down when you are advancing. It could be worth a few heave-ho's to find out if a supporting vehicle can continue the advance or not. And yes, I understand that it's a bad idea to start towing operations if a combat situation is imminent. But look at it as a command decision. If you it's worth the effort to try and unbog a vehicle, you can give it a shot. CM being what it is, I'm sure the AI or another player would punish you if you tried to assist in unbogging in the wrong situation. Speaking of which, it comes down to what the situation is. I agreee, doing pushing and definitely pulling in a scenario as small as LD would probably end in two knocked out tanks (if the Hellcats were around). But in larger scenarios, there might be enough time and areas out of LOS to conduct small towing operations with normal tanks and troops. Of course, it depends on how CM handles things like one tank or HT pushing or pulling another, if there's a degree in how bogged down a vehicle can get before it's completely immobilized and also, there's the question of how long such an operation would take. Anyway, Fionn and you guys at BTS are the experts here. If you say that rescue operations of bogged down vehicles on the fly doesn't happen in an tactical environment and scale that CM handles, then I can understand why it isn't in the game. My idea came from the point that BTS made about intuition and that if you think something should work in real life, try it. I thought it realistic that armour and troops (especially on the advance) can try and help valuable tanks or support vehicles that's getting bogged down. You as the commander have to decide if there's no immediate danger and if it's worth the delay. Regards /Huron

Just a thought - that you should be able to order another vehicle to help a bogged down one, or maybe even send infantry. Or is it already in the demo? Have to try and send some tank to push on a stucked halftrack... /Huron

Ops, yes, I'm sorry. I thought I'd checked the post for the last couple of weeks. (Moderator, please feel free to put this thread where it belong - in the bin) /Huron

Greetings, I've encountered what I strongly suspect is a bug with a saved game in the demo, but maybe somebody else has got a better explanation. Here's what happens... Every time I load this file, a particular German squad shows up with different numbers, ranging from one remaining soldier to six. Sometimes they are not even there at all. The squad in question had just assulted and taken that little victory building by the SW road in the "Last Defence" scenario. Good job, Männer, I think to myself, three casualties and still seven men alive. So I start planning and plotting for the next turn, but as it's getting late I save the game and go to bed. When I load the scenario the following morning, I discover that there's only three survivors. After some confusion, I reload the game, just to find that the squad is completely gone this time. Well, as I said, I've then been loading the file a number of times, and every time the squad shows up with different survivors and casualties (never the original 7/3, though) or not at all. It only affects this single unit, the rest of the troops are loaded correctly. Can there be some sorts of random or continuos damage done to the squad at the end of the turn, since they're standing in the rubble of the building? I actually think it's a saved game bug, but anyone have any other ideas? Thanks /Huron PS. Fionn, I understand that you sometimes check out screenshots and saved files. Should I send you this one? DS.