Spook

Maybe it's my trick "Bog" topic title. Couldn't resist the opportunity, though, hehehehe. I did do a forum subject search earlier, and didn't find any posts relating to vehicle drive reliability. Maybe there's something out there in the post archives if I keep trying. Anyway, thanks for your attention, Matt. Anything you can find will be appreciated. Ed

Pun intended. In a play of the Chance Encounter scenario (CE), I had opted to shift the US forces into the scattered trees & woods on the right of the entry road. (In this game, heading down an open road without forward recon gives me the heebee jeebies.) Well, in the 3rd or 4th turn, I found that one of the Shermans bogged in a scattered tree region. Both a nasty...and pleasant...surprise. I haven't seen vehicle bogging due to terrain since the Advanced Squad Leader boardgame series. To my relief, the Sherman later freed itself and continued on into the fighting. (All Shermans survived in this one game, and bagged all the Stug's in turn. Another surprise from the "Ronsons".) Well, that has tipped the CM scales in favor to me. I've had earlier concerns regarding the infantry/terrain graphics in the demo, among other issues, but I'll likely put in my pre-order very soon. Now to request some illumination..... I am going to assume for the moment that bogging chances for vehicles will not only count on terrain, but also on weather (like snow/mud). But in CM1, will there be also the chance that certain vehicles can bog or immobilize due to mechanical reliability? Some vehicles like the M3 halftrack series, early British cruiser tanks, and some early Soviet tanks (even the initial T-34 M40's) had some nasty mechanical/drivetrain problems. And for an East Front treatment in the planned CM2, I would hope that the Panther D is properly modeled to burn out its underpowered engine if a German player zips that tank around too often.

Just to state an added opinion that BTS should take the time it needs to get it right for CM. If it's another month or two---or three---so be it. Some might roll their eyes back with that comment, but in this present market of PC games, it's REALLY hard to say that you can't find ANYTHING to keep you entertained in the interim.

"And there is no accuracy in that situation..." Pun intended? LOL. Accurate, no, but a real-life limitation, yep. In my own case, I wouldn't just hit the friendlies around me, I'd end up shooting off my own legs too. I wouldn't mind some form of "fighting withdrawl" feature in CM, but it should be added that only the most well-trained, veteran soldiers could pull it off----to "pull out the sock" by falling back firing. So if it were to be added as a feature, only veteran soldiers & above should be allowed to have this in their pop-down order menu. Anyway, a fighting withdrawl is possible in CM already, if you are able to apply "local" reserves. For example, if one squad (or half-squad) is initially in "reserve" position relative to the other platoon units, and the platoon needs to withdraw, then the reserve squad can provide cover fire while the forward units fall back behind it. And if the reserve squad is now "forward" as a result, the other units can then stop and provide cover while the reserve unit pulls out in turn. Basically, reversing the roles. BTW, Los, regarding the earlier topic on artillery/mortar spotting that you responded to, I just want to mention now that your later comments on actual artillery fire direction were very informative, and I appreciated reading them. I just don't care to resurrect that topic again, because my points weren't really being directly addressed (in regards to specific application to CM), but my points were very trivial anyway.

JonS & LOS: Your combined responses are helpful to me, and allowing "static" (never-moved) onboard mortars an indirect capability is appropriate to allow. Removing this ability with the mortar team's movement also sounds appropriate. Thanks. It's not overly important an option to provide an FO within a HQ unit (platoon/company). But I'm not yet convinced that FO's truly were independent of the command chain---leastways, not in every army in WW2. Think of it this way: if an infantry company comes under fire, then isn't it more appropriate for the company commander to determine the need for fire support, and therefore asks the FO to get battery access? The FO is the one who can get the shots placed accurately, but he'll probably want authorization first from a local commander that the fire support IS needed. (I've only started reading/posting of recent, and missed all earlier discussion on this topic.) And thanks again for the topic links, LoS. That's helpful for reference. Regards, Ed [This message has been edited by Spook (edited 12-22-99).]

Again, I am not referring to the ACTUAL infantry/tank unit commanding officer making the fire call. I am referring to some arbitrary FO being assigned within the command UNIT. I find it a bit difficult to believe, for Western Allied armies, that infantry company HQ's didn't have some inherent FO for the battalion/company mortars. And no evidence has yet been presented to confirm the same. Ambrose's "Citizen Soldiers" gave some details on artillery access being performed by a low-level (company/platoon) HQ with a high level of flexibility in '45, but I don't remember exactly where in the later chapters this is mentioned. Not the standard reference, but that's all that comes to me for now.

Well, if you note my previous post, I suggested that a platoon HQ could be given a RANDOM chance to link up with mortar batteries. Or possibly, even allow a "FO" ability to be assigned to a specific platoon HQ based on the scenario mission when designing a scenario. It would be prudent, of course, not to allow ALL platoon HQ's to have automatic linkage to mortar batteries. But in wasn't it also prudent that some FO's would often operate closely to some HQ or another? After all, the FO could get the battery access, but they didn't always operate fully independent from the company & battalion HQ chain. If they did, it would've been the recipe for far more friendly fire incidents than was the historical case. The present FO arrangement isn't really a detraction from CM. Heck, from the comments I've read on recent CM improvements, this looks likely to be the best artillery access system yet attempted in a WW2 tactical wargame. But FO teams will sometimes get nailed in these games, of course, as was the case in real life. So I again pose the suggestion that for low-level (integral battalion/company) mortars, it wouldn't be unreasonable for some select HQ units (at least the company HQ) to have a possible "backup" FO capability to a specific battery, if the battery's main FO team is taken out. And this should be guided by nationality and timeframe too. I certainly think that the British would've had backup spotter teams in the later war years. And again, is there a way for the smaller mortars (like the US 60's in the demo) to operate with some kind of "spotted" fire without requiring direct LOS to the target? Also a minor issue, but I'm still curious.

I would agree that larger artillery should require specialist spotters as is the present case in the CM demo. But for the battalion-level or lower (60/81mm mortars for the US, 50/81 for the Germans, etc.), I don't it's unreasonable to allow a platoon HQ a random chance to link up with some mortars for indirect fire. (Historical students of WW2 artillery are free to correct me, of course, on the likelihood of artillery links getting to platoon-level.) For that matter, do the smaller mortars (60's & lower) have the ability to be used in some form of indirect "spotted" fire? I would like to believe that these mortars won't be constrained to being direct-fire weapons only.

To Steve of BTS: Just seeing your latest comments, I can see that you could feel some heartburn over my perception of "unrealistic uniforms." I shouldn't give the implication that you were opting for less realistic color choices by intention. And within the choices of computer colors, perhaps the present ones are the best available. It just remains my perception that the colors for many of the infantry don't seem right or "real". (IMHO, of course) That's why I brought up the terms of "texture" and "contrast" too. The colors may be right, but I pause to wonder if the graphical "execution" for these colors can be improved. Well, as you've stated to plan "another pass" at some of the infantry graphics, I'll leave it at that. (If you do so, perhaps Fionn could post these at Gamers Net if he thinks the revised graphics can improve the perception to some new potential buyers?) And to polygon count, fair enough not wanting to expand that in CM1. What I'm talking about is a minor gaming issue anyway. Finally, Steve, thanks again for your "editing" suggestions. If the infantry graphics still seem "off" to me after your next "pass", then it's ultimately left to me to do something about it for my own use.

All good points on referencing, Blackhorse. My citing of "Ryan" is that the US Rangers portrayed in that film were wearing the pattern of uniform that is shown for US Infantry in the CM Demo. Hollywood never is a reliable source for historical accuracy, but in "Ryan", the working assumption is that greater effort was made to show realistic uniforms. But of course, "Ryan" wasn't a live-action WW2 documentary, it was a modern-produced fiction based on history, so some speculation will remain. As to all other WW2 movies in color from the 1960's onward, I couldn't make any similar assumption that realistic-looking uniforms were attempted in any of those. Furthermore, a whole different uniform was issued to US infantry en masse from late-'44 onwards. Different jacket, different shoes & leggings, etc. Would the 1945 US Infantry in CM reflect this? My perspective on uniform color/texture/contrast in CM remains as before, which I don't believe as looking very realistic for several of the troop types. For that matter, many regular Germans used a field gray (kinda greenish) instead of the dark gray shown in the CM demo. I'd like to change that too if I can, for my own use. After all, if going to 3-D, then I'd like the media enhanced----and REALISTIC-looking-----where possible.

That's fine, Doug. Anything to "weather" the appearance of the infantry (to show they've been out in the FIELD, not some parade ground) would suffice, even if applied to all units of the same type. Actually, I've been more an aircraft modeler than an armor modeler. (The running "snipe" joke between aircraft modelers is that there are two kinds of military models: aircraft & targets .) But when I last did some armor models, I found it to be far more of a challenge in weathering.

To BTS & Major Tom: Thanks for responding. And don't worry about spelling errors, Major, I've made my share & will continue to do so. But seriously, you think the infantry colors are realistic? Well, as you've said, it's to each their own. But you think the helmet shades on any of the CM soldiers remain that dark after exposure to the elements? My best gauge of "color contrast" in recent times has been seeing how the soldiers appeared in the "Private Ryan" movie. With time & exposure, any dark-painted color or fabric will be more faded. A much better reference, to me, however, would be how the CM infantry colors would show in black & white gray-shade when compared to WW2 photos. The soldiers in the WW2 photos wouldn't have much that's close to the CM contrast. That's the basis of the "ball park" comment. So why do I make a big issue of this? Well, as a plastic modeler in earlier days, I would often see the work of fellow modelers. When it came to armor models, it was too often the case that regardless of the wondrous detail given to the tank, the crew figures were rendered with a quick swipe of paint to represent the uniform colors and the "flesh". It stood out like a black eye, and seemed to "dehumanize" the tank crew. On the basis of the CM Demo, that "dehumanizing" note has regrettably popped up again from my view. (I'm just revealing an infantry bias here.) Well, as you say, to each their own, but I hope you know better the basis of my arguments and that I'm not really meaning to irritate people here. Of course, rendering the infantry in overly sharp contrasts can make them easier to spot for some gamers trying to find their units, so I will recognize that as a balancing point. I also am a bit irritated on how the infantry equipment is "pressed flat" on the torso portion of each figure, but I don't make that an issue because I recognize such a complaint to be demanding too much from the 3-D polygon models at this stage. Well, if I can edit the colors and color shading myself (that true, BTS?), then that's more than I would've expected, and can just do that then. Thanks again.

Greetings. My first time in posting here, and my comments below are based on the downloadable CM demo, so please bear with me. I've been trying the CM demo for a few weeks now. I find several of its features quite compelling, especially the C&C model that does account properly for unit/leader distance & unit experience. I remain uncertain about some other game features like how the spotting chances are actually applied, so I'm still a fence-straddler here. But for now, to the subject of this topic. I find some of the graphics of this game very bothersome. No, not the vehicles. In fact, some of the German vehicle art is beautifully rendered, textured, & balanced in shades. (The Stug IIIG with the side skirts looks as good as a prize-winning 1/35th scale model kit.) The infantry art & textures, however, weren't even in the same ball park in this demo. In particular, the US infantry figures are really painful to look at. I will recognize that the selected colors, in that case, are trying to represent the typical appearance of the 1944 infantryman with the khaki field jacket. Still, the resultant contrast is horrible. And in all cases, the extremely dark helmet shades matched with overly pink flesh tones are irritating as presently applied to the infantry figures of all sides. My reason for posting this "art" issue is to ask how things might have changed since the demo, or if they might yet be subject to change. At the very least, I would hope that for all infantry figures, a better balance & texture can be achieved to reduce the worst contrasts. After all, if so much attention is given to fine-tuning the vehicle textures, then why leave the foot-sloggers in the cold? Doesn't that kind of undermine this whole 3D media experience? From the Gamers Net page, I have at least discerned one new positive change-----the added animation of infantry figures to actually be "running", instead of the poor "ice-skating" style I saw in the demo. Another concern is the rendition of rubble. These show up only as flat spots in the demo. Is that what is planned for the release version?