iggi

It would be good pr for the army. As long as they stick to unclassified stuff. Nobody gets really killed.

The show's name has to be good for CM. We are all going to be watching it with a nice cold beer.

I find this particulary amazing. Not any worse than paintball. Nobody is getting killed. Only downside I see is that all that info will also be view by the foriegn threats. Like the article said, it's the operational art that will be revealed. [This message has been edited by iggi (edited 03-11-2001).]

one more thing. I'm really looking forward to this. Sounds very cool. I'm not in it for any killing. But to sit in on these 'professionals' and analyse every move they make will be fascinating.

Whats the difference between the show and a combat training video? Just look at the show as a training utility. Just another tool in understanding how the trade works.

tang? You mean the blade?

Do you see where the bayonet is placed? At first thought I thought that it protects the sternum and at the same time is easily reached. But do you think that if you go prone fast that you might..just might get stabbed in your neck with it? (With the cover on). ...nahhhh [This message has been edited by iggi (edited 02-25-2001).]

A hairdryer? LOL Seriously though.. wouldn't the glass give a reflection of the sun?

Actually the Canadian army seems to have improved in many areas: http://www.army.dnd.ca/equip/hab/index_e.html [This message has been edited by iggi (edited 02-24-2001).]

That makes alot of sense. If you can't control a VL for three measly minutes, were you ever there for practical purposes?

Shouldn't the correct term be relative manouver warfare? The blitz would be an example of a static line faced with an overwhelming stress at a point whereas air land battle deals with a fluid force and the force you place on it as it is in motion. So the blitz is a special case where the defenders speed=0 and the relative motion at the point off attack is at it's maximum and therefore most effective and in that case, with pressure along the French front, the French are too distracted to react in time. In airland battle, the defensive line retreats and attacks are conducted along the enemy advance. What is happening then is that the defender is manouvering with the attacker to decrease the relative motion thus avoiding overwhelming force at a point. Since the Russians depended on hordes of tanks, communication gets more difficult the faster you advance. The russian's speed becomes it's distraction. Nato, using smaller high tech units reacts faster ie manouvering faster. So in a sense nato is blitzing because it's relative manouver at a given point is faster than the soviet's. [This message has been edited by iggi (edited 01-31-2001).]

Something that could be considered when deciding if a target is spotted is the area around it. Here I'm not talking about a targets's background. Suppose you have a sniper in a single building in a field. Wouldn't that sniper be easier to spot than if there were ten other buildings around it? I was playing DOD in the valley map as a sniper. On the axis side, you can hide in the valley in the open near a wall. When the allied player comes over the ridge, my immediate position is hard to spot even if I have no concealment ,(other than the shaded edge). Point being is that I'm prone in a huge valley. The allied player's eyes will not pick me up because he is confronted with the whole valley at once. It's a type of information overload I guess. So getting back to CM, a sniper in a single forest square should be easier to spot than a sniper in a forest square that has many forest squares attached to it. When a players troopers hear a shot, they have more likely places to scan therefore making the target harder to spot. This is a what if neato suggestion. Hope no one gets overly upset with a "NEVER GONNA HAPPEN" remark.

deleted [This message has been edited by iggi (edited 01-29-2001).]

Thanks for the feedback guys!

Well that's CM's challenge. To go where no wargame/sim has gone before. PS When I talk about "CM", I mean it's future versions not a patch for this CM. [This message has been edited by iggi (edited 01-27-2001).]

I can see why David Aitken was saying that the ai would have to "see". That was probably because I was asking that the angle of the target relative to the spotter be compared to the angle of the treeline relative to the spotter. If the two angles line up, you would have a backdrop. But that would mean that the ai has already spotted the target in order to compare angles. If you want the ai not to know where the target is try my second approach, ie creating a cone that the spotting modifer of the terrain is altered.

I'm not asking for a unit to "see". I'm not asking for the AI to get confused. 1)The enemy unit spots a tree line. 2)If I am moving in between the tree line and the enemy unit, I am less likely to be spotted. The closer I am to the tree line, the less likely to be spotted. The area or cone that is created from the enemy unit to all tree lines in effect changes the spotting modifier of the terrain in that cone.

You can even start out a scenario with a tank cammed up in front of a treeline. ie branches, leaves, a net are place over the tank. The cammed benifit should be greater with a backdrop to blend in with.

This way your tank benifits by being next to a building. Or when your tank is hiding behind a tree line and it comes out hunting, it will get the advantage of being less likely to be noticed because it's coming out of a treeline. It's turret rotation is not adversly affected cause the tank is in the open though.

Of course. The game already has every unit check every area of the game. So a unit knows that the treeline is there. Attach an angle and distance to every pont and when you have a unit with the same angle as a backdrop but less distance from spotter, you have a unit with a backdrop.

Right now, a unit running in an open field can be seen as easily as a unit running in open ground along a tree line. Aren't LOS checks made anyways? The unit knows where the obstacles are already, no? Right now, doesn't a unit know that a building is behind an enemy unit? So if you have two spottings, a building and a unit at the same relative angle from north, they are lined up allowing for a benifit for a unit with that backdrop.

Yes Clark, this to simulate the difficulty of rotating guns when near trees. I'm talking about your backdrop though. If you were to advance a tank, you should be better off with a tree line behind you. As it stands, you are not rewarded for a better tactical approach. [This message has been edited by iggi (edited 01-26-2001).]

And to another question that wasn't answered, future versions of CM should have hull down vehicles lower thier cannons to point to the horizon. It's silly that they point to the sky and it just takes that much longer to braket a threat when it appears.

Close Michael but not the same thing. If your tank is on the move, wouldn't you want your back drop to conceal your outline?

Placing tanks in scattered trees will slow thier rotation rates. Nice try. Will BTS try to impliment a real solution for future CMs?