Username

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Lewis, you are arguing with Steve by taking abstract examples and trying to extrapolate them into exact realities. If you do that, and do it in a silly way, then of course your own misconceptions are open to discussion and setting right. Naturally, the mathematical formulas for many aspects of the game are hidden, and can only be discussed in abstract. This is true of all games, since it keeps gamey abuse of the system from becoming common place.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not quite perfezzor. If you have recovered from your brain injurys fully, you might have noticed that I am pretty good at getting info out of Steve. Its a nightmare of a discourse, but great tidbits come out about CM2 and sometimes improvements go in. I think even this thread might lead to some meaningful tweaking. I think that the effects of the game's Spotting/IDing are pretty much UNhidden. Thats the problem, units cant stay hidden. So my point here is for Steve to let us in on the ground floor (without disclosing everything) so that discussion about this can be meaningful. In fact, what I am trying to do, is get better abstractions out of the games realities! But I really would like Steve to comment on the math so as to clarify. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Lewis, that is not how percentages work. 1/3 chance figured over 3 units is not 100% chance of success. You do not add percentages to determine chance of an event from multiple discrete possibilities. That does not mean borg sighting is the ideal, just that your concept of what is the actual detection chance for multiple units with say an 8% chance of detecting an enemy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey slappy Please dont lecture me on any mathematical issues. If you read steves post he is saying that the percentages are summed (or somehow combined into one formula). I am using an example to see if this can be clarified. The issue is: 1. Is there a single 'roll' for an instant in time when multiple mixed unit types are trying to spot an enemy in LOS? 2. How is the roll determined mathematically? Lewis

Ive never had the game crash in a year. I have constant problems with AOL (now I cant attach resumes for some inexplicable reason)and look at the size of that company.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Again, there is a huge variety in the quality of spotting, but there is NO accounting for who spotted what. Friendly A unit spots Enemy unit at x value, while Friendly B unit spots same Enemy at y value, Friendly C at z value. Each might spot at radically different levels, but the enemy's spotting value = x+y+z. I think the math is a little more complicated than that, but the basic concept is correct. And that is x, y, and z are all just numbers. They have no other attributes than that, so there is no way to weigh x more or less than y simply because of unit type. Unit type, in general, has already been accounted for when generating the x, y, and z in the first place. Whoops! There I go again trying to explain how things work. Stupid me. Sorry Lewis, my bad Steve <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you saying that its cumulative? That if one unit has a 33% chance against an enemy, another has 33% chance against the same enemy and still another has 33%, then its 99%? Does the game do this? Make one 'roll' to see the spotting status? Are you also saying that units that do this cumulative spot can be different types, armor, inf, guns, so that its all mixed in together? Lewis [ 07-17-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

So Joe McClutch, our regular frontline US truck driver, has the same spotting/IDing capabilities as Herman Actrad our regular armored recon battalion commander?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: But it is possible for a unit of x type to be better at identifiying other units also of x type than z type units, right? In other words, I think you did say that armor units are better at IDing armor than infantry units. I'm just trying to clarify here. ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hehe I hate when steve goes into his A, B Z's. I really once pissed him off in a kitchen sink thread when I did a parody of his 1,2,C logic. Or did I piss him off another time too? Cant recall. I think that spotting is more critical as games get more "realistic". Thats as diplomatic as I can put it. In light of CMBO that would be my 20-20 hindsight. Hopefully the tweaks in other aspects of CM2s firepower, C&C, etc can abstract away spotting/IDing overwhelming effects. I am just trying to look for anything else that can possibly tone down the Borg. I dont want to be a helpless God in the clouds but more rather a field level commander. I am leaving this topic alone as it is again all over the place and some usual cutups are flapping around the carcass. I also sense a defensiveness from steve and feel that anything further will be taken wrong. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: I remember once you saying that it was "unfortunate" that we went with a modified Absolute Spotting system instead of going whole hog for Relative Spotting. I hope that you, and everyone in general, can not see why we didn't. It will affect practically EVERYTHING in a not so subtle way. We expect to spend months on implementing Relative Spotting and the stuff it touches upon. Just too much to bite off for the first engine. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think everyone, including yourself, can see the present (CMBO) "spotting" as "unfortunate" (but thats hineysight). I CAN see that RS is a difficult undertaking, noone really has done it, and it remains to be seen if BTS can pull it off (I am sure that as customers move to 1+GHz systems, it can be done). Why you "would hope that we could not see why you didn't" needs to be explained by you. (Ahem, double negative?) Anyway. My only concern is if the present system can be optimally tweaked for CM2. I like the downgrading of IDing especially and even had a recent thread that proposed this. I dont recall you posting in it though. To Recap: My main concern was not spotting, but rather IDing. I feel that IDing, such as infantry calling out the make/model of tanks, should be dumbed down to the point of generica. Not that some guy in the infantry squads couldnt make a Tiger from a PIV with skirts, but that his info shouldnt be in the group database (the player). Same thing with tanks spotting infantry types. Perhaps you might even consider this behaviour (I understand its already in the game) for regular/vets. Anyway, I like the new FOW and downgrading of most inf's to green/conscript. My only scenario designed for CMBO had green US inf supported by Conscript armor. Not that the armor was a bunch of civilians but that in the context of the game (they faced no german armor), I wanted them to be cludgey to model poor inf/armor coordination. They still just kicked ass. Lewis [ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another spotting tweak could be a limit on the number of units you can spot/ID. Perhaps the IDing could get poorer with each additional one? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "This is not possible because there is no facility in the code to have "memory" like this. I also don't think this would be realistic unless time was factored in, which makes it more tricky to implement (even if we could right now)."-Steve Well yes its unrealistic now I think too. Its at one end of a scale to me. I am thinking of an abstraction to bring it away from that extreme. But as you say, its in the code. My main concern is the number of russian units sharing info. A general reduction in spotting (for the russians) to offset sharing is tricky too I suppose. Would it be possible for the different sides to have different levels of FOW? Say the russians have to use the new super-FOW and the germans had the present "full" FOW? I always wanted to play the AI (in non arty intensive games) with full FOW for me and no FOW for the computer. It would give him a chance I thought. Lewis [ 07-14-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

I dont know if its available or possible but I think it would be great if BTS put together a field trip to some kind of MILES school. Take along the employees and actually see the amount of baffling confusion and mayhem that 'real as it gets' training demonstrates. Miles is great stuff. Of course you cant throw grenades and all but you get a real feel of infantry firepower.. Another spotting thing I want to bring up. Would it be possible to severely limit spotting by units that are firing? Especially beyond the range of their targets? Believe me. When in a firefight, you have little cares beyond what you are firing at. Especially when it is firing back at you. Another spotting tweak could be a limit on the number of units you can spot/ID. Perhaps the IDing could get poorer with each additional one? Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: But most ambushes are hit and run affairs, where a squad may ambush a platoon, or a platoon a company, and then immediately clear the area. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Its a great way of denying the enemy info about your MLR. If the MLR (main line of resistance) gets compromised, then it can be a matter of semantics. Especially when the enemy has loads of arty. German units also ambushed on the battalion level. It takes great fire discipline but to unleash a battalions firepower onto an attacker is a force multiplier. The best is a large U ambush and an attacker stupid enough to put the majority of his forces into it. Theres something about the simultanity of many weapons at once. It denies proper response and spotting. The germans would even fire smoke between the attackers echelons to completely confuse them and deny follow on forces info about what was going on. That gives me an idea. What about 'losing spotting'. The spotting ability of a unit would depend on the number of enemy firers in relation to the friendly firers. Cant wait for the CM2 demo.. Lewis

Steel Beasts has something like this. I think this kind of design approach is the future of computer wargaming. I was trying to design along similar lines with my game. Now that I am temporary disemployed, I will try to pick up wher I left off. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: Should not be running? Should be rushing? Preferred move? Those are value judgements that depend on the context you're in. As for rushing by half-platoon in overwatch... at 20 metres? After being ambushed? After being ambushed at that close range, you'll be lucky if half your platoon is alive to rush at all. In a WW II context, it makes even more sense because firepower was comparatively much lower. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In MILES training using a classic L ambush against a similarly sized force (squad ambushes squad), it hardly matters what the chumps do. With the M60 at the bottom of the L and M16s along the side (using semi-auto BTW), the attacker gets lit up and even IF a few dont get out-right zapped at first and even IF the drill-response kicks in and they charge into the ambush, they hardly ever got one of our guys. The belt-fed usually opens up first, sometimes with enemy about 30-40 meters away, anyone not zapped either charges into the LMG (parrallel to the L of M16, into the L so as to get cover or run away they way they came). The shock of firepower coming from two directions at close range is devastating. I personally think its a sinister plot by higher ups to reduce intel in the form of live-talkers being taken prisoner. They would rather the patrol just die. Now if its a platoon patrol advancing in bounding squad over watch, then you might not let the force get AS close. Perhaps open up on them at 50 meters (no one is going to banzai into your position at 50 meters!!), draw blood and quickly withdraw. The goal being to inflict casualties, report a larger force and break contact so as to get to the MLR. I forget the op (grenada?), but US forces were closing in on a hanger across a tarmac and came under fire (close). These were "beret" types (rangers?) and what did they do? They just bellied down and returned fire! I guess they were green elite. It didnt go so well as they do not like taking casualties. I think the game is confusing two things also. Theres a drill and theres the response to get under cover. Unfortunately, the fleeing to cover becomes the drill behaviour. If the game made this motion dependant, perhaps it would be more realistic. Example:Unit that is sneaking is more apt to perform some drill type behaviour (revert to an assault move into the enemy letes say), another unit that runs into ambush (the new run) is more apt to just fly to pieces. It could also depend greatly on unit experience, CC, etc. But I want to return to a point. Close range firepower, given an enemy that does not have overwatching heavy weapons or nearby tanks, is very devastating. Those of you that dont get out of the house much should go to a football field. Go to the middle. Thats 50 yards. Think you can close that distance in a few seconds? Every second is another one in a kill zone. I really believe that if BTS fixes the MGs, rates of fire, etc and addresses this issue; the game is going to be an order of magnitude better in the infantry spectrum. Lewis

I liked that movie "Enema at the Gates".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WARHAMMER: I'm just wondering if there is a way to save the entire cm cd to the hard drive. So the original cd won't become damaged?? Warhammer :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah there is a way. You dont need it in the hard drive then also. I dont think BTS wants people discussing here though. Lewis

http://history.vif2.ru/atwar/ulanov/ulanov1.html

How about: The Ambush Bum Rush? (Say that ten times fast...) Amrush Rum Bush Bumbrush Brumbar Amwush Butt Tush etc

"Now, what I've found from earlier test scenarios is that there is a nominal distance that determines whether a unit under fire will rush in or "stay in position" (pinned or otherwise). It's about fifty meters. Greater than fifty, the units under fire USUALLY don't rush in. Less than fifty, they usually do. Do you have an alternate distance in mind for "point of no return" (e.g., thirty meters)?" A varying amount something close to grenade range yes. Varying by unit experience, etc. The game has units respond (more often than not), when under firepower, by using motion. While this makes for a fun-filled sports-like game, it isnt realistic. A more realistic response is hitting the dirt (abstracted a temp pin), crawling to nearby cover, running AWAY from the source of firepower, etc. Lewis

I feel B29 bombers are important and need immediate discussing. So does Winston Churchills cigars. What type were they and how did he nip off the end before sticking it in his mouth? Were US cattle cars a battle field expedient or a national doctrine? Inquiring minds want to know! What about water buffaloes or jeep trailers? Who had the best lug nuts? Lets discuss! And that reminds me, If the CM engine is ever adapted to space combat, will the exoskeletons of aliens be modeled in proper frangibility concerning their susceptibility to combat in near vacuum conditions? Will there be mods I hope? Lewis

theres a good verbal history of its use on the russian military website. It was like a Marder used as a stug. It supported the infantry and acted as a TD once ground was taken. It sort of held on till proper towed weapons could be brought up. Lewis

Theres also the turret ring. Rounds could also wedge into the space between the turret and hull. This would jam the turret and make the gun 'fixed'.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: Well, I gotta grant you, Lewis, you certainly have balls to lecture Steve that you are trying to guide a topic for the "betterment" of CM2. But on the core topic issue (SMG's), given that neither you or I know just exactly HOW SMG's & MG's now perform in CM2 just yet, then what frame of reference do we have to lecture that CM2 can be "further improved" in handling SMG's? [qb]But, in any case, would it be possible to include a couple of scenarios in the CM2 demo; one that is basically an infantry game and one a mixed arms/and or an armor scenario? I think it will showcase whats in store better than these meandering discourses. There have been at least a couple of occasions where BTS (Steve) outlined the revisions to CM2 as would impact the "SMG issue." Until as such time as the CM2 demo is posted (whenever that is), perhaps one could suggest instead that these revisions be posted as a "FAQ" response or at various CM support sites. Perhaps there can be a moderator here when an administrator is posting? Like I said---balls. Do you have someone in mind already for a moderator? I will venture to say, Lewis, that this topic is "drifting" as it is because at this point in time, there is very little to add on the SMG issue (beyond speculation) until we see the changes wrought in CM2 for ourselves.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First off, I am addressing Steve and not you. Second, my point, which is obviously lost, is about the the use of SMG and other firepower at close range. In the game, units that are being fired upon rush at the firer because the firer is usually in cover. I really hope that BTS fixes this. So this little anomaly reduces point blank firepower effectiveness. So thats my frame of reference. I am hoping that many issues are still open to discussion and that BTS fixes them before the release of CM2. Is that OK with you? Now I would like to see the infantry improvements in CM2 demo. Thats why I am suggesting that BTS put a showcase infantry scenario in the demo. To be honest, I dont play CMBO much anymore. Last hurrah was when I went all out to produce a scenario based on reverse slope defense. Its just obvious that wire, minefields, point blank infantry fire doesnt get modeled well. Firepower (in CMBO) needs to chip away and that requires space and time. This is why I think Steve is bringing up the german doctrine thing. He feels the game was designed that way or something. As another poster has said, the long range HMGs cant bust up anything. Maybe they even sheepdog the attackers into running towards the firepower. But it will be seen in CM2 if this will still be the case. Lewis PS I am presently using Steel Beasts to get my fix.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: But in case it has escaped your acute powers of observation, this entire thread (even going back to the original one) has drifted on and off topic here and there. Sorry if that bugs you. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds like a general topic there colonel. I am trying to discuss the game, the reality, the doctrine and possible improvements. All, to be sure, devoted towards, CM2 betterment. But, in any case, would it be possible to include a couple of scenarios in the CM2 demo; one that is basically an infantry game and one a mixed arms/and or an armor scenario? I think it will showcase whats in store better than these meandering discourses. Perhaps there can be a moderator here when an administrator is posting? Lewis PS I knew you would pull up the bulge. The germans were absolutely short of everything needed to succeed. They didnt have the gas needed for just driving to the objectives let alone battle conditions. They did not have the repair or recovery vehicles needed and guaranteed a one way ticket into the mountains for most of the tanks. They were short of artillery rounds. They were following no doctrine. Why not drop it?

People here should also check out Steel beasts. It has a very unique triggering of orders that I find interesting. Its another game that is using the computer well I think. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: In and around 1944 German attack doctrine, especially armored doctrine, was also busted up by the realities on the ground. Difficult terrain and plenty of enemy air activity made the sweaping movements of previous years impossible or at least costly. The Mortain offensive was one of the bloodiest examples of bad terrain and enemy air activity I can think of. They were slaughtered while trying to execute the doctrine of days gone by. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So whats your point? You want to talk about armor and airplanes? I thought we were discussing infantry. Anyway. The Mortain debacle was a hitler thing. The generals wouldnt have done it if they didnt have to. It wasnt busted up by the realities on the ground but rather the realities in the air. Total air supremacy. The "doctrine" called for someone to have that. Unfortunately for the germans, THEY didnt have it. So they werent practising doctrine but rather suicide. When you start throwing apples and oranges around you really dont do much for threads. And people start quoting 650 page reports on airplanes. So whats this about smgs again? To repeat my points.. If the attackers are on tanks, like the russians, use long range fires (HMG, mortar, arty) to seperate the infantry from the armor. This allows the armor to be dealt with without escort. Here, the german doctrine would have worked by the way. Limit your vulnerability to direct prep fires. This often means using reverse slopes, etc. Slaughter infantry on foot at close range first if they dont have armor support. You bag a bunch outright, make the survivors flee into the rest of the attackers echelon, thereby spreading panic. If you are fighting an enemy that is attacking, with no tanks, no direct covering fire, no air force, etc; than by all means open fire at maximum ranges!!!! If the enemy wants to get close to you, they will. Barring a flat desert, they will get close. If it means crawling all night, they will. I have read many accounts of troops launching assaults from almost grenade range. If the LMGs and HMGs dont immediately fire, than its an overrun for sure. I think I am discussing what a german infantry defender should do in a defense of a fixed position. I am not sure what steve is discussing with columns of marching troops shooting at other columns or tanks getting bombed in narrow gullies, etc... Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redeker: I seem to recall reading a post by Steve saying that the program doesn't track individual wall states - just the all or nothing difference between "light building**" and an exploding pile of debris. John, I see your point, but I don't think it's modeled - yet. It would make sense for a defender's exposure percentage to rise as the .50 cal fire eats away at the wall, but it isn't modeled yet. Maybe in the CMII engine this will be addressed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I dont think that its an erosion process he is talking about either. Its the fact that, lets say, a stone wall gives cover and concealment to a squad that is being fired on by a LMG at 500 meters. That same stone wall might just be concealment when a fifty opens up. This would also apply to weapons like the sov 12.7mm, etc.