David Aitken

Rule no.1 when dealing with women: When it comes to the crunch, suddenly everything you ever did is wrong. Acting normally isn't enough - this is too easily construed as being mean or selfish. Doing anything you might consider risky is a DEATH SENTENCE. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Well, everybody seems to be saying "Hey, I just get the feeling gun damage happens too often" - but no-one really knows. I don't know either, but my gut feeling is the opposite - I think the gun tube and the manlet have a very high chance of taking hits which put the gun out of action. I also think tanks get knocked out pretty damn often, so it's no surprise that gun damage is a regular occurrence. If anyone's going to challenge BTS, they need to have statistics, not just gut feelings. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

:USERNAME: wrote: > ..Or if only an inaporpriate bad analogy could be misaligned to any of life's difficult situations and they would go away... Okay, so you didn't like my analogy. Did it traumatise you? Are you going to sue me for damages? Or are you so idle that it amuses you to follow me around and make random comments about windmills? David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

This is just Fog Of War. Enemy units are usually misidentified at first, especially at night. You very often hear firing but don't see it. What you see may seem strange, but don't take it all at face value - battlefields are confusing. Exercise caution. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Lord General MB wrote: > CM must stay up to date. Combat Mission is a wargaming revolution. It knocks the socks off every previous wargame of every kind put together. It is the wargame. I don't think you need to tell BTS about staying up to date. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Sorry, did you say "air support"? There must be a typo in the game... what you're purchasing is volume-enhancing hairspray for your troops, so they can go into battle confident that their locks will be manageable, vivacious and full of vitality. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Aussie Smith wrote: > I would appreciate perhaps a more objective approach from someone in your position Hey everybody, jump on the Steve-is-full-of-crap bandwagon! It's plainly obvious he doesn't have a clue, and isn't even qualified for his job! If we want a change in the game, he should bloody well get onto Charles and get it implemented, otherwise everybody will get pissed off and go and buy Close Combat 13!! David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Okay, I think I've got the hang of this now. Do we all agree that the 'fire wrapping over hills' issue is due to the larger-than-apparent area occupied by a squad? Is the tweak that everyone is asking for, to vary the effectiveness of incoming fire by angle, so that a squad shooting from (as opposed to hiding behind) a hill crest will afford better protection? I have to say that this would be an interesting feature. I've never mounted any defences from a hill crest, but if my men were shooting down from a hill, I'd be a bit miffed if they were regarded by the game engine as being in open ground, and therefore in very little cover. However, I know this would be a big change to the game's code, so I wouldn't be expecting it as a tweak to CM - but it would be good to have in CM2, if that were possible. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

ASL Veteran wrote: > I think that Intelweenie has probably hit the nail on the head. I'm not so sure about that. The problem here is not that units behind a hill crest, when being shot at, don't seem to afford enough cover. If they are being shot at, they are, by definition, not affording any cover from the hill crest. The problem seems to be that fire can actually go through the crest of a hill and hit units behind. We're not talking about the cover afforded by units under fire, we're talking about the fact that these units are under fire in the first place, when they should be out of LOS. However, I think what Bastables has said may be the answer. If your squad is very near the crest of the hill, in the eyes of the game engine, members of that squad are going to be visible from the other side, even if what you see in the game doesn't indicate this. The targetting line looks like it's wrapping over the hill, but in effect it's aiming at the frontmost members of the squad. I think the solution would be to simply not put your men too close to a hill crest. People are talking about guys being able to fire over the crest, and then duck into cover, but that won't work in CM - it's just too detailed. In order for men to have cover behind a crest, they need to be well back - if they can fire on the enemy, the enemy can fire back. There is most definitely a degree of inaccuracy in the game, but it's not a major flaw - you just need to take it into account when positioning your units. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

I'm not very clear on exactly what is being discussed here. It's not like hill crests are a terrain object - they're just ground. Either ground blocks fire, or it doesn't. If a squad behind a hill crest is taking fire, that's fine - it makes no difference whether they're behind a hill crest or not. But the problem seems to be that fire can wrap over the hill crest, and hit units who should be concealed on the reverse slope. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

BeWary wrote: > Excuse my ignorance, but what are "Funnies"? Tanks with flails for cutting a path through minefields, or spindles with rolls of wooden matting for crossing soft ground, or bundles of wood for bridging trenches - that kind of thing. In other words, specialised armoured vehicles for negotiating obstacles while under fire. The Americans landing in Normandy relied on infantry engineers to clear paths for their armour, which was rather difficult when the Germans were making every effort to kill them in imaginative ways. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Bastables's reply seemed relevant to me. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

As far as I understand it, Combat Mission - succesful though it has been - is still a niche product. The reason BTS have had such success is because they're selling directly to a core of devoted fans. I don't think you could mass-market CM - it just doesn't have the wide-ranging appeal to take on the world. That's not to say it isn't a brilliant game - it's just not the kind of game that everyone could get into. To get the best out of the it, you really need to be a Second World War enthusiast and an aspiring military tactician. Big companies and marketeers look for products with whiz-bang impulse-buy appeal. They go for eye candy over quality. The kind of games that sell in bulk offer instant 'wow' factor and instant gratification - the novelty quickly wears off, and the game will be ignored after a few weeks, but the fact is it sold. Combat Mission is the kind of game where the more you put in, the more you get out. It does take a while to become a good player. The more you know about the war and about military tactics, the more you'll enjoy the game. This is the kind of game that will be loved by a relatively small group of people, who recognise the quality and are willing to invest the time to get the most out of the game. That, I think, is why other companies won't be following BTS's lead. Charles and Steve basically have the wargame enthusiast market, and anything trying to compete would just be a second-rate clone which the big boys wouldn't want to market because it wouldn't ship enough units. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Yeah, it's all relative. I'd rather have a Veteran HQ with no bonuses than a Green HQ with +2 in everything. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

:USERNAME: wrote: > I would be happy if you would refrain from meaningless analogys and silly hamsterisms. Give it a break, Lewis. I say what I want to, just like you do. I'm also very careful to make sense when I'm being serious. If you don't care to consider the meaning in what I say, that's fine - but if you don't understand, please do as everyone else does, and move on. Otherwise it's you who ends up making the meaningless posts. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

ntg84 wrote: > I cant find the reasoning for sluaghtering guys? Well, what are the chances of tracked landing craft making it up the beach without being picked off by mines or artillery? A lot of men, vulnerable as they may be, stand a much better chance spread out in the open, than packed together in a sitting duck of a target. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Lord General MB wrote: > full units on toggle CAN be done. LOL Welcome to the monthly Full Squad Representation Anonymous convention! ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

The command radius is essentially LOS, up to a point - and this point is extended depending on your HQ's skills. So a squad ten metres away but out of view may be out of command, while another squad fifty metres away over open ground might be in command. The 'star' symbol in an HQ's info panel indicates increased command radius. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

marcusm wrote: > Now you never know if the leader of a squad is still alive or not. This is abstracted in CM - I think the leader in an HQ unit will be the last one to go no matter what. This is similar to how a squad will lose its LMG less often than it loses the LMG gunner (although this is actually realistic, rather than an abstraction, but it works in the same way). David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Thomas_Peiper > put your car on the right side of the street like the rest of the world. I think Brussels is working towards that. Once they've made us rename our chocolate "vegelate", and once our criminals are immune from prosecution lest we violate their human rights, we'll all go mad and start driving on the right without even being told. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

marcusm wrote: > How come leaders aren't one man units? Because what you get in the game isn't a leader, it's an HQ unit. You don't just get one man running a Platoon, or a Company, or a Battalion - he has subordinates to help out, and that's what you see in the game. Also, if you look at the detailed information screen (hit Return) you'll see that the men in the unit have different weapons - the leader only has a pistol, whereas the other guys provide the unit's firepower. This illustrates the different purposes of the men in the unit. Effectively you're asking for 1:1 representation. Why isn't the leader a single man? Because Combat Mission doesn't represent single men. But why not a one-man unit? Because HQ units were bigger than that, and it would be silly to have an HQ unit plus a leader on his own. From a practical point of view, in CM it's very important to have your HQs up with their men - but if they were only one man, you'd be very edgy about sending them up front. They're pretty vulnerable as it is, so it's challenge enough protecting them without them being even more vulnerable. The AI (and any smart human player) will single out HQs for special treatment. On the issue of snipers, even if the leader were on his own, how would the sniper know he's the leader? There are plenty of battlefield practices to avoid attracting snipers' attention, such as not saluting an officer, and not displaying your insignia to the enemy. If CM or its successors ever model every single man on the battlefield, that's when you'll get individual leaders. At the moment, what you get is what makes most sense within the design of the game. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Of course, if a unit is taking fire, it is by definition not being protected by the terrain. I am in no doubt that hill crests provide cover - it's not like they're going to function differently from big hills and every other kind of terrain in the game - but what you see isn't a perfect representation of how the terrain really is. I've seen target lines almost wrapping over a hill (even accounting for the fact they float a bit). You've just got to treat terrain like buildings - if your unit is too close to the edge, they might not actually be in cover in the eyes of the game engine. I think any change made would have to be a universal one - ie. making all units more inclined to stay in open terrain while under fire. I'm not sure if this would be a desirable tweak. Unfortunately the AI isn't smart enough that it can consider the lie of the terrain a unit is in when deciding how it's going to react to incoming fire. A 'hold at all cost' feature might be a good idea, to indicate to a unit that the position they're in is very important, and they shouldn't move unless it's a really bad idea to stick around. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

When you target infantry, you'll get a firepower rating. It'll be something like "Exposure 60%, Firepower 28". As I understand it, 100 is your average firepower rating, so if it's say, 10, there wouldn't be much point in firing - or likewise if the target's exposure is only 10%, unless you just want to suppress it. Only the effective weapons in a squad will fire - so SMGs won't fire at long range. There is no range at which a kill is guaranteed, but the probability is dictated by the exposure and firepower ratings. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

Speedy wrote: > Roight! All of you back to the cesspool NOW. Sorry, is Seanachai on his tea break, or did you get a permit to say that? You need to go through a rigorous twenty-point vetting procedure (including a written examination and medical checks). ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

:USERNAME: wrote: > Why didnt they put windmills on the back of the gerbils David? I really have no idea Lewis, would it make you happy if they did? ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."