David Aitken

Yup, there was another guy with this problem, and he was playing from the CD. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Remember that Combat Mission simulates the behaviour of real soldiers. You can't expect them to watch a column of enemy troops go by and then shoot at their tanks, because those soldiers are going to get your men. Your men will shoot at the enemy soldiers, because this is by far the greatest threat to their wellbeing. I've tried setting up 'commando' scenarios before, and it just doesn't work. I'm afraid you can't expect superhuman heroics in this game, so be realistic with what you expect your men to do. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

It puts the experience level of the AI's troops up a notch. +1 will make Green troops into Regulars, or Regulars into Veterans, whereas +2 will make Green troops into Veterans and Regular troops into Crack troops, etcetera. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

I don't know if the PC version of Netscape has a View menu, but somewhere you should have an option called View Attachments Inline. Try toggling this and see if it makes a difference. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Apollo - Mirage makes a good point about your #1. This is an unrealistic way of solving the problem, and would only lead to greater problems. I think BTS are improving the crew targetting issue in 1.05. Your #2 has already been extensively discussed here. There is going to be some alteration made to rubble in 1.05, and I think the targetting issue may be addressed. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

I can understand where you're coming from, CEO, but is it really worth it? A few seconds at the beginning of the battle and that's it. Charles would basically have to reprogram units to behave differently in that one specific circumstance. Just assume that your guys haven't been sitting there for half an hour - they've just moved up from the rear, and they're just being issued with orders, so the command delay is no big deal. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Colonel_Deadmarsh wrote: > As for doing a search, I already did one before I posted and saw that a lot of people agreed with me. Some people agree with you. These people invariably don't understand the game. > And just because it's been posted before doesn't mean it can't be posted again. Technically this is correct. But you haven't said anything which hasn't been said before, and the reason why what you're asking for is inappropriate has been explained at length many times before. Therefore there is no good reason to resurrect the subject. > Besides, what I was reading took place last year. If you don't wanna read about the "dead body" problem, then don't read this thread. There is no 'dead body problem'. And if we didn't read threads like this, people with misconceptions about the game would continue to misunderstand. We don't have anything against you personally, but we do feel strongly that your argument is flawed. > It's as simple as that. Just don't go acting superior because you've been here longer than me. Make your point and move on. Assertions such as: > Without this, infantry fighting really suffers. I think a lot of people would agree with me on this and will just go back to playing Close Combat to satisfy their needs. ...do you no favours. You're not making suggestions, you're announcing that (1) the game is wrong, and (2) another game (which is in effect completely different) is better. In other words, you are adopting a superior posture, so don't go complaining when the people who have been here longer seem to be acting superior. The fact is, they understand the game better than you. If you've got a problem, ask. Ask, are people aware of this? Has it been discussed before? What was the conclusion? Don't march in and make an announcement as though it's a revelation that no-one has ever thought of before. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

When a unit surrenders, it effectively becomes an enemy unit. The enemy now controls it, and will be able to see it all the time - whereas if it goes out of your view, you may lose track of it altogether. Then, for example, if it were left alone in the enemy's rear, it might suddenly 'liberate' itself, whereupon you would regain control and could gain intelligence from it. This latter issue is a bit unrealistic, but it's a minor problem which would be a major problem to fix. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Mr Johnson, this is Steve Clark - not to be confused with Big Time's Steve Grammont. The latter only posts under the Big Time Software screenname. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Jeff Heidman > Well, as usual, David is taking things to a ridiculous extreme. [...] > I will chalk yet another one up to "CMisperfectitis". Jeff, I could equally say that as usual, you are resorting to browbeating. If you can't discuss without resorting to attacking me personally, I will ignore you, and you will have the distinction of 'winning' through being childish and petty. You say teams should have small arms. Steve says teams are an abstraction. The manual says Combat Mission never will be 100% realistic. I say that, as there is a tactical solution to your problem, you would be well advised to use it. Teams would, in reality, be part of a platoon. As I have said, they would have a self-defence capacity, but they would not have a fighting capacity. Therefore, they rely on their platoon for protection, while they concentrate on hunting tanks. Regardless of whether they have some small-arms capacity or not, they are vulnerable, and will not last long in a firefight. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to surmise that: 1) A team's defence capacity should be in its association with its platoon. If it is only yards away from the nearest squad and is overrun, that's not unrealistic - but help should be close at hand. 2) Carrying small arms or not, a team isn't going to hang around in a firefight, so there is little point in modelling small arms. Unless they're killing tanks, they should either be behind a screen of riflemen, or making tracks towards such a position. 3) For gameplay purposes, it makes perfect sense for a team just to have their AT weapon and nothing else. This symbolises a platoon's AT capacity, which the platoon must protect (whether these men are devoted team members or just squad members with AT weapons is a point of contention, but Steve says they are abstracted, so the above makes perfect sense). I am making a logical argument for the way the game is designed. If I were simply saying "Oh shut up, leave it the way it is", you would have grounds for accusing me of your fanciful diseases. As it is, you do not. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

BTS have specifically chosen not to carry units through from battle to battle as per Close Combat, as this is unrealistic. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Colonel_Deadmarsh wrote: > I think a lot of people would agree with me on this and will just go back to playing Close Combat to satisfy their needs. Heaven forbid. This has been discussed more times than I care to remember. Do a search. To summarise, individual men are not simulated in this game. The three-man squad you see is a placeholder. It is a counter representing your squad. This is a squad-level game, and individual men only feature in an abstracted form. The unit info window is real-time. Now spend some time looking around and listening before you start telling us how the game should be. The reactions you get will not be individual, because this happens all the time. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

AARRGH! The monster has risen again!! Click here. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

elementalwarre wrote: > are you truly suggesting that > - all battlefields, or even most battlefields, are carefully cleared of civilians first? Yes, but what purpose would civillians serve in Combat Mission? And do you expect BTS to spend the considerable amount of time that would be required to program their behaviour, as well as creating graphics for them all? The only thing civilians can do is get in the way and get shot. This may be realistic, but in a combat simulator it is unnecessary and distasteful. Using them as scouts or otherwise aiding the battle is more akin to games like Command and Conquer, not realistic simulations like CM. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Jeff Heidman wrote: > In reality, I seriously doubt that the reason LATW/MG temas have no personal weapons has anything to do with your claims, but how CM models these types of units. [...] > If you want to claim that the amount of work necessary to code the change outweighs any potential advantage, I could buy that argument. But quit with the "tactics" bit. I wrote: > If you started worrying about small and inconsequential failings, the game would infuriate you. It's not going to be 100% realistic, and it never will. > The fact is, the unarmed AT team issue has a simple tactical remedy - protect them with riflemen. This isn't unrealistic, and it doesn't require reprogramming. Doesn't this answer you? My argument has been based on how CM models teams, and I have been saying that that it's not worth the programming involved. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a tactical remedy. Regardless of TO&E's, I think Steve has vindicated part of what I'm saying. Whether or not teams should have sidearms, the fact is they shouldn't be roaming around on their own. Just because in CM you're able to order a bazooka halfway across the battlefield, doesn't make it a realistic tactic. Try ordering a team to do that in reality. They're not going to sneak forward and take out that Tiger, even if it's pivotal to the battle, if they have little chance of getting out alive. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

I don't know exactly how this is modelled in Combat Mission - for example, in reality if you were running, your footfalls would be heavier, and more likely to set off mines. But you can't take evasive action of mines that you can't see, so I'm not sure sneaking would make any difference. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Seanachai wrote: > these teams have to be right there in the middle of things My suggestion is really that such teams should never be far away from supporting riflemen. When someone says "My Bazooka was sitting in a building with a Panzerschreck, and they both did nothing", I just think "Why the heck were they there in the first place?". If a team enters a building with enemy soldiers they aren't equipped to fight (regardless whether they enemy is equipped to fight them), they wouldn't be inclined to hang around. I actually stick by my claim that there is some abstraction in these teams - simply in the fact that you can run them around completely on their own. I think teams' ability to defend themselves should be taken as the proximity of friendly riflemen. If you send them off on their own, this isn't particularly realistic, and the fact that they can't defend themselves is a result of this. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Some of what you've suggested, I'd expect to see in game-games, rather than simulation-games. CM is - surprisingly enough - about combat. Civilians, guerillas, neutral forces, horses etcetera have no place on a battlefield. Unmanned fortifications you could turn against your opponent, and remote-detonated mines are the stuff of movies. Besides all else - you wouldn't see any of this stuff before CM2 - and CM2 will have plenty of new features specific to the theatre of war. These aren't the kind of things - as I've said - that would 'add a lot to the game'. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Fionn wrote: > Check you 1944 British, UK and German TO&Es. They DID assign men specifically to carry PIATs around. Either way, an AT team isn't often going to find itself in direct contact with the enemy without support. If they're riflemen, they'll have their own small arms - and if they're devoted team members, they'll be tagging along with their platoon. > David I think you just might be coming down on newbies a bit too quickly. Gentleman has been nothing but polite in the posts I've seen from him. My post wasn't a flame, it was a suggestion - and I specifically excluded Gentleman from my complaint about certain people. Jeff Heidman wrote: > you are too quick to assume that every problem has, or should have, a tactical solution. [...] when my AT team apparently has no ability at all to defend itself from a man wielding a banana [...] I tend to think it is a failing in the system, not a failing in myself. Now, it might be a small, or even inconsequential failing, but it is a failing nonetheless. Read the disclaimer at the start of the manual (yes I know you probably have). If you started worrying about small and inconsequential failings, the game would infuriate you. It's not going to be 100% realistic, and it never will. The fact is, the unarmed AT team issue has a simple tactical remedy - protect them with riflemen. This isn't unrealistic, and it doesn't require reprogramming. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

This has been discussed in the past couple of days, and Charles is aware of it. It affects machineguns (and obviously cannons) with over 192 units of ammo. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

There was an interesting thread about the Archer recently. It's locked now, for other reasons, but it's still worth a look. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

The Run and Move commands imply that you want your unit to reach the given destination at all cost. The Sneak command assumes there is the possibility of an ambush. If, for example, you want to cross open ground and then enter woods, do a Run command followed by Sneak. This strikes me as another instance of people wanting a problem solved through reprogramming instead of tactics. And there do seem to be a fair number of people on the board who effectively want us to be a manual for them instead of buying their own. (I'm not referring to you, Commissar - but I do have particular people in mind.) David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

I think AT teams are an abstraction, as are many things in CM. In reality it would probably be your platoon members carrying the Bazookas/Panzerfausts/PIATs, rather than there being men devoted solely to these weapons - but for the purposes of gameplay they were made separate teams. The most realistic use would probably be to tag them along with platoons - if you have teams of any kind in the front line, they should really have protection by other riflemen. Not referring specifically to you, Gentleman, but how often do I see posts for people asking for this and that, when a bit of lateral thinking would solve the problem? If you think there's a problem in the game, try solving it with tactics first, instead of asking for it to be reprogrammed. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

Fox wrote: > If u click on ur troops then click enter...u can see the type of faust they carry... Jeff just explained this. What he was suggesting was that the primary unit info panel could have an indicator, on top of the Panzerfaust icons, of what type they were. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

elementalwarre wrote: > i think even abstracted or partial versions of each of the following would be fun. if the answer's 'no time (yet)!' - cool, we've all been there, but otherwise IMHO they could add a lot to the game IMHO they would add very little to the game. Just offering a contrasting opinion. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT