IntelWeenie

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I know others have said this is because infantry is considered to occupy an area and therefore there is some fudge factor when computing LOS to infantry. This is the reason why people want to see 'crested' infantry receive some cover from fire, since not all the unit may be within LOS of the firer. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

If the optics of a tank are hit, it makes it nearly impossible to see anything. I have looked through lots of damaged tank periscopes, sights, etc. and it's generally like looking in a shattered mirror. I don't know how well optics were armored in WWII, but all would take is one bullet/fragment/76mm AP shell in the right place to ruin a sight. If you think a TC could direct fire adequately from his position, try going to a shooting range and remotely aim a rifle (even in a shooting vise) from 3 feet away. Oh, remember, you only have about 30-40 rds to hit something with and your target moves when shot at. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: "To do so would necessitate coding the amount of cover based on the direction and angle of incoming fire, which could get pretty complex." excuse me but wasn't this what our fabled CM was supposed to be all about? it works fine for tanks - tanks behind a house edge (nobody mentioned house edges here which "work" similarly to the crest thingie) or a fold in terrain are fine. Infantry isn't, it seems. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think some of this is because the LOS calcs seem to be pretty deterministic compared to the rest of the game. Either you have LOS or you don't. Same thing for AFVs creeping around buildings. You can't shoot the tracks off the front end of a tank before the turret is visible because you don't have LOS to its center mass. With infantry on a crest, if you have LOS to them, you can shoot them. The game engine then calculates the effect based on the terrain the infantry is in. It doesn't take into account the angles/elevations involved to compute % of cover. Is this a bug? No. Is this a shortcoming? Yes. Can it be fixed? Given time and effort, I don't see why not. Is fixing it worth the effort? I would definitely say yes, but that's really up to Steve & Charles. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

I had an off-line discussion with an old CM-er and this is what came out of it: Currently, CM does not take into account cover given by hill crests, it treats all open terrain the same. To do so would necessitate coding the amount of cover based on the direction and angle of incoming fire, which could get pretty complex. Plus, there is an additional issue of changing AI behaviour when so protected (not running for cover when taking fire in 'open' terrain). I think one of the reasons using hills as cover works for tanks (hull down) but not infantry is because (IIRC) tanks have two points that LOS is calculated to/from (hull and turret), while infantry has only one. With tanks, a comparison of LOS between the two shows whether or not HD status exists, but no comparison is possible with infantry. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

While vainly trying to decide what battles to play this past weekend, I relaized I had WAY too many scenarios to easily "thumb through" them. I expect this will happen when CM2 comes out, as well. Therefore, I would like to open discussion on diferent ways of organizing this (who knows, maybe we could get it into CM1 ). I see several possibilites: 1) Leave it as it is. 2) A hierarchal sorting method. (subdirectories/folders) Players can create their own directory names depending on preference. 3) A simple listing like now, but sortable by date, forces, size. 4) Other? My preference would be method #2. What do you think? ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

The mysterious bow MG not so mysterious after all? Look at the main pic on this site: http://www.kithobbyist.com/AFVInteriors/ It pretty clearly shows the bow MG on a JgdPz IV. A closer inspection shows that it was more of a MG port than a permanently fitted MG, though. From the description of pic2 in the article: "A machine pistol or MG34/42 could be mounted directly through the front armor plate to the right of the main armament in a very simplified ball mount, the opening of which was protected when not in use by an external conical cover, seen here in the open position." (got this link from John Kettler's post in this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/009301.html) I think you may not be seeing the BMG in action too much due it's short range, kinda like the remote MGs on Hetzers that almost never fire. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

I thought the bonuses increased the inherent abilites of the squads/teams under the HQ's command (similar to the AI experience bonus). So, a veteran squad with a 'no bonus' vet HQ would still hide better than a green squad with a '+1 Stealth' HQ. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right [This message has been edited by IntelWeenie (edited 09-11-2000).]

I have found some success by using the LOS tool, but unfortunately you need to be in a position to check it for hull-down. This is most useful during the setup phase, though. The procedure: 1) Look around in view 1 to find likely HD spots (look for small bumps in the terrain or hill crests). 2) Place your tank in a spot you want to try. 3) Draw the LOS tool to the area you wish to taget/have HD status from. 4) If the LOS line appears to have a small hump (about 1/3-1/2 the height of the tank in realistic scale) immediately in front of your tank, but still gives you a clear LOS, you are *probably* in a HD position. Notice, of course, that HD is relative and being HD from one point does not mean it is hull down from another direction. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by marcusm: Sounds fair enough BTS . A compromise solution for future versions could be possible leadership value reduction if a sniper hits a HQ or something. Marcus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why only snipers? I think any casualties taken would/should reduce the effectiveness of a HQ unit, since the 'extra' troops are supposed to be runners, aides, RTOs, etc. that provide the HQ with the means (communications) to command. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

In the big scheme of things, I don't think Marines would have made that much of a difference in the ETO. There were only a total of 6 Marine divisions that actively participated in the Pacific War. As for them being amphibious landing specialists, yes, that's mainly what they did, but there were several Army divisions that did that job just as well. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog: Can you imagine the cost involved with changing road signs alone ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Probably not too bad if you consider most road signs are replaced every few years anyway. Still, the confusion and stubborness during any conversion attempt would be worse than Y2K. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

The name of the demo scenario with pillboxes is Valley of Trouble. There are a couple on the CD with pillboxes (won't tell which ones - no more spoilers for you!). There are several user-created ones, too, I'm sure. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

I didn't come across any 'hard' figures for rifle grenade range in CM when I found the pen. value, but I think some people claimed about a 40m working range. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sirocco: And thank a Brit for the web as we know it... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Al Gore is British? ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

No after? ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

One key to capturing enemy troops is to be close to them. Isolated units (especially if cut off from their HQ) tend to give up easier, too. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Humans tend to eat more. And taunt you. The AI is good, but sometimes predictable. (Of course, some humans are, too.) I think it's more fun knowing there's someone on the other end that's trying to win as much as you. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Good idea, well written and thought out post. BTT ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gregory Deych: Alternatively, instead of 2-3 day operations we could have 20-30 day operations - with several days of lulls between each operation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm... can you say RED BARRICADES!!!! ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Also, non-locked units that are outside of a placement zone may be moved, but only to within a placement zone. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

I thought I'd repost this to try and bring the discussion back on track a bit. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Drifter: I have a tank turning a corner, when it suddenly takes a hit: "upper hull hit - no damage". This happens three times, until the crew identifies the threat. and designates it "light gun?". My problem now is, that the tank (a Comet)doesn´t engage this light gun with its main gun - only with mg fire. After 2 more shots from the light gun, my tank explodes - the AI didn´t do any evasive maneuvering. *snip* Shouldn´t a tank crew deem a "light gun?" a threat to itself, and therefore engage it with the main gun? I find that guns are very hard to destroy by mg fire alone - it takes a well-placed shell or two! best regards Soren S.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, putting all considerations of tanks vs. infantry aside, what about tanks vs. AT guns? ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right [This message has been edited by IntelWeenie (edited 09-08-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sneaky: However, remember there are German troops on US soil. Sneaky<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've seen British, Australian, Canadian, Mexican, Honduran, French, Israeli, Jamaican, and even Russian troops on US soil (and I'm sure I've forgotten a few.) OK, so the Russians were just on a inspection tour/shopping trip! Now can someone tell us how many countries have a US presence? There is a big difference between allies visiting/training with each other and troops occupying territory. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Tungsten ammo (t3, t1, etc.) is key for US tanks to take out the heavier German stuff head on. Only problem is it's scarcity and the fact that the AI will choose when to use it (not always the same time you want it used). ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jdmorse: if you have double clicked (right click? for PC's?) *snip* Not sure why the limitation( it's most likely a product of the range of the HQ's weapons, but inconsistent as to mortars use. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> PCs double-click to select all units in a HQs command. It's a limitation of group select. Notice if you select a bunch of squads and a HMG, you only get the move command and not run. Same thing. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

More terrain types, including mixed terrain (rough/scattered trees, for example). Better scenario management. Horses and horse-drawn wagons. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right