Tero
-
Posts
2,033 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tero
-
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
Colonel Harry B. Shermatl, Commanding Officer -th Infantry, ITALY:
"In most cases it would be better if they fired even if there is no visible target. A group of riflemen may be stopped by a German machine gun which they can’t locate, but if they will open fire in the general direction of the machine gun the Germans will usually pull out. I believe that we have placed too much emphasis on fire orders and fire control by unit leaders. Men must be taught to open fire at once in the general direction of any target that is holding them up"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey ! Those are MY anti-American national bias quotes you are quoting. Find your own hobby horse, this one is already spoken for.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chasd:
its a .wav file with some bad language on it. try doing a 'save as'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, I should have been clearer: the wav plays out OK.
When you try to load the tittle page for the site you get a black screen.
-
The title page will not load on NS 4.7
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
Tero, this thread is about the British being shafted (or not), not the Germans. So go hijack another thread for your "the Allies sucked" spiel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I trust you actually read my post and not just respond with a rabid gut reaction after seeing my name appear in the left hand column.
An oversight on BTS's part prohibits pitting the British against the Americans in combat in CM so I have to use Germans in my examples. I trust in CMBB there will be an option to pit troops of the same nationality againts each other in civil war style scenarios. This will enable to exclusion of nationalities from the examples as it will only be the guns we are pitting against each other without any regard to the nationality of the cybersoldiers fielding them.
To recap: IMO the AMERICAN semiautomatic M1 Garand is overmodelled in the game through being modelled solely on the basis of technical facts.
The technical specs for all weapons in the game are pretty much correctly modelled. However, the actual, doctrinal usage of said weapon (M1 Garand) is disregarded through the Universal Soldier premise. Thus ALL nationalities using bolt-action rifles (NOTE ! this includes the British) get shafted when compared to the AMERICAN rifle squad in the CM world.
An AMERICAN squad carries exclusively semi- and full-auto weapons (the only nationality to have ALL the squads available to it equipped with that kind of technically superior firepower. Which is not historically inaccurate as such). Of the weapons in the AMERICAN squad the M1 Garand is rated (quite correctly and true to life) as being at least as powerfull and effective as any bolt-action rifle. The British squad has the Bren gun and the German squad has the MG42 to counter the AMERICAN squads (technically feasible) overwhelming ROF. However, if the ROF depicted in CM was calculated as actual battlefield/combat ROF based the technical ROF coupled with the actual tactical and doctrinal use of said weapon (M1 Garand) the AMERICAN squad would lose some of its teeth. Some of this built in AMERICAN superiority is downplayed with experience ratings but if we make all the contenders the same experience level the AMERICANS will come on top as the best.
BTW: I prefer British when playing as Allied.
-
Invariably, I KNEW that a subject like this was going to slide into "nationalist" tangents.
AND NOBODY INFORMED ME !?!?
I think it's delusional to presume that ANY bolt-action rifle, even the Enfield, could be fired, reloaded, and fired again just as rapidly as the M1 in the SPR scenes.
Or in WWII, the real thing.
However, in the classic SMG tread you can find how the American "shoot only at a clear target" doctrine downplayed the RL suppressive superiority of the M1 to the extent of its use being in par with any bolt action rifle because the ROF would not exceed that of the bolt action rifles.
Those values hardly seem reflective of a pro-US/anti-UK bias on the part of BTS for this rifle firepower issue. Otherwise, a German CM player could just as well argue that the bias is instead pro-UK/anti-German.
Actually it is more of a pro-semiauto/anti-bolt action thing. While not exactly a pro-American bias as such it does become one. It is reflected in the way the squad level firing is modelled. The American squad gets a built in bonus when a regular infantry squad of ANY nationality can only target and fire at one target at a time. The Germans lose their edge in a medium range to long range squad-vs-squad fire fight as the MG42 is the only thing they get against all the M1's backed up by the BAR in an American squad. That is because the suppressive effect of the MG42 fire is greater but the Ami M1's get an edge in terms of sheer numbers and volume of fire.
Now, if the proposed CMBB MG feature of spreading the fire around to more targets was applied to ALL weapons in an infantry squads (by 2 men fire teams or half squad for example) the bolt-action rifle would show its pro's and con's vs semi/full-auto weapons againts both single and multiple targets more realistically.
Now, back to "nationality," as some posters have invoked here the differences in training & "doctrine" as should apply to rifle squad firepower.
I do not belong to that school of thought. 10 bolt-action rifles dish out less weight than X semi-auto rifles + Y bolt action rifles. No two ways about it.
However, such doctrinal issues like fire discipline, timing of opening of fire, how the positions are prepared to allow surprising the enemy with a volley of fire etc play a crusial part in determining the effects of fire under different, force specific tactics and doctrines.
Again, BTS has repeatedly gone on record that they are aversive to applying stock "nationality" bonuses, so don't harbor an expectation that Commonwealth troops in specific will get a special firepower bonus someday.
Gratuitous FP bonuses are not the answer.
BTS, however, is including a new factor for infantry called "fitness" in CMBB. Thus one COULD make an argument that another generic factor, like "training" or "drill," could be added beyond unit experience & fitness in the CM II game engine. I wouldn't mind this added in as a new factor available to scenario design, but then it might be redundant when compared to giving a leader unit a +1/+2 combat bonus instead.
That new feature will have potential, I hope. But the underlying problems of the "universal soldier" concept are not totally resolved by it.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem:
So it's pretty much my fault.
-dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you for real or are you just a fall-guy ?
-
A human loaded down with a pack and a rifle can run, at full speed, at about 6 miles an hour max, I would guess. A horse, ladden down with packs and a 200 pound human, can gallop at over 20 miles an hour, depending on ground conditions and the fitness of the horse in question. Also, after about 2 minutes of full speed running with a pack and rifle, even the fittest of humans tire. A horse, to my best knowledge, ladden with packs and a 200 pound human can gallop for upwards of half an hour or more, once again depending on terrain conditions and the fitness of the animal in question.
Yes. But a more common scenario in combat conditions would be a team of horses drawing a gun with the handler riding on the limber or walking, leading the team and the gun crew walking not far from the gun, ready to unlimber and deploy it at the first sign of trouble.
Oh, and common, admit it, in the back of your mind somewhere, in the dark subconsciosness known only as the inner tero, you know you always wanted to see a cavalry charge.
Not from the receiving end.
Also the fact that using a human model to represent cavalry won't appeal to many, visually speaking.
Actually the human model should be used to model the horse teams "human" aspects, ie panic under fire etc. The visual representation is a separate matter.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:
We all look forward to your wargame. It will no doubt adress the glaring omissions of German mapping in France, covering every nook and cranny, the fact that the Finns just could not be beaten by anyone, and horses. Good luck, although I am sure you won't need it. With your superior Finnish knowledge of coding, it will be one hell of a game, making BTS weep at how they could ever attempt to peddle the clearly inferior product that CMBO is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I went on a 20h boat cruise with the wife and we left the kids to my parents. I got laid, I suggest you do the same.
-
Originally posted by Schrullenhaft:
tero - actually it is pretty hard to animate the horses to the expected quality level in CM.
The question is: is there really a need to actually animate them ? Nobody complains about the absence of dust clouds and exhaust fumes coming out of the tailpipes of vehicles and how they affect visibility and spotting.
Are you aware of any game that has horses modelled in 3D and not just animated sprites (I'm not saying that they don't exist, I'm just not familiar with what is out there) ?
No. But then again I do not know any CM level game that has truly animated models of soldiers either. Not that it would not be cool to see panic in the face of the squads that are in panic-mode.
Another, even bigger, issue is that the horses would need a separate AI to handle their behavior correctly since they would exist as a separate entity once dismounted.
I rather look at the horses as trucks or jeeps on foot. Slightly slower but able to traverse rougher terrain.
And as opposed to the cavarly the pack mules/horses and horse carts are rarely dismounted by the crew. OK they are actually but for all intents and purposes so are the trucks and jeeps.
As for correct behaviour: the cavarly horses are not left unattended if the cossacs dismount to fight on foot. They stay put unless they panic and gallop away uncontrolably. They die and are captured pretty much the same way as infantry units are so no insurmountable problems there either.
All in all the current engine isn't setup to model horses correctly.
Depends how "correctly" is defined.
They could probably be put in, but there would be so many complaints of unrealistic behavior or 'bad animation', etc. that it may not be worth BTS' time to put them in (despite the clamor for such units). Such features will probably have to wait until the engine rewrite to model correctly.
Yet another storm in the glass of CM water
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr:
Hey tero -
Weren't the Finnish horses and reindeer better than everyone elses?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But of course. :cool:
The Finnish horses became so good the Finnish farmers had a rough time after the war in getting them to plow the fields properly as they would seek cover in nearby woods or sheds every time they heard an airplane approacing. Or the horses would hit the deck when they heard a loud bang, like a car backfire.
That bit of cock'n'bull is actually true BTW.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar:
If the ability to code them in was there, Im pretty sure BTS would agree that they would be worth modeling.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would think the problem is not with coding as much as with personal biases. As I see it the horse units are basically no different from infantry units. They just can carry more stuff and they are a bit faster and a bit better at handling tiredness.
In essence they are basically trucks with the ability to act like infantry units when it comes to panicking under fire and tiring over extreme excersise.
What makes it SO difficult to model them using an infantry unit as a base and assigning it with a few altered specs like load carrying variables and new graphics ?
-
Originally posted by lcm1947:
It might make the game too easy and too fast and where's the fun in that.
Being too easy and being too unrealistic are the two opposing extremes from my POV.
I can live with most of the abstractions and approximations in the game. But in their drive for realism vs playability I think the limits set to the orders available for the player (especially in case of infantry) the game has become perhaps inadvertantly, heavily biased in favour of using "canned" tactics. Any deviation from the norm (ie. use of assets in a way that was not thought of when the game was being designed and playtested) produces anomalies in game engine performance.
Should there be a right or correct (also enforced) way to play the game ?
-
Originally posted by Priest:
Just to clarify something about recon in CM. There is a difference between strategic recon and tactical recon. The recon (as I have understood it) that BTS is referring to (again as I have understood it) it of the strategic type.
I agree. But for the life of me I can not believe strategic recce was confined in identifying the enemy forces only. How could SACEUR and the different level commanders plan ahead if they did not receive (and perhaps more importantly distribute) recce data on the terrain features in the prospective areas of operations. As for tactical recce, I have always thought identifying terrain that permit or deny avenues of advance was of prime importance for both the defender and the attacker.
In the tactical situation it is fine to send a half squad to probe a copse of trees or a M8 to move slightly advance of the armor formation.
That goes without saying.
How about this for an idea (for all I know it might have been floated around before but I have not seen it before
): the CM 3D map is blurred beyond the LOS of the attacker has from the set up zone (all featured beyond major elevation changes) as a standard part of FOW while the defender gets to see the entire map clearly. Even in a case the LOS is excellent across the board the attacker 20/20 vision of the battle area should be reduced. This feature should of course also reflect the RL level of preparations and SOP of the different armies.
As far as gamey tactics go I believe it has less to do with the units in the game and more to do with the players playing the game.
Actually I think it has to do with the built in abilities of the vehicles and how the players choose to use them.
[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
>I could have sworn I've seen German
>fusilier companies available.
And what recce-related benefits do they get over the, say, Volksgrenadier companies ?
Can you think of any RL company level special formations that relate to recce that are NOT in the game ?
>Plenty of other recce units also (jeeps,
>Greyhounds, 234s, ect.).
And how many gamey recce uses have been racked up to date in connection with these vehicles ?
>Given deeper QB maps, greater starting
>distance between forces, and enough turns,
>this could be done.
Why did BTS deem recce "beyond the scope of CM world" and then exclude any and all pre-game data realistically and viably derived from pre-battle battlefield tactical recce ?
>But frankly, I don't see what any of this
>has to do with the LOS tool.
Two different things really. Recce information is one issue, being able to issue precision orders more realistically in a world of abstractions and approximations another. But they are related.
>As for being able to use the LOS tool
>without it being anchored to a unit, this
>has been shot down by BTS more than once as
>too unrealistic.
And it is not TOO unrealistic to have your unit go beyond the cover and protection provided by a terrain feature just because the player has given a precision order to go to a specific location (waypoint) that overshoots the cover by a mere meter ? Just because the player can not get accurate enough bearings on the terrain in which the waypoint is set.
Why are the orders made absolute if the world they operate in is a world of abstractions and approximations ?
[ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
>You need TacOps!
That is true. But again there are some quirks in the team orders once you advance to the rank of Lt and how you have to be able to have be able to work your mouse and KB with the precision and speed of a lightning. Otherwise you end up shooting all the enemy units by yourself. That is good for the score but....
>John, I think you are wildly optimistic in
>estimating how much information--let alone
>accurate information--the grunts in
>the line usually possessed.
That specific level of intel that seeped through the ranks is largely a force specific issue and as such out of the scope of this discussion.
But at least the grunts had SOME of it. They could say "the map is we received is BS and the intel is clearly inteded for the neighbouring sector. Sod this, we make it up as we go along". But that meant that they used their own best judgement and experience to fill in the gaps in adapting to the situation, including staying out of sight to obtain a better position. A way point was a way point but the route was not linear and straight between the WP's.
If they noted a spot in the selected route that exposed them against orders and made them vulnerable in the process they A) walked as if the situation was OK regardless of the fact that by doing so they deliberately jeopardiced the mission AND themselves or
changed their route to reflect this chance in the situation ?Does a unit in CM under TacAI work like this ? Does the player have the same level of knowledge a RL company/platoon/squad leader would have on the spot about the surrounding terrain WHEN he is giving precision orders to single squads ? This is supposed to be WWII infantry tactics, NOT WWI infantry tactics for crying out loud.
>Yes, there was usually some recon done
>before a firefight. It might have been
>hasty or it might have been thorough, more
>likely the former.
I disagree.
Depending on the type of battle: generally hasty for the attacker while the defender HAD to be more thorough. Also, it was hasty and done by forces in place if it was a meeting engagement or a pursuit situation. The recce done while preparing for a deliberate attack/assault involved specialized troops and methods (radio listening, recce flights over the area, LRRP deep into enemy territory etc).
The defender had the edge in all the cases as it was in his best interest to choose the best possible terrain AND know what route the enemy would most propably would use.
>But in no case did anyone go over the
>battlefield with measuring chains and a
>theodolite.
But they would have binoculars (with a degree scale) and (if the preparations are done properly) most propably a the handheld thingimajig we arty pukes use to measure how many degrees and minutes a terrain feature is from another terrain feature.
>Unless a line had been stable for weeks, an
>attacking company often had to do it's own
>recon, and might well have only had the
>last 24 hours to do it in.
What about the recce data obtained by efforts ordered by the higher ups and executed with the upper echelon (regiments, battalions, divisions, armies) assets ?
>Maps, when they were available at all, were
>often in too small a scale to be helpful to
>a company commander, let alone a squad
>leader, and if by some miracle they managed
>to get ahold of large-scale maps of the
>area they were interested in, and in time
>to be of any use, they were more often than
>not either incomplete or simply wrong.
So the units worked like robots and they did not use nor were they allowed to use their own initiative to adapt to the situation ? The CM TacAI is not just equipped to simulate that, it is all up to the player.
>And this was just the permanent features of
>the landscape. Don't get me started on
>enemy dispositions.
That is why they were usually told how old the data is.
>Mostly it consisted of slogging through
>chaos,
That is true. IIRC 90% of inactivity followed by 10 % of sheer terror.
>not nice neat arrows slicing with
>mathematical precision across maps that are
>exact models of the ground they fought on.
Mathematical precision being the operative phrase here. To simulate the full range of battle field stimuli based on sights and sounds we have been given tools. But they have their limitations as they are presicion tools and the world they are operated is based on abstractions and approximations.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:
Obrigado barak, Tero<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mitäs näistä.
An old, standard trick actually to check for typos in the URL or if it is any good to begin with.
[ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:
That link doesn't work for me - says "This file is hosted by Tripod, a Lycos®Network Site, and is not available for download."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Try http://panzertracts1.tripod.com/images/ and pick pztr4-1.jpg from the list.
[ 08-16-2001: Message edited by: tero ]
-
>Then tero came on, claiming that a LOS tool
>from any point on the map would be
>realistic because (amongst other reasons)
>the Germans had been in France for four
>years, so they would know the lay of the
>land. He lost me then and there, and I
>refuse to take him or any further arguments
>from him pushing this line seriously.
>
>So, I think you are wrong in your
>assumption that nobody here wants a totally
>unrealistic tool. At least tero does.
One of the most basic axioms in the CM world is the fact that ALL recon is done and the game picks up when the battle proper starts. Hence absolutely no recce type formations appear in the game. Funnily enough no realistic recce data is provided for the player as a compensation.
Now, could it be fairly assumed that since ALL recce operations are supposeldy done there has actually been some reconnoitering in the forthcoming area in which the battle is to take place ? As things stand now all you get to know is perhaps the nationality/force type you are going up against. If even that.
I do not know about the other WWII armies but the Finnish army took notes on the terrain (if the area had not been mapped previously, please ask tss how effective the map making in the Finnish army was back then) as well as the enemy units and assets in the area. The reconnoitering would indicate advantageous and disadvantageous terrain features for both movement and defence and things like distances between prominent terrain features. Depending on the type of the mission at hand the force commander would then prepare his battle plans and backup plans as well as initial troop deployment according to the recce data.
What is the level of this pre-battle recce data the player is given now in CM and is there any way to represent it ? IMO a free ranging LOS tool could be one.
-
>All the hot air expended in this thread on
>the matter will then be shown to be
>superfluous.
Since it seems you already did the search you could point us to the relevant tread instead of using Lord God Steve as a weapon without so much as giving him the credit of quoting him and the people he has trashed before us, chapter and verse.
>Bring on the rocket tanks. They are in
>another game and nobody complained (hey, if
>you don't like them, don't use them) and
>since we have unrealistic absolute spotting,
>what does it matter if the Germans have
>rocket tanks? Yeah, go rocket tanks!
Are you on something ? If you have issues with unrealistic weapons platforms go spend your energy in other treads.
SdKfz-251 with rockets saw widespread service. And it is in CM (kindasortof). Galliope Shermans saw service but are they modelled in CM: beats the hell out of me.
A few Sturmtiger was built and it did see limited service. Do I lament it not making it to CM: no.
But I do lament the fact that the player is given NO lattitude in giving precision orders in a world of abstactions and approximations.
Most of the gripes rise from the illusion that the player is thinking he is giving orders and that the unit executing them knows what the players intentions are. And most of the expectations are based on fair assumptions and some basic knowledge of battlefield dynamics.
I have the pleassure of watching my sons go through the motions of learning and one of the toys they like to play with is the box that has diffrent shaped openings and blocks that fit the openings. CM is my toy and I can share the frustration of my sons when they try to fit the square block in a round hole
Only in CM the blocks LOOK like the openings in the box but at closer examination their shape fit the openings only in some cases. As you have to use the same blocks to effect different actions (= sqeeze them through diffrently shaped holes) some force has to be excerted for the blocks to go through. When it is time to go and fetch the hammer people take the gripes up in this board.
Unfortunately unlike the childrens toy learning CM better only increases the need to use the hammer to make the blocks go through the holes. This is because once you know the basics of the game engine you feel the need to start doing neat tricks and that is when the going gets tough.
-
>The problem is the inability to describe the
>intent of your orders to the unit that is
>going to carry them out.
Exactly. The game engine is made out of abstractions and approximations all sorts but the set of orders provided for the player comprise of precision orders that call for knowledge of basic battlefield facts that are just not provided most of the time.
>.....This is why some people have asked for
>the Reverse LOS tool where you can plot LOS
>from the point you would like to observe.
>This would definitely be a "gamey" tool.
Not IMO. IIRC this feature was in SP. You could check the LOS from a location by clicking on it and LOS from that location was shown (or was it in one of the precursors Panzer Strike ? I forget, it was after all almost 15 years ago). I never saw any complaints about it being gamey then.
IRL the troops can be given FRAGOR that can be anything from "Go there undetected and raise some hell while we sneak up on them from behind" to "Move out in standard platoon column formation until you reach location grid XX.ZZ. Once there wait until HH.MM hours, then deploy to platoon line and proceed to grid XY.ZZ without being detected by the enemy last seen in dug in positions in grid XY.ZY When you have reached this grid stay hidden, observe and report back. If the enemy is still there maintain watch and alert us if they move around behind their position. Wait for our signal and commence a co-ordinated attack on my mark. Use best possible speed to close up on them and take up blocking positions to prevent them from escaping while we attack from their rear."
To effect this in CM now the player has to make do with a 3D map and precision orders: Move, Sneak, Hide, Run and Target coupled with waypoints he questimates are appropriate. One precision waypoint misplaces by a mere meter can and will blow the entire plan. With a reverse LOS tool the player would be able to assign precision waypoints that would normally picked by the platoon/squad leader as per SOP and orders.
I fail to see why it would be gamey to be able to assign way points that do not inadvertantly bring the unit in LOS prematurely. The tool would be available for both players and both can utilize it to their advantage.
>I would suggest that the solution to this
>problem is a Move to Target command.
That does have potential. But what would also be appropriate is some sort of Stealth mode coupled with a directional order (that would make the unit take into account the direction they should be avoide being detected from) and some lattitude it can deviate from the path between waypoints to avoid detection when moving using Stealth mode.
That should not affect the unit speed but would enable it to use TacAI discretion in choosing its path between waypoints and
>In short, you would order a unit to move (at
>whatever speed) in a certain direction until
>they have "spotted" the area that you
>designate.
But does the planned order work like that ? Can the player designate a target area or just the direction the unit should move towards ready to rumble ?
>In real world terms, "Move your men west
>until you can see the MG squad in the
>trees." or "Move that tank along this road
>until you can see the top of that hill to
>the west of the town."
Will there be a "Do not pass Go" option or is the movement continuous until in contact with a previously soptted unit ? How will the unit take into account the possibility of being ambushed ?
>Since the ability to spot the target is
>controlled by the AI following the standard
>spotting rules, I believe you would actually
>have a more realistic result without all of
>the frustrations of having misplaced the
>move marker 2m short of the appropriate
>location (and thus wasting 60 seconds).
Or the unit.
>Given the limitations of the graphics engine
>(such as the ability to draw LOS through
>buildings and other blocking terrain), a
>Move to Target type order provides the AI
>with extra information it needs to come to
>the conclusion that the RL soldier would.
I hope so.
>And yes, I understand that there are some
>new move to hull down type orders coming in
>CM2. All I suggest is that same level of
>intelligence be given to all units in the
>game.
Yes. Including the infantry units.
-
>But you are wrong - how can you tell if you
>are on a rise somewhere that from the woods
>500m out you would be able to observe the
>hill-top yonder?
How can you as the God of War force commander tell what your squad or vehicle in CM is actually able to see from where it is standing ? Radiotelemetry ? ESP ? MM band radar ?
Arty FO's in CM require clear LOS to be able to plot and execute accurate fire missions. Do they determine if there are any obstructions, like hills, in the flight path of the shell between the battery and the target location better if they can see the point of impact ? If they can not see the point of impact the fire mission is both delayed and more inaccurate. How realistic is that ?
It is pure and simple LOS I am talking about, not spotting. You are only able to give PRECISE orders which allow no positive deviation from the execution path. (A negative deviation being "run to the enemy and get snuffed" TacAI movement order
)>Or if your squad is at a street-corner in
>the SE part of the city, how can you know
>that from another street-corner in the NE
>part of the city that is currently enemy
>controlled somebody would be able to see the
>church steeple in the next village that you
>also don't control?
That assumes you are fighting in a town you have never heard of and your troops never been in. In CMBO world the Germans most definitely had the entire French countryside mapped and they must have known roughly the relative merits of the terrain features they chose to build their defensive positions in. The Allies could tap into the resistance to tell them the local sites and places of interest.
What if you spy with your little eyes an enemy tank and you wish to make your way to a flanking position ? The terrain tile is 20 meters and there is a dubious stretch you are not sure is out of LOS from that tank. Too far left or right means a clear flank shot to the enemy. But you can only experiment with a unit in place. OK, fair enough, you move an infantry unit to investigate and that costs you 7+ turns AND the infantry unit gets shot up bad in the process by a 20mm AA gun, which was brought up in the mean time.
>This is totally unrealistic, and BTS have
>dug their heels in on it, and rightly so. I
>would not be surprised if changes to the
>current LOS tool happened, but your
>suggestion is utterly unrealistic.
When was the last time you looked at a topographical map ? Can you imagine a spot in the map and what kind of a LOS would you get from that position even if you have never been there ? A 1km x 1km 20 000:1 map would give you all the terrain features you need to know to roughly determine the LOS from one location to the other.
There are no such orders in CM that instruct the unit in question to move stealthily and occupy a position NEAR location XX.ZZ that gives the best LOS to location Y in the map. Or pick a route that keeps it out of sight of Location Y until you reach XX.ZZ.
What about low level flights by recce planes taking photos ? LRRP activity ? Local civilian populace giving tips and hints ? Most of these factors are not unrealistic but they are out of the CM scope. Should these RL actions be ignored just because of that ? Since recce before battle is not part of the CMBO/CMBB world should the benefits gained from them be unrealistically ignored ?
-
It would be nice though to be able to tell LOS from a specific location in the map that is not being occupied by a friendly unit: you click a feature in the map and then you just draw the LOS line to see where a unit can see if it was there.
Also, that feature would be nice when determining where an enemy unit can and can not see.
This would make it a hell of a lot easier to plan your approaches and ambushes when the game is under way and the situation is/becomes volatile.
And it would not be overly unrealistic or micromanagementiental IMO.
-
The fundamental, underlying problem is absolute spotting. You can sneak all you want and you may even take an enemy unit by surprise but once your unit gets spotted every enemy unit knows exactly where you are and what you carry.
Sneaking isn't, by design.
I like the idea of taking down isolated enemy outposts with a minumum of fuss (a few shots/short bursts of SMG fire and some grenades). It would even be in CM scope of combat at squad level.
But alas a unit can not go off the air without out a trace.The enemy Borg knows what happened instantly.
-
Apart from ROF and accuracy issues a related feature that should be addressed is spotting benefits/penalties due to absolute spotting. Moving vehicles already get reduced spotting ability but due to absolute spotting that penalty is undone.
changed their route to reflect this chance in the situation ?
British/Commonwealth Infantry weapons...poor?
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
>Yup. And once again thanks for digging them
>up.
Happy to oblige.
>I couldn't get to the originals as the
>links no longer work (the Carlisle-Mil
>site, or whatever it was called, seems to
>have disappeared). I'm sure they've been
>moved somewhere but Google couldn't find it.
Did you try
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/DL/chron.htm#AWorldWarII19391945
I just tried it and the URL seems to work. I am connected to it as I write. They have been on and off the air during the past few weeks. Problems with the IIS flu that is going around ?
>Of course, I'm using them for a somewhat
>different purpose than you originally
>attempted to do...
Well.... this is a debate on the modelling of different small arms and you are rather enhancing my original point in favour of my original purpose. But from a different angle. The way you use it undermines the "universal soldier" approach taken in modelling just the technical aspects of the weapons while disregarding the tactics and doctrine of the different armies and how they solved the problems they faced with the inventory they had at hand.
I'm still compiling data on the subject so I'll leave it at that. No need to stir the pot too much just for the hell of it.
[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: tero ]