elementalwarre

i really like CM's approach. CM's the first wargame i've ever played for more than a week. i couldn't stand others' artificiality. heck, since i haven't said it this week: CM is fantastic, aside from being a horribly addictive time sink that said, i think dr brian has a point perhaps i can make his point more clearly. here goes: yes, absolutely, common sense goes a long way in CM. if you're in a sherman, flank the tiger to use your faster turret against the tiger's weaker side armor. staying in defilade means your ambush is more likely to work. etc, etc however, CM abstracts this means there -are- factors which common sense says should matter but either do not or matter differently than one might think. case in point: a recent LOS thread which appears to show LOS is calculated from the ground rather than whatever height the weapon's at. i'm -not- saying LOS calc should change or not, just giving a sample abstraction now say i'm a novice - pretty much true for me! say i'm trying to work out what's possible in an ambush. will fog reduce accuracy even when the target units are clearly visible from my units? will that MG team not fire because it doesn't have LOS to some of the ambush area? will that SMG squad deliver enough useful fire while fast moving to order it to? might the target units just race through the mine field? (if you're typing answers to those, stop already. i know the answers for those. they're just examples, don't distract yourself from the real question!) see the problem? see how it's worse if you're not a wargamer, but still nontrivial even for wargamers? CM has enough depth to have a great many factors, quite a few of which are abstractions and thus hard to even have a feel for without trying. knowing which matter can take many games, experiments and forum searches, aka a -lot- of time. that's time which dr brian seems to be saying he'd rather spend playing the game, -not- learning it if that's his point, i agree. more of an idea of what's abstracted, what's not a factor, etc would be great. this does -not- mean charts! ok, as few charts as possible, dammit jeff, dr brian - am i on target? sorry for such a long post, i just want to be as clear as possible

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: The only problem with blacked out FOW is that Europe was the most mapped continent of its time <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> er. CM2's the eastern front. the USSR deliberately kept road maps hard to get, let alone full topo maps. given that, requiring LOS to accurately map an area would be a useful option for western europe, well - were there detailed topo maps of the hurtgen forest, or other relatively remote areas? even if they existed, how current were they during a war?

this overlaps with some other requests, but anyway: - intel from civilians - empty fortifications. suggest bunker, trench, foxhole, vehicle/support weapon firing position, tank trap, fortified building - change manned fortifications so crew is separate from pillbox. IMHO scenario designer feature only which lets BTS more readily do more variety, not for players to change in setup phase - flares - wind, abstracted only! - vary unit point value with more factors than experience - more terrain tiles i listed all but the last one in more detail in http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/009289.html [This message has been edited by elementalwarre (edited 09-08-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by USTanker: Also, it's much more satisfying to run over crunchies (er, infantry).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> HAHAHAHAhahahaha....<snort> 'crunchies'?! CRUNCHIES?! ok, i just have to see both ramming and civilians implemented so i can see 'wrigglies' (generally no weapons/helmets/etc, so no crunch) run over seriously, this seems a lot of work for a very rare tactic. but it would be hilarious

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JoePrivate: I remember reading, not sure where now, of a British Rifleman in WWI who fired 35 shots(IIRC) into the bullseye of a target at 600yds in one minute. That was using a Lee-Enfield.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> dunno about 35 a minute, but try watching a champion rifleman with a bolt-action. they're -fast- in WW1 the brits started with long service soldiers who often had years, even -decades- of bolt-action rifle experience. supposedly when german units first ran into british units' murderously accurate rifle fire at 1000 meter ranges they reported they were facing massed machine guns

2 weeks ago i suggested much the same in http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/009289.html i changed my mind. note it's not in my last summary in that thread. IMHO arbitrary LOS should -not- be in CM, not even in scenario creation no, i'm not assimilated. yes, i mulled over the very same realism vs playability being discussed here. no, i'm not a grognard. until 5 weeks ago i'd tried a few wargames but for each one stopped within a week one point of CM is realism -whenever possible-. that -whenever possible- constraint means we get overhead map view for practical unit control, an abstracted command/control mechanism, etc. for some gamey factors, you can limit yourself or agree to limit them when playing others. for others, when BTS aims at a more powerful baseline computer they may change them. despite trying for the last month, i have yet to find factors that arguably don't fall in these 2 areas note: it's already not realistic to have precise visibility data -even from where a unit is-. it can be -hard- to see camo through brush, and/or the sun's in your eyes, and/or you blinked... given that, it's certainly realistic to not know exactly what someone can see/be seen by at a point they're not at lacking precise visibility data goes along with troops that may crack under MG fire or charge the MG. mortars may slaughter those halftracks or fire short, vaporizing your sniper it's simply another -real- factor. for people who want realism, it helps playability. they see confluence, not opposition note: you can use LOS from a unit's current position to gauge visibility-affected factors elsewhere, once you know how ground cover limits vision/targeting/command and control/etc. finding out those ranges is just something else to learn, same as learning which squads are more effective at a given range. with that condition, the map is WYSIWYG -enough-, like the rest of the graphics. it's arguably already -easier- than real life since the graphics are largely -functional- not photorealistic aka cluttered as for varying LOS due to terrain changes, i've always been able to see all dips/rises in the ground. that factor is IMHO precisely modeled and thus entirely viewable if you play vs the AI - well, when the operational AI gets even better, perhaps it could be limited to a view 1 LOS, with some fudge factor. until then, i -like- how the AI's perfect LOS makes it a tougher opponent [This message has been edited by elementalwarre (edited 09-03-2000).]

looky ma all those numbers! can i play with them huh can i please? couple of comments - various comments from veteran players - not me! - have said this raises the AI units' experience by whatever amount you select. it's just not displayed visually when selecting those units - if a given unit was green, it still displays as green. you should see a change in command delays/etc though - your experiment gives the ai infantry only vs infantry only. they're both on flat terrain with little room for maneuver. if this setting meant a better AI, IMHO you gave it little to show off its intelligence [This message has been edited by elementalwarre (edited 09-03-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DEF BUNGIS: AHHHH!!!! PDF....f...f..f.format. Don't say that word! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> PDF. PDF. PDF. PDF. PDF <is he dead yet?> <naw. he's writhing though. keep it up> just thought i'd explain why i'm apparently such a space alien WRT pdf dox i've been reading online dox for over 20 years. between that familiarity and these ways to use pdf files: - keep frequently-used ones on my hard drive. no cd to swap. many are downloaded anyway - java specs, IETF RFCs, etc - LCD display. quite easy on the eyes - i only prefer PDF when bookmarked and magnified - use acrobat, not just reader, so adding notes is convenient admittedly most people probably aren't that assimilated into their computers

manual says MG teams can create ambush markers. i do mean create, not just target an existing ambush marker however, no MG team in the game can, at least not 1.02 demo or 1.02 through 1.05 full version is this a bug in the manual or the game, or do i need to sacrifice some hamsters? if so, how many and which altar do i use?

this is an ATI bug. ATI knows about it. i'm sure because i'm the one who reported it to ATI best workaround for now is disable the ATI driver update

unfortunately apple's taken gamesprockets 1.5 offline so you can no longer get soundsprocket 1.0 all that easily you can still get soundsprocket 1.0 from mac os update 8.6 but it's 35M. so, as with ati drivers i will send soundsprocketlib and soundsprocket filter 1.0 to anyone who asks

hello, anyone at BTS: i really do think i see a bug in either the manual or the game manual says an MG team can set an ambush marker. see p. 51 -no- game MG team - or vehicle armed only with MG's, for that matter - will create an ambush marker. use one another unit creates, sure. but they won't create one i see nothing about this in either forum search results or in the readme's at least through 1.05. OTOH i have seen several posts which say they can set an ambush using an MG. i have to wonder if those posters are just going off the manual or referring to using an ambush marker, not creating one so what's the story?

yes, any unit can target an ambush marker what i'm asking is more about which units can create the ambush marker. it's not just officers. by the manual and by what i see in the game, weapon teams and any unit with cannon can as well problem is, by the manual MG teams can set ambushes but in the game they can't. did i miss something or is this a bug? i hope it's a bug, i would've thought an mg would be a terrifying start to an infantry ambush, or a light armor ambush if you have a 50-cal [This message has been edited by elementalwarre (edited 08-29-2000).]

ah, continue reading that bit of the manual. officers, weapon teams, tanks...quite a list, all of which i've used -except- for MG's

manual says i can. so have several posts however, no matter which team i pick from either side and any country, no machine gun team will ambush. it's simply not a menu or key option. i've tried with CM 1.02 demo as well as 1.02 - 1.05. is there a magic incantation required? i can get goat's blood, cthulhu's pet altar, etc but i must protest no such were mentioned as part of the full game's price

sure, more than 2 sides was rare. like i said in the original post, 'mostly for imaginary scenarios'

someone's asked before but didn't get an answer, so - anyone know if CM has dud shells? if this is not in the game i'm -not- requesting it, just asking if it's in!

again, i'm just asking for what i think might be fun. i'd rather ask than not - perhaps BTS knows a way to do it what model do you think CM is trying to fit? IMHO they've broken quite a few conventions, and i'm much happier because of it!

when you saw a carrier take an 88 AP round in the side and survive, IMHO you saw a round go right through [This message has been edited by elementalwarre (edited 08-26-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BasilD: Maybe this is merely my imagination, but I seem to have noticed higher quality troops don't tire as quickly. Anyone else noticed this? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> what i see is they get tired as quickly but recover faster

pillboxes manned, bunkers/trenches/etc not - yeah, that sounds like a plan. charles/steve/somebody/anybody at BTS, does any of this sound useful or are we just typing keys to hear them click a quick summary (strictly my preference from the original list, feel free to add/change to fit!): - sim civilians as abstracted info - guerrillas - empty fortifications. suggested are bunker, trench, foxhole, vehicle firing position, tank trap, fortified (light/small/whatever) building - change manned fortifications so crew is separate from pillbox. IMHO this is a scenario designer feature so BTS can more readily do more variety, not for players to change in setup phase - flares - wind - vary unit point value with more factors than experience - some version of CM engine used for current/near future sim - multiple sides

fog of war means just that. possibly multiple units heard something, each may have heard something different...if you truly want to model a sound contact at the unit level, you'd have to put all that in. BLECCH. IMHO it's abstracted nicely as is, and is perhaps even too accurate - it seems to present a commander's judgement vs all the range of reports just kidding, please do NOT make sound contacts even vaguer!

quite aside from adrenalin rush, yes, these move rates are plausible for the relatively short durations in CM. i'm no superman either but i routinely do half-marathons, free-climbing, hiking, etc. admittedly i try -hard- to carry no more than a 50 pound pack when hiking, though! also, remember if people know they're about to enter combat, whenever possible the packs come off so they 'only' have weapons, ammo, water, radios, helmets, first aid gear...

yes this works. i've been playing that way too - frees up the cd drive and it's way more convenient to mount an image than stick in a cd makes piracy too easy, though, so i guess this will go the way of a pdf manual sooner or later <sigh> fwiw, i did buy it. none of my friends knew of it let alone had it. besides, it's just too good, after my first game on the demo i -had- to buy it just to say thanks with my credit card

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seanachai: Exactly, elementalwarre, what you are being given as a 'time until first salvo (not first shot, one or two of those arrive earlier) arrives on target' is merely an 'estimate' of reality, not a promise. The actual time taken, as opposed to the time you are told it will take, will vary depending on the FO's experience level, whether they have direct LOS to the target point, and other, more 'random' factors. You are not seeing a bug, you are seeing the difference between a 'promised' salvo, and when it arrives in reality. Unless I've completely misunderstood your post, but I believe I'm addressing the phenomenon you're describing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> tried it again with an elite FO and direct LOS. you're right, my goof, elite FO's time didn't vary with fast forward - the prior green FO was just awful estimating time and of course estimated short. for a while there, i would've sworn the prior green FO was really a UFO