Homba

Bump!

However this works, I'd love to get in on it. Is there an email or site we can send to/look at for more info? Homba

Thanks TeAch and BaDco!!! H

Incredible forum- check it out and sign up. Not just a forum, but a com-link! Instant messaging- click the little red 'IM' !!! Homba

Steve, The MG solutions you proposed (tweaked Run characteristics, Assault Move, and 'go for broke' MG) above are excellent. My loyalty/respect meters are likewise through the roof. Homba

Im sure "angling the barrel up" is nothing fancy for a dug-in MG... probably standard practice or else you are shooting at ankles. In any case it must come into the calculation somewhere and to some extent, and this is going to increase effective grazing fire range. Surely someone can provide a reference on muzzel velocities of WWII machine guns? We have one first hand account from the other thread of MG bullets' 'cracking' sound as they broke the sound barrier passing overhead (though IIRC this was a more modern MG.) Homba

... (edit) let a post sit on your desktop for a few minutes before submitting and it quickly becomes obsolete! H [ 04-16-2001: Message edited by: Homba ]

I agree with Colonel. It would even be nice to fire a few HE shells into TWO houses during one turn, than being forced to fire at one house for the entire turn. Ammo conservation must have been taken into consideration sometimes. Why not allow multiple area-fire commands (smoke or HE), and have the unit switch off between them unit the end of the round? I have always found it quite limiting to have to use ~1/5 of my HE load on a single house for recon-by-fire purposes. A pause before area-firing helps... multiple area-targeting would also help. This way you could spread five or six shells down a woodline, instead of being forced to put them all in one place. Homba

I'd say you probably paid for a serviced and running tank at the start of a battle. Having a tank start broke-down, or break down on the first turn, is not much fun, and could even be decisive to the outcome. This must be considered before something is instituted where tanks start breaking down left and right. If they are prone to engine problems, this should be reflected in the price, and the player should also be able to mitigate the effect by (for example) only using the MOVE command, rather than Move Fast (which might be more likely to cause problems). Breakdown chance should start very low, and then creep up based on total distance moved (rather than what turn it is in the game). Again, I think the player should have some way to mitigate this by "gentle handling" of the tank. The above is only directed to pure engine problems, not throwing tracks in bad terrain, or engines *freezing* in extreme temperatures. I am always fascinated to read about the Germans having to build bonfires under their tanks to thaw the motor oil. Will there be a BUILD BONFIRE command in CM2? hehe My two cents. Homba

Well, everyone is doing a fine job arguing this out. I did keep up with the entire 5 page MG thread, and I have been re-reading parts. As demonstrated there, and here, I am still firmly unconvinced (as are many of the posters here and there) that MG's effects on advancing/moving enemy troops, are correctly modeled. As someone put it: "Something is missing." I imagine it has a lot to do with the oft-discussed lack of ability to fire a prolonged burst at need (when threatened). In Steve's initial response to my post, it seemed that this was acknowledged, and that MGs are being improved upon for CM2. I do hope a little retro-fitting can be arranged for CM1 when the time comes. A CMH story that I read when I was young, and has always stuck with me is of the US soldier knocked unconscious and then playing dead at his .30 cal hole, when his unit was overrun. IIRC this was during the Bulge. He waited for the right moment and then killed scores of germans with his MG before they finally took him out. A counter-attack came through almost immediately after and cleared the position, and the Americans realized what their comrade had done. Nearly tears me up every few years when I remember the story. I am sorry I do not recall his name, and I should look it up. Though real life examples are invaluable, I can quite easily imagine myself in the position of being asked with some squad mates to rush an MG nest 200m away across farmland. (Let's face it guys there is A LOT of terrain out there, meadows, farmland, steppes, etc that is a lot bigger than 20m x 20m and nothing but some grass to break the smoothness.) It is not a pleasant thought. Thanks for the responses, BTS, and keep up the good work on CM2. I wish I knew whether or not you guys kept up with the "Objective Flags- fixes needed" thread. I never emailed you about it because I figure if every crackpot with an idea did that, it would crash your mail server. Homba

Situation: My veteran US army 1917 HMG team waits in a heavy builing on a clear day. The building is located at the bottom of nice little dell, sheltered from enemy heavy weapons. The slopes of the dell rise up in front and to the left. To the right, I can cover a field in front of the entire right flank of my defensive line. This position is to anchor the left side of my right flank. If Enemy infantry approach from the front or left, they will have to come over the lip of the dell and there is no cover for 80m to my house-- where I plan to shred them WWI-style, as they will be unsupported in the open. AAR: One Volks SMG SQUAD (8 men) charged my house at the beginning of a turn. I don't believe these attackers were even 'in command.' As far as the tracer-graphics show, I got off one burst at them at them as they crested the lip of the dell to my front. I proceeded to get 4 bursts in, the last coming when they were about 10m from my house. Bursts were at 90, 65, 35 and 10m- the entire time my veteran HMG team was not pinned, cautious, etc. They were OK or Alerted. Managed to pick off one enemy in the first or second salvo. Got 2 more at the 10m point. The enemy never went to ground or ceased sprinting toward my house (firing an ineffective burst or two from their SMGs) and entered the building with about 15 seconds left in the turn, where each side has lost 1 man in close combat. I am incredulous (to put it mildly) that these 8 attackers were able to quickly, easily, unsuppressed, and at little cost, cross 90m of open ground, while under the concentrated fire of a veteran, unsuppressed HMG team firing from a heavy building-- and I believe MGs should be tweaked up until it would probably require a PLATOON of men (rather than a squad) to frontally assault and take out my position, and not without considerable loss, or possibility of being turned back. The explanation that "open ground doesn't necessarily represent ground devoid of cover," is wholly unsatisfactory. This might explain why a squad PINNED in open ground would not be instantly liquidated by an MG. However, the attackers ran the 90m to my position without pause. They weren't seriously seeking cover. Further, we have Broken, Lt. Woods, Wheat, etc. terrain tiles to represent land "with some cover." Only the rocky Broken terrain is an impediment to vehicles. Vehicles can go full speed over "open groun"- it might as well be a parking lot. Any "hard cover" that might be useful to a squad advancing against an MG position MUST be few and far between judging by the easy at which a vehicle crosses open terrain. For those reasons, I find the argument/explanation of "limited cover" in "open terrain" to be wholly insufficient to explain the ease of the assault on my HMG position. Maybe some members of a resourceful (and probably elite) squad of men could enter my position if they spaced out to a frontage of about 200m+, nearly a full half-arc around my position, and all rushed in at once. I could understand how one MG would have trouble stopping that kind of attack. However, I don't believe this is what is being modeled in CM when a squad rushes a building. Granted there is some spacing, but it is safe to assume the squad (to maintain cohesion) has a frontage of no more than 30m or so? I would posit that 30m is not significant, other than to reduce casualties caused by 1 burst. The 200m front I mentioned above could only be acheived by a 3-squad platoon, and here I would feel real danger to my MG house. I have experienced these incredibly dumbed-down MGs over and over, whether they be in groups or standing alone. I have run tests with ridiculous results. I have read the complaints of countless people here on the forum. I have read about the vicious and unprecedented effect of MGs on the WWI battlefield against "human wave" attacks. I have never heard any good justification on this bb for the current state of MG effectiveness. Until we have a fix, we are going to continue to see the human wave attack used with outrageously unrealistic success. Any squad of men running at an unsuppressed MG from 100-20m range who is firing repeatedly at them have two choices: seek cover or die. Why isn't this modeled correctly in CM? I suggest that crewed MG firepower be increased by 75-100%. Is this outrageous? If doubled, would only 2 (instead of 5) men reached my HMG house? Would the increased firepower forced the attackers to go to ground? I hope so. The attack of this SMG squad should have been suicidal- but instead was an easy success. Are the Russians are going to be hell on wheels OR WHAT in CM2!? Homba

Situation: My veteran US army 1917 HMG team waits in a heavy builing on a clear day. The building is located at the bottom of nice little dell, sheltered from enemy heavy weapons. The slopes of the dell rise up in front and to the left. To the right, I can cover a field in front of the entire right flank of my defensive line. This position is to anchor the left side of my right flank. If Enemy infantry approach from the front or left, they will have to come over the lip of the dell and there is no cover for 80m to my house-- where I plan to shred them WWI-style, as they will be unsupported in the open. AAR: One Volks SMG SQUAD (8 men) charged my house at the beginning of a turn. I don't believe these attackers were even 'in command.' As far as the tracer-graphics show, I got off one burst at them at them as they crested the lip of the dell to my front. I proceeded to get 4 bursts in, the last coming when they were about 10m from my house. Bursts were at 90, 65, 35 and 10m- the entire time my veteran HMG team was not pinned, cautious, etc. They were OK or Alerted. Managed to pick off one enemy in the first or second salvo. Got 2 more at the 10m point. The enemy never went to ground or ceased sprinting toward my house (firing an ineffective burst or two from their SMGs) and entered the building with about 15 seconds left in the turn, where each side has lost 1 man in close combat. I am incredulous (to put it mildly) that these 8 attackers were able to quickly, easily, unsuppressed, and at little cost, cross 90m of open ground, while under the concentrated fire of a veteran, unsuppressed HMG team firing from a heavy building-- and I believe MGs should be tweaked up until it would probably require a PLATOON of men (rather than a squad) to frontally assault and take out my position, and not without considerable loss, or possibility of being turned back. The explanation that "open ground doesn't necessarily represent ground devoid of cover," is wholly unsatisfactory. This might explain why a squad PINNED in open ground would not be instantly liquidated by an MG. However, the attackers ran the 90m to my position without pause. They weren't seriously seeking cover. Further, we have Broken, Lt. Woods, Wheat, etc. terrain tiles to represent land "with some cover." Only the rocky Broken terrain is an impediment to vehicles. Vehicles can go full speed over "open groun"- it might as well be a parking lot. Any "hard cover" that might be useful to a squad advancing against an MG position MUST be few and far between judging by the easy at which a vehicle crosses open terrain. For those reasons, I find the argument/explanation of "limited cover" in "open terrain" to be wholly insufficient to explain the ease of the assault on my HMG position. Maybe some members of a resourceful (and probably elite) squad of men could enter my position if they spaced out to a frontage of about 200m+, nearly a full half-arc around my position, and all rushed in at once. I could understand how one MG would have trouble stopping that kind of attack. However, I don't believe this is what is being modeled in CM when a squad rushes a building. Granted there is some spacing, but it is safe to assume the squad (to maintain cohesion) has a frontage of no more than 30m or so? I would posit that 30m is not significant, other than to reduce casualties caused by 1 burst. The 200m front I mentioned above could only be acheived by a 3-squad platoon, and here I would feel real danger to my MG house. I have experienced these incredibly dumbed-down MGs over and over, whether they be in groups or standing alone. I have run tests with ridiculous results. I have read the complaints of countless people here on the forum. I have read about the vicious and unprecedented effect of MGs on the WWI battlefield against "human wave" attacks. I have never heard any good justification on this bb for the current state of MG effectiveness. Until we have a fix, we are going to continue to see the human wave attack used with outrageously unrealistic success. Any squad of men running at an unsuppressed MG from 100-20m range who is firing repeatedly at them have two choices: seek cover or die. Why isn't this modeled correctly in CM? I suggest that crewed MG firepower be increased by 75-100%. Is this outrageous? If doubled, would only 2 (instead of 5) men reached my HMG house? Would the increased firepower forced the attackers to go to ground? I hope so. The attack of this SMG squad should have been suicidal- but instead was an easy success. Are the Russians are going to be hell on wheels OR WHAT in CM2!? Homba

Sounds like a reasonable complaint to me. Homba

Well, I did the experiment I talked about on page 1 of this thread. My hypothesis (that you'd be a tougher target if you showed less turret) was dead wrong. Turns out no matter how much of a tank's turret is sticking up above a ridge, the chance to hit a head-on shot is the same! I lined up 4 tigers on a ridge, in echelon staggered back down the ridge's reverse slope. My hidden AT guns could see the turrets peeking over the ridge like stairsteps. All targets were "Hull Down"- but my AT guns' chance to hit the tanks was 26% for each and every tank, even though there was a very distinct difference in the amount of turret/upper hull protruding between the first and last tank. So apparently the amount of (front) exposure in the case of a "hull down" target is not modeled in CM. This strikes me as incredible since everything else IS modeled. For example, (as you'd expect) the Tiger at each further-back position had to draw LOS further out into the field before they could see the ground over the rise they were hull-down behind. Also, if you turn one of the tanks a little to the side, your chance to hit it improves, because you can see more surface area. My estimate on the hull-down "window" is about a 2 meter strip that you have to stop your tank on, but this was probably unique to the slope of the hill i was using. Conclusions: It IS (arguably) difficult to stop your tank in hull down- if by difficult you mean within the 2m window. There is, however, no reason to worry about how much of your turret/upper hull is exposed: If you're hull-down, youre hull down! I think due to the difficulty of getting Hull-down, there is a need for some system with which to make this as easy for the player as it would be for a tanker IRL. Willmontgomery's idea (does it have a name?) would serve well in this role. (I had some cool screneshots of this test, then realised it was a little more difficult than I thought to post them here!) Homba [This message has been edited by Homba (edited 04-04-2001).] [This message has been edited by Homba (edited 04-04-2001).]

On second thought the whole slow-down issue is just smoke- i think the Halt command will stop you dead in the middle of a fast move, so it is a non-issue. (I think this is true...) Your example of abusing seeing what the enemy can see was good. You've won me over- your way is more playable as you explained. It may not be *quite* as easy to get a hull-down stop as with my method, but still better than what we've got now, and would eliminate a good bit of catastrophic tank driving. Homba

NightGaunt has again stated the problem pretty well. It is a choice of evils, and I say it is more palatable to have accurate tank driving. I am going to run a test to perhaps give some more insight into the significance and degree of the problem. Question: Whether tanks of the same model can have varying degrees of exposure in 'hull-down' position on a given slope, or whether any 'hull-down' position gives the same benefit, regardless of how much tank is above the ridge. I will use a tank with a relatively high aspect for this test. Hypothesis: The chance to be hit will be higher for a tank that is further up the ridge (with less cover, but still hull down) than for a tank with only its gun peeping above the ridge. Experiment: I will construct a map with a ridge. In hotseat mode, I will have 4 tanks at varying positions on the ridge slope, all somewhat 'hull down'- and all with LOS on the woods hiding the guns. An AT gun will be directly opposite each tank, hidden in woods. I will target each tank and see if the % chance of hitting are higher with the tanks that are more exposed. I will also check to see whether I get the text signal that the tank is Hull Down when I target it. Ramifications: If my hypothesis holds up, then it will be even more important to implement some system ('prospective LOS' or some variant) to allow players to precisely control their tank's hull-down stop point, as would the commander IRL. If my hypothesis is false, and any tank that registers as 'hull down' has the same to-be-hit chance no matter how far up the slope, then it is less important to change from the status quo. Side issues: How big is the range on a slope in which you can achieve Hull Down? Hopefully we'll get some insight on this as well- and how hard or easy it 'should be' to get your tank to stop in a hull down position. ------ I'll post the results in this thread as soon as a get them. Any duplicative tests would be appreciated. Homba

I lost a 37mm single-gun flak truck to infantry fire at 200m+. I was firing HE at the infantry in a woodline. Was surprised by this kill- all 8 of the crew survived the destruction of the gun. H

Any playtesters reading this that agree/disagree/might recommend change? Homba

Will, fantastic statement of the balancing of concers at issue here! Having gone back and read your first post (and hoping to understand correctly what you are getting at), I would say: 1. I see very little difference in the practical effect of your version and mine. Both seem to achieve the same end by a different means. To what extent my means could be abused beyond yours, I am uncertain. With both ideas, you obviously have to abstract what is going on, with the goal of eliminating unreasonable results at "low cost." The goal in both is to replicate the reasonable actions of the tank commander WHEN HE REACHES THE CRUCIAL POINT. Because of the nature of CM, we have to do this beforehand. This doesnt make the result unrealistic in any way- because IRL the commander would achieve the correct position. 2. I think your version may be more difficult to implement than mine. I am not programmer, but my version is pretty damn simple and objective. In your version (just for starters), a tank might have to go from full speed to dead stop when the target site is obtained. The computer would have to know to slow down your tank BEFORE the sight was reached. This is problem is simply resolved in my version, because I simply tell the tank where to stop beforehand. So I think there is a big question here about how difficult your solution (seemingly complex- at least to me) would be to code. What do you think about the above? Homba

I love the QBs and would really like to see an added feature- the ability to deduct/add points (not percentages) from either side's total. Right now you can do this on a VERY limited basis with the percentages, but I would rather see actual points. This would really enable bidding to be carried out between the players to determine who gets to play which side. Seems like it would be an easy feature to add (it already exists in the scenario construction system- but not for QBs), and could be applied to every edition of CM (whenever the patch gets around to being made.) As it stands the percentages are too clumsy. I believe -10% and +25% are the first two levels you could arrange to use. I have been meaning to ask for this for a while now. It would be a STELLAR feature for tournaments! Would others like to see this? Homba [This message has been edited by Homba (edited 04-02-2001).]

I think the overly broad title of this thread might have something to do with the lack of comments on this issue. I'd like to hear some more input. Homba

JoePrivate says that neither I (nor, apparently, anyone else on this thread) has made a “compelling statement” as to why a mid-move Pause would be more realistic for CM. He chastises me for failing to understand or appreciate the history of the development of the Pause command and its purpose within the game, citing me to 5 threads that barely mention the Pause command, or only touch very lightly on the issue before us. The one relevant quote in that entire list of threads was already posted in THIS thread by tss, that quote being BTS’s brief, dated (Dec. 1999), and I-don’t-know-how-seriously-considered rationale: “this [pre-move Pause] was a design decision to force people to move units with less precision. In very rare circumstances would a unit move into a position for only a few seconds and then move some place out. So we decided to not cater to the rare in exchange for the norm.” The above rationale comes crashing in on itself when held up to the reality that CM, as we know it, already IS as micro-manageable as each individual wants it to be, practically without limit. I paraphrase the previously posted astute observation of Vanir Ausf B: A Pause usable at any point during a turn would not introduce a level of micro-management not already in the game! All it does is give you the same flexability that real world commanders would have. Can this point be gainsaid in any meaningful way? I don’t think so- try if you like! As I have stated earlier, BTS has given use the ability to ‘take over’ for our various tank and squad commanders. We can plot hyper-detailed move/hunt/etc/etc routes that ONLY an on-the-spot commander would be deciding on. So the argument rings hollow that says, “We want to limit the player’s move flexibility.” What REALLY happened? BTS succeeded in putting us in command of every vehicle, gun and squad in our arsenal- without losing the epic scope, atmosphere and maneuver possibilities of a battalion-or-larger sized engagement- and I love it!!! What DOES the pre-move Pause force us into? I despair in thinking about all the gamey maneuvering it forces us into. Shaking my head sadly, I think how simple it would be to allow a pause at any point in the turn, thus rescuing us from the absurd mental gymnastics of getting what we want through some sort of gamey work-around. Just look at all of the proposed work-arounds that have been offered! It is just sickening to have to rig together some sort of goofy set of commands (none of which are entirely efficient, as demonstrated in above posts) to achieve what could elegantly be achieved by simply allowing a mid-move pause. THAT is a COMPELLING argument for change, in my estimation (and it is what I’ve said all along). JoePrivate, you are saying you prefer a goofy, faulty, unrealistic work-around to a simple, useful, realistic command!? The BTS quote concludes with: “In very rare circumstances would a unit move into a position for only a few seconds and then move some place out. So we decided to not cater to the rare in exchange for the norm.” If BTS says it was “very rare,” I don’t feel a need to argue that point- simply because this “rare vs. norm” idea is a wholly unnecessary choice based on a flawed analysis. How is a mid-move pause going to cater to the “rare” AT THE EXPENSE OF THE NORM!? If people don’t want to use it, then they won’t! If they do, they will. It's that simple- nobody gets hurt. A mid-move pause takes the pause command out of the realm of arbitrariness and provides another realistic tool with which to control our forces- maybe the only tool withheld from us (withheld on a basis that has no effect, as it can be tediously worked-around). Pre-move Pause is an anachronism, apparently dating from a time when it was thought that waypoints would give players too much control! (sarcastic yes, but you get the point). Let’s put this dinosaur to rest, and institute a simple, mid-move pause solution consistent with every other feature that we know and love in CM. Homba

emrys: you do not cite one example of this supposed 'abuse,' nor can you cite examples that would outweigh the benefits of eliminating idiotic tank behavior. H

Done.

That's good info, Abbot, and about what I'd expected you'd say. I had the notion (or the actual knowledge) that you were a tanker from some of your other posts. I will relent on the 5 second increment. I agree with another writer that the 15 sec delay is due to the time it takes infantry to disembark (13 sec delay?) Maybe 15 secs is the minimum time it takes to get something meaningful done on a WWII tank. I am done debating the correct amount of the increment. (If I was god, it would be a 10 sec minimum with an additional increment of 2 secs, up to whatever you wanted.) But the relevance of the exact pause length is beginning to escape me. What I do continue to insist on is that a Pause of 'appropriae' length should be available *at any point* during the move. Repeat after me: "Life ain't played in turns." CM replicates life in a game of 1 minute turns, and does a damn good job- so good I sometimes almost forget it's not real-time. So, BTS: please continue to enhance the suspension of our disbelief, and don’t arbitrarily limit our Pauses to the beginning of a turn. Everything in this game is an effort to enhance realism IN SPITE OF the ‘necessity’ of a turn-based format. So why force us into gamey manoooovering (destroying our suspension of disbelief) to achieve a result that could be elegantly and simply achieved (and duplicating the actions of the real-life vehicle commander) with a Pause usable at any point in a turn ? For anyone who says BTS "already considered it"- very lame answer. Patches 1.01-1.12 indicate that BTS is not ready to call the project perfect, and there is ample room for fresh ideas, constructive criticism, and change for the better. The Pause issue spans every future edition of CM, not just CMBO. It is worthy of a second and third look. Homba