SenorBeef

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: I have been tasked by The_Capt to ask for some reinforcements for the Attrition v Maneuver slugfest (emphasis on slug). The attrition force has suffered a great deal of attrition at the higher command levels (mostly because our fearless commanders were leading from the front) and we need volunteers to take command of two of our battalions. If you subscribe to the school of "Deutschland Uber Alles" then this is the perfect opportunity for you to strut your stuff. Ask not what your silicon soldiers can do for you. Ask what you can do for your your silicon soldiers!! Yes, oddly enough I am representing the attrition force (I don't know what came over me at the time), but you don't have to think like an attritionist - that's The_Capt's job. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wouldn't mind a stab at the silly manueverists.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Viceroy: I think the whole point is about gameplay If they don't limit the spotters and mortars in some way the whole game would only revolve around art/FO's. So that's why FWIH that BTS decided to place some artificial constraints on the FO's. I like the balance as it is now. Calling in a good fire mission on a group of troops in a woods/pines is deeply satisfying ..... I know I'm kind of sick But I wouldn't like art to become any more powerful in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thats a matter of artificially restricting some part of the game issues of balance, and thats bleh territory. I don't think having spotters artificially crippled in this matter is really all that good for gameplay, not enough to be worth artificially cripple FOs. I think this might simply be a case of any unit with an area fire command stopping firing once its been sufficiently suppressed (does that happen?), if so, then they simply used the same suppression model on FOs, not bothering to implement it seperately, or turn it off. In regards to adjusting fire, I agree to an extent. You shouldn't be able to easily adjust fire under heavy suppresion, however, I'd imagine the FO could still say "Previous target, FFE" if he was in the middle of an adjustment process and came under heavy fire. That wasn't even the case here, of course, so thats immaterial for this particular problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sock Monkey: Well, presumably the spotter already has the artillery target set pretty well and his further direction shouldn't be neccessary unless he wants to adjust fire. As far as the game goes, though, this is likely just another example of the way (be it for gameplay or simplicity) that BTS modeled the way spotters work, like the fact that a barrage stops if the spotter is killed. [This is the point where it seems to be obligatory on this board to suggest you do a search because this topic has been talked to death, etc. etc. etc.] This is the sort of arty spotter issue (along with things like relative spotting) that it would be neat to see addressed in CMII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't see why its a CMII matter. It would be quite simple, I'd imagine, to exempt FOs from losing their target under morale stress. Alot of the arty problems with CM would be relatively easy, at least, from an amateur programmers outside perspective, to fix with some rigging.

I'll keep this one simple. Why do arty spotters lose their target when being suppressed?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: The HMG and the LMG are exactly the same weapon in CM, except that the HMG has the tripod mount and a bigger crew. The bigger crew carries more ammo, so the main difference we see in the game is the higher ammo load. One of the chief innovations of the MG42 was the quick-change barrel. A heavier barrel option would have improved long-range accuracy, but facilitating cooling was unnecessary, since part of what the larger crew carried was more spare barrels, which is a darned good idea with an air-cooled weapon firing 1200 rpm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Theres a big firepower difference, something in the order of 3x as much out of the HMG42.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish: Just curious, how many shells did the crew unload in those 45 seconds? If all the crew is busy getting the gun setup who is left to unload additional shells? Granted, the guns in CM do take longer to deploy than the examples listed in this thread, but what you get is a gun with a full loadout. Something to consider.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> With a tank rolling up the hill to your front, I don't think you're going to hear "Hey, guys, we can't fire until we have all 60 shells unloaded. So just sit tight"

"It doesn't work like that in combat conditions" is a common excuse apologizers for any potential flaws in CM. You can set up a map wherein the only enemy opposition is a no-ammo FO on the other side of the map, and unlimber a gun on a completely flat and open map, and it would still take an unrealistically long time. They're not under fire, being suppressed.. they simply take too long to set up. Now, if CM modelled a longer delay time when an MG was firing at them, then that excuse is perfectly justified, but thats not the case here. It is, indeed, possible that they simply made an error.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JMcGuire: Heh, I asked the same question at the end of some other arty thread -- I think that some one I referenced. I agree, random delays would seem more realistic -- sometimes huge, sometimes the minimum. Based on the reply from the Real Life arty guy (Whoever You Are), I suspect the delays in CM represent the bare minimum for doing calcs and such, so I guess asking for random delays is slightly masochistic unless you're on the pointy side of the shells. Edited: This is the post where jwxspoon posted some interesting timing info for calling in arty: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000645 Also, aussie had a bunch of interesting thoughts near the end of this thread, the same one where I asked about random timing: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000604 [ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: JMcGuire ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree that the time CM shows is probably the minimum time required for calcs and such. But the question still remains: Why are 81mm calculations so much easier to be 2 or 3 times as fast as, say, 105s?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JMcGuire: As MrSpkr says, artillery was definitely shared. Look for a thread with a name like "arty and why it pisses me off". Somebody who apparently has a lot to do with artillery in Real Life gave a lengthy rundown on this, as well as a bunch of historic details IIRC.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Artillery is shared, sure. But that doesn't explain why 105s are going to be shared, but 120 mortars aren't. Additionally, bigger arty takes longer to call in, even when dedicated, so its not just a mortar vs artillery thing. The results are repeatable and consistent in CM - theres no "Hold on, we're servicing another company" type of delay - its consistently the same amount of time for the same type of arty. 105s will always take (say, 3 minutes), not 2 minutes sometimes when they're not busy, and 6 minutes sometimes when they're firing a different mission. So this suggests that CM models the artillery actually taking a longer time to fire on target for heavy arty as opposed to lighter stuff. When requesting it, when its not dedicated to you, that makes sense. You have to go to your major, then him to his colonel, ect. But in this case, you're not. You have direct control over that battery, its assigned to you for the duration of your fire missions. Such a disparity in the relative delays in artillery isn't justified on that basis, then. Does wind really make 105s take twice as long or more to fire on target than 81mm mortars?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Emrys: I can't give you an authoritative answer on this, but my two-penny guess is that the "dedicated" batteries in CM aren't completely dedicated. That is to say that they are yours as long as they aren't busy doing a shoot for somebody else. And it might not be the same battery each time you call them up. So you're still having to go through FDC and they route your request to whomever isn't busy. Remember, it's just my guess. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think thats true. Firstly, you have on call artillery whenever you want, you're not waiting for anyone to finish another mission - but even if you were, thats not different for different types of artillery. Your batallion mortars could be supporting someone else as much as the divisions 150s. At CMs scale, I think all batteries (and the same battery) is dedicated to you for the duration of your ammo or the battle. I can understand some delay for bigger guns being clunkier, and farther from the target, but not as exaggerated as we have now.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: I'll probably be embarrased for taking a crack at this but here goes. I've had a couple of drinks so am feeling brave. The captain or whoever only has to yell over his shoulder, hey private drop some shells on that hill over there where as in order to have arty dropped I imagine you would have to phone the artillary company and get permisson and then give them the exact location to drop it and that would require time to relay that order to the actual people in charge of the guns. Anyway, that's how I justify the time it takes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thats more a case for on-board 60s than anything else. Thats not what I'm asking - I'm asking about off-board 81 and 120mm mortar batteries, which need to be contacted by phone or radio just like regular artillery.

In CM, mortars have a much quicker response time and adjust more nimbly than regular artillery. This seems to make sense, and is justified in that mortars are closer in the chain of command/communication relative to artillery - you only have to go up to your company or regiment in order to get mortar support, but you have to work all the way through the division or better for artillery support, and they have their own arty command structure rather than directly being infantry to&e. This seemed to make sense until I gave it some thought. It is true that, if simply requesting artillery in general from anyone available, it would take longer to get a to a regular artillery battery, because you'd have a big chain to work with - but in CM, you have a dedicated battery, assigned only to you. You have a direct telephone or radio link to them, no command structure to 'go through' to get to them. And so regular artillery and mortars would have the same 'communication time'. Then, the justification for mortar quickness becomes the inherent ease of aiming these weapons, or ease of calculating the positions in the FDC. I understand that bigger artillery has a higher reload time, but how significantly does that affect first-shot time? I'd imagine they're loaded and ready to go, as soon as they figure out where they're firing it. So I ask, what exactly is the reason that regular artillery is so much slower than mortars? EDIT: Stupid 1:30 brain lapse mistakes fixed. [ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: Just passing my time here... But anyway - let's assume the pricing system remains the same. (as it probably will). T-34/67 has a good armour, on par with Sherman+, and a good mobility. The main weapon is similar in performance to Sherman's 75mm, but there would be less ammo. MG's of the two vehicles are of similar performance and ammo loadout. This would suggest a price around 150pts. But T-34's performance is hindered by the 2 man turret, poor observation possibilities when buttoned, weak optics and the lack of radios. So. My guess is: About 100pts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would hope they'd have a dynamic pricing system based on time period.. In 1945, a t-34 is just another piece of metal, and I wouldn't expect it to cost more than 130 or 140 points, but the same t34 in 1941 is an ulcer to whoever faces it, and I'd hate to see people buying those cheaply. I suppose something could be balanced with relative pricing of other early war units, though.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mace: First of all, let me say I respect your right to say what you feel has to be said. Now please respect my right of reply! Are you nuts?!!!!!!!! I personally would rather see CM2 continue to be given development priority. Once CM2 is released, work can then be done to re-patch CMBO. Mace [ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: Mace ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Obviously, at the time they'll be patching CM2.. and people will be asking: "Can we have one more patch to cm2, please? And.. how about cmbo?" and everyone will say "shhh! let them work on cm3!", So this is likely the last patch. Which is mostly fine, although some of the more outstanding bugs would be a simple fix. For the 'security' bug, they could simply have the game display some basic info on screen after connection, "force 1, self pick, force 2, self pick", ect, to prevent those sorts of problems, which wouldn't take very long at all to fix. The whole HE vs unarmored targets thing could be fixed by giving 1mm of armor to all unarmored vehicles - but I'm not sure how hard that would be, exactly. In any case, if we don't ask for CMBO patches now, we'll probably never get them - and additionally, I doubt CM2 will be backwards compatable as such.. because it wouldn't just be a magic switch - its time intensive to retroactively integrate the new features - the only practical chance, I think, is simply to import the old vehicles/weapons/ect into the new game.

Any chance of going back to the old color scheme? All this white is pretty fatiguing to the eyes, and not very aesthetically pleasing in any case.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun: All the stuff about Win98, DirX 7.1 (running 8.0 incidently), motherboard etc dont add up because the problems have occured before my current set up. I always close all progarms in the back ground and often de-frag my RAM using RAM booster so I can free as much up as possible. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Might have it there - any program that screws with the ram state (ram boosters, defraggers, ect) are generally considered dangerous programs, and if you're having crash problems, thats probably the first thing I wold kill.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe: I'll repost this here: I think the major problem with the current modeling of MGs is they only fire at 1 squad at a time. From what I've seen/read/understand the MG's true strength lies in its ability to deney infantry movement to fairly large amounts of land. If any infantry don't show respect for siad MG and are brave enough to run around in front of it they will no doubt get reasonably cut up. Thus I think MGs in CM2 should be able to area target, as they can in CM, but with 1 major difference. The area target would have a 30-50 metre circle around it (like a TRP). Any and ALL infantry squads entering that cirlce would be subject to the MGs firepower at the same time, as if each was being directly targeted. This would in effect model the MG crew spraying an area 30-50 metres wide with multple bursts of fire. Perhaps the firepower rating of the MG would be slightly lowered in area target mode to account for the inaccurate nature of spray fire... but all squads in the area would be subject to supression from the MG AT THE SAME TIME WITH EACH AND EVERY BURST. Thats my idea to solve the issue... what do YOU think? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. I think this would be an adequate solution, and would seperate MGs in function from simply the high-ammo squads they are now. Although the benefit should probably only be given to the defender, or at least added benefit.

Playing with mud is for amateurs. Real grogs sit in mud while playing.

Re: ways of figuring out hull down. A simple an effective system I can think of, which I don't know if they use or not, is simply taking an LOS from the top (turret) of the tank. If its clear, check the bottom (hull), and if thats blocked, then you're hull down.

I was trying to contest your point.. I was just trying to say that you didn't answer the question that the original poster posed, exactly. In any case, overall, the effects of suppression, on a large scale, are realistic, but when analyzing things in more detail, things are completely abstracted at the squad level. Anyway, I was just trying to clarify the original point.

Mortars were, I think, mostly employed behind the lines as batteries. Not generally as on-board direct fire weapons. And so the tactics were different. Most mortar casualties were probably caused by offboard barrages over running infantry, as well as harassing bombardment, rather than actual mortars sitting on the battlefield, firing directly at infantry.

Mortars were, I think, mostly employed behind the lines as batteries. Not generally as on-board direct fire weapons. And so the tactics were different. Most mortar casualties were probably caused by offboard barrages over running infantry, as well as harassing bombardment, rather than actual mortars sitting on the battlefield, firing directly at infantry.

Experience is given extra firepower based on their better accuracy and such. The morale state effects the entire unit as a whole - I suppose you could abstractly say that it represents individual men panicking - but it affects the combined firepower, individual weapons don't "blink out".. You don't have a panicked LMG gunner causing the squad to lose its 40 (whatever) FP, you have an entire squad going to cautious, and perhaps, as a whole, losing 40 FP semiarbitrarily. The way the system works lowers firepower abstractly, and its effects can be said to represent individual indecisiveness.. but its not modelled as such, as far as I know.

As far as I can tell, CM only simulates morale states, and bases the suppression off of that. That leads to odd situations in which a panicked unit runs to the rear, and starts to recover, and becomes "pinned" despite not being anywhere near fire. It seems to work well enough.. but, I think it might be beneficial to have seperate morale states - If a vet unit comes under sudden heavy fire, their suppression state can go high - and they don't fire as often, but their morale stays high, too, and they're less likely to flee. As it is now, I think, their likliness to flee is tied inversely proportionally to their likliness to fire back, which isn't necesarily the case. So I'd like, for CM 2, to see a seperate state for morale and suppression. Thoughts?

He wasn't asking that - a platoon, in CM, can partially panic - but he was wondering if individuals in a squad panicked. In my observations, the squad either ALL fire, or no one fires. Theres no in between, and no account taken for the individual soldier. I suppose that abstraction is realistic enough at higher levels - because platoons will be partially effective, rather than squads - but at lower levels (platoon and company), that can create unrealistic situations.