The_Capt

Oh he's gotten better. I think he's been chained to the game for the last 6 mos. You could also try the Rugged Defence Ladder but TH is the best in town. You can link into the chat room from the main page. They also have the Combined Arms League Ladder if you like realistic play.

Excellent suggestion Spook. I'd happily hand over my .cmb file so that they or anyone can try the same test. I am running the test with Armour right now and I can tell the results are also very poor in terms of stopping power. It is my estimate that the MG Pillbox will yield the highest cas rates, which it should.

Major, Abstractions are well understood it is the casualty rates which tell the story. First of all if the troops are firing and moving than they are not going to cover 100ms in 30 secs or so (I timed it). Maybe three times as long. So the boys are moving like they are in a full out jog in full gear, not hitting the ground and getting back up. The grouping of squads in Heuy, Dewey and Louey is very abstract. If someone is cowering than the squad should take a casuality..a psychological casuality. Or you are going to have a squad spread out over 100ms. Dispersion, which is a key to countering both Arty and MG fire is abstracted but by how much? Based on the casualty rates I see, a little too much. A good deal of those cas were in the squads which were NE not in addition too. So you cannot add 28% and 28% to get 56%. I agree that some people won the CMOH by charging MGs but what I have seen is a Coy win the medal 10 times with about 60-70% of it's force intact at the end. This is running between 2 MG Pillboxes, firing a total of 6 MGs, at less than 200ms!! "Quiet a loss for 90 seconds work"?! 6 MG 42s firing from defilade on troops over open (even with a few dips and stumps)!! I am sorry but there is more than "a few finer points" which need to be addressed here. You would be lucky to get 25% of a force thru and in reality probably 0%. Now maybe the problem is with pillboxes but HMGs just gave lower numbers.

I think we should pool resources throughout the forum, (a la the Wine Tourneys) and offer the collective wealth to Steve and Charles as an Early Completion Bonus. They have to finish the game by X-mas at which time we'll hand over the loot. Or in the event one of them should expire due to blood loose via the fingers or dehydration than their wives/girlfriends/Moms will receive the bonus. I will start: I will pledge a bottle of Newfie Screech and three Cod fillets.

Now there is another thread topic right there. How does CM compare to other wargames wrt realism. I too would like to see some hard stats on the improvements/changes in CMBB. Of course a demo would answer a lot of questions

Just don't play VS here cause he is always looking for the next victim.

OK to respond to a couple of people. Paulus, I set it up so that the Coy comes under fire from two defilade positions for about 45 secs. The first 45 were just getting from the Start Line to coming under fire. I put the Pill boxes on the back side of two facing clumps of trees about 140m apart and ran the troops between them. The coy was under fire for between 45 and 30 seconds. If your guys were under fire for the full 90 it may explain why your results are much higher. And may infact be a good insight into sighting of MG in order for them to work in CM. How did you set up. Vanir Ausif, It has been said that the first two points will be in CM2 but that is like saying "it is in the Bible". I was wondering if anybody has heard anything more specific on the subject. Group morale is portrayed by global but morale and it's effects are much more complex than that. Sub-units will suffer varying morale effects based on what is happening. One Platoon could be pinned but it may cause the whole Coy to react. Or the same but at a smaller scale for squads. Again, no idea what that will do to the game but it is just a thought. Monty, Whoa there partner!! I would be careful in calling CM "Wargaming Lite" in these parts. Could get you tarred and feathered. Hate to say it but I agree with your statement. The game does sacrifice realism for playability. It is a question of degree. I think a "user adjustable" realism option would do a lot to address this but again I have no idea what that would take to do, so I won't stomp my feet to loudly for it. A good question though...is CM a light or dark wargame. I get the feeling it is a light amber but many would violently disagree and call it Black Bitter. One thing we can agree on is that it is fun.

I think there are three more factors a) Rate of fire. It is situational and a "rapid rate" is needed. Beaten zone. Or "grazing fire". This allows the effectivness to be distributed (like in real life) over an oval shaped area. c) Group suppression. If squad A sees squad B getting cut to pieces, they are going to hit the dirt and stay there. As will C,D and F. Because the aren't suicidal. I used Vet infantry and Regular Pillboxes. Vets are readily available and used quite often in the game. I will try with Regular to see the difference. It should effet NE units but I don't expect a difference in casualty numbers. I know of no studies done so I am comparing result to my own training, military history reading and personal experience. I doubt any evidence is available but in my opinion "something ain't right". As to "dead ground" or cover in open terrain. I understand that abstract but then troops should be hitting that cover and staying there, instead they gleefully sprint thru the MG fields of fire with stopping. As to "alternate bounds" or "pepper-potting" as we call it. Well 150m in 90 seconds in full gear is just plain silly. I think, as it has been mentioned, that the running speed of troops is going to be re-tooled in CMBB and with good reason. I would really like to see a "beaten zone" from the MGs so that their fire could effect multiple units over a wide area and not one squad at a time. The same goes for squads. The nature of CMBO is chesslike with an alomost 1 for 1 force ration needed when in real life it is 3 to 1. IE one squad should take up the time and effort of a platoon.

OK first of all I know this has been covered before and that the boys are looking at the problem for CMBB. But I thought that I would run a test or two just to see the situation myself. I set up a defile of open ground about 140m wide. Then I took a 44 Vet Rifle Coy (minus support stuff), so 9 squads, 3 Pl HQs and 1 Coy HQ and ran them thru the defile towards a flag. On Opposites sides of the strip of open ground I posted to MG Pillboxes (3 MGs each according to unit stats). So from my experience and readings I have done on WWI, unsupported infantry should not be able to get thru that defile to the flag without horrendous casualties, if at all. I mean we are talking 6 MGs spraying a 140m piece of open ground unsuppressed in broad daylight. So I ran a 90 second test run, 10 times to get averages. The results: # cas and NE (Non effective units, ie went dead, red or ! during the 90 sec) 1. 25 cas 2 NE 2. 40 cas 2 NE 3. 31 cas 4 NE 4. 39 cas 7 NE 5. 23 cas 3 NE 6. 40 cas 6 NE 7. 63 cas 5 NE 8. 32 cas 3 NE 9. 34 cas 2 NE 10. 37 cas 3 NE Average casualties: 36.4 Average NE: 3.7 Avg % casualties: 28.8% Avg % NE: 28.5% I ran the test with HMGs, the numbers were much lower so I stuck with the worst case, which is 2 MG Pillboxes. I personally think these numbers are very low compared to reality. I think they have made CMBO an "infantry heavy" game. I am going to run tests with armour to see what the averages are but my guess is they will be in the same neighborhood. There is no doubt in my professional military mind that a company would take much higher casualties in the above situation. At least twice as many if not more. I think this is one of the most unrealistic elements of CM. But as I said before the boys are addressing the issue. I would be happy to hear how and if we can expect to see more realistic MG performance in CM2.

Wow good question! Without having tested it my gut feel from experience is that higher calibre have larger footprints. On board mortars tightly sighted will give a very tight footprint while 7.2 inch guns are much larger. That is a short answer but I think some teating is required here.

From my experience the pattern or "footprint" has to do with from which side of the board you own at game start. The oval always seems to point perpendicular to my "side". So if I start a game on the East or West side the footprint runs E-W. North-South do the same thing. It makes sense if you think of your guns/mortars being behind you.

Two things: Spec Arty and lots of it Infantry, you can never have enough. Leave the tanks at home, they are sitting ducks to AT teams.

I have to concur with the observation by the good Col, the main guns are not used enough. I am sorry, I have seen tanks in live fire and if you get a bunch firing at a localized area, infantry are going to go to ground. If you get a Sqn or 14-16, which is what current armoured doctrine calls for (based a lot of course from lessons in WWII) the amount of direct AP and AT firepower which can be laid down is staggering. So a single tank may not be able to stop an assault with HE but a troop sure as hell could.

No what people should take away is "where" not to present an arguement. I'll take that point, I obviously dropped the idea into the middle of an old debate and it got lost in the static. What I will take away from this is a good line I heard somewhere. "A person is smart, people are stupid". An otherwise intelligent human being can become extremely narrow and stunted when dropped into a mob. I take issue with the "mob mentality" shown here and I also think there is not a lot I can do about it. Only to say that it stifles new ideas. I wouldn't be surprised (and as someone mentioned did) had the idea of "we-go" been presented on an old-fashion turn based wargame forum, a mob would have formed with a bunch of seemingly good arguements as to why it shouldn't be made. I think this forum has become that which it has despised and the Veterans want to stay that way. It has become a personal club to some and that is counter-productive. Now that is my last on this, because I am getting the feeling I am raging at windmills here. One can only point out a problem to those who are willing to see it.

And he just couldn't let it go. Steve, I don't know about anybody else but I think the frustration on my part raged over the "stomping on ideas" without even considering the idea being put forward. You say "RTS" and the blinders go up and the rhetoric comes out. What I was suggesting didn't even resemble Dune or the other bushel of RTS games. I was speaking about modeling CCC realistically. And was trying to open a discussion on it. But that was pretty much immpossible. I think one person read what I had to say while the rest just made noise. I can tell you it was very dissappointing to see the blind bullying which resulted. BTS position is clear, which is fine by me. You guys have a good product and are sticking to it. Now someone else can try if they choose. And perhaps I should have moved my comments to the General Forum. I only post this because I think this thread has ended on a note which encourages this type of behaviour in the future. I saw a lot of backpatting and "we told ya so". There is nothing to be proud here IMO. Where is this forum going if the tone is "nothing new here" and "tow the party line". Now I'll admit to stirring things up and probably sparking a lot but the "blind party line" was pretty bad. Anyway last word from me.

Ok last one and then I will attempt to get on with my life. Slapdragon, please read my post. I mean if we are going to flame each other, it will give a common ground at from which to hurl matches from. I did read yours and perhaps my sarcastic response sailed over some heads and died out beyond the wire. So for the last time: I do not exect BTS to "drop everything" in favour of an RTS. I was and still am simply suggesting a "new idea" about CM in real time. Yes it is quite a departure from the current game but I think it has merit. Please do not keep grouping me in with this "RTS group" of which you keep mentioning. I have no idea of whom you are talking. I was offering an idea, one which no one has really given a good reason why it wouldn't work, especially as on online multiplayer game. BTS took a chance on CM, they have admitted that it is far more successful than they could have hoped. It was a solid idea by gamer for gamers. I am suggesting something similar. It you think the twitch RTS crowd will go for a game in which the sound of gunfire may be the best indication that a sub-unit has come under contact, I thinkyou are mistaken. Whilst, hard core wargamers may find it challenging. Someone mentioned that it should be done from a map because that is what commanders saw. Not true, I belive Bn COs could see 3D terrain and didn't stay in the CP the entire time. 3D terrain is wondeful, you can sight positions and do actual terrain analysis. Hell one of the scenarios which came with the CD suggested that you stick in the position of the Coy Comd or "look over his shoulder" for a real challenge. Realism is what we are aiming for. Without the blood of course. I find it funny that discussions will rage on as to how many mm of face hardened steel a German 50mm AP round will penetrate taking wind resistance and altitude into account but when I suggest as "type of CM" which would portray the CCC issues in a far more realistic manner the knives come out. Very odd by my mind, because CCC is far more important to tactics and planning than all of the nuts and bolts stuff. I don't know, I am a professional military man and maybe that is just how I see it. Anyway there it is, now someone can "do a search" and find my idea and argue with you Mr Slapdragon all over again in a few months.

I am not sure why it turns into a flame war. I think it has to do with strong loyalty to the current game. I am afraid it has turned into a fear of anything new. Hell guys I really like this game to and never expect BTS to deviate too far from it. It doesn't mean I cannot entertain new ideas and suggestions. I cannot figure out why this topic raises such ire. Sad really, it is just a game. As to the Search Engine, I am sorry I have given up on the thing. Way too slow and often I can't find the topics. I guess I am too "twitchy". The search engine should not discourage new discussion anyway. Saying "it's in the Search Engine" is like saying "it's in the Bible" uh thanks but maybe I'll just post. Hell a whole new group might want to pick it up and talk about it. I have never been involved in a RTS discussion that I recall and now I can put in my idea. If BTS et al don't like then don't. We can even discuss rationally why but when cranky old posters come out swinging like this is their personal club, it does get my back up.

And now for Mr Slapdragon, I have no Admin tag, it would say Admin next to my handle if I was. But you can tell I am a well mannered gentleman by the fact that I don't come crawling out of the woodwork and screech every time a newbie posts something which has been covered before, like they were tap dancing in my new born babe. In an effort to educate I was trying to point out that people who do this are no better than bullies. They lack the ability to enter into constructive discussion so they bluster and throw old arguments at people. Oh ya and tell them "to do a search". As to the topic, well it is your opinion that it is poorly supported and a waste of time. Thank you I got that on page one but please feel free to re-state it an slam anybody who says otherwise. It is a free board after all. At no point am I slamming BTS or demanding a response. That would, like slamming any idea, be entirely rude. It is an idea with merit if done properly. And I for one am interested in discussing it. If you find that offensive please move along to something with more substance..like the Peng threads. I am not pro RTS, I hate the things in fact. But what I am proposing is not RTS in the classical sense. It would require new tactics and methodology as well as enhance the current aspects of the game towards something truly realistic. Again, I guess the marketing study has been done. Lord knows wargamers would never want something even more realistic. Something which models loss of communication and control. Whoops, someone had better give the boys a heads up cause they are trying some naughty stuff in CM2 which may just be teetering on the insane. I am sure finacial ruin, selling organs for cheap wine and dumpster cuisine will follow. Ah yes, well somehow Mr Slapdragons thumb on the pulse of what wargamers want and how best to use the BTS resources lie within his sole opinion. I have not seen one marketing questionaire on this board and as a customer have yet to receive one in the mail. Sniff, I do feel left out. I guess I am the only one who is making a hypothesis and Mr Slapdragon has iron clad numbers and documentation to support his "no one will buy it claim". If that is so I do retract my statement. You are absolutly correct no modern military training Officers and NCOs in the e-battlefield would want an of the shelf product which could do it for them. I guess the effort and money spent so far would not give that indication. The fact that I, as a unit CO would buy a dozen copies also seems to be irrevelant. Oh wait I know at least three other COs who would do the same...nevermind I am sure we are all the exception. Ah and thank you for that enlightening view of "the business". So I guess that no one else out there could ever try and muscle into this "niche business". Perhaps the exceptional profits of one small company are enough to deter it. New ideas would be bad, in order to stay ahead they should be crushed. Oh and finally I am sorry, I hadn't realised that "the boys" had dropped everything to chase after my rainbow. I mean I should have, I posted it on this forum and they normally "jump to" the second it lands here. I did not mean to delay CM2 for the month I am sure my posts have costs the company. Please tell them to return to CM2 because my idea is just that an idea. Not a demand or threat. I guess almost everyone out there must be running with it...wait if everyone here chases after my idea it will spread and bring the downfall of Western Civilization...what if Bill Gates gets his hands on it! Oh wait let's not get silly. I had not realized that original thought could be so dangerous, yes we will stop at once. Now let's all discuss how perfect CM is and how "the boys" should keep churning out the same game for the next 25 yrs and keep the greenbacks rolling in.

Dispite yourself Jeff you are an enlightened soul. Kinda like sending Russian troops into the sewer at Stalingrad and maybe having them not come out. Or Russian armour where you give orders and then say bye-bye because they didn't have radios. Wow scary. Sounds like CM2 don't it. Good point on it being a different game. Yes it would but it could still have the detail and 3D of CM. Now let's get one thing straight. This is not a BTS bashing idea or "if they don't do it I'll hold my breath.." It is just an idea. If you don't like it..fine, come up with something else.

OK that had the effect I expected. The zealots are all worked up into a nice lather now. So a couple of things to address the responses. 1) Unless there is an "Admin" next to your handle, you have absolutley no right to tell anybody else to pipe down and shut up. I don't care if the topic has been done to death, ressurected, stuffed and placed on the mantlepiece. Admin has allowed this thread to go 4 pages, so if you want to whine about it's content, go to him. I again re-itterate that the purpose of the forum is the presentation and querying of and for new ideas. It is designed for constructive disscussion about a topic and any and all who are willing to interject are free to do so in a mature manner. Now if you think that this topic is stale and not worth your time..MOVE ALONG. Jumping on people and ideas is equivalent to bullying. It intimidates newbies and generally discourages discussion. Did I miss something here? Are there people out there paying for the space on the forum other than BTS. Now I know there are no shareholders so maybe they have other stake in the company and don't want to see server funds wasted. Anyway, if you don't like the topic do us all a favour and don't read the freakin thing. 2) No as to the real time "booger-man". I am a little startled at the creative constipation I see here. This entire game in it's current form was a long shot. I am pretty sure that a 250k marketing study didn't precede it's creation. Hence to spout off that item A,B or C is a waste of time because no one will play it(small company and limited funds for development, blah, blah, blah), without supporting evidence is a waste of space, re my first point and I did stop reading. Now to the heart of the issue Real Time. Oh and thank you for pointing out that screaming and blood are part of warfare, I got that T-shirt already and the PTSD to prove it. I guess somehow getting the turret speed of the Panther depending on engine RPM was enough realism but "real time" is just too much. In order for Real Time to work (and I am sorry for not making this clear in my first post) one would have to lose control of the troops. "What..!!?? In the name of all that is holy!! Get my tar and feather kit!!" Oh ya they are screaming now. OK hear me out. In order to make decisions in real time at the Bn level one has to have the same level of control as a Bn CO in real time. Bn COs do not say "number 4 rifleman move up", well the good ones at least. They do not sight each MG. The give concept and orders to subunits who then carry them out. A multiplayer version (and is being tried out there already) would work very well in doing this, as all you would see and command is what your sub-units are doing but not with anywhere as much detail as you get now. So there would be no twitching or speed clicking. You may tell a platoon to advance up a hill and a Sp unit to set up a FB over there. The AI (or human player) will do the details. Now I realise the "realistic" loss of control may not appeal to the more "anal" player and for them a "turn based" option should be available. OK I know there are going to be problems. "AI can't handle it"..."Coding problems". But it would produce a game which best represents RL, if that is what one is looking for. The uncertainty of what is going on and trying to impose control would be very interesting. Troop quality would take on a whole new value. Oh and I think more than one military in the world may be interested if it was good enough. I realise that the US military is a small market with limited funds but you may just sell a few. Now it is an idea, if you have something to add please do. If you think it won't work, please come up with something other than "well BTS said" and "in previous threads". Not everybody here was there and the Search Engine sucks. So topics are bound to pop up again and again. BUT different people may participate, who knows someone might come up with an idea which turns to gold. It costs nothing but could pay off. Seems like good business to me.

Oh what the hell, let's stir up some sh@t!! I find it very strange that for an enlightened, hardcore gaming community, the thought of "real time" should have everyone running for pitchforks and torches. Got a newsflash for you guys, "real combat" is in "real time". I think the problem here is that everyone doesn't want to see CM become another C&C clone and lose it's "je ne sais quoi" edge. And become a twitchfest, complete with rushing hordes, resource management and German Strumgruppe factories. Well I think blind fear of change is counter-productive, kinda like the Republican Party (whoops who wrote that!?). I think a CM built on reality of combat would be a lot of fun. One could make a plan on a map or even in the game and then let it go. Your influence as a comander would be much less and you would lose a lot of control. Virtual sighting has been discussed which could be built upon here to include "out of touch" units acting on their own, without the commander even knowing where they are. I think it would be very challenging to make a plan and then have very limited control. The only thing you would have direct control over is Arty and your Reserve. If I have one complaint about the game (well ok one of two) it is that CM is a little to controlled and more like chess than the real thing. Real combat is chaotic and confusing because FOW not only applies to the enemy but your own people too. Now roll in multiplayer potential. You could command a platoon within a Bn. Be given orders and then go out and do your job. You may be out of contact with Bn HQ or even Coy at times and you would have no idea of what is happening on the other side of the battlefield. Except for gunfire and sounds of action. Now we are talking. A truly enlightened designer would have both options available. And I might add that if BTS doesn't do it someone else eventually will. Computers may not be ready yet but in an industry which measures Eras in 5yrs or less, we can expect the hardware will be ready soon. Now as to the "zealots" who are right now on their knees with CM manual in hand muttering " The way of CM is "we go"...we do not appeal to the twitch crowd..Our Charles who art in (where are these guys anyway?) bless thy fingers to encoding and keep corporate suits far from us". Just settle, it is a free board and we are allowed to speak our minds so long as it stays within the guidelines laid out by Admin. The day that BTS or anybody else stifles this board is the day the "ideas stop" and the countdown to someone else doing it better begins. So let's dare to dream and put the pitchforks down.

dalem, Again too simplistic. Every soldier in existance is going to duck when fired upon, regardless of the weapon used. The question is how long is he going to stay "Ducked". Or suppressed. It is a gross simplification to say all soldiers fired upon by any weapon are going to hide behind a wall and not move until firing stops. Once the initial "duck" is done if no bullets are punching thru your cover, you begin to plan on how to actually get out of the situation via killing the other guy (ie shooting back, getting a gernade, calling arty). If bullets are tearing thru the cover you have selected, these coherent thoughts have a much harder time in forming because you are too worried about having large holes blown in your soft person. We call it "Combat Shock" which has differing degrees of severity depending on exposure and level of experience of the troops. For example: Green troops are actually less likely to go into shock because the experience is "unreal", after they get bloodied their reaction becomes more sane. So my question still stands: how deeply into the supression/cover/experience question did BTS go and could this not warrant a re-vist as to the effectivness of the all powerful SMG.

No argument there but in the scope of CM a quick and hasty command arrangement can be done. Which though not perfect is better than isolated squads moving around without direction. This cna happen at the platoon level and not just coy and Bn.

How about the question of Cover. If I am in a gun fight with an SMG squad and bullets are not penetrating the tree/wall I am behind, I would think to be under far less surpression than if .303 rounds are flying thru either. Again this is tied to troop quality and experience. Was this all tied in as well? I think there is more to the Firepower question than meets the eye (as I am sure the developers have figured out, so exuce me for being slow). Do SMGs suffer a greater penalty for cover and experienced troops on the receiving end than weapons of larger calibre? If the answer is "Yes" than not only am I really impressed but it would negate the SMG issue to a great extent. If it is "No", I would ask why not and wouldn't that balance out the uberSMG issue?

I think that it might be better to tone down the "firepower" of the current SMGs. The term "firepower" is deceptive. Yes the SMG can put out a hell of a lot of BBs but there is more to it than that. Penetration, stopping power and accuracy to name a few. The SMG was and is a sloppy weapon. The 9mm round is a low powered slug which won't punch thru a car door or a tree, let alone a brick wall. A .303 rifle will do much more but a lower rate of fire. Correct me if I am wrong but I can't remember if BTS actually went this far in modeling small arms. Either way I think a lessing of SMGs value may be in order rather than escalate the SMG race.