CMplayer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gen. Sosaboski: A vet in the 80th Inf Div that I talked to said bazookas were the most efective way for infantry to do house to house fighting. Pour suppressive fire on the building, then get the bazooka team to fire at one of the walls or the window. End of problem most of the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why? Because the round penetrates the wall and explodes inside? Or does it break a hole in the wall, making it easier to shoot in rifle grenades? All or none of the above? --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Agua Perdido: So did I, but then I started thinking: was this really a fair test? 100 bazookas is something like three times as many points as a Sturmkompanie. A more even matchup would be a Sturmkompanie vs. 30 or 40 bazookas. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I should mention that the bazookas were on defence, so they were dug in. --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Agua Perdido: Would you mind terribly mailing me that scenario? I think we can use it in the Cesspool. Agua Perdido<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure no prob, I got my HD clogged with lots of stuff like that. You should meet my arty spotter friend, Lt. Mr. Boom. They could make a comic book about his adventures... --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by argie: Nope. The zooks were used against infantry. Most a gainst strong points.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks, I'll give my opponents your email if they think I'm gamey --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maastrictian: This is -- perhaps -- the funniest thing I have read all week, maybe all month. Thank you. --Chris<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You think it was funny to read, set it up and watch it...you won't be disappointed. --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: An unknown (Fog of War creaping in here) infantry unit within 200 meters of your AVF should be considered a credible threat, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That reminds me of the first time I played Chance Encounter on the demo. My stug kept targetting a zook at about 150 meters and I kept retargetting since I 'knew' from playing CC that a bazooka was useless at more than 80m. Next turn that stug was lit up by guess who. That was the first of many rough surprises... --Rett [ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

Well I set up a test. A regular German Sturmkompanie on a single tile open ground island. (Yes you can pack a whole Sturmkompanie into one tile). Surrounding them on all sides are 100 bazookas. Turn one, the bazookas begin area firing the island. The Germans knock out about 5 bazooka teams before being totally routed. A few more turns of this treatment and no one is left alive on the island. :eek: Try it yourself to see the 'cluster bomb' effect. Just be sure to give the Germans a few pillboxes pointing the wrong way to keep their global morale from flagging. Now a serious question. Is it okay in a battle if I let my bazookas burn off their ammo against infantry targets, once I think there won't be any more armor to fire at? 8c rounds can cause a casualty or two against guys in a building or woods, and might help make the difference between a win and a loss in a firefight. Am I going to P-off a historically minded opp deliberately using bazookas against infantry? regards, --Rett [ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Another Kodak moment: you plot an artillery barrage and draw 3 minute delay. The FO gets suppressed and the mission is cancelled with 15 secs on the clock. Back to 3 minute delay. Oh joy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Joy for the guys who were about to be on the receiving end of that serenade --Rett [ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: A search on "Dynamic Lighting" should fill you in on all the details. In a nutshell (going from my swiss cheese memory here), it's too much of a hit on the hardware, and requires a super fancy graphics card. Therefore the hardware requirements needed to do this were deemed too steep by BTS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It wouldn't be necessary to use dynamic lighting to implement this idea. Just greatly increase the spotability of units within x meters of a fire at night. --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Clinton: Bumpity Bump Bump! Just thought I would give it another go and see if anyone had any thoughts on this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Every single one of them is a good idea imo. (by way of a bump) --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Clinton: Bumpity Bump Bump! Just thought I would give it another go and see if anyone had any thoughts on this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Every single one of them is a good idea imo. (by way of a bump) --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kburns24: I would like to be able to select the turn time length before the game starts. Totally adjustable from 30 seconds to 2 minutes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You could even make the Russians plan 2 minutes at a time, while the Germans get to plan every 1 minute. Voila, the C&C issue is solved...? --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt Canuck: I recently met with a Veteran of Market Garden (6th Airborne)...he was a part of a ATG crew that was dropped south of the Rhine to support the Polish...He was English. So what I might do is have Polish Para...but have Britsh Para AT support. Dave<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There's no arguing with that. Now I wonder about British Airborne flamethrowers, in Sept. 44... --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Offwhite: But then you'd get complaints like "my Tiger stopped area firing to engage a Firefly moving on his flank, but when the Firefly went behind a house the Tiger rotated back to the original target. Five seconds later the Firefly emerges and kills my Tiger! They should have known he was coming out! BTS fix or do somefink!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you are using your vehicles to area fire buildings then it is your responsibility to provide for their security. Give the tiger a wingman and it should be okay. Also, at present target lines aren't immediately lost when a unit goes behind a building like you describe. I think that the point I bring up here is a serious shortcoming, and worth more consideration than the usual 'do sumfink' blow-off. --Rett

thanks for the answer!

Should I be unhiding HQ's so that their combat or morale bonuses take full effect. Also, if an HQ is pinned or otherwise rattled, does it continue exerting those bonuses? thx, --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht: Interestingly, in numerous accounts and psychological studies of combat, you read of training taking over during stress or panic situations, with soldiers acting in a machine-like manner, carrying out things they've practiced hundreds or thousands of time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This could justify a possible improvement to the game. On defence, a unit can be assigned a 'withdraw path' leading to a rally point. This way, if it has to run for it, it will be more likely to follow the natural cover, even if that means not running in a straight line for the nearest so called 'friendly' edge of the map. Since troops have _practiced_ moving rear via, say, the wooded gully, even if they panic, they might be more likely to go that way. I bring this up, because I have just, in a game, seen 'panicked' troops run straight up a hill, into LOS of an enemy REGIMENT, when they could have jogged 50m to the left first, in cover, to a wooded gully leading straight back to the MLR. The presence of that gully was the reason why their forward position was located where it was. To my mind, allowing HQ's to assign withdraw paths and rally points is both realistic, and would compensate for weaknesses in the TacAI. regards, --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertram: It can get even sillier. I had an M7 trying to hit an HMG in a house. The HMG got pinned, and the Priest lost sight of it. So they stopped shelling. Next turn I ordered them to area fire the building the MG was hidden in. They started, but then the HMG popped up. They targeted the MG instead of the building. Of course the MG took cover again, and the Priest stopped shelling. I had to manoeuvre the Priest somewhere where they could not see the MG to have them destroy the building, for each turn they would fire just one shell. Bertram<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BTS says that they want their game to be intuitive; it should be possible to play using 'real world' tactics and get realistic results. This silly feature of the TacAI is definitely detrimental to that goal. All it would take to fix this absurd behaviour is that area fire orders are remembered when a unit switches targets, and that after the threat subsides the shooter reverts to the original area fire order. I'm surprised BTS didn't do it like this from the get go. --Rett [ 07-02-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

I once played a scenario where an American company is completely surrounded at night. There was no friendly map edge. At the center of their position was company HQ in the only stone building in the area. Panicked units, BOTH GERMAN AND AMERICAN ran for that building. That means that panicking German attackers went into a kind of kamikaze suicide charge instead of moving away from the fighting. Also, prisoners assembled in that building, both German and American. It was quite funny to see captured Americans in the same stone building as their unsuppressed company commander. I think a good possible way to deal with this would be for HQ units to be able to designate rallying points for their platoons. Broken units would make for a covered rallying point, and the 'withdraw' command would work in the direction of the rallying point, instead of towards the friendly map edge as now. This wouldn't solve all problems, but it would help a lot, especially for making withdraw work better, when the axis of advance of a platoon has shifted to the side, as when they are rolling up a flank. --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Horncastle: I dont agree with the definition of panicking as meaning they are not thinking clearly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Support for your position is that panicked HMG units don't abandon their weapons to be able to run faster. They must still have it together enough to try to transport their equipment. --Rett

(double post deleted) [ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: So it's not completely unrealistic for a whole squad to be running away together. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting explanation, thanks. What about when they panic on a bridge and don't know which way to go? They run back and forth, laterally, on the bridge, instead of either running back to the friendly side, or trying to take cover where they're at. Have you ever seen this kind of headless chicken panic? Do you think it's possible that the code is inadequate in that case? It looks to me as though they are trying to run towards cover that is _off the bridge_ on adjacent, but inaccessible ground, and their 'panicky' movement vectors are getting set up wrong. But, of course, that is only a guess. --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I think this is dealt with rather well through the '!' once they have recovered. To me that means that they are just no longer cohesive, and the high losses once they panick and run to me mean that some guys just scuttle off in the 'wrong' direction. The red cross mark does include panicked soldiers, it is not just dead or wounded. And once they have panicked and are gone, why would you want to have them clutter the battlefield?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Makes sense. I guess you can think of the squad icon as 'where sarge went', but the men can be panicked quite a ways around that spot, or even be lagging behind shaking turds out of their pants legs or something. Though there is definitely a contradiction between such a level of abstraction of infantry, and drawing exact LOS in targetting. --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: That makes good sense, but the question is, when someone panics under fire, do they think rationally? The whole point of panicking in CM is that it makes the difference between taking cover and holding your ground, and just snapping and running away. Troops in good cover often panic and run away, because their instinct is to get away from danger. Instinct does not tell you the most sensible course of action when taken under fire by X number of troops bearing Y type of weapons from Z range. It tells you "danger, run away!".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In that case it's amazing how a whole squad of 12 guys panics, and runs screaming all together in the same incoherent direction. --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: CM-Player - David knows what you are thinking because you told him so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. He read a great deal into what I said, and incorrectly.