CMplayer

By any chance was that a crack or elite crew? After all, they acquire targets faster, which can be a handicap if they don't bother to shoot before switching target. --Rett

Here are some possible ideas for how urban campaigns could work, to enable really kicka** games: 1) Calculate setup zones on a tile by tile basis between games. This way every inch of ground, and every building taken during the game is retained. Also 'checkered' positions can arise which is very realistic in urban terrain. 2) For resupply and reinforcement of an area, demand that a friendly tile be able to trace a route through friendly tiles back to the main line (which can still be determined in the old way). This way you get isolated pockets of troops, who might not even get their ammo replenished. This would also increase the number of sub-goals you could have in an op. For instance, you could fight a night battle for the sole purpose of linking up to an isolated pocket of troops to reinforce them. This would also make night infilitration very interesting, since you would be sure of still being in whatever forward position you might have been able to sneak up to at night. I think the result of these changes would be a much more dynamic and exciting campaign system for urban play, something which is necessary if CM2 is going to model Stalingrad, for instance. regards, --Rett [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 02-28-2001).]

I still have some games going in version 1.1, but I saw in the readme for the latest patch that certain issues regarding targetting in multitarget environments had been tweaked. What I'm wondering is whether the following extremely silly/buggy/codelimitation/ ahistorical behaviour has been fixed: The 'vet' crew of a 75mm infantry gun is ordered to target an enemy squad in a stone building. They fire one shot, causing a casualty. Then they get distracted by infantry running, at about 220 meters distance, _laterally_ to the gun position. They take time to swing the gun around, try to target the infantry, fire and miss, of course, because they don't seem to lead a moving target, then see another squad doing the same thing, start swinging the gun around etc. Such guns are short lived items on the battlefield, and the crew was directly ordered to pump everything they had into the squad in that stone building, in order to try to have some effect before the mortar shells start raining down. Instead they wasted a lot of time rotating the gun, to try to shoot at things they couldn't hit anyway, and which were in the process of moving out of LOS of the gun anyway. Seeing these sorts of behaviors makes me start to think that CM is mostly flash and veneer, but very little real content. This is natural for a pioneering work, which I consider the game to be. Certainly the tac AI appears as very slipshod affair. Of course you could say I should have put the gun in a keyholed position so that it wouldn't get 'confused' by so many targets. But a good game should allow its units to function well even if they end up in a pressed situation. In particular, the armor rules in CM have a huge contradiction in them, which I have mentioned before, between: 1) the player having to micromanage armor's movement to the point of having to try to guess how far up the slope to drive to get hull down, and 2) the tac AI controlling targetting, without having any sense of where moving targets are going, and how long it will take to swing the turret around. The result of handing detailed responsiblity for movement to the player, and not allowing corresponding targetting control is tanks working at crosspurposes to themselves, such as advancing through smoke towards enemy armor with their turret facing backwards to engage some infantry target. Basically, I have two opponents: the other guy and the tac AI, which infiltrates my units and makes them schizophrenic. Something similar also seems to have happened to my 75mm cannon. They don't have the big picture, but I do. They missapraise threats, and don't grasp the importance of shooting off as much ammo as possible at _any_ decent target, as fast as possible, rather than wasting time rotating to engage something that they a)can't hit, and will be out of line of sight a few seconds after the target is acquired anyway and c) will be taken care of by my MG's and infantry. So in this situation as well, the poor targetting AI ought to be overridable with the following SIMPLE AND ELEGANT command. -- When you target, it should be possible to choose _level of urgency_. Even just two levels: normal, which you use most of the time, and urgent, which makes it much less likely that the unit will shift targets. Urgent should definitely be used sparingly. It corresponds to the officer giving the order shouting at the crew that they will bring that building down come hell or high water, with some Patton style cussing etc. Allowing certain orders to be modulable between normal, and urgent would be both realistic, and introduce a bit of extra control at times when you might need it. Of course, if all this has been fixed in the latest patch, nevermind. Actually I hope these issues are in for serious rethinking for CM2, and that we aren't going to just get the same engine with a new paint job. regards, --Rett [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 02-28-2001).] [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 02-28-2001).] [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 02-28-2001).]

Yes I've run across this. Weird bug. Haven't seen it yet with 1.1 though. regards, --Rett

Convoy movement definitely has to be in CM2. At present, the results can be pretty difficult to predict when moving vehicles in a column. regards, --Rett

I just wish my MG's wouldn't keep switching targets from the hot firefight at hand to shoot at a mortar team 600 meters away which is walking off the battlefield, or an HMG at the same long range which can't do any more damage to them than the squat they are doing to it. regards, --Rett [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 02-19-2001).]

thanks big ron and jarmo!

But there really, really should be.

The arguments posted here are only discussing half of the argument. You might think that an AT gun firing off its AP ammo at advancing infantry is stupid, however, since the Infantry are seen as a direct threat, wouldn't it be stupid to just ignore them? Try reading what I wrote, and then taking time to understand it before responding. Also, try understanding the game mechanics as well. 1- the infantry was not advancing on the gun, and was certainly not a direct threat to it, at 500 meters. 2- 57mm AP ammo has no effect on infantry, except in the extremely rare case where a shell actually takes someone's head off. AP ammo _must_ be save for armored targets, period. There are many ways in which you can get your units to fire when your enemy are close, or when your enemy is passing you by. Just like the example above, you could creatively turn your troops, hide them, limit their LOS so that they could only fire at close units anyway. Those were interesting suggestions, but they are very strained and unnatural techniques. BTS's express goal is to create a wargaming environment with a natural feel. 'just try things that would work in real life'. Rotating guys away 180 degrees in order to affect the timing so that you can let the lead element pass the kill zone, does not fit the bill (that said, I may try it). Tampering with commands, giving them more detail, will detract from the model that BTS created for each individual unit. Umm, BTS created the commands and the model. It is _all_ a result of tampering. As things are now, it is far from ideal. Combat Mission is a pioneering game, no doubt about that, but there are about 1,000,000 unsatisfactory things about it. There is no way it could be otherwise. That is why we point out suggestions and observations. It doesn't mean that we don't think they have done a fantastic job in the time frame they have had to work. Each individual unit's priority is to survive. If they deem firing at long range is better than waiting until the enemy is close, it is their choice. Ever heard that phrase 'don't fire till you see the whites of their eyes!' Battle of Bunker hill. The American commander specifically dictated an engagement range to his troops. This is completely standard practice. If the troops f*** it up, fine, that can be a realistic simulation. But it ought to be at least possible to give the order. If firing AP at charging Infantry is seen as a good idea, then it is their choice. What if that AT gun didn't fire that AP? Maybe it would have made the entire situation much worse? Possibly your troops couldn't hold the front without the extra disruption? Maybe they would have collapsed more completely, or faster? Possibly the Ambush was just not set up correctly?

woops, replied instead of editing [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 02-16-2001).]

I disagree. It's not too hard to notice a tank at about the 75-100 meters that a zook's ambush marker would be at, regardless of whether it takes a left around the buildings, or a right around the buildings. In practice, in CM, ambush markers are often used against units which are already spotted, and known to be moving towards the marker. The point of laying out the ambush marker is just to set the range at which the unit opens fire. This is not the same thing as waiting all day for some enemy to maybe show up. Suppose we imagine an equilateral triangle, with sides 100 meters long. At one corner is the hidden zook team. At the two other corners are ambush markers. Between the ambush markers is forest, and on the other side of the forest is a tank. The angle between the two ambush markers is 60 degrees. Do you think it is unreasonable for the zook team to observe both points? Suppose a zook team is in a long but narrow stretch of forest with LOS out of both sides into open ground. Would it be unreasonable for the two man team to observe tanks at 100 meters in the open ground on both sides of the strip of trees they are in? Then you would have two ambush markers at a full 180 degrees from each other. Still it seems quite reasonable to me. These are the kinds of practical situation where I would like to be able to target multiple ambush markers. Especially if the alternatives are to either: 1- simply unhide the AT team and watch in horror as they open up at 200 meters an manage to shoot off two misses before getting cut to pieces, or 2- target one ambush marker and have the tank maybe go the 'other' way, which they then ignore for the 10 seconds while they have a flank shot at 80 meters. regards, --Rett [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 02-16-2001).]

No of course not. It should be possible to order to zook team to hold fire and remain hidden until a certain range. This is basically like setting out an ambush marker, except that in some positions, like you point out, the enemy armor might appear from several different points. HERE IS AN ELEGANT SOLUTION: Why not let units target SEVERAL ambush markers at the same time? This would provide lots more flexibility, solve a lot of the problems which otherwise would require SOPs, and above all, do it within the confines of the existing game engine's stock features. regards, --Rett

I'm not sure about that. I recently decided to try to surpress an HMG team in woods with fire from lots of 30 cals and BARs. At the rather long range, I added up all the 'firepower 20', 'firepower 30' etc and thought WOW! 160 firepower. This ought to get them to duck. (It was coming from many angles as well). But I watched that HMG for the whole movie and they never ducked. All those separate 20-30 FP bursts coming in didn't as much as touch them, and there didn't seem to be any kind of cumulative effect. I'd be really interested in knowing how this sort of thing actually works in the game engine. regards, --Rett

Definitely would not use sneak there. Just run them up to slightly flank the enemy squad on both sides. Since the enemy is occupied with your lead squad, you can just plunk them right into their firing position. Then let your trailing platoon guard your engaged platoon's flanks. If you were worried about hidden enemy squads, then do the same maneuver but set up flank security first. You could try switching from run to move _just_ before you, for instance, enter a building. This increases their spotting ability. For close combat, remember that they can be in close combat at 30 meters which is a tile and a half. What I would really recommend, which unfortunately doesn't answer your question, is putting down a _lot_ of suppressive fire before charging a squad of infantry. Even one single unsupressed squad, especially when dug in, can chew up a whole platoon of attackers at short range, if it is in C&C of a really good HQ and/or of High quality. regards, --Rett [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 02-15-2001).]

and could someone please tell me how to do it on a mac? --Rett

Just because I use an ambush marker, doesn't mean that, tactically speaking, I have set up an 'ambush' position, in the sense of waiting around and hoping the enemy stumbles onto me. If I have already observed the enemy forces moving towards an area, I often toss out an ambush marker to try to prevent my men from opening fire too early. It would be excellent to be able to give more detailed targetting orders, and using the ambush marker is one way to do that within the present game engine. Let me provide another example. I recently had a 57mm AT gun target an infantry squad. The enemy squad was putting the heat on some of my boys who I really wanted to keep alive, so I wanted to try to get some suppression. This 57mm gun burned off its three remaining HE rounds, and then continued at its high rate of fire to shoot precious AP rounds at the enemy. That is a stupid behavior, and in a good game, such things will eventually be ironed out in later versions. So if targetting orders could optionally pop up another menu with SOP type orders, in this case 'use HE only', we could give much better orders to our units. And this is _not_ micromanaging. I have rarely ever read about an ambush being solely devised to take out one form of military formation, with being incapable of countering other types. Sure, but if I want to be able to ambush whatever might come through an area I can give one ambush marker to the LMG's with the SOP 'target infantry only', one marker to the 50 cals, 'target infantry or soft skinned vehicles' and one to the AT gun, 'target heavy armored vehicles only'. The point is, the choice is up to the player. Again, this is not micro-management, it is just a way to get the virtual soldiers to behave like they've had some training. regards, --Rett [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 02-15-2001).]

Interesting idea. This is worth some heavy testing. Not to complain about it, but rather to learn which tactics to use in which situations. Some gaminess is inherent in all games, after all. regards, --Rett

Yes, and while you're at it, 'ambush infantry only' and 'ambush armor only' would be good. In fact, even 'ambush armor but ignore halftracks' would be good. In short, SOP's. regards, --Rett

Nice one!

Interesting indeed. Thanks for taking the time to describe your tactical approach in that game, and the results you achieved. regards, --Rett

This happens to me, but only in audio mode. I put a plate in the sink and here that sickening 'armor penetration' clink, roll over in bed and the sound of the sheets is some far off firing.

I dunno, but I'd wear safety glasses if performing the experiment. [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 02-12-2001).]

Check whether those Halftracks were equipped with garbage-can lids. Later models had nimble Russian POWs holding tin shields which they could deflect grenades with. It was a popular way for prisoners to get into a better rations bracket. Look in the unit stats, below the armor values. Doesn't anyone read the manual anymore????????? regards, --Rett

I like tricks. Keep 'em coming. Here's one. If you're moving infantry across open ground at long range, split all the squads. With FOW it can make the opp think you have a lot more infantry there than you really do. Then rejoin them again as you get to cover. If the opp is busy counting points to try to figure out the size of your hidden reserve, this can throw him off. regards, --Rett

Thanks for the info. I remember seeing in the manual that split squads are slightly penalized in terms of performance(i.e. the rout more easily or aren't as effective at getting various combat chores done). Do you or anyone else know exactly how much they are penalized, and exactly what the penalties affect? thanks, --Rett