CMplayer

I'm bumping my question of a few days ago since a similar discussion has come up on another thread. Hope someone has some input on my question. --Rett

What a great idea. Thanks! regards, --Rett

What I'd like to see is the option to make the map 'wide front' or 'narrow front'. Also, if you could choose the relative depths of the set up zones it would be excellent. Defending with a battalion, two companies up, one back, I would like a great deal more depth than what the QB map allows. regards, --Rett

That should read below 15% AND you will not be receiving reinforcements. regards, --Rett

I asked about this a while back and didn't get any answers. BTS seems to like to keep a lot of things a secret, to maintain the 'mystique' of the game or something like that. regards, --Rett

I'm interested in learning about practical recon, within the context of the CM engine. So I have been playing some quick battles against the AI where I take fast motorized forces and simply try to locate and identify as much of the enemy as possibly. Of course I then have to set my own personal victory conditions and not worry about what the after action screen says. Basically, I try to compile a list of the enemy forces, in as much detail as possible, as well as mark the locations of defensive positions, guns, etc. After the battle, I go through the map and compare my list to what the enemy actually had, to see how well I succeeded. What I'm curious about is the 'real life' value of the tradeoff between intelligence and casualaties. In order to find out what is there, I have to 'make contact' and hold it for a while, and my guys don't come out unscathed. What scale of losses is acceptable for succesful recon? In particular I'm wondering if I should weight the value of my vehicles (halftracks and Armoured cars) more heavily than their QB point value. Here's a more specific description of such an operation. An 'attack' in relatively covered terrain where as the attacker I take a crack motorized platoon of rifles (in halftracks) a FO and and armoured car with some punch. The defenders are not of high quality but they have a 100% or so force bonus, to keep me on my toes, give me lots to do, and encourage me to break off, when the time comes. They might very well have armor, which is yikes for my vehicles, but important to discover. Should I be doing everything in my power to prevent my HT's from getting knocked out? (which would mean dismounting and advancing on foot) Is an even trade in casualties favourable or unfavourable for me, if this was a recon operation? How can I balance the value of identified enemy troops against the value of my losses? 1-1, 2-1 etc? Should vehicles and guns be weighted more heavily? If I overcome FOW and identify infantry to the point of distinquishing type of unit and/experience level how much more valuable is that, etc? I guess my question is pretty clear now even if I'm formualting it a bit fuzzily. I'm curious about whatever ideas people might have about these issues. I've found that playing this way has forced my to try out new tactics, so it has been quite a learning experience. It's not enough for my units to be crack, I have to squeeze the most out of them with my understanding of the game engine. But since I don't know what level of skill is reasonable to expect in 'real life' WWII, I'm having trouble evaluating my performance. (I tend to end up with about 80% knowledge, a lot of body bags, and half my survivors having to walk home. I think maybe I close range too much for recon, but in the wooded terrain it's hard to do anything else) thx for any help, regards, --Rett

It totally depends on the density of activity on that sector of the front. Increasing the map size could be great but it would only model battles taking place in relatively sparsely occupied terrain. Perhaps this could be implemented as an option, but I wouldn't want to see it as standard. regards, --Rett [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 02-03-2001).]

That is exactly what I was talking about. No one has (seriously) tried to explain it away, so it must have just been an oversight in the coding. regards, --Rett

What's up with this? Or rather, is this realistic or not: Currently, in the game, machine gun crews and mortars who are in a 'ford' water tile can and do set up their weapons and fire them. Is this how the US army teaches its men to take care of their equipment? Just wondering... thx, --Rett

I guess we have to wait for CM3 for that one....

I don't think it would 'defeat the purpose' of having lower experience levels. The overall experience level would still be the same, despite there being a few 'talented' snipers or bazooka guys in the battalion. regards, --Rett

A group select function would be great in the unit editor. Like, you select the whole infantry battalion, and then set them to 'tired', for example, instead of having to go in and do each guy individually, as now. Also, if you selected many of the same type of unit (like rifle squads) then you could set ammo, and other more unit specific paramaters, for the whole bunch in one swell foop. It'd save time. regards, --Rett

Though the idea is nice. In fact here is a really good idea: When purchasing troops at lower experience levels, (medium, low) there could be a little ration for crack/elite support units, like snipers or bazooka guys. No more than, say, 5-10% of the total point count could be spent on guys who just have a knack for hitting things with a bazouki. Also, it would be cool if there were some HQ's with a negative modifier like that Col Klutz in Squad Leader. regards, --Rett

agreed, the present (1.1) smoke AI SUCKS! regards, --Rett

I agree. I set up a beach assault scenario where there was basically no cover anywhere. The routed Americans tended to run towards the German pillboxes in a kind of Kamikaze charge. regards, --Rett

Well it could have an effect on gameplay. If you enjoy the planning stage of a battle then you might enjoy setting up assembly areas, and evac routes. If you have wounded in an area you *might* choose not to use artillery on that area, if they can subsequently be KIA'd. If you observe a marked enemy medical you *might* choose not to direct fire there. (could be a house or in the open) Or you might shoot the medics first, I don't know. There are other things, but I just wanted to reiterate the point I made before that this is not just for 'look and feel' but that it does indeed have to do with gameplay issues. regards, --Rett [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 01-29-2001).]

Okay, the primary issue. What I _really_ want to see modelled is field kitchens. The quality of your field kitchen ought to have an effect on morale, also, guys ought to be able to go back and get some chow once in a while. And if you use the dead cows in the fields for hamburgers there are a lot of food poisoning issues which could come into the game (very realistic as well) regards, --Rett

My only point is that it is silly to get a result at the end telling you how many were KIA, if the game doesn't even make an attempt to determine this. It's just sheer baloney. regards, --Rett

I noticed from testing this today that units get pretty tired from moving through 'ford' water tiles. So if you start guys out in the surf they are pretty tired by the time they get on the beach. Many were also seasick and suffering from either constipation or diarrhea depending on the guy. Another neat trick I found is that you can put roadblocks, mines and barbed wire into the 'surf' tiles, by placing them on open ground and then changing to ford tiles in the editor. So you could conceivably have engineers removing minefields (ie obstacles) in the water! Too bad engineers can't blow holes in barbed wire though. regards, --Rett [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 01-28-2001).]

I had four MG concrete bunkers knocked out by infantry who never got closer than 300 meters from the bunkers. They had no heavy weapons support whatsoever, not even 50 cals. regards, --Rett

Interesting? It's a beautiful friggin' post! Thx for all the work writing down your ideas (not to mention figuring them out) --Rett

Probably all penetrations are shunted into another part of the code which only take into account the effect on the tank, and doesn't think about the possibility of the blast being so strong as to have a catastrophic effect on the surroundings. Not so much a bug as an oversight, if that's how it is. regards, --Rett

Sure, but then it is really cheesy to get this box at the end which says 31 casualties (10 KIA). It's just crud. If they are going to tell you how many are KIA then they should track it, at make it possible for wounded to be KIA'd later. Even without the medics and aid stations, etc. For example, wounded in a house which catches fire might have a much higher chance of being KIA'd than someone nicked by MG fire at 1000 meters in an open field who remains behind while the action shifts forward. regards, --Rett

You can simulate Omaha pretty well in CM, believe me, I've done it. Use open ground for the sand, at higher altitudes it gets more yellowish. If you really want to maintain the height differences for bluffs and stuff, then just ignore that it's greenish. At the edge of the beach use 'ford' water tiles. Put a battalion of exhausted, pinned green American troops in the water and on the 'beach'. Have mines and TRP's all over the place. Make sure few, if any, American squads are in C&C. Then give the Germans a constant supply of artillery and many HMG's at a comfortably long range. A few pillboxes can be nice as well. To get around the lack of boats, you can have reinforcements arrive periodically in the 'ford' water tiles. Set them at 'weary'. For the look of hit boats, you can strew some assault boats around in the water. The results should be pretty realistic. regards, --Rett

I actually enjoyed a FPS game which I tried out at a CPU well-endowed friend's house. It wasn't as stupid as I thought it would be. Lot's of sneaking around and thinking about LOS. Also I was pretty happy when I took out a bunker with a hand grenade, stole the dead guy's LMG and wasted the sniper towers with it. Heh! --Rett [This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 01-27-2001).]