Leonidas

Fascinating discussion. Do you suppose that the next generation of infantry will be more likely to fire in combat, having been raised on emotionally immersive first person shooters?

My apologies if this has already been covered. Here's the situation: At the end of a turn, my tank is about to come over a ridge to meet an enemy tank. My infantry are watching the enemy tank from the woods. I can give a target command to my tank to target the enemy tank. If I give that order, will it improve the speed with which my tank will acquire the enemy tank in the next turn? If not, what effect does the order have?

This may be more realistic than you think! If the HMG gives away its platoon's position and as a result half the platoon gets shredded, I don't think they will get a pleasant reception in camp that night.

HMGs are maniacs. In a recent PBEM, I watched an entire platoon mangled because a regular HMG with a Hide order started firing on turn 1. A related problem is that you can't Sneak HMGs, which means that if they move while they can see the enemy, they are likely to open fire on their own initiative. This can be a particular problem in Chance Encounter. Given the current problems with HMGs not holding their wad, I'd say that merely firing on a buttoned tank at 50m is pretty tame. HMGs are simply too aggressive, which is why we need a command to tell the troops how aggressive they should be.

I'm not sure that I would be so quick to hop out of the tank. I'm in a PBEM right now where two thirds of the AFV kills have been by zooks and fausts. Several times the AFV crew has hopped out and has promptly been mowed down by the infantry that just killed the AFV. Seems like it could sometimes be safer inside the tank.

I use lots of waypoints for all move orders. This is not so much to save time on turns, but to keep flexibility for move orders that extend into the next turn. The more points on the line, the more points I will have next turn to fine tune the move order.

Simon has this one nailed, and it's been discussed in a variety of contexts, pretty much anyone suggests a feature that would give players more or less control. I guarantee that we won't resolve it, but we can discuss it some more. The logical error by the relative spotting crowd runs like this: 1) Absolute spotting is unrealistic. It allows units to know more than they really would. 2) Therefore relative spotting would make the game more realistic, and therefore better. More generally, the argument is: 1) Players have an unrealistically high level of control over their troops. 2) Therefore, reducing player control over troops would make the game more realistic, and therefore better. The error is that relative spotting, or anything that reduces player control, would aggravate another realism problem: The TacAI isn't capable of simulating the decisions of dozens of subordinate commanders. Current AI technology simply can't handle the job. Relative spotting would decrease the information available to the TacAI, which would highlight its unrealistically poor judgment. So it's just a balancing problem: Are you more aggravated by unrealistically coordinated forces or poor TacAI decisionmaking? Personally, the TacAI bothers me more than the coordination. I seem to have a higher opinion than most CM players of the decisionmaking capabilities of low level commanders. The high unit coordination doesn't bother me so much because I think it's required in order to turn a combat simulation into a fun game. I want a fun game instead of a WWII combat movie generator. I would rather shift the balance in the other direction by giving players the capability of giving much more detailed orders, such as a Hunt order for infantry, Move until you attain LOS to a given point for all units, and Ambush armor only for AT guns.

I don't see what's so mystical about fixing computer-chosen PBEMs. You just add another round of file exchange at the beginning: Player 1 sets the game parameters, enters his PW and sends to Player 2. Player 2 agrees to the game parameters and enters his PW. The game then generates the map and forces for both sides, and Player 2 sends the file to Player 1. Player 1 sees the purchased forces and map, and deploys. Player 2 see the purchased forces and map, and deploys. Etc.

I'm intrigued about these trackballs. Another question for the trackball users: Does the trackball work for shooters? If the ball is under your thumb, it seems like your thumb wouldn't have the range of motion necessary to make large quick movements in a single stroke.

I use a Razer Boomslang. I'm not wild about the shape, but there's a noticeable difference in precision. I use an extra-coarse mouse pad, which helps prevent slipping. Finally, I've got a wrist rest, which takes some getting used to, but is really necessary for long term mouse use. I'm surprised at all the people using trackballs. I hadn't realized they were so popular, or that their users would be so loyal. I have enough problems with gunk getting into my mouse as it is, and I carefully wash my hands before computer use and never eat at the computer. Isn't there a major gunk-up problem with track balls, or did I miss some technological breakthrough?

The article linked above has excellent information. At the risk of redundancy, here's what you need to know to use the PIAT in CM: The PIAT is essentially a pole with a heavy spring and a bomb on the end. You pull the trigger, release the spring, a firing ping arms the bomb and sends the bomb sailing towards its target. The PIAT's main advantage is that there's no combustion used to propel the bomb, so 1) it is relatively quiet, 2) it doesn't flash or smoke, making it easier to hide post-launch, and 3) with indoor use, there's no risk of catching the building on fire. So the PIAT can be useful in the right situation - ideally defense involving a lot of buildings. Once you've fired a PIAT, don't assume that the enemy knows where the team is. With luck your team may remain undetected for several shots.

I consider the two man FT teams to be wildly overpriced. But FT vehicles are another matter. Right now I'm in a PBEM where I've got several of the 251/16s, and my opponent had (until a turn or two ago) a Sherman Croc. The map has heavy woods, which means that the AFV engagement range is pretty short, which is what makes the FTs important. My basic approach on attack is to keep the 251/16s hidden behind the advancing infantry. The infantry flushes out the defenders, and settles into a firefight. Then I rush up the halftrack to smoke out the defenders, and my infantry polishes them off while they're running. It's worked well so far.

I'll take a stab at these, though I can't guarantee the answers. No. AFAIK, there's nothing special about company commanders, except that they can command any team or squad, even squads not in their company. Other than that, I think they are just like any other HQ unit. I have no idea on this one.

I never play against the AI. I think that it teaches bad habits. Once you figure out how the AI works, you are just exploiting its weaknesses. You start expecting defending units to fire at long range, revealing their positions. You start expecting attacking infantry to come in a trickle instead of a single wave. You start expecting poor integration of infantry, armor, and artillery. I recommend you just ignore the AI, and look for some PBEM battles.

Doug, I think you're looking for a different kind of determination. I'm suggesting ways to test for whether the fighting has stopped. You're talking about global morale and whether it's clear which side has won. They're different things. I don't do meeting engagements very often, so I was thinking mostly in terms of an attack/defense situation. As I see it, time favors the attacker; if the attacker enters the battlefield, then turns around and goes home, the defender wins. The attacker has a responsibility to press the attack. When the attacker stops pressing the attack, either because he's taken the objectives or lost his ability to attack, then the battle is over unless the defender is counterattacking. If people are still dying, then the battle hasn't stopped yet. It's simple. The ceasefire thing would be a little complicated, and maybe isn't a good idea. To make it more accurate, you would need to determine if either side still seems to have the means to fight (as discussed below). But if a side has called a ceasefire, they are indicating that, even though they seem to have the means to fight, they don't plan on doing so. This would be a per-side calculation. If either side has the means to fight and hasn't called a ceasefire, then the battle should continue. Again, you're talking about morale, but that isn't the point. The commander doesn't poll the men in the trenches on whether he should keep fighting. The idea behind having live arty or AFV forces is that these forces can take a few minutes to reposition late in the battle, during a few turns in which no one is getting killed. Suppose that the attacker has trounced the defender on the left side, but the attacking infantry on the right side are routed. The attacker may need a few minutes to move his arty and AFVs from one side of the battlefield to the other. The attacker still has the means to fight, and he still intends to fight, but there a gap of a few minutes during which nobody is getting killed. The battle should continue until the attacker has had a chance to regroup and redeploy, even though no one is getting killed or even shooting during that time. The idea is to prevent the attacker from abusing the above-described 'no-kill' period in which to redeploy his surviving forces. After a few minutes the attacker is under an obligation to start killing people again, or the battle ends. There were concerns about how hard this would be to implement, so here's a simpler approach that does the same job: At the beginning of the battle the attacker would get an Initial Phase of several minutes in which to maneuver and get his men into position. This would be maybe the first 10-15 turns of a typical 30 turn battle. After that, the attacker is expected to start killing people. After the first 15 turns, people are supposed to start dying. There is an End of Battle counter, known to both players (no randomness in this system). In a typical 30 turn battle, the counter might be 5. Every turn past the Initial Phase in which no one dies reduces the End of Battle counter by one. When the End of Battle counter reaches zero, the battle ends. [This message has been edited by Leonidas (edited 03-23-2001).]