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).]

Interesting stuff. I would prefer that the response times not be random, because it introduces a gamey problem: If you don't like the delay you're given from a new fire order or adjusted fire order, you can reload the file and roll the dice again. You can speed up the arty by up to ten seconds this way, if you're patient. I usually don't have the patience for this, but it's irritating to know that I could improve things a little in the game by wasting more of my time reloading files in a gamey way. I thought that a major difference in spotter quality was the density of the arty pattern. More experienced spotters produce more accurate fire, IIRC.

Didn't they paint on their AFVs to a limited extent, like airplane crews, to show kills?

This is the thing about MGs in CM that bothers me the most. I don't see how infantry could ever succeed in a frontal charge over open ground against a MG position. Of course the MG gunner uses bursts at long range to save ammo and control the guns' temperature. But if the position is about to be overrun, I would expect the gunner to push that MG as far as it will go. If you're about to lose the gun(and probably the crew as well), who cares if the barrel melts?

As you might guess, this one has been discussed at length. Here's the thread I'm familiar with, though I'm sure there are many more: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/016431.html Here's my contribution to the topic, copied from that thread: The problem is not about defensive perimeters or determining what pops a flag. The problem is that when the battle ends is unrelated to what's happening on the battlefield. Having a fixed or random ending turn doesn't fix this. It's still jarring and silly when there's a raging battle going on, and the game ends. The end of the battle should be when the fighting stops. CM is full of complex formulas, so I propose another: battle termination. Actually, we already have a little of this. If both sides have morale below a certain point, the battle automatically ends. BTS should expand this idea. I would give the attacker a set number of turns to start the fighting - maybe half or three quarters of the normal battle length. After that 'safe zone,' the game calculates battle termination at the end of each turn, with rules like: -If anybody died in the last turn, the battle will continue. -If infantry units are within X meters of each other and one side has ammo, the battle is more likely to continue. -If one player is calling for a cease fire, the battle is less likely to continue. -If a player still has a FO with ammo and a cool head, the battle is more likely to continue. -If a player has a mobile AFV with HE ammo (blast value > 30), then the battle is more likely to continue. -As time wears on, the battle is less likely to continue. The players would have some information on the battle termination score each turn, but only based on information within their knowledge. I know we could disagree about the specifics of a formula like this. But what about the general idea of ending the battle once the fighting is mostly over?

I like the non-extreme FOW suggestions. It would be nice to have a tiltable camera, to pull back a little more from the battle without going to overhead view and losing all the elevation information. A smoother, freer camera would also be fun aesthetically, as you could start with a closeup of a soldier's face, swoop back to take in the entire battlefield, then swoop back in for a closeup of someone else. But I assume (ahem) that BTS has already figured all this out. It would be nice to plant little reference flags without giving orders, just to make it easier to find significant points in the terrain after you've scouted them out. For example, you get the camera down on the ground and discover a little hollow that's just big enough to hide a platoon from the enemy tanks. It's the sort of subtle thing that you would never notice unless you were at elevation 1. It would be nice to be able to plant a little marker, so that you can find that spot again later in the turn without having to go back to elevation 1 and rooting about for it.

A PBEM Quick Battle: 2000 points, I'm the German attacker. Both sides can choose only regular and veteran troops. The following things have happened so far: 1) A bazooka hits my Hunting Puma at 140m, on what looks like its second shot. 2) In the same turn, my Puma hits a Sherman Croc, scores a "Front Hull Penetration" but does no damage. This penetration doesn't knock out the gun, doesn't immobilize - nothing. The Croc fires its MG later that turn, so apparently no shock. 3) Several turns later, a bazooka hits my stationary PzIVH at 180m on the first shot. The bazooka team is killed shortly thereafter and verified to be regular. Maybe I'm just confused on how accurate bazookas are, but I thought they dropped down to about 5% outside of 100-120m. And I don't think I've ever seen a no-damage tank penetration. Maybe there's something special about the Croc. Both of the turns in question were generated by my opponent. Is it just me, or am I extraordinarily unlucky in this battle?

I'm curious about this as well. I ran a few tests, but without more precise fatigue indicators, it's hard to say precisely what's going on. Here's all I can offer: Fatigue is measured in minutes spent running, not in distance covered. So running for a minute through forest is just as tiring as running for a minute across open ground. The experience difference in fatigue is miniscule. I raced three squads: conscript, regular, and elite. The difference in time to Weary between the conscripts and the elites was about ten seconds. Maybe the elites recover from fatigue faster than the conscripts - I dunno. I haven't thought of a solid way to test fatigue recovery. Here's a related question: Your men can still run while Tired. They stop running when Weary (a bad time to be caught in open ground). Is Tired just a warning that the men are drawing towards Weary, or is it also an indication that they will not fight as well? [This message has been edited by Leonidas (edited 03-21-2001).]

I'm not sure about historical accuracy, but I would think that basements could introduce a balanced option. After all, being in a basement means you can't see much, right? So I could see a massive defensive bonus, but no real offensive capability unless the enemy unit is in the house. It's always bothered me that troops in CM have no real opportunity to dig in hard under fire and limit their offensive capabilities to maximize their defensive capabilities. I would imagine that troops in the basement would be especially vulnerable to grenades and flamethrowers. And troops holed up in a basement probably wouldn't be too happy about the house above them being demolished - seem likely that they would either be sealed in or the ground floor would collapse and bring the house on top of them, with no room to run. OTOH, being in the basement would make you pretty much immune from arty, unless the house collapses.

I doubt that anyone disagrees with the exact point you're making. Yes, battlefield communication was poorer than CM makes it look. But where do you go from there? Are you only proposing some kind of targeting restriction? Or some more pervasive change that would prevent tanks from reacting to what the infantry sees? (After all the big danger to being buttoned is that you don't see the 'zook/'shreck hiding up ahead.) Any proposal along those lines must address the basic question: Will this change make CM more realistic, and more fun? (Copy and Paste from prior post) I think everyone is pro-realism, and most assume that more realism is generally more fun. But they don't agree on what realism is. The most common assumption is that 'realism' means making the player experience what a particular individual (such as a company or battalion commander) would experience in a battle. The trouble is that a company commander sim would be a really boring game, because each individual involved in a battle has little or no perspective on the overall picture, and a narrow range of decision-making power. Another problem with a company commander sim is that it wouldn't create realistic battles, because current AI isn't capable of imitating human decisionmaking at the unit level. So a one person company commander sim could only show what it would be like to be company commander over a bunch of really stupid people, which I see as completely unrealistic. CM is not a company commander sim. Instead, it puts the player in 'God mode' and allows some degree of player decisionmaking all the way down to each individual squad and tank. So to the extent that the player can control the units, you get realism in their actions. But player control or 'micromanagement' brings its own loss of realism. The trouble is that there's just one of you. In a real battle there are many different commanders all trying to work together, and that produces fascinating problems in communication and coordination that have a big effect on battle. But there is no way to replicate this communication/coordination problem in a one player game. If the player makes decisions for each individual unit (to save them from AI stupidity), then those units will necessarily be much more coordinated than they would realistically be. So the realism problem is not a technological problem, nor is it something that can simply be fixed by BTS trying harder. The problem is that 1) AI technology is still too primitive to make realistic unit-level decisions, and 2) CM is only a one- or two-player game. If you let the player control the units, then the units are too smart and too coordinated. If you don't let the player control the units, then they are too stupid. The only solutions I can imagine are 1) a radical revolution in AI technology, or 2) a massive online version of CM (some 10-15 years in the future) in which each tank, squad and team is actually controlled by a separate human being. Right now, CM splits the difference between the two. It leans towards letting the player make most unit-level decisions. But in some areas (particularly tanks) the player's control is limited, and he must rely on the TacAI to do the right thing. Personally, I find AI stupidity to be more unrealistic than perfect information flow. And more importantly, a game based on unrealistically perfect information flow is more fun and will sell better than a game based on unrealistically stupid units. This is why I always advocate more detailed commands to substitute human judgment for AI decisions.

Actually, I thought EATG made an excellent case against women and men fighting side by side. Lack of male bonding is the minor problem. The big problem is that the men fight over the women, as the males in most mammal species have been doing for thousands of years.