c3k

Peter Cairns, You'd probably enjoy a game based on the U.S. Civil War, especially since a lot the South's martial prowess was attributed to their Scottish heritage. Ken

Andreas, The observation was accomplished by standing a few yards away from the guns and watching where the rounds impacted. Dirt, dust, and smoke rising from behind the house? Good. Walk them closer. Hit the roof? Ooops. Further back a bit. So, in that sense it was observed. Thanks, Ken

All right, let's get away from all this "WWII this" and "WWII that" talk. CMx2 should be FLEXIBLE to cover a variety of periods. Infantry smoke could be useful for modern fights; to call in air support; to smoke out tunnels; to be used as CS gas; etc. Ken

Sergei, The ranges Knappe(? - it may not have been him, and I haven't bothered to double check) talked about were easily within a couple hundred yards. It could've been closer. This is all from memory. It sticks out, though, because I'd never thought that these weapons could be used in a manner similar to mortars, especially at very short range. Yankee Dog - thank you. Regards, Ken

Sergei, As for WWII German infantry guns, I refer to Knappe(?), who started as a battery commander. In the opening stages of the campaign against the Soviet Union, in his autobiography he specifically states how useful his 7.5cm cannon were against targets hidden from straight-line fire. Steve - thank you. Regards, Ken

Gents, A LARGE consideration: LOS/LOF seem to be merging here. The difference between them only being if a target can be affected. I disagree. There are plenty of INDIRECT fire weapons which utilize a highly arced trajectory specifically to fire against targets with which there is no LOS. And I'm not talking about on-call assets. Here are some examples: M-79 grenade launcher; M-203; light mortars; short-barrelled infantry cannon (German 7.5cm, 15.0cm); trebuchets; rifled muskets; bombards; and all the rest in this category. This category of weapon is NOT displaced away from the firing line. They are right up front, and they can see what they want to hit, yet they cannot see their target. "Sergeant, drop HE directly behind that house!" You can see the house; you saw a target move BEHIND the house; you have a weapon which can arc rounds OVER the house; you have NO LOS there, yet, you CAN fire at it. Will CMx2 support fire by units where the is NO LOS? Thank you, Ken

Gents, Well done! Thank you. I'm very familiar with 120/L44. I was unaware of the longer variant, L55, as well as the talk about non-backward compatible rounds. Whereas I knew the Challenger used a rifled 120mm cannon, I did not know its designation. (Why, in the name of all that's holy in ordnance, did the MOD use the "L30" nomenclature?) Finally, earlier there was some talk about using a "140" cannon. Or was it "(small)L" "40"? Thanks, Ken

Gents, My ignorance is showing here: please help those of us trying to follow by defining the weapons being discussed. What are the bore diameters/barrel lengths and other distinguishing characteristics of the L30/L44/L55 cannon? Thank you. Ken

Gents, Aside from such things as assless chaps, there are other considerations in play. For example, do I know what my forces' weaknesses are before battle? I THINK they're invulnerable to Space Lobster Spit, but what if they're not? Do I get to find out prior to first combat, or after? Or, Fulda Gap: do M60A5 tanks _really_ have the book penetration? Does de-Gaussing work as effectively as was thought? Etc. Thank you for your thoughtful additions to this thread. Now, carry on with your assless chaps. Regards, Ken

Gents, This is meant as a general idea regarding the range of combat that BF.C has announced for the CMx2 engine. How will hypothetical battles be simulated? No weapon has EVER been as effective as its designers intended. How will untested weapons be coded? Some sort of shortfall will have to be included, but how will that be decided? We can get bogged down in specific examples of "what if?", but I'm sure you understand what I'm trying to get across. I'm sure it's too soon for this to be addressed, but I hope BF.C has some ideas in this area. Thanks, Ken (Can phased plasma rifles REALLY cut through Space Lobster mucus?)

Michael Dorosh, I understand, but disagree with, your view on the scale of CMx1 and the announced CMx2 level. I'm not trying to hijack this thread. It seems to me, from what you've posted, that you think a true battalion level GAME (not SIMULATION) should be limited to giving control to the PLAYER (not COMMANDER-IN-TRAINING) of 3 to 4 units. (Perhaps just the 3 line companies, one support company and some attached higher level assets.) If CMx1 (and possible CMx2) is a COMPANY level GAME, shouldn't player control be limited to ordering 3 to 4 platoons? Players in CMx1 (and according to the posts by BF.C, in CMx2) are able to reach down and control half-squads and support weapons, even individual sharpshooters. If I understand your repeatedly voiced opinion on the matter, shouldn't the CMx1/2 game be limited to platoon level? As it is, _I_ enjoy these GAMES (yes, I am trying to emphasize something here) at many levels of command: using level 1 views to follow a squad and give orders; sharp firefights with an understrength platoon; ordering, in detail, a reinforced armored battalion attack on a strongpoint. Would I like to see your ideas for multiplayer coded into the GAME? YES. Do I want my gameplay to be limited by it? NO. Thank you, Ken (Edited for clarification) [ September 05, 2005, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]

Gents, Battalion level is fun. Now, Dorosh, don't bother replying: we know your stance and opinion. My opinion is that CMx1 is fun playing at the battalion vs. reinforced company level. I certainly hope that CMx2 will be playable with forces at the battalion level. Regards, Ken

WHAT!?! The terrain will be "stepped" one meter at a time instead of one centimeter at a time? This makes it totally unplayable! I just wanted to get the first complaint in... Thanks for the clarifications and the reasonings behind them. FWIW, it all seems great. Thanks, Ken

ADD: 1 - COVER and CONCEALMENT - This needs to be programmed as well as the differing penetration abilities of small arms. Obviously, damage needs to be tracked as well. That way my .50 caliber will be able to dismantle the house my opponent is hiding in. Then my squaddies can have their fun. 2 - IN GAME OOB MENU - This drop-down menu will enable me, at a glance, to check on my entire force. I can do so already, but it takes a long time and a repetitious "+" and "-" scrolling. No gameplay changes, just a better player experience. 3 - PRE-GAME OOB MENU - Same as above, but the attributes of individual units are changeable. Again, I can do so already in the editor, but with a lot of workload. (Ammo loadouts, leadership levels, etc.) 4 - CAMPAIGN SYSTEM - I want to EASILY give my men a series of battles. Between battle tweaks are allowed; wounded, ammo, replacements, etc. 5 - HIGHER FIDELITY ARMOR SYSTEM - Track the energy status of penetrating weapons; internally map ACTUAL locations of systems in a vehicle; each system has a property relating to kinetic energy and allowed damage limits; track vehicle status based on internal damage. E.g., a shell penetrates a turret side: it has, say, 2,000 unites of Kinetic Energy remaining. Mounted on the same turret side is the tank's radio. It has a value of 200 KE. The shell destroys the radio and has 1,800 KE's leftover. The assistant gunner is rated at 1,000 KE. Hmm, he's toast. Now the shell has 800 KE. It can't get out. It now wounds the Gunner. Vehicle status: radio inop; no assistant loader, so greatly increased load times; wounded gunner, so reduced accuracy, or perhaps a totally inop gun/coax. See Panzer Elite's internal model. KEEPERS: 1 - PBEM 2 - Play vs. Computer 3 - All the other good stuff. Thanks, Ken

Steve, In my example comparing the calling of arty or firing an ATG to transporting infantry, you stated that the "WHERE" of locating your assets is important. You also mention that unloading infantry is as simple as clicking on the ground where you want them. True: to a point. Trying not to be too tedious, but here's an example refuting your claim. I select a half-track with a squad to move 200 meters, then unload the squad. I place the squad's first movement point 10 meters from the end of the half-tracks move. During the turn, the half-track doesn't go 200 meters (shocked, immobilized, bogged, bad path, whatever). My squad will STILL unload regardless of the distance to the endpoint of the half-track's move. Bad juju if that means they have to slog 190 meters across open ground. The tactical nuance and subtlety of transport is NOT simulated by that. That's a game engine shortcoming. It forces unloads. Uploads can also be missed due to similar circumstances. That produces the result of an empty transport moving forward while its would-be passengers sit back at the pick-up point. If I choose the wrong unload point, my men will suffer. Too close, my transport is chewed up. Too far, my men don't close with the enemy in time. That can be simulated by a SIMPLER transport design in CMx2. Thanks, Ken

Steve, In my example comparing the calling of arty or firing an ATG to transporting infantry, you stated that the "WHERE" of locating your assets is important. You also mention that unloading infantry is as simple as clicking on the ground where you want them. True: to a point. Trying not to be too tedious, but here's an example refuting your claim. I select a half-track with a squad to move 200 meters, then unload the squad. I place the squad's first movement point 10 meters from the end of the half-tracks move. During the turn, the half-track doesn't go 200 meters (shocked, immobilized, bogged, bad path, whatever). My squad will STILL unload regardless of the distance to the endpoint of the half-track's move. Bad juju if that means they have to slog 190 meters across open ground. The tactical nuance and subtlety of transport is NOT simulated by that. That's a game engine shortcoming. It forces unloads. Uploads can also be missed due to similar circumstances. That produces the result of an empty transport moving forward while its would-be passengers sit back at the pick-up point. If I choose the wrong unload point, my men will suffer. Too close, my transport is chewed up. Too far, my men don't close with the enemy in time. That can be simulated by a SIMPLER transport design in CMx2. Thanks, Ken

Gents, CobaltTiger has summarized the transport problem succinctly. CMx1 puts too much detail into the player's control of the transport issue. I want a pickup point, a move, then a disembark point. How that is implemented in CMx2 could be a GREAT improvement over CMx1. A solution would be to place a pickup point for the squad/hq/gun at the end of a movement order. Place another pickup point at the end of a movement order for a vehicle. Then LINK the two units together. ("Pickup at/with" - the first click selects the location, the second click selects the unit which will be paired up with the first unit. Similar to "Shoot and Scoot".) Neither unit would move from the pickup point until the pickup is accomplished. (Excepting orders changes, enemy fire, loss of control, etc.) Thanks, Ken

Gents, CobaltTiger has summarized the transport problem succinctly. CMx1 puts too much detail into the player's control of the transport issue. I want a pickup point, a move, then a disembark point. How that is implemented in CMx2 could be a GREAT improvement over CMx1. A solution would be to place a pickup point for the squad/hq/gun at the end of a movement order. Place another pickup point at the end of a movement order for a vehicle. Then LINK the two units together. ("Pickup at/with" - the first click selects the location, the second click selects the unit which will be paired up with the first unit. Similar to "Shoot and Scoot".) Neither unit would move from the pickup point until the pickup is accomplished. (Excepting orders changes, enemy fire, loss of control, etc.) Thanks, Ken

Gents, Many questions: with a detailed running gear animation, will the dynamic physics of the running be correctly modelled? Will the damping rates be "fudged"? How about track whip? Lash up? Will crew animations be included for adjusting the tensioner? On the subject of wagons, will the various suspensions be modelled as well? Panji's versus four-wheeled? Scythe chariots? How will the leg movement animations of space lobsters change as their gait varies from walk to trot to gallop? Let's not even mention the dreaded space lobster leap of death... Many grog areas of expertise will be revealed with detailed running gear animations. Thanks, Ken

Gents, Many questions: with a detailed running gear animation, will the dynamic physics of the running be correctly modelled? Will the damping rates be "fudged"? How about track whip? Lash up? Will crew animations be included for adjusting the tensioner? On the subject of wagons, will the various suspensions be modelled as well? Panji's versus four-wheeled? Scythe chariots? How will the leg movement animations of space lobsters change as their gait varies from walk to trot to gallop? Let's not even mention the dreaded space lobster leap of death... Many grog areas of expertise will be revealed with detailed running gear animations. Thanks, Ken

Gents, What is a more complex undertaking in a combat zone: calling in an artillery strike; laying an ATG on a moving target; unloading a squad out of a half-track near the farmhouse? In CMx1, I can call in an artillery strike, of any caliber, with one command: "Target". Yes, there may be a delay. Suck it up. In CMx1, I can have my anti-tank gun acquire, aim, compensate, choose ammo, and fire on a moving enemy vehicle with one command: "Target". In CMx1, to unload a squad from a half-track near a desired location requires multiple, coordinated, unrelated commands. Inherent in doing so also requires an in-depth knowledge of how the game engine functions, adjusting for known and anticipated command delays, and finesse in the placement of movement orders. Hopefully, CMx2 will include a simple command: "Unload". The game engine will take care of all the details. Sure, give me a delay. Sure, give a chance of the troops cowering and refusing to unload. But don't make me, the PLAYER, have to do all the work in CMx1 to ensure a successful unloading. Thank you, Ken

Gents, What is a more complex undertaking in a combat zone: calling in an artillery strike; laying an ATG on a moving target; unloading a squad out of a half-track near the farmhouse? In CMx1, I can call in an artillery strike, of any caliber, with one command: "Target". Yes, there may be a delay. Suck it up. In CMx1, I can have my anti-tank gun acquire, aim, compensate, choose ammo, and fire on a moving enemy vehicle with one command: "Target". In CMx1, to unload a squad from a half-track near a desired location requires multiple, coordinated, unrelated commands. Inherent in doing so also requires an in-depth knowledge of how the game engine functions, adjusting for known and anticipated command delays, and finesse in the placement of movement orders. Hopefully, CMx2 will include a simple command: "Unload". The game engine will take care of all the details. Sure, give me a delay. Sure, give a chance of the troops cowering and refusing to unload. But don't make me, the PLAYER, have to do all the work in CMx1 to ensure a successful unloading. Thank you, Ken

Here’s my vision of playing the newest CMx2 game.... After starting the game, I click into the “Scenarios” page. It’s a scrollable page, listing all the scenarios. I can choose HOW to list all the scenarios; alphabetically, date of action, forces involved, weather conditions, whether I’ve played them, which side I played, won or lost, etc. (Different colored typefaces, shadows, highlights, and check-boxes would convey all this information.) As my cursor rests over a scenario, a floating box appears with a thumb-nail sketch of the scenario, preserving all fog-of-war characteristics. (We don’t want to spoil any surprises, do we?) Finally, I choose my scenario, side, and other options. I start. The scenario opens with a briefing including a quick situational update and a task. I select the map. It shows a 1km grid with forces located on it. Obviously, it will use the German ’44 standard unit symbology. (If you’re a grog, you’ll agree. If you’re merely a grog wannabe or a toe-dipper, understanding and using these force symbols will make you feel superior to your civilian counterparts. It’s a no-brainer.) Anyway, the situation map will correspond to the game map. Complete with a seamless zoom function. If I select a unit on the situation map, I’ll get a dropdown ghost box annotating what it is. (Hmm, a German trapezoid, no flag, with a “IVF2” in the corner and a number “14” represents a panzer company made up of 14 PzIVF2’s. If it’s been mauled, it has less. The ghost box will show it, in standard OOB tree graphic, with ancillary forces.) The map will show me my task, graphically. Arrows and boxes and phase lines and such. This puts my battle into perspective. In fact, this is how the campaign game will work. Those other units on the map will battle each other without my input. Those results will affect my battle task, just as my battle results will affect the outcome of the fights on my flanks. Now, in the bigger picture, I could have various other players fighting on the flanks and send in their results. That would integrate on the battle map and the unit symbology would reflect end-of-game strengths. If you want to start a battle on a different part of the map, you can select that part, draw a box around the zone and the game will use the terrain and forces to create the new scenario. Any planned reinforcements, as annotated on the map, would arrive depending on enemy action, friction, etc. That game can be run AI vs. AI, or sent to other players. On to the battle. It would be similar, but better, than the current engine. Thank you BF.C. Obviously, I would have my OOB available as a drop-down menu. Also, the end-of-battle screen would allow me to see who killed who. For example, selecting my knocked out JS-II would show where the killing shot came from and who delivered it. Obviously, all this would work for any period; Persians vs. Selucids, Union vs. Confederates, Germans vs. Russians, Space Lobsters vs. Starship Marines. Regards, Ken

Gents, Quick test which needs refinement: one PzIVF2 on a small island. 150 points. Sharpshooters take out one crewman. Gun then destroys tank. Crew evacuates. 3 of the 4 remaining become casualties. One survivor captured. Points awarded are 179 (14 for capture). Are the captured points part of the total or separate? More in a few days... Regards, Ken

Gents, I've run several tests. A single, un-buttoned tank, set up surrounded by 6 elite sharpshooters. 1 turn. The most striking result is how often elite snipers miss at 80 meters. I ran almost a dozen tests. Eliminating those in which no crew members were hit or those in which I simply messed resulted in 3 good samples. Anyway, here's what I found: Pz IVH, regular, 134 points. Dead TC: 26 points Pz VIE early, elite, 327 points. Dead TC: 65 points. Captured Renault, conscript, 29 points. Dead TC 14 points. Conclusions: Well, the interesting point is that the PzIVH and PzVIE each had 5 crewmembers. The point value of the the dead/wounded crewmember was equal to 20% of the total vehicle value. The captured Renault is a 2 man vehicle. The dead/wounded crewmember was worth 50% of the total vehicle value. (Note that the Pz's also had driver's exposed in the graphic. I have no way of telling if it was the driver or tank commander who was hit.) Extrapolating from these results would lead to a simple formula that the value of a dead/wounded un-buttoned crew-member is proportional his percentage of the total number of crewmen in the vehicle, multiplied by the total value of the vehicle. Someone else needs to take this experiment to the next level. Namely, if you kill/wound an un-buttoned crewmember THEN destroy the vehicle, would you get awarded MORE points than the total, initial, value of the vehicle? Regards, Ken