Vanir Ausf B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt: a) Rate of fire. It is situational and a "rapid rate" is needed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's in CM2. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Beaten zone. Or "grazing fire". This allows the effectivness to be distributed (like in real life) over an oval shaped area.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's in CM2. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>c) Group suppression. If squad A sees squad B getting cut to pieces, they are going to hit the dirt and stay there. As will C,D and F. Because the aren't suicidal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think this is what global moral is currently for, although in a very abstracted way. I'm pretty sure the unit specific effect you mention won't be in.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: Next, CM's RUN speed, IIRC (and from RTFM's description), does not indicated "maximum sprint;" rather it indicates a run like normal joggers do. The infantry are also ducking here/there, hitting the dirt, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You must have missed the MG threads a ways back. IIRC someone did a test that showed that running infantry move at about 3m per second. So how does a group of guys moving at about 10 feet per second manage to "duck here/there, hit the dirt ect."? BTS doesn't know either which is why they are significantly lowering the cover given to running squads in CM2. Ducking and hitting the dirt while advancing will be modeled with the new Assault command. [ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Good idea. It sounds like SOPs though, which won't be done until the engine rewrite.

Foxholes in CM are all generic. They are all the same regardless of what kind of unit made them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes: That's probably why BTS will make it an option. This is not something that the 'big cat' lovers are going to like at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Um, I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, and if so, nevermind. But there is no provision in the CM2 rarity option for a tank or unit purchased to not show up in the battle. Rarity only affects unit price. If you buy it, it will be there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The_Capt: I personally think these numbers are very low compared to reality. I think they have made CMBO an "infantry heavy" game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Correct on both counts. The problem is the way the "run" move order is modeled. It allows infantry too much cover for the speed at which they are moving. That makes them unrealisticaly resistant to incoming fire (not just from MGs either, small arms and DF HE as well). This is being fixed in CM2 by making running troops have much less cover, and intoducing the assault order where they will move with a fair amount of cover, but much more slowly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigAlMoho: Interesting... I will pay a little more attention... I wonder, is the "!" situation tied to the half-squad with the SAW?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's a good question. I don't know.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BigAlMoho: I believe the squad automatic weapon stays with the "b" half which make it less than ideal for scouting...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It actually varies with different squad types. For example, the SAW goes with the b team when using US 44 Rifle and British Rifle, but goes with the a team with German Rifle 44.

The Answer But Maybe It Should Be

Straight

Oh, yeah. Same thing happens in scattered trees. It represents the gun getting caught on stuff. Of course, that wouldn't be a problem with the Priest, but they probably couldn't code in exceptions for individual vehicles. Still, the Panther would have one that one in real life anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grunto IV: i read somewhere that the long 75 on this vehicle had a tendency to warp the chassis when fired.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I know I've read the same thing, but I'll be damned if I can remember where. Apparently the gun just had too much recoil for it to handle.

I guess it is nice to see (for once) someone leaving who isn't all pissed off and bitter about something

I couldn't find that discussion either, but going from memory I believe the main points of it were: When Panzergrenediers were exploiting a break in the enemy line, it was SOP to fire while mounted at enemy units they were bypassing. However, they didn't do this expecting to hit anyone, it was supression fire only to keep the enemy's heads down long enough for them to zoom past. When they reached an area they were expected to assault, or if their way was blocked unexpectedly, they would dismount to fight. Fighting mounted from a stationary HT was not SOP and would have been a very bad idea in any case. Being as CM does not really model the breakout type of engagement (unfortunately) where firing mounted was SOP, the lack of this ability in CM is not a big deal. Someone (Michael Emrys?) made a suggestion to add this type of engagement into CM2. I thought it was a great idea, but I don't know what came of it.

Shandorf is correct. You shouldn't be complaining that your Priest rotates too slow, because in real life they couldn't rotate at all. It would've had to back up and pull forward to change facing.

It's an almost certainty that BTS will stick with WW2 at least through CM4, but it's likely they will do some modern warfare eventually.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xerxes: What's the best tactics/strat for countering a full on maximum infantry frontal assault when you're defending?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You could write a book on this, but I'd keep a few basic principles in mind: Ambush, pullback, ambush again, pull back, repeat as necessary. Try to position your men so that when you spring your ambush, his men are in less effective cover than yours. Hit his guys with light mortar fire as they advance to disrupt his planning and unit effectiveness. When he masses for a rush, hit him with bigger stuff. Stay mobile. Don't stay put long enough to get overrun or plastered by arty. [ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Score one for Babra

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shipmonkey25: Who was the Modder that left because of a bootleg CM copy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Let's not bring that back up. It was a long time ago and the situation was more complicated than what has been suggested here.

Petty. Very petty.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison: for CM2:BB, can we expect to see illuminating rounds/star shells? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, unfortunately. That would require Dynamic Lighting, which the current graphics engine does not support.

I wonder if that was also the same day he stated that the Sherman was the best tank in the world

And as for the second question, I have often wondered that myself. The ambush range limits seem rather arbitrary to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson Let BTS respond or not. They can see this thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BTS responded to this a LONG time ago. Highlights: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve wrote: Yes, gore is a part of REAL combat, as are limbs flying off, entrials falling out, blood spurting from severed arteries, ******* in pants, peeing in pants, vomiting in helmets, screaming for mother, etc. etc. To somehow thing that we MUST have all this stuff in CM is, well, repugnant to say the least. Having comic book gore only cheapens the real thing, so it does not add to the realism nor to the horror of real war. Such stuff will make the Bevis and Butthead fanatics happy ("uhhuhh, dude, did you see that guy puke when his buddy's head flew off! Cooool"), but anybody else out there that actually cares about humanity would find it deeply offensive. We wouldn't be able to live with ourselves if we cheapened death in such a childish manner. No, better to have nothing than to have something that makes death look cool... ...The way we have it now is the best compromise between game functionality and game atmosphere. Realism was never part of the equation... ...This was one of our arguments against bodies way back when. A single marker for a 12 man squad does not necessarily represent, accurately, where the unit really got plastered. Unfortunately, it is not possible to have markers littered all over the place every time a casualty is taken. Clutter would be bad enough, but the hit on the CPU and video card would be excessive. After having played with these markers for months now, and seen some pretty huge battles, I have to say that the bodies generally, but certainly not always, give a fair indidcation as to where the majority of the casualties were suffered... ...However, this was not the main reason to have a body graphic put in. This marker is designed to maintain a presence for a unit on the battlefield even after it is eliminated. At the end of the battle you can now take stock of the accomplishments of BOTH eliminated and surviving units... ...I think it is the Doom44 concern. It certainly was ours. This has been one of our strongest arguments against the "horror of war" line of thinking. Cartoon like, totally artificial and fake looking carnage will do NOTHING to bring home the horror of war. In fact, scientific studies and a quick look at the gaming offerings at your local software store, show that it is in fact the opposite. Death and dismemberment is "cool", in the finest Beavis and Butthead traditions. How we go from that to "horror of war" is a mystery to me. And the argument of "honor our fighting men" is WAY out there. I think that if you asked a WWII vet which way they would have the game look, they would be in favor of not cheapening their sacrifices with comic book gore. So this line of argument holds as much water as a bucket shot up by an MG42... ...And I will say this quite strongly. If some hacker figures out a way to get blood and gore into CM (except for a Battle of the Living Dead ) we will actually spend the time figuring out a way to get it back out. This is our creation, and the purchase price of $45 does not give people a right to desecrate it. This is just our opinion, of course, but since we have been working on this for so long I think we have the right to express such an opinion. Oh, and being the ones with the source code doesn't hurt either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In the interest of fairness, and to prove to some (Tris, mainly, for those of you who know him), that CM beta testers are not a bunch of sycophants, here is a dissenting opinion from a CMBO beta tester: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wild Bill Wilder: My Gosh! What is wrong with some of you guys? This is a wargame. Its about killing. Its about destroying the enemy. This is not Chess, or Risk. It's a wargame. What do you think happens when a tank fires into a squad? Or a machine gun chatters on men caught in the open. If you don't want death, why play a wargame? What is the purpose. Go play Monopoly! For the life of me, I can't understand this nit-picking afraid to see reality. You want real tanks, completely authentic. You want troops that fight like real troops. But no evidence of the fighting? There are no guts, no body parts, just a marker where a unit ended its career! And what do you think the smoking hulk of a tank represents? What do you think is inside of it? Because you can't see it, its not there? You guys are far too dainty to be playing a wargame. Men fought and died on the battlefield. That is what this game is about. Tactics and strategy are important, but there is an unavoidable element of violence, plain and simple. Honestly, out of all the arguments I've seen on this forum, this one without a doubt is the most ridiculous to date. And now I've jumped into it. Oh well, it had to be said. Now you can leave my body in a crumpled heap on this forum battlefield. You can be certainly be vicious enough here. I don't mean to deride those who oppose this aspect of the game. I just don't see the logic of your arguments. I won't convince you, I am sure. And I KNOW you won't convince me, so we'll leave it at an impasse. But I like the feature. I think it should be in the game. I vote for it. (Breathing hard, he steps down from the podium)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interestingly, I came across a thread where Steve said there would absolutely never be dead body markers in CMBO no matter what. BTS does change their minds on things now and then. [ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: I smell blood...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You called it. On the first reply no less. It's been a good show so far. The only downer being when I spilled some beverage on my scorecard sometime around page 3.