Vanir Ausf B

YES! I was just thinking the same thing today and someone posts it! In a way, you can tell that CM was not really designed for big games (3000 pt or larger). While maps for smaller QBs (1000 or so) are more or less square, as you go up in size the maps get much longer but not much wider. At the upper range you get maps that are so long that in an Attack/Defend QB the defender cannot purchase enough troops to cover that much frontage, but is so shallow that he cannot do a proper defence in depth either. And defence in depth is the reason it is needed. The lack of this abitily is one of the main reasons why it is more difficult to defend in CM than if real life (there are others as well). Here's what is needed IMO: The current map shapes are fine for MEs, but for Attack/Defend QBs they should be square with somewhat less length and a whole lot more depth, perhaps 2-3 times more depth than current. Instead of having all the VLs stretched in a long single line across the map, they would be staggered East-West as well as North-South. This would make it perhaps easier for the attacker to capture the nearest VLs, but a significant acheavement to get the ones furthest back from his settup zone. This would add tremendously to the realism of attack/defend QBs. You would probably have to bump the attacker point advantage back up at bit, but that's fine. Kwazydog, if you can get Charles to do this for CM2 you will be my favorite BTS dude.

Kip: Good points as usual. However, I would take the results of a scenario played against the AI with a grain of salt. Without seeing it I can't say for sure, but I would bet that if you put a human commander behind those "Russians", with 3-1 numerical advantage, you would have dramaticly different results.

Yeah, I thought about that too. The way I envision it is that the turret will simply stay pointed in the direction relative to the hull that you specified until the TacAI sees a target it wants to use the main gun on. It wont be as "sticky" as an ambush command. Note that I said "direction relative to the hull". It would not be stuck to a spot of terrain like with an ambush command either. If you rotate the hull, the turret will rotate with it. This would allow tanks to move in formation without having to worry about the turret turning to face backwards as you move forwards. It's not perfect, and there will be times where it won't work as planned, but it will give players more realistic flexability. [ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson: ... which is exactly the situation here. You can't order any unit to fire at an unspotted enemy, only at enemies who's location is pinpointed. If there are other enemies appearing it's the TC (TacAI) that handle those.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> When I said "in advance" I meant before the shooting even starts. It goes without saying that you can't shoot at an unspotted enemy. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In real life there's nothing that prevent the platoon leader to perform this kind of micromanagement (except for time constraints and that he's busy doing lots of other stuff).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which is exactly why he wouldn't do this in real life. Once the lead starts flying he would be too busy fighting his own tank to micromanage the rest of the platoon. Never mind that at any given moment he could not even be sure that a given tank other than his own has spotted a new target that appears. Yes, the TacAI will target new targets that appear during the turn. But during the orders phase the player can change any of these with no command pause (much to Meek's consternation). It's not like evey 60 seconds the platoon leader calls time out to confer with his tank commanders in the middle of a fire fight. Of course all of this ignores the fact that there actually are no tank platoon leaders at all in CM, since there is no command structure for vehicles. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>About the possibility to control turret rotation as is: I've just discovered that the Ambush command works well for this, to some extent. I just had a tank issued an ambush target. Then I had that tank back off, out of sight, and perform a lateral move. It kept the gun pointed towards the ambush point, even though it wasn't in LOS...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've heard of this workaround before, but have not tried it. The problem is that giving a tank an ambush order is very dangerous. If another tank comes into view outside of the ambush zone the ambushing tank will ignore it until it is fired upon which is usually too late. It can be safely done is some circumstances. Really though, being as there are already gimmicky workarounds to make the turret point this way or that anyway (ambush command, area fire) what would be the harm of giving the player a proper command for it that would eliminate the unrealistic side effects? [ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

I'm fairly sure both A and B would have to wait for the engine rewrite, so they are probably out of the question. It could be 2 year before that is done. No way would I wait that long and BTS needs to get paid sometime. C is hopefully doable for CM2, but I have no idea now hard/easy it will be, or even if BTS intends to do anything with it at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackthorne: Actually IMHO I don't believe it does put you in as tank commander. You are the commander of the tank commander. You order movement and targets (if you wish) and the tank commander enacts your orders. This is why there is a command pause. The crew and leader is diseminating your orders<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, I ain't buying it. The commander of the tank commander would be the platoon leader. The game allows you to select the exact target each tank fires at. In real life this is what the tank commander does, not the platoon leader, unless the targets were known in advance and which tank engages which target had been worked out prior to the engagement.

I remember it... I shudder to think how close I came to being on the evening news that day. [ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

I agree completely with Windowpaene. Of course, none of this is going to change anything, but it's something to talk about, I suppose

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heinz 25th PzReg: You arent overclocking your vid card or your cpu are you? If you are, try setting things back to default.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whoa. I forgot about that. I had to un-overclock my card as well before CM would run right.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson: It doesn't let me do so, it requires me to do so, which IMO is something completely different.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly. Good point. Which reinforces my point that if the game is going to put you in the shoes of a tank commander (which it does) it is not at all silly that some players will want to have the same options that a real world tank commander would have. If being able to point the turret in a particular direction independent of the hull were to introduce a level of micromanagement not already present in the game, I would be against it as well, but I don't think it would do that at all. It would just add realism IMO. EDIT: I would like to clarify something. I am not suggesting that TacAI control of the turret disappear, requiring the player to micromanage it at every step. It could funtion the same as it does now, with the added option of the player stepping in and overriding the TacAI control. [ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Having the latest drivers is not always the best thing. I have the same video card as Guy w/gun and when I first got CM it would lock up every few minuets, without exception. I solved it by using older drivers. Right now I am using 3.90 drivers. Yes, they are old, but everything runs flawlessly with them, including CM. I am still using Dx 7.0 also.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson: Order From: Battalion Commander To: Commander of 3rd tank, 1st platoon, B company. Rotate your turret 36 degrees to the left ASAP, and keep it there. Repeat for every tank in the battalion... Seems silly, doesn't it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The reason it is not silly is the obvious fact that the player is not assuming the role of only a battalion commander. He is also a company commander, a platoon leader, a squad leader, and, yes, a tank commander. If you were only a battalion commander, you would give general orders to your companies (hold this area, seize that objective), and the TacAI would give the detailed orders to your platoons and squads to carry it out. The game already lets you micromange the hell out of your units, so let's drop this silly "micromanagement goes against the spririt of the game" stuff. [ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

If I may, I think the reason human wave attacks are so sucessfull in CM can be summed up in two points made here: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by X-00: What is Grazing Fire? The DOD definition of Grazing fire is "Fire approximately parallel to the ground where the center of the cone of fire does not rise above one meter from the ground." For Machine Guns in WWII this would extend out to at least 400m and in some instances 600m. Grazing Fire is the primary reason for the Machine Gun's existence. It is terrifically effective. The inspiration for CM, Squad Leader simulated this very well. CM, though a fantastic game, does not. Now a couple of side points. -When rushing through areas covered with Grazing Fire it doesn't matter if you weeve and bob. The machine gunner isn't aiming at individual soldiers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pillar: Perhaps the rate of speed for the "Run" command should be dropped a little? Currently it is at around 3.4 meters a second. All this speed AND they are using cover, "leaping bounding and zigzagging"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As Steve said, the current Run order is an abstraction. It combines "run" with an "assault" order. It gives the running unit the best of both worlds; the movement rate of an all out run, plus the cover of Assault. This would be the easiest problem to fix. Dividing Run and Assault into 2 seperate orders would be best. As I understand it, the grazing fire problem is most likely a hardware limitation. The way CM simulates "bullets", they basicaly disappear when they are fired and reappear in an area centered on the target unit. Therefore, they cannot effect anything between. Modeling this correctly would also make friendly fire a real concern for the CM commander, which would encourage real world tactics even more. I don't know how much this would add to the CPU load, and I am sure we will see it eventually, but I would rather see it sooner than later, if feasable. [ 04-09-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bullethead: I think WW2 only became WW2 when folks forgot that the Seven Years War (aka the French and Indian War over here) was actually WW1 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excellent point, and one I would agree with. It could also be argued that the Napoleanic Wars were actually WW2. The only problem there is that they were a series of several wars with brief pauses in between instead of one long continous war, but that's a small technicality. For all intents and purposes, it was a World War. Does anyone think the 30 Year War would count as a world war? I would guess not, but I don't know enough about it to say for sure. [ 04-08-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

I too would like to see the spellcheck back. It only worked half the time before, but it was better than nothing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juju: Not surprising. Smoke is supposed to be fired at terrain, not at units. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps I should have been a little more precise. I was indeed refering to targeting terrain in front of an enemy unit, not directly targeting the unit itself. If it is not a bug, it should be a bug. If tank smoke rounds were as unless in RL as they are in the game they wouldn't have bothered with them. I'm not demanding that BTS release a patch to make it work properly, I'm just hoping they make it work better in CM2.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maastrictian: Now I don't know much about halftracks but IIRC the M3A1 has a bow mounted MG as well as a pintle mounted MG. The bow MG can be fired even when buttoned. As for crews that have taken a casualty unbuttoning -- this is impossible (in the game). It will never happen. --Chris<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From the 1.1 patch Readme: * M3A1 Halftrack, M3A1 Scout Car, and M5A1 Halftrack are not forced to remain buttoned up after suffering only one crew casualty.

This actually was discussed at length in another thread a few weeks back. What a few people (Jason Cawley and maybe a few others) said was that it was not unusual for German troops to use PF against infantry, even though they weren't supposed to. So it's not unrealistic (according to them). EDIT: I found the discussion. Enjoy ------------------ What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve [This message has been edited by Vanir Ausf B (edited 04-04-2001).]

Yes, this is rather annoying. What I and some other people do is have your tanks and on-board mortars fire off their smoke rounds at the earliest opportunity. Tank smoke rounds are totally useless in CM anyway because even if you order your tank to fire smoke at an enemy unit it will often change your orders and fire HE or AP instead. So the TacAI will use smoke when you don't want it and will often not let you use it when you do want it, so it's just better to shoot it into some nearby hillside at the beginning of the game and be rid of it before the TacAI screws you with it. ------------------ What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve [This message has been edited by Vanir Ausf B (edited 04-04-2001).]

From page 62 of the CM manual: Small arms fire from a unit (simulating sometimes the firing of a dozen rifles and machineguns at a time) is NOT directed at one pinpoint area only. Instead, each "shot" affects and area around the unit target or zone, in which it can cause casualties or suppression. ------------------ What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve

Actually, I think you can get it while targeting infantry also now (added in a patch). This was done so you would know if your hull MG could fire or not. It's all or nothing. ------------------ What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve

Yeah that's him. Haven't seen him around in months. Last I remember he was getting a new computer as a present. Maybe it didn't work. ------------------ What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve

Actually, the fewer the units the greater the role luck plays. But, whatever. I prefer 3000 pt battalion slugfests myself but it's all personal taste. ------------------ What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve

If you mean the one that puts the Swastikas on the German flags (and in other parts of the game as well) I think there is more than one, but I got mine from CMHQ. It's by some one name Angela Deth or something like that. It's been around forever. ------------------ What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve

!?!? I would think that whether or not a tank gets penetrated by an AT round would have rather major consequences with crew casualties. ------------------ What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve