Rocky Balboa

My thinking exactly Michael ... I will now be creating homemade Christmas cards this year for all my friends. Nothing else says peace on earth good will toward men like a CMx2 winter wonderland screen shot...

It would appear that all the wailing and gnashing of teeth earlier when GAJ's AT gun was easily spotted and destroyed has quieted. Now we have a second gun which fires off at least 4 rounds and yet remains hidden. Seems that as in RL spotting is not a simple formula but a very complex equation with many variables coming into play ... *** Golf Clap *** for seeing this demonstrated in the AAR ...

It is obvious that the commanders intent is to use the Brumbar in direct fire mode and this is why they are deployed forward to support the attack. If the commander wanted to use them in the indirect fire support role then he would have deployed them farther to the rear and off map. This is one of those situations where you can't have it both ways, I suspect it would take quite a bit of time and coordination for the Brumbar's crew or any SP gun of this era to transition from direct to indirect fire role. Now if this were a modern era game and we were talking about a weapon system like M109A6 Paladin then there could be a case made for allowing this to happen

Wouldn't it be great if we could purchase camouflage which would give a considerable concealment bonus to any unit that hasn't moved. Better yet allow players the ability to auto camouflage the way that CMx1 would allow you to auto dig-in in the setup phase. Of course the concealment bonus would stay in effect until the unit moves or fires.

I agree, lots of Monday morning quarterbacking going on ... Maybe if this or similar situation comes up again you should give the thread an opportunity to make the call. Should I fire or not? Would be interesting to see the outcome of that exercise ...

Allow me to opine by saying not boring at all ... following with great interest ...

Bill has not split his force, he has support units on both sides of the road to support the assault on the center objective and he has recon units on both sides of the road to locate GAJ's positions. Once he takes the the center objectives and has the results from his recon, I'm sure he will chose which side he wants to assault on. Keep in mind that even after he has decided on a route of attack, right or left, he must keep GAJ's forces pinned in position as this will hamper GAJ's ability to maneuver. Also securing the ridge road as he advances will ensure that GAJ can't use the ridge road to fire down into the flanks of Bills attack. Once he finishes his recon, Bill has the luxury of deciding which side he wants to take on and can use the bulk of his force in the assault while providing support from the ridge road. I personally think the ridge road is more a problem for the defender than the attacker. GAJ's forces are split by the ridge road and the road prevents his split forces from supporting the other. GAJ has basically 2 isolated forces and this is a big C2 problem should he lose the ridge road. GAJ does have his M10's as a mobile response force that he can commit once he sees which direction Bill is coming from. I would also hold back the quad 50 with this mobile force and not commit it too soon. GAJ should make every effort to hold onto the ridge road and not allow Bill to use it as a base of support.

Looking at the BF video here it looks like they can fire forward but to the oblique. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&list=PLq35rCvhBc0ukgk15CoM3qAYucgmRW5X%20%20G&v=_FMEXUXnVtw#! Might work to adjust your facing or preferably have your arse end facing the DOA. This will make it quicker for them to bug out when need be.

@Snake-Eye I have seen your comments in the Peanut gallery thread ... Please don't give advice to the combatants since its obvious you are familiar with the disposition of the forces on both sides.

GAJ's AT guns are going to be vulnerable once they're spotted, Bill has all those mortars to use in direct fire mode so GAJ needs to get some first shot kills to be successful. I think he mentioned that he wanted some Sherman 76's but there weren't any available for purchase. I'm not sure if I wouldn't have chosen the Sherman 75's over the 76mm AT Guns, just for the added mobility in defense.

Ditto everyone's comments with regard to your analysis. Great planning phase ... And now LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!

Bill, great Job with your analysis and operation order. For CMBN Market Garden I would like to suggest at least one AAR between you and Jeffrey Paulding at Armchair General, that would be an epic show down for sure. If you throw down the gauntlet maybe Jeff will pick it up if he's watching ....

@#$%^ .... Hurry up and wait .... the tension is palpable. Seriously many thanks to both Bill and GAJ for taking the time to do these AAR's.

Don't look for ground to air assets functioning until we get to CM:MW. In CM pre 45 ground to air effectiveness was marginal. However any conflict between 2 modern 21st century combatants should certainly include units operating in that capacity. Modern day air power is such a force multiplier that not having units to counter it would be a glaring omission. Didn't mean to get off on a tangent, that's fodder for another thread ... for now I'm ready for another great AAR. Many thanks to Bill and GAJ for taking the time to do this ...

There seems to be a trend in this thread with stating opinion as fact (myself included). With that said the proposed change is really no different than the way CMx1 handled deployment, which never caused a hardship to my knowledge, in which case your statement is of course your opinion and should be noted as such.

Womble and Michael, you are both getting ridiculous and snarky in your commentary. Of course no AI can duplicate what a human can do and with the same fidelity, if that's what your waiting for then you wouldn't be playing the game at all because I can assure you that it's full of shortcuts and compromises that you would both still be complaining about given the opportunity. What the game does prove however is that the AI can be programmed to adequately take care of any number of battlefield tasks and I have laid out in previous posts showing how this could be accomplished with the deploy command. You obviously don't agree with that and that's ok, its your opinion. No solution is perfect and the current way that deployment is handle is no exception, sometimes adequate is a reasonable compromise. Present your case and leave the personal attacks out of the discussion thanks ...

This style of play you described here is very common for many players who play RT. I personally don't play CMx2 RT for many of the reasons being discussed in this thread. Even though I only enjoy RT when playing the smallest of battles, I find that CMx2 requires entirely too much micro management (IMO *nods to noob* ). This is why, if the UI is to be redesigned, then commands like deploy that can be adequately handled by the TacAI, should be. RT play not withstanding even when playing WEGO, the game needs to get away from requiring the commander to manage every detail of a battle. I feel you get much better results and enjoyment that way ... Now with all this said, I realize that many times things sound better and worse in writing than they actually are so of course before the [deploy] command is removed, all this would need to be tested and there in lies the problem. Do we remove the command and code the TacAI only to find that the command is necessary? Of course this is why I play the game because BF has done a great job of dealing with these issues in the past, they listen to their customers when appropriate and so I think the game is in great hands regardless of the outcome of this particular issue.

Can't edit my post at this point but you are correct that this is entirely my opinion. Although I would think most readers would realize that this goes without saying.

Your example is exactly why [deploy] is being questioned. In a game already overburdened with micro management. Why have a command like deploy that may not be necessary when the TacAI might be able to reasonably make the decision when to [deploy] and when not to. Hence this discussion.

@JonS, You heartless cad, looks like the children are finally making themselves heard ...

Yes Its just one command but UI space is precious and if we can eliminate one button or reduce the amount of micro management required than it’s a win for the entire game. I didn’t intend to start this thread as a complaint, and to be honest I’ve played enough now that I rarely forget to manually deploy. However, with that said, new players might find the mechanic a little cumbersome to get used to. My main thought in starting this thread is to discuss some other ways that but crew served weapons deployment might be handled in a better way. We also know that there are some UI changes coming soon so now might be a good time to provide BF with some feed back. In my opinion [target],[target arc] and [area target] commands should all assume that the crew needs to deploy the weapon so anytime one of these commands are issued to an un-deployed weapon it should immediately begin deployment. Therefore anyone wanting to manually deploy would simply issue one of these commands. Note: [Target Arc] would cause the weapon to deploy but not fire. In addition un-deployed weapons should automatically deploy when they come under fire (This assumes they are not pinned or cowering of course). It is still my opinion that all trained crews would automatically deploy their weapon when in combat during even a brief stop. Perhaps a switch that forces the TacAI to deploy the weapon if the unit hasn't been issued a move order in the last 2 minutes. Again these suggestions are just some thoughts and not meant to be seen as complaints but just some ways to improve the system.

I know I said this before but it bears repeating, wouldn't a target or area target command suffice to replace the deploy command? You move and issue an area target/target command at the end of movement and this is an implied order that the weapon needs to deploy. If no target command is given then they stay un-deployed are not deployed. Really annoying especially in WEGO to issue a target command only to see the weapon sit there because you forgot to order them to deploy.

AT guns are definitely a different case but normally when they are given a move order its very short. However, to prevent the gun from deploying too soon, have the target/area target command initiate the deploy command. This way you can move your gun into position and issue a target/Area Target command to begin deployment. I personally think they will at some point need to make AT guns function more like vehicles so that the crews can leave the gun and then re-crew the gun when needed.

As I said before, even green troops fresh out of basic, when manning a crew served weapon will follow SOP and SOP normally says when you stop for any length of time in combat, then prepare your weapon to fire, Otherwise your weapon is useless. My feeling is that the tac AI should start to deploy the weapon from the time that it stops. If they receive a move order before they are setup then they move out as normal. If they are already setup then you have the delay to pack up before moving. Like wise if you move a crew served weapon and then give them a target order at the end of their movement then [Deploy Weapon] command should be assumed. Cant target unless your deployed right? The exception would be semi deployed weapons (see my comments below). I shouldn't have to issue a deploy weapon command and a target command as well. With an already cluttered UI just seems like this command is unnecessary micro management. Weapons that can fire in semi deployed state will always be able to do so immediately while the crew prepares for full deployment. IMO any added concealment that the weapon may receive from while being semi-deployed is offset by the increased accuracy the weapon gets from being fully deployed.

I've always wondered why this command was necessary, shouldn't any basically trained weapons crew automatically do this whenever they stop moving? Why do we need to have additional micro management when the TacAI should be able to handle this?