Puff the Magic Dragon

DANGER - MINEFIELD Interesting question - who gives reports to whom, and who represents the commander on field? To answer at least this : this can not be answered . In princip the player can be seen as the superior off-map HQ unit, only that this unit does not guide each unit on-field. But this is just the only way to make the game playable, but also the reason for borg spotting. But anyway... Let's assume I am the superior off-map HQ. The squad leader reports to the platoon leader, the platoon leader to the next higher HQ and so on. Maybe the point is delay: currently each unit knows only two kinds of command delay, for example 6 seconds when in command, 12 seconds when out of command range. Why is the delay the same, even if a unit is 5 meters out of command range or 500? For example the beloved single sniper in the enemies backyard: how can he receive my orders? In princip he needs a delay of minutes to get them. An FO for example would a completly different situation, cause he has ussually a radio. He can always operate with short delay. Now the reports: let's assume a non-HQ unit must report their sightings to a HQ unit - not necessarily the own HQ - it would also need a small delay to give the report. This might be very short if the HQ is close enough or in LOS, while a Sniper or a crew behind enemy lines, far away from any HQ, would be absolutly unable to report something. If it engages an enemy, the enemy would be still invisble (to the player), and the unit can fight only under command of the TacAI. And the unit could report there sightings not before it has returned in command range - and then it could report spotted enemies of course only with 'generic markers'. Completly different situation if the unit is equipted with radios. Anymway, I see the many difficulties to make this working. Maybe it's indeed impossible.

Well, I have my abacuse not around, but I guess to fire so close would make it necessary - to rise the whole gun to bring the barrel in the right angle - to be a full time idiot, cause you are trying to blow your own ass off

Can I see here back, too, please? Cough, cough - sorry. I couldn't resist

a) a technical question: is the on-map field artillery we have in CM able to fire indirect - I mean in reality? Or were they all build only for direct fire? Why has on map artillery no minimum range like mortars? I think they can also use only a minimum charge, so the shell would always fly at least ... meters?

Andrew I agree - anyway, I have started an own threat for the borg spotting problem. Beside that, I didn't meant to place artillery always on map. 'Normal' artillery, 75mm and above, can fire on ranges over 10km, so the range problem does not exist for them anyway. I was more thinking about the artillery we have on map already : 81mm mortars (mounted and unmounted), Self-propelled artillery. Heavy HT-mounted Nebelwerfers would fall in this catergory, too, cause their range were below 3km. CMplayer I agree [ March 02, 2002, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

An idea that rised in another threat: The problem of borg spotting is, each unit can receive orders or give reports, doesn't matter where on the map they are. Just something to think about : would it be possible to build a 'line of communication' or 'command'? If a unit has a radio, it can receive orders or give reports on each place of the map. Even if it's a cut of crew with a radio behind the enemy lines. A unit without radio can only use - visible or acoustic contact to another friendly unit. - messengers (abstracted) : Realistic, but difficult for many reasons. How long does he need? How dangerous was his way? Possibly he was killed or wounded...etc etc Sounds of course easier then it might be to programm - the 'line of com' must be tracked during the whole battle. Problems, Problems...

CM Player I said meters, not kilometers JAK Indirect on-map artillery fire is exactly what I want to see. My idea is to use FOs even for on-map artillery. Offwhite Indeed I think that direct fire by mortars was not the common way to use them - maybe except the real small 50/60mm thingys. It's IMO just stupid - why build an inderect fire weapon and use it for direct fire? In my military service (in a 120mm mortar platoon) this was told be an emergency measure only. You missunderstood the range thing. Why should I fire blind? I can move the FO in LOS, or any other unit, so I have at least an idea where the enemy is. Bigger maps the necessary should not provide bigger areas to fight, but bigger areas to maneuver TRPs are not available in QBs, except to defenders. CM Player We already have runners. Of course only abstracted . But that is not the point. If a unit has a radio, it can receive orders or give reports on each place of the map. Even if it's a cut of crew behind the lines with a radio. A unit without radio can only use view or acoustic contact to another friendly unit, or messengers, of course. The borg spotting problem arises because every unit can always report or receive order. But indeed, this is a theme for another threat.

Offwhite Take a map of 4 km length. Place an on-map 81mm at the border: it has a range of ~2500m. If the same mortar is off-map, let's imagine 5m behind the visible border, represented by an FO only, it can reach every place on the map. Even over 4 km. So it isn't an additional feature to place them on-map, in princip it's a must for a realistic simulation. The next step must then be to change the way of guiding indirect on-map artillery fire, or the system don't works. CM Player Good point. I wonder if BTS will find a way to simulate a 'line of communication'

I think most realistic would be an attached FO or alternative an Mortar group with own HQ. The TO&E of a (German Jäger) mortar group: 1 Group Leader (1 Pistol) 2 Troop Leaders (2 SMG) 1 Range Finder (1 Pistol) 2 Radio Operators (2 rifles, 2 radios) 8 Mortar Riflemen (4 Pistols, 4 rifles, 2 mortars) The CM:BO mortar group (with 2 mortars) has 12 men (as I assume): 1 Troop Leader 1 Radio Operator 4 Mortar Riflemen That leaves two men, the Group leader and the range finder. Sounds to me like a two men FO troop. Principly this could work for all kinds of on-map artillery that is able to fire indirect - unmounted and HT mounted mortars/Nebelwerfer, self-propelled Artillery (Wespe, Hummel, Katyuscha), maybe some kinds of fieldartillery(?).

1) The current on-map mortars can get fire direction orders by a close HQ unit. IMO, the current solution is not very satisfyingly - when you move with HQ units close to your mortar position, the chain of command can be 'stolen' by another, especially higher, HQ. This is very annoying, cause you now need 1 turn to move this HQ out of range and another turn to give the fire orders again. IMO it would make more sense to - assign an FO to them or - fix them to their platoon HQ or - let the player assign them to a HQ in the setup 2) The on-map mortar must be in command range of the HQ. This is also not the best solution. The (81mm) mortar have radios. If the HQ has non, then it ussually has a messenger to transport the fire order. With some delay, of course. 3) It is a known fact that especially off-map 81mm mortars and partially also heavy Nebelwerfer units can fire far beyond there physical possible range in CM:BO. I assume this problem won't get better in CM:BB with larger maps. Wouldn't be the logic consequence to place them on-map with an assigned FO?

Let's take this as a hint on the old question : how many CM:BO copies has been sold? At least enough to make so much money that 4 guys don't need to seriously worry about the release date of CM:BB [ February 27, 2002, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

I guess I should set CM:BB on my christmas wishlist. [ February 26, 2002, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

Scipio made a few, you find them at WarfareHQ

Let me add one: A M10 Tank Destroyer is facing a 'Gun?' The M10 is out of HE shells since several turns. The M10 targets the gun anyway, fireing with AP shells. As always, heroism wasn't rewarded. The gun killed the M10. Questions: Why does a tank not retreat, out of HE and targeted by a potential threat? Why? Why is this world so unfair? Is it me? What have I done to deserve this? Mooooomie...I'm so unlucky.

An intellectual interesting question is for sure: why haven't he posted his thingy in German, if it's for Germans only?

Could someone imagine that a person who is not familar with the Englisch language surely doesn't know about the correct, friendly, political correct form how things must be said in English? Boy, this is - please excuse my political incorrectness and my rude language - the most idiotic threat I have ever seen. Mom?

:eek: I knew I would make an asshole of me

Was it a topic already? Well, I don't care anyway...'search function'...bah Well, will the 3d map navigation be revised in CM:BB? I think it should be possible to click somewhere on the map to move the viewpoint, or a click & key combination. The scrolling is sometimes really... - you know? Especially on big maps. Or have I missed something during the last 16 month???

Folks, this shows how funny it is to be a German. He said 'You must be German', he did not said : you must be white, verified Arier. Africans, Yews etc are not welcome'. What a ****ing country I live in! We can't even make jokes about ourselves. As if any other nation in any other war ever saved the lives of 'the enemy'. As if 'racism' is an unknown term in the rest of the world. About his English : just read the title of the threat. 'At all...?'. I could swear it must be 'To all...'. Maybe my English is to bad, too... [ February 18, 2002, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

Oh, there are more things. Guns can move without getting tired. A shot from a higher position does not rise the chance for a top penetration. [ February 17, 2002, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]

What is the sense of the different attack types? Yes, I know, 'assault' = more purchase points for the attacker and more VLs to take, 'probe' less of both, compared to the 'attack'. But makes it sense? Assault means, the defender must defend more VLs (= spread his forces) vs a stronger enemy. So in princip it is the same like an attack with a purchase bonus for the attacker plus a disadvantage for the defender, because he must defend more. Probe = vice versa. So assault = attack with a double handicap for the defender probe = attack with a double handicap for the attacker Sounds to me like we can have (nearly) the same when we only use the bonus. Another thing, how about an additional type of battle? Let me call it 'DEMOLITION', simply a meeting without VLs. Well, maybe we will have it anyway if we can preset the number of VLs for QuickBattles in CM:BB. Can we?

To all Webmasters - that is all that must be said about it... Not? Okay - LINUX is a perfect OS for computers nets. Period. But the typical gamer is not in need of a net OS. I guess what ianc meant with 'tinker OS' was the home users, not the professional webmasters. Windows is like this : 'I don't know how it works, I just turn the key an the thing runs.' In LINUX, you better know what you are doing.

Sad but true - must someone be reminded on the 'WWII Online' desaster? Hyped early, pushed to the market before time, crashed badly and nearly forgotten after a few month. I guess the simpliest solution for the lost ground would be to allow smaller - very small - no-mans-land settings. I'm just curious, Steve, what would happen when no-mans-land would be set to zero?

Thanx webby

Ehm - how much ground do I loose in each battle? Is it a static number or preset by the designer? I can't find it in the manual, but maybe I'm just blind! :cool: