Puff the Magic Dragon

Slapdragon This may be right, but it was, as you has said, an isolated case. And how long did they need to reorganize before they attacked?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: I disagree. The victory point price of crews is high enough that I can punish other player who use them as scouts badly enough that they don't do it again if they understand what happens or loose if they don't. Especially since crews cannot see or fight very well. And since they are costly, they need to be under player control. It is part of the game challenge to evacuate or even rescue them. As for killing a bazooka with a crew - that sounds right and matches historical accounts. Isolated units live dangerous, even the teethy bazookas.<hr></blockquote> How costly? I haven't managed to figure it out. But I still think that you have to loose a lot of them to influence the result. To evacuate is what I meant when I said 'only move to friendly map edges'. So we are not really contrary on this point. About the Bazooka - if they stumpled over it on the retreat, okay. But did they hunted it? I would like to see the historic account.

I could swear this was on the board only a few weeks ago, why the heck I can't find it??? However... I wonder if it really makes sense when crews get under the players command during the battle, especially bailed vehicel crews? We know, the typical human being on the battlefield does not automatically tend to act like a hero. If possible, he trys to bring his ass out of the fire. So, when a crew has the luck to survive the death of the tank, will their first clear thought will be 'Let's try again to die for our country on a kamikaze mission!'? Well, this is of course speculative. The only case I know for sure that someone did so was Wittmann - and he also moved behind the front lines to get a new tank before he engage again, and he got a knights cross for his heroism. A more practical point of view is this. A crew jumps out of the tank, they are possibly lightly wounded, and they must save heavy wounded soldiers. They are out of command range. Even if they want to engage, they must first get orders, and they must find something better then their pistols. They must find a higher HQ unit. Both will need some time, already 15 minutes would be much within the CM battle's timeframe. The leader of a HQ must be willing to use this for him unknown man. (speculations again) We also shouldn't forget that even CM vehicel crews are part of a bigger formation - would the commander of a tank platoon want his crew men to act as infantry, or does he want them to move from the battlefield to jump into another tank later (more speculations). To come to an end, would it be more sensefull (or historic) when a crew without it's vehicel simply try to survive: run for the next cover and hide, and the player will not be able to give them any orders, or if any, then only to move away from the enemy to friendly map edges. I don't ask because of the victory points. Even if you get more points for killed crews, it doesn't have a big influence. But I often notice that a) crews are used on scoutmissions (how do the transmit their information?). Information is VERY important in a battle. To loose a crew is a cheap risk for an uncovered AT gun, for example. IMO it is not historic - it's not even logic I guess the simpliest solution would be to increase the time the crews stays 'panic'. Thoughts? [ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Puff, DOH! That teaches me to improvise from what Chalres wrote to me at 3am after 7 hours without brain food Yes folks, Captured guys are worth more points than dead ones. Huge, major brain fart Illo's reasonsing is the correct batch. However, what I said is also true when you are talking about large scale. Steve<hr></blockquote> I wonder if Charles was already talking about CM:BB?? However, it has indeed only a small influence on the victory. BTW, crews...

Steve Thanks for the links!!! :cool: But you must be wrong about the captured units, the manual says they have the double worth of killed units. Also, if a crew served weapon is destroyed, you get the full points for it. If the crew is killed, you get additional points. I have tested it a while ago. When we are already talking about victory conditions - I wonder how the problem of Russian casualties will be solved. They produced 40000 T-34, but the avarage lifetime of a T-34 was less then two weeks (I have read it somewhere, I hope it's correct). The Russian nearly always lost much more men and material on the battlefield then the Germans - with the current system they would always loose. But there casualties didn't hindered them to win the war. [ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas: Shouldn't really play when drunk.<hr></blockquote> American slang, Andreas, not British [ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf: I would appreciate it if people wouldn't turn words in people's mouth, that doesn't serve any purpose. Jason says that SMG squads are more effective for the cost in CMBO. To which extend is arguable and it is even more arguable whether the problem can be fixed with a price adjustment at all. Jason has a very black-white view. But still, what's the purpose of this flamebait? It's not that everybody else is *that* good in absorbing other people's arguments. P.S.: Jagdtiger == gun damage<hr></blockquote> I once managed to damage the track. Then he killed my last tank. I tried it with a Zook from behind, several hits, not penetration . Not to mention the other Jagdtigers. :eek: At the end Jagdtigers were sitting on both VLs. I was so pissed that I told mommy how gamey my opponent was . [ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: Whoever said that obviously never worked behind the counter.<hr></blockquote> LOL - you are obviously working behind a counter. No one else can have this deep understanding. Steve If you are still around, I'm interested which sources were used to define the squad OOB. Can you recomment a book? I can find source for companys or bigger, but not for small units. I'm a fetishist - I love stats. Xerxes I agree. Anyway, the victory calculation is based on them, and sometimes I wonder if this the best way. But I keep silent this time until I have the solution. :cool: Slapdragon SMG squads undeafetable? LOL! The magic of CM is: nothing is undefeatable. Well, maybe except the Jagdtiger. But I haven't faced them often enough to verify.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JPS: BTS, thanks for the short answer, great! Also, if/when spotting the exact type of infantry unit is made harder the FT teams on average will live longer. Of course, a team that bursts 20m of flames should be identified with certainty JPS<hr></blockquote> How can we be sure? Maybe they have eaten beans? [ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

Yes, call me Puff . Thanks again for the long answer. Somewhere above I explained Slapdragon that I wanted the advise of the only person/group that have really the full understanding of the engine. I guess at last I can follow your points. And thanks for the short answer. Now I can still hope . Time to return to my cave. And my bathtub

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: This is still a bad idea unless the probability of the FT being the first casualty is vastly higher than the other 3-4. Nothing draws fire like a FT, and it has nothing to do with training. It stems from the fear of burning to death. An MG42 is a more effective all round weapon, but it won't draw fire like a FT will. Unless the engine can single out a FT within a squad it would be unrealistic to make it part of a squad or larger team. It gives the FT more survivability than it should have.<hr></blockquote> Well, that would leaves one possible change. The ability to run a short distance. If someone want to proof it, he shall fill a rucksack with 25kg of wet sand and try to run with it. I was able. I was even able to escape when the neightbours called the medic and the police to catch this idiot who runs over the street with a sand filled rucksack . I think the ability to jump back into cover is realistic. Even an FT want to stay alive. A Zook team is able to run about 100m or more. A FT is not limited to the ammo issues like a MG. Something between 20 - 50 meters would enable him to cross small distances of unconvered terraine, advance from one house to another or as already said run back into cover when he gets fire from an undiscovered enemy position. [ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

Slapdragon The reason why I asked for the official point of view was, I wanted to know the ideas behind the decision to seperate FTs as team. I was not able to find the information with the search function. So please forgive me. Beside that, to attack me because I ask the only real experts in engine questions for advise is also not of good form. Steve Thank you, I'm happy that you have found the time. I will not impeach your arguments, even if I see some details in another way - please see at the end, if you are still interested. to all The main argument is always 'Nothing is broken, so nothing must be fixed.' In other words, the FTs are historical correct modeled, the engine is okay, but of course the player must learn to use the engine correct, because only if the model is used right he can succeed. I hope I have summarized it correct. Throw with putrid eggs if not And of course, we all know that the same instance that guides the model we must use is itself unable to make use of it. Except one of you have ever seen an successfull AI led FT attack when you play vs the AI. BAD PUFF! DEEP HIT! You may find this argument unjustfied, because the AI can't of course be compared with human intelligence. I only want to show that the same engine that models the weapon is not able to make use of it. The AI makes often stupid things, bud it can handle the most units. Bud it can not handle the FT, without doubt. So please have mercy with me. Well, it is questionable if any of my proposed changes would make a difference for the AI, please please please let's forget the stupid comment. Steve I will make a last proposal before I return into my cave. M Hofbauer has made some good comments, as I think. Based on them and other posts I dare to propose this: Instead of a two man team, I propose a 4-5 men team, equipted with the FT and some small arms. It is at normal speed as slow as the FT now, but it can run a very short distance (but still a bit slower than normal infantry) - for example the 25m which are necessary to cross one tile of open terrain or a road. More, and it gets tired very fast. This compromise would cover: a) The FT is still available as independent team. A must, as you have said. The FT is covered by infantry. You have said that this is not realsitic, but I think that it would be a compromise to equalize a bit the limits of the engine that I see. c) The QB player/scenario designer is able to build the 'Stosstrupp' as descriped by M Hofbauer: one engineer squad and the larger FT team would represent the large 'Pioneer Sturmgruppe'. It would have 13 men at all (German troops), this is equal to the Wehrmacht 'Sturmgruppe Squad'. d) If the FT advances and receives unexpected fire, he can run back into cover. If the cover is of course already to far away, the FT is toasted anyway because it is still a small unit. I guess this is realistic. e) A larger team would be more expensive, say ~50 points. So it would be useless to buy a gamey and unrealistic force with 10 FTs, cause FTs would be only purchased when the need is expected. At least by players with a brain. [ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

Well, I guess it would be kind if BTS could explain their point of view. We start to repeat the same arguments over and over again. At least I do.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas: Okay, I am beginning to think I am dense now...<hr></blockquote> Excellent. Your first step into a bigger world . About 1) & 2) Were the FT a prime target in reality? Yes, I agree. Did the squad covers it with fire? Yes, you agree. So we share our opinion at least in this points. The problem is, covering fire simply don't work. You advance with three squads and two FTs. The first thing that is killed will always be the FTs, because all enemy units will target the FTs first. To surpress an enemy unit that attacks the FT, you must have another unit close to the FT, cause you must guarentee LOS to the attacking enemy. Especially in a city or other heavy terrain is LOS a very tricky thing. And CM just don't take care of things like 'Oh, this FT we should cover receives fire from a unit three meters out of our LOS, let's move there and protect it'. The engine isn't able to do this, as you know. But this would be negated when the FT is part of the squad. And any other squad has also primary targets (the MG, the leader), and the engine also can't target them seperatly, and you seem to be very contendet with this system. Beside that, as Charlie Rock has explained above, FT attacks are part of a system. They surpress the enemy, so other troops can advance to take out the enemy position. For this it is necessary that the FT advance together with the squad. But this is not possible, because the FT is at maximum speed much slower then the minimum speed I can order for engineers. You may argue that this kind of attack can't be ordered in CM anyway. But with the CM:BB 'Assault'? About 3) I never proposed that!!! Indeed I said 'when the FT is killed, it gone'. Like a lost Faust. To repeat: when one Faust carrier is killed, one Faust attack is lost. When the FT is killed, 9 FT attacks are lost. Point. Finish. No one should be able to take the FT and move on. Berlichingen See above. Andreas has said 'It isn't broken, so i don't need to be fixed'. Well, CM:BO in general works. But does this mean that BTS should never return to this part of the war in some years and produce a CM:BO II, only because CM:BO has worked? It is not necessary that something is broken to make it better. And CM will not loose it's attraction, only because a difficult thing like the use of FTs is made easier. Kingfish I have already explained that. The key is abstraction. The speed of a unit is only it's average speed. The light squad MG can move faster the the ligh MG team, cause the whole squad carries the ammo. For FTs it would be vise versa. Once the FT has used up all fuel, he and especially his assistant would be free to support the squad in other ways. Please read the other posts, I have explained it somewhere above, but I'm to tired to repeat it again.

Ehm, I speak to all who think that nothing should be changed. I have still a problem to understand their concerns and what they fear to loose, or the disadvantages they see. Maybe I misunderstood them. Maybe my point should be redefined. Regarding FTs & engineers (it is important that they are seen together): The question is not 'Is the current model completly wrong?' The question should be 'Can it be done better, and if not, why not?' I'm convinced it can and should be done better and have explained all my arguments about the 'hows' and 'whys' it can and should be done. I would like to hear the opposite again in concentrated form, cause I fear I have missed something.

Well, I guess we move a little bit into the wrong direction - are city fights modeled well or not (partially my fault). Just to make it clear: what are excactly your arguments against the idea?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai: If the V1 rocket was so easy to pick/disable, then why did the British allow so many to crash into London? <hr></blockquote> I guess the V2 did the most damage. I don't know the English technical terms - the V1 was this relativ slow flying bomb, similar to an aircraft, but the V2 was the rocket bomb with this nice black & white coating. I'm not sure if it was possible to shoot down V2 rockets - I assume it was at least much more difficult to shoot them down then the V1.

Here is a page about them at Achtung Panzer! There were different models, some were big like tanks, and I guess they couldn't be killed with a rifle, at least not all models. GIMME GIMME GIMME [ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

Goliaths would be really cool. More engineer stuff But it could be difficult to model - a vehicel with an extern crew to drive it?

I wonder why infnatry isn't able to lay smoke. Where smoke handgrenades not alerady developed in WWII? Maybe it would be senseless anyway... I assume the smoke screen would excist at best for ~ half minute. But for a squad on retreat, maybe...?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JPS: Puff (and others), is the roughly 20 kgs of FT equipment carried by one man in "backpack-style"? What is the role of the other guy in the FT team (presuming that the two-man team is historically correct)? Andreas, ok, I misread you message. [ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: JPS ]<hr></blockquote> I asked this, too No answer yet, but the message from Charlie Rock on top of page two makes me believe that he carried additional fuel and other supply for the FT. [ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas: These are the two points where we fundamentally disagree. Contrary to your opinion I am convinced that: 1) City-fighting is modeled quite well in CMBO, but only if you have a really good scenario. 2) FTs work if the condition in 1) is met. Ergo FTs are not broken, and don't need fixing. Regarding your experience with scenarios - have you had a look at the Scenario depot? The stuff that is in Big Dog's Top 10 over 3 is really all quite good. There is no longer any need to waste time playing crappy scenarios, thanks to Admiral Keth's service. Link in my sig.<hr></blockquote> I agree that QB cities are not very good created, even if they are not so worst. But that is IMO another thing that will be hopefully better in CM:BB. Mh...let me propose that you leave your posiion as strict scenario player and think about the interests of the QB players. Could you imagine that it would be a benefit for the gameplay when it is not implicit necessary that two conditions must be met to handle engineers & flamethrowers in a (IMO) sensefull and easy way, especially if it goes not on cost of the historic accuracy? I assume here that you are willing to follow my argumentation about the way how they could be modeled in a squad. Thanks for the hint, I will visite the scenario depot. Maybe I have missed it, there are so many CM sites out there...

Andreas, we move in circles because we both think we have the better arguments. You wasn't yet able to convince me that FTs and engineers are modeled well, or that both wouldn't have a benefid when they merge, or that it wouldn't simplify their handling for the player. Or have I missed something? By the way, only because I prefer QBs, it doesn't mean that I have no idea about scenarios. I prefer QBs because I know so many scenarios, and the most of them are... IMO, of course - well, a question of taste. Believe me, I love city battles, and I'm really unhappy that they are a bit undermodeled in CM. Even if the scenario is designed for housefighting. And I repeat, once the FT is in the city, the situation is the same. It doesn't matter how much country is around the city. Simplified, you have houses and streets. I have already pointed it out, an additional modeling of single soldiers is not necessary. You loose a soldier with his weapon and some ammo. When the soldiers carrys a Faust, you loose one Faust attack. If the soldiers carrys a FT, you loose 9 FT attacks. I have some knowledge in database access (and we are talking about nothing else), and I don't think that a fundamental change would be necessary. That depends of course on the current engine. The purchase cost of FTs are important in scenarios, too. When they are killed, you get the same amount of victory points. JPS The German 'FT 41' weigthed (full) 18kg, including 7 liters of fuel. The Soviet 'ROKS-2' 22,7kg, including 9 liters of fuel. Indeed the weight is secondary as Andreas said, the Flammethrower is just a bulky thing. The question is, what did the FT and his assistant once the fuel was used up? Was the battle for them over, or did they supported the squad in another way? [ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas: Err, for this argument that they should be treated like the squad lMG or a PF/demo charge/rifle grenade - on top of what Jon said about load distribution - these are all weapons that can be picked up rather easily if the original handler goes to ground. They are also light, and you can run with them. None of which applies to the FT. It would need a serious bit of recoding, for something which I am sure is not broken. What you are trying to fix is the inability of the QB generator to give you a good map to use them on. You don't fix that by changing the FTs in the game, obviously. As for Jason's offer of having SMG squads go up against a US engineer outfit. First, you are thinking in QB terms again (see above - this will be fixed by rarity). Second, if Berli did build a city map scenario for the game, I might even take you up on it. As Xerxes said - scenarios are very well suitable for PBEM, probably more so than QBs.<hr></blockquote> Andreas, only because you don't like QBs, that doesn't mean that they are broken. And I'm pretty sure that the recoding of the auto map creator is more difficult to do then the recoding of a special weapons use - why do you think this would be so difficult? And I don't agree that a recoding of the map creator would change the handling of the FT. Once in the city of a QB, he is in the same situation like in a scenario, so what is the difference? I already said, it would be logic to lower the speed of engineers and let them faster get tired. This would be a good compromise. Keep in mind, CM does not simulate a single man (you said that, too, didn't you?), so we are talking only about abstractions! Units don't gets faster when they have used up their ammo, even if this would be logic - just think about HMGs or mortars, or even the FT. Even when they have used up all ammo, they are as slow or fast as before, they have always an average speed. So in princip, the FT could move faster, once the fuel is used up. Just imagine the abstraction of things like an Unteroffizier who says : 'Hey, FT, out of ammo? Give your ballast to the (like medics abstracted) dispatch rider, you and your assistant help us to carry our ammo/satchel charges/Fausts.' This effect is not available for an independent team, a soldier don't give away his weapon without order! So it could explain why a FT as part of an engineer squad is faster then an independent FT. Makes this sense? [ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: Puff the Magic Dragon ]</p>

Redwolf How have managed to blow a light building with demo charges? I never found out how to order this. Xerxes The reason why LMGs as part of a squad can move faster then an independent LMG team is well known - the whole squad carries the ammo, in the team only two men must do this. The weapon itself is no problem, I know for sure, cause I carried an (90% identical) MG-3 in my military service . JonS You are right, but I think it is not so difficult. Of course I'm not familiar with the CM source code and can only rely on my knowledge about VisualBasic, but in programming terms a simple instruction can solve the problem like: ft = number of flamethrowers in the squad (let us assume it is one) ftat = number flamethrower attacks IF ft = 0 THEN ftat = 0 That's all. And - this is of course speculativ - the early screenshots from CM:BB I have seen looked like the ammo is now tracked for every single weapon. But maybe I missinterpreted something.