Steiner14

IIRC this info is only displayed for the HQ unit, so the HQ must be clicked.

:eek: Wow. What was that? Is my English that good, that you think you can talk to me in that language (whatever it may be)? I'm sitting here with my dictionary, google fails, too, and i have understood absolutely nothing.

But you obviously haven't finished the study with success... A good movie consists of certain elements and ingredients that create a certain illusion. For example realism often does not work in a movie script. But i think you will once again understand nothing... Could it be, certain CMBN-players draw most of the fun of improved graphics and therefore react so hysterically like startled chicken when it comes to target lines, command-lines and other visual "destractions"? This reminds me about people, who don't like chess. But if you animate the figures, then they at least a interest as long as they have seen all animations... I don't know one of the reasons could be, that they look ugly (see above statements, how important graphics has become to a certain type of CM-players). Another reason could be, that target lines work on a subconcious psychological level. I don't know, but if that's the case, then 90% don't recognize it, until they will experience it. I think McAuliffe made a very good point about target lines: what i see as player is much less, than the pixel soldiers can see. One tree in front of an enemy unit, and i don't see it anymore. I don't see it appearing, i don't see it turning it's turret, i don't see it targetting and i don't see it shooting. If i'm close enough and the action on the field is not too much, maybe i'm lucky to hear an impact. A target line would be of great help for the player, to get a better impression to recognize what the units see/do. I don't know how hard it would be to implement, but if this could be made optional, then the graphic-fetishists would not be disturbed at all. You said, that you may not lose focus of the main group which i find a very healthy and clever attitude. If it would be possible to implement certain things to please the old CMx1-farts, without compromising the visual attraction by making target-lines or command-lines optional, wouldn't you hit two flies with one slap? And who knows? Maybe some of the newer players would try this old CMx1-style out and would start to like it - from what i have read in the forum, there even seem to be RT-players who tried WEGO and switched to WEGO?

I would say, if the mortar team cannot see the impacts of the grenades (spreading!), then it's a waste of ammo and area fire should not be possible. The the question how the system could handle it: how making area fire dependent on LOS -> the spreading of the weapon defines the range, how much a target are may be out of LOS - i.e. a spreading of 30m@500m -> area firing beyond 30m of LOS is allowed, because the spreading of the weapon would create with high probability impacts within LOS and therefore allow the crew to judge the impact area. IMO that would solve both problems: unrealistical use of area fire without spotters, but also allow targetting units slightly out of LOS (behind a house or a wall).

... or we have an abnormally large portion of yessayers or ppl theirs self-confidence needs to stay beta-testers. Or a combination of that.

@Steve Since you agree that it is gamey that mortars can area-fire without LOS and without an observer, why isn't firing simply made impossible?

Implementation does not necessarily mean to understand the magic it creates in the player's mind. You don't know the reason why target lines were implemented. Maybe tey wanted to give the player more information and it simply worked. But i doubt that BTS/BFC ever analyzed the psychological impact of tension buildup caused by the target lines.

Pvt. Ryan, thank you for the suggestions. But if i'm observing another unit, then i can't see, what the tank crews are doing. I have thought a lot about the reason, why a certain amount of tension is missing and maybe i have found a plausible explanation: For me one of the most fun aspects in CM is not to win, but to observe, how tactics play out. WEGO is not about interacting, it is about planning and then watching. So if a tank engages another tank, this is something i will not miss - but NOT only the result, no, from the very beginning of the fight and not after the first impacts had occured already. I will not miss the tension to know, that a tank soon will shoot, but not to know which tank will be the first, that will shoot! Remember how much fun was that in CMx1 (and how much fun that would be in CMx2 again): You move a tank into LOS and then you hope, that your tank will be the one, that shows the target line first. Shoot! Miss. Damn, but the enemy still hasn't seen and engaged your tank! Second shot! Miss again. And now the yellow target line from the enemy appeared! Damn, in a few seconds he will shoot back! The more i think about it, the more certain i am, that here lies one of the psychological key aspects, that made CMx1 fights so extremely thrilling and so much fun: because the information that was presented to the player via target lines in both directions, allowed to build up tension even before things happened. I would highly recommend BTS to check with a test-implementation, if target-lines are a psychological key factor in CMx1 for tension buildup!

Then please tell me, how can a player recognize, if a tank is engaging in a firefight with another tank, if this tank is out of view and if the player concentrates on another unit?

How about a target line between the unit symbols?

Sitting Duck, no matter if you nailed down what Cirrus means, your idea seems to me to be a very elegant UI enhancement regarding indirect fire weapons.

Cirrus, sorry i misunderstood you. And i learned something. Have never tried that gamey workaround. Steve, wouldn't it be more realistical, to deny indirect fire of mortars, if they don't have any kind of observer having LOS to the target area?

Well, your mortars can't see the ATG? And you do not have a HQ, that can direct the mortar's fire? Then your mortar units simply don't know where they would be firing - they wouldn't even be able to area-fire in reality. IMO that's one of the huge improvements of CMx2 over CMx1 - no more Borg-spotting and the mortars need an observer that directs their fire - either aimed at a unit or area fire. It get's more difficult, but it get's way more realistic, too. It only takes some time until you will get used to it and adapt the tactics accordingly. You will love it.

McAuliffe, how do you do that? You have written that directly from my brain. Congrats to that post. It's a pleasure among the loud groupie chatter. In real life a tank commander usually knows, where he should move with his tank, too.

You can hear if a tank engages another tank? Using a squeaking turret mod? And how is that displayed in the interface?

In CMx1 you had targeting lines. Now i'm thrilled to hear, how you are being informed in CMx2, that one of your precious tanks is engaging another tank and could need your attention.

Good argument. It seems the opening of the post-Soviet archives in 1990 for a few years and the ongoing open debate among russian historians seems to have not reached the states at all. At least not the "best informed" american citizens...

I fully understand that it is necessary to be open for a new mentality for CMx2. But some aspects are not related to subjective feelings, they are objective facts. For example the problem, that the player is not informed if a tank or another important weapon engages a deadly threat or such unit is being engaged. Either the player misses the most thrilling moments, or he is forced to observe every single tank/TD/ATG in every turn for the whole turn. With only two platoons of tanks and a hot phase of 30 minutes, that makes 180 (!) minutes to watch! This destroys every joy. The fun is turned into horrible, extremely time consuming labour. Ok, it is possible to fast forward and to check afterwards if something had happened. But that is pure barbarity. That's like looking the end of a movie first or reading the last chapter first before deciding, if it is worth the time.

A strawman argument. I never said that. My position is, that it was a preemptive strike and that the people were hopeful, to get rid of the Communists. What i find really strange is, that you claim to be Ukrainian and mention your grandmother and defend Stalin, but you do not mention the Holodomor?

Reminds me of one of my history schoolbooks, where there is written, that the Germans liquidated polish officers at Katyn. I'm sure in a few decades this will be a precious document about anti german hate propaganda in the western regime. Or the story under tears about "Iraqi soldiers throwing babies on the floor", while a few years later Iraq even was having weapons of mass destruction like secretary of defense (sic!) Powell at the UNO explained while 90% of the world accepted this obvious lie and while the western regimes were applauding. It's always the same BS from those who use uranium depleted ammunition today, or from those that threw atomic bombs on civilian cities, or those who continue to rob the resources from all over the world by establishing their monetary ponzi-scheme. Because your "knowledge" seems to be based mostly on, hm, one sided "information" i want to present you an interesting fact, that immediately should give you a better understanding about the relation between the german soldiers and the population in the Soviet Union: The Germans were that evil, that the Bolsheviks had to threaten their own people with most severe punishments, if they were helping the Germans in any form. There are countless accounts of women, that nevertheless shared the last bread of their family with the asking german soldier. My grandfather told me, that they even had to pay, if they wanted something to eat from the Russians. Rape was punished with death in the enslaving, annihlating german army - while Ilja Ehrenburg, writing for the Soviet "liberating ally", was officially demanding from the Soviet soldiers to rape german women. If an objective observer looks the facts of both sides, not just what one side tries to present as truth about the other side, he also will be able to understand, why more than 10%(!) of all soldiers on the German side were volunteers of the Soviet nations which were - according to the primitive hate-propaganda you are believing in - about to be enslaved, no, even to be annihilated... We need the most severe words for propaganda, don't we? Luckily the big problem for propaganda is, that it doesn't fit to the facts of reality, because only the truth fits (if you eliminate all impossibilities, then the result is the truth, no matter how improbable it seems). Therefore it is important for the perpetrators of propaganda, that certain facts are withheld from overall knowledge or free public or scientific discussion. And here lies the weak spot of all lies: search, find and identify the withheld or unknown facts and you will be able to get a much better impression of the overall picture. Furthermore fact is, that the Germans have avoided to accept eastern volunteers for a long time. If they would have accepted the volunteers earlier, even more, probably much more, would have joined the german side. Not bad for an enslaving or even annihilating army, isn't it? Too bad, that swinging the Nazi-cudgel can not beat the hard facts... ps: i suggest you take a look how Ukrainians "celebrate" the victory of the Red Army as liberator over the denounced "enslavers". Then you should easily be able to recognize the big discrepancy between the official version and how badly it fits into historic facts. Could be a good starting point not to believe everything the MSM tells...

IMO both of you are correct. First, the 3.5 million Soviet POWs in the first 6 weeks of Barbarossa can lead to false conclusions about the russian soldiers. I have met not a single Ostfrontkämpfer, who didn't rate the Soviet soldiers as extraordinary brave. But the Red army from '42/'43 on was a different one than the army of '41: In '41 the incredible initial success of the Germans was achieved, because it was lead as true Blitzkrieg and because it hit over two million of Soviet soldiers by complete surprise at the borders, while the german motorized and mechanized forces were fully intact at that time, had enough fuel to drive hundreds of kilometers into the back of the enemy, cut him off and deny any significant breakout. Second the Soviet forces of '41 had no maps about their own country. They had millions of maps of Germany and Western Europe, but they had no clue, where they could march or move in their own country, in the case of being attacked (main doctrine: "The Red Army is an attacking army"). And, as third aspect and not less important, contrary to the propaganda, the people in the East initially were glad and thankful, that the Germans and their Alliies were about to defeat the criminal Communists. In the case you are encircled, your commanders don't know, where they could go or what operational plan they could follow, then morale must decline quite rapidly after a few days. If additionally a political system that has never been voted or wanted by a majority of the people wants you to be a revolutionary soldier conquering Europe for the communist World Revolution and additionally this regime has been slaughtering many millions of the own people from 1917 on, the chances are rising even more, that you will not sacrifice your life in such a hopeless situation. No matter how well you are trained. But that was '41. Stalin was clever enough to immediately recognize, that with the old doctrine he was about to lose the war very soon - or, in fact without the US-deliveries, he de facto had lost the war already. So the Reds grabbed for nationalism as their last hope: The "Great Patriotic War" was invented. Suddenly Commisars no longer were prosecuting "patriotic, reactionary elements", they suddenly held nationalistic speeches themselfes; partisan groups were ordered to capture german uniforms and to commit crimes with these german uniforms to incease the nationalistic hate against the Germans. When this propaganda began to unfold - amplified by the big disappointment in the eastern nations, because their hope to receive national sovereignity from the Germans after being liberated from the Communists - the Soviet soldier quite quickly was turned into a nationalist defender of the "holy soil" of his "fatherland". Personally i find it very interesting to observe how quickly the Marxists abandoned their target of destruction of "reactionary principles like family, fatherland and nation" officially, as soon as their internationalistic cardhouse of multiculturalism collapsed (reminds me somehow of financing and building up political forces from another superpower and then quickly make a turn of 180 degree, if it deems appropriate and suddenly the history before never existed). But from that time on, war service in the Red Army turned into a service for the own nation, partisans suddenly were portrayed as protectors of the holy soil. The morale of the single soldier stiffened remarkably, because he was no longer defending an artificial Soviet system, but his fatherland. From then on the Soviet soldier preferred to be beaten to death in his hole, than to surrender. But, especially after Stalingrad, when it became obvious, that the Germans and their Alliies maybe could be defeated, another aspect became very important IMO: that former POWs in German captivity were treated as traitors in the Soviet army. So on one hand the Soviet soldier knew, that the Germans maybe could lose the war, but as soon as he becomes POW, after the war he will be treated as a traitor anyway. A quite pragmatic factor why the Soviet soldier continued to fight, even if it was suicidal (this politics must be rated as equally important like the death penalty for deserting soldiers in all armies: if you fight, you have the chance to survive - but if you try to desert, you must know, you will definately not survive it). But very soon after the war against Germany had been won, the next war, the Cold War broke out. This time with an even greater destruction potential and that the western regime was willing to use the atomic bomb, it had proven two times... Therefore it was not possible for the Bolsheviks to abandon the phrase of the Great Patriotic War again, because they strongly needed the support of occupied Eastern Germany and the eastern european nations against the western european regime. But this support could only be established, if the new nations were freely joining the sphere of the Soviet Union and if they would receive a certain amount of freedom and national souvereignity. So the Soviets were forced to respect national characteristics and could not revive the marxistic dogma of a One World, or World Republic, achieved with the old program of forced destruction of families and destruction of religion and cultural fundamentals. They were forced to stay "reactionary" (quite similar to the western regime, which couldn't go the route of turbo-capitalism and globalization but had to play the social card, as long as the Soviet system existed). Therefore Stalin's invention of the "Great Patriotic War" as a clever lie of people without any feelings for a fatherland has never been put into question.

Great you only have to move the mouse and click and double check, if it doesn't display an order at a waypoint... Ofcourse much better than no mouse movement and no click... I don't know how many gamers play infantry only battles, that you come up with the worst possible example of an implementation, but i personally would already be satisfied, if the game interface would notify me, if my precious cat, my last ATG or my fragile TDs are engaging a deadly threat like a ATG/TD/tank or if they are being engaged (besides the increased thrill aspect). What, if i want to use kill stats, to judge efficiency of units or the tactical orders they received? Oh, i can do so after the battle... And btw: the missing unit info does not allow you to finde the secure engagement range of tanks - or in the case of weaker tanks, you don't know what's the distance you need, to knock the heavier tank out. But i guess, that's just me and my personal preference, that i want to know such things, before i maneuver tanks/TDs or open fire with my ATGs... Have you never added additional units to move on a bending street? Moving waypoints allows to separate the units. They also allowed the player to direct units on one side of the street, if faster units were approaching from the back, or if oncoming traffic was necessary. I'm not talking about checking undulations at specific locations, i'm talking about the problem of reading a 3D map on a 2D surface to get a correct visual impression of the topology. This knowledge is a prerequisite, to identify possible routes for tanks, or to quickly recognize, where the amoured infantry could be moved within their carriers, without being exposed to enemy tankfire. It's so basic, that i'm stunned, that using a LOS tool was even brought up a solution. If i would enjoy playing against a stupid computer with premade plans, ok, i wouldn't need to see the terrain's undulations, but playing against good human oponents means, that they will invest a fair amount of time to find the best spots and if you don't recognize them, because you haven't checked every meter of the map at ground level with a LOS-tool, then it's going to be a very quick battle... OUCH! So it's not only me? You just remembered me about one point, that in the meanwhile gives me physical aversion against the interface. How long would it take, to throw a defective mouse away, if the click has become unreliable? In CMBN the defective mouse button seems to be simulated with one problem: you can't get rid of it. :mad:

I tried to get used to it but i'm noticing, that there are so many clicks necessary, that wouldn't be necessary, if the interface would have been developed further. Clicking on movement paths does not select the unit. :mad: No info in the unit panel, if a unit is hidden, or if a tank is buttoned or unbottened. I'm already getting really frustrated, to zoom in to check that out, instead that the interface shows that info. Another huge step backbward is, that there are no target lines. So you can easily overlook important action. Three steps back from CMx1. But that's not only a bad interface decision, IMO it also reduces the thrill: In CMx1, it was part of the thrill, to be noticed about the dangerous fight, that is going to play out, but there was no need, to watch the unit all the time. Now, in the best case, you hear a tank shooting. Or you hear the impact. You are not noticed, when the unit gathers a new contact. Big parts of the rising tension due to the notification of the player, that a unit has engaged another unit are missing (i think that's one psychological key aspect, why CMx1 firefights between tanks were more thrilling and why they lack that tension in CMx2). Another pain in the ass for me are the missing C2-lines: it forces the player either to click like crazy on every unit to check, if the units are in C2-range or to bunch them up unnecessarily, or not to click like crazy and accept that they could be out of range. Shouldn't graphics be there, to support the gamer? That there is no window for unit data and no kill stats is ten steps back. Way to much info about foreign units. Camera movement is blocked way too early on the map edges. Often i would like to move more freely over the map edges (i.e. viewing level of 8 or 9 above units at the edges of the map) but since the movement is blocked, additional movements with the mouse have to be made. Or that waypoints still cannot be moved, is also not really a step further from CMx1. How long has CMSF been out now?! And, btw, the path endpoints with their circles without any 3D-look, look really amateurish and do not fit into the 3D-map. When CMx2 was announced, it was claimed, that dynamic lighning will allow to judge terrain undulations. That was not true. But what is much worse, that in all the years nothing was done, to give the player a tool to judge terrain undulations. Like in CMx1 days, you have to choose a grid-mod for that and you can't switch that off... After having played many hours now, the interface to me feels like being incomplete and in some aspects the amount of clicking and mouse movements, that could easily be avoided with certain interface improvements, therefore make it partially a really bad interface. I don't think,with that interface, CMBN will reach the praise CMx1 received and i think a fair amount of possible gamers, tactically really interested in WW2, will not buy the game, after they tried the demo, because of the interface shortcomings. Although i like the action and the tactical modeling, the interface frustrates me so much, that my wish to play more and more is kept at a quite low level.

It's great, that you are interested to enhance the game in that aspect. As i understand it, the problem arises from the absence of terrain-FOW. Since terrain-FOW is out of discussion, how about to put it into player's mind, although it isn't there? Would it be possible to give certain unit-classes in the game a 2nd visualization-model? This 2nd visualization-model doesn't need to have any similarities with the real visual-model? I imagine two different visual models, the engine can choose, depending on the circumstances. i.e. think of a trench/firing-pit which impact's the terrain. Fits nicely into the code, but unfortunately can be seen on the map. Now, before this type of unit-class is placed on the map, this instance of the unit receives a copy of the terrain texture and a copy of the shape of the action spot it is about to be placed in. This applies only to the 2nd visual-model. Now this 2nd visual model is the active one for unspotted firing-pits, until this action spot (or the underlying physical model) becomes spotted. If the firing pit/trench becomes spotted the engine activates the real visualization-model and this element becomes visible on the map (maybe even with the consequence, that it only becomes visible for the units that have spotted it, while the others still have no clue about it). Additionally, in the case, that the ATG in this firing pit opens fire and becomes spotted by a enemy unit, the engine identifies the instance of the hidden firing-pit and switches off the 2nd visualization model - the "real" firing-pit becomes visible, too.

To be correct, Bagration was an operation, not a battle. And it were 400.000 losses on the German side, not 600.000. But let's transfer the numbers into CMBN: 800.000 soldiers on German side vs. 2.300.000 Soviet side = 2,875 times attacker vs. defender for infantry. less than 500 tanks : 4000 = 8 times more tanks for the attacker than for the defender. Artillery and airforce around at least 10-20 times stronger. Let's say only factor 10. Now set up a scenario with that relations in CMBN and tell me if you can achieve a ratio of losses of defender vs attacker of only 2:1... QUED.