Hat Trick

Originally posted by Other Means (snipped): The main thing that stops me playing games is the setup. There are countless ones I've started and abandoned (sorry Elmar), therefore; [4]Default layout of own troops done by the AI - this would at least give you a start point if everyone was in a reasonable formation Yes, yes, yes! Big battles are a huge pain to get started, and for new players this can be a real turn off. Even though the AI set up is not perfect, is would be a great improvement to have that as a base line from which create my own set up.

New: 1. Multi-player – per side, of course. 2. Campaign mode – or some incentive for players not to fight to the last man/vehicle 3. Improved command – some use of HQs above platoon level in their historical role, not just as alternative commanders of squads 4. Re-manning (and capturing) support weapons 5. Terrain fog of war – areas of map “blacked out” until seen, with option for scenario editor to include overlay maps Keep: 1. Asynchronous play – pbem or some other method wherein a single player can “send” a turn without the other player(s) being online. 2. Simple user interface 3. Wego 4. Graphics – okay, they can be improved, but this is not a priority for me 5. To be determined at a future date

Is the increase in turns due to flags changing hands a feature separate from variable endings, and if so, does it apply to both variable and non-variable ending games?

Hmm, isn't gameplay still (adversely) affected? If I'm the attacker, I still have no incentive to knockout fortifications, rather than bypass them, if possible. If it is not possible to bypass the fortifications, as the attacker I get no "credit" for taking them out, as all of my "credit" for taking them out has now been offset by the bonus set by the editor. Doesn't this solution simply shift the penalty from the owner of the fortifications to the side without fortifications?

In real life, I assume, it always made sense for a tank to be hull down (or at least it never hurt). After all, if an enemy gunner could improve his chances of a kill by adjusting his aimpoint to be centered on the turret, the enemy gunner would do so even if the tank was not hull down. Therefore, a hull down tank should never have an overall higher probability of being knocked out than a fully exposed tank. Or am I missing something?

I would certainly like a feature like this. I also think that it would solve SandDigger's issue without giving the player unrealistic control over his units. It is realistic for a commander to give an order to soldiers to keep moving until they see some particular thing or location, and then to move no further. Under the current system, however, a player can see the entire map from the start, which when combined with this new "seek line of sight" order might give the player control a bit greater than he would have in real life. Thus, this new order would be especially apporopriate in conjuction with a system that "blacks out" those areas of the map that the player has not yet seen (in those scenarios where the player is assumed not to have covered the terrain previously). Of course, if parts of the map are blacked out, the player should (at least in some situations) have some sort of "map" tool that gives some him a general lay of the land. Just goes to show that even small changes can lead to imbalances that should be rectified by other changes, which in turn lead to yet more imbalances and changes. Still, I think that the addition of just a "seek line of sight" order would be net addition to realism and player enjoyment, even if no other changes are made.

Snipped: So that makes 1) a better option than 2). Just lowering the price would make the Allied force more effective. 1) would make historical artillery available without making it unbalanced. Option 3) is ineffective, the base price is too high already. </font>

Alternatively, couldn't the rarity penalty be set as a bonus? My understanding is that the problem people are having is that they cannot afford to buy American artillery, especially in smaller battles, and that this does not reflect historical practice, as the Americans were known for their relatively ample supply of artillery assets. There are several possible workarounds for this problem: 1. Reduce the price by lowering the number of shells per FO. Unfortunately, fewer shells is ahistorical. 2. Lower the base price of American artillery without changing the number of shells. The base price supposed to reflect the effectiveness of a unit in the game, however, so reducing the base price isn't an appropriate way to reflect historical usage. 3. Lower the rarity cost, even to the point of making it a rarity "bonus". Since the objection seems to be that players cannot make selections that are "historical", adjust the rarity system to reflect "historical" pattens of availability.

Why would this change apply to bazookas but not to 'schrecks?

Is it possible for tanks to have fanatic crews in CMBB? I had a T-34 in a nice, key-holed, hull down position covering a road, occasionally exchanging fire with any vehicles that crested a second ridge some distance away. About twenty turns into the game my T-34 goes nuts and attemps a suicide charge, over the ridge and into the valley, getting blown away about seventy meters down the hillside. Though it was taking some moderate fire, I can't believe that it was "repositioning"; there was plenty of room to reverse into defilade if the crew felt threatened, and mostly wide open space in front of them. The tank had been in this position for more than a dozen turns, and had no orders to move. So what gives? Did the crew become fanatic? Or can something else explain this behavior? Is there ever a time when one would want a tank to become fanatic? Infantry not backing down can sometimes be very useful, but I can think of few times that I would want a tank to go charging forward on its own. Also, can units even become fanatic part way into a game (as opposed to being determined at the start of a scenario)?

Another reason that casualties are so high in CM is that units in the game are much more resilient after taking casualties than they would be in real life. For instance, in CM a ten man infantry squad can be ordered to attack even if nine of its members are casualties. In the real world, a squad that takes two or more casualties will usually cease all offensive operations, tend to the casualties, and try to hunker down in a good defensive position.

Well, perhaps the bunker provided better protection from artillery than a trench, at the cost of providing a bigger target to direct fire HE.

I too would love to see the Pacific Theatre modeled in CMX2 -- I think that the variety of battles would be as great as those seen on the Eastern Front, minus the huge armor engagements. My guess is that it won't happen, however, even with a more flexible engine. Battlefront seems to put a premium on detailed and accurate modeling of vehicles, especially armor, as one of the factors that separate them from other game companies. The infantry intensive combat in Asia and the Pacific is less likely to appeal to them as developers. And a flexible engine design is only helpful after one has completed the many hundreds of hours of research into TO&E, vehicle specs, orders of battle, uniforms and infantry arms, etc. If the developers are not inherently interested in the Pacific Theater they probably have not done any research into these factors, and starting research from scratch in an area they are not interested in seems pretty unlikely to me.

Luzon is actually the largest island in the Phillippines -- Manilla is located on Luzon. Kyushu is one of the four main islands of Japan; while it is the southern most of the four, it is not "off the coast of Japan", it is a part of Japan.

Interesting results on the "to hit" probabilities. I wonder if crew experience plays a factor as well. A crack crew should be better able to adjust for wind than a conscript crew, other things being equal. In fact, if the wind speed (and direction) is constant, I would think that a crack crew would have no penalty to its "to hit" probablity, certainly not after the first shot. Even conscript crews should start to zero in on a target after the first shot, with wind having an increasingly minor effect on "to hit" probabilities, by virtue of its constant effect on the rounds fired. What is more important than the speed of the wind is its variablity. The more the wind varies (in speed or direction), the harder to accurately adjust fire. Of course, stronger winds may be correlated with greater variability. All in all, given the distances involved and the ability of units to adjust their fire, I would expect wind to play a pretty minor role in "to hit" probabilites in CM.

Well, I fall into the camp that believes that the time limits in most scenarios are too short. I find nothing more frustrating, unrealistic and annoying than, at the peak of the battle, as units within twenty meters of eachother toss grenades, the whole battle is called off and points are tallied. Few battles ended this way in real life. Short time limits force the attacker to rush to avoid this problem, while in most real life cases a battle that continued to be fought for an extra twenty minutes would not be considered a failure if it saved (the attackers') lives or met its objectives. For most scenarios (and quick battles for that matter) I would like to see much, much longer number of turns, but with a lower threshold for an automatic ceasefire. This would allow battles to end much more realistically, and at the same time would have the added benefit of reducing a player's incentive to sacrifice his troops needlessly (or, at least, unrealistically). Right now, players have an incentive to continue fighting after suffering casualties that in real life would lead to the attacker calling off the attack. Long or open ended turns, combined with a lower threshold for automatic ceasefire, would make the game much more realistic, I believe.

No, vehicles cannot be captured, or re-manned, in the game. Abandoned (as opposed to knocked out) vehicles are assumed to still have taken some damage -- a thrown track, a jammed gun, etc -- either from the enemy or from the crew intentionally before abandoning. In operations, it is sometimes possible that an abandoned (not knocked out) vehicle will become available again in a subsequent battle, reflecting the efforts of a recovery team fixing the vehicle between engagements. The soldiers that you see on the screen are actually a simplified graphical representation of a larger unit. Squads, for example, usually have 8 to 12 men in them. When hit, some of these men die or are incapacitated, but only when enough men are hit does the graphic change. To see the status of the individual members of a unit, select the unit and press the enter key. No, there is no dynamic modeling of damage to vehicles. You can, however, download "mods" to the standard images that come with the game, some of which show "pre-damaged" vehicles. I'm not sure if anyone has developed a mod for shadows for squads, or even if it is possible. Trees and forests can be set on fire, usually by flamethrower bearing vehicles or infantry teams. Buildings can be destroyed, most commonly by vehicles shooting at them with high explosive shells (try the "area fire" command), and also by squads with demolition packs.

Louie is right that this may come down to a design/philosophy decision: is the player "roleplaying" each and every unit, or is he playing the role of a higher level commander? The current system, where orders are unlimited, is pretty close to the former. Yet it is not entirely so. The player's role as a higher level commander is simulated with the order delays, especially for multiple waypoints in CMBB, and by the out of command penalties, both of which imply that the orders being given by the player originate not from within each unit but from higher up. My suggestion that there be some limit to the number of orders/waypoints given per turn does move the game more towards a command style game, but not dramatically so. When combined with shorter turns, it would not only encourage the player to focus on "hot spots" (because a player would want to use his limited number of orders per turn where most needed) but would also make the combat there more realistic (as the commander not does not have to wait sixty seconds between giving orders). I think that this approach moves the game a little more towards realism, and without undue complexity. One could argue, in fact, that (depending on how it was implemented), limiting the number of orders per turn actually reduces the complexity of the game: there is less for the player to do each turn, but there are more turns. It is this reduction in complexity, I think, that some will object to. Many players (myself often included) like to develop detailed and highly coordinated tactical moves, far beyond what a real commander could implement. Part of the joy of the game is being able to watch a beautifully conceived, intricately detailed plan unfold, for better or for worse. Limiting orders limits (to some degree) a player's control over this process, in exchange for some greater degree of realism. Implemented properly, I think that this is a worthwhile tradeoff, but ultimately it is a design decision. [ June 27, 2003, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Hat Trick ]

I also am confussed. Couldn't this problem be solved just by increasing the length of time that gets added to the game when a victory location changes hands? From two minutes to five or ten minutes? Or am I misunderstanding the problem?

Don't mind at all, SFJaykey, except now I can't edit my typo. I'm interested to hear what other think about this topic as well.

Another option would be to limit the number of orders a player could give each turn. A player could be limited to, say, ten orders/waypoints per headquarters unit, or a headquarters unit could give multiple/unlimited orders/waypoints but only to three units each, or some other combination of limits. The advantage of doing this is that it would allow the length of a turn to be shortened dramatically, to say 10 or 15 seconds, without allowing an unrealistic or tedious amount of micromangement. As a player, I could give out orders for the most important/pressing actions, and be able to respond to action on the field in a more timely (and realistic?) way, without being able to coordinate the entire field of battle at too fine a level. I think that this approach would more closely reflect reality, where commanders can focus on only a limited set of orders at a time, but do not have to wait 60 seconds between giving orders. [ June 26, 2003, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Hat Trick ]

I strongly support this idea. I find most scenarios too short -- in fact, I find the general idea of a time limit artificial, at least in most circumstances. Battles rarely came to an end because "time ran out" -- they ended because one side gave up or because both sides didn't see the point of pressing on (whether due to low ammo, low morale, high casualties or simply a realization that further fighting would not be productive). Nothing is more frustrating than being in the middle of a fire fight and having the game end. And given the time scales involved, I just don't buy the argument that in real life commanders had to stick to schedules. The number of battles where objectives had to be achieved by a particular minute in time -- where even five minutes delay meant failure -- is rather small, and certainly not the case in the vast majority of CM scenarios. I understand (I think) the reason that time limits are in the game: so that once it becomes clear which side has won, the game need not drag on with little action. Providing a continue game option would allow time limits to stay, but give players the option to keep fighting when warranted.

I think that this feature would drive me nuts. I can just imagine, at the beginning of an orders turn for a large scenario, having to "cycle" through twenty or more vehicles' "binocular" views to see if I've missed any intelligence about the enemy before plotting my orders. I have trouble enough tracking all the action on the field right now; I sure don't need a more complicated interface to get info.

Selected nuggets originally posted by Steiner14: Germany wanted the BEF to escape? I had always thought that the BEF escaped because Goring wanted to prove how effective his airforce was. They did try to bomb the evacuation boats, which is not exactly consistent with a deliberate decision to let the BEF get back to Britain. I'm not as familiar with the air war; did Churchill initiate strategic bombing of non-industrial cities? I had always thought that the blitz preceded the allied bombing of German cities, but would be happy to be enlightened if I'm wrong. The implication here is that the American "elite", influenced by some sort of Jewish cabal, forced a war on an unwilling populace. While many American leaders did support Great Britain, the idea that "jewish influence" was responsible for this position is simply anti-semetic nonsense. American support for Great Britain had far more to do with the USA's long cultural and economic ties to England than to any influence that American jews held. Ah, yes, the preventative war argument. There was a whole other thread on this topic, and I think that the general conclusion was that this argument doesn't wash. I'll just say that, in general, while the Soviets did support world revolution, the evidence that they were about to invade Germany is, shall we say, scant. This is just nonsense. Yes, the balance of payments between Great Britain and the USA reversed after WWI, but this has nothing to do with losing an empire to "Wall Street", whatever that means. Though I will grant you that it is possible that Hitler, seeing the world through his anti-semetic haze, may have thought that such a thing is possible, hopefully no one here is dim witted enough to believe such statements.

I'm not sure that the 'number of targets' figure is correct. At 50m distance, the radius is 5m, but he diameter is 10m. If the men are spaced five meters apart, three men can fit across the diameter: one on the left edge, one on the right edge, and one in the middle, 5 meters from the other two. At 200m distance, the diameter is 40m, and nine men, not five, fit within the circle. Thus, a revised table would read: range____diameter____#of targets____casualties 50m_____10m________3_____________2.88 100m____20m________5_____________2.70 150m____30m________7_____________2.03 200m____40m________9_____________1.62 These are the same figures as previously given for 2.5 meter spacing. The new table for 2.5 meter spacing would be range____diameter____#of targets____casualties 50m_____10m________5_____________4.80 100m____20m________9_____________4.86 150m____30m________13____________3.77 200m____40m________17____________3.06 There are (at least!) two factors that modify these figures, in addition to terrain/cover. First, this analysis assumes that the 'cone of fire' is perfectly centered, e.g., the maximum number of men are fit into the widest part of the cone at 5m or 2.5m intervals. If not so centered, the number of targets would be one less in each case -- from three to two at 50m distance with 5 meter spacing (reducing casualties from 2.88 to 1.92) and from 17 to 16 at 200m with 2.5 spacing (reducing casualties from 3.06 to 2.88). More importantly, however, the above analysis assumes that the squad is spread out at 5m or 2.5m intervals horizontally across the front of the 'cone of fire.' This minimizes the number of units hit. A more accurate picture might be gained by assuming that the men are spread out in depth as well -- e.g., 5 meters across and 5 meters back. Not being an expert on squad formations and tactics I'm just guessing here, but if we look at the above figures we see that if the men in a squad are advancing in anything like 2 or more rows (i.e., with only one layer of depth), they would all be in the diameter of fire in every case but 5 meter spacing at 50m distance. We can then use the straight hit probabilities for each man -- 96% of the squad would be wiped out at 50m, 54% at 100m, 29% at 150m and 18% at 200m. Of course, the above figures do not take into account terrain or cover, though it is interesting to note that in a building one would expect the benefits of cover to be at least partially offset by the fact the men are even less likely to be spread out horizontally at 5 meter intervals. Finally, the above figures are for the 57mm gun. The 76mm has many more balls, but frankly my head hurts too much to calculate the effects right now. P.S. If anyone can tell me how to format a table in here I would appreciate it.