chucknz

Hi. I've been playing CM for a while and would like to try v a human opponent. I only have FI and GL. Would be happy to go as allies or axis. For first go would like to keep size fairly small? Am based in Europe and could do an hour or so in evenings from about 2000 GMT or bit longer on weekends. Anyone interested?

Great. Thanks for your answers. I guess the media image we have is of tanks crashing through just about whatever is in their way but perhaps that's a mistaken image. Thanks for your explanation anyway and I just have to amend my strategy... actually 'strategy' is probably an exaggeration. Thanks anyway:)

I am trying to fight 'The quarry' battle in Fortress Italy and my shermans seemed to get immobilized when they drive into the vineyard on the far east side of the map opposite the train station. I did not expect that. The briefing said to be careful with the quarries on the west side of the map but did not say that the stony vineyards on the right could also immobilize tanks. This didn't happen to just one tank. Just to test it I checked with several and about 7 out of 8 got immobilized. They weren't getting hit by anything but were just suddenly showing as immobilized. I wondered if it was an unmarked minefield but when I finished the battle and looked at the map it didn't say it was a minefield? Was just wondering if I was missing something or is it deliberate that a stony vineyard is impassable to a tank or do minefields not show on the map at the end of the game?

thanks for your excellent suggestions on how I can handle this better. Will definitely try experimenting more with the editor at next chance. I didn't realise that troops would line up on the ridge like that. I presume that also depends on their facing etc? Maybe it's a combination of things that's been causing them to blunder over the ridgeline like a squad of badly trained lemmings!

CM is a great game but one thing I find frustrating is having to be so careful with giving orders to troops as they crest a hill so that they don't go to far and end up on the wrong side of it when I want them to, for example, take up a position overlooking a building. I would like to suggest a new type of instruction, possibly called 'Line of Sight' . The way it would work is that you would give movement instructions as per now but then if you clicked on this button then clicked on a point on the map e.g. a building then as soon as the troops moving along the line of movement got into a position where they could see / fire on that position they would automatically stop. I really think that this would remove some of the micromanagement and remove the frustration of troops ending up on the exposed sides of ridgelines by accident when you would expect well trained troops shouldn't be ending up in that situation. Anyone got any comments... or any suggestions for other ways I can make sure my troops make the maximum use of ridgeline cover while still being able to target the enemy as it causes me a lot of problems?

Thanks for the quick replies. Very interesting feedback.I was wondering if the problem with the Kornet could be that only the missile is exposed (and hence might not be vulnerable) and the crew were in cover? Otherwise I couldn't understand it. As for the result against the rifle team on the rooftop I don't have a problem with what happened to my guys when they got hit by the RPG. I guess what surprised me was that the RPG gunner survived / hung around long enough to get the shot off and that his shot was accurate when he was coming under fire himself. Guess it is possible though and I just wanted to get a feel from more experienced players whether that was a 'typical' result or an exception.

I am just demoing Combat Mission Shock Force and it is a lot of fun most of the time. However, sometimes I find myself getting really frustrated by the results of some of the firefights. Example 1. I moved half a squad (5 men) plus a medium mg into the second floor of the large grey building at the far end of the board so they could cover my general advance that was attempting to secure the Government complex by a sweeping outflanking move. I thought that with that sort of firepower (especially the MG team) and the advantage of height any infantry in the bushes to the right should be vulnerable. My teams soon saw a Kornet ATGM. So far so good. However when they engaged they failed to kill the ATGM and then got hit and pretty much wiped out by the ATGM firing back having caused no casualties to the ATGM crew. I was surprised by that result and would like to know if it was realisic. I'm no military expert but I would have thought in a firefight between a Kornet ATGM in bushes at 300m or so and an MMG and half a squad in what appears to be a fairly sturdy building the Kornet team would be in trouble? Example 2. I had half a squad (5 men after split for assault) in Objective Ruby. They were engaged by a rifle squad (including an RPG) from the flat roof of the single story building that is part of the Government complex (Objective diamond). They immediately returned fire and I was expecting that with the advantages they enjoyed of much better cover and presumably superior training the Syrians would be quickly eliminated or at least forced to exit the roof since they were on a bare rooftop completely exposed. Instead the RPG operater returned fire and wiped my team out. I was surprised, especially as whenever I put my guys on a roof they seem to get killed very quickly. Are such results typical of CMSF or is it just the demo or just me?

Hi, A couple of questions re TacOps that I hope the experts might be able to help with. 1. What is the effect of splitting say a 6 gun on-map battery into 2 x 3 gun 'batteries' other than (obviously) allowing each to fire at separate targets? In particular, i) how is the size of the target area affected (it seems to get smaller but is it reduced to 50% of it's former size for 3 guns as opposed to 6 or is the decrease calculated in a way other than a straight linear proportional reduction) ii)is the effect on units caught within the target area reduced? If so is it a linear reduction (i.e. 50% less effective for 3 guns opposed to 6) or once again is it calculated in a different way. iii)is the size and duration of smoke barrages affected by a reduction or increase in the number of units firing? The reason I ask is that I believe in real life the effectiveness of more guns is exponential rather than linear i.e. the effect of 6 guns on a target is likely to be more than 100% greater than 3 guns and was wondering if and how this was captured in the code. 2. Does the terrain the target is in impact the effectiveness of artillery. If so, can somebody give me a rough guide as to how different terrain affects various unit types re vulnerability to artillery?

I agree with PzGren it's an excellant idea to change the LOS code to highlight the areas within a unit's or position's LOS rather than the current mouse jiggling. However, the question would have to be how difficult this would be to do from a processer / graphics speed point of view although I guess when you're in orders phase the computer's not really doing a lot else . Does anyone know if other games out there have this as a standard feature? I seem to remember East Front II did but that would have been a lot easier because would have only needed to be calculated per hex, not per pixel as TacOps does. I would be interested to know the Major's thoughts on this a bit more?

Thanks for your prompt reply to my questions Major. I do try and base my playing style on "sound military principles" (as much as a complete amateur with no professional experience whatsoever can)??? I have also been pleasantly surprised by how accurately the game represents what I imagine to be the reality within the well recognised limits of the game (re morale, logistics etc). May I suggest as a playability enhancement a function whereby a player can click on a road and then another point on the road and choose a 'move by road' button to automate what is a rather mundane manual task (hey that's what computers are good at isn't it). The game would then calculate the quickest road route and fill in the details. Not sure I buy into your reasoning re the 'gradual spotting' suggestion, esp given the improved processing speed of modern PCs. Would just slightly increase the potential viewable area that needed to be calculated each turn and add one extra variable to be added based on how far into the woods the unit was (although as a business analyst whose job is designing software for investment companies I'd better include a "famous last words" caveat to the above statement). While am at it have another couple of suggestions that won't be offended if you completely ignore. 1. May I suggest the answer to the 'variable movement speed' request suggested by other gamers might be a sliding scale on one side of the unit orders box, defaulting to the speed used now but able to be moved up or down. Depending on coding resource available could have some complex effects on visibility, spotting and accuracy calc's that would add another interesting tactical decision to the game. 2. Another playability improvement I would like to see is a function whereby two (or 3) units can be set to move on alternate phases to each other to simulate the 'leapfrogging' that units do when moving forward. It would simplify trying to organise fire and movement of units.

Hi. As a newcomer to TacOps I've got a few questions on how things work that I hope people might be able to help me with... 1. Is the accuracy of indirect fire affected by range in the case of on map artillery and mortars? To put it another way is there any point in trying to push my artillery up closer to the frontline or should I just find some nice quiet spot near the back and leave it there? 2. When moving on roads how careful do I have to be with mouseclicks to make sure my vehicles do actually get the road movement advantage? Do I have to click on every corner and right on the corner with every click? 3. How does visibility in woods etc work? Does the chance of being spotted increase gradually as a vehicle moves closer to the edge of woods or is it a sudden "now you can't, now you (maybe) can" rule. If it is the latter, I'm at risk of becoming paranoid about my unit placement to make sure that units are put right on the edge of the visible area in defence so that they can then fire and reverse into invisible terrain in the same move. I think a 'gradual' algorithm would be both more realistic and more playable. 4. As a result of playing TacOps for a few weeks I think I'm getting a 'feel' for what does and doesn't work tactics wise but it would be nice to have some factual basis to my theories other than the casualty rate at the end of the scenario. Can anyone point me in the direction of any tables, algorithms etc that would give me more detailed information on how combat results and visibility and the like are calculated and the variables that affect the results.