David Chapuis

I dont know - I figured you did. (btw, do you know if WWII marine squads had a BAR man in each? that is what I was looking for when I found the Star Trek thing) I guess my question is, in RL does the function of the individual depend just as much on the platoon/squad structure, as the weapon? So if BFC wanted to get an accurate model, they would need to not just have code where all LMG individuals perform the same, but a LMG in P platoon perfroms X, LMG in a Q platoon performs Y. I am thinking the answer is yes. Surely you would want/expect a individual with a Sten gun in a CW squad to act differently than an individual in a Soviet SMG squad. And then is it also based on Nationality. But then, I would also think that 'roles' would be highly dynamic once the bullets started flying - especially if things were getting erally ugly.

Come on! Yours is the superior intellect, and you post something like that.

In another bone thread steve said that 1:1 will let them code specific responsibilities for each man. Does this not depend greatly on fire team structure. For example, US Marine squads in Korea had three fire teams with a BAR man in each. Would the BAR men in those squads have different functions than the LMG man in a CW section?

Apparently, that is quite different from marine fire teams. From http://ussarmagosa.netfirms.com/marine-squads.htm

IMO, this somewhat relates to the chaos that seems to dominate a real battlefield, but is almost completely absent in CMx1. For example, I just finished reading a book about the battle for Khafji in Gulf War 1. A platoon of LAVs was advancing towards Iraqi MBT's in order to support the withdrawel of a Marine recon platoon. A TOW vehicle that was advancing with the LAVs got killed by a friendly TOW in overwatch. That stopped the advance, because the CO wasnt sure what had just happened. Hopefully you guys can think of a way to capture some more battlefield chaos and uncertanty in CMx2 than in CMx1 ... while still keeping the game fun. Obviously multi-player would be the biggest help in that area.

ACKNOWLEDGE THE IRONY, PUNY HUMAN!! :mad: </font>

I just discoverd that CMAK has a 'follow vehicle' command, but that it only works on enemy vehicles. If they would add an invisiblity power-pack we might be able to use to drive a convey down a road.

Tigrii, I was hoping for some advice a little deeper than that. For example, for pbems I typically play 2000 point games with moderate trees. I usually toss back and forth between getting a battallion of regulars (for the deep discounts) and a few AFVs or going for a smaller more specialized force - where I can mix troop quality. But in the end, I almost always go for the group discount. However, that means I am often missing something I need (like mortars or shreks) - not to mention being bored of the same old units. Therefore, I rarely purchase more than a platoon of vets, and never end up buying an entire company or even a platoon of crack troops. I really want to, but it seems like the cost is not worth it, especially for troops with low ammo counts. One of my favorite parts of the game is unit selection, but I find myself typically getting the same type of force - which for me is a battalion and 1/2 AFV platoons to get the maximum units for the points - leaving me very little for support or specialized platoons.

Can you expound on this point a little more? It seems like just firing with 1A would not do much, and likely not enough to keep an enemy from advancing into the trees occupied by your HQ. And since you seem to want 2B to fire last, I would think that you would need to engage with 1A and 3A on first contact.

I am wondering about some good QB purchase tips. For example of what I am looking for, I found this by walpurgis nacht: Also, I always have a hard time choosing unit quality. Any good rules of thumb concerning this?

The occasional successes are on satellite - but I always joined. I have yet to get a player to join to me. And the people that I cannot join to with sattelite, I can join with through dail-up.

Still having problems, but also occasional success. There are a few people that I can always join a game with, and some that I never can. So what does that mean? Anybody have some ideas?

None...and you're still not getting it. </font>

Well I was going to let it go, but then you had to go ahead and keep it going. What grand game-changing ideas have I been lobbying for that doesnt need to be shown is a battalion/company level game? Did I ask for moral faces? Did I ever mention anything that would require 1:1 control? Movement templates? Individual trees/rocks for cover? Since yours is the superior intellect, please tell me. Im sure you will bring up medics, but that is a heap of equine scatology material.

Well begging your pardon, but I dont think you, or you wouldnt type stuff like this: Every graphic representation more detailed than an icon is unncessary for game play. </font>

A game-play point of view? How so?</font>

Well begging your pardon, but I dont think you, or you wouldnt type stuff like this: Every graphic representation more detailed than an icon is unncessary for game play.

Part of the difference has been people - including myself- have been talking about two different things. I never had visioned an actual medic that a player controls - I was misunderstood on that point I believe. I was just talking about what different visuals one could see when you had a casualty. One option would be to see a medic 'appear' and bandage somebody. A lot of work for no added playability - yes. So I dropped it, even though all it ever was intended to be was eye-candy. However I still think that if a squad is exchanging fire at a hundred yards and a soldier gets hit, at least one of his buddies in real life is going to shoulder a rifle and help the guy for a bit. A good thing to portray from a game-play point of view. And now that 1:1 is being represented, it makes sense, IMO, to show it. This statement is wrong on so many points, I wont even begin to respond to it. [ January 31, 2005, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: David Chapuis ]

Now this is a good point. IMO, I would think that keeping the generic represenation (like they do now) for actually calculating the fight outcome would be the way to go. Then have a more detail visual (or two or three that it chooses from randomly depending on how hard the visuals are to make) that replaces the 'sprite throwing the grenade'. I remember reading in one of the manuals that they actually have sounds for hits with a rifle butt in CMx1. I dont see the problem with adding some visuals to go with that. I would definitely vote no on distinguishing shovel combat from karate.

Rather the point! </font>

The Hound forgets one very important thing - the 3d environment and visuals of little men running around. You can have gameplay on a 2d map. If that is all you are after, you and Hound find one of those games. I've seen screen shots from your games - I know visuals are not important to you. But even though I have seen the little sprite throw a grenade 1000 times - it is still fun to watch sometimes. It would be even better to have a "battle chess" visual where GI Joe hits some German with his helmet. btw, I agree with a lot of your complaints about people wanting too much control. But a visual script depicting close combat doesnt have anything to do with game play, and it doesnt have anything to do with 1:1 control. If you want to talk about view six, start a new thread. [ January 31, 2005, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: David Chapuis ]

Why? -dale </font>

And highly entertaining to watch. I am hoping that some of their 'visual scripts' can be modded. I am sure there are ways to do it, but all the ways I can think of have some flaws. That is why I was asking the question.

I have some more questions about how the squad footprint will be handled. That actually seems like one of the hardest issues to resolve. You have given two examples in this thread that deal with this, and both would have to see huge differences and problems when compared to the abstracted way CMx1 handled it. First The way I read that, Steve was talking about not having a split squad (if he meant the player doing a split squad, then the issue is moot). I just wonder how this will be handled while keeping the squads footprint a playable size. Will the AI split the squad automatically, have the rifle section move, then, when the rifle section gets to its location, will the LMG section come forward and join the group? Having the AI split the squad seems undesirable from a player perspective. Or will the squad footprint cover the entire 10/15/20m? That doesn’t even seem possible to work from a squad-level spotting/cover perspective. Second So is that individual then out of play for the rest of the game? Surely you don’t want to create a new control unit for each routed guy - but if you dont then the guy is gone. Which mean he could not rally and join the fight - seems like not a good option. But creating a new control unit for each routed guy seems bad too. Or does the soldier stay in the squad footprint but just in a routed status? That doesn’t seem to make sense either - what if the squad moves, would the routed guy go with it. And if the guy leaves the squad but does not become a new contolable unit, the AI will still have to keep track of him - unless he just vanishes into thin air. Seems like the only options are for the AI to have the ability to track hundreds of routed guys individually (if they leave the squad - which is the way I read your post) or the soldiers go to never-never land. Very, very curious about these things. [ January 30, 2005, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: David Chapuis ]

I do have 4 kids ... but that hardly qualifies me as a scatologist.