Mr. Tittles

If you are directly commanding each squad, why is there a command delay? Think about it. Are the squad members voting on whether the Sarge is right?

He doesnt have to. He may have briefed the platoon commanders and the exact path is being abstractly plotted by the distributed command. Thats what the delays are for. [ May 05, 2004, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Many company and even multicompany sized actions had the ground-commander eyeballing the situation. Especially in the attack. So I think that you are really talking about a different scaled game than CM. Personally, I like company sized infantry actions with few supporting arms.

You mean the 'Soup-Nazi' gag? Funny, yes. But it's not the same thing as calling someone you're talking to a nazi. </font>

What isn't arbitrary is how many tanks one fields and how many enemy tanks one manages to take out with them. And on this score, the 33 figure is completely untenable. Total Allied AFV losses in WW II are bounded above by 125k, and 100k is a more likely figure. Total major AT weapon systems fielded by Germany are about the same - around 50k each of AFVs and serious PAK. -JasonC But what I am asking is; Is this fielded number taken from production stats? Just as a Tiger may be fielded and repaired so can its victems. So there may be more victems than tanks produced. Each Tank produced may actually be a victem 1.5-3 times? so a kill ring on a 88 tube may actually have the same 'tank' killed more than once! (and be a legit 'kill'). German tank recovery crews also made surveys of the kills made by the panzer units as an additional task. They would confirm kills, try to repair/salvage enemy armor, etc. So the germans did make an effort to keep some tally. Mind you, on the retreat when the field is given up, the data would not be reliable.

I dont think the tankers opinions matter as much as what the higher up officers demanded of the work crews. In other words, the tankers would just get another tank but was that a factory fresh one or a rebuild?

Tell it to Seinfeld.

The game allows the friendlies to misjudge enemy units. A Panzer IV is reported as a possible Tiger perhaps. Why not have terrain misidentified? A clump of scattered trees far away are actually woods? A foxhole is actually a trench (yikes!)? Missing a hill (which is in LOS) is sort of a wierd example. But missing a small depression would not be. My point is that the game should control info-feed. If its left to the player to 'make the mistakes', the player will just take even longer to send a frikkin turn. [ May 05, 2004, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I'll quote someone else. "So if a player's idea of fun is to use "gamey" tactics to beat the other guy, I guess we did "remove" some of the "fun" in CMBO. But in doing so we made CMBB more of what CMBO was always, ALWAYS, supposed to be. And the next game will continue that trend of improvement towards the unobtainable goal of perfect simulation of tactical warfare. And in our opinions, perfect means most realistic." -Steve of BFC Nov 1 2002

I wonder hard hard the following would be to program: Covered arc scan: A covered arc is angled on the map as in the game now. Menu pops up and asks ? Scan Y/N? The graphics then sweeps a point starting at the unit and moving at greater radius. The effect is like a TV screen where the flicker is not noticed. The visual effect I envision would be a sort of expanding pulse moving outwards from the unit within the rays of the arc. The moving LOS 'dot' could leave behind some persistance effect on LOS points that gradually fades out. This would quickly show what is in the general LOS of the unit and give a good 'lay-of-the-land' feel. Not as great as dynamic shading but it would help out. [ May 05, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Not just my point of view, just the ones you feel like limiting conversations to. And now you are trying to play up some emotional aspect of a word. Classic. I think the game can be many levels of enjoyment. It can provide entertainment for those that like a more fun-based experience and it can be more challenging and realistic for others. Thats the reason for FOW. Game design should factor in: 1. What quality of map would a commander have at CMs level? 2. How detailed should terrain (either out of LOS or far from friendlies) be represented to the player. 3. Can terrain out of LOS be scouted prior to play (allow some fly-over method)?

CMPlayer: I don't see your logic. The game is already pro-attacker due to its present state. This mobile LOS tool is an attackers dream tool in the gamey-box. If anything, it should be available to the player at the lowest realism setting.

I would also want a contour map if the situation warrants it . As I have tried to explain, theres terrain/situations where detailed maps would not be available. The shading (obviously a future products request) would be nice but I would want it linked to FOW. So on extreme FOW, shading will only be turned on when you are above a friendly highlighted unit. This way, people can play the way they like. I would also want the lower level 'fly-around' restricted on extreme FOW setting (to be clear, the player could not get down below a certain level UNLESS over a friendly). Again, not imposing any will here, just like to play on different settings. I would also want selected enemy units to NOT be highlighted due to the gamey surveying I described earlier. The highlighting is not needed. I think a Show-View option (highlight all terrain the selected friendly can see), is another needed player aid. Chelco, don't be a thread Nazi. I play the game to win. Unfortunately, like most people, I abuse whatever I can to do that. Thats the point of having freedom to choose options. I play 100% on extreme FOW. I would like that more extreme. You try to limit the thread to the initial request for a contour map player aid and at the same time think your dynamic shading request is worthwhile but anyone else's idea/conversation isn't? Gee! yourself. [ May 05, 2004, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

So the SU-76 only used the shorter gun? Did the soviets have any L51 guns in a SP role?

I think you miss the point. A battlefield commander in the desert would not have the detail on his desert map like you believe. I think there are several interesting ideas going about here. The need for some kind of map, whatever its detail level, the gamey-surveying issues, improved graphics, etc. Relax Jon. Try to have fun.

Tank repair: The US not only repaired its vehicles but had preference to types of shermans. When they were allowed to pick some out from a depot, they would want Ford V8s and such. They would try to keep these prefered models in the field at all costs. Tank Overkills: So Jasons logic also applies to allied tanks that were killed. Every 100 tanks produced may actually result in 175 kill rings on german guns. [ May 04, 2004, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I think the shaded enhancement should only appear when you are fixed on one of your own units that you have selected. To just fly about the battlefield and check things out is Gamey-Surveying. I also do things like select an enemy unit and then fly about the battlefield. I get down low and even though the selected enemy unit is out of my surveyed LOS, its rectangular selection border shows through the terrain. By doing this, I can spring gamey well coordinated shoot n scoots from many directions at once. As far as dunes shifting, in RL they do. So a real topo map would not have singular dunes marked and contoured. They would display an area, much like a forest is designated by an area, so that a commander knows dunes are in that area. They are more like derelicts than hills.

I think the shading does help BUT only if you are above a friendly unit and checking LOS from THAT unit. In other words, Gamey Surveying would be further helped by shading. Note in that pic how the dunes are not permanent. On a map, you may just have an overlay that encompasses the area and denotes 'Dunes'. Since they change/shift/etc. they would not be mapped like hills/mountains.

Is this directed at my last post? I neither mentioned resolution nor accuracy. Ive made maps and that map is as good as one that could be expected till about the mid 80s or so. My post shows what a combat commander in this particular situation might have. And as I have said, its pretty good. Since you seem to be a student and someone with limited real world technical experience; would you explain what you mean by resolution or accuracy or how they can be confused? </font>

[ May 03, 2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Funny. I just had some brisket. And I wonder if I will ever stop farting...

Funny. I just had some brisket. And I wonder if I will ever stop farting...

So you would want ultra-super-gamey surveying? Unfortunately, who's to say they get there? Your logic seems flawed and ultimately, gamey.

It probably was but if the commonwealth infantry were given the bazooka, there would be a lot of unused PIATS around anyway. Did the 2 inch have a WP round? This certainly would be especially useful.

I forget which game it was but i played a demo where the people MUST have real carto experience. The way the vegetation and hills followed natural tendencies amazed me. Nothing personal but many 'player created maps' are so funny. A landscaper could not make the terrain happen!