undead reindeer cavalry
-
Posts
1,224 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by undead reindeer cavalry
-
-
i think it's highly unlikely that BFC would waste their limited resources into modelling tactically unimportant things like tank suspension and dynamic nightsky with stars at correct positions.
just joking of course. i hold no bitterness over BFC decisions and value their views highly.
-
tanks don't kill infantry that's in trenches by driving over, at least if the trenches are good and the men don't panic & get out, and driving tanks, unsupported by own infantry, close to enemy infantry is stupid in the first place.
still, lots of extremely stupid stuff happens in wars and there's dogmatic stupidity inherent to how armies function. Finns destroyed close to 2000 Soviet tanks in Winter War, only about half of them with guns (meaning indirect fire as well). it sure was stupid for the Soviets to drive their tanks so close to Finnish infantry, again & again, when the result was to get thrown around or get KOed with toothpicks. nonetheless it did happen, a lot. Soviets got results too, e.g. Finns had to change their AT gun tactics because so many guns were being run over by Soviet tanks. it was not only the Soviets who did this stupid stuff, and it was done still late in the war.
armor over run attacks and vehicle collisions include a lot more than just tanks ramming tanks or tanks driving over trenches & foxholes. most who oppose modelling of crews & weapons being run over by vehicles, and modelling of vehicle collisions, seem to think that those who speak for them do not understand how fragile the vehicles (tanks or not) were, and that there usually were serious reasons why such actions weren't preferred.
i believe that if these things were modelled, the actual consequence in CM games would be the opposite: we would have more damaged vehicles and more realistic blunders in using vehicles.
CMx2, with it's more detailed representation, offers much more than "rough terrain tiles" to collide vehicles with. i have understood from Steve's posts that there will be more terrain objects around, and their positions will be more variable than that of the tiles in CMx1. as i interpret it, it will inevitably lead to more vehicle collisions. we can also see where the men are exactly, so running over infantry would no more be so abstract, and "unrealistic results" would be up to unrealistic players to create.
my experience with CMx1 is that there's lots of "unrealistic" stuff going in the battles, it's a game after all, and with the borg spotting gone i think we will see more of unexpected encounters with vehicles in CMx2.
-
yeah, relaxed interpretation and lengthy prose is what JasonC excels in. i agree with 99% of what he writes (i am talking in general here), it's just the parts that he leaves out that tend to annoy me.Originally posted by Sergei:The quote leaves that open to interpretation, and as such, I suppose JasonC is free to interprete.
i would really love to play a big Tali-Ihantala operation, but i don't have time for it in the near future.Personally, I do have one Axe to grind, but he no longer wishes to play. :mad: Say, you wouldn't be interested in playing a big operation by e-mail..? I need an opponent to continue the play test of a Tali-Ihantala operation. We were close to the end of the first battle, in a fifty-sixty situation, when he turned his back to the PBEM world.
perhaps after a couple of months or so.
-
Steve,
actually i do have technical expertice in programming AI, 3D and that kind of stuff.
but of course i can not know how CMx2 works and i am quite convinced that i will enjoy the fruits of your labor. 
CMx2 sounds extremely good.about JasonC etc, i couldn't care less.
-
no doubt, you will not be given what you ask for.Originally posted by JasonC:Show me the fifty passages in standard, professional military narrative when the ability in question had an actual tactical effect.
we would see them in CMx2 battles very rarely, not least because the player would very soon find out the foolishness of such tactics, and they would have practically zero impact on battle results.
still, i don't understand how it's a reason to not model them in, as long as it's not a big task to do so. i rather prefer the model in which the player can do stupid stuff and the game penalizes the player for doing so, rather than the model in which the game knows it better and doesn't let the player to be foolish. i don't want an interactive documentary, i want a game.
i'd also like to see CMx2 games that have cavalry, chariots etc but don't have over run modelled.
-
it is not all he said, and in my opinion Jason clearly put words into his mouth, but i have no axe to grind with this subject.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:Unfortunately, Herr Spaeter is dead now. All the quote says is that he decided to give the book a second chance; his eventual conclusions aren't stated.
-
see Jason's post earlier on this thread. he appears to put his own ideas to GD officer's mouth.Originally posted by Michael Emrys:I'm curious. What exactly is it you think that Jason has made up? Can you provide any quotes?
the original:
and this is what Jason wrote:Perhaps even more persuasive testimony comes from a member of the vaunted Grossdeutschland Division itself Herr Helmuth Spaeter a former major who commanded the division's reconnaissance Abteilung during the war and served for a period as the head of the division's veterans' association. Quoted by Kennedy as one of Sajer's most vociferous critics Spaeter was absolutely convinced until recently that The Forgotten Soldier was fiction. However when I provided him a copy of Sajer's letter to examine he was evidently moved enough to completely reexamine his earlier position."I was deeply impressed by his statements in his letter " he told me. "I have underestimated Herr Sajer and my respect for him has greatly increased. I am myself more of a writer who deals with facts and specifics-much less like one who writes in a literary way. For this reason I was very skeptical towards the content of his book. I now have greater regard for Herr Sajer and I will read his book once again. Thank God I still have a copy of it here."28
Apparently here is one skeptic who is willing to abandon his preconceptions and look at Sajer's book from a new perspective and a well-known member of the Grossdeutschland Division who fought in the same battles as Sajer did no less. Spaeter's reversal suggests a course of action that might wisely be taken by other skeptics far less personally engaged in these matters.
perhaps Jason has another source, but judging from his post he is speaking about the part i quoted above. please note that, amongst other things, in the original it is said that "Spaeter was absolutely convinced until recently that The Forgotten Soldier was fiction".Ardem - read the GD officer's statement again, and you will notice he calls himself factual and Sajer literary, and never says he believes a word of it. He does say he has new respect for him and will read him again - in reaction no doubt to Sajer explaining it was his duty to glorify the German soldier. In other words, before he thought him a poser, now he considers him a friendly propagandist. -
ramming, or vehicle collisions in other words, is, in my honest opinion, a key part of using, and not using, tanks and other vehicles. causing collisions by purpose is naturally something that was avoided if possible, but often things weren't & couldn't be done in the optimal way. unexpected encounters with enemy vehicles and limited maneuver options, say like when moving in a road in woods and suddenly facing enemy motorized infantry column, sometimes resulted in situations where purposefully colliding with other vehicles became a desirable option. collisions with other vehicles of your unit was certainly avoided. collisions, causing them purposefully or avoiding them, with immobile objects were important part of using vehicles in combat, as others pointed.
like i wrote in my earlier post, i can see well that modelling collisions would further emphasis some of the flaws of CMx1. the non-existent modelling of column movement and the resulting vehicular dance of death is an example that is known to all. more detailed graphical representation will emphasis them as well, as there's lot less room for visual abstraction and collisions with immobile objects can be witnessed in detail.
saying that modelling of vehicle collisions is not a key element in a game like CM is a bit silly. those who ridicule the importance of modelling vehicle collisions most likely do not see the big picture and all the elements that follow and are included. vehicle collisions, and their avoidance, is not unusual phenomena in the battlefield. it's something that is so usual that most of it is taken for granted.
lastly, i don't buy it for a second that it would be a big task to code some basic vehicle collision modelling into CMx2. there's already collision detection in there, so adding some very basic checks (on data that already exists) and results (as state changes that already exist, e.g. immobilization, destruction, injury) should be no big deal.
i'm not asking for 1:1 graphical representation, thrughout damage modelling or brilliant TacAI awareness of ramming. i'm certainly not asking to see tanks transformed to some mythical invulnerable metal beasts, that flatten infantry and crush thru the surrounding environment with ease, but quite the opposite.
-
JasonC, CM is already unhistorical what comes to effects caused by guns etc. why should ramming & over-run effects be so different?
-
yah, it would be nice to see the unfortunate fellows be maimed, who i can see with my very own eyes are unable to jump away and are run over by a quite heavy tracked vehicle. 1:1 representation takes a huge chunk away from the old abstraction "explanation". would guess it to make the player a bit disillusioned.
though, who knows, as it seems i am the only one who finds it very annoying in CMx1 that everyone appears to use magic bullets that go right thru friendly units. after all, one has a lot higher chances of somehow not being maimed when being run over by a tank, than not becoming filled with blood leaks when two platoons of infantry, three HMGs and two IGs blaze thru your squad.
-
in my opinion ramming should be modelled and not just for AT-guns and such, but for vehicles as well.
ramming vehicles certainly took place. at least as a situational must, dictated by an unexpected encounter and limited mobility options.
yes, it was historically uncommon, but many things that happen in CM are historically uncommon. some of them are because of the limitations of CM, some of them are because of the very nature of games and those who play them. what ever the cause, the player should not be punished because of the limitations set by the game itself. the key game objects should behave in a believable way, especially if the game is anything close to a historical simulation.
CMx1 already knows when a ramming takes place, when two vehicles collide. it's not rocket science to add in a check for the two vectors (velocity), multiply in the mass and add a general check for the level of armour.
what kind of possible results do i expect from a ramming? 1) nothing if speed etc are limited, 2) vehicles with limited armour to be put out of action, and most importantly 3) passengers (crew etc) put out of action (immobilization) in more serious collisions. results need not be rocket science, it's enough that the results are believable.
the real problem, of course, is the TacAI. in my opinion TacAI wouldn't need to understand any of it. its normal reaction to enemy tanks and vehicles would be enough.
though, if you can't solve the most annoying column movement flaw of CMx1 in CMx2, it would get even more annoying when friendly collisions cause ramming damage as well. :\
-
i bet my money on "Équipe de Combat Luxueux".
-
in Europe CMBB is "Combat Mission 2" & CMAK "Combat Mission 3". releasing CMx2 titles under "Combat Mission 2" might cause some confusion.
-
sorry mr.Dorosh, but i just stalked with Steve and he confirmed my fears that neither of the first titles will be Winter War 1939. here's what he revealed to me about the first two titles and the following modules.
1st title:
Finno-Russian Tribal Wars 1918-1922
1st module: Viena Expedition 1918
2nd module: Aunus Expedition 1919
3rd module: Estonian Liberation War 1917-1920
4th module: Petsamo Expeditions 1918,1920
5th module: East-Karelian Uprising 1921-1922
6th module: Ingrian Uprising 1919
2nd title:
Guerra del Pacifico - War of the Pacific 1879-1884
1st module: Antofagasta 1879
2nd module: Towards Lima - The Chilean Invasion
3nd module: Peruvian Resistance
4rd module: The Fall of Tacna
5th module: The Fall of Arica
-
yeah, i wish CM would allow these kind of things, but the supression model is just too lacking. hopefully CMx2 will fix it.Originally posted by jtcm:where did I read the following story: officer walks by mg blazing away, observes that the enemy is out of range, only to receive the answer " I know. Sir, that's where i intend for him to stay"
the subject heading rocks!
-
woohoo, that would be great!Originally posted by Battlefront.com:As for dumping out data. Well, who knows...
if it turns out that there will be some form of data export/import, i see no reason why the community couldn't create the strategic layer (or a number of them more likely).
-
ugh, good luck with your project. don't let it eat you alive, projects like that can be real mind killersOriginally posted by eichenbaum:On the other hand I want to thank BFC for not developing the game of my dreams. Because of this I have purchased a game engine and started developing the game of my dreams. I'll be busy in the next comming years... my time for CM ran out!
BTW you are being a bit unreasonable, especially considering we haven't even seen CMx2 yet! who knows, perhaps CMx2 let's you export and import battle data and so forth...
-
awgh, you might be right. hadn't thought about it from that perspective.
-
i'd like better LOF modelling mostly to have friendly fire for infantry, which itself would force more realistic tactics (formations, firing sectors, fire plans...). i really dislike the ability to fire thru friendly infantry. it would be great if there were even some penalties for doing so.
i agree that CMBB MG fire suppression model is super when compared to CMBO. i'd still like MG fire to suppress even more, especially when a HMG, with tripod and all, is in a good grazing fire position and enemy is massing infantry on relatively open terrain. i don't want MG fire to cause more casualties, i want it to suppress more (in some situations).
it sounds great that MG fire supression model is improven in CMx2. i don't really care how it is done as long as it works.
it would be absolutely fantastic if CMx2 would include elements that force player to think about formations and firing sectors.
EDIT: i don't want to sound like i was whining. CMx2 sounds extremely good!
-
it would be cool to have some form of causing damage/casualties by driving over infantry etc with tanks, especially now that we have more exact representation.
it would be cool if tanks would cause infantry suppression or morale checks just by their very presence.
-
will squads and MGs still be firing thru friendly units like they were air?
will there be grazing fire?
-
one think in which infantry smoke would add a lot, is infantry AT tactics. infantry used smoke to blind the tank before going for the kill. as is now, the tank isn't blinded before the kill and infantry attacks often fail just because the target tank can see the infantry around it.
-
in my opinion a more detailed LOF modelling is essential for friendly fire modelling, and thus for giving player reasons to use more realistic formations. the current system, and IF i understand it correctly what Steve is saying then the coming CMx2 as well, rewards unrealistic formations due to limited LOF checks. IMO formations and firing sectors are crucial to realistic tactical warfare.
with tanks, it's usually too tempting to put tanks one after another in good keyhole positions, instead of side by side, because you can fire thru friendly tanks. i hate doing it, because it simply could never be done in real world, and to lesser part because it takes away many reasons for real world tank tactics.
with infantry, well, you can do everything. you don't have to worry about LOF and friendly fire at all (save for night battles and even then it's very limited). in my opinion it's a fundamental flaw in CMx1. with more detailed LOF you couldn't have friendly units just shoot thru friendly units in their LOF. you would have to give thought to firing sectors and formations, instead of having an amoeba like mass of blind firepower.
i think more detailed LOF would add dramatically to CMx2.
you don't need to calculate LOF for each nano second, because there are no units that travel in such a speed. bullets are fine with just one intial LOF check. what comes to tanks etc, that have longer firing ranges, having some LOF checks per second is no big deal CPU-wise. you don't do check for the actual 3D object that represents the flying thing, but its vector path. checking if a vector intersects with a 3D object is no biggie, and most objects can be ruled out without any detailed 3D checks.
i wish BFC still gives addition thought to LOF modelling, because i think it would add greatly to CMx2 because of its effect for friendly fire and formations.
-
i vote for the immediate release of a Mad Max module.
Artillery Plan Fire
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted