Northman

Or d) you don't use tactics that involve units doing stuff at two different places on the map at the same time(and good tactics very often fall into this category). This is the most obvious reason why RT does not work; a player can only focus at one part of the map at any given time. Attacking the fort in the first campaign mission from two sides for example, is simply impossible in real-time, without taking lots of casualties solely because of your inability to coordinate two groups of units at the same time, or at least not without moving your forces in a way that would severly reduce the benefits of a two-point attack.

I absolutely agree with Michaels thoughts about this and I hope that BF, in the future, will listen to this type reasoning more than they (obviously) have listened to those that have pushed for 1:1 modelling and RT. CM:SF has alot more detail than CMx1 has, but when those details aren't done right it isn't worth it, especially when many of the features have close to zero impact on the game's ability to simulate warfare. I don't think _showing_ every man on the battlefield is necessarily a bad thing, but when the position, stance, facing etc. of each of those men have a direct impact on the outcome of a certain situation, then the realism of the game will essentially be based on how the AI handles the situation there and then, and as is the case with every AI you never know what you get.

Another issue which might be related to this: When using the 'area fire' command, the target line automatically snaps to the underlying grid. Does this mean fire is only being directed at that point? That's what it looks like, especially with the .50 cal. I can see how this is actually a feature that is implemented to prevent "circumventing" the relative spotting system, i.e. using area-fire to target units that your firing unit has not been made aware of yet, as the time it would take for the information about the location of the target to be communicated to your firing unit would be just as much as the time needed to communicate a "fire through the second and third windows from the left end of the third building to the right"-type of order, for example.

Sounds good. I've noticed the shooting-thru-edge-issue too, but that can be dealt with by positioning your troops farther away from the edge. Not so with the thru-walls-issue! Great to hear that. I was afraid cover and concealment was left to be handled by the AI exclusively. I've been close to several heart-attacks already, from seeing my troops wandering off on the wrong side of walls etc.! Thanks, that would be much appreciated I think. I know my own and several others initial disappointment with the game was because of the issues discussed here.

What are these bugs exactly? Is the 'shooting-thru-walls'-issue among them, or is this one of the abstractions we have to live with? Should it be possible to hide squads behind walls? Is there any sort of cover&concealment bonus to compensate for the the damage you take because of LOS-abstractions? From my point of view a game is fun if it manages to produce results that can be compared to what one would expect in real-life. I wouldn't mind if abstractions are necessary to accomplish this. However, if the abstractions actually reduce the amount of realism instead of increase it, then that's something else. When I play SF I feel like I lose alot of men because I feel I can never tell for sure if an object is going to provide cover or not. I Hope it's bugs. I remember there were some abstractions with CMx1 that one had to get used to(like terrain providing more cover than one would think by looking at it), but I can't remember that they had the kind of impact they have in this game.

I've seen this too. You can also see every man in a squad simply by selecting it. And on top of that you can hear infantry sounds no matter how far away they are. Which means multiplayer is pretty much useless right now.

Exactly, and programming them to get down is only one small part of the problem. Using rocks, bushes, trees in the best possible way, changing position based on incoming fire, chosing the appropriate stance etc. etc. means this will be impossible to code in a way that will produce realistic _results_ in the same high degree as CMx1 did. Not even the big companies can do this, even for FPS-games that has only a fraction of the number of units CM has. BF are not stupid, so either they have changed their design philosophy as Lt.Bull suggests, or they have managed to code a clever abstraction system that makes things both _look_ realistic and produce the realistic results most of us expect from a CM game. I'm hoping for the latter.

I too would also like to hear an answer to this question, and generally an explanation of how cover and concealment works. What is abstracted, what is not? Should I worry if a few of my soldiers are not taking appropriate cover, or is the only thing that matters my squads position relative to the "underlying grid" or "hotspot"(not sure what is the correct term). I have seen tracers going through bodies without causing damage, so I'm pretty sure there is at least some abstraction going on. It would seem very strange if Lt.Bull's assertion, that BF's first goal is now to make "realistic" _looking_ games even if that means the game's ability to produce realistic results and reflect real life suffers, is true. That is indeed a major change in design philosophy that, at least for me, and I think for many other long time BF-supporters too, will make me not want to buy the next game from Battlefront. For me realism is the most important part of a game. Realism has always been CM's hallmark. I don't care how the game looks if my actions in that game does not produce results that are, in the highest possible degree, similar to what one would expect to see in real life, or more specifically: I don't want 1:1 representation if that means cover&concealment cannot be simulated properly.

Not quite. If one can't see it but the results are good, then it's good. Similarly, if one can see it and it looks bad, but the results are good, it's good. It's the results that matters, not how things look. I don't mind having my grunts spinning around in the middle of the street as long as they don't get themselves killed just because they do so. I think this philosophy is mentioned in the manual, at the beginning if I remember correctly.

I've been thinking exactly what you describe here, but unlike you I haven't been able to fit this reasoning with what I've seen in-game so far. I hope you are right, though. I think it was one of the devs who actually said the game was WYSIWYG with a small abstraction modifier.

Thanks, that was my point exactly. I can't understand how BF thought they could make an AI good enough to drop this abstraction almost completely. The AI is not bad compared to other games, but, you know, it's an AI... there are stragglers, soldiers that take detours, that lay down in the middle of the road with their backs turned against the enemy etc.; everything you would expect from such an AI. And when everything else in the game is modelled realistically(as is the case with CM:SF) then of course that sort of behaviour will get them killed, just as it would get a bunch of half-blind retards killed if one were to send them out in a fight in real-life. I'm pretty disappointed with this game. The more I play it the more I feel that realism has been sacrificed for 1:1 representation. I haven't played a scenario so far without having several men killed simply because they are AI-soldiers. If I remember correctly the manual says that this sort of thing should not have an impact on the overall realism of the game, but I can't see how it doesn't.

Well, I play CMx1 daily and I think the LMG's effectiveness is pretty realistic, and I think the main reason for that is that the movement of each individual soldier is abstracted, so that the pathfinding problems and other AI issues which all computer games have to cope with does not affect it.

Ah, sorry, forgot that. Thanks for pointing it out.

I read a couple of posts a few days ago that stated, if I remember correctly, that the modelling of cover and concealment was WYSIWYG except for a small bonus that is applied based on the underlying terrain. As I've understood it this means that if a bullet's trajectory passes through someone then that someone is going to get hit, just like in any FPS. But if this is so, then wouldn't that mean that the realism of the game is heavily dependent on the AI of the individual soldier, i.e. his ability to find cover, the correct path, facing etc.? I've only logged about 5-6 hours with this game so far, but already I have the feeling that this game is not so realistic as one would expect, and it seems like the 1:1 representation in place of CMx1's abstraction is the main reason. Any thoughts? (Sorry if this has been brought up before; did a search but couldn't find anything specific about it.)