sttp

Thanks again for the detailed updates. Lots of us out here enjoying them. The greater amount of activity in the Soviet thread is probably due to him being perceived as the underdog in this fight. Old hands know that meeting engagements are often largely decided by who takes certain key ground the fastest. Your identifying and taking it early put you in the frontrunner spot.

So, I think folks who know the ME dynamic naturally put their attention more on the underdog side. Had it been the reverse, your thread would very likely have been the more active one.
Just a thought. 🙂

I own all CMx1 and x2 titles, but what the actual hell is this game?
Two US rifle squads from a stock mission (called House Cleaning, or whatever that US MOUT team clearing the hospital mission is called).. cannot kill a single dude. The best part is, this single dude with an AK has suppressed both squads, killed team members of those squads and refuses to be suppressed or even killed by multiple M4s, multiple 40mm grenades and whatever else these dudes throw at him. This is unacceptable... seriously. I don't know what they're feeding this dude, or what type of morale he's got especially since i'm pretty sure the rest of his squad is surrendered but this guy's got some massive balls. 
It just blows my mind that literally ONE guy, with a RIFLE, can do this. I'm no retard or anything, but I think I have the fire superiority here. I never complain, because I know if I lose or get guys killed.. it is my fault but like this is garbage. This has been going on for several minutes because I am actually impressed and want to see the outcome. 

Actually he doesn't have much of a point, because the original poster asked for a feature like the Graviteam games have. And those games have just as complex LOS calculations as Combat Mission, with each individual crewmember spotting, etc.
You can even toggle on a mode that shows you which vision slit each of the crew is looking out of at any given moment. Yet Graviteam also has a feature to draw a map of the total field of view of any given unit.

Graviteam has 3D maps like CM and and has 3D units like 3M.  But it also has larger maps on average and  has deformable terrain.  This in real-time.  CM has the option of wego to help the processing.  Steel Beasts, similar to Graviteam games, has much larger maps and typical unit counts.  Yet both games can generate a LOS map or display.  Both games trace LOS from individual soldiers.  Both games trace LOS from individual spotting locations on AFVs.  Both games have dealt with grass and soldier posture.
So we can dispense with the refrain that it can't be done because of the 3D nature of CM.  Yes, its complex.  And yes other games do it.  It might be something else other than just the 3D environment that makes it impossible.  I don't know a thing about that.  But its not the 3D nature of the game unless something is wrong with how it was implemented. 
A couple last thoughts.  Steel Beasts has been out for over 20 years and Graviteam is around 10.  So people knew how to do it way back in the old days too.  On similar-sized scenarios, I get 30-40 fps in CMBS, 60 in Steel Beasts, and 40-50 in a Graviteam game.

There's a difference, though, between the engine and the data - or maybe there isn't with CM, but in theory at least, giving someone the ability to add data e.g. weight, speed, calibre, ,muzzle velocity, rate of fire for a given vehicle, gun or small arm isn't the same as letting them muck about with how the engine crunches that data. That, of course, should be BF's and BF's alone to mess with. In addition, BF could act as gatekeeper for new additions, the data for much of which is already known, so they could do things like make sure nobody is trying to sneak a 90mm gun onto a Matilda.  

I think the real purpose is something entirely different.
How would the players react if they saw in reality how simple things are in this game?

The CMx2 engine is thirteen years old,  and it shows. So I say let's drop the demands for new theaters and new features and instead urge and allow them to focus on an entirely new game engine, CMx3.

The CMx2 engine is thirteen years old,  and it shows. So I say let's drop the demands for new theaters and new features and instead urge and allow them to focus on an entirely new game engine, CMx3.

Don´t need no poll. Commonwealth forces and expansion into VE Day for Final Blitzkrieg is due. Then finally we can go from D-Day to VE-Day with both games after 10 years of development.

I love the WeGo system, but part of it is also because the turn based mode forces players to either let their tank sit for a full minute and get pummelled, hoping to get a spot and a shot off during that time, or to guess how many seconds are needed to spot and shoot - which is impossible to estimate, since so many variables are at play.
So you end up with tanks staying up too long, taking too many hits, or you have your tank reverse back in cover just before it was about to shoot.
In real life (or playing real-time mode), the tank crew decides what is the optimal time to spot, shoot, and scoot.
This is not an attack on the WeGo mode, but just some reflections.

Test results
Tests done in a more "natural" map instead of flat ground. Shermans are at 900,1030 and 1050m. All shermans are placed in light forest with trees. Shermans are of variant M4A3(76)W. Panther is of variant Panther G mid.
20 tests done with panther hull down, 20 tests with panther open ground. At test start the panther will drive to its correct position so it is not exposed at the start, all shermans stationary. Disregard the forward observers, they are behind terrain and does not see anything. At this range and angle the shermans can penetrate the lower glacis and the front turret, only the upper hull plate is immune.
Skill: regular, normal, 0 for all tanks

The map.

Panther hull down/open from sherman's perspective (one of them).

Panthers perspective.
 
Results:
Panther in hull down position:
4/20 times success; 20% win rate
failures:
12 times by main gun destroyed: 4 times muzzle hit, 2 times barrel hit, rest are mantlet/weapon mount hits. Rest of failures is crew dismount and tank destroyed.
Panther on open ground:
11/20 times success; 55% win rate
1 success had the panther immobilized by lower glacis penetration, engine destroyed
failures:
4 times by main gun destroyed: 1 time muzzle hit, rest mantlet/weapon mount.
1 time destroyed after +50 hits, crew panicked earlier, but the tank was still operational
rest is lower glacis or weapon mount tank destroyed
 
So after all that i did another 10 tests in each position with shermans all beeing elite crew to see what happend
Panther in hull down position vs 3 elite shermans: 0% win rate
Panther on open ground vs 3 elite shermans: 40% win rate
 
I got many pictures from the different successes and failures, but i dont want to clutter the post, but in general this is why the panther wins open ground scenarios:

The AI will always aim for the upper hull plate, which is the only place they can't penetrate. This is the aiming issue im talking about, the AI aims for the exact same location every single shot and will never deviate at all unless terrain forces them to. Once they are zeroed in, there is almost no hits to the turret or lower glacis at all, these lower glacis hits was two of the first shots fired. The panther won in the scenario that picture is taken from.

Thats what i would assume to happen, in all my tests it always takes more shots against a hull down opponent. If the game didn't reflect this then that would be very worrying, but it does that just fine as you show yourself. The point im making with hull down beeing worse for certain tanks is that they have the armor to take hits on the hull, and the AI will aim for the hull when they are on open ground and thus it increases their survivability compared to hull down. Im doing some tests as we speak and will share results soon, it shows exactly what im talking about.

Nobody here is assuming that, Mikey. Please read the thread instead of assuming basic incompetence.

Just for the record, I'm fine with the game not being perfect. I'm just trying to help it improve. When I report bugs and discuss various issues, it is not an insult or attack on the developers or anyone on this forum.
I'm happy to be proven wrong - when I am in fact wrong - but it needs to be based on actual arguments, not just assuming I don't know how to play the game.

You might be able to accept that the game has flaws, but some others here can't. Some people seem to defend the game to their grave and that you should just play differently or just "not get hit" in a war game. As you also point out that you want to end up on the enemy flank, that's fair cus that's the best case scenario. But not every game, plan or every unit composition is perfect so you will have scenarios where you can't do what you ideally want to, and this is where the game mechanics can play a huge part in the result.

How is having a calm discussion about how the game works "being a jerk"?
Do you think anything will improve if nobody dares to discuss the game?
If you want to be of any value in this thread, try to read the many constructive posts made by RobZ and others, where they provide data from actual tests of what happens in various situations.

If you didn't understand my post, there's not much more I can do to help you.
 

You seem to confuse this game with reality. In reality, hull down is a good thing for any AFV. In this game, it's a bad thing for certain tanks. But play it your way.

The CMx2 engine is thirteen years old,  and it shows. So I say let's drop the demands for new theaters and new features and instead urge and allow them to focus on an entirely new game engine, CMx3.

The CMx2 engine is thirteen years old,  and it shows. So I say let's drop the demands for new theaters and new features and instead urge and allow them to focus on an entirely new game engine, CMx3.

The CMx2 engine is thirteen years old,  and it shows. So I say let's drop the demands for new theaters and new features and instead urge and allow them to focus on an entirely new game engine, CMx3.

Then the whole strategy of "a single game engine"  that isn't "a single game engine" is a broken as the day it was first revealed.  This is the first laptop where I haven't immediately installed all the CM games.  Steel Beasts and the Graviteam games are doing for me now.  It makes me sad.

I know that BF are set on not releasing public betas, but this previous patch could certainly have done with wider testing and would have prevented posting of old python skits.

btw, this is a pretty unsubtle "blame the customer" approach I have seen more than once here.  Damn those customers for asking for things

Part of the issue isn't the bugs per se.  Its the length of time to get patches out to fix bugs.  BFC has gone into the mode of mostly not releasing fixes  unless its with a new module.  That means you can wait easily a year or more to get something significant fixed.  No one would taking about these issues if we got some kind of quarterly patch to clean up stuff that gets found.