semmes

At 48m, in a wood, one Reg+0 pistol from a pl hq of a Straggler Group shoots and kills one Vet-1 sniper, in the second minute, kills the second one in the team; both were firing at him. If this is an anecdote, what kind of code -in the best game ever, mind, not in a zombie shooter- allows his anecdote to happen? To be honest, the Russians Vet-1 snipers are blind snipers, they shoot, they miss, they are seen, shot and killed. A German Vet-1 shoots, kills and remains invisible. I am testing the AI in a scenario, it is happening again and again, and again. Anybody has anything against the Zombie Industry? They make a lot of money, a lot of people working there, earning an honest living. Anybody thinks they only hire the bottom of the class? They even do T-shirts! On the other hand, it is true that this code is fond of killing prisoners, or surrendering does not mean "surrender. I move my soldiers to the same cell where the surrendering guy is, they share a cigarette, they clap him in the back, they leave and that same guy -because he was in telepathic contact with somebody else, I guess- grab his weapon and starts shooting again. So the only safe course with this code is... Kill all prisoners! Well, at least we don't have to do the waterboarding... An army of sheep led by a lion is better than an army of lions led by a sheep. A. the Great.

@slysniper Thanks for your analysis instead of a playful comment. Could you please explain to me how seriously should I take a comment about billions of pounds spent in lorry development? It is a game, I do understand; it is a business, I do understand; game limitations, I think we should call that decisions taken. What I actually find annoying is people repeating what a great game it is, even using the word "realistic". I do point out/complain about how unrealistic it is... for a game. These are not my first posts, I have made suggestions, more people have made suggestions, there are more than one 'wish list' around and we get... -I used the word 'nothing' to get a reaction. The business is selling games, it is not improving the game -your 'up to the programmers to ever improve it. 'Pistols' was just another example. Everybody was saying that the test was a great job -indeed it is, but the conclusion from the results by the own author is: 'roughly equivalent'. Great game = roughly equivalent, sorry, I cannot see it, even if it is a limited test, under certain parameters... I still play board games where, a posteriori, some players try to explain... whatever it was. No need, the author wrote the rules, it is going to be like that because he said so. I agree with you, it is not an issue, I wouldn't call it realistic but certainly not an issue. Your "about a few..." Perfect, you see an issue or not that much of an issue and you express your opinion about it -even if we disagree about the facts, details about the facts or it implications. Now, your 'up to the programmers to ever improve it' is telling me that the game is not that good, there is plenty of room for improvement, it cannot be that great, it cannot be that realistic; important or unimportant. I think it would sound better a "We should stop the attitude. On your own words: 'up to the programmers to ever improve it. I cannot see the point in discussing -'might, just might'- those ways -any more, even if I am still learning more that a few things- but if people keep saying how great the game is -I wonder who are those trolls talking about rainbows and unicorns anyway?- I will keep pointing out not that great, we will keep making comments. Mind, "still learning, I cannot see the point in "destroying ideas, even if it can be "fun" sometimes. @MikeyD. Thank you for your "out of the hat" recent creation. You made up a situation and solve it using your imagination. I have never played a QB. My last 3 scenarios are with "Low" and never -not even- "Crack" troops on the field and it still looks like Harry Potter in Narnia. Can you tell me my shoe-size too? I wonder what is the point of answering your fantasies... Oh! yes, sorry... Prove it... or it was test it? Soviet accounting of supplies The terms boekomplekt, zapravki, s/dacha — respectively munitions load, refill of fuel, and days ration — is a concept that runs through Soviet rear records. 31 The concept for munitions is that each individual weapon has an allowance of munitions of a set number of pieces with a known weight, as shown in Table 2.32 The allowance for individual weapons would be scaled up by multiplying by the number of weapons in a unit, be it a company, battalion, brigade, or division, and then these numbers could be combined into a single average to express the overall munitions state in number of boekomplekt. Table 2.32 https://www.dropbox.com/s/gofuqumfc9dcdkd/T00.JPG?dl=0 (I am having problems with the Dbox link) THE JOURNAL OF SLAVIC MILITARY STUDIES 2020, VOL. 33, NO. 3, 420–441 doi.org /10.1080/13518046.2020.1824106 I think this would have been a good start for a game but we already have the -uploaded- load for German and Russian artillery in another thread anyway. The necessary supply of heroes must be maintained at all costs. Lord Carson.

I think you are missing the point. "There are things that are true even if G. W. Bush believes that they are true." (Do you see my point with him?) Something is true because a Duke told the story?, is it false if it was a peasant? "The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas." I have been told before that my texts are too short... I'll try. My impression is that some people around here are using the forum as a private club to tell each other how good the game is, how great the job they have been doing is and to keep clapping each others' back. Your football team is the best in the world... because you say so. Why should I agree? Now... I agree, I think we have established that you are totally upside down on this one. I thought the testing that DM did is some of the most creative I have seen in a very long time. Who is 'we'?, how have you stablished 'what' exactly? Some of you agree on something. Anything else has been 'proven'? Anybody made any comment about pistols in that Pdf?, because I haven't been able to find it; before, I mean. "...they shoot at you and you don't take cover," From another thread with The_Capt: 'By "cowards" I think you mean "training" and that should be "always"'. If this is WW2, soldiers are not suicidal -maybe even nowdays they are not suicidal, they take cover always, they train them to do that, they take cover even when they are not shot at. Maybe... those without training -worse that green- don't, because they don't know better. My point is "always", anything else is... incorrect, or a zombie shooter, if you like. "...mod the AI so that lorries don't go through woods, over trenches or stay in the front line, by the troops they were carrying." You did notice I was talking about the AI, right? The 'code' should tell the AI to avoid difficult terrain, IMO. Well... and maybe that they shouldn't deploy with the infantry on the firing line... Unless, of course, you think that the right place for a lorry is the firing line. - Are you saying the military never had road-bound lorries? I do not know the cross-country capabilities of the Opel Blitz, do you? Nor of any other wheeled vehicle, do you? Still, that is not the point, the AI is stupid, should it immobilize lorries in woods?, avoiding that would be an improvement?, if the code is not that great, how good is the game using it? Zombie-shooter level? - How many billions spent each country in lorries development in WW2? the exact figures, please, inflation-adjusted, if you don't mind. AI and arty is one area that I would like to see improvements for in the next engines. That said, scenario/campaign designers use the reinforcement option to spread the AI use of artillery out in the game. For onboard indirect fire assets you can use the area fire command to finely tune mortars (you can even set it to triggers). So no, not "ALL". -Scenario designers try to get the best they can out of a faulty code. If the AI has only one target it is going to use all the artillery it has in that target, that is my educated guess. If that is the code, how good is the game that use it? Anybody can prove that that is not the code?, anybody can prove otherwise? Mind, I am not asking to see the code, we all now is never going to happen. Prove it. You are a Moderator, right? The job description doesn't say anything about impartial moderator, right? Your BFF don't have to prove anything, right? Only those who disagree with you? The code is the only proof, any test is an approximation, better than an impression but no 'proof'. The results obtained from those 2 Rf pl moving through the wood, again and again, are... not a test, but how would you define it?, a non-test test? The same units were taking casualties in the same area under the fire of different units, a picnic? As opposed to the "outgoing" plate of armour? In my experience if your armour is "outgoing" it means that you, personally, are the next set of "incoming" armour and I am pretty sure the game captures that. Your "experience", could you elaborate, please? There is a thread about that where it has been... proven/argued/discussed -maybe you want to choose the word, as moderator- that no, the game that not captures that. Again, that is the code, how good is a game using that code... Probably about half the beta testers and myself personally. Pretty well. All right. Wait, can you prove that 'pretty well'? Is that an opinion? Is your football team the best in the world? If anybody disagrees that person must be wrong? There is a recent thread about suppression. I my opinion the code of this -may I say zombie-shooter?- game doesn't model, pretty well, the definition by the DoD. I will say this again, nothing about a teapot in orbit around Venus, nothing about the experience of the animations, nothing about... Only the code and the DoD. Again... anything wrong with a zombie-shooter?, somebody finds below his dignity to play a zombie-shooter? Again... it's only business. It is called "confirmation bias", Whatsapp provides some advice about it. The "value" of a quote has nothing to do with his author, even if we don't like bad painters. I don't know which I should admire more, your courage before the enemy or before your superiors. An Austrian officer to a German officer.

we have established... Really? Before, anybody mention anything, anywhere? ...they shoot at you and you don't take cover, By "cowards" I think you mean "training" and that should be "always". ...military trucks are by-design all terrain? - Are you saying the military never had road-bound lorries? - You read something about requisitioning any kind of vehicle? They spend billions... - In WW2? - Including fighting on the front line? AI and arty... Agreed, I mentioned what scenario designers can do to sort out the -faulty- code but I was talking about the AI. Sorry, I should have said almost all, most of the time, as long as it only has one target... an educated guess, I said. Prove it. Wow! Have you been asking everybody to prove every single statement in every thread? -and... maybe you do remember those 2 Rf pl getting into the woods- and... the code is the only proof. "outgoing" plate of armour... There is a thread about that. Probably about half... Probably about half the riflemen in WW2 -say they- disagree with you and at least one serviceman in this forum, not in this thread. Suppression... Somebody mention that word, again. Now for you... That if you don't value my opinion why should I value your -moderated- opinion? ...it's only business. (Even if I wonder why some people keep saying that I don't like this game... I miss "Cry Havoc!", it is not "SqL" but... still fun. I cannot see anything wrong with this game being a zombie-shooter, on the other hand, people saying that the game is great and feeling affronted because somebody dared to argue against that... ) The victor will never be asked if he told the truth. (If I name the author your opinion about the statement may vary).

The effectiveness of handguns is roughly comparable to that of rifles at 40 and 80 m. Not worth a comment... before? ...they shoot at you and you don't take cover, Any comments? ...mod the AI so that lorries don't go through woods, over trenches or stay in the front line, by the troops they were carrying. Any comments? ...the AI is going to spend ALL its artillery support in the first target it gets. Any comments? ...the formula used for -who is- KIA is biased. We are playing with loaded dice. Any comments? ..."realistic armour. Meaning the "incoming" plate of armour, so it's half-realistic; Any comments? ...how many people around here have been firing at something 200m away, not in a range, not a clearly-marked, huge target. Any comments about how such a great game like this captures all that? Supression... Are you sure, we just had a thread about it. (More seminary than scrable) The British Army always fights its battles uphill, in the pouring rain and at the junction of two map-sheets. Field Marshal Slim.

In case somebody missed the point I will say it again: Pistols are like rifles at 80m. This game is a zombie-shooter

"The effectiveness of handguns is roughly comparable to that of rifles at 40 and 80 m." This is from the intense testing (Pdf) by Drifter Man. This game is a zombie-shooter. I mean, they shoot at you and you don't take cover, pistols are like rifles... This is the official website of the game but I wonder why it is an anathema to say that this game is a zombie-shooter game. I am still testing the AI in one scenario... The AI is deploying where it should even if I had to move one wood out of the way, the AI is specially fond of immobilizing lorries in woods. I wonder if it would be too realistic to mod the AI so that lorries don't go through woods, over trenches or stay on the front line, by the troops they were carrying. Still 2 rf pl in the wood. Total number of men in those units taking casualties / Total KIA. Total number of leaders-LMG-rifles / KIA. 36/6 L 4/- - M 6/3 50% R 26/3 <20% Under mortar fire. One educated guess would be that the AI is going to spend all its artillery support in the first target it gets. Another one would be that bullets from a MG 300m away are wise enough to hit gunners but not leaders -this time. 45/21 L 5/1 20% M 6/4 66% R 34/16 <50% 54/27 L 6/1 <20% M 8/5 >60% R 40/21 ~50% 65/37 L 11/3 >20% M 10/6 60% R 44/28 <70% Firing 300m away: 1 sniper 0 KIA 1 (round) AT 2 Artillery 24 3 HMG 11 One HMG suffered (the) one casualty while (surprisingly) crawling away, the leader; 1 out of 6. In another AI deployment, final KIA, including some Germans. R 54/17 L 6/3 50% M 9/2 <33% R 39/12 ~33% G 24/6 L 3/1 33% M 3/2 66% R 18/3 <20% I would say that the formula used for -who is- KIA is biased. We are playing with loaded dice. "the more 'realistic' you make the game the slower it's going to play because the harder it is to kill the enemy the longer it takes to complete the mission." I will translate this as: This is a zombie-shooter game for zombie-shooter players. You are in the wrong game, mate! Translations are tricky, I know. Somebody mentioned "realistic armour. Meaning the "incoming" plate of armour, so it's half-realistic; "realistic" unless somebody has to write too much code. Some people around here seems to have the agenda that this is the greatest game ever, even if I wonder if they are being paid to say so. I may be wrong. Do I want the realism of B. Mauldin? No, thank you very much. Even if I wonder how many people around here have been firing at something 200m away, not in a range, no a clearly-marked, huge target. In case somebody missed the point I will say it again: Pistols are like rifles at 80m. This game is a zombie-shooter. Dig a hole in your backyard while it is raining. Sit in there while the water climbs up your ankles. Pour cold mud down your shirt. Sit there for 48 hours, and, so there is no danger of you dozing off, imagine that a guy is sneaking around waiting for a chance to club you on the head or to set your house on fire. Get out of the hole, fill a suitcase of rocks, pick it up, put a shotgun in your other hand and walk on the muddiest road you can find. Fall flat on your face every few minutes, as you imagine big meteors streaking down to sock you. Snoop around until you find a bull. Try to figure out a way to sneak around him without letting him see you. When he does see you, run like hell all the way back to your hole in the backyard, drop your suitcase and gun and get in. If you repeat this performance every three days for several months you may begin to understand why an infantryman gets out of breath. But still you won’t understand how he feels when things get tough. B. Mauldin.

Then thanks for explaining the same thing twice... and somebody else could obtain perspective from that web. The cavalry didn't even have the satisfaction of failure. Baker-Carr 1917.

I have many doubts... but I don't doubt that whoever is taking decisions for CM is a businessman, not a wargamer. nigelef.tripod.com RAorg.htm And we already have a thread with a serviceman explaining artillery fire. 0+0=0. Giving the AI a hand in no wasting ammo?, maybe even the players? Too forward to wear ties, too far back to get shot. B. Mauldin.

Please remember I started this after your: I do agree with your "sometimes", realistic... If they fire at you and you don't take cover... that is a zombie-shooter. Bullets finding leaders and gunners moving through a wood, doesn't help. Or... coming back to cycles, a moving invisible tank in front of a PzF team is not realistic, right? So, if it is not realistic sometimes it is not realistic, right? You could just as well have said "most of the time realistic wargame", right? But now comes an ignorant hot-headed young man who flies from Boulogne to Ulm, and from Ulm to the middle of Moravia, and fights battles in December. ?

[Hopefully a lot of people will agree that faster recon cycles would tend to a "higher end". How realistic are our expectations? and the actual game?} I was talking about those "cycles" -not recon units- and what realism they provide... that's all. Oh!, you saw one M60... people around here usually ask you to test it... and provide... and all that. Yes, I have seen that too -and an invisible tank in front of me too. By "cowards" I think you mean "training" and that should be "always". What I was testing was where the AI was going... The 2 pl was a kind of "let's see what happens while I wait"... Yes, you are missing the point. I am quite happy wit the number of casualties -not that much with them moving while under fire- but maybe we agree in the out of proportion KIA among leaders and LMG, specially those due to mortar/tree fragments. I was not testing that but I couldn't but notice it. 300m... "really close range". Yes, I think we have an issue here. "being butchered because their commander has no idea what he is doing"... then, how realistic is the AI that allows that to happen? They are not zombies, they are suicidal. "not seeing the second ranging round"... the fire mission has not started. Proposition: if the FO does not see any of the first 2 ranging rounds the AI is going to adjust that mission -before it happens, all by itself. Meaning 5, 10, ... meters around that area or cancel it if it cannot see any other point around to order the mission -and announce it, like reinforcements. Probably the same thing we all do, not that difficult. 0+0=0, no visible rounds=adjust/cancel mission -or even just cancel. I am afraid you missed the point... again, realism compare to B. Mauldin. Yes, I am able to talk about 2 things in the same conversation -specially when it is in writing- and there are situations -I would say we agree in this- when it doesn't make sense to fire -non realistic- unless suicidal, again. It takes 16.000 dead to make a Major-General. Joffre.

Oh! "That guy" could be an ammo bearer from an HMG taking pot shots at a target 800m away or he could be -while the whole platoon has been advancing towards a farm and they are lying down, waiting- that "that guy" is going to stand up, turn 90o left and shoot at... at making sure that the enemy knows where you are... If you use "hide" they don't shoot, if you use "cover arc" and there is a guy with a SMG one meter away from that arc... Total realism?

"Recon cycles" as when you don't see what it is in front of you until the next cycle; people keep talking about 7 seconds. I would say that being fired at and not taking cover is... zombie-shooter realism? This is not a test. I was testing that the AI was going where it was supposed to go and I decided to send a Rf coy through the woods; only 2 pl came under fire. Firing from 300m away: 1 AT, 3 HMG and 4 sq -but only 3 LMG, no snipers at all. Total number of men in those units taking casualties / Total KIA. Total number of leaders-LMG-rifles / KIA. Moving through the wood. 29/5 L 5/3 60% LMG 4/1 25% So L+LMG=80% of the -somehow- "selected" less than 33%. Rf 20/1 5% 38/7 L 6/3 50% LMG 4/2 50% Rf 28/2 <10% 38/11 L 6/3 50% LMG 4/3 75% Rf 28/5 <20% 58/16 L 8/4 50% LMG 7/4 >50% Rf 50/8 <20% In the wood, not moving not hiding, 61/22 L 9/4 >40% LMG 8/5 >60% Rf 44/13 <33% We have less leaders/LMG so more rifles have to die, still... Same, under artillery fire. 81/32 L 13/9 ~70% (L+LMG=50% "selected" less than 33%, including an already fallen LMG. LMG 13/7 >50% Highly intelligent munitions?) Rf 55/16 <33% Realism beyond perfection. Question: -Is there any moderation in the AI arty or as soon as it gets ammo is going to waste it? Far too many rounds for two retreating platoons. -Cannot the AI adjust/cancel a failed mission? For a player it is annoying to keep an eye over shoulder of the FO but the AI side is already stupid, maybe adjust mission after not seeing the second ranging round instead of wasting ammo? I already provide limited AI ammo in the 7 reinforcements slots. Realism? I am quite happy with a zombie-shooter. Dig a hole in your backyard while it is raining. Sit in there while the water climbs up your ankles. Pour cold mud down your shirt. Sit there for 48 hours, and, so there is no danger of you dozing off, imagine that a guy is sneaking around waiting for a chance to club you on the head or to set your house on fire. Get out of the hole, fill a suitcase of rocks, pick it up, put a shotgun in your other hand and walk on the muddiest road you can find. Fall flat on your face every few minutes, as you imagine big meteors streaking down to sock you. Snoop around until you find a bull. Try to figure out a way to sneak around him without letting him see you. When he does see you, run like hell all the way back to your hole in the backyard, drop your suitcase and gun and get in. If you repeat this performance every three days for several months you may begin to understand why an infantryman gets out of breath. But still you won’t understand how he feels when things get tough. B. Mauldin.

I'm afraid I have to disagree -once again. How realistic is modelling the trajectory of one bullet when it is completely unrealistic that the guy fired that bullet in the first place? Hopefully a lot of people will agree that faster recon cycles would tend to a "higher end". How realistic are our expectations? and the actual game? You can understand that it was hard to say no to a charismatic leader like Westerling. De Oost, Jim Taihuttu. (Pun intended)

I do understand this is the official forum but... it's the players fault? The code that allows the one last survivor of the squad to move forward has nothing to do with it? It is a game but between that 20% casualties and a 90% casualties I think there is room to play... not to mention the willingness of animations to commit suicide or what they do when they are Elite/Fanatics. In a desperate situation, strange things may happen but, maybe, superheroes in WW2 should be a nonexistent exception. So... - No. - No, yes. - Yes. - Good luck with that. An author can do whatever he wants with a scenario, like... Pz IV destroyed... 500 points; Pz VI destroyed... 500 points. You attack until the enemy has no more reserves. D. Haigh.

They do not move... right? They do fire... right? True, I am not a genius. On the Côte d’Azur the Italian invasion was held by a NCO and seven soldiers. A. Horne.

Good, we all agree, in this game suppression means fire but no movement... and let's forget about that of taking cover. The purpose of suppression is to stop or prevent the enemy from observing, shooting, moving or carrying out other military tasks that interfere (or could interfere) with the activities of friendly forces. NATO.

... So... which one? It is not the long-haired, well-fed that I fear but the pale and hungry-looking. J Caesar.

As the fire arc does... and somebody mentioned it before. No, the thread is Suppression. In 5 different places, in the last Turn they didn't hit the deck, they just followed their movements orders... at a run, even if they were running towards the bullets, even after suffering a casualty. Again, not fleeing -even if the still, occasionally, flee towards the bullets. Again, "(One little thing, I didn't say "running away towards the bullets". If they are moving towards a hill and they receive fire from that hill, they don't take cover, they ran towards the hill so, towards the bullets.)" Yes, dealing with the AI is tricky to say the least. In an old game the basic AI -one the behaviours that we could mod- was half a page, a modder came with 3 pages. Dealing with ROF, range and number of rounds... -a spreadsheet, in another game- is maybe not that complex. In every game you've got what is hardcoded, what you can never mod, like... rounds in a lorry? It doesn't matter: The policy is not going to change. Suppression: no movement, no fire. - fire and movement? - no fire but movement? - fire but no movement? Quisque est barbarus alii.

Hide + 05" Pause + Slow + Hide. They disregard the movement order, at the same time command groups sometimes crawl away. After a time I stopped giving that order. I am playing one scenario now, I am sure I will find more than one opportunity to test that again. "Suppressed" and firing Bren, I guess. Running towards the bullets?, not taking cover? I disagree. Almost every other game is worse? I do agree. We don't want to be on the dole. I do agree. Modders will never work on old games? I disagree. War is a competition of incompetence -the least incompetent usually win. Pakistani General Tiger.

In this case you control the "hide" but you cannot control the "crawl away". I see your point... and I disagree. (One little thing, I didn't say "running away towards the bullets". If they are moving towards a hill and they receive fire from that hill, they don't take cover, they ran towards the hill so, towards the bullets.) Let's see... This is coming from the Professional thread.. I mentioned the LMG 42 effectiveness... Steve mentioned suppression... I think I read somewhere that the whole point of suppressive/covering fire was to keep the head of the other guys down... I don't think suppression is properly modelled. The point is clear, we are not going to modify the code... Suppression is not suppressive -enough- in this game... And that will change when Steve feels like or if he feels like it. He also mentioned something about flipping burgers and Capitalism, but I couldn't quite get that... -And I don't know if Steve finds the Rand Corporation or the British Operational Research empirical enough. In fiction, of course, the bullet would have gone through the heart of the German battery commander, in real life it went through my right foot. McKee.

Those on the forward slope slid down, those on the reverse slope slid back; otherwise, no change. Conical Hill.

Oh!, so you didn't notice that my point is that the AI should do that? You are happy giving those orders and you are happy that you cannot order them to move to a cover?

From "Professional" thread. Are we adding suppression to the conversation now? Do you mention that because of "them not taking cover"?, because they ran towards the bullets?, because they are pinned/cowering and firing back? True, I cannot understand "suppression" in this game. Pinned, on the other hand, seems to mean: you cannot crawl back, you can neither rush nor crawl to any cover nearby but yes, by all means, raise your head, aim and fire. The beatings will continue until morale improves. RN, maybe.