semmes

To General Jack Ripper If... or... not. If... or... not. If... or... not. or... not. Have you being aiming a lot, with a LMG, at 300m, at a few guys running from one cover to the next? I submit then. The British Government may condone an inefficiently conducted campaign, it might overlook a lost battle or two, but not under any circumstances nor for any reason would tolerate an expensive campaign. D. R. Morris.

I still play this game because almost every other one is a lot, lot worse. But learning that "the colour of the toy" is what is important is a bit... disappointing. Clinton left to Parker the glory of being defeated alone. N. Orleans.

Maybe you would like to quote the very first sentence too: "This proves nothing". I did -some- tests too and they show a tendency, maybe that's why I was talking about checking squads after the battle. So, we do know that they are not random? That means that somebody decided that when 10 guys are rushing 8m. from one cover to the next another guy 300m away, with a MG, is going to aim at one of them? really? Is that what we could call "gamey"? As somebody was saying "range" and "combat" are not the same... and you don't need "combat". You just need to get to a field, lay down, keep your eyes on the dirt and then raise your head... to see how clearly you are going to see a target 200m away... and while you are aiming remember nobody is aiming at you. I did not find the ensuing fighting half so pleasant as it should otherwise have been. Kincaid.

This proves nothing. This is what I am playing now. I cannot load the wider view because I cannot -limit- load anything else. Down left there was an explosion, 4 wounded, 1 dead -squad leader- and this is what happened 88m. away. No sniper, no shooting... nothing else. Just wondering how many anecdotes like these do I need, even if I really hope somebody is checking squads; even if only to shut my mouth. His Majesty... chance. F. the Great. Once is chance, twice is a coincidence, three... enemy action. Nam.

Thank you for all the replies, but... No snipers, for example, is one the things I said. I do understand the corporal leading, I do not understand being the only one hit by a mortar round. I do not understand the gunner being the only one hit when a machine-gun is firing at a few guys moving from one cover to another 380m. away, and again, and again and by a mortar round. I am not quite sure what concept of aiming anybody is using around, maybe pot-shot ? A guy popping his head from a window while the house is under fire... how many seconds is he going to take to aim at people 180m. away. No, not every example is like this one. Yes, the first thing I thought was that it was my impression, for that reason I was checking squads after the battle; well: it's not. Have you been looking at saved games and checking squads? Somebody said something very interesting... and it's true that how I am playing now I suffer less casualties. Still, the same selection of casualties. Yes maybe it is my impression, 20 times. Thanks. How many times have you been wounded? -Today? Nam.

Yes, not "always", only 70%... and 30% for the AI. When I finish the battle I check the other side, unless the squad has 2 or 3 guys left they still have their leader and original gunner. One squad had 3 casualties: one, one, one; every single time the gunner, 2 of them by mortar fire. One platoon had 4 casualties: 3 gunners, 1 leader. To be completely honest, on the German side, the StG 44 dies too. Examples like these are happening all the time, I am actually surprise when a rifleman is hit. No snipers and it doesn't matter if it's rifle, MG or artillery fire, at the end of the battle the result is always the same. So... When are we getting the patch to make non-AI casualties actually random ? Regards. …

So I tried this... And I cannot post the pictures because I cannot delete the old attachments because I cannot edit them. So... I dig actual trenches in the front-line areas where I think a player would -or could- deploy troops. One line of squares surrounded by squares 1m. higher; you cannot use Ditch lock, you would get no LOS. First I was using sand terrain for them, it looks nice but everybody can see it, so I now I use the surrounding terrain but with an objective line -0 points- that only the owner can see. It works... they can fire and most of the incoming fire goes over their heads. True, you cannot move them around like the parapets nor place them in every location you want but you are modelling the terrain so you just need to adjust the slope a little and dig enough of them.

True. I thought about saying "teach" instead of teach, my fault. A few more shots -from the AI- is not like keeping an area under fire for ten minutes like a player would do. Pity... Congratulations for your groupies. We must have peace without victory. Wilson, 1917.

No, the answer to my question - Are you going to repair the building's invisibility cloak around buildings ? is... No. By the way I didn't say anything about giving orders to the AI, units under AI control can decide to Area Fire instead of only Target Fire or no fire at all. It is not our duty to doubt Admiralty's wisdom. Response to a British cadet.

To make myself clear, what I mean by rear sight... You need two points to calculate LOS -being a line and that, so you use the tile in front of the weapon, as you move the pointer it gives you a distance area fire, even a wild one. Then, like in indirect fire, you correct the aim, you are going to see the tracers. You have to pay attention? yes, but I read the word frustration many times and there are a lot of small actions where people seem eager to use it. Certainly I don't know the code but you've got the two points, it's "only" the CPU guessing where the loose bullets are going to hit, like grazing fire somebody said.

Sorry, in my search I couldn't find those buildings threads. "Area fire requires LOS to the centre of the action square" is this one of those things that has to do with the "mesh"? I read something about you cannot teach Area Fire to the AI... Well, you can target the icon so you just need to make the blurry icon a target... and tell the AI to use Target-Brief maybe. So you can use "icons" for buildings -easier I guess, they don't move. Maybe 12 for a two-storey, two-squares building, maybe one if the grid knows what to do with that "floating action square". You can cycle through Alt-I or use a different shape or colour... Maybe a "Wild Area Fire" for crops? If you hit the invisible icon -to call it something- on that tile... congrats, you can fire. True, an Area Fire button/order would be better. Instead of "T" and you see 300m, press "AF" until the mark is 300m... but adding a rear sight and teaching ballistics... maybe a bit too much. Next engine, hopefully. Thanks. ...six VCs won before breakfast. Cape Helles.

Are you going to repair the building's invisibility cloak around buildings ? I know I will go to heaven because I have been to hell. Nam.

It is hard not to go on... because I must say I am confused now. By IanL: " My own opinion is that realism could be improved if spotting was taken down an order of magnitude - I mean you see way way less enemy soldiers - and if soldiers pulled back much sooner when loosing a fire fight. But that would make the game not very interesting. " Realism is not very interesting? Or is it that... how do you call that game?, you've got a hammer and there's a box , from time to time a head pops out, if you hit the head you get a point... is that what we -happy few, wargamers are interested in? I think in that topic somebody was complaining graphics are not good enough, so... maybe it is and I am in the wrong business. Quintili Vare, legiones redde!

Without any intention of starting all this again and by accident... I was deploying one MG in a wood, the Pl commander was outside in the open 60m away, the MG couldn't see him, actually couldn't see beyond 31m but the commander could see the MG all the 60m, some blue, some grey, some reverse slope. Nobody was hiding. I went to the Experiment map and depending on the trees, orientation or individual soldier -but mostly following the command line- they cannot see outside but you see them inside; not always. Maybe everybody could test this while deploying, I had enough.

Still... after all those topics about "spotting is overly generous", "concealment is under represented" I was hoping for some kind of... maybe, as the LOS for a squad level (WWII) combat simulation it is no that superior. Let's see the next game. Regards.

We agree to differ. Great, but the next game is going to be TacOps with graphics or a shooter? Nobody plays chess because it is... difficult? Iron Level is there because... it is more realistic? or just because it's not a ton of work? not nearly as good ... that's an opinion isn't it? or can it be proven?, a test? the theme that runs through it is you hardly ever see your enemy *at all*, real footage maybe? a truly realistic spotting system would be like... I think we get the "game" part, at least I don't expect my laptop to blow up with every explosion. Ah, no worries. You were too subtle for me. Acknowledgement and acceptance are not at all alike. There are two kind of people, first those who can draw conclusions from incomplete data. This is starting to sound personal, it's only business. There's pro/cons to the way foxholes and trenches are in game: and the pros outweigh the cons. Yes I was reading those ones and again I'm afraid I disagree. The mound stays there, so I have a target, I don't care how beautiful the target is -or the terrain under the target. If a guy in a foxhole takes cover he disappears and the foxhole with him. near a house?... I don't think I used the word "near". An ATG actually touching the house, half of the gun protected and hidden by it, with a 90º firing arc? 200m... I am scared to ask but have you been looking at a wood from 200m away, even on top of a ladder?, because I am sure you have seen pictures of those sharpshooters. the at all part ...I thought that was the whole point of the topic. What can a tank commander see? Let's say you've got a market study and a decision was made... this is not the same as: this LOS -meaning concealment/LOS/LOF/spotting- is superior, the most balanced between playability and realism, between a rewrite and Legolas as an individual soldier. All this is just an opinion -maybe not those 200m. I like TacOps I don't like shooters. This is a good game, I was playing something call... maybe... "Operation Star", if that is were this is going I do think it's a mistake, we've got that already. The original idea was great. That decision, has been made? Expectations tended to outrun execution. S. Foote.

Trenches are parapets, rifle pits are mounds, I cannot deploy an ATG hiding behind a house in a shooting position, is this "superior"? Being able to see a sniper hidden in a wood 200m away has anything to do with "like"? We'll meet some sunny day in the next game.

Sorry, you mean like the silliness of playing veteran level or warrior level? "I don't think" that one step closer to CMBB LOS is going to make the game unplayable and I disagree, this LOS is not superior, even if this is subjective. You are right, a lot more people buy zombie-shooter games... but let me guess, a decision was made to get this game closer to a 1to1 game and all this talking is irrelevant. I wonder if the acknowledgement of how it is is not the acceptance of how it is. Any fool can obey orders. Fisher, R. N.

If only they had made a game or two...in all those years.

Were're thinking along the same line. About the test... I have tested that my impressions were correct, posts have confirmed that, how unreal the spotting is going to while moving or to the side... we know is unrealistic, hugely.

I have tried less tanks, more trees and bushes and lower quality crews, it doesn't work. I'll try even less tanks, more ATGs and even more foldings in the terrain but I am not optimistic. My impression is that CMBB is a lot harder for tanks. LOS through trees was limited, concealment was effective and spotting was difficult. CMRT solved the huge (IMO) mistake that when something was spotted it was spotted for everyone, this is why I bought this game. My impression is that rules are different for spotting beyond 400m. MG/ATG shooting at 800 or 1000m don't receive direct fire -what about muzzle flash? If so, can't they be implemented all along? Can LOS/LOF/spotting from CMBB be implemented with this graphics? I cannot remember any shock and horror from TacOps, even if graphics were... well... you know. As a friend of mine was saying, we were able to put a man on the Moon, can we get a bit less of graphics and a bit more of concealment? Somebody said that there are 2 levels: easy is when you play against the AI. Well, don't teach Area Fire to the AI. You have to wait for 10' to receive the artillery support you requested, 3' at least, that's 3 turns. I would say player's interests are high. What about another tab in options: -fantasy spotting -spotting -realistic spotting/concealment. This sound like a wish list now, sorry. This game is as it is, the only thing is to acknowledge how it is.

... as long as I can shoot into the smoke. If I see smoke I see a target. Syria is very nice but I'm fighting in Polish woods. Spotting is probably overly generous in some situations, we agree but it is in balance we don't, kind of subjective isn't it? with the rest of the game more than not not. All three post: spotting is too generous and it was harder. No worries, now I know, I just need to play in a different way, it's only buildings, trees and bushes are unimportant. because there's only so much we can do before we lose players' interests. Have you tried? I play this one because I don't want to play a zombie shooter. The British Army always fights its battles uphill, in the pouring rain, at the junction of two map-sheets. Field Marshal Slim.

They are or they are modelled at night? -muzzle flash. Well... it was about "hiding" not about time. Actually more about what tanks can see, not when. systemically undervalues cover, that's like saying we did it wrong on purpose and we are not going to change it? it's never going to be exactly realistic, wait, it is a game? a bought a game to play a game and OMG it is a game! ( Right know I am playing veteran, not warrior because I don't want to wait for 10' for arty support, it's a game after all) realistic spotting would cripple the AI, so you are saying that what they should do -even, have to do- is to teach area fire to the AI? sounds like a great idea, thanks. The very first post was a question: can this be avoided? No. It is happening -so my impression was right- and there is nothing you can do about it. (Until CM98, CM7, CM10?) Regards. Il est d'usage que Dieu soit du côté des gros bataillons. Roger de Bussy-Rabutin.

So it's "better" to move as a cloud of smoke because they cannot see you? I haven't been dealing with tank vs tank that much. Another funny thing is that if there are trees in front of a house I cannot shoot at the house, I cannot see it but I cannot shoot at the trees -so, hitting the house. Let's imagine I've got a MG in front of the house and a lieutenant on my left is telling me to shoot at the trees ...because he sees the house ...forget about orders. And you can change the house for a hill with crop tiles. I wonder if in the next improvement -of graphics- they could improved something else that graphics. (I'm coming from CMBB) To Amizur: Yes, of course I can but can't you? Sorry, the point of my test was to see -pun not intended- if my impressions were correct. I wasn't planning a wish list just to see if I have to change how to play... and forget reality most likely. Blind as a bat is highly accurate, tanks have radar in this game. Regards. The British Government may condone an inefficiently conducted campaign, it might overlook a lost battle or two, but not under any circunstances nor for any reason would tolerate an expensive campaign. D. R. Morris.

Sorry?