Guest KwazyDog Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 Hiya all. Just wondering Steve what concessions are given to troops in a defensive positions, their vehicles, and the chances of spotting them? As we have seen in the game between Fionn and Martin, those two little outposts he left had to be basically stumbled upon before noticed, which is how Id expect it to be in this type of terrain. Because these units started in place, does the system take into account that they probably had time to pick a well camouflage position which they probably wouldnt if hastily moved into the area? Im also wondering about vehicles, and the fact that given time they could 'somewhat' camouflage themselves in the treeline ? I believe they can move into spare trees, cant they? Just curious..... [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 09-02-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 Defending units that are dug in are treated as if they are camoed. What you saw in the Fionn/Martin game were simply troops Hiding in good cover. Once they shoot you pretty much know where they are. Onese that are dug in take a bit longer to spot. Also they are harder to hit. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgra Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 Is there a 'dig-in' option then? What happens in buildings? The screenshots suggest the defenders are in full-view. I still like to see a 2-4 man recon team that are camo'd to the hilt and able to radio back positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 tgra, if you're referring to the "missing walls" from the AAR's, that's just a game convention to make it easier for both sides to keep track of those troops. The owner of troops in buildings can ALWAYS see those troops, and missing walls helps him plot movement, etc. The other player just sees regular buildings until one of his units sees the troops inside, and then the walls of the building clip off so as to make it easier for that player to plan his attack. If not for that, it would be impossible to give orders to troops inside buildings, or orders for troops outside to do stuff to troops inside. It works sorta-similar to what CC3 did when troops entered buildings. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgra Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 Sorry I should have been clearer. It appears the rooms are empty so not much chance of using cover to give the defenders any advantage for getting there first (once the attackers are actually in the building of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 Even though there are no individual rooms in the buildings, I believe it is taken into account. It might be abstracted a bit though. Kinda the same way that there are no individual trees... I'm pretty sure that the buildings aren't just one big open room (even though that's what's shown graphically) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 DING! We have a winner! Ben, you've won this round of Question&Answer. The typical clutter of a room (tables, chairs, all the usual western Europe house stuff) is, indeed, simulated in CM. I'm not sure if the clutter factor is different between upstairs and down, but it's in there. The reason it's not visible is that it would make a massively bad poopy hit on VRAM. Plus Steve would probably have some sorta seizure trying to create models for all the stuff, and having people say, "your model of the late-1944 French wood-fired cookstove is wrong, look at these pictures from www.cookstoves.com." DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>it would make a massively bad poopy hit on VRAM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is that a technical term? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 (Okay, after this one I promise to be serious, for a while at least) Actually, the technical term is "super weak lame ass." DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 Nope, there is no "Dig In" command. Making a foxhole for 2-3 soldiers takes about 20m-1hr depending on the terrain type, and about double that for winter (or more). So the side that is Defending gets all units automatically dug in (vehicles being dug in is the designer's option). Otherwise, attackers are not dug in. Meeting engagements (like the current game being played) have BOTH sides as the Attacker. Steve P.S. Doug, must have gone to a really good school to to learn all those technical terms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dar Posted September 2, 1999 Share Posted September 2, 1999 Steve: Can fixed emplacements be "purchased" per se, so you can set up a second line of foxholes to fall back to? Something like what I assume minefield-deployment may be like? Or would units be dug in in their initial deployment spots only? Thanks, Dar Steckelberg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted September 3, 1999 Share Posted September 3, 1999 Martin should have ordered his tank crews to raid those farm buildings for a few bedsheets, then he might have a few more Shermans left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 3, 1999 Share Posted September 3, 1999 Dar, no they can not. It's a good idea, but I don't think it will get in. In any case, it wasn't very common to do this, ESPECIALLY in the winter. I have read lots of sotries about US troops having to use satchel charges and mines to blow out even the start of a foxhole. In other words, I don't think that guys would have the strength to make two positions for themselves. Simon, that's funny I've always like seeing what troops in winter use for camo. Sheets were certainly more normal than official clothing. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted September 3, 1999 Share Posted September 3, 1999 Steve, one point and one question: "It's a good idea, but I don't think it will get in. In any case, it wasn't very common to do this, ESPECIALLY in the winter. " Read (if you have any extra time) the new book "Seven Roads to Hell" by Donald Burgett. He describes his foxhole digging near Bastonge. They (101st) dug foxholes even in extremely cold weather. They pretty much HAD to do it if they wanted to live. Once they dug below the freezing ground the digging was easy. It's just a matter of how deep the frozen ground is. It seems they had more of a hard time keeping their foxholes dry due to melting snow. My Question: In CM, once "dug in" troops move troops they lose their "dug in" status I assume. Would they gain it back if they move back to their starting location? In other words, this would be like troops returning to their fox holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 4, 1999 Share Posted September 4, 1999 Digging foxholes in winter CERTAINLY was done, but my point is that it isn't so easy that you can make multiple positions. Those "bastards" of the 101 were probably pretty tired from all that fighting and digging ONE set of holes they they didn't feel too up for making a second batch Plus, as you say, foxholes that are not maintained as weather conditions change aren't worth anything. I am pretty sure that when a unit leaves a foxhole it loses a special defensive and offensive modifications (or it is on The List). However, anybody can hop into any foxhole and be at least partially concealed and protected. Just not to the full extent of someone who had been sitting in there for a while before hand. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted September 4, 1999 Share Posted September 4, 1999 This would be much superior to the system of many other games in which, when entrenched troops moved out, the entrenchments went away. What'd they do, roll 'em up and pack 'em next to the K-Rations? DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted September 4, 1999 Share Posted September 4, 1999 Sounds good steve, that's just what I wanted to hear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts