So frustrating sometimes

[GerryCMBB]

Hello:

I find the game so frustrating sometimes. I have a MG in a building on the 4th floor and it doesn't have LOS. The building is even on a hill. If it was on the 2nd floor I would find it easier to take. To set up a defense for me seems such hard work. It just is not easy to find good LOS positions for MGs and AT Guns. One cannot check LOS from a point on the map where you do not have a unit. So the only way I know to do it is to plot waypoints all over the setup areas and check LOS from there.

Skiing moguls seemed fun for some people. For me, regular skiing was enough hard work albeit fun. Some of the workI have to go through here seems almost like skiing moguls.

Sorry for the rant. It's obviously a great series. Sometimes I just wonder is it for me.

Take care,

Gerry

[ZPB II]

I understand the frustration.

Personally I don't find LOS so problematic. Most of the time I just eyeball it and draw some vague LOS lines and that does the job.

What has caused most of my issues with buildings has been my failure to check if the building actually has windows. If the building is intact and the wall facing the enemy is just that, a wall, there will be trouble. I assume there are many methods people use to quickly check which buildings are viable but I just skim around the map with control clicks and use V to have a quick look at the building faces.

But, most of the time the LOS is logically straightforward and simple eyeballing is enough. If unsure about a few locations, a waypoint and a LOS check from there to confirm takes only a few seconds.

I've played a lot of twitch games so I guess I'm used to pushing an UI to the limit. I don't find it frustrating, but I can see how it can feel like that.

[Erwin]

LOS - figuring where a unit has to travel to in order to get LOS to a target of interest, getting your units which are actually at that point to see what the waypoint "sees", getting the gunner (and gun) to have LOS to the target (as opposed to the 3rd assistant ammo donkey) so you can actually shoot at the target, is practically the whole CM2 game and where most gaming time gets spent.

The actual tactics of accomplishing objectives are easy by comparison. When I get really frustrated I label CM2 as "The Exciting and Challenging Game of LOS and Spotting" heh.

[ZPB II]

"The Exciting and Challenging Game of LOS and Spotting"

Isn't that kind of what firefights are centered around? Trying to find a place and conditions from where you can apply firepower while minimizing exposure while the other guy is doing the same thing.

All the other stuff is just filler.

Tactics are always easy. They're written down in textbooks and broken down into very simple components. Execution is what makes the difference that matters.

[z1812]

Hello:

I find the game so frustrating sometimes. I have a MG in a building on the 4th floor and it doesn't have LOS. The building is even on a hill. If it was on the 2nd floor I would find it easier to take. To set up a defense for me seems such hard work. It just is not easy to find good LOS positions for MGs and AT Guns. One cannot check LOS from a point on the map where you do not have a unit. So the only way I know to do it is to plot waypoints all over the setup areas and check LOS from there.

Skiing moguls seemed fun for some people. For me, regular skiing was enough hard work albeit fun. Some of the workI have to go through here seems almost like skiing moguls.

Sorry for the rant. It's obviously a great series. Sometimes I just wonder is it for me.

Take care,

Gerry

1. Give your unit a move command.

2. Click on the last waypoint until it shows a solid colour.

3. Click T for target. You will know what your unit can see or not from that point.

[Erwin]

Nope, it's not that easy. Many, many times, you get your unit to that "sweet" spot and then you discover that the weapon actually can't see and fire at the desired target... or maybe the 3rd ammo donkey can, but the guy who actually fires the weapon can't. And of course neither you nor the AI can move the unit a few inches so that it can see and fire the desired weapon.

Hence CM2: "The Exciting and Challenging Game of LOS and Spotting". And many people love that aspect of the game.

[Baneman]

Lol, and sometimes, you move your unit to a "safe" position whose potential LoS you've exhaustively checked and confirmed there is none.

But when they arrive, it turns out that 15 enemy units can actually see them there...

[c3k]

Are the trees turned off? I can't count how many times I've toggled them off and been frustrated by a blocked LOS I can't figure out. I mean, I can't count how many times I've HEARD of this happening...

[GerryCMBB]

I understand what you have heard about trees. It just that it takes a lot of dinking to do setup. Zebulon above mentions execution being the key. In a tactical wargame, I think the key should be tactics. While he says tactics are in books, they will have to be applied differently in each game as each situation will have unique features. (Like in chess, you can learn positional themes; however, if it was that easy we would all be grandmasters. It's figuring out exactly if and when to apply a theme to the current situation or when to break the rule that sets players apart).

I know tactics are still important here but it seems that success also requires a lot of the player in terms of handling the interface in a very detailed way.

Also as Erwin says in RL the soldier would shift a smidgin to get that critical LOS. There is some abstraction in the game. I still see soldiers going through walls, the whole foxhole thing, etc. Maybe it is this issue for me of how much simulation versus game CM is.

Take care,

Gerry

[Erwin]

"requires a lot of the player in terms of handling the interface in a very detailed way."

Very good observation... You have to play the game system. If you don't have a good understanding of the way the game does things, all the greatest tactical knowledge in the world won't help you.

[George MC]

Play larger scenarios - that way pissy wee situations occuring with two gunners don't matter

[JasonC]

"most of my issues with buildings has been my failure to check if the building actually has windows. If the building is intact and the wall facing the enemy is just that, a wall, there will be trouble."

This is a useful comment about the game as it stands.

But I wanted to point out that it didn't work that way in real life. In real life, the soldiers would loophole the building to suit their fire plan, not change the fire plan to fit where the original architects decided to put the windows.

This takes maybe 5 minutes in action - which might seem like a long time in a CM game, but in any kind of defense is trivial and would already be accomplished before the firefight even got started.

They weren't constrained by where the furniture was inside the rooms either. It is kind of arbitary that CM correctly ignores the last, but makes the first something set in stone.

[Apocal]

You also can't fortify buildings, which is pretty annoying as well.

[costard]

I've found that putting a "face" order at the end of the movement, with the "face" target line drawn direct to the object I wish to target gets rid of most of my positioning problems. The command system is pretty accurate - if the target is in the general direction of the "face" order, there may be objects in the way that obscure the target: by drawing the "face" line directly to the target the weapon is set up to hit that target. Not 100%, but better than 80% in my experience.

[Erwin]

"Play larger scenarios - that way pissy wee situations occuring with two gunners don't matter"

+1 to that.

I miss the CMSF scenarios and campaigns with huge maps and large numbers of units where maneuver was important. Started playing CMSF (and CMA) again for that reason.