Brixia Mortars - Realistically Portrayed In Game?

[sburke]

Don't toy with me charliemike24, I know you and JonS have been hanging with Siri again.....

*edit - see how my program is self correcting?

[JonS]

Siri understands me.

[Michael Emrys]

Could someone swing over and reboot sburke....? His code's playing up again.....

:D

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Siri understands me.

Have you tried using shadow puppets?

Michael

[JonS]

Is there an app for that?

[DavidFields]

Respectfully, how is that any different to recon-by-jeep-explosions, or any other 'gamey' tactic which you explicitly state should be allowed? If you don't like gamey tactics - be it for infantry, vehicles, or artillery - don't use them!

If you want to restrict yourself to 'realistic' use of mortars, use them against POINT targets only, with a minimum of MEDIUM in both intensity and duration. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing that, other than whatever lies between your chair and mouse.

I understand your point.

But most people coming in here new to the game know that jeep explosion recons are 'gamey', but may not know how mortars operated in WW2.

I put plenty of restrictions on how I play--this is for fun, it is not a job.

The difference we might have is this: Could they have been used as we see them in game? If the answer is yes, then it is the old question of history versus changing history--some people want more of one, some want more of the other.

I am going to assert: however accurate the individual "tree" issues with mortars, the "forrest" view on how they realisticly worked is incorrect. This is, perhaps hard to believe for some, a friendly opinion.

[DavidFields]

Bully for you. What point do you think you're making here?

In CMBN you can use good tactics. in CMBN you can use reaistic tactics. In CMBN you can use bad or unrealistic tactics. You can also use bad but realistic, or good but unrealistic tactics. The choice of which you use is yours.

If you don't like the tactics you're using, don't whine about it. Just stop doing it. It's really not that hard.

This is where I fundamentally, and regretfully, disagree. In CM2, as in CM1, the MGs don't function realistically with sweeping fire. In CM2, the lack of micro-terrain, combined with very difficult to model human survival skills/impulses (both ameliorated in CM1 by probability hit algorithms) are causing macro problems.

This is not a plea to go back, but there is a problem, hopefully solved soon. Putting restrictions/limitation/nerfing with the mortars will cause screaming. There is an important choice which will be made here.

[JonS]

I understand your point.

That's true, but that applies to pretty much everything in WWII. To take a few examples: the Germans had very few tanks, let alone Tigers. Russians did not form up shoulder to shoulder then charge in literal human waves. Real battles actually take hours, not minutes, and mostly consist of nothing much happening. Halftracks aren't bulletproof. Etc.

Pretty much everything in this - or any - game could be better sure, but I think a lot of what people spend most time complaining about stems from unrealistic ideas of how things worked in WWII, and/or unrealistic expectations of how they should work or interact in the game.

Ich auch

[JonS]

... and this is an example of what I was taking about:

In CM2, as in CM1, the MGs don't function realistically with sweeping fire.

What's realistic about sweeping fire?

In CM it's not all that hard to set up MGs in effective defilade/enfilade positions with interlocking arcs. The main problem is, I think, is that most players can't spell defalide/enfalade, let alone apply it well, nor even know they need to apply it.

The same applies to combined arms, although that one's easier to spell People have heard of it, know it's important but combined arms is, not surprisingly, darned hard to implement, especially against an active opponent.

[Michael Emrys]

What's realistic about sweeping fire?

What??? You've never watched a war movie that was made between, say, 1942 and 1990? They all depict MGs using sweeping fire fire to cut down every heathen Jap/Kraut/Commie that was attacking. And if Hollywood says that's how it was, then by golly that's how it was!

I would have expected a man of your erudition to have known that, Jon. For shame!

Michael

[just in case]

[JonS]

Ah. Of course. I shall rush out and obtain some orthopedic shoes so I may stand corrected.

[vossiewulf1212]

most players can't spell defalide/enfalade

obtain some orthopedic shoes so I may stand corrected.

<rimshot>

He'll be here all week folks, enjoy the veal.

[mjkerner]

What??? You've never watched a war movie that was made between, say, 1942 and 1990? They all depict MGs using sweeping fire fire to cut down every heathen Jap/Kraut/Commie that was attacking. And if Hollywood says that's how it was, then by golly that's how it was!

Yessiree, Mr. Emrys! An' we'll be gettin' off'n your lawn right quick!

[Paper Tiger]

BTW: I'm quite sick of the "then don't use it" argument from AI-only players.

To the best of my knowledge, I am the only Beta Tester who plays the game exclusively against an AI opponent.

[JasonC]

"If you don't like the tactics you're using..."

Ah, but, what if I don't like the tactics *you* are using?

[JonS]

Ah, well. That involves a profoundly complex two-step process:

1) Come to some agreement

2) if 1) fails then don't play me

[Vanir Ausf B]

So if people want mortars to be used historically what exactly are the rules that need to be made for multiplayer games?

[JonS]

I've posted this several times, but my main recommendation would be that all missions must be AREA with a radius of 35m.

You could also add rules like;

* missions must be at least MEDIUM intensity and duration.

* only a single, designated FO can call in missions from the mortars

* * if there's more than a platoons-worth of mortars then each mortar platoon has it's own FO, who can only can only call in "their" mortars

* each FO can call in a maximum of two concurrent missions.

but stuff like that becomes a bit of a book keeping hassle.

By the by, those same house rules could usefully be applied to artillery, too.

[womble]

In CM2, the lack of micro-terrain, combined with very difficult to model human survival skills/impulses (both ameliorated in CM1 by probability hit algorithms) are causing macro problems.

I believe you're blaming the wrong thing here. Microterrain and survival skills are abstracted into a "terrain save". The other problems with mortars are much more drastic than fiddling around the edges of this "fudge factor": no amount of "survival instinct" will save your troops from the current laser-accurate, instant-response magic weapon that mortars are as they currently stand.

So if people want mortars to be used historically what exactly are the rules that need to be made for multiplayer games?

Currently: no on map mortars. The instant setup and perma-target-zeroing make them intrinsically ahistorical, even if their blast/frag values, general accuracy, dispersion patterns and the responses of potential targets are correctly modelled.

[Steiner14]

Ah, well. That involves a profoundly complex two-step process:

1) Come to some agreement

2) if 1) fails then don't play me

Hm, why do i have the impression, that this attitude could be connected with the poorer and poorer forum participation and shrinking activity of the community?

[slysniper]

I've posted this several times, but my main recommendation would be that all missions must be AREA with a radius of 35m.

You could also add rules like;

* missions must be at least MEDIUM intensity and duration.

* only a single, designated FO can call in missions from the mortars

* * if there's more than a platoons-worth of mortars then each mortar platoon has it's own FO, who can only can only call in "their" mortars

* each FO can call in a maximum of two concurrent missions.

but stuff like that becomes a bit of a book keeping hassle.

By the by, those same house rules could usefully be applied to artillery, too.

Nice Rules

Except maybe 24m make more sence in the game since a action spot is 8m and at 24m you have already went from pin pointing 1 action spot to approx 5 full action spots plus 4 partials. That is a massive change. but I do like the approach.

Now it is just too bad we cannot get BF to do some adjustments along these lines so it would not need to be agreed on.

[Childress]

Now it is just too bad we cannot get BF to do some adjustments along these lines so it would not need to be agreed on.

But should this restriction apply if a TRP is present? This might prove tricky to code.

But JonS knows what he's talking about. So I'm for it. The risks is that a sizable number of players will revolt over having their options narrowed. BF understands their base.

[Vanir Ausf B]

US rockets... TRPs... 1st turn bombardments... artillery duration and intensity restrictions...

I'm going to need a 3 ring binder for all my house rules.

[womble]

US rockets... TRPs... 1st turn bombardments... artillery duration and intensity restrictions...

I'm going to need a 3 ring binder for all my house rules.

Best add "No direct lay mortars" to that list.

[JonS]

But JonS knows what he's talking about. So I'm for it.

FWIW, I don't use these rules