Representation of squad

[Citadel]

Hello folks, I was getting to know some of you in a prior not too distant posting about Tank riding which topically changed to infantry tactics/pathing/ AT around corners etc. Near the end I was struck with the idea that maybe I misunderstood the scale or representation of what the squad showed. I am new to the forum but have the CM 1's from many years ago and well played. In the representing of a squad isn't the 'game' simply displaying the unit moving but the variables/numbers/percentage covered, number of wounded within unit, moral all calculated when fired apon as a abstract of the unit? similar to a wargame with several men on a stand.

OR is the 'game' computing each squad mate's fire/ his target/ weather condition/ sighting/ LOS (coverage)/ with the variable of each target squadmate?

If previous is true then what does it matter how the squad looks when it moves other than aestitically (spelling horrendous) pleasing. Yes we want the troops or individual men to appear like they are moving with self-thought but does it matter at this stage of a CM2 issue? CM2 is beautiful and is basically playing like CM1 yes?

If the point is how are the individuals represented then shouldnt we look to play a FPS or a game like men of war?

Just curious but also am interested in understanding if CM IS representing a base unit firing on a base unit similar to a wargame. If I have a single man of the squad in the house, hanging outside the house due to graphics does that mean my whole unit is in the open?

Thank you

[LongLeftFlank]

what does it matter how the squad looks when it moves other than aestitically (spelling horrendous) pleasing. Yes we want the troops or individual men to appear like they are moving with self-thought but does it matter at this stage of a CM2 issue? CM2 is beautiful and is basically playing like CM1 yes?

If the point is how are the individuals represented then shouldnt we look to play a FPS or a game like men of war?

Good question.

My take is that CM is a wargame. And wargames as distinct from most other games, are generally trying to represent (either simulate or improve upon) historical or contemporary battlefield unit tactics using weapons with (roughly) real-life capabilities, as opposed to fantasy gladiatorial combat involving a bullet-resistant superman lugging around a chaingun with infinite bullets.

The great thing about CM2 is that unlike more abstract wargames, including CM1, you can choose to go "micro" at will, and for me, that's more than just eyecandy or making little war movies.

At its very best, CMBN or CMSF can be about discovering exactly how it can be that a single freeking sniper has got an entire battalion advance hung up and stopped dead in its tracks. Which in an abstract command-level wargame either wouldn't ever happen or would leave the player saying WTF -- why isn't my battalion on the move?

It's the old nursery rhyme: "for want of a nail the shoe was lost, etc." BFC has taken us if not to Horseshoe level, at least down to Rider level. Not perfectly (yet), but leagues beyond anything else on the market.

Oh, and by "aestitically" you mean, resembling Pam Anderson, or sumfink?

[sburke]

I hope I am understanding the full intent of your question. CMx1 used something akin to ASL counters. A 3 man figure was a full squad, a 2 man figure was half squad etc. Everything behind that is counted as the whole unit. If they are in a tree action spot, they are all given the benefit of the trees. If in a building, same thing, they got a building terrain modifier if you will.

CMx2 does not follow that model. It isn't just about being aesthetically pleasing (though that is important still) but figuring out how the tac ai will work for the individual units as well as ballistic modelling. So going back to the previous example, if I have a squad hanging out near the edge of some woods and they are fired upon, some of them will actually get protection from trees and some may not. Regarding buildings, I haven't seen a team or squad I send into a building not all be in the building, but even then where they are in the building can affect LOS and LOF.

So your answer is no, CM is not modelling it as a base unit firing on a base unit. Individuals are firing (if they have LOF and aren't cowering) at other units. I just had a small firefight where towards the end a GI and German soldier squared off at maybe 8-10 meters in some woods. The rest of both their squads that were still functional either did not have LOS/LOF or were running away. The GI lost. A member of another German team got eyes on the GI. Good thing as the KAR 98 ROF is way slower than the M1 and my trooper was gonna be toast soon.

Given all that it is important for the TAC AI as well as the figure modelling to get things right to make the ballistic modelling shows what is actually happening versus a virtual presentation. There is enough fudging that has to be done for Action spots and unit placement already. Hand to hand combat is another of those things that had to be sacrificed as the computing power to represent it well just isn't there. If you recall in CMx1 you just got a bunch of Batman/Robin thudding noises.

[Citadel]

Wow so Battlefront is taking on a lot considering there can be battalions on field shooting each other. That is some serious calculating power.

Going back to the post I was reading originally then I see the enormity of complications in having tank riders.

Yes I was thinking CM2 is like CM1 with counters as the basic element not the individual soldier within a squad of 8-12.

I like how squads interact with other squads so the platoon dynamics are what I find is best in CM1 and CM2. Long Left Flank if Micro is what your after I am curious do you play other games with more features like that such as the Men at War series?

Thank you sburke for the info

[womble]

I like how squads interact with other squads so the platoon dynamics are what I find is best in CM1 and CM2.

If you like squad interaction, you really wouldn't be wasting your time downloading the demos for CMBN and for CMFI. Because you have the detail in each squad, the way they work together is even more meaningful.

[stikkypixie]

Hello folks, I was getting to know some of you in a prior not too distant posting about Tank riding which topically changed to infantry tactics/pathing/ AT around corners etc. Near the end I was struck with the idea that maybe I misunderstood the scale or representation of what the squad showed. I am new to the forum but have the CM 1's from many years ago and well played. In the representing of a squad isn't the 'game' simply displaying the unit moving but the variables/numbers/percentage covered, number of wounded within unit, moral all calculated when fired apon as a abstract of the unit? similar to a wargame with several men on a stand.

OR is the 'game' computing each squad mate's fire/ his target/ weather condition/ sighting/ LOS (coverage)/ with the variable of each target squadmate?

If previous is true then what does it matter how the squad looks when it moves other than aestitically (spelling horrendous) pleasing. Yes we want the troops or individual men to appear like they are moving with self-thought but does it matter at this stage of a CM2 issue? CM2 is beautiful and is basically playing like CM1 yes?

If the point is how are the individuals represented then shouldnt we look to play a FPS or a game like men of war?

Just curious but also am interested in understanding if CM IS representing a base unit firing on a base unit similar to a wargame. If I have a single man of the squad in the house, hanging outside the house due to graphics does that mean my whole unit is in the open?

Thank you

The models used in CMx2 (soldier models, vehicle models) are used in the game computations. For example, when a shot is fired the bullet is tracked and if the bullet intersect the polygons of a soldier that soldier is hit. Of course there are abstractions going on besides that. In on other words, the models are not just a graphical representation but are the core of the game engine. Each soldier for example can shoot, spot, get hit independently from his squad mates.

This makes the game more natural in way, for example if the model a tank is bigger (higher, wider) it will be easier to hit and by the approach taken by CMx2 takes this into account intrinsically.

Of course this also means that if a squad moves in an unrealistic way, this affects how the game plays out as well.

[Citadel]

The models used in CMx2 (soldier models, vehicle models) are used in the game computations. For example, when a shot is fired the bullet is tracked and if the bullet intersect the polygons of a soldier that soldier is hit. Of course there are abstractions going on besides that. In on other words, the models are not just a graphical representation but are the core of the game engine. Each soldier for example can shoot, spot, get hit independently from his squad mates.

This makes the game more natural in way, for example if the model a tank is bigger (higher, wider) it will be easier to hit and by the approach taken by CMx2 takes this into account intrinsically.

Of course this also means that if a squad moves in an unrealistic way, this affects how the game plays out as well.

Hence the problem with the squad moving in single line rather than a more spread out manner.... Well CM2 is more impressive than ever then.

Thank you all for the responses.