Does this go together; could it be improved?

[Paulverisor64]

I started reading the thread started by killkess which shows the inaccuracy of HMG's in the game.

Vinnart brought up a good speculation; that perhaps the innaccuracy is an abstraction to counter a playability issue. If this wasn't so; the kill rates would be far too lethal.

In playing the game myself one thing I find frustrating is how hard it is to get my troops to hug to the best cover. On top of that I find the 8 by 8 tile that waypoints can be placed to sets up some difficult cover situations in itself.

My question is this; does the difficulty in getting troops to find cover tie together with a need to dial down the HMG effectiveness?

I recently installed my old Company Of Heroes game to look at game interface differences and noticed how simple it was to send troops to best cover in Company Of Heroes. NOT THAT THIS GAME IS A MODEL FOR REALISM. It just shows me how there is room for improvement in this specific area for CMFI or CMBN.

I certainly would like to see the HMG accuracy and cover finding capability dialed up.

Perhaps there are huge programming obstacles to this. I will say that CMx2 with CMFI is a big playability improvement over the CMx1 games. I just am anxious to see gameplay bent less by abstractions.

Regardless of this all; I'm very happy with this game and will without question be buying future expansions.

[stikkypixie]

That's an interesting point actually. I guess there is always a practical limit as to how much abstractions there are in the game. The trick is to do them in such a way that the player doesn't notice them . As you go into more detail more and more things have to be taken into consideration. For example I remember there being a discussion here about the quality of the optics in tanks not explicitly a factor (as in the Germans having better lenses, obviously some tanks spot better than others). The explanation was, that it was

a) hard to quantify this advantage

the Germans tanks had many disadvantages as well that weren't modelled

so taken into account the optics but not say how well the gun is stabilized would skew the result. So they decided to leave it as it is because it averages it out a bit.

Of course looking at the HMG now, it feels off so hopefully something can be done.

For what it's worth I always considered the 1:1 thing not as promise to mimic *every* thing from real life, but rather a way of representing things that allows them to have fudge around less with modifiers. And I too feel they have taken the correct decision.

[simast]

In playing the game myself one thing I find frustrating is how hard it is to get my troops to hug to the best cover. On top of that I find the 8 by 8 tile that waypoints can be placed to sets up some difficult cover situations in itself.

I personally like the fact you can't micromanage every soldier. The way I approach it is that as a a commander you wouldn't just say "you, go behind that bush" or "you and you, get behind that window". So essentially if a couple of your guys seems to be looking the wrong way and totally ignoring the fact they need to get behind cover - they might be rookies or something.

Also, I found that if you want to somewhat influence their cover positions you issue a move order on that grid and then select the last move waypoint and issue a face order in the direction they need to cover. This way they tend to move in the best spot to cover that direction.

[Paulverisor64]

I personally like the fact you can't micromanage every soldier. The way I approach it is that as a a commander you wouldn't just say "you, go behind that bush" or "you and you, get behind that window". So essentially if a couple of your guys seems to be looking the wrong way and totally ignoring the fact they need to get behind cover - they might be rookies or something.

Also, I found that if you want to somewhat influence their cover positions you issue a move order on that grid and then select the last move waypoint and issue a face order in the direction they need to cover. This way they tend to move in the best spot to cover that direction.

I also don't wish to micromanage each soldier. I would prefer that the troops would just find the best cover possible in the area they are placed. If you do give a facing command they would naturally find cover in the direction of the facing.

I don't really like the random behavior of the unit being exposed to gunfire from the direction they should be facing.

If I was placed in a situation of being under fire I most certainly would seek the best cover the area had to offer. My attention would be focussed in the likely direction of the attack. Unless the gunfire started dropping out I would be very focussed because it likely could mean my life.

Combat Mission does give a very good "overall" feel for realism, whatever they do to get to that point. I remember Battlefront discussing the layers of abstraction that they removed when they went from CMx1 to CMx2. There was a perception drawn where people associated the abstraction for realism. It was certainly an adjustment but the game today certainly has a more realistic feel.

Without discussing this with the game developer it's not clear whether abstractions are built into the game for survivability.

It is clear to me however that cover finding could be improved as other games already have been able to do this.

[Redwolf]

I don't think that the weakness in HMG defensive fire goes together with the lack of good cover and good placement in the infantry. With the mortars the situation is the other way round.

But in general your are right. A lot of the future of this game hangs on being able to make soldiers realistically go to ground in a suitable place given a certain threat at hand. I don't really care one way another whether it is done with more 3D and more intelligence or with more abstraction (just assume they don't stand in the fire braindead), but the latter is easier for sure and kind of proven. Once there you can fix the MG.

If the HMG would be able to go into meltdown mode right now they would slaughter the infantry just like the mortars do.

[JonS]

I would prefer that the troops would just find the best cover possible in the area they are placed.

Humans are funny creatures. I recall one night watching a guy smash a hutchie peg into iron hard ground, with an NVG monocle :eek:

Expecting perfect behaviour all the time ("find the best possible cover") is not, I think, particularly sound.

Apart from anything else, it is usually extraordinarily difficult to accurately identify the source of danger, and to therefore find "the best possible cover". You can make a guess, and lunge for what looks like reasonable cover based on that guess, but even that assumes you're paying attnetion, and constantly updating your personal IA - "if a shot comes from my left right now I'll dive into that ditch. If one comes from the right I'll go behind that stump. Ok, now if a shot comes from my left I'll go behind that wall, but if one comes from the right that gutter is my best bet. Ok, if a shot comes NOW I'll ...". Sure; that's what soldiers are supposed to be doing constantly. But honestly? It's exhausting. And when you're already exhausted after some days or weeks in combat, meh. I wouldn't put odds on many of them actually doing that. Flopping on the ground behind any sort of cover or concealment within about 3 metres would be a good result.

[Michael Emrys]

If you do give a facing command they would naturally find cover in the direction of the facing.

Okay, but...

If I was placed in a situation of being under fire I most certainly would seek the best cover the area had to offer. My attention would be focussed in the likely direction of the attack.

...what do you do if the fire is coming from several directions at once, as it is likely to do in a well-designed ambush, for instance? Or as Jon says, it may not be easily determined from which direction the fire is coming. You hear bullets snapping and zinging and it sounds like they are all over the place. What are you going to do, just stand there until you have triangulated the source?

The first thing you are going to do is drop to the ground, and THEN maybe crawl around until you can reach better cover, meanwhile hoping that the bullets (or shell fragments) will miss. BTW, that thing about shell fragments throws another giant variable into the mix. If you have shells or bombs falling around you, their fragments are going to be coming from unpredictable directions and that nice, thick wall you are sheltering at the base of may provide you no cover at all.

Michael

[A Canadian Cat]

<snip>Expecting perfect behaviour all the time ("find the best possible cover") is not, I think, particularly sound.

Apart from anything else, it is usually extraordinarily difficult to accurately identify the source of danger, and to therefore find "the best possible cover". You can make a guess, and lunge for what looks like reasonable cover based on that guess, but even that assumes you're paying attnetion, and constantly updating your personal IA - "if a shot comes from my left right now I'll dive into that ditch. If one comes from the right I'll go behind that stump. Ok, now if a shot comes from my left I'll go behind that wall, but if one comes from the right that gutter is my best bet. Ok, if a shot comes NOW I'll ...". Sure; that's what soldiers are supposed to be doing constantly. But honestly? It's exhausting. And when you're already exhausted after some days or weeks in combat, meh. <snip>

I think JonS is right. While I have never seen combat I can tell you even after a few days of hard training on an exercise that is exactly what happens. You start off doing it right and end up doing it as best you can.

The funny thing about this thread is I actually do not have a problem with how my guys have positioned themselves for cover. Do you guys have examples of grossly poor behaviour? I have been pretty happy with my troops ability to hit the dirt and find sensible cover options.

[womble]

...does the difficulty in getting troops to find cover tie together with a need to dial down the HMG effectiveness?

I don't think there's any "difficulty" at all. For starters, unless there's obvious cover, like a wall, or some Bocage, most of the "cover" troops "find" in a given action spot is going to be the "terrain save" which is already abstracted. An abstraction that makes even more sense when taking JonS's points on board.