sage Posted October 30, 1999 Share Posted October 30, 1999 Few minor critiques and suggestions: I've now played 3 full games, all in the "Last Defense" scenario. 2 as allied, 2 as gerries. -- I would like to be able to increase the size of infantry seperate from the size of vehicles. -- I dislike how reinforcements arrive. I think that a) they should be visible to both sides or arrive mid-turn, or they should be staggared by the program over several turns. In all three of the games I played the M18's were decisive the turn they showed up. In the most recent one they kill both StuGs, the Tiger and 3 of the 4 half tracks the first turn they showed up. This is a very 'gamey' result -- just the kind of thing I hope will be avoided!!! -- Vehicle models are nicely animated, but textures do not look good. When working with miniatures, shadows and hightlights need to be emphasized. This helps a small models look 'more realistic' and attractive. -- AI seems to be incapable of moving decisively on the offense -- i.e. taking a risk and just 'going for it.' -- Infantry seems to easy to spot. I'd tweak it down by 10-30%. -- Sigh. After playing, I think bodies are even more important. They provide visual feedback on an area to happen. Can't count how many times I've suddenly noticed that an infantry unit has taken hefty casualties somewhere in a previous turn, but I don't know when or from where. Bodies would provide immediate visual feedback. I know this has been hashed on, but the more I play, the more lacking it seems. I'm sure there is a creative solution here. -- No judgement with the AI so far, but as defenders, my first game was a Major, my second a 'Total.' As Germans, I was able to take the town by turn ten, and would have had at least a Major if I hadn't lost all my vehicles so suddenly. Still think this is a good game despite some flaws. Sage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 I woudl recommend this to folks who are questionable about results on this game. Play back the turn when it happens (ie don't hit Done) and make sure to note as each unit gets hit, where it got hit (ie frontal armor, front turret, etc) and then watch for who fired at it with pause and the forward and back keys. Myself this is the thing I LOVE about this game. I got upset about a few things that were happenning and then I went back and looked through the details and figured out why I screwed up and it made me a better player. In one case I had my freaking turret poking out and the Hellcat nailed it, pissed me off . ------------------ Richard Arnesen The Wargamer http://www.wargamer.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted October 31, 1999 Author Share Posted October 31, 1999 I don't have any problem with results. If the developers say that a 76.2 mm can easily pen the front of a tiger turret from 700m, I believe them. I'm sure they have done their research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolColJ Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 yeah But I do have to say, infantry get spotted too easily - If I start the game behind a wall and order them to hide, they should not get spotted at all, until the enemey is on the other sie of the wall, or my troops start firing. ------------------ CCJ aka BLITZ_Force My Homepage - www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Beach/4448 [This message has been edited by CoolColJ (edited 10-30-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Heya Sage, just my opions on some of your points a) Not a bad idea that one. Ive thought that myself once or twice. Personally I dont think it would be worth a lot of programming trouble, but if its an easy one would be a good addition. Reinforcemetns in the game are a lot more complicated that can been seen by playing these scenerios. You can have up to 5 (I think ) reinforcement group (of an many armoured and infantry units as you desire) per battle and these can be staggered however you want. In reality, the M18s would have been traveling together to the battle area, and thuse probably would have arrived together. Not sure why you want them visable to both side sides though? For lack of a better term this sounds a rather gamey thing to happen Hehe, in hind site I imagine Steve will say he wished he had continued the map on a little and put the slope over the other side so that the M18s could have arrived out of site and then be bought in where the allied player desired This is an easy thing to do in the editor. By the way, in my first battle as the Germans I took out 3 of the M18s in exchange for one STug (and thats against a human). Once you play a little you get used to using your units very differently from how you previously have in wargames. For instance I move the Tiger down the road then reversed her into a scattered tree line to give her some cover and keep her out of the way till I knew what to expect.. c) Each to their own opinions but Im afraid I have to totally agree on that one These models are the best Ive ever seen in a wargame, or simulation for that matter d) There was an interesting thread a read a little while back about luck and combat in CM (and in reality). Ive both wasted the AI, and been stomped on by it. e) Interesting point. I havnt noticed this myself but I will have to keep an eye on it for future reference. May sure you use the sneak command when you want to keep your troops out of the way, it can be very useful. f) Again, each to their own opinions I guess this is something I wouldnt have even thought of unless it was mentioned on the forum. Id prefer the programming time spent on other areas myself, cant say on what unfortunatley but there are some great ideas that Ive heard.. g) Have a go as the attacker sage, thats always the more difficult of the two options. Ive heard of even the best players getting the butt kicked in CM. Then again maybe you just kick arse, hehe? These are all just my opinions, nothing more, hehe. Glad you think the game is good sage. What is in the demo really is only the tip of the iceberg, too Dan PS : Damn these 's really do show up, dont they. [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 10-30-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 And I think you are missing one of the other TRUE beauties of CM. Most of those Infantry units appears as sound contacts first (check it out by clicking on them). CM is one of the first wargames that allows for sound to spot units. Yeah their behind a wall but what if one of the guys can't keep his yap shut, there's your contact. One thing I LOVE is my Aureal card right now (Vortex 2.0). With it I can easily use the positional sound to get a sneak peek on what is going on..... ------------------ Richard Arnesen The Wargamer http://www.wargamer.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted October 31, 1999 Author Share Posted October 31, 1999 I think the textures used on the models in Panzer Elite are a good example of what I mean. Sure, they use more complex models, but the models look so much better because of the texturing. (Other then that, though, it's kind of a mediocre game). My problem with the M18s is that they appear instantly, and can already be targeting German tanks, whereas the German tanks have to acqurie them. I could be wrong, but it seems that the M18s start blasting away instantly. Regardless, keep them a covered entrace would basically solve the problem. Giving them a covered entrance AND stagaring them would be cool, because it would give the player the options of a) commiting them piecemiel or waiting to commit them together. Just a thought. Also, how big is this map compared to ones in the game? It seems v. small to me -- it's not a lot larger than the dinky little ones from CC3. Just an impression. Sound contact would be much more directional with 4 speaker support. s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Heya Sage Funny that, I was just talking with someone the other day as to how much better I thought the textures look in CM compared to PE. I guess this comes down to personal opinions, but to me these are the best textures Ive seen on vehicles in a game. Remember that the graphics are not final, it is only a beta... Map can be up to 3km by 3km. The fact that the M-18s appear and open fire instantly is due to appearing on the top of the hill. They do have to aquire the target, but seeing they are already spotted by other units this is probably a quicker process as the Germans have to actually spot the M18s. Basically this is just the way the scenerio way designed. It is easy in the map editor to extend the map, finish the other side of the hill, and even make up another whole kilometre of map if you like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 I have to admit the M18 thing does bother me two, but my taks were buttoned when they appeared. I guess if the infantry had seen the tanks (on the U.S. side) for awhile and radioed this back to the reinforcements as they arrived that might explain it. Dunno... ------------------ Richard Arnesen The Wargamer http://www.wargamer.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 1. Hi RIchard, good to see you posting here. 2. Sage, the thing with the Hellcats popping up in full view like that is a scenario design issue and not a game flaw. FWIW I HATE when scenarios have reinforcements pop up in full view and in scenarios I design that will never happen. Others love the excitement that brings. My best advice is to simply accept this as an aspect of SCENARIO DESIGN you didn't like in the beta demo and okay Riesberg. I guarantee you you won't see the German reinforcements move from the map edge into the village or wherever GUARANTEED ! 3. Spot.. Ok, well you'd have to define how, where and why? ALSO remember that a lot od spotting is spotting of sounds and vague visual cues. MY advice to everyone with an issue about this is to play a HOTSEAT game and make a few experiments I can see a lot of people simply don't understand how blind a buttoned up tank was and thus are having problem accepting their Tiger being killed without firing a shot etc etc . I think playing a hotseat game would be a learning experience for most.. BTW if you think spotting is too easy check out my LOS article at http://combathq.thegamers.net I think that shows off how spotting occurs in CM quite well. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingtiger Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Fionn, Tell us what a hotseat game is please. Thanks Richard Kalajian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Fionn I cannot get the article section to come up. I keep getting "This page cannot be found" All other sections work for me. I'm using IE5. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Hotseat play is a way for 2 players to play against each other using 1 computer. It's one of the 4 choices you get afterselecing a scenario and then choosing the side to play. The way it would work (have not tried it with CM, but in other games) is for example... The German player gives his orders to his units, checks stats, ect. When he hits the Go button to finish his orders phase, the game will prompt for the US player to sit in front of the computer. The US player then clicks on the acknowledgement that he is ready, then proceedes to give his orders. When he is done, more than likely, he will watch his "movie" then the game will prompt for the German to watch his movie and then take his turn. I'll have to try this out but in general that's how hotseat games work. Mikey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Sage, Think most of your points are either off the mark or personal tastes. The vehicle texture thing made me laugh though. PE's stuff looks better? I just deleted about four lines of abuse in PE's direction. I'll limit it to just one: their stuff looks like utter crap Just my opinion of course! There have been several discussions about spotting. So far we have seen no convincing arguments to make changes. Most reasons being cited are simply wrong. In other words, the opinions are based on misconceptions of how terrain, heights, distances, actions, etc. actually modled in the game. Since you gave no examples I can only assume that this is the case with you as well. No offense here, but some people are misunderstanding what some of the terrain is (particullarly Scattered Trees). Also, the apperance of the M18s has been discussed in other threads. It is a realistic battlefield result, and it is not unbalancing. In fact, I gave the US a 3rd M18 because testing showed that more often than not two were lost right away. Your suggestion about seeing the guys the turn before isn't realistic. The M18s in this game crested a hill. Now you don't see 'em, now you do Surprises like this are more common than not on real battlefields. The AI isn't perfect, but none are. I would challenge anybody here to show us one that is better on either attack or defense And the AI can kick your butt sometimes too (sounds like it did, but you didn't like it because the M18s were responsible). Bodies still wouldn't help you figure that out. It would only show where they fell, which tells you nothing. Plus, you should have seen this during the previous turn's playback. The information you would get from watching them take casualties is more important. No go on bodies for all the same reasons you have heard before. So far you are the only person that has mentioned this There will be others, but if it was *so* important it would be the subject of a dozen threads by now. Try Riesberg and then report back Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted October 31, 1999 Author Share Posted October 31, 1999 Models -- I agree, personal preference. I think the PE model's look better when 'small' (i.e. at a distance) because of the exagerated shadowing. Since I spent very little time zoomed in in CM, I'd prefer that style of exagerating highlight and shadowing for the textures. Spotting infantry -- just an impression. M18's -- I never once said I doubted the battlefield result. I just don't like how they come in. But I guess that's mostly just the scenario designer's fault. AI -- tendency to lead the charge with its forward observers. Piecemiel attacks, although it may be trying 'fire and movement' tactics. Finally, when attacking, the AI seemed to spend forever actually getting it's main assault rolling. Bodies -- I don't have the patience to watch a turn over and over again. Call me lazy. So being able to do a quick scan for 'fresh blood' would be useful for me. This would also address other people's comments about lack of feedback. OTOH, this one has been beaten to death. Let's see what the reviewers say. Sage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Hello everyone, been playing and just as a sidenote/preface, my demo usually freezes up or crashes, but sometimes it works. Animations in the resolution sequence are unsmooth/jumpy (soldiers are "jumping" from place A to place B instead of walking all the way from A to B)Sounds are chopped up (the first 0.5sec of a soundfile are repeated for the length/duration of that sound file, it appears), too, but I hope that this is all because of the BETA state of the demo and things will be fixed for the final product. Here are some thoughts: #1) taken from a post made by <FONT COLOR="#66FFFF">Brian Rock: "During the middle of this duel an 81mm mortar shell called in to suppress the Hellcat killed it. (At least I think that's what happened - hard to tell with CM's fog of war.)"</FONT> there have been repeated discussions aboput the FoW etc. WEll, I think I would really like it and I think others too when the end/result/debrief screen(s) would be more detailed and would clear things up. FoW might be realistic and stuff during battle but this is a game and I don't see the reason why people-*players* shouldn't be given the info *after* the game is over. What do you think about listing in chronological order the events, maybe since the game is taking so much emphasis on vehicles you want to limit it to vehicles, like "Turn 12: M-18 Hellcat destroyed by Tiger 1 main gun AP round at 37% - shot etc.pp." I think the information is there and it shouldn't be too hard to write a small routine to put the data into a small info at the end of the game. This would help a lot with people wondering what did what. Btw a good and related feature in the demo is the ability to review the battlefield with everything shown! I guess this will not be the case for a campaign, right? As a related issue, I really do think the results screen has disappointingly little info. I remember this issue has been talked about before and BTS's response to people saying that the AAR result screen was disappointing was that the result screen was overhauled and now features more info. I don't see that in the demo...(?) #2) <FONT COLOR="#66FFFF">sage wrote:"Sigh. After playing, I think bodies are even more important. They provide visual feedback on an area to happen. Can't count how many times I've suddenly noticed that an infantry unit has taken hefty casualties somewhere in a previous turn, but I don't know when or from where. Bodies would provide immediate visual feedback. I know this has been hashed on, but the more I play, the more lacking it seems. I'm sure there is a creative solution here."</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#66FFFF">Steve/BTS replied:"Bodies still wouldn't help you figure that out. It would only show where they fell, which tells you nothing. Plus, you should have seen this during the previous turn's playback. The information you would get from watching them take casualties is more important. No go on bodies for all the same reasons you have heard before. So far you are the only person that has mentioned this There will be others, but if it was *so* important it would be the subject of a dozen threads by now."</FONT> I know you must be tired of this subject so we will leave the non-individual representation of infantry soldiers which contributes to the problem of not seeing effects aside. sage has a point and delivers what I think might be a way to solve the problem that Hagen had as his main complaint, i.e., the lack of feedback on effects. Me too I wondered about the strength of the (enemy) germans in the Riesberg scenario because they had all those seemingly unaffected three-man squads walking around erect etc. seemingly unharmed. Only after the game was over I discovered that they were badly decimated. I think that (i.e., the lack of feedback on the results of your fire on the enemy) was also the main reason why *both* sides in the AAR continually overestimated the strength of the other side (guess you will remember)-if they had seen the bodies lying there wouldbn't have been that much guessing about how much casualties you inflicted. Ok, so we *do* have three-man icons to represent squads. But why not leave a body where a soldier was killed? If a 12-man squad represented by the three-man icon crosses the road and has casualties, they should be in some way visible. Now, if you say that this is not possible because that would again be asking too much of CPU-power, couldn't (I am not a programmer)it be at least a 2-dimensional texture on the ground, which I figure wouldn't be too much a problem since it isn't a problem for shellholes/impacts either. Anyways, just a suggestion. thanks for what looks to be a very interesting and really *new kind of* game, yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 M. Hofbauer - it actually sounds more like your system/configuration. CM is running very smooth for me and a lot of others. What system are you using? DO you have a 3D card and how much ram? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Markus, It sounds like your system specs are the fault here.. Use the 2 men per squad option etc.. to speed it up some ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't see the reason why people-*players* shouldn't be given the info *after* the game is over<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are. When the game ends you'll see a button you can click to Review the battle map. Then all the enemy units show up as fully identified and you can see all the casualties caused, morale states, etc. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I wondered about the strength of the (enemy) germans in the Riesberg scenario because they had all those seemingly unaffected three-man squads walking around erect etc. seemingly unharmed. Only after the game was over I discovered that they were badly decimated. I think that (i.e., the lack of feedback on the results of your fire on the enemy) was also the main reason why *both* sides in the AAR continually overestimated the strength of the other side<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Do you think this is a bad thing? In war, commanders frequently overestimate the strength and/or numbers of an enemy force. In fact, that may be the very essence of the "fog of war" right there. Countless mistakes and blunders throughout military history have been caused by the lack of information about enemy strengths (and dispositions, etc.). In fact, a skilled commander will attempt to make his force appear larger than it is, by moving troops around. You can do this in Combat Mission too. In a real WW2 battle, soldiers frequently don't even see the enemy. They are aware of enemy fire and usually where it originates from. They can get a sense for how strong that fire is, and react appropriately. But often they never actually see many enemy soldiers unless it's a close-range fight because those soldiers are often in cover, often at a great distance. Fire is often returned at locations, not individuals, and so enemy casualties can be (though not always) very difficult to judge. I think Combat Mission models this appropriately. Do you disagree with my characterization of the nature of information (and the lack thereof) on a typical WW2 battlefield? If so, please explain. And Combat Mission allows you to turn off For of War if you don't like it. Plus we're planning to add a 'partial' FOW setting where units can remain hidden when out of LOS or spotting range, but once spotted, are instantly "fully identified" and show all casualties, etc. Maybe you will like that better. I'm not sure what's causing your system lockups, but have you tried updating all your drivers? Try visiting http://www.hardwired.thegamers.net and go into the TechMagic site. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Fionn/Moon: I have an AMD K-6 II 400; 64 MB RAM; 4 MB Diamond Viper V330 (Nvidia 128 chipset) 3D card, 17" hence a 1024x768 screen res.; DirectX 6.1 installed. I figured after having read the CM-specifications on the battlefront-page ("P133 with 3D card or P200 without") I would have more than enough to run the game; however the specifications given on the download page differ and say severe restrictions when the 3D card has less than 8MB ... I am now able to largely avoid the crahses by reducing the 3D hardware support to 25%; however this makes the game movements even worse to a degree of unplayability, especially when combined with the definitively f-up sound. I am not blaming BTS - I have seen the game on a friend's computer where it looks/sounds great. Sorry, but it's such a pain that I really can't play it, I am hoping for the final version. Charles: I *did* notice and praise (see the post) the feature of the map being accessible after the end showing all units (again, hope this feature does *not* work in the campaign where - as you stressed- the fun factor is advancing on the same map back and forth - would hate to have all defense/attack obvious after the first battle on the map). Still, it only shows the units that are *left* - if that infantry took out my halftrack and later gets wiped out I will never figure out who/what got my HT. I think it all has to do with the way CM works (rather: does not work) on my computer. I do not get to see the shells etc. since the framerate/jumping of units is so horrible that it would be extreme lucky to have a shell seen on one of the few freezeframes. Same goes for the sound cues which you seem to use as a way of telling whether or not you are inflicting casualties (all i get is constant"whawhawawawawawa..bababababababa.totototototo...lololololololo" in all kinds of pitches and lengths) so lacking all that I really am not able to judge on the game and all this. But I could imagine that what sage and Hagen were getting at was the fact that if you fired with your machine-gun (for Moon: "reinrotzen" ;o) ) into a squad walking at 300m distance from house A to house B, you could tell by people toppling over and lying there that you scored hits. Right now, you can't tell. Enemy squads seem unaffected by fire. btw, how about having a keyboard - shortcut that would pop up a small window/list that showed *your* current OOB...something remotely like this: I could imagine that people would find this rather useful, especially for quickly getting into that special battle again when taking up a saved game or when playing several different PBEMs. It might help people that find the U/I confusing... just a suggestion, of course, yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted October 31, 1999 Author Share Posted October 31, 1999 OOoo!!! I really dig the "Your OOB" idea. I keep losing teams. I'd love to be able to pop up a quick "scan it for status" report like that. Especially if I could double click and jump to the unit in question. Bodies: the attacker shoots a bunch at an area, sees no effect other than slacking outgoing fire. Doesn't know if it's because of supression, killing everyone, or the defenders pulling out. Attacker goes to area. Finds big honkin' pile o' bodies (or no bodies). Voila -- useful intelligence. Pretty common occurence in war. Not modeled in CM. Infantry spotting (Charles said): "In a real WW2 battle, soldiers frequently don't even see the enemy. They are aware of enemy fire and usually where it originates from. They can get a sense for how strong that fire is, and react appropriately." This is exactly what I mean when I say that I think spotting infantry is too easy. Getting 'Infantry sound contacts' when my closest unit is 700m away and moving themselves?!?! When I'm in the woods playing airsoft, I have trouble hearing people that are 50m a way, and less if I'm moving as well. I think that one should have to spend a lot more time doing area-fire on 'likely places' for infantry to hide. PS. I'm not trying to be an ass by bringing either subject up again. It's just something I care about. Sage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Markus: CPL Blöd tot? HAHAHA, kein Wunder! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 re. the suggestion above with the OOB-popup: oooops sorry I just noticed there is another complete thread about this issue...sorry...anyways, just a suggestion... Moon/Martin: LOL...wollte eigentlich nur irgendwelche generic names nehmen, sollte ja nur ein beispiel sein...hehe...yes that fits...Blöd tot... yours sincerely, M.Hofbauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 (Sage) I really dig the "Your OOB" idea. I keep losing teams. I'd love to be able to pop up a quick "scan it for status" report like that. Especially if I could double click and jump to the unit in question. (Mikey) Well, since he brought up the fact that you can see (at least that I'm aware of) an after action info box of a non-vehicle unit after the fight is done when you turn FOW off, since they are dead and removed from the map, I would not mind seeing this more now as a detailed AAR. I still wouldn't use it during a battle. (Sage) Bodies: the attacker shoots a bunch at an area, sees no effect other than slacking outgoing fire. Doesn't know if it's because of supression, killing everyone, or the defenders pulling out. Attacker goes to area. Finds big honkin' pile o' bodies (or no bodies). Voila -- useful intelligence. Pretty common occurence in war. Not modeled in CM. (Mikey) Well, two problems. First thing is that in order for this to work properly, especially when dealing when the squad under fire is on the move, you would need to each men in the unit on a 1 for 1 basis, instead of the 2-3 man squad abstraction. Since that is currently beyond the capability of current processors to display smoothly (much less make this game playable on older systems), that has been ruled out as happening for quite a while at least. Second thing is your comment on it happening commonly in WWII. I'm no expert, but I doubt that squads did alot of up close "body count" intel until after the fight was over. And since the example cited was a squad 300 meters away getting raked by MG fire, I'm pretty sure that the MG crew could not fly over to the spot where the target was and count bodies (assuming casualties were represented on map) like you would be able to do in the game. That would be sort of a variation of the "postion camera over target to count casualties by counting screams" gamey tactic problem that was brought up in an earlier thread. (Sage) Infantry spotting (Charles said): "In a real WW2 battle, soldiers frequently don't even see the enemy. They are aware of enemy fire and usually where it originates from. They can get a sense for how strong that fire is, and react appropriately." This is exactly what I mean when I say that I think spotting infantry is too easy. Getting 'Infantry sound contacts' when my closest unit is 700m away and moving themselves?!?! When I'm in the woods playing airsoft, I have trouble hearing people that are 50m a way, and less if I'm moving as well. I think that one should have to spend a lot more time doing area-fire on 'likely places' for infantry to hide (Mikey) Well, I haven't seen any infantry spotted by a sound contact from 700m, so I can't respond to that, but I do know that in a game I played, I had 3 US rifle squads and 1 HQ squad inside some woods hiding, and 4 GER squads appeared in LOS at about 20-25m moving toward me, at which time my squads opened up, obliterating 1 squad, and and hurting a couple of the others. I'd say the spotting system worked like a charm at that time. And where are you at playing airsoft??? I can find anyone here in Houston, Tx who plays it, though tons of paintball fields. Mikey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted November 2, 1999 Author Share Posted November 2, 1999 Airsoft -- I'm a member of Puget Sound Airsoft Command. There are about 20 of us and we play every single sunday. Check us out: http://www.get.to/psac We were recently presant at Operation Savage Garden, in the Santa Cruz mountains (central California). Bodies: there are solutions. The developers have decided none of the solutions are adequate for technical or aesthetic reasons. I think this is an unfortunate decision in light of the fact that this has not been presented to players in the beta (and beta demo) for public feedback. Regardless of the realism, validity or usefulness, I think this will probably hurt the feel of the game, especially for a more public audience (e.g. the other 25k people who will need to buy this game for it to be really sucessfuly as an online product <I'm pulling that number out of my butt>). I've been thinking about this issue more, and I think the real reason to have bodies is not any game-usage rational reason. I think it's the irrational, "goddamn, so that's what it looks like when a platoon charges an Mg42," visceral feel. I don't expect that this is going to change. This issue has been talked inside and out by many people. But I almost guarantee that it will be mentioned by reviewers, especially those that are not necessarily hardcore wargamers. Sure, their review will be 'unknowledgable' -- but it still may cost a few sales. Ultimately I want two things 1) for CM to be "Sage's Perfect Game" and 2) for it to sell very well, thereby proving this method of sales and development as sucessful. The former is impossible, the latter is a worthy goal of all of us, as it will mean more 'speciality' games, ala CM in this day and age of spiraling development costs. counting bodies: it's not the detailed body count that matters. It's the 'pile o' bodies in the house' syndrome that gives you some feedback on whether the German HMG42 was able to pull back sucessfully or not. in game OOB: this seems to be personal preference. I say give people all the tools possible to act effectively within the interface and let them decide invidually on whether to use it or not. Sage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts