issues,wishes,disappointments,...

[arpella72]

First of all,I love this game and I'm not really aware about the technical difficulties of the making but I want to share with the people of this forum some things I would like to see in it though some has been discused before.

-Vehicles ramming and crushing: I miss tanks running over enemy troops and AT guns to kill and destroy them.Common practice in war.What's more,I would like them to ram other vehicles of the same size and weight or lighter.

-Bailed out tank/gun crews: Why bailed out tank/gun crews only can reman their own tank/gun and not another that is the same? ,I can understand that the crew of a sherman can't operate a PzIV but why not another sherman?,or replace the wounded members from another and identical tank/gun?

-AT deploying times: this has been fully discused not many time ago.The deploying and packing up time for the average AT guns should be shortened.

-Melting graphics: sometimes this give a poor impresion of the game,I remember a mission from MG called "all round defense";the german AV mixed together in such an ugly way:(...

-Vehicles path : Still a bit clumsy,should be improved

It would be great if improvements like this would come in a patch.Is that possible?.

[womble]

-Vehicles ramming and crushing: I miss tanks running over enemy troops and AT guns to kill and destroy them.Common practice in war.What's more,I would like them to ram other vehicles of the same size and weight or lighter.

While rolling over the bendy bits of ATGs was SoP in at least some theatres, using your vehicle to ram or push another was an exercise fraught with risk mostly avoided as unnecessary.

-Bailed out tank/gun crews: Why bailed out tank/gun crews only can reman their own tank/gun and not another that is the same? ,I can understand that the crew of a sherman can't operate a PzIV but why not another sherman?,or replace the wounded members from another and identical tank/gun?

The biggest reason I can think of for not allowing the recrewing of other teams' equipment is a gamist one. If my elite Sherman crew survives their first steed relatively intact, they can eject the conscript crew that are driving their backup mount and reenter the battle. First, that makes the points in QB buying somewhat more difficult to determine. Second, while it occasionally happened IRL, if it was allowed to us gamey bastidjes, it would happen all the damn time, which would be thoroughly unrealistic; more so than disallowing it.

-Melting graphics: sometimes this give a poor impresion of the game,I remember a mission from MG called "all round defense";the german AV mixed together in such an ugly way:(...

I think you're referring to what's perhaps more commonly called "clipping"? Where one bit of the graphical element of the game blends with another? Happens with tree/vehicle interactions a lot, too. I think it's always going to have to be allowed, because the TacAI is going to struggle even more than it does, if all collision detection is based rigidly on the outer box of the element. Certainly that's the reason BFC have given for having vehicles not have to wiggle through the gaps between trees.

-Vehicles path : Still a bit clumsy,should be improved...

It would certainly be nice if the auto pathing could take into account the static obstacles it's going to face, and run a smoother line round those. The TacAI is always going to struggle with potentially mobile obstacles that it encounters that weren't there when it was given the movement order, since it has zero predictive ability. "Boxing" round such things, as currently, is about as good as we can expect... I think a lot of the problems with "fishtailing" pathing is when we set waypoints too close together for the agility of the vehicle.

It would be great if improvements like this would come in a patch.Is that possible?.

More likely a new engine version. Some might even need a new engine generation "CMx3", they're that deeply embedded in the architecture.

[Erwin]

"If my elite Sherman crew survives their first steed relatively intact, they can eject the conscript crew that are driving their backup mount and reenter the battle. First, that makes the points in QB buying somewhat more difficult to determine."

What abut if recrewing was possible but only for crews of equivalent experience (and similar tank of course)?

[womble]

"If my elite Sherman crew survives their first steed relatively intact, they can eject the conscript crew that are driving their backup mount and reenter the battle. First, that makes the points in QB buying somewhat more difficult to determine."

What abut if recrewing was possible but only for crews of equivalent experience (and similar tank of course)?

How does that make any more sense?

[Freyberg]

Ramming and crushing would be fun - I'd like to see a model for a crushed kubelwagen.

[arpella72]

For the running over ATs ,you could take some penalties like tracks damage and then It would be your choice wether you do it or don't but I'm watching this as a desperate action.Anyway,there's no reason you can't run over troops.

The ramming could be modeled with some limitations.

For the graphics question I'm refering to an uncommon case as the one I have pointed but I found it so disappointing.

[Erwin]

Womble: Your own objection to recrewing was that gamey people would replace conscripts with elites. So, I came up with a solution. Just cos you don't like the idea doesn't absolve you from coming up with reasonable reasons.

[ScoutPL]

The worse thing that can happen to a tank crew (other than direct fire from another tank or AT gun) is throwing a track in restrictive terrain. Most "overruns" would occur in restrictive terrain (foxholes and AT gun positions in wooded areas) and due to the circumstances the chance of an immobilization or bog result is pretty high. Tank tracks, particularly in the early years (ie WW2) were probably the most vulnerable aspect of AFVs. It was very, very easy to throw one and most crews went out of their way (often followed by curses from the grunts) to avoid the opportunity. If you read a lot of histories you will see a pattern of tank attacks bogging down or "culminating" due to a steady loss of combat power. Usually not only due to enemy action but also simple "mechanical failures." Nine times out of ten that means "thrown tread." Get something stuck in a tread or a road wheel - thrown tread. Take a turn too hard - thrown tread. Take a turn and hit something hard with a road wheel or the tread - thrown tread. You can imagine how easy this might be when you think of driving cross country or even just down a rubble scattered street.

And if you happen to be in the middle of a firefight when that happens you instantly become a sitting duck. Which is why most tank crews with disabled tanks can be found sipping tea back by the company trains an hour or so after the battle. No sane man (particularly one who's used to having a few inches of steel between him and the enemy) is going to jump out with the couple hundred pounds of equipment required to reset a track and get busy while in a firefight. Nor is he going to maintain his seat when his tank just became a stationary target on a gunnery firing range.

I would argue that the player having any control at all after a tank is immobilized or bogged in a CM game is rather unrealistic. Yes you should be able to dismount for scouting before the fighting gets heavy, but historically the option tank crews always took after losing their mobility was to bug out. There are exceptions of course, as there always are. But if you think you deserve a Medal of Honor winner in every CM scenario, than you are really missing the point of the game.

[A Canadian Cat]

Just cos you don't like the idea doesn't absolve you from coming up with reasonable reasons.

LOL, how about the programming effort to implement "re-crewing with skill restrictions" does not make it worth the effort.

I would argue that the player having any control at all after a tank is immobilized or bogged in a CM game is rather unrealistic. Yes you should be able to dismount for scouting before the fighting gets heavy, but historically the option tank crews always took after losing their mobility was to bug out.

Good point. One of my regular PBEM opponent and I have rule. If you tank crew get unhorsed the have to head for safety. That can be behind friendly lines, map edge at the back or good shelter near by if there is no safe way back at the moment.

We have one exception: HQ crews are allowed to find a radio equipped HT (or other vehicle) and get back on the command net.

[arpella72]

watch this video,there's a soviet tank crushing an AT gun.Minute 8'01

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYBDBR4r1sQ

[Flying Penguin]

The ramming could be modeled with some limitations

Have you ever seen inside a tank? Pretty much all of them are a mass of solid metal and unpadded sharp edges. There us one bloody good reason why ramming was never a tactic of anything other than desperation (Kursk aside), hit anything of substance fast enough to harm it and you'll probably incapacitate half your crew. Quite frankly unless it is small enough to simply snap or be mounted (e.g. a young tree or a small road car), the resulting deceleration is borne by the crew (remember they are not strapped in).

When tanks take out larger objects such as trees, they generally approach slowly then Push with their engines. Not an approach that has much use against anything but an abandoned at gun. The best you could probably hope for is being able to ram similarly sized objects with (numbers pulled out of ass but probably not too far off) 50% chance of crew casualties AND 50% chance of immobilising.

Either way it's probably not going to be as useful as you'd like....

[sburke]

watch this video,there's a soviet tank crushing an AT gun.Minute 8'01

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYBDBR4r1sQ

That is all CGI you know, that wasn't real footage. I am thinking you probably know that, but why then that would be included as an example is questionable.

Assuming for the moment though that it was real footage, a single example doesn't change the overall view that it is a very rare event which if allowed in CM would become a very common event.

[Erwin]

"...how about the programming effort to implement "re-crewing with skill restrictions" does not make it worth the effort."

Agreed, that is always a very important consideration in every suggestion ever posted. But, that's not what we were talking about, that is not what was said, and are you saying that you know for certain that "...the programming effort to implement "re-crewing with skill restrictions" does not make it worth the effort."

[Michael Emrys]

That is all CGI you know, that wasn't real footage. I am thinking you probably know that, but why then that would be included as an example is questionable.

It might be included in what I have been saying about a certain segment of the player audience who don't care much whether CM accurately models reality as long as it faithfully reproduces their favorite war movie.

Michael

[A Canadian Cat]

Agreed, that is always a very important consideration in every suggestion ever posted. But, that's not what we were talking about, that is not what was said, and are you saying that you know for certain that "...the programming effort to implement "re-crewing with skill restrictions" does not make it worth the effort."

I was just pointing out that it is not really a big problem - didn't mean any thing other than that.

I have no idea how much effort it would take. I am certain that it is non zero: therefore it is not worth the effort

[Erwin]

Agreed. Not one of the more urgent issues for me either. But, it's good to be able to air ideas on a regular basis, as things change.

I think the CM2 system is now pretty good and the only gameplay items that would be great to address are the LOS weirdness (re MG's seeing but not being able to fire at targets, and pathing issues. However, it seems that both of those are huge programming challenges.

So, I hope that BF's main effort will go to making gameplay more efficient - especially as scenarios get larger. eg: Selectable waypoints, one click 180 degree arcs (both of which we used to have in CM1 or earlier CM2 versions), plus some way to easily identify teams from the same squad (colored borders?).

[arpella72]

That is all CGI you know, that wasn't real footage. I am thinking you probably know that, but why then that would be included as an example is questionable.

Assuming for the moment though that it was real footage, a single example doesn't change the overall view that it is a very rare event which if allowed in CM would become a very common event.

I don't know if you realise that wasn't a movie but a footage based in the real experiences of a russian tanker whose report can be listened in the off voice(his name appears at the beginning).I have readed memories of tank crews(rusin,germans,...) about running over AT guns when they were at really close quarters.

[Freyberg]

Ramming would probably have been rare, but it certainly happened. And it happened in precisely the kind of very intense engagements that CM simulates. I hope it's included some day. I think it would be realistic and fun. It should be a risky tactic requiring high crew morale though. The Soviet ramming that happened at Kursk was often suicidal.

[womble]

Ramming would probably have been rare, but it certainly happened. And it happened in precisely the kind of very intense engagements that CM simulates. I hope it's included some day. I think it would be realistic and fun. It should be a risky tactic requiring high crew morale though. The Soviet ramming that happened at Kursk was often suicidal.

BFC are (rightfully, IMO) loath to implement many things that were vanishingly rare in the general run of combat, since they would become commonplace in the hands of players, for any number of reasons.

[Other Means]

"Crewman, there's enemy in the woods over their, get their heads down"

"Well Sir, I'd love to and that but I can't see the ground you see. If I can't see the ground, how could I possibly shoot over it?"

"It just carries on. You can see the hill behind it right?"

"Sure - you want me to fire on the hill? I can fire on the hill right now if you want."

"No no, there's no-one ON the hill, they're 50m straight ahead. What do you think the ground does, just disappear into void between here and the hill?"

"Are you making a joke Sir?"

"No I'm not making a bloody joke - just shoot that way"

""What way"

"That bloody way - where the enemy are"

"Can't do that Sir. Can't see the ground"

"Right! Right! OK, advance 2 metres THEN shoot over there"

"Oh, no problem. I can do that - oh my God Sir, there was someone there. Now THEY'RE SHOOTING AT US"

"You know what, good. In fact, let's bail out, that's bound to be the best idea. You first."

[Freyberg]

BFC are (rightfully, IMO) loath to implement many things that were vanishingly rare in the general run of combat, since they would become commonplace in the hands of players, for any number of reasons.

I understand your point of view. I also value realism and appreciate the game being designed to encourage realistic play. But once CM-Kursk comes along, it'd be fun to play the battle of Prokhorovka with an option of ramming there, since it was used in that battle.

I wouldn't rate it as a high priority, but it would be a fun feature if well implemented.

[womble]

"Crewman, there's enemy in the woods over their, get their heads down"

"Well Sir, I'd love to and that but I can't see the ground you see. If I can't see the ground, how could I possibly shoot over it?"

"It just carries on. You can see the hill behind it right?"

"Sure - you want me to fire on the hill? I can fire on the hill right now if you want."

"No no, there's no-one ON the hill, they're 50m straight ahead. What do you think the ground does, just disappear into void between here and the hill?"

"Are you making a joke Sir?"

"No I'm not making a bloody joke - just shoot that way"

""What way"

"That bloody way - where the enemy are"

"Can't do that Sir. Can't see the ground"

"Right! Right! OK, advance 2 metres THEN shoot over there"

"Oh, no problem. I can do that - oh my God Sir, there was someone there. Now THEY'RE SHOOTING AT US"

"You know what, good. In fact, let's bail out, that's bound to be the best idea. You first."

Of course the correct procedure in game-fact is to fire at that hill with target light. The grazing fire (if there's enough of it) over the just-not-visible ground will "keep their heads down".

[Other Means]

Of course the correct procedure in game-fact is to fire at that hill with target light. The grazing fire (if there's enough of it) over the just-not-visible ground will "keep their heads down".

Which, I think you'll agree, is rubbish on many levels.

[womble]

Which, I think you'll agree, is rubbish on many levels.

Not really. If you're wanting grazing fire (which fire at the ground any distance away is, effectively), you're aiming past where you want to suppress. It's just a different way of achieving it than having a "Target - Grazing" command. Where it's rubbish is that sometimes there isn't anywhere to aim (if there's trees behind, for example).

And in general, the inability to target a wall because you can't see the ground in front of it (or behind it in the case of the building) is frustrating beyond all measure. But that's an engine limitation that isn't going away until, apparently, we all have Deep Thought on our desks, since the LOS matrix approximations are necessary to allow the game to run.

[J Bennett]

"Crewman, there's enemy in the woods over their, get their heads down"

"Well Sir, I'd love to and that but I can't see the ground you see. If I can't see the ground, how could I possibly shoot over it?"

"It just carries on. You can see the hill behind it right?"

"Sure - you want me to fire on the hill? I can fire on the hill right now if you want."

"No no, there's no-one ON the hill, they're 50m straight ahead. What do you think the ground does, just disappear into void between here and the hill?"

"Are you making a joke Sir?"

"No I'm not making a bloody joke - just shoot that way"

""What way"

"That bloody way - where the enemy are"

"Can't do that Sir. Can't see the ground"

"Right! Right! OK, advance 2 metres THEN shoot over there"

"Oh, no problem. I can do that - oh my God Sir, there was someone there. Now THEY'RE SHOOTING AT US"

"You know what, good. In fact, let's bail out, that's bound to be the best idea. You first."

As I imagine this conversation, I can't help but think its too wordy for a real life and death combat situation. It does remind me of a scene from a war movie, one of the actors had to be David Niven.