Patch ?...Small Arms Lethality increase

[JoMac]

Ok, looking for a couple answers to the following:

-CMBN

What patch in v1.0 Game Engine has the Small Arms/MG Lethality increase that's been introduced due to popular demand ?

I know it was introduced in The 2.0 Game Engine as patch v2.01 .

-CMFI

What patch has the Small Arms/Lethality increase that applies to CMBN v2.01 ?...Would that also be v1.01 ( 2.0 Game Engine ), or was it automatically introduced in the Base Game v1.0 ( 2.0 Game Engine ) ?

Basically, I'm looking for the last Game Engine or Patch for CMBN & CMFI that didn't incorporate the Small Arms/MG Lethality increase ( even thou I will be dealing with Bugs/fix issues )...If I can play CMBN v2.0 & CMFI v1.0 Base Games then that will work for me.

Unfortunatly, I know the Small Arms/MG Lethality will be automatically introduced in CMRT 3.0Base Game ( since all successive patches are updated to new Game Engine ), but will get it anyways.

Joe

[A Canadian Cat]

For CMBN, I do not think that it ever will be. The change was part of the 2.0 engine update.

For CMFI all versions have the change.

[JoMac]

Yes, that's what I was thinking since CMBN: 2.0 Upgrade ( that I have ) shows the Small Arms increased effectiveness in the v2.01 patch description, and probably didn't get back ported to 1.10 or 1.11

I could just simply bow down and play CMBN series 2.0, CMFI series 2.0 fully patched and upcoming CMRT 3.0 like most everyone else is doing, and be done with it

[Michael Emrys]

What is it you don't like about the increased effectiveness? That was introduced in response to well-argued user request. And in the case of SMGs, those were actually toned down a bit so that they don't fire at unrealistically long ranges.

Michael

[JoMac]

Dorosh...err, I mean Michael Emry's,

I'm going to quit being right, and simply bow down and embrace the games unrealistic high casualty rates ( which were already high before the change )...I guess Beating a Dead Horse back to life isn't working, for some reason.

Reducing the effectivenss of SMGs ( still didn't change much ) & Pistols ( good change ) and increase Suppression alittle is all that was needed...Instead, we get Higher Rates and more Accurate Fire.

*Side note* Wonder how's he doing after all these yrs...Thought he got banned for some reason.

[sburke]

Dorosh...err, I mean Michael Emry's,

I'm going to quit being right, and simply bow down and embrace the games unrealistic high casualty rates ( which were already high before the patch )...Reducing the effectivenss of SMGs, Pistols and increase Suppression alittle is all that's needed.

*Side note*...Wonder how's he doing after all these yrs.

you will be assimilated...

There has been an ongoing debate about casualties and what they reflect. I won't pretend to know the corect answer, but there has been an argument that the casualty rates we generally cite are based on all round battle casualties, not just front line combat. Whether the proportional amount of front line casualties should lean to more wounded i can't say. The other issue to keep in mind is our behavior in playing CM is far different than actual combat so the casualty levels we see are never going to be reflective of real life. I have given up on thinking I will ever know the answer and have just gotten used to writing more virtual letters.

[A Canadian Cat]

Well, I have nothing to add to the unrealistic casualties comment but I will say this: with the older patch level you could rush an MG nest with a platoon of infantry and take it out with some casualties but still have an effective platoon afterwards. After the patch if you try to do the same thing you will only succeed about half the time and even when you do your platoon will be spent.

To me it seems to be much better now. Tactically speaking it net seem right to me that the correct course of action to deal with an enemy MG was to just rush it.

[Baneman]

Yes, that's what I was thinking since CMBN: 2.0 Upgrade ( that I have ) shows the Small Arms increased effectiveness in the v2.01 patch description, and probably didn't get back ported to 1.10 or 1.11

You keep using this word "Small Arms" - as far as I know, the only change was to deployed MG's which are "Heavy Weapons".

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yes. Finally. On a per-bullet basis only machine guns are more lethal.

The only changes made to small arms was that they have a somewhat higher rate of fire at short range, and are better at targeting soft-skinned vehicles. Oh, and they do cause more suppression.

[womble]

When I'm winning, I quite often get casualty figures for my troops that roughly match, at least in proportion of KIA:WIA the "historical" figures. The magnitude of those casualties might not match some interpretations of WW2 operation casualties for many reasons, including those alluded to above.

The loser's casualty rates, though, are pretty much always skewed towards more dead than wounded. In part this could be because the loser often has less time to render Buddy Aid, thus many "Red base casualties" convert to KIAs at the end. Mostly, though, I think it's down to the behaviour of "broken", routing, retreating troops. Even the ones that don't dance backwards and forwards across open ground in front of the merciless guns of my TacAI tend to keep turning round and forcing me to kill them. And if the VL is anywhere near the opposition's "Friendly edge", any that do decide to make a good break for it can be found there and need slaughtering before I get to "Occupy". Edit: and those "mopping up" casualties are usually "Bullet casualties" which are, in my estimation, more often kills than shrapnel ones are, from what I see of how my pTruppen suffer.

[Macisle]

Casualty rates will never be realistic because players of a game are giving orders to pixel troops. You can easily achieve realistic casualty rates in the game right now. Just do this:

1. Use all green troops.

2. If a squad takes more than 3 casualties, pull them out of action.

3. If too many of your squads are taken out of action, call for a heavy artillery barrage and company of tanks (aka, quit the scenario).

Now, ain't "realistic casualty rates" fun!

[RockinHarry]

IMHO small arms lethality in 2.12 is quite in order now, but the TAC AI driven ptroopers behavior is still less so. Too much bunching up of ptroopers within an action spot, micro path finding issues that constantly keep them stepping on each others boots, so they stay longer exposed to fire than necessary, fully exposed reloading of weapons and suicidal buddy aiding, at least to me is more of a problem in X2 than anything else.

With regard to plain infantry, setting up an AI player to advance or even attack is plain frustrating, as there appears to be no logic for movements between zones at all. Units criss cross each others paths for no obvious reasons, completely ignoring any means of maintaining sorts of a "formation" (line, wedge, ect.). Things get worse, the more splittable components an infantry squad has, with having 3 beeing the worst. From my latest experiments, the only thing I see for the AI is randomness and no human like commanding of sub units at all. Well, it´s no news, so I stop here.

The addition of triggers for AI plans IMO will improve little, unless the low level issues remain unsolved. Unfortunately.

[H1nd]

One thing to consider that is not always obvious when talking about small arms lethality in cm is that the map and the terrain in particular has a huge effect on how the player should/can use his forces and spotty broken and difficult los conditions tend to tone down the casualities unless the advancing player is careless. The more detail the scenario/map maker puts into any particular map the more improved the infantry survival is. We can see significant difference between early cmx2 maps and those made by best map designers today. There simpy is much more micro details that are often very important for infantry survival! Just my five cents but something that is not always noted in these discussions.

[Childress]

The loser's casualty rates, though, are pretty much always skewed towards more dead than wounded.

Right. In an actual battle the W/K ratio tends to hover around 3:1 or higher. Posters have advanced several rationales for the discrepancy:

* Aggressive players

* BF over-modeled small arms ballistics.

* The Wounded tally excludes very minor stuff. Their numbers were significant. (JonS)

* Troops are rendered too resilient in the interests of game play. They should be cowering more and exposing themselves less. (viz CMBB)

* Not enough surrendering. Currently you get 1,2 or 3 throwing in the towel. Not entire squads and platoons as actually happened (viz Primosole Bridge) That's realistic but fiendishly difficult to code.

Personally I favor the simple summation of 'casualties' on the end screen. Or BF applies a plausible statistical breakdown based on that figure, favoring the side that holds the ground. The precise K/W result wouldn't be sorted out until several days or weeks or months later anyway.

[womble]

On the whole, though, I favour Prince Humperdinck's priorities: "The loser...is not important." While things could be done to improve the "survivability" of losing, especially on the defense, most of the time they'd have little impact on the actual outcome, or even the progression of a campaign.

[LukeFF]

You keep using this word "Small Arms" - as far as I know, the only change was to deployed MG's which are "Heavy Weapons".

All machine guns - deployed or not - were affected.