A command I would like to see: target carefully

[womble]

It's like players are deliberately kept in the dark. I suspect disguising inaccurate modeling.

Yeah, right, because nobody ever published a manual with omissions, errors and pre-coding hopes that got twisted in the development process, just because they'd got better things to do than make every detail right.

Not condoning a manual with some basic errors in it that have been reported more than once, just saying that you should never attribute to malice what can be attributed to neglect.

[Holman]

I wish my tank hunters didn't fire off both PAnzerfausts at one tank straight after each other..instead of waiting to see if the first one had done the business. A few time snow I've seen much needed anti tank rounds getting wasted on dying tanks.

If I were staring down a possibly-intact enemy tank with a pzfaust in my hand, I wouldn't wait either.

[Wodin]

Yeah but when they can see several more monsters and they have only one round left you'd think they'd just give it a moment or two before firing off the second in case they can fire it at another target.

If I were staring down a possibly-intact enemy tank with a pzfaust in my hand, I wouldn't wait either.

[Erwin]

Re the manual. Um yeees... it['s been how many years and how many iterations of the manual? And we're still arguing in these forums over very, very basic info on how the game works (eg: radios, C2, what command effect does an XO exert when it takes over from a CO etc etc.) all the things that would help one to be a better player. Methinks sometimes that everything has a randomizer and that's how the uncertainty in the game is achieved.

I really enjoy the game, so if that's the case, it's not a problem for me. I love the verisimilitude or "appearance of reality" as opposed to anything actually being like RL. Design for effect rules in the best games imo. But, it would be nice to know enuff to be able to play the game better.

BTW: You used the word "malice:, I didn't. Plz don't put your inflammatory words in my mouth. Isn't that trolling??

[LukeFF]

BTW: You used the word "malice:, I didn't. Plz don't put your inflammatory words in my mouth. Isn't that trolling??

You're the one that's borderline trolling when you say things like "Sadly, very true... It's like players are deliberately kept in the dark. I suspect disguising inaccurate modeling. But, if you like the game, who cares?"

Oh, and while we're at it, quit speaking in text message. "b4," "enuff," and "plz" aren't found in any dictionary I've ever consulted.

[LukeFF]

Yeah, right, because nobody ever published a manual with omissions, errors and pre-coding hopes that got twisted in the development process, just because they'd got better things to do than make every detail right.

Not condoning a manual with some basic errors in it that have been reported more than once, just saying that you should never attribute to malice what can be attributed to neglect.

Exactly. I'm in charge of the manual for Rise of Flight, and I can't count the number of times I've found a mistake after the latest revision has gone live. It happens.

[c3k]

Mistaken manuals or not, english as native tongue or not, and chips on shoulders or not, I stand by my understanding of Target Light as being the one true understanding.

However, since there have been errors in the manual in the past, I will test the ammo use of various squads under the various orders at various ranges. I do this for various reasons.

Ken

(The comment about neglect and malice did not put words in anyone's mouth, for what that's worth. It is a saying that means that you should not jump to conclusions about the intent of others' mistakes. Often they are just due to oversight, not a desire to mislead.)

[Holman]

I just did a short unscientific test with some rifle squads and MG teams firing "Target" and "Target Light." Ammo usage for the latter was lower, but not by much: a German rifle squad used up its MG34 ammo in about six minutes with "Target" and about eight minutes with "Target Light."

However, "Target Light" definitely works for tanks (to prevent main gun use) and mortars (significantly lowering rate of fire). That's the only use I've ever had for it in the game anyway.

[Melchior]

Yep, that was me.

snip image

While I find those sight pictures a chuckle too, I have a hunch that no one who designed the weapons actually intended for men to use them to fire at specific targets beyond around 400m or so. Remember that the lessons of the musket age had already de-emphasized personal marksmanship and emphasized unit-wide massed fire. We aren't talking about an officer barking "shoot that man 2km away none of you can even see" as much as "shoot that berm/hilltop/building 2km away".

Problem was around the same time the modern machine gun was invented, and it could do the above job much better than any other weapon. Few in the 1890s had any inkling of just what kind of effect on war Hiram Maxim's weapon would have.

[Skwabie]

And just because the manual says it, doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Haven't checked whether it still has the error about the triangle and sphere markers for waypoints. That was in BN and, IIRC, FI.

Hmmm what is the difference? Never knew about that! Or should I just RTFM?...

[Erwin]

Luke. Glad you have understand the process of writing manuals (as I also do).

So, in your professional experience, how many iterations of a (say Rise of Flight) manual does it usually take before an error or omission that was present in the first edition is still there 5+(?) editions later after many, many people over 5+? years have asked about and pointed out that exact same issue?

Please don't get me wrong. I love playing CM2 and encourage anyone with interest in WW2 to buy every CM2 title. And I think CMRT is the best one so far. (And I do understand that writing manuals is hard.)

But, after being in rehab for several years (much better now thank you) when I could spend 8-12 hours/day(!) playing CM2, I am frustrated that, even with that level of commitment (we're talking man-years of playing), I still don't understand how lots of things work in CM2, or why... there is a lot of basic information still missing from the manuals that makes it very hard, maybe impossible, to become a better player.

I think the CMRT manual is the best one so far, as it helps new players much more than any previous manual. But, as I said before, these forums are full of the same questions we've been reading for YEARS about how does this or that work that apparently nobody has an explicit straightforward answer for (as opposed to the vague opinionated "this what I think it does").

As someone who has also been a professional manual writer, I admire your tolerance for that sort of thing. (Admittedly I probably have OCD - but that generally is the mark of people doing precise/exacting work like manual writing hehe.)

Plz feel free to call me if you ever need help with ROF manual.

[AlexUK]

I just did a short unscientific test with some rifle squads and MG teams firing "Target" and "Target Light." Ammo usage for the latter was lower, but not by much: a German rifle squad used up its MG34 ammo in about six minutes with "Target" and about eight minutes with "Target Light."

However, "Target Light" definitely works for tanks (to prevent main gun use) and mortars (significantly lowering rate of fire). That's the only use I've ever had for it in the game anyway.

I often use it when providing close in suppressive fire (e.g. just before assaulting a building) as then the squads don't throw grenades/use rifle grenades (which can hurt your own troops). It is also a way to stop squads firing bazooka rounds when you don't want them to.

[LukeFF]

Luke. Glad you have understand the process of writing manuals (as I also do).

So, in your professional experience, how many iterations of a (say Rise of Flight) manual does it usually take before an error or omission that was present in the first edition is still there 5+(?) editions later after many, many people over 5+? years have asked about and pointed out that exact same issue?

It depends (I know, I know, it's the MBA side of me coming out ). Sometimes I keep something in the manual that's not quite clear because it hasn't been made quite clear to me by the developers, either (and I can ring those guys up on Skype any time). I figure that, in the absence of more clear information from the guys coding the game, if the information isn't deliberately misleading, then it's not going to hurt the player to experiment a bit and see if the text in question is accurate or not. If something comes up as being inaccurate or outdated, then I put it on the punchlist to be corrected in the next manual.

Fortunately, the code base for Rise of Flight is pretty stable/unchanging right now, so most of the current work I do is making sure typos & minor errors are taken care of and ensuring that all aircraft available in the game are actually described in the manual. Or, if the team wants something new added, then I make sure it's formatted properly and inserted into all translations of the text.

Please don't get me wrong. I love playing CM2 and encourage anyone with interest in WW2 to buy every CM2 title. And I think CMRT is the best one so far. (And I do understand that writing manuals is hard.)

As someone who has also been a professional manual writer, I admire your tolerance for that sort of thing. (Admittedly I probably have OCD - but that generally is the mark of people doing precise/exacting work like manual writing hehe.)

It probably is due to mild OCD that I put up with doing this sort of thing, but I've always enjoyed writing, and the compensation I get from the publisher is a good excuse to upgrade my computer hardware. That, and now I can tell people to RTFM...that I wrote.

Oh, and apologies if I came across as too strong up above. Sometimes I forget that emotion and subtlety aren't always easily conveyed on a digital message board.

[satan]

Target Carefully? I'd have a command called "Fukem all" so they target anything that moves?