Spotting ability of tanks

[Egger]

I just saw two bugs in the game about tanks:

- They have too much vision when they are buttoned (sides and rear).

- Sometimes, when the tank has a clear objective, could't see it.

P.S: It would be nice if demo charges could destroy bridges

Cheers

[Michael Emrys]

P.S: It would be nice if demo charges could destroy bridges

Problem with that is that it took engineers quite a bit of time to prepare a bridge for demolition, longer than one generally has in a CM battle. Might be nice to have some scenarios begin with bridges already wired to blow, but since that would be a feature that would only be rarely used, I wouldn't expect it to be high on BFC's priority list.

Michael

PS: This thread should have been started in the main RT forum.

[Battlefront.com]

These are common topics with probably hundreds of posts about each. Maybe even thousands Short answers:

1. Spotting is probably overly generous in some situations, but it is in balance with the rest of the game more than not.

2. Bridge demolition within CM's timeframe and scale is almost zero in real life. No need to dedicate precious development resources to something that really isn't appropriate for tactical warfare.

Steve

[womble]

And if you want a bridge wired to blow, just set a time by which the attacker has to capture the bridge or some "demo bunker". The bridge going up is the whole point of the scenario in that case, so having the scenario end "when the bridge [notionally] goes boom" makes complete sense.

[Oddball_E8]

I have destroyed bridges with sustained heavy artillery

[womble]

I have destroyed bridges with sustained heavy artillery

And tank cookoffs do a splendid job, too. If you're doing a bridge demolition scenario, you paradoxically need to make the bridge a "preserve" objective for the defending player, to stop them dropping the thing with HE. Perhaps not such a problem with the monster bridges

[MikeyD]

I recall back when we were testing a campaign scenario for CMFI (I think) the initial artillery bombardment wiped out both bridges on the map making it impossible to move your armor out of the setup zone. Needless to say, you never saw that version of the scenario.

[Michael Emrys]

And if you want a bridge wired to blow, just set a time by which the attacker has to capture the bridge or some "demo bunker". The bridge going up is the whole point of the scenario in that case, so having the scenario end "when the bridge [notionally] goes boom" makes complete sense.

I foresee a problem with that in that bridges weren't always blown by the clock, but when it looked as if they were about to be captured. So, to be true to that, there needs to be some mechanism by which the defending player can blow or not blow on any given turn.

Michael

[JoMac]

I just saw two bugs in the game about tanks:

- They have too much vision when they are buttoned (sides and rear).

- Sometimes, when the tank has a clear objective, could't see it.

P.S: It would be nice if demo charges could destroy bridges

Cheers

Ahhh, you've also noticed the CM:Modern attributes that's been carried over into CM:WWII...Sigh.

[ASL Veteran]

I foresee a problem with that in that bridges weren't always blown by the clock, but when it looked as if they were about to be captured. So, to be true to that, there needs to be some mechanism by which the defending player can blow or not blow on any given turn.

Michael

You aren't accounting for something. If the defender can blow the bridge at any moment then you can be 100% certain that the attacker will never capture the bridge. There is no scenario there. Think about it .....

[sburke]

And tank cookoffs do a splendid job, too. If you're doing a bridge demolition scenario, you paradoxically need to make the bridge a "preserve" objective for the defending player, to stop them dropping the thing with HE. Perhaps not such a problem with the monster bridges

I just dropped a bridge in Studienka after brewing up 3 T34s on it. Only problem is I need to cross the dang river!

[c3k]

Give the defender more points the longer it is whole.

[womble]

I foresee a problem with that in that bridges weren't always blown by the clock, but when it looked as if they were about to be captured. So, to be true to that, there needs to be some mechanism by which the defending player can blow or not blow on any given turn.

Michael

So the attacker is never going to succeed in capturing the bridge. Sounds like a scenario where the game conditions barely mention the bridge at all. The only reason the defender might have for blowing the bridge later than T+00:00:01 would be if units needed to cross it (to "exit" maybe, or just to get away from being destroyed by the attacker), which makes the game about the escaping units, not the bridge, which is a foregone conclusion.

[womble]

Give the defender more points the longer it is whole.

Time-dependent VCs would be an interesting development for scenario design. Variable VPs for VLs depending on when they became "contested" maybe, or, as you say, aggregating VPs per turn a "Preserve" objective is intact.

[Michael Emrys]

You aren't accounting for something. If the defender can blow the bridge at any moment then you can be 100% certain that the attacker will never capture the bridge. There is no scenario there. Think about it .....

You would address that by giving the defender incentives not to blow the bridge. He gains points by preserving it and loses points if he decides to blow it. Thus he would only blow it if leaving it up would enable the attacker to score even more points if it were left up. This may be more complicated than designers and players want to deal with, but it would at least have the virtue of mirroring more or less the situation that real life commanders were faced with.

Added: I think c3k has a good idea.

Michael

[ASL Veteran]

You would address that by giving the defender incentives not to blow the bridge. He gains points by preserving it and loses points if he decides to blow it. Thus he would only blow it if leaving it up would enable the attacker to score even more points if it were left up. This may be more complicated than designers and players want to deal with, but it would at least have the virtue of mirroring more or less the situation that real life commanders were faced with.

Added: I think c3k has a good idea.

Michael

That won't work either because of the way scenario victory conditions need to be structured. You have various victory levels for each side and you have a draw. If the attacker has any victory locations that they need to capture on the other side of the water obstacle then you can be 100% certain that the attacker will never capture them and gain those points because the defender is certain to blow the bridge before the attacker captures it.

If the attacker doesn't have any objectives to capture on the other side of the bridge then there isn't very much incentive for the attacker to capture the bridge in the first place. It may be possible to have defender only terrain objectives on the other side of the bridge that the attacker may want to deny to the defender, but if any attacker terrain objectives are set on the other side of the bridge then those points are automatically lost to the attacker.

If the attacker can gain some victory level without crossing the bridge then he doesn't need to cross the bridge to win and the bridge is now irrelevant. If the attacker can't gain a victory without crossing the bridge then the attacker is guaranteed to lose because the bridge will always be blown. If the attacker can gain a draw without crossing the bridge then that will always be your end result. Whatever victory level the game allows for without the attacker crossing the bridge will always be your end result.

Timed victory points tied to a bridge might alter the calculation slightly, but ultimately what I said above still holds true. Whatever victory level is achievable without the attacker crossing the bridge will always be your end result. Like I said, there is no scenario there because there is no uncertainty about the bridge being blown.

[sburke]

I could see a possible scenario where the defender has an exit point total to make but also needs to prevent the attacker from achieving objectives on their side of the bridge. They then have to balance how closely they have achieved their exit VPs versus the threat of the attacker crossing the bridge. Unfortunately I expect getting the victory conditions to work for that would be really tricky and second I can't for the life of me think of an actual real world battle where this really fits historically - not that we always have to have a historical basis for a scenario. Just seems to be a subject that comes up more often than a real life counterpart ever did.

[ASL Veteran]

I could see a possible scenario where the defender has an exit point total to make but also needs to prevent the attacker from achieving objectives on their side of the bridge. They then have to balance how closely they have achieved their exit VPs versus the threat of the attacker crossing the bridge. Unfortunately I expect getting the victory conditions to work for that would be really tricky and second I can't for the life of me think of an actual real world battle where this really fits historically - not that we always have to have a historical basis for a scenario. Just seems to be a subject that comes up more often than a real life counterpart ever did.

The problem, as I see it, is two fold.

1. Players just want to see the bridge explode because it would be 'cool'.

2. Players aren't accounting for the fact that the uncertainty of battle is not present when they are playing a scenario.

The way bridges were captured 'in reality' is because of either surprise or confusion on the part of the defenders. Neither of those conditions apply to a scenario that is played in this game. It is not possible for the player assigned the task of defending the bridge to be 'surprised' by the sudden arrival of the attacking force. That impossibility is baked into the scenario itself due to the fact that the scenario has been created in the first place.

There is also no possibility of confusion amongst the bridge defenders to result in the orders to blow the bridge not getting transmitted clearly to the troops who need to actually detonate the explosives. The fact that the player performs the roles of all troops on the map simultaneously precludes that sort of command confusion from ever occuring. The player will always be able to activate the command to detonate the explosives because the player will always be able to order his truppen to do so. There is no possibility that the runner will get lost or that the command will not be understood.

Finally, there is no strategic or operational reason for the defender to leave the bridge standing. The entire universe for the scenario exists within the confines of the scenario itself. While it is possible to enforce some recognition of the overall operational situation through the use of total scenario time, there is nothing beyond the confines of the actual scenario map that precludes the defender from blowing the bridge at the first opportunity.

This leaves you with some very limited scenario possibilities that might be interesting as a one time deal, but the utility of expending the resources to make that happen would seem to be better directed elsewhere.

[sburke]

This leaves you with some very limited scenario possibilities that might be interesting as a one time deal, but the utility of expending the resources to make that happen would seem to be better directed elsewhere.

Absolutely agree. Was trying to be constructive to find some condition where the defender would have a reason to resist blowing the bridge and fight to defend it (allowing units that need to exit that have to cross the bridge), but honestly I think the utility of being able to blow a bridge in scenario design is extremely limited as well as being ahistorical. Just my particular opinion. Now being able to have a booby trap to blow a building when the attacker enters is a whole other issue! That I would love to see in CM.

[womble]

...being able to have a booby trap to blow a building when the attacker enters is a whole other issue! That I would love to see in CM.

Mmmm. Mines in urban terrain... And properly fortified houses...