More Bulge Info! (and a few screenshots...)

[Warts 'n' all]

Baneman has a very valid point. It can be frustrating. Do you dismount the driver and have him check that he is not driving into danger first, or do you just get him to put his foot down and hope for the best?

[Pak40]

Unfortunately, the game doesn't work without it. You need the Target tool to be available at future waypoints so you can give orders for a minute. To be able to give an element "Move over there and fire" (necessary for so many situations) requires that the Target tool be used at a distant waypoint to initiate the fire order, and that in turn means the Target tool has to report (as far as the limitations of the LOS mechanic that apply to the situation allow) accurately.

 

The game completely works without it. I know this because I NEVER have used this feature to target a particular unit from a waypoint. I simply let the TacAI use it's brains (and it generally does a good job) and decide what to fire on if it encounters enemies at particular waypoints. I have played the full gambit of campaigns and lots of scenarios (mostly successfully) without ever having used this tool. The only thing I have done for waypoint commands is to give units facings or fire arcs.

 

 

It's also a "necessary evil" to allow your squad leaders to have any capacity for terrain appreciation: think of it as "What will my SL see when he gets there?" Note that the camera is even more approximate than the LOS tool, since it doesn't get down to footslogger eye level, has to be pushed through obscuring vegetation that the unit will be able to see through when it's adjacent, and is operating at a significantly reduced resolution compared to the actual Mark One Eyeball it's simulating.

 

I don't agree that it's necessary at all. The camera, although even more approximate, is sufficient in giving a more realistic amount of information to the player. Because, IRL, a squad leader wont know what can or can't be seen until he reaches the top of that hill. At best the squad leaded would have an educated guess; in most cases he wont have a clue at all.

 

People often complain that fog of war of the terrain in Combat Mission is one of it's weaknesses. i.e., both sides know the exact map geography from the beginning of the battle. Tools such as LOS from waypoints, which as you've said, is more accurate than camera eyeballing, makes the fog of war even weaker.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Pak40

[MikeyD]

'LOS tool' is a considerably more difficult concept than it sounds in a game of CM's complexity. Take your typical tank. An unbutton commander has a different LOS than a buttoned commander and neither may match the LOF down the gun barrel (especially true with StuGs). The driver has another LOS.  A prone infantryman has a different LOS than a walking infantryman, who had a different LOS than a kneeling infantryman. A hmg team - the gunner will have a different LOS than the loader to his left or the ammo bearer to his right. And a semi-deployed MG42 lying prone has a different LOS than the same MG up on its tripod. A skilled player is like a skilled tank commander, he relies on his experience to estimate the chance of a new location having the LOS he wants.

Edited April 22, 2015 by MikeyD

[WriterJWA]

People often complain that fog of war of the terrain in Combat Mission is one of it's weaknesses. i.e., both sides know the exact map geography from the beginning of the battle. Tools such as LOS from waypoints, which as you've said, is more accurate than camera eyeballing, makes the fog of war even weaker.

 

I'm afraid I'm going to need Combat Mission to be a game where the player camera is literally locked in at the highest headquarters unit, and I have to rely on radios, runners, voice commands to control my troops (so basically 90 percent radio), with an realistic orders delay, and a representation of a WWII-era map that shows the sketchy-at-best locations of friendly and identified enemy. I'll need to rely on my junior officers and NCO's to carry out my orders! Also... I'll need to do the math on my own indirect missions, including all adjustments. If my radioman is killed, I lose that asset unless I'm near another unit with an accessible radio. If the headquarters unit is destroyed for whatever reason, then I'll just drop down to the next highest level.

Edited April 22, 2015 by WriterJWA

[Pak40]

I'm afraid I'm going to need Combat Mission to be a game where the player camera is literally locked in at the highest headquarters unit, and I have to rely on radios, runners, voice commands to control my troops (so basically 90 percent radio), with an realistic orders delay, and a representation of a WWII-era map that shows the sketchy-at-best locations of friendly and identified enemy. I'll need to rely on my junior officers and NCO's to carry out my orders! Also... I'll need to do the math on my own indirect missions, including all adjustments. If my radioman is killed, I lose that asset unless I'm near another unit with an accessible radio. If the headquarters unit is destroyed for whatever reason, then I'll just drop down to the next highest level.

 

While I do appreciate the humor of your satire, I never said I thought the game needed to be 100% realistic micromanage nightmare. I'm just saying that it's not needed and actually makes the game more unrealistic than if they didn't have it.

 

A couple of counter points to what you said above:

 

I'm afraid I'm going to need Combat Mission to be a game where the player camera is literally locked in at the highest headquarters unit, and I have to rely on radios, runners, voice commands to control my troops

 

I've never viewed Combat Mission to as a game where the players assume the role of the highest HQ unit. Players instead assume the role of every HQ and squad/team leader on the board. Each individual unit in real life had the ability to make decisions on their own without the need of their HQ unit to micromanage every minute detail. Combat Mission simulates this by allowing you to control every unit and see what they see.

[womble]

The game completely works without it. I know this because I NEVER have used this feature to target a particular unit from a waypoint. I simply let the TacAI use it's brains (and it generally does a good job) and decide what to fire on if it encounters enemies at particular waypoints. I have played the full gambit of campaigns and lots of scenarios (mostly successfully) without ever having used this tool. The only thing I have done for waypoint commands is to give units facings or fire arcs.

So you've never used suppressive (Area Target) fire from bounding overwatch teams while they're waiting for their partner team to catch up? I didn't say it has to be "a particular unit"; it mostly isn't or can't be because the unit can't see the spotted unit until it moves to the waypoint. You've never used "shoot and scoot" on an area?

[WriterJWA]

While I do appreciate the humor of your satire, I never said I thought the game needed to be 100% realistic micromanage nightmare. I'm just saying that it's not needed and actually makes the game more unrealistic than if they didn't have it.

 

A couple of counter points to what you said above:

 

I've never viewed Combat Mission to as a game where the players assume the role of the highest HQ unit. Players instead assume the role of every HQ and squad/team leader on the board. Each individual unit in real life had the ability to make decisions on their own without the need of their HQ unit to micromanage every minute detail. Combat Mission simulates this by allowing you to control every unit and see what they see.

I was just being farcical. To be honest though... I'd like to try a WWII game like that. There's a Civil War game that kinda' does that. For World War II there is Command Ops, which has a great operational-level AI that allows for realistic orders delegation.

[Pak40]

So you've never used suppressive (Area Target) fire from bounding overwatch teams while they're waiting for their partner team to catch up? I didn't say it has to be "a particular unit"; it mostly isn't or can't be because the unit can't see the spotted unit until it moves to the waypoint. You've never used "shoot and scoot" on an area?

 

I'm talking about using targeting orders from a way point. I've never used that. If I'm using a bounding tactic then I set target commands before the team moves. 

 

I've used area fire many times but only from what the unit can see at the present, not the future. 

[womble]

I'm talking about using targeting orders from a way point. I've never used that. If I'm using a bounding tactic then I set target commands before the team moves. 

 

I've used area fire many times but only from what the unit can see at the present, not the future. 

What if the moving team is entering a place where it would be perfectly reasonable for them to be firing ahead, but they can't see the area they want to fire at until later in their movement? Crossing a field which rises in the middle, for example? Or a team moving out of cover to assault a building, where they want to hose down their objective, before spotting the defenders (because if they wait for the defenders to pop up  from suppression, they'll get chopped up)? There are a thousand situations where it's entirely reasonable and 100% simulationist to plot target orders from future waypoints because there's a minute between order phases. Pop-out attacks by tanks can't be done without the function. Okay, "doesn't work" was hyperbolic, but "becomes more incomplete as a simulation" remains the case.

[Nidan1]

akd,

 

If I had the requisite neural circuits online, rest assured I would play. Presently, it takes a great deal more specialized brain processes and level of concentration than I have. Also, am so run down it takes little to overload my ability to correctly take in and effectively use visual information. You have no idea how fortunate you are to simply be able to sit down and play. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

John, I'm sorry to hear that you have issues that so severely restrict your ability to navigate through the game.

 

How is it though, that you can pull off numerous links from the internet containing videos and written information when you want to make some point or provide others with arcane information.

 

It puzzles me, having read your posts for years now, I can deduce that you are an intelligent man, but you try very hard to come off otherwise based on some nerve condition that you claim to have. I don't get it. 

[Pak40]

What if the moving team is entering a place where it would be perfectly reasonable for them to be firing ahead, but they can't see the area they want to fire at until later in their movement? Crossing a field which rises in the middle, for example? Or a team moving out of cover to assault a building, where they want to hose down their objective, before spotting the defenders (because if they wait for the defenders to pop up  from suppression, they'll get chopped up)? There are a thousand situations where it's entirely reasonable and 100% simulationist to plot target orders from future waypoints because there's a minute between order phases. Pop-out attacks by tanks can't be done without the function. Okay, "doesn't work" was hyperbolic, but "becomes more incomplete as a simulation" remains the case.

 

Yea, I see your point that it must remain in the game for these things to work. However, I never use this tactic with area fire. I've learned that the TacAI knows best in these situations and will fire on the biggest threat. Let's take your example of a unit crossing a field with a rise in the middle: If you preset an area target from a waypoint at the crest of a hill on a known enemy location, let's call this UNIT X, then they will not be able to switch their fire to a possible greater threat. If UNIT X turns out to be a couple of rifle men but a greater threat such as an MG42 is located on the other side of that crest, then I want my team to try to suppress that MG42.

 

You example of a tank using a pop-out attack is valid (for me) but only if the tank has seen the intended target spot previously or is in C2 with a unit that in theory could tell the tank to target the intended location. I often give tanks those pop-out commands, however, I never specify a target but sometimes set a covered arc in a particular direction.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Pak40

[Pak40]

 There are a thousand situations where it's entirely reasonable and 100% simulationist to plot target orders from future waypoints because there's a minute between order phases.

 

After thinking about this a bit more, I suppose you're right. A platoon leader can, for example, tell his squads to "advance to that hedgerow over there and fire on the house beyond it". The house would have to be known to be there by either the PL or a scout that has previously spotted the it.

 

I think my whole problem with the LOS from a waypoint feature is that many people on this forum have said that they use the tool specifically for determine LOS from a spot that none of their units have visited yet, i.e. "If I move my tank to the top of this hill can I target this house". In reality, the tank would have to move there or a scout sent to recon from there, exposing them to visibility and danger. In Combat Mission all one needs to do is use the LOS from waypoint to determine this, therefore "changing history" or changing how battles truly were fought. In essence it changes how we play the game. If it's PvP game then both sides have the same advantage but in a PvAI battle it's one more advantage we humans have over the AI.

[womble]

I'm glad you see my point of view ( ) Pak40. While I get what you're saying, too about it being somewhat of a stretch for a tank to burst into a new FoV and spontaneously target a given 8m stretch of hegerow (or bell tower, or whatever) that it couldn't previously have seen, or necessarily have been expecting to see, I also consider that sort of "speculative" area fire as the tank's crew reacting to what it can (now) see: "That bell tower looks like a good OP. Bound to be some [insert derogatory term for the enemy] skulking up there! Gunner, give it some HE! Driver, engage reverse, ready to leave on my command," type of thing.

 

In practical terms, the setting of area targets when encountering new vistas can, as you say, result in lack of responsiveness to spotted targets, but that can be mitigated by giving "Target Briefly" orders, and by having short Hunt legs in the advance, with a Face order to cancel any prior Target orders: if the advancing elements spot a target, even if they don't switch to the new spot on their own initiative (which happens fairly regularly, especially with tanks spotting an armour threat), they'll keep advancing (and Pausing) until they hit a "Hunt" leg, at which point they'll stop, and having had their target area order cancelled, engage the spotted targets. A lot of the time, I tend not to worry about not switching out of Area mode, though, because I try and arrange it so that the combined fire of whatever I'm throwing in that direction is going to keep all the enemy down until the Assault teams (who won't have Area targets) get eyes on 'em from 16m away.

 

And if you know that arbitrary stretch of hedgerow warrants the tank's attention, and you've got good C3 links, it's probably got a "?" on it anyway, so the tank knows there's "something" there.

[womble]

 

 

I think my whole problem with the LOS from a waypoint feature is that many people on this forum have said that they use the tool specifically for determine LOS from a spot that none of their units have visited yet, i.e. "If I move my tank to the top of this hill can I target this house". In reality, the tank would have to move there or a scout sent to recon from there, exposing them to visibility and danger. In Combat Mission all one needs to do is use the LOS from waypoint to determine this, therefore "changing history" or changing how battles truly were fought. In essence it changes how we play the game. If it's PvP game then both sides have the same advantage but in a PvAI battle it's one more advantage we humans have over the AI.

Yes, it's definitely an advantage over the AI. But we have so many advantages already, it's hardly going to make the difference between a win and a loss, except in a really tightly timed game, where having to do a bit of trial-and-error to find your firing spots might eat time the designer hasn't given you. I certainly agree that it isn't perfect; it's something of a necessary evil.

[Pak40]

Yes, it's definitely an advantage over the AI. But we have so many advantages already, it's hardly going to make the difference between a win and a loss, except in a really tightly timed game, where having to do a bit of trial-and-error to find your firing spots might eat time the designer hasn't given you. I certainly agree that it isn't perfect; it's something of a necessary evil.

 

In a related topic, just having the ability to area fire while the enemy AI does not, is a HUGE advantage IMO. It's too bad they have not programmed this into TacAI of the enemy. If the game is true relative spotting for both sides ( with the ? icon for formerly seen enemy), then I don't see why they can't program the enemy to fire at these ? icons from time to time, especially if the ? icon is a recent sighting. My guess is that it has something to do with the Action Squares screwing up the whole process because the TacAI can't see the AS where the ? is located.

[womble]

In a related topic, just having the ability to area fire while the enemy AI does not, is a HUGE advantage IMO. It's too bad they have not programmed this into TacAI of the enemy. If the game is true relative spotting for both sides ( with the ? icon for formerly seen enemy), then I don't see why they can't program the enemy to fire at these ? icons from time to time, especially if the ? icon is a recent sighting. My guess is that it has something to do with the Action Squares screwing up the whole process because the TacAI can't see the AS where the ? is located.

Yeah, it's a big advantage. The problem with getting the AI to do it might well be related to its lack of memory. It can't know which "?" is recent, and which is just the trail left by a sound contact moving behind some concealment that they never actually saw. Setting it so the AI uses area fire "judiciously" is going to be a desperately difficult task, and I'm not surprised (though in a perfect world, I'd be disappointed) it's not been solved yet. Maybe when the game starts using multiple cores, and two or three of them are assigned to AI numbercrunching, and it only runs on 64bit OS with plenty of memory so the AI can have a bit of it...

 

I don't think it's to do with the AI not being able to see the AS where the "?" is, because, while that may be true some of the time, I don't think it will be true all of the time, by any means.

[Bil Hardenberger]

I think my whole problem with the LOS from a waypoint feature is that many people on this forum have said that they use the tool specifically for determine LOS from a spot that none of their units have visited yet, i.e. "If I move my tank to the top of this hill can I target this house". In reality, the tank would have to move there or a scout sent to recon from there, exposing them to visibility and danger. In Combat Mission all one needs to do is use the LOS from waypoint to determine this, therefore "changing history" or changing how battles truly were fought. In essence it changes how we play the game. If it's PvP game then both sides have the same advantage but in a PvAI battle it's one more advantage we humans have over the AI.

 

 

 

LOS analysis is something that is done in every tactical Intelligence shop in the US Army (and probably every other Army too)... they even have cool tools nowadays that take the guesswork out of it and will give you LOS from one location to another with far more accuracy then you will ever get in CM using the target tool to do this in-game.  Previously this was done by studying topo maps and identifying LOS fans from certain key positions.. IMO, for what that's worth, doing this in CM is not gamey at all but is a simulation of what could be done with a piece of string and a topo map by any trained soldier.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Bil Hardenberger

[Pak40]

Yeah, it's a big advantage. The problem with getting the AI to do it might well be related to its lack of memory. It can't know which "?" is recent, and which is just the trail left by a sound contact moving behind some concealment that they never actually saw.

 

Players are shown which ? are recent by the transparency. I'm not sure why this couldn't be true for the AI. I'm sure it's not done at this time for the memory and processor reasons you say, but in theory they could change that behavior and add the code to fire upon recent sightings. It's currently working for both sides in a multi-player game, so why not add it for the AI?

 

Actually, I do remember reading some posts a while back that the AI does remember targets previously seen. I'm not sure who the source of this information was.

 

 

I don't think it's to do with the AI not being able to see the AS where the "?" is, because, while that may be true some of the time, I don't think it will be true all of the time, by any means.

 

Yea, but it may be one of their reasons why not to include it. Probably a coding nightmare.

[Pak40]

 Previously this was done by studying topo maps and identifying LOS fans from certain key positions.. IMO, for what that's worth, doing this in CM is not gamey at all but is a simulation of what could be done with a piece of string and a topo map by any trained soldier.

 

 

In the heat of battle?? I'd like to see the soldier who can build a 3D model accurately on the battlefield. It's hard enough to do it using mashed potatoes at dinner time

[Bil Hardenberger]

In the heat of battle?? I'd like to see the soldier who can build a 3D model accurately on the battlefield. It's hard enough to do it using mashed potatoes at dinner time

 

Seriously?  I'm not sure you are worth debating to be honest.  

 

Terrain analysis, which identifies key terrain, fields of fire, potential kill sacks, potential support weapon positions, and danger areas occurs before a battle.  We do not have access to an S2 shop nor do we have overlays for our maps which identifies key terrain, obstacles, etc... so we have to do it in the game while we play.  A little common sense would be nice.

[womble]

Players are shown which ? are recent by the transparency. I'm not sure why this couldn't be true for the AI. I'm sure it's not done at this time for the memory and processor reasons you say, but in theory they could change that behavior and add the code to fire upon recent sightings. It's currently working for both sides in a multi-player game, so why not add it for the AI?

I find that presentation to be, at best, patchy, and at worst downright misleading, and I'm not (quite) as gimped in the head as the AI is   By which I mean I often see "solid-looking" tentative contact symbols in  places that can only have been generated a long, long time ago, in areas which I know I've cleared. I don't know where they come from, but suspect they're an artefact of out-of-date info trickling down the C3 chain.

 

 

Actually, I do remember reading some posts a while back that the AI does remember targets previously seen. I'm not sure who the source of this information was.

From what I remember, it has a very short term memory, and only of things it's actually spotted. Sometimes area firing at the place a "spot" turned into a "?" is a good idea, but writing a rule to tell the AI when it i'n't would be a bear of a problem.

 

Yea, but it may be one of their reasons why not to include it. Probably a coding nightmare.

 

"But it won't be able to act on the concept sometimes" isn't a reason not to include the concept for the times when geometry permits it (as it permits our pTruppen to, or does not, as may be the case).

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

In a perfect world, maybe there could be a way to set behavior at the waypoint at the end of the movement.  So in effect, it'd replicate that intent for what you wanted the team/vehicle to do once it completed the move.  

 

Examples: You could tell a tank to fast move behind a small rise.  At that waypoint you could then set a "fire at" command the TAC AI would then follow and try to get primary weapons LOS on a set node from the end position over the rise.  On the other hand, a "hide from" behavior would have the tank purposefully avoid LOS with a user set node.  A "scout position" node would have the tank do the bare minimum required to get eyes on the node over the top of the rise.

 

It would certainly have moments were it did not work quite right.  But it would better allow us to tell something to go someplace and assume a posture on arrival that suits our intent.  

[sburke]

Seriously? I'm not sure you are worth debating to be honest.

Terrain analysis, which identifies key terrain, fields of fire, potential kill sacks, potential support weapon positions, and danger areas occurs before a battle. We do not have access to an S2 shop nor do we have overlays for our maps which identifies key terrain, obstacles, etc... so we have to do it in the game while we play. A little common sense would be nice.

I think perhaps maybe folks are talking past each other. I agree with the point you are making Bil. A simple command of go up to that point and set up in over watch is something just about anyone could understand. In CM however it isn't that simple as your pixeltruppen will go to point x and won't necessarily have observation of the point you want because the game is premised around digital criteria that may not accomplish what you'd hoped. The only way to validate that you can do what you intend is that LOS tool. Your pixeltruppen are not going to follow the intent of your order only the exact command to go to point x and face in the approximate direction. Beyond that if there is any issue like elevation or obstacles. . . too bad.

I think the best example is them going prone in wheatfields. Sarge, I can't see s**t!

On the other hand I tend not to use the tool that often as the Tac AI is usually pretty good. It is only when looking at the ground and I think it is really questionable whether wysiwyg that I'll take the time to really start checking.

Edited April 23, 2015 by sburke

[Pak40]

Seriously?  I'm not sure you are worth debating to be honest.  

 

Terrain analysis, which identifies key terrain, fields of fire, potential kill sacks, potential support weapon positions, and danger areas occurs before a battle.  We do not have access to an S2 shop nor do we have overlays for our maps which identifies key terrain, obstacles, etc... so we have to do it in the game while we play.  A little common sense would be nice.

 

I think there's a misunderstanding here. You're talking about a game, I'm talking about real life. The discussion between womble and I was partly about the simulation of war as realistically as possible within the constraints of the game. Being able to plot waypoints in the game and then accurately obtain LOS from a waypoint to any potential spot is kind of like having a magic wand that allows you to see where your units have yet to go. If used for that purpose I think it's unrealistic - Modern battlefields have drones and unmanned vehicles to do this but real life units did not have this ablity in WWII. Your comments about building models or using contour maps to pre-plan or judge LOS etc. is perfectly valid, in a planning environment. My reply was that it can't be done while on the battlefield in real life so why should players in Combat Mission get an extra advantage in a game that's trying to be realistic as possible?

Edited April 24, 2015 by Pak40

[sburke]

I think there's a misunderstanding here. You're talking about a game, I'm talking about real life. The discussion between womble and I was partly about the simulation of war as realistically as possible within the constraints of the game. Being able to plot waypoints in the game and then accurately obtain LOS from a waypoint to any potential spot is kind of like having a magic wand that allows you to see where your units have yet to go. If used for that purpose I think it's unrealistic - Modern battlefields have drones and unmanned vehicles to do this but real life units did not have this ablity in WWII. Your comments about building models or using contour maps to pre-plan or judge LOS etc. is perfectly valid, in a planning environment. My reply was that it can't be done while on the battlefield in real life so why should players in Combat Mission get an extra advantage in a game that's trying to be realistic as possible?

I think I can answer that - for the simple reason that your pixeltruppen will not do what soldiers could do in real life.  Re-position to get LOS/LOF for ther intended target.  Because they can't do that you need to check beforehand to see if they will actually be able to do what you want.  Personally I don't do this very often, but I can definitely see the rational.  What I have seen folks do that I won't is actually set up a scenario to test things before the do them in a game.  That is past the line for me.

 

I may have musunderstood your reply though, you may not be referring to CM at all in which case I humbly bow out.  Pardon me I think I saw someone I know.....

Edited April 24, 2015 by sburke