questions re. CM

[M Hofbauer]

I have just recently discovered CM for myself and must say that I find it *very very* interesting to say the least and am very very much looking forward to this game...

Many questions have been answered by the AAR up to #35 (like, if it's possible to order crewmembers to unbutton/button up; or, abandoning heavy weapons for fleeing squads). Still some questions remain and I want to comment on some thoughts I had on the game. I would be cvery grateful for any input (if any of this has been raised before I am sorry but I couldnt sort through the board yet).

#1)

there are mistakes in the abbreviation for german ranks: turn 4: Obergefreiter Jens; Obergefreiter should be abbreviated "OGefr" not "Obg"; likewise (turn 15), the abbreviation for Unteroffizier is "Uffz" not "Unt". If you need any help with german ranks I am happy to assist.

#2) I have seen that SdKfz 251 troops are sitting in the middle of the vehicle facing forward, but in reality they were sitting on the sides facing inward. A much bigger problem (a MAJOR problem IMO) is that mounted infantry in halftracks is *much too easy to spot*. In reality they were fully covered by the side walls and you couldnt tell if the Halftrack carried passengers or not unless you looked down into it from top...

#3)in allied turn 12 -I guess I can say that since it doesn't give anything away- there's a screenshot of a Panzerfaust warhead in flight leaving a trail of smoke. This is incorrect. The whole propellant is burnt in explosion-like fashion (like a recoilless rifle) and the warhead has a clear (=no smoke trail) flight path. Also, the flight path of a Panzerfaust warhead is very ballistic (high arc) which it doesn't seem to have (but I might be wrong here) in the screenshot.

#4) it's just an eyecandy thing (but it definitely adds to the atmosphere of the game): will there be winter camo for tanks and infantry?

#5) will the effects of spaced armor (Schürzen(skirts) on german tanks and sandbagging on some american tanks) be included against hollow-charge weapons? (i.e., Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck, Bazooka, hollow-charge tank rounds)

#6) how effective are bazooka/Panzerschreck projectiles vs infantry??

#7) in turn 14 we see a Panzerschreck shooting from inside a room and you say that this'll be fixed in the game. If after the correction they are unable to shoot from inside houses (there might be a way to do so with big rooms and opposite open windows etc.) is there a way to at least shoot down from the top of houses?

#8) I was just wondering...can vehicles (wheeled&tracked tanks, halftracks) drive over (=destroy by vehicular manslaughter) enemy troops? Fionn used his Pz IV with impunity against the american position right among them near the bridge, earlier we had the Panther and the Puma chase breaking american infantry - in both cases the tank could have simply overrun the soldiers.

#9) can units surrender at long range? can they surrender to tanks alone (i.e., no accepting infantry to take them prisoner nearby)?

#10) I have witnessed the tactical AI deciding to open fire at at inopportune distances/chances, like, several times .30cal machine guns opened fire at long range against german SdKfz251 halftracks. Is there a way to "threshold" the opening of fire to a certain degree of probability of succcess? Like, in this instance, I wouldnt want the machine guners to give their position away for the practically nil chance of damaging the SdKfz.

#11) if shell craters as applied non-3d textures offer preotection "much like a foxhole" (quote from turn 16), it should be possible to have infantry dig foxholes, right? is this feature implemented? are there trenches and foxholes? what about barbed wire? minefields?

#12) I have noticed that sherman crewmembers were referred to as "armed with their pistols only" yet later one is shown with a Thompson...also the captured american machine gun team from early in the game is unarmed after being freed...hence this evokes in me the question if it is possible to scavenge other/dead teams' weapons? only from own teams or also from enemy teams? I guess after the house fighting and the many german losses of the initial american taking of the town it should be filled with MP-40s, MP-44s, Mausers etc. It would be rather unrealistic if the machine gun team just stood there unarmed and didnt take any of the many weapons lying around for self-defense.

#13) I find it unsatisfying that reinforcements arive in the middle of the map in plain view of enemy troops or pop up unexpectedly (examples: the american forces entering the town amidst the germans or later the relief shermans entering in plain view of the StuG) in the open where in reality they would have been seen approaching from far off. Aren't there ways to circumvent these classic problems associated with a wargame's map-universe? (like, creating an AI-controlled, non-enterable but crossfiring environment as a context in which the map is placed). This would also prevent those inherent flaws of wargames that a unit travelling at the border of the map is protected by the map border and only has to face inward threats from inside the map while in reality it would of course also be subject to fire from the other side (oputside the map)

#14) in turn 19 the mortar team retreats rather slowly. is this because they have to carry the heavy equipment (mortar)? if so, is it possible for such units (mortars, machine guns, bazookas) to abandon the heavy stuff and run faster? Also, I think, panicked units that rout away in sheer fear of their lives should not worry about their machine gun being taken along (as the routing US MG team did in turn21), they should simply run for all that their life's are worth - literally - and not think about US official issue equipment. It is mentioned that the last survivor if unable to handle the heavy equipment can leave it behind - I think this option should be possible even earlier. Also, is there a "Paulus"-feature to surrender troops that are facing unbeatable odds (to let them survive by surrendering instead of letting them die)

#15) when the fighter bomber appeared on the battlefield, I didn't notice any AA fire reported. Is there no way the soldiers on the ground are shooting at it? This is not to be neglected. If I was an allied fighter-bomber pilot I surely wouldn't want to run down into a dozen MG42s...

#16) all in all, the single biggest complain / unsatisfaction with the game that I have is the pars pro toto approach to showing three men for a squad. this is totally unrealistic.

Instead of showing squads, the game should show individual soldiers that are visible. It is then up to the enemy to decide for himself if these belong together on one suad or if the three soldiers he actually sees belong to three different squads. CM has this fantastic feature of calculating and accurately representing each flying bullet in true 3D - but how much is this worth when when dealing with infantry they are abstracted into a three-man area on the ground? I mean, it is GREAT to see CM's protrayal of fire against vehicles, like, when it just passes behind the rear or something. Why isn't this possible for individual soldiers and their small-arms weapon's fire?

This abstraction of showing three soldiers to represent a suqad of a dozen or more is a major black eye IMO for CM. Maybe you will now say that this had to be done to keep CM's specifications low; yet they can IMHO be raised without danger of having too high specs thereby scaring off a major portion of the potential buyers; currently specs are at a Pentium 200 without 3D I think. Even I, who am constantly on the blunt back (as opposed to the cutting edge) of new hardware by now have a diamond viper 3d 4MB card - ever since a year or so you just don't get any lower, non-3D stuff when buying a computer.

It's also unrealistic in when a team routs completely, in reality I don't think they will rout together as a team. More likely, they will rout individually. In a ten-man squad, some man with weak nerves will panic really fast and run away while the rest is still pinned and shaken but holding tight in place. One after another will break. Also, if a unit suffers a major HE hit and the remnants are running around like crazy, chances each soldier from that team will be running into every direction of the wind rose, not together as a team in one direction ("Allright, everybody get ready to move out we are going to ROUT! Follow me, men!").

#17) IMO the Nebelwerfer has been portrayed realistically. They are blast weapons much like FAEs that rely on the quick pressure change (in german "Gasschlagwirkung") from displacing the air from the especially fast-reacting explosive's expansion and the consecutive rushing of air back into the created vacuum to kill unprotected soldiers by literally tearing apart their lungs (sorry for the graphic explanation). They are best used against unprotected troops in the open.

Fionn was a little disappointed that they failed to set the buildings afire. Actually, there was an ammunition variant in the Nebelwerfer that was used to spray flaming liquid over the target area (32cm-WK.Fl.; it contained 50liters flaming liquid that was dispersed by a small detonation charge and saturated an area of 200m^2). I seem to remember that one source stated that on the SdKfz modified to carry 6 Nebelwerfer rockets, the standard loadout was 5 of the six rockets were HE and the last one the "Napalm" variant. Personally I find this not too credible. A different, more credible source states that the SOP was to let several salvos of the regualar HE 28cm-WK. be followed by a salvo of the flame variant. Roughly a sixth to a seventh of the produced Nebelwerfer 41 ammunition was of the flaming variant. I am not saying these have to be included in the game, just thought it might be an interesting tidbit since Fionn was so disappointed by the barrage not setting anything afire ;o)

#18) could it be possible to include tracks/paths made by units (foot or vehicle) in the snow? I think it would be great if you came across the paths of an enemy unit and would know that they were somewhere in the vicinity. Generic disturbance in the snow would already be interesting enough.

#19) is there a cease-fire option?

that's it, I'll better stop here. Please, keep in mind that I don't mean to unduly criticize the game. It looks very revolutionary, very realistic and very enjoyable.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[OSCAR]

... hmmm... did someone, somewhere talk about the difficulties simulating the REAL world with 3D?

..sorry I JUST couldn't resist guys.

------------------

The HPS freak

[Fionn]

First things first.. Good to see you here Markus

Second, I'll have a stab at most of these questions.. It'll help Steve concentrate on getting that demo into everyone's hands all the sooner.

1. *chuckle*. I'm not touching that one with a barge poll. I have books which list them as they appear in the game but maybe what you are talking about is the German abbreviation of the German words as opposed to the English abbreviation of the German words? Just a thought.. I'm not sure though I'll leave that one to others

2. Well, one of the concessions to VRAM I'm sure is that when units enter HTs they maintain the same triangular formation they normally had.

As for the spotting thing.. Units in HTs are spotted independently of HTs.. This isn't a simple matter of you seeing them or not its a matter of LOS rules taking over and determining if they can be spotted or not.. Thus it isn't an issue in the way you think it is. Good point though.

3. Panzerfausts eh? For those who don't know Markus runs the best website on Panzerfausts on the net IMO.. Well there is a ballistic arc to the Panzerfaust but it is difficult to show off in static screenshots.

4. Not in the release version no but afterwards there most probably will be.

5. Schuerzen etc are accounted for.. There was a big argument here a while ago about the effects of sandbags vis a vis the stand-off ranges of HEAT warheads but I forget what the conclusion to it was.. Maybe someone can refresh my memory by posting the URl here.

6. Not very.. I think the PF 150 with the fragmentation sleeve was pretty ok but the others are pretty lousy unless it's fired at a house or something and can create shrapnel. leastways that's where I notice bazookas causing me casualties.

7. That was actually an error on my part. I had meant to say they won't be able to fire from inside a house to another location ALSO inside the house.. They CAN fire from inside but not at another location inside the same house

8. No squishies.. Tanks can overrun guns etc but not individual infantrymen. Tanks and other vehicles can also push immobilised and destroyed vehicles out of the way.. It's fun clearing bridges this way

9. Yes, they can surrender at long range although they would have to be very badly shaken and isolated to do so and yes tanks can accept surrenders.

10. LOL that long-range gunfire cost me the machinegunners in those HTs. I found it damned effective and wish Martin hadn't had them fire .. There are ways you can tie firing down to a particular range via ambush commandsor have men hide until the enemy comes closer etc but I don't think it can be tied to a %... That would be unrealistic.

Cm is focussed on giving you the same choices as the real COs.. You can tell your men to fire when the enemy appears from behind the house at about 50 metres but you can't say open fire when you have an 83% chance of hitting.

11. Infantry can start the game in foxholes yes but within a 30 to 60 minute game they obviously can't dig new foxholes . So foxholes, barbed wire, roadblocks, AP mines and AT mines and daisy-chain mines are ALL included in the game.

12. Well, I don't know what happens to US teams obviously in the game but I think you were mistaken in thinking the crew you saw with a Thompson was the same tank crew you saw earlier.

Scavenging doesn't occur except within the context and framework of a squad and it isn't possible to steal enemy weapons. The reasons are really, really long and are contained in a big thread below.. Again I forget it's name and URL but I think pretty much everyone here agreed by the end of it that BTS' decisions were correct and accepted them.

13. Ah a flaw inherent to all wargames. Well I think that CM is basically relying on good scenario design to overcome that. That's what most wargames have to rely on. I think the release scenarios won't dissapoint though

14. Yes, they retreat slowly because they are carrying all their equipment. It will be possible to abandon heavy equipment and run like hell in the release version but I don't think this is implemented yet. I just got a cool new build today with lots of new labels and different buttons and functions though so it may be in but I haven't tested it yet.

What you ask for regarding the dropping MGs sooner etc is possible.

15. Well, the anti-aircraft fire part of the code wasn't in yet so absolutely NOTHING fired at that pilot which, no doubt, helped his massacre of my forces *sob*.. Of course that will be implemented by release.

16. We've had HUGE discussions about the 3-men per unit thing. Basically Markus you just have to accept that if every squad did have 12 men then the UPPER limit for the game would be a company-sized battle and we'd all be buying P III 600s to play .

Obviously as CPUs and 3D cards get faster then we might see more figures per squad but for right now it simply isn't possible unless you wanted to play solely as a platoon commander. vs an enemy platoon. Also, remember that the 3 men per squad is a visual representation. The engine is dealing with the 12 men in detail and accurately.

17. NAPALM Nebelwerfers eh? Now that's an idea I really like. Steve, Charles make a German commander happy and give me Napalmwerfers next time k?

18. Don't know if its possible or not. I guess you'd get the answer "VRAM is too low at present" in response to that question.

19. Yes there is.

Hope those help .

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Big Time Software]

Wow! That is a long one Keep in mind that we are VERY late in the development process. The list of little details we would like to get into the game is longer than you can imagine. But instead of delaying the game for another 4 months to put them all in, we are only going to get to a fraction of them. Anything that does not directly impact game play and/or realism is likely to not get in at this point. OK, I'll stab at each one:

1. Yes, we are inventing our own shortenings of ranks. We wanted to keep them all to 3 letters for spacial reasons. Therefore we have created ones that are most easy to recognize. (i.e. Unt = Unteroffizier).

2. Good point about the spotting. I'll see what the deal is with that. As far as the seating arrangement goes, this is not going to change. We can not code the "correct" seating arrangement for each vehicle. This would be a waste of time as it doesn't have any bearing on the game (don't forget squads are generalized in terms of positions).

3. The smoke trails are there for gameplay purposes. Not realistic in all cases all the time, but it does give valuable visual feedback to the player (plus it looks cool). The graphics aren't factored into spotting, so in game terms it isn't relevant. Yes, the PF and PIAT arced their shots. I can remember an internal discussion about this, but do not recall the outcome (i.e. how doable it is).

4. We do not have the time nor the resources to do this. And to do winter clothing (most every soldier wore something other than camo) correctly requires new models for all the units (i.e bulkier, long coats, etc.) The figures are a very time consuming thing to work with, so it isn't going to happen (never planned on being able to either).

5. Spaced armor is calculated, as well as bolted on armor and the various different types of standard armor, with the same high degree of accuracy as the rest of the model. There was at least one VERY long thread about sandbags, and if anything, they actually IMPROVED penetration of holow/shaped charge shells. Do a search on this BBS under "sandbag" and you should come up with it.

6. Depends. They at least keep guy's heads down, but terrain, density, and the exact type of shell matter (oh, luck too!). Earlier PFs, for example, were not fitted with an anti-personnel capability, but latter ones were.

7. You can shoot such a weapon from within a building so long as the target is not in the same building. Just knocked out a Flak 37 with a Bazooka early this morning (that bastard deserved it )

8. Yes. Soldiers, friend or foe, will also try to get out of the path of a vehicle too. But also remember that units are scaled up (visually) at least one or two levels in the shots you looked at, so what looks like "right on top" mught actually be 5-10m next to.

9. Yes. This is not common, but the lower the quality of the unit the grater the chance. Generally units will try to withdraw. But there are many cases of men trying to surredender to vehicles without infantry (recently there was the case of a bunch of Iraqis surrendering to an Appache attack copter!)

10. No, you can not set thresholds. You can order your units to "Hide", which witholds their fire until they are in mortal danger or you change your mind. Keep in mind that what you saw was ALPHA code. We have tweaked thresholds and target priorities a lot since then. In the game you read through MGs were far too likely to open up on distant targets (tanks had a particular habit of doing this).

11. The length of time it takes to dig a foxhole is outside the scope of CM. Fixed fortifications and foxholes are allowed depending on the scenario designer's choices. There was a full thread on the forifications that are available a couple of weeks ago. The list is fairly long.

12. Crews of nearly all AFVs had weapons other than pistols. However, something like the Sherman... it was estimated that the crew had about 5 seconds to evacuate the tank before it would brew up (earlier models, hit to the rear). If you think you can unstrap a Thompson and its ammo in that length of time, while your head is ringing, AND get out of the vehicle you'd be crazy These weapons were designed for use securing the vehicle at night and other uses when outside the vehicle. In terms of armming a crew or liberated unit with captured/abandoned weapons and ammo... that would require us tracking where each weapon was dropped and the ammo it had left. We would also have to determine if the weapon was still function. Too much work for far too little game value. In many cases it would be entirely unrealistic too. Crews were not supposed to engage in fighting as standard infantry unless there was no other option. Give the player the choice and... guess what would happen 9 out of 10 times?

13. There have been several, long, tedious discussions about this aspect. Do a search for them, read them, and then you will understand the HUGE problem that is the abstraction of map boundaries. The end result was nobody had any good ideas on how to do things differently without creating a game within a game. This sort of "scope creep" is an automatic death sentance. It is just not possible to develop such a game, even if it were more realistic (who is watching the flanks of the guys coming in on the flanks? That is just the TIP of the iceberg). If you have any starteling ideas, we are all ears for the next CM. But I have to tell you, we considder ourselves pretty bright and we have no workable solution to this problem Where the reserves come in is up the the designer BTW. In the two scenarios I just made, the reserves that came in for both sides were never seen entering play.

14. Yes, there will be a feature to "drop the dead weight and GET THE HELL OUTTA HERE" CM prides itself on its attention to the realistic value of "life" (simulated of course!) in the game. If your AT gun is getting shelled, and the infantry is closing in, and the crew hasn't bailed all by themselves, you will (but not at the moment) be able to have them abandon the equipment under their charge.

15. Small arms AA fire was not implemented in the Alpha being used by Fionn and Martin. However, squads will NOT shoot at planes. They might do this in a behind the lines sort of thing, but they would NOT do this in a frontline situation where ammo is scarce and there are lots of ground units looking to take you out. Firing at a plane, which is probably after a vehicle, only serves to waste your ammo and expose your position while preoccupying your attention. But unbuttoned tanks with an AA MG will shoot back at planes. Chances of hitting are VERY slim, but it can cause the plane to leave the area out of a sense of self preservation.

16. Frankly stated, you have *NO* idea what you are talking about when it comes to hardware capabilities. As has been discussed here MANY times, nobody has a computer powerfull enough to put that many polygons on the screen. NOBODY. You totally overestimate the abilities of today's (and even tomorrows, and the ones after that) ability to simulate complex 3D environments. This kind of computing power will not be available for several more *YEARS*.

In any event, the graphical representation of a squad has NOTHING to do with the game mechanics one bit. So having 12, 3, 1, or no figures on the map makes zero deifference to the simulation. There was a big long thread on this one too. Very involved

As far as the "no unit acts as a whole team" you are correct. But we can not simulate each individual man of a potentially 3000 man battle, graphically or computionally. So this is abstract out of need. Casualties are also not just KIA, but WIA and "shell shocked". So if a 155mm round comes and hits next to a squad, taking out 6 men and routing the rest, it can be assumed that not all 6 were killed (but who knows, maybe they were). There have been a few threads on this subject as well. The one I am thinking of also had the stuff above as well. Started out with the title "Education..." or something like that.

17. Yeah, the NW is something to fear if you get hit by a lot of them in somewhat open territory. A single barrage on a town is only going to keep some heads down unless they were caught outside, in which case heads "off" was more likely. Also, their accuracy sucked

18. Would be great to do, but impossible in terms of the incerase in polygons they would require. After driving/running around for a couple of turns even a Merced with a Voodoo IV would crawl to a halt on a decent sized map. I use future computer models here to underscore that the current are that underpowered

19. Yup. Just did a set of tweaks to it today, as a matter of fact. The AI was too eager to give up the ship for lost! Don't worry, Charles had a GOOD "talk" with the AI and gave it some incentives to keep up the fight (i.e. "do it or I erase you" ).

Schew.... answered them all! Now back to some play testing!

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Oscar, I see the error of our ways! People, we are now changing Combat Mission to run in 2D VGA only. It allows us to simulate the real world so much more realsitically. Of course, we will also have to put in hexes and arbitrarily controlled placement within these, but I just know we can do a much better job of simulating reality by mimicing 40 year old concepts written for an OS that was outdated even in the early 1980s.

Oh, and we will of course have to work really hard at eliminating everything intuitive that is in the game. Man, that is going to be a lot of work.

Sorry, I just couldn't resit

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Double post removed

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-18-99).]

[Thomas Davie]

Steve; does this mean that I will get the hex grid on my top down viewpoint of the game? (I'm the guy who pukes when he plays 3d fps games remember ).

However, as an honest response to OSCAR; I think that you are trying to simulate something different in a 'computer wargame' than is Combat Mission. Nothing wrong in this....just don't confuse the two as I think you have.

Yeah, I get a warm fuzzy when I see a hex, but lately I find that using a felt marker to draw on my monitor works for me....

Tom

disclaimer: said semi tongue in cheek. I still have a few thousand sheets of hex paper sitting in my cloest.

[Bil Hardenberger]

M. Hofbauer said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#13) I find it unsatisfying that reinforcements arive in the middle of the map in plain view of enemy troops or pop up unexpectedly... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...Where the reserves come in is up the the designer BTW. In the two scenarios I just made, the reserves that came in for both sides were never seen entering play.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What if....

The turn before the reinforcements come on the map, the owning player gets a warning, and the opportunity at that point to give them movement orders from their entry location (most probably a road). That way he can be sure they don't just pop up in the midst of his force. They can just drive/walk on the map according to their orders. Not unrealistic I believe and would give the player some control.

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not unrealistic I believe and would give the player some control<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds realistic. You might not know when the reinforcements will arrive but advance units might have linked up early to coordinated the reinforcement's arrival. So the player would go from zero control of reinforcements to some control as they get closer.

[Bil Hardenberger]

John,

I am talking about being notified of their arrival during the orders phase before they come on the map. They would then arrive and drive on during the TAC AI phase(or whatever it's called)immediately following. A commander would at least have that much notice they were in his sector. And probably more notice than that in reality(i.e. he would see them or hear their engines, have radio contact with them, etc).

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

That's what I thought you meant. Actually, I was agreeing with you.

[Bil Hardenberger]

I knew that. I was just clarifying.

[M Hofbauer]

First of all, let me thank both Fionn and BTS for your kindness of such a prompt and elaborate answer! I will combine both Fionn's and the BTS posts in my comments on the respective aspects below.

1) Fionn, I am dead sure on these two ranks' abbreviations. There are some higher ranks where apparently different versions existe(ed) or at least seem to be so I wouldnt want to bet on those but not re. the OGefr and the Uffz ranks. If however BTS doesn't dispute this and alludes to the argument that it was a decision by them in order to be able to limit them to 3 leters then that's valid, I can understand that and have no problem with it.

2)ok, so the correct seating isn't really a problem, I admit that. But I *do* maintain my position that it should be nearly impossible from outside to judge wether the HT has trrops aboard or not (unless you are viewing directly down onto/into the HT from a multi-storey house or unless the mounted troops are firing from the HT (over the edge) - is that possible?). And I think to be able to see wether it carries troops or not IMO makes a huge importance to the game (see Fionn's feigned attack strength).

3) regarding the smoke trails on smoketrailless weapons: "Not realistic in all cases all the time, but it does give valuable visual feedback to the player (plus it looks cool)." PLEASE don't say you added something because it "looks cool" - it gives me flashbacks of Atomics immortal infamous phrase when asked about the obvious ahistoricy of the Flammhetzers at Arnhem in CC2: "They were cool and easy to add". I can accept any - well, many at least - arguments why something is done, but please not because it "looks cool". It is not a valid argument when discussing features in a realism-attemtping wargame. No offense meant.

4) ok if you do not have the resources (Fionn if you say there will be then are you referring to user mods? will this be possible to CM? whats BTS's point of view on this? are follow-ups / mission-CDs / sequels planned?) then that's an argument. I just thought winter camo would "look cool"

5) nice to see spaced armor in the game. However I am very much puzzled at your opinion that sandbagging should actually help hollow-charge penetration ??? it is a well known fact that sandbagging and other ad-hoc spaced armor was counter-productive in terms of "catching" AP rounds that otherwise would ricochet off, but that's a trade-off to the universally (at least I thought it would be) accepted valuable effect of predetonating Shape-charge munitions. I will definitely try to find that thread and see what rationale should be behind that.

6)BTS wrote (btw I find the format of this BBS somewhat cumbersome IMO...you never know which post is a response to which other post):"Earlier PFs, for example, were not fitted with an anti-personnel capability, but latter ones were", and Fionn correctly pointed out that this didn't happen before the PzF 150 - whose production started March 45. The few delivered to fighting forces hardly justify representing them in a CM game unless you are making a scenarion "Last Ditch Defense of the HASAG company against the invading allied tanks" ;O) ) While we are at it, will the different improvements, the different Panzerfaust models, over the time of the war be represented? This was very important. In late 1944 targets could be engaged with Panzerfausts at three times the original ranges in 1943.

Anyways, the demolishing effects (shaped charge - effects not only work vs armor but are a good concrete-penetration too, the rule of thumb IIRC being somewhere between double and 2.5 times the steel penetration is achieved vs concrete) and the explosive forces of Bazooka and Panzerschreck ammo should work against infantry, too. But if for example it would be represented that if you hit a house then the resulting shrapnel from the target hit works on the infantry then I guess that'ld be great.

7) you mean there is no restriction of firing these weapons - Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck and Bazooka - from any confined spaces such as rooms etc.? It should not be possible in very small rooms. that it shouldn't be portrayed to have such a weapon hit a target in the same room is obvious and it's a good thing this has been rectified. Same goes for grenades, i guess.

Flak 37??? to my information, there were only ever 14 (+6 prototypes) of the Flak 37 (which was a combination of putting an 8.8cm Flak 18/36 onto a 18t prime mover chassis) ever, since the original production order of 112 was cancelled in 1943. Why are such exotic units represented in CM?

8) I am confused - could it be that Fionn didn't have this features in his test material versions of the game but that in the release version this will be implemented? I mean, I am not a big fan of squishing people to death, but I think it's good to be included because it is realistic. When BTS wrote "Soldiers, friend or foe, will also try to get out of the path of a vehicle too." does that mean that you could drive over your own guys by accident causing friendly casualties?

9) yep, the pache taking Iraqi POWs happened several times in fact. But I am not sure what a lonely 1944 SS tank will do when an enemy squad surrenders to them - they will have no way to handle these prisoners..I mean this is what the potentially surrendering enemy soldiers must think which will discourage them from surrendering to such a tank?

Good to see that units surrender even at long ranges if their situation is such that it warrants this. I like it.

10) Fionn, I agree that iin your case it was effective. But I was using the "MG vs HT" as an example for the problem I was describing. Maybe I once again expressed myself poorly.

The adjusting of the AI's likeliness of opening fire will probably largely account for the problem. But even in the HIDE mode in the AAR the Tactical AI repeatedly chose to fire if he smelled a good chance of a hit. Now I can imagine (I guess you too) that there are situations where you want a team to absolutely stay quiet and hidden and not to fire at a passing enemy even if they do represent a good target at that moment. How can I make them really hide? are there different levels of "Hide"?

11) I accept that the digging of foxholes is outside the time scope of CM, but just barely. Am happy to see that the obstacle features will be represented in the game. How is the overcoming of barbed wire by infantry represented in the game? do they use wire cutters, fascines, bangalores or are they merely slowed down in a general way?

12) Fionn, believe me, I am quite sure and would err a lot if that crewmember did not have a .45 Thompson SMG in a screenshot of Martin's AAR. I will search for that report in question and post the screenshot here if I ever find out how this BBS works (does it take html?) As to BTS' argument that calculating for weapons would be too much effort for too little gain in the game then I think in all rerspect I disagree but I think the keyword here is the *scale/scope* of the game. More on this down at number 16).

BTS wrote "Crews were not supposed to engage in fighting as standard infantry unless there was no other option." That's true but I never said anything to the contrary..I am not planning as an SOP on my Königstiger crews to abandon their tanks and follow my other infantry afoot as ad-hoc riflemen

btw there is this story of this one tank commander, Major Bäke, who got three Panzervernichtungsabzeichen for single-handedly taking out three russian tanks while afoot on the russian front...since this decoration is only awarded to soldier's destroying tanks in close combat he must have scored them when he was afoot, maybe after his tank was destroyed? Anybody know anything about this?

13) I agree Fionn this is an inherent flaw in all wargames to date, but a flaw nevertheless. I agree that it can be answered to an extent by the senario design. And, BTS, yes I do have some ideas on that subject but this isn't the place to elaborate them. I am terribly short on time these days, too. But I will happily share in a discussion with you (whose intelligence I don't question) in the future.

14) I welcome the fact that this feature is implemented. But you haven't really answered on my question regarding the option of letting a unit surrender intentionally by order.

15) hehe Fionn I sympathize with you over these acts of god that took away your pride and joy I know I would have been furious !!

Will CM account for target selection by a plane for wether or not my vehicles are in the open or in a forest? Is it more likely to attack a less lucrative target in the open or a more lucrative target in the woods? Is it possibly that it doesn't see the unit in the woods?

I disagree with BTS's view on the front units vs. aircraft matter - in all honor. Usually all field units were encouraged to shoot at Tiefflieger and Jabos. actually, there was a specific award that was similar in design to the Panzervernichtungsabzeichen only that it had a little aircraft icon instead of a tank, the Fliegervernichtungsabzeichen, that was awarded for downing enemy aircraft with a weapon of below 20mm caliber. Of course most of these went to machine-gunners, and don't ask me how they dfecided who of the 100 ppl shooting really downed the plane (as the germans *never* awarded half kills), but the fact is it was intentionally introduced to encourage infantry to shoot at the planes.

I do concede though that if they *are* low on ammo or directly engaged in vicious close combat that they wouldn't care for the plane above. But at the time the Jabo appeared over the battlefield in the AAR most units would have had the ammo and leisure to face the aircraft. That you accounted for the HT's and tank's AA MGs is a good compromise, though.

16) I should have known that this issue had been raised before, and I guess you are pretty weary of talking about it. But that only reflects that it really is the single most unsatisfying / or perceived as such problem in the game. I want to spare you having to do that discussion again to "convert" me. But let me add what I think is the keypoint here. I think it's the scale/scope of the game. If - as you said - you couldn't represent every single soldier because you want to do 3000 - men battles, then I see what you mean. Indeed for such a big battle representing every single soldier might be a hardware problem. But I see this approach conflicting a little bit with CM's accuracy and detail in other aspects. Like, Fionn elsewhere (discussion with OSCAR in the thread "new CM article") stressed the fact that you could tell a tank down to the inch where you want it to go, and you place it exactly where you want it to face etc. I am not sure if that kind of micromanagement (hey I am not criticising it! I am all for micromanagement! dont get me wrong!) fits a 3,000 battle?

But I agree *if* you plan to let the game represent such a scope then showing a three-man icon instead of actual soldiers is acceptable. I still maintain it wouldn't if the game was more at a lower level of scale. I think we can agree upon that whilst it isn't possible now it is unquestionble a desirable and most important improvement to games such as CM in the near or far future to have single sodliers represented.

16a) But what I still don't understand when BTS writes "In any event, the graphical representation of a squad has NOTHING to do with the game mechanics one bit." and Fionn says "Also, remember that the 3 men per squad is a visual representation. The engine is dealing with the 12 men in detail and accurately."

Does this mean that the 12 soldiers are really there like I would want them to be visible but just arent displayed? I mean, they are there, standing/lying whatever and are waiting to collide with a bullet? This would be acceptable. So it is not that only the three men visible are *there* but if they are hit they account for several men.

16b) Let me also add onto something which I din't want to comment on earlier since I thought the game was still in progress and I didnt want to give anything away. It has to do with Fionn's great idea how to make use of the abstraction we are talking about here.

quote from turn 23: "final Panzergrenadier platoon, which is largely intact, will be split into half-squads so as to appear to be two platoons to Martin’s watching force"; this is *very* clever, but to me it is an extremely "gamey" thing to do since it takes advantage of a "bug" / design feature (i.e., the decision to not have people shown but icons representing squads) in the game. I guess I don't have to elaborate on why this trick wouldn't have worked if each soldier was shown instead of units.

18) hmm ok so another thing to write on the to-do list for CM 2015.

19) great to see this feature implemented.

conclusio: many good answers which satisfy me as a thirsty wargamer. I am very much looking forward to the game. And I would like to thank you (both BTS and Fionn) again for taking the time and devotion to answer to my post.

thanks a lot and keep up the good work,

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[M Hofbauer]

Add-on to #12):

ok I looked through the AAR again (btw, allied turn 24 doesn't load) and sure enough, in turn 15 I found this:

the text to the picture reads:

"The first German squads have infiltrated our position - notice the

German infantry behind the wall. There is another German unit behind

the trees on the right. My rifle squad in the middle is badly beaten up

and has only 4 of the initial 12 men left. The unit to the right is the

Jumbo crew - notice the Thompson MP..."

? puzzled?

wondering..now-are there crew weapons or not?

sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[Mike D]

"But instead of delaying the game for another 4 months to put them all in, we are only going to get to a fraction of them"

Steve,

Ahemmmm, don't make me and about 100+ others come hunt you down now!

Oscar,

"hmmm... did someone, somewhere talk about the difficulties simulating the REAL world with 3D? ..sorry I JUST couldn't resist guys."

Sorry, but I just "couldn't resist" myself.

Also, I appoligize in advance if my post offends you (or anyone else here for that matter) in any way, shape, or form. However, I'm getting tired of hearing some of this come up over and over again. So here goes nothing. This is my "opinion" and it is only my "opinion". Take it for whatever it is worth!

Yes, there are going to be "difficulties" simulating the real world. However, doing so w/ a computerized 3d physics model is going to be infinitely "easier" and "more accurate" than trying to approximate it w/ a 2d model!!! I know this for a fact. I've spent 10 years as a degreed mechanical engineer modeleling the "real world", it's physics, and how it works. And I can tell you with 100% certainty, that there is nothing to say that doing the game in 2D would be any more realistic or accurate than doing it in 3d. Quite to the contrary, there are any number of abstractions that are absolutely necessary to even attempt to model the 3d aspects of the "real world" in a 2d game (or any other 2d approximation of any aspect of real world physics in general for that matter) that do not even need to be attempted as abstractions if the game models true 3d terrain, ballistics, LOS, etc. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT CM IS GOING TO PROVIDE!

Yourself, and several others, seem to be totally hung up on the notion that the 3d aspects of CM are nothing but "eye-candy" and "window dressing". That the actual 3d graphics that you, the player, will see on the screen are just that, while the game itself is nothing more than an approximation. Pretty pictures to wow the crowds and increase sales of the game, right? NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. CM has a real 3d engine, modeling real world 3d physics in all of its nasty splendor, at it's very foundation that is probably better than anything else out there in terms of tactical wargames (assuming that what Steve and Charles have been feeding us is the "truth"). They are modeling the real world actual 3d physics and all! The approximations and abstractions required to make a game when you have such a game engine are quite frankly minimal. Especially in comparison to any game out there that is trying to model the real 3d world, w/ 2d physics and all of the approximation and abstractions that become absolutely necessary if you do this. All the pretty 3d graphics in CM are just the "icing on the cake", but the substance is still the true 3d engine underlying all of this that is driving everything.

Which is exactly why CM is going to be a great game; it is going to provide what I believe will be a state-of-the-art 3D physics model of "the real world" and game engine combined w/ pretty good overall 3D graphics. I'm not sure what more you could ask for, but if you want to stay locked in your little HPS world please feel free to do so. In my humble opinion, it will be your loss.

Regards,

Mike D

aka Mikester

[Guest Big Time Software]

That early alpha version of the program showed crews with SMGs but it no longer does, and crews are considered armed with pistols.

Charles

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But at the time the Jabo appeared over the battlefield in the AAR most units would have had the ammo and leisure to face the aircraft<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If CM allowed infantry to shoot at planes, you would probably want a command to prevent infantry from shooting at planes. A no shoot planes command. Why? Imagine you have a couple of squads sneaking up to the enemy while a plane happens to fly close by. They shoot at the plane, giving away thier position, unless BTS had units firing at planes extremely unlikely to be spotted.

[This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 10-19-99).]

[Guest L Tankersley]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>16a) But what I still don't understand when BTS writes "In any event, the graphical representation of a squad has NOTHING to do with the game mechanics one bit." and Fionn says "Also, remember that the 3 men per squad is a visual representation. The engine is dealing with the 12 men in detail and accurately."

Does this mean that the 12 soldiers are really there like I would want them to be visible but just arent displayed? I mean, they are there, standing/lying whatever and are waiting to collide with a bullet? This would be acceptable. So it is not that only the three men visible are *there* but if they are hit they account for several men.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My understanding based on prior discussions (I'm not a tester) is that the three-man (or whatever) graphical representation is entirely a placeholder used to depict the location and approximate posture of the unit. Infantry units are abstracted to a degree - the position of each man is _not_ tracked individually. I haven't seen it addressed here, but I suspect that the behavior of the men in each unit is abstracted also - individuals don't panic or cower, that happens as a unit. [i could be wrong about that; I'm sure if I am some kind soul will point out my error. ]

When Fionn says the engine is dealing with the 12 (or however many) men in detail and accurately, I believe what he means is that casualties and armament are tracked on a per-man basis although line-of-sight and similar issues are computed using the unit position since individual men don't have independent locations.

This makes sense to me, and in fact depicting all 10 (or however many men) might actually be MORE misleading than the current scheme UNLESS there was, in addition to the tactical, operational and strategic AI, an individual AI to handle personal decision-making for every independent man on the battlefield, as well as the command relationships, individual characteristics, and so on. I think that sort of detail is outside the scope of CM (and rightly so).

Without such detail (leaving aside the question of whether it's even possible to achieve) putting individual figures down for every man in a unit and using them to determine spotting would likely _reduce_ the accuracy of the CM simulation, since the behavior of the individual men would probably not be very realistic. I think that the contention of the CM developers is that the behavior of the aggregate infantry units is quite realistic AT THE CHOSEN LEVEL OF ABSTRACTION. This in addition to the stated performance restrictions that won't support displaying so many figures.

Leland J. Tankersley

[There, I hope I didn't step on anybody's toes. ]

[Herr Oberst]

Hmm...

Valuable visual feedback. For whom?

If it's my guys shooting the PanzerFaust/Schrek, and the projectile is not supposed to leave a smoke trail, then it shouldn't! I like the idea of having a PF team snap off a shot and not being seen. A smoke trail that shouldn't be there gives the opposing player a "silk thread" to trace back to the attacker. Of course, if you do away with the smoke trail, then by all means there should be a back-blast that appears behind the weapon. Accurate on both sides of the equation.

As the attacker, if I position the unit correctly, my opponent might not be able to see the backwash.

Similarly, if I mistakenly have a squad behind the PF when it goes off, does anyone get toasted. I understand that the backblast was particularly vicious.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Leland's description is exactly correct.

Charles

[Ben Galanti]

Steve said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The smoke trails are there for gameplay purposes. Not realistic in all cases all the time, but it does give valuable visual feedback to the player (plus it looks cool). The graphics aren't factored into spotting, so in game terms it isn't relevant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I'm going to vote for the no smoke trails on this... Now, Herr Oberst, I agree it would be cool to have unseen shots, but I think that can still occur. The game will only show the shell and/or the unit firing if your units can see them.

Even with that being the case, I think they should be left out for weapons that didn't have them. The only 'visual feedback' I can think of that this would add would be to help tracing rounds. But, following that logic, AFV rounds should have smoke trails too...

Now, if there is other feedback that I'm not thinking of, that might make a difference to, but I would think that the backblast from a PF (which I assume is shown, somewhat like the blast from a tank firing) would show where the shot came from, and would make it pretty clear what happened. Now, this won't work for the PIAT, but is it that hard to track the rounds? From Fionn's and Martin's AARs, it seems like tracking tank rounds isn't too difficult. I would think this would be much the same... Anyway, I know it might be too late to worry about something minor like this, but perhaps in the future...

[This message has been edited by Ben Galanti (edited 10-19-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Bil, great suggestion. Although generally having your guys pop up isn't a problem this is a good idea for the future. No time to do it now though as it would take quite a bit of coding to get it to work.

In general I think the concerns about reserves coming into play are overblown do to the EXTREME example of the AAR game. However, it would be helpful for such cases for sure.

Steve

Steve

[rwcanuck]

I recently saw a German Movie called "The Bridge" about a squad a young German soldiers late in the war who's job was to hold a bridge..in one scene a German soldier fires a PF from inside a building knocking out a Sherman and at the same time the backblast from the PF killed a man instantly that was unfortunately standing in the path of the blast.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ben, you are correct that you can have a tank whacked by a PF without seeing the smoke trail. Your point about perhaps making a backblast instead of the trail is a good one too. I'll forward it along.

Steve

[Bil Hardenberger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Although generally having your guys pop up isn't a problem...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay... as long as we don't have enemy tanks suddenly appear in the middle of our formation like a U-Boat surfacing in the midst of a convoy!