Will infantry be fixed in CMx2

[Erwin]

One doesn't even need campaigns.  We can get essentially the same motivator by penalizing friendly casualties to a much greater extent, so one has to be conservative to get any sort of victory. If you played CMSF, the scoring system persuaded players to be very conservative quite nicely.

[MOS:96B2P]

On 6/16/2016 at 4:57 PM, Raptorx7 said:

Shells that hit trees explode and cause air bursts in-game as well.

In my experience you are both correct.  I have seen shells burst in the tree tops.  

On 6/17/2016 at 6:35 AM, Bulletpoint said:

That's what people think, but I tested it. Just 1 tree per square means you need to fire roughly three times as many shells to cause the same number of casualties, compared to targets in forest terrain without trees. Test conducted by 60mm mortars against PAK40.

I have also observed that it takes a lot more shells to kill infantry in tree / forest terrain.     

[Sublime]

I think theres also going to have to be some line drawn where people realize the infantryman is the ultimate human side of warfare and computer games will never fully be able to recreate the experience of trying to kill men in an organized fashion while they do the same - all the desperate moves people do, ingenious ideas and desperate plans they hatch, insane ways people will do something just once or run really fast or punch someone just right that one time in their life that cant be quantified as a dice roll modifier and will only be left for the veterans here to really know, and we.re all the luckier for it that they are not in the majority, for we all would have suffered accordingly.

Edited June 19, 2016 by Sublime

[BletchleyGeek]

On 17/06/2016 at 9:44 AM, womble said:

 

 

81mm mortars are plenty accurate at sub-300m ranges. They work just as well as 60mm do, if not better due to their bigger bomb. They just aren't as common at the pointy-end.

It's worth noting that 60mm mortars aren't magic: they do their best work in Direct Lay at short, rifle-engageable ranges. So you need to get the enemy's heads down with some other weapon before nailing them to death with direct-lay mortars, or the return small-arms fire once you're spotted will make your mortar's crew cower.

Mimicking TheForwardObserver, I respectfully disagree with this bit as well.

[womble]

20 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

Mimicking TheForwardObserver, I respectfully disagree with this bit as well.

Which bit? I know for a fact I've had troops shredded by short (sub-200m) range 81mm direct lay (this during the time of not having to re-zero a moved target point, so it was a bit more efficient than you'd otherwise expect, but it still only takes 2 rounds to get FFE at that range). Or are you disagreeing with the need to suppress any potential responders before firing?

[TheForwardObserver]

The appropriate fuze in real life for targets in tree lines is HE/Delay, for reasons that I have stated here before.  Mortar crew members have the most fun in direct lay because they can witness their effects, but the chief advantage of indirect fire weapons are their ability to engage without exposing the system or the crew to enemy fire or observation.  Unless the mortar is shooting direct lay against an elevated target ie surrounding mountains in Afghanistan, where bursts can be easily observed in relation to the target, the ability of the weapon operator to adequately engage targets still hinges on his ability to properly identify the enemy target's grid, or alternatively the target's polar data--ie perform the functions of a forward observer, using the GT line rather than OT line. A mortar section is expected to have basic call for fire knowledge, and furnish organic observation elements only in emergencies, or when an actual FO is not present.

A mortar's effective area is diminished greatly against targets that are laying prone
 

[BletchleyGeek]

1 hour ago, womble said:

Which bit? I know for a fact I've had troops shredded by short (sub-200m) range 81mm direct lay (this during the time of not having to re-zero a moved target point, so it was a bit more efficient than you'd otherwise expect, but it still only takes 2 rounds to get FFE at that range). Or are you disagreeing with the need to suppress any potential responders before firing?

Several:

1) I don't think light mortars are magical, nor I have ever written that. It is simply the interaction of a limitation in the TacAI and a very well modelled weapon system.

2) You tell me how it is possible that a weapon that takes more time to deploy and pack, and slows downs the carriers slightly more is "more nimble".

3) Mortars (in general) can fire from behind from behind full high cover such as bocage and also LOF is "tricked" to account for parabolic projectile trajectories. This is reasonable, but given that a) you can direct pretty much wherever you have LOF regardless of the mortar unit "knowing" enemies to be at the location and b ) the agility of the thing, well, let's say they are hard to counter. 

4) 2 rounds before FFE is pretty good, with a 60mm it is fairly likely - say 30% of the time - to get the rounds right on target at the first try. Which is even more awesome.

5) It is hard to suppress the enemy you cannot see. In the case of mortars, you tell me how you can tell the direction the fire is coming from if you only get to see the dirt being flung around by the explosion, Mr. Little Passive Aggressive Remark At The End Of My Post Which I Make To See If I Can Further Derail The Discussion Away From The TacAI.

 

Edited June 20, 2016 by BletchleyGeek
Typo! + Clarification

[spawncaptain]

1 hour ago, BletchleyGeek said:

3) Mortars (in general) can fire from behind from behind full high cover such as bocage and also LOF is "tricked" to account for parabolic projectile trajectories. This is reasonable, but given that a) you can direct pretty much wherever you have LOF regardless of the mortar unit "knowing" enemies to be at the location and b ) the agility of the thing, well, let's say they are hard to counter. 

That problem exists with all heavy weapons, though. Delivering fire to just that part of the woods 500 m away with a 60 mm mortar team out of C2 just rushed up to a hedgerow is just as gamey as rushing an Abrams tank into a city street and have the crew fire into three specific floors of three different buildings instantaneously.

Playing only SP, I fix that by only area firing on "?" contact markers.

Edited June 20, 2016 by spawncaptain

[BletchleyGeek]

23 minutes ago, spawncaptain said:

That problem exists with all heavy weapons, though. Delivering fire to just that part of the woods 500 m away with a 60 mm mortar team out of C2 just rushed up to a hedgerow is just as gamey as rushing an Abrams tank into a city street and have the crew fire into three specific floors of three different buildings instantaneously.

Playing only SP, I fix that by only area firing on "?" contact markers.

"Gamey" is a very tricky term, @spawncaptain. But good on you for being a good sport when it comes to C2.

It's not so much that one can create these outcomes with certainty, but rather than they just tend to happen. Another example where dubious spacing by the TacAI and light mortars interacted in a weird way was in a H2H game on @Pete Wenman "Drive on the Dreijseweg" (the spelling of the Dreij-thing is probably wrong, feel free those who like to pick at nits to correct me). I was playing British, and on my right flank a quite curious situation ensued. In a little enclosure surrounded by a quite dense forest, my opponent had one of these colourful Schule/Naval/Ersatz formations with the little German 50mm mortars equipped. I discovered this as the company I was attacking with on that flank was literally repulsed by some Heavy AA stuff my opponent had craftily placed to strengthen his main line of resistance. What happened was basically that my 3in platoon mortars and his 50mm mortars duelled it out in the forest... a few Bren or Enfield or Mauser fired in anger, most of the fires being just those little mortars. I counted over 30 casualties amongst my paras, all of them found in clumped together in a mash of limb and gore. When the scenario was over, I saw that a similar carnage had taken place on the German side (I salute @db_zero for playing a quite good game).

Last night I got see The Battle of The Bastards... that part of the map was blanketed in a similar way as that battlefield just out of Winterfell.

This wasn't a thread about mortars effectiveness, we know them to be very effective and fearsome weapons. Maybe @Battlefront.com, instead of duking it out with Putin's Motorised Troll Brigade, will want a change of company and explain to us how HE effects are dampened in order to compensate for the tendency the TacAI has to clump people around the center of the action spot or some piece of cover.

My original point was to highlight that the effectiveness of these weapons is amplified in a significant way by the limitations in the TacAI (and you can do good tactics as long as the TacAI, the resolution of the terrain modelling and fog-of-war allows you). This is not so much a problem about how people play the game (even if it is true that depending on how you play it you can make it worse) but rather at how the pieces of the game interact sometimes in ways which catch the eye. Because if CMx2 was a complete, utter mess, we would probably be barking mad about tanks going through buildings, infantry sprinting for 500 meters in full battle gear without breaking a sweat, single bullets killing three troopers, missiles going through hills and destroying T-72 (all of these stuff is things I remember from other games which I won't name). Since it is not, we look at the "little things". Because they're little, but not because of that, they're nothing.

 

Edited June 21, 2016 by BletchleyGeek

[shift8]

3 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

"Gamey" is a very tricky term, @spawncaptain. But good on you for being a good sport when it comes to C2.

It's not so much that one can create these outcomes with certainty, but rather than they just tend to happen. Another example where dubious spacing by the TacAI and light mortars interacted in a weird way was in a H2H game on @Pete Wenman "Drive on the Dreijseweg" (the spelling of the Dreij-thing is probably wrong, feel free those who like to pick at nits to correct me). I was playing British, and on my right flank a quite curious situation ensued. In a little enclosure surrounded by a quite dense forest, my opponent had one of these colourful Schule/Naval/Ersatz formations with the little German 50mm mortars equipped. I discovered this as the company I was attacking with on that flank was literally repulsed by some Heavy AA stuff my opponent had craftily placed to strengthen his main line of resistance. What happened was basically that my 3in platoon mortars and his 50mm mortars duelled it out in the forest... a few Bren or Enfield or Mauser fired in anger, most of the fires being just those little mortars. I counted over 30 casualties amongst my paras, all of them found in clumped together in a mash of limb and gore. When the scenario was over, I saw that a similar carnage had taken place on the German side (I salute @db_zero for playing a quite good game).

Last night I got see The Battle of The Bastards... that part of the map was blanketed in a similar way as that battlefield just out of Winterfell.

This wasn't a thread about mortars effectiveness, we know them to be very effective and fearsome weapons. Maybe @Battlefront.com, instead of duking it out with Putin's Motorised Troll Brigade, will want a change of company and explain to us how HE effects are dampened in order to compensate for the tendency the TacAI has to clump people around the center of the action spot or some piece of cover.

My original point was to highlight that the effectiveness of these weapons is amplified in a significant way by the limitations in the TacAI (and you can do good tactics as long as the TacAI, the resolution of the terrain modelling and fog-of-war allows you). This is not so much a problem about how people play the game (even if it is true that depending on how you play it you can make it worse) but rather at how the pieces of the game interact sometimes in ways which catch the eye. Because if CMx2 was a complete, utter mess, we would probably be barking mad about tanks going through buildings, infantry sprinting for 500 meters in full battle gear without breaking a sweat, single bullets killing three troopers, missiles going through hills and destroying T-72 (all of these stuff is things I remember from other games which I won't name). Since it is not, we look at the "little things". Because they're little, but not because of that, they're nothing.

 

The ai has no effective tendency to clump. The virtual effectiveness of mortars and every single other weapons is more or less equivalent to IRL as near as makes no difference because of the modififiers (you cant see) that are applied to units in general based on the terrain. Infantry in CM are simply placeholders as general visual representations of the units position and actions on the map. Attempting to model their movements more precisely would be mess, since as other already pointed out, infantry are far too nuanced and complicated for this to be done without creating worse problems. The 3d models ARE hit boxes, but the sum of modifiers that occur behind the scenes mean that the visual bunching is irrelevant. The infantry in CM are largely just slightly more visually representative versions of the infantry in CMx1 (that can also be broken into smaller pieces, unlike cmx1). This means that a squad in game, or fire team etc....is simply a "block" that represents the orientation, firepower, and general location of a unit. It is not a one-to-one visual representation of a group of infantry, and as such does not need to represent (and cannot) every single nuanced move infantry make. This entire thread stems from a massive misunderstanding of what infantry in CM actually are on  a game level. 

[AttorneyAtWar]

4 minutes ago, shift8 said:

The ai has no effective tendency to clump. The virtual effectiveness of mortars and every single other weapons is more or less equivalent to IRL as near as makes no difference because of the modififiers (you cant see) that are applied to units in general based on the terrain. Infantry in CM are simply placeholders as general visual representations of the units position and actions on the map. Attempting to model their movements more precisely would be mess, since as other already pointed out, infantry are far too nuanced and complicated for this to be done without creating worse problems. The 3d models ARE hit boxes, but the sum of modifiers that occur behind the scenes mean that the visual bunching is irrelevant. The infantry in CM are largely just slightly more visually representative versions of the infantry in CMx1 (that can also be broken into smaller pieces, unlike cmx1). This means that a squad in game, or fire team etc....is simply a "block" that represents the orientation, firepower, and general location of a unit. It is not a one-to-one visual representation of a group of infantry, and as such does not need to represent (and cannot) every single nuanced move infantry make. This entire thread stems from a massive misunderstanding of what infantry in CM actually are on  a game level. 

That is not true, infantry in CMx2 are actually 1:1 in terms of representing soldiers, they are not blocks that is why individuals can get shot and it doesn't take away a random number of men when something actually hits them. This would have been true in CMx1 but it isn't now, an easy to way to see this is when a MG burst catches 2 or more soldiers at a time, if it weren't a 1:1 abstraction than it wouldn't matter where the bullets went as long as they "hit" which would mean it would just kill of random people in the fire team or squad instead of where they actually are on the map when hit.

[BletchleyGeek]

28 minutes ago, shift8 said:

The ai has no effective tendency to clump. The virtual effectiveness of mortars and every single other weapons is more or less equivalent to IRL as near as makes no difference because of the modififiers (you cant see) that are applied to units in general based on the terrain. Infantry in CM are simply placeholders as general visual representations of the units position and actions on the map. Attempting to model their movements more precisely would be mess, since as other already pointed out, infantry are far too nuanced and complicated for this to be done without creating worse problems. The 3d models ARE hit boxes, but the sum of modifiers that occur behind the scenes mean that the visual bunching is irrelevant. The infantry in CM are largely just slightly more visually representative versions of the infantry in CMx1 (that can also be broken into smaller pieces, unlike cmx1). This means that a squad in game, or fire team etc....is simply a "block" that represents the orientation, firepower, and general location of a unit. It is not a one-to-one visual representation of a group of infantry, and as such does not need to represent (and cannot) every single nuanced move infantry make. This entire thread stems from a massive misunderstanding of what infantry in CM actually are on  a game level. 

Wow, thanks for making that post. Amazing. 

[cool breeze]

44 minutes ago, Raptorx7 said:

That is not true, infantry in CMx2 are actually 1:1 in terms of representing soldiers, they are not blocks that is why individuals can get shot and it doesn't take away a random number of men when something actually hits them. This would have been true in CMx1 but it isn't now, an easy to way to see this is when a MG burst catches 2 or more soldiers at a time, if it weren't a 1:1 abstraction than it wouldn't matter where the bullets went as long as they "hit" which would mean it would just kill of random people in the fire team or squad instead of where they actually are on the map when hit.

I think this is just a misunderstanding rather than a disagreement.  the point was, i think, just that because the guys get a bunch of modifiers applied based on the terrain and their movement and things like machine guns and HE blasts and shrapnel being toned down to balance things, we still have an abstract system like CMx1 but of course a MUCH higher fidelity version.

[shift8]

4 hours ago, Raptorx7 said:

That is not true, infantry in CMx2 are actually 1:1 in terms of representing soldiers, they are not blocks that is why individuals can get shot and it doesn't take away a random number of men when something actually hits them. This would have been true in CMx1 but it isn't now, an easy to way to see this is when a MG burst catches 2 or more soldiers at a time, if it weren't a 1:1 abstraction than it wouldn't matter where the bullets went as long as they "hit" which would mean it would just kill of random people in the fire team or squad instead of where they actually are on the map when hit.

Cool breeze basically said this but Ill also say it so that it is more clear still. 

I did say they are 1:1 in terms of the location of the 3d model in the world. and that 3d model is a hitbox etc. That does NOT mean they are a complete 1 to 1 representation of every infantry function. Their visual model is simply MORE precise that it was in CMx1, BUT they are still abstracted in a sense because much of their function is done as "invisible" math behind the scenes. For example, just because they are visually bunched up, it says nothing as to how vulnerable they are necessarily. When a bullet is fired or a shell lands, the literal shrapnel strikes the 3d model of the infantry, BUT whether or not that unit takes damage is still hinged on whether the game chooses to "save" the unit based on certain factors. So a infantry unit standing in a gaggle in a open field does NOT mean the unit is receiving "gaggle" modifiers. It is receiving modifiers tangent to the general vulnerability of infantry in a "field" which means the formation and spacing are to a certain degree completely irrelevant. (visually)

 

A very obvious example of this working in game is any combat that occurs in buildings. Units can seemingly survive barrages of fire, sometime even from HE, because the game in "saving" units from death despite physical hits because there is a chance that is assumes certain things about combat in a building that it would be extremely hard to visually represent. For example, while you might be flummoxed that a sniper team just survived 900 rounds pelting the side of the building they are in, the game is potentially assuming they that are not just behind the wall.....but also perhaps behind several layers of furniture not literally shown. There are also affects from the more nuanced and particular ways human beings make themselves scarce. 

Edited June 21, 2016 by shift8

[Odin]

On 14/06/2016 at 9:33 PM, IanL said:

No, that's not it.  He already said he is doing all the right things and it is the game that is broken.  It is not him it is the game.  The only thing I am confused about is how the other guys that insist that small arms fire accuracy is way to low and our troops should be dropping an enemy solider with every bullet fired under 300m reconciles with this.  How can the game be broken in opposite ways?  But I know that it is because they said so.

 

 

 

3

There is no need for your posts to be laced with patronising sarcastic comments when all people are trying to do is discuss points of the game which they feel could be improved upon.  

Re rifle fire inaccuracy, I had a lot to say on the subject and said at its current level of CM effectiveness it is too inefficient/inaccurate with regards to its historical value at medium and long ranges. Both the issue raised by @sonar, and the one about rifle fire inefficiency can be present in the game. Men sitting on top of one another leads to greater casualties from HE and MG fire. If squads were more loosely spread and rifle accuracy was improved, you'd just see visible pixeltruppen being picked off a bit more frequently by rifles, while you would probably see casualties from HE fire drop slightly.

Edited June 21, 2016 by Odin

[A Canadian Cat]

2 hours ago, Odin said:

There is no need for your posts to be laced with patronising sarcastic comments when all people are trying to do is discuss points of the game which they feel could be improved upon.  

If that were true when I posted that I would agree with you.  This thread has evolved into something that touches the edges of discussing some points that might be worth considering but that was despite the OP not because if it. As you may have noticed I have refrained form further patronizing and sarcastic posts and will continue to do so.

[sonar]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

This thread has evolved into something that touches the edges of discussing some points that might be worth considering but that was despite the OP not because if it

Ha, what could be more patronising  So you have deemed that this thread has maybe unwittingly wandered into a few areas that may actually be worthy of your consideration, although you stand by your sarcastic attack on the original post and have another jibe attacking its validity. I am out of this, said what i had to say, been interesting seeing other peoples opinion on it {thats why I posted in the first place}. In the end we'll all have to wait and see, the game will evolve the way it will and I'm sure I'll still be playing it.

Cheers.

[AttorneyAtWar]

9 hours ago, shift8 said:

Cool breeze basically said this but Ill also say it so that it is more clear still. 

I did say they are 1:1 in terms of the location of the 3d model in the world. and that 3d model is a hitbox etc. That does NOT mean they are a complete 1 to 1 representation of every infantry function. Their visual model is simply MORE precise that it was in CMx1, BUT they are still abstracted in a sense because much of their function is done as "invisible" math behind the scenes. For example, just because they are visually bunched up, it says nothing as to how vulnerable they are necessarily. When a bullet is fired or a shell lands, the literal shrapnel strikes the 3d model of the infantry, BUT whether or not that unit takes damage is still hinged on whether the game chooses to "save" the unit based on certain factors. So a infantry unit standing in a gaggle in a open field does NOT mean the unit is receiving "gaggle" modifiers. It is receiving modifiers tangent to the general vulnerability of infantry in a "field" which means the formation and spacing are to a certain degree completely irrelevant. (visually)

 

A very obvious example of this working in game is any combat that occurs in buildings. Units can seemingly survive barrages of fire, sometime even from HE, because the game in "saving" units from death despite physical hits because there is a chance that is assumes certain things about combat in a building that it would be extremely hard to visually represent. For example, while you might be flummoxed that a sniper team just survived 900 rounds pelting the side of the building they are in, the game is potentially assuming they that are not just behind the wall.....but also perhaps behind several layers of furniture not literally shown. There are also affects from the more nuanced and particular ways human beings make themselves scarce. 

I gotcha, carry on.

[womble]

14 hours ago, shift8 said:

Infantry in CM are simply placeholders as general visual representations of the units position and actions on the map.

Incorrect. They are precise visual indicators, and precise targets for trajectories. If a bullet's trajectory does not intersect a pTruppe's polygons, the pTruppe will not be rendered a casualty. It's only after the pTruppe's volume has been intersected by one or more bullets or other casualty causing projectiles that the abstraction is applied. And the abstraction is based on a "terrain save". You might be trying to assert this by 

14 hours ago, shift8 said:

...The 3d models ARE hit boxes...

but

14 hours ago, shift8 said:

, but the sum of modifiers that occur behind the scenes mean that the visual bunching is irrelevant.

is not true because of the trajectory-polygon interaction: an enemy aiming at one soldier that is near another soldier will sometimes hit the other soldier if they miss their target. This can happen even if the shooter hasn't seen the "other" soldier, due to bullet spread and targetting variations in area fire. So if your guys are bunched up, some "misses" will actually result in intersections which otherwise might not have happened. Powerful rounds and narrow bursts can also hit targets beyond their first. Even taking "it's just a hitbox" as a valid interpretation, each pTruppe's hitbox is individual to them, and if all the team's hitboxes are close to a source of multiple wounding projectiles (an HE burst), the team is more likely to suffer more than one intersection of an invisible shrapnel object's trajectory with their polygons than if they were dispersed and further away, so the spacing of the hitboxes matters, even if you think the level of abstraction after that is anything like approaching that in CMx1 (which it demonstrably isn't).

14 hours ago, shift8 said:

The infantry in CM are largely just slightly more visually representative versions of the infantry in CMx1..

No they aren't.

14 hours ago, shift8 said:

This means that a squad in game, or fire team etc....is simply a "block" that represents the orientation, firepower, and general location of a unit. It is not a one-to-one visual representation of a group of infantry...

Yes, it is. Every eyeball and gun muzzle is modelled one-for-one. I don't know the precision of the calculation, but there's no need for it to be less than centimetre-accurate. Outgoing fire is limited by troopers who can find firing positions that will bear, and those who will keep their heads up to shoot back. The exact location of every trooper is exactly as you see them on the screen. This is why splitting squads into teams and spreading them out more means you get fewer casualties from incoming HE and automatic fire (and why splitting squads and letting them stay in the one AS after recombining is not recommended, nor is stacking teams which won't recombine. It's why your HMG won't give you a target line when its operator is cowering, or Hiding behind a berm or other defilade. It's why the facing you choose is significant sometimes. It's central to the CMx2 infantry experience. It's also why changing the animation for buddy aid to be prone reduces the casualties suffered by buddy-aiding troops. It's why a team that's found a place to hide from an AI HMG (out of its LOS) but which has lost a mate to that HMG in the same AS will be whittled down: they aren't being shot at, so they feel comfortable enough to Buddy Aid their comrade, so they move their position to be in arm's reach of him, which exposes the individual trooper to the HMG, he gets geeked, and the HMG no longer has a target. Rinse and repeat. Such things would not occur if the pTruppen were not precise locations of discrete game assets. It's also why if you have three men hiding behind a lamp post and a 60mm mortar shell hits one of them, the others have a better chance of snuffing it too than their team mate hiding behind a kerb 5m away in the same AS.

14 hours ago, shift8 said:

, and as such does not need to represent (and cannot) every single nuanced move infantry make. This entire thread stems from a massive misunderstanding of what infantry in CM actually are on  a game level. 

No, no it doesn't. I'm afraid you're the one completely misunderstanding how infantry are modelled.

Is the 1:1 modelling 100% accurate? No. As you say, there are nuances (close combat, close assault, microterrain cover to name but a few) which are abstracted out, but the graphics, precisely as they are for vehicles, are as close to 1:1 as they can be given resources available. I think I saw you post something along these lines before, and I nearly corrected you then, but it seemed like you were suggesting that it's viable to treat infantry elements as if they are blocks of infantryness with aggregate characteristics, in some circumstances, which is, potentially, true to at least some extent, but the precise statements you have made here are incorrect.

[Vanir Ausf B]

6 hours ago, Odin said:

If squads were more loosely spread and rifle accuracy was improved, you'd just see visible pixeltruppen being picked off a bit more frequently by rifles, while you would probably see casualties from HE fire drop slightly.

If pixeltruppen were more spread out they would presumably un-nerf HE so the net effect might be a wash.

[shift8]

2 minutes ago, womble said:

Incorrect. They are precise visual indicators, and precise targets for trajectories. If a bullet's trajectory does not intersect a pTruppe's polygons, the pTruppe will not be rendered a casualty. It's only after the pTruppe's volume has been intersected by one or more bullets or other casualty causing projectiles that the abstraction is applied. And the abstraction is based on a "terrain save". You might be trying to assert this by 

but

is not true because of the trajectory-polygon interaction: an enemy aiming at one soldier that is near another soldier will sometimes hit the other soldier if they miss their target. This can happen even if the shooter hasn't seen the "other" soldier, due to bullet spread and targetting variations in area fire. So if your guys are bunched up, some "misses" will actually result in intersections which otherwise might not have happened. Powerful rounds and narrow bursts can also hit targets beyond their first. Even taking "it's just a hitbox" as a valid interpretation, each pTruppe's hitbox is individual to them, and if all the team's hitboxes are close to a source of multiple wounding projectiles (an HE burst), the team is more likely to suffer more than one intersection of an invisible shrapnel object's trajectory with their polygons than if they were dispersed and further away, so the spacing of the hitboxes matters, even if you think the level of abstraction after that is anything like approaching that in CMx1 (which it demonstrably isn't).

No they aren't.

Yes, it is. Every eyeball and gun muzzle is modelled one-for-one. I don't know the precision of the calculation, but there's no need for it to be less than centimetre-accurate. Outgoing fire is limited by troopers who can find firing positions that will bear, and those who will keep their heads up to shoot back. The exact location of every trooper is exactly as you see them on the screen. This is why splitting squads into teams and spreading them out more means you get fewer casualties from incoming HE and automatic fire (and why splitting squads and letting them stay in the one AS after recombining is not recommended, nor is stacking teams which won't recombine. It's why your HMG won't give you a target line when its operator is cowering, or Hiding behind a berm or other defilade. It's why the facing you choose is significant sometimes. It's central to the CMx2 infantry experience. It's also why changing the animation for buddy aid to be prone reduces the casualties suffered by buddy-aiding troops. It's why a team that's found a place to hide from an AI HMG (out of its LOS) but which has lost a mate to that HMG in the same AS will be whittled down: they aren't being shot at, so they feel comfortable enough to Buddy Aid their comrade, so they move their position to be in arm's reach of him, which exposes the individual trooper to the HMG, he gets geeked, and the HMG no longer has a target. Rinse and repeat. Such things would not occur if the pTruppen were not precise locations of discrete game assets. It's also why if you have three men hiding behind a lamp post and a 60mm mortar shell hits one of them, the others have a better chance of snuffing it too than their team mate hiding behind a kerb 5m away in the same AS.

No, no it doesn't. I'm afraid you're the one completely misunderstanding how infantry are modelled.

Is the 1:1 modelling 100% accurate? No. As you say, there are nuances (close combat, close assault, microterrain cover to name but a few) which are abstracted out, but the graphics, precisely as they are for vehicles, are as close to 1:1 as they can be given resources available. I think I saw you post something along these lines before, and I nearly corrected you then, but it seemed like you were suggesting that it's viable to treat infantry elements as if they are blocks of infantryness with aggregate characteristics, in some circumstances, which is, potentially, true to at least some extent, but the precise statements you have made here are incorrect.

Yeah you are completely missing my point. Again. That last time you "corrected" this you also misunderstood by doing the same thing you are doing now: inserting your own presumptions of my casual understanding in between the lines of what I actually said. I corrected you on this last time, and I guess I have to do it again. 

I disagree with none of the mechanical things you said. None. Just like before...big surprise.  But that doesnt change the fact that the END RESULT of the infantry combat is a abstraction that makes this 1:1 comparison of infantry locations silly. As I already pointed out, but you found it somehow necessary to repeat as though I had not, the game does use the individual 3d representations to determine what is hit and what isn't (aiming  etc....) However, this is a moot point to a certain extent if units that are literally struck at saved when a (insert statistical modifier) prevents their demise. This means that units that are bunched up have legitimate reflections of their vulnerability so long as CM's adjustments for a particular set of terrain are representative accurate. The game does not render 1 to 1 the micro cover of the units any more so in a field than it does in a building (in terms of the visual.) Hence why a unit sitting in clump of trees might not die even if physically struck because it is "in the clump of trees." 

The fact the moving units significant distances from each other in individual fire teams is a moot point because we are now talking of units that are far more separated in general. This had nothing to do with what I was on about. 

I am viewing the infantry in game as a sum of their parts, which is the only thing that matters in the end. Effectively, they are simply blocks of firepower that move around and are affected by various states depending on tactical geometry. The only way they would not be this is if BFC somehow created near sentient ai and billions of 3d animations or represent the massive and varied possibilities for infantry on the battlefield. Not to mention all the additional 3d models we would need to represent all the micro cover and terrain that currently exists only as math. 

 

The main point can be summarized as this. It does not matter much how point to point the 3d render of the simulation is if huge amounts of the final results are done behind the scenes due to limitations on what can actually be shown. YES, much of the game IS visual, but the final result of everything is NOT. This means that while CMx2 is FAR MORE visual, it is still in abstraction overall. And this in turn means that as a sum of it parts, each squad or fire team etc, is just a "block" with xxxx fire, xxxx movement, xxxx cover, xxxx leadership xxxxx etc. (AND yes those things are modifited by the individual actions of the separate troops....) Reiterating the same mechanics I already did does not somehow make the end result any different. 

 

 

[TheForwardObserver]

So two fish are sitting in a tank.   The first fish turns to the second fish and with a curious look on his face asks;  "Where did you learn to drive a tank?"

Sorry-- wrong thread

[shift8]

7 minutes ago, TheForwardObserver said:

So two fish are sitting in a tank.   The first fish turns to the second fish and with a curious look on his face asks;  "Where did you learn to drive a tank?"

Sorry-- wrong thread

I could be misinterpreting this, but if you are referring to what I think you are, you are comparing watermelons to coconuts. 

[TheForwardObserver]

Shifty I was just making a joke.  

[akd]

1 hour ago, womble said:

Even taking "it's just a hitbox" as a valid interpretation, each pTruppe's hitbox is individual to them, and if all the team's hitboxes are close to a source of multiple wounding projectiles (an HE burst), the team is more likely to suffer more than one intersection of an invisible shrapnel object's trajectory with their polygons than if they were dispersed and further away, so the spacing of the hitboxes matters, even if you think the level of abstraction after that is anything like approaching that in CMx1 (which it demonstrably isn't).

Just to note: HE does not produce "shrapnel objects" equivalent to bullets in game.   A single mortar round would in reality generate hundreds of fragments and tracking those would melt your computer.  Casualties from HE are probability-based, taking into account LOS from the burst, distance, posture and terrain.

Edited June 21, 2016 by akd