Improvement suggestions

[Zveroboy1]

1 hour ago, Kaunitz said:

Well what you're saying here is not the opposite. Rather, we seem to be agreeing. I've said that it handicaps the attack, but not that the attack per se is underpowered. 

I'm an avid activist for more/better fortifications and implementing measures to decrease the infantry casualty rate. In fact an increase of area-suppression should also help to reduce casualties. And, as you've also mentioned, it can also be very usefull for the defender, whose knowledge of the exact whereabouts of the enemy is usually not that clear. A larger area of suppression could help to pin down the guys that "must be moving somewhere around these bushes".

Right yes true. I have been following your posts about your endeavour to build better fortifications with the help of terrain and I agree with all of it. I like it how you have been so persistent and creative with your effort.

18 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Fog.

Fog that doesn't result in glitched textures please.

[Kaunitz]

As I'm preparing for a Red Thunder match, I want to point out a tiny, positive side-effect of my suggestion to allow multiple "target briefly" orders being chained together in one turn: It would also make tank-riders more usefull. Right now, soldiers riding on tanks can only be assigned one area-target per turn/minute. That makes it rather impossible for them to cover the tank with suppressive fire, e.g. when the tank moves along the edge of a wood. With multiple target briefly commands, they could keep firing in the same "direction" while moving, not on the same "point", if you understand what I mean. Ideally, they should spray the edge of the wood continously.

[JoMac]

5 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

As I'm preparing for a Red Thunder match, I want to point out a tiny, positive side-effect of my suggestion to allow multiple "target briefly" orders being chained together in one turn: It would also make tank-riders more usefull. Right now, soldiers riding on tanks can only be assigned one area-target per turn/minute. That makes it rather impossible for them to cover the tank with suppressive fire, e.g. when the tank moves along the edge of a wood. With multiple target briefly commands, they could keep firing in the same "direction" while moving, not on the same "point", if you understand what I mean. Ideally, they should spray the edge of the wood continously.

+ Thrice...

[Bulletpoint]

21 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

when the tank moves along the edge of a wood. With multiple target briefly commands, they could keep firing in the same "direction" while moving, not on the same "point", if you understand what I mean. Ideally, they should spray the edge of the wood continously.

Even if they could, it wouldn't help, because suppression in this game takes a while to build and start to cause troops to cower. Also, even cowering troops will often fire at short ranges.

[Kaunitz]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Even if they could, it wouldn't help, because suppression in this game takes a while to build and start to cause troops to cower. Also, even cowering troops will often fire at short ranges.

Hm, but I would let the riders fire obliquely to the front/flank of the vehicle, not directly to the flank. And they have SMGs! I think it could work to keep at least the heads of Panzerfaust 30s down. It would surely need some testing and experimenting with different vehicle speeds (the slower, the more time for suppression to build up). 

[Bulletpoint]

2 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

Hm, but I would let the riders fire obliquely to the front/flank of the vehicle, not directly to the flank. And they have SMGs! I think it could work to keep at least the heads of Panzerfaust 30s down.

In real life, probably yes. In the game, not so much. At least that's what I think. Do some testing and prove me wrong

[MOS:96B2P]

4 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

It would surely need some testing and experimenting with different vehicle speeds (the slower, the more time for suppression to build up). 

A tank with riders will allow the plotting of waypoints Quick and Fast however the max speed the tank will actually travel at is Move when riders are on the tank.  Of course a halftrack travels at Fast with passengers. 

I have used tank riders to help suppress the OpFor during an assault.  I gave the riders an Area Target in the direction of the OpFor (to the front of the tanks).  This type of infantry mounted assault generally works well as long as my judgement that the OpFor is sufficiently suppressed is correct.  I generally try not to expose the side armor of my tanks to the OpFor so the riders wouldn't (in theory) really have targets off to the side of the tanks.  So the one point Target order to the front for the riders worked. 

Having said the above, it would be cool if the riders/passengers were able to keep Area Targeting in the same direction and not just the same point. 

  

[Michael Emrys]

9 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Having said the above, it would be cool if the riders/passengers were able to keep Area Targeting in the same direction and not just the same point. 

Have you tried giving them a Target Arc in the direction and range that you want covered? I suppose that for this to work they would need spotted targets. I haven't tried this so I don't know how well it works; I'm just throwing out ideas.

Michael

[Zveroboy1]

To be honest if you have gotten to a point in the battle where you are relying on mounted troops to provide suppressive fire, it is probably time to disembark.

[MOS:96B2P]

3 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

Have you tried giving them a Target Arc in the direction and range that you want covered? I suppose that for this to work they would need spotted targets.

Yep, if not Area Targeting, to shoot they would need confirmed contacts.  So the riders would not keep up a constant suppression fire.  However this, Target Arc tactic, might work well enough.  So many tactics are situational dependent.  For my part I try to keep the OpFor to the front with no intentional side (flank) exposure for the tank/rider assault.  Then everything is shooting to the front.  No intentional charge of the light brigade (with OpFor on multiple sides) for my troops .............        

[MOS:96B2P]

2 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:

To be honest if you have gotten to a point in the battle where you are relying on mounted troops to provide suppressive fire, it is probably time to disembark.

Agreed.  I would not rely on the riders to provide the suppression.  The OpFor IMO must be well suppressed to begin with for a tank rider assault to work.  The riders contribute their fires to the suppression while they are hitching a ride but tanks and artillery are doing most of the work.  I think its good for the morale of the riders to contribute........... it helps to keep them focused............ .  

[user1000]

Make allied anti aircraft platoon NOT show up on quick battle > ai suggestions every time.

[Kaunitz]

On 10/13/2018 at 5:06 AM, MOS:96B2P said:

Agreed.  I would not rely on the riders to provide the suppression.  The OpFor IMO must be well suppressed to begin with for a tank rider assault to work.  The riders contribute their fires to the suppression while they are hitching a ride but tanks and artillery are doing most of the work.  I think its good for the morale of the riders to contribute........... it helps to keep them focused............ .  

I agree that the situations to use it are very rare. But they exist. E.g. I want to quickly move a column of SPGs (no MGs of their own to do the job) down a road through an extensive wood.

Option 1: Dismount and lead with the infantry on both flanks. --> Safe, but it will take you 20 minutes. Also, if spotted, you're an excellent target for artillery.

Option 2: Risk parts of the force as an advance guard, the rest follows at safe distance. DIsmount in time if advance guard gets ambushed. --> Not as safe, but faster. A cunning opponent might still trigger the ambush so that he hits the body of the column.

Option 3: Suppress the immediate surroundings with fire provided by the tank riders while racing down the road as fast as possible. Takes lots of ammo, but with a few trucks in the force, that's not that big a problem.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Kaunitz

[Kaunitz]

List of known, major (game engine) bugs

• infantry behaviour under any kind of shelling (even if in perfect cover, units decide to leave their cover to run around in the open and get killed like headless chicken) - this really is a major issue
• contacts shared via C2 are never updated ( http://community.battlefront.com/topic/126539-test-indicates-c2-contact-sharing-is-broken-when-enemy-moves/?tab=comments#comment-1739798 )

[JoMac]

On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 8:02 PM, Zveroboy1 said:

To be honest if you have gotten to a point in the battle where you are relying on mounted troops to provide suppressive fire, it is probably time to disembark.

Actually, (it's the other way around)...If you have gotten to a point in the Battle where you are relying on mounted troops to provide suppressive fire, then the Enemy is already in bad shape...

[RockinHarry]

I´ve bit of an issue with (german) squads and assault order, that too oftenly the supposed support half of the squad (the one with the lMG) makes the first move. This is more of a problem with AI forces and making the assault order at instances less usefull (more hazardous) than it could be. I´d like having sort of a switch/toggle to pre assign a set move order for the individual teams during assault or maybe even every other move order.

A related issue is the position of the squad leader for split teams. With german squad example I´d oftenly wish to have the squad leader and the benefit of the added Binoc assigned to the lMg half of the squad, while having the rifle half hidden and in full cover. Beside adaption to WW2 employment doctrine it would give the lMG portion with added SL some more advantages at middle ranges (spotting and engagement chance at 300-800m), while generally keeping the footprint of the whole squad low (rifle and AT sections hidden and in full cover). For full exploitation a "split off lMG team" from the full squad option would be quite usefull.

[mjkerner]

I second that, Harry!

[Michael Emrys]

And I third it. Really good suggestion, Harry.

Michael

[Erwin]

Makes sense.  Otherwise one tends to need to use the Assault squad with the SL and binocs for recon all the time.  Would also be helpful to be able to split off a couple of troopers with the binocs to act as recon/spotters.

[user1000]

Allow option in QB for daytime - to be a tab called-  ANYTHING BUT NIGHT

[Bulletpoint]

Here's a whole new idea, I think:

If only one unit sees incoming enemy fire, and that unit gets destroyed during the turn, then those enemy bullets/shells should not be visible to the player during turn playback.

Example:

As the game works now, you can send off a vehicle ahead of everyone else, drive it up on a hill, and then if it gets destroyed by an enemy AT gun, you as the player can often see the incoming shot (if the vehicle spotted it) and then you realise approximately where the enemy gun is. But in real life, even if the crew saw the incoming shot, they only had this info for a fraction of a second before they got destroyed. That intel would never get anywhere. Back at HQ, there'd just be sudden radio silence and a last known location on a map.

Another example: you send off a 2-man scout team running far ahead of the rest of the units, and it's out of all kinds of C2 contact. They take fire and go down. In the replay, you can see what they saw in their last moments: tracers coming from a particular building or patch of trees. As a player, you can act on that. But again, that info would never get anywhere in real life.

If the unit is not destroyed, then it would be assumed they managed to get at least a few words out, and the incoming fire would be shown. If two units saw the incoming fire, then it would be abstractly assumed that info got shared too, even if that other unit also got hit.

Gameplay effects: The game would reward units supporting each other better.

Another way of doing it would be to say that if a unit gets hit and it's not spotted by any friendly unit, then that intel is lost and not shown. The difference is that in the first version of the idea, it's about spotting the actual incoming rounds, and in the second version, it's about spotting the unit taking fire.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Bulletpoint

[Michael Emrys]

15 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Another example: you send off a 2-man scout team running far ahead of the rest of the units, and it's out of all kinds of C2 contact. They take fire and go down. In the replay, you can see what they saw in their last moments: tracers coming from a particular building or patch of trees. As a player, you can act on that. But again, that info would never get anywhere in real life.

I understand what you are saying. This is a side effect of the godlike view that the player has over the whole battlefield. I like the idea you offer to correct the situation and it seems to me that it ought not be too hard to code in WEGO. Coding it for RTS might not be possible at all though, due to the fact that the player can view the action from the point of view of any of his units anywhere on the map. Of course, in RTS or FPS modes it would all go by so fast that the player might miss it altogether.

Michael

[Kaunitz]

On 10/19/2018 at 11:00 PM, Bulletpoint said:

Here's a whole new idea, I think:

If only one unit sees incoming enemy fire, and that unit gets destroyed during the turn, then those enemy bullets/shells should not be visible to the player during turn playback.

Example:

As the game works now, you can send off a vehicle ahead of everyone else, drive it up on a hill, and then if it gets destroyed by an enemy AT gun, you as the player can often see the incoming shot (if the vehicle spotted it) and then you realise approximately where the enemy gun is. But in real life, even if the crew saw the incoming shot, they only had this info for a fraction of a second before they got destroyed. That intel would never get anywhere. Back at HQ, there'd just be sudden radio silence and a last known location on a map.

Another example: you send off a 2-man scout team running far ahead of the rest of the units, and it's out of all kinds of C2 contact. They take fire and go down. In the replay, you can see what they saw in their last moments: tracers coming from a particular building or patch of trees. As a player, you can act on that. But again, that info would never get anywhere in real life.

If the unit is not destroyed, then it would be assumed they managed to get at least a few words out, and the incoming fire would be shown. If two units saw the incoming fire, then it would be abstractly assumed that info got shared too, even if that other unit also got hit.

Gameplay effects: The game would reward units supporting each other better.

Another way of doing it would be to say that if a unit gets hit and it's not spotted by any friendly unit, then that intel is lost and not shown. The difference is that in the first version of the idea, it's about spotting the actual incoming rounds, and in the second version, it's about spotting the unit taking fire.

Well it could also be argued that it is unrealistic to assume that whenever a unit gets hit and survives, all units (= the player) automatically know where the fire came from, despite not having C2 with that unit. And also the old question comes up whether (most) units should only be allowed to area fire around suspected contact markers. Admittedly, these are very important questions as they have a huge impact on how the game is played.

I wonder though if it would really make the game more interesting. It would surely slow the game down and make players spend more thoughts on the communication between their units. And you would get that odd messenger running around between units, agitatedly pointing in directions.  Defenders would also have the chance to fire and retreat (before the counter-strike comes in) more often. Right now, opening fire is often a death sentence. If you're defending, the speed by which your units will get spotted and targeted by heavy calibers once they open fire forbids a "frontal" defence. Always hide behind buildings/hills and fire obliquely on the advancing enemy!

I'm pretty sure though that if the source of small arms fire (not sure if it works with HE?) is not identified by anyone, then you don't get to see the tracers and don't hear the soundes either. It's a bit odd. You'll note that your unit's suppression rises but you don't know why. In this case, there is no "kill cam".

So perhaps reducing fire signatures a bit (=giving units that fire a smaller malus in terms of getting spotted) would also help, or decreasing awareness in certain circumstances (running, being under fire). I mean would you really be able to instantly spot a few rifle men, lying prone and concealed at the edge of a larger* wood? I have no experience here, but I think that if other weapons are going off all over the place, the chances to identify those riflemen in under a minute are rather slim. The same is true for MGs. Maybe you can identify the general direction by sound (if no battle noise interfers?), but visually, the MG would be relatively unsuspicious (if properly camouflaged, the ground in front of it intentionally dampened to prevent dust clouds) - except for the tracers *lol*? I think that this solution would be easier as I don't think the game checks which unit can see a unit that comes under fire. 

And again, prepared defences are not really represented well in the game (except for the concealment bonus that AT guns get). The defender would have more time to camouflage his positions. In the game, a unit that just moves into a wood and goes prone has the same level of concealment as a unit that has worked to conceal their position over the last 2 days. Funny enough, fortifications attract fire in CM, they don't help you to stay concealed.  

In the same vein, sound tracing is a known "problem".

Making contacts (and especially confirmed ones) more rare in general would also help a bit to tackle the problem that players can area-target any spot. Generally speaking, the sharing of contact-information seems to be too "strong" to me. In reality, I want to see how an infantry unit describes the exact position of a spotted enemy who is in the midst of a 1km² wheat field via radio to its company commander, and then the company commander describes the position to the battalion commander ("50 meters from the southern edge of the cornfield in grid nr. XXXX, two enemy riflemen were spotted!"). This raises complex questions: The speed by which an enemy contact is shared between units should depend on the type of com-link (visual is the fastest, obviously - you can point it out or fire a tracer at the enemy; while radio links would be the slowest) and the level of "suspiciousness" of the enemy position (An enemy in a house can be called out easily. An enemy in a wood or a large field  not so much) and perhaps also the type of enemy unit (would the spotting of infantry really travel as far up as the battalion commander? With tanks, it could be different?).

* by larger, I refer to the fact that sometimes, terrain features have a quite small footprint, like in a model railroad world, so that you can't really miss if you target them - it's often easy to guess where the enemy is within a certain terrain feature. There is a big difference between a wood with a frontage of 30m and one with a frontage of 100m. 

PS:  Crazily detailed/complex idea: If units with tracer rounds (MGs) are firing at a confirmed target, the speed of info-sharing with units within visual C2 with that unit should be very fast. 

Edited October 24, 2018 by Kaunitz

[Bulletpoint]

54 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

Well it could also be argued that it is unrealistic to assume that whenever a unit gets hit and survives, all units (= the player) automatically know where the fire came from, despite not having C2 with that unit. 

True. It wouldn't be a perfect solution. That's why I also suggested an idea that it could be based on whether the target unit was in visual C2.The idea being that somebody would keep an eye on you and know what happened to you.

It would mean players would have to bring the HQ unit forward before making the next "leap" with the scouts - arguably more realistic than just having them charge ahead blindly for hundreds of metres, then somehow picking up lots of intel when they go down.

 

54 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

So perhaps reducing fire signatures a bit (=giving units that fire a smaller malus in terms of getting spotted) would also help, or decreasing awareness in certain circumstances (running, being under fire).

I would vote yes to both ideas. I often manage to spot distant stationary tanks in woods etc. while my scouts are running at top speed through a forest. There seems to be the same spotting ability whether or not the unit is stationary or running.. or at least that's how it seems like to me.

 

Edited October 24, 2018 by Bulletpoint

[Kaunitz]

23 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I would vote yes to both ideas. I often manage to spot distant stationary tanks in woods etc. while my scouts are running at top speed through a forest. There seems to be the same spotting ability whether or not the unit is stationary or running.. or at least that's how it seems like to me.

I suppose that the problem with suggestions for the spotting system (whether you like them or not) is that the AI could not deal with it? It is much more dependent on confirmed contacts than the players, and it would not understand how to manage communications between/positioning of its units? I only play H2H, but the majority of CM players is  probably more interested in  singleplayer? It's always the same: The more complex and realistic a game gets, the less the AI is able to handle it. 

I've added some thoughts to my post above, by the way, pointing out some other factors that might influence spotting and C2 links.

The other thing I keep asking myself when playing CM is morale. I can't really get my head around it, but sometimes it strikes me as implausible how fanatical most defending units are. If you are a three man team out in the open (hardly anyone uses fortifications) and there is combat all over the place and you don't see any friendly units and haven't heard from/seen your squad leader for half an hour, do you keep fighting or would you rather retreat/try to link up with the squad (unless under direct threat by the enemy, of course)? Combat morale does decrease as casualties rise (see Josey Wales' analysis), but the system is based on the abstract OOB-structure, not on the situational awareness of troops on the ground. I wonder if we would position our troops differently and in general play the game differently (especially on the defence) if morale was a bigger factor and "isolation" mattered more? In the defence, I often pay no attention at all to where the squad leaders are and split up my squads as much as possible. I don't think it really makes a bit difference (granted I'm not the best of all players, but experienced enough to make that statement). What do you guys think? 

 

Edited October 25, 2018 by Kaunitz