Recommended game for starting "small" and to gradually progress?

[BornGinger]

7 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

visibility based on climatic effects and the time of day

That quote from the manual isn't very correct. I had an enemy tank in a thick fog being able to spot my two man team which were hiding behind a tree and in tall grass on a hill  almost 800 meters away. The thick fog should have been enough to prevent the tank crew from seeing them but the tall grass and the team in hiding should have made it even less possible for the tank crew to see them. But it didn't help and a HE shell ended the team members' poor pixel life.

[chuckdyke]

2 hours ago, BornGinger said:

That quote from the manual isn't very correct. I had an enemy tank in a thick fog being able to spot my two man team which were hiding behind a tree and in tall grass on a hill  almost 800 meters away. The thick fog should have been enough to prevent the tank crew from seeing them but the tall grass and the team in hiding should have made it even less possible for the tank crew to see them. But it didn't help and a HE shell ended the team members' poor pixel life.

The tank could have used the contact generated by an infantry unit. I do it manually all the time. Advantage of playing on iron you have the advantage to know what the enemy can't see. Rule of thumb if you have a full contact the other guy has one of you too. A veteran commander unbuttoned observing a contact marker can very well observe you. When I played on Veteran the area of operations was full of contacts in no time. The game just became a turkey shoot. The only thing I can suggest is test and then test some more. The best people to observe are veteran and above. It seems to be the consensus of more experienced players than me. 

[chuckdyke]

Objective of Recon is not to attack but generate contacts for the follow up forces. The Challengers just have arrived and will do a horizontal sharing of the C2. This is not done by radio but verbally between different HQs' they need to be apart by no more than 30 meters turrets unbuttoned. The enemy will be spotted before he can spot you. An effective way of testing when you finish a game do a report back. You replay the game you were not happy with on Hot Seat so that you can see the effects of your tactics and find out why the AFV could spot infantry in a fog behind a tree. Happy gaming. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by chuckdyke
added additional information.

[BornGinger]

10 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

The tank could have used the contact generated by an infantry unit.

The only infantry units were on a field a couple of hundred meters away. So the fog would have affected them too. I only noticed them when the game was over.

Edited February 1, 2021 by BornGinger

[chuckdyke]

17 minutes ago, BornGinger said:

The only infantry units were on a field a couple of hundred meters away. So the fog would have affected them too. I only noticed them when the game was over.

It was something I picked up today. Replay on Hot Seat so that you know how these things happen. You will get a different battle plan, but you can study their C2 structure. You play both sides at the time. It is how some guys make video movies as an instruction tool. In my game above the Challenger are out of LOS but get the contact icons from the snipers on the rooftop through their C2.

Edited February 1, 2021 by chuckdyke

[Lethaface]

15 hours ago, BornGinger said:

That quote from the manual isn't very correct. I had an enemy tank in a thick fog being able to spot my two man team which were hiding behind a tree and in tall grass on a hill  almost 800 meters away. The thick fog should have been enough to prevent the tank crew from seeing them but the tall grass and the team in hiding should have made it even less possible for the tank crew to see them. But it didn't help and a HE shell ended the team members' poor pixel life.

That's one anecdote, however I've played quite some games in the fog. Often LOS/LOF is just maxed at ~200m, but clears up a bit after a while. And usually infantry discover tanks before tanks discover infantry. 
Actually the main reason for spotting is muzzle fire. So infantry or tanks shooting at something, which than gets noticed by others, so more shooting, etc.

But, spotting is definitely impacted by fog. Also during spotting is much worse, unless you got Thermal optics. So I'd say that the quote is quite correct after all.
 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Lethaface

[chuckdyke]

On 1/30/2021 at 4:03 AM, Zloba said:

I was recently playing the Tank Section Attack scenario (made by @Bil Hardenberger) and i was trying to move by a concealed route from an enemy AT gun. After setting a waypoint and checking the LoS from there i confidentely left one tank on that position. It took about 30 seconds to take a deadly shell from the AT gun and my tank was gone.

During my last mission of the Devon - Basic Training i was moving one Infantry squad concealed by trees from an enemy HMG position. At some point for no reason the MG just opened up fire through a very thick foliage of the trees. I checked those angles multiple times and there was no way the AI's MG could spot anything behind those trees. Yet i read some posts about turning off trees being gamey ...

If you enjoy making games harder for you, be my guest (sometimes in other games i do it also). But we're all playing the same GAME in the end and i think calling a playstyle or using a feature of the game itself "gamey" is a bit over the top. Everyone likes to play their games in their own way and there's nothing more "gamey" than trying to simulate something real .. there will always be something, that makes it "gamey" one way or another 

Oh BTW. I'm playing on Iron difficulty settings

LOS and LOF are different. The units you see between turns is the result of 'Borg Spotting'. The manual quite clearly says that CM is using relative spotting. A tank drives on the road unbuttoned and during the turn a contact icon pops up. Naturally, we all thing the commander did the spotting. It could have been the driver, or the bow gunner and you get a 'No Line of Sight'! This example is extreme but possible. Sniper and his Spotter. One has an 8X Binoculars the other a 4X sniper's scope. I just suggest give the TacAI a chance, I don't see the need very often to plot direct fire on a full contact. Snipers 2men team, HMG 4 men 4 men team, AFV's 5 men team. It takes only one to give you a full contact and yes it is possible you don't have a LOF. 

[chuckdyke]

On 1/7/2021 at 9:29 AM, surfimp said:

It's so true! I'm having a literal blast (pardon the pun) just cooking up my own small, simple scenarios and messing around with them.

This evening, I threw together a King Tiger vs four Sherman scenario. Let's just say... it's not going well for the Americans, lol! I should probably try using actual tactics, haha.

Last night, I made a scenario to help me learn the mechanics for assaulting houses. I setup a German rifle squad in the house, with their mandatory HQ unit along, and the LMG in one of the upper windows. An American Glider squad with their HQ was outside, and I had to practice splitting the squad, using covering fire, and then running the assault unit up - but just outside, so they could fire in through the windows and throw grenades.

Very good way to learn how the game works, when you take it in tiny bite-sized pieces like that. And you can just create endless variations, it's tons of fun for someone like me, who enjoys the kind of tinkering that sandboxes like this provide.

I will try Pattons tactic hit the Tiger followed by White Phosphorus which is reputed to set the Tiger on fire. There were guys who did this for real. What are they called? The Greatest Generation, I think. 

[chuckdyke]

On 1/30/2021 at 4:03 AM, Zloba said:

I was recently playing the Tank Section Attack scenario (made by @Bil Hardenberger) and i was trying to move by a concealed route from an enemy AT gun. After setting a waypoint and checking the LoS from there i confidentely left one tank on that position. It took about 30 seconds to take a deadly shell from the AT gun and my tank was gone.

During my last mission of the Devon - Basic Training i was moving one Infantry squad concealed by trees from an enemy HMG position. At some point for no reason the MG just opened up fire through a very thick foliage of the trees. I checked those angles multiple times and there was no way the AI's MG could spot anything behind those trees. Yet i read some posts about turning off trees being gamey ...

If you enjoy making games harder for you, be my guest (sometimes in other games i do it also). But we're all playing the same GAME in the end and i think calling a playstyle or using a feature of the game itself "gamey" is a bit over the top. Everyone likes to play their games in their own way and there's nothing more "gamey" than trying to simulate something real .. there will always be something, that makes it "gamey" one way or another 

Oh BTW. I'm playing on Iron difficulty settings

Thick foliage is not cover but concealment. You can look through the bocage when you are adjacent to it, you can hit then anybody you in return are very hard to spot. Turning trees off doesn't make any difference in spotting. I do it to make plotting easier. Hidden units don't become visible by turning trees off. You paid for the game with your own money and play it as you see fit. Some people save every turn when they do something risky. It is their game and not mine. Page 42 in the game manual formulates spotting. C2, Experience (It is a job for veteran and above) the special equipment Like binoculars thermal systems etc. It is hard but base your decisions not what the screen shows between turns. The editor can make bocage on tree tiles. Even when you blow a hole your tank still can't get through. This is what I call gamey as it is not realistic. Just giving an example what is gamey. Foliage is not cover it just makes you harder to spot by the enemy.  

[FlemFire]

On 1/29/2021 at 2:03 PM, Zloba said:

I was recently playing the Tank Section Attack scenario (made by @Bil Hardenberger) and i was trying to move by a concealed route from an enemy AT gun. After setting a waypoint and checking the LoS from there i confidentely left one tank on that position. It took about 30 seconds to take a deadly shell from the AT gun and my tank was gone.

During my last mission of the Devon - Basic Training i was moving one Infantry squad concealed by trees from an enemy HMG position. At some point for no reason the MG just opened up fire through a very thick foliage of the trees. I checked those angles multiple times and there was no way the AI's MG could spot anything behind those trees.

 

 

As others have mentioned, the LOS tools are not exact measuring tapes & the TacAI can make spots of its own here and there. General rule of thumb is that if it looks visible it USUALLY is. I think the exceptions to this are strange elevations and urban enviros with long stretches of city-blocks. Those can get a little screwy on occasion. Experienced scenario designers seem to know this, IMO, and usually work to avoid them. Everything else tends to follow the general notions of "if I can see it, then my guys will shoot at it if it becomes available."

 

If you find that frustrating, try out some PBEMs and watch as more cautious players start doing recon by fire and mowing down whole swathes of areas, the general suggestion that it'd be a good spot to place your guys more than sufficient "contact" for them

[chuckdyke]

LOS and LOF a good example is the movie Beersheba. The Australian Light Horse charges and at first it looks bad. Then the shells explode behind them. They were in LOS but not in LOF as they were 'Under the Guns'. 

Two Steps from Hell - Victory Charge of the Australian Light Horse, Beersheba - extended version - YouTube

[Zloba]

Ok guys, first of all, i'm not frustrated and i was not complaining about anything. It was just reaction to somebody calling a game's feature (turning off trees in this example) being "gamey". My point was that i don't think it's gamey and i used example from my last video, where you can see from 4:33 that my squad concealed behind trees (their crowns, not stumps) was fired upon by HMG, which couldn't saw them at all. You can see the bullets coming through the trees and at 5:03 there's a PoV from the HMG, which says everything by itself.

So if things like these happens in the game (the AI sees through foliage), turning off the trees to help orient myself and plot movement during the command phase can't be called gamey at all. I understand that it's just a feature that helps the player to see and it doesn't affect waht the pixeltruppens see and that foliage is not a cover, but a concealement 

Here's the part of the video i'm talking about:

 

[chuckdyke]

To pair a tank with a AT gun is not a good choice. The AT gun has a better LOF and gets in the first shot. He spotted you before you spotted him. That is the 50 mm in the training campaign. AT guns better be dealt with by the 60 mm mortar. 

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Zloba said:

Ok guys, first of all, i'm not frustrated and i was not complaining about anything. It was just reaction to somebody calling a game's feature (turning off trees in this example) being "gamey". My point was that i don't think it's gamey and i used example from my last video, where you can see from 4:33 that my squad concealed behind trees (their crowns, not stumps) was fired upon by HMG, which couldn't saw them at all. You can see the bullets coming through the trees and at 5:03 there's a PoV from the HMG, which says everything by itself.

So if things like these happens in the game (the AI sees through foliage), turning off the trees to help orient myself and plot movement during the command phase can't be called gamey at all. I understand that it's just a feature that helps the player to see and it doesn't affect waht the pixeltruppens see and that foliage is not a cover, but a concealement 

Here's the part of the video i'm talking about:

 

Turning of trees can leave behind a dent of the structures eg pillboxes and it becomes obvious where these are. It is an editor's problem.

[Zloba]

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

To pair a tank with a AT gun is not a good choice. The AT gun has a better LOF and gets in the first shot. He spotted you before you spotted him. That is the 50 mm in the training campaign. AT guns better be dealt with by the 60 mm mortar. 

There's no AT gun or tank in the video above.

[Warts 'n' all]

13 minutes ago, Zloba said:

There's no AT gun or tank in the video above.

Haha. That was an excellent reply.

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Warts 'n' all said:

Haha. That was an excellent reply.

There is two 50mm AT guns in the first battle of the campaign in the previous post he complained about it. I referred to the earlier battle. It was Taskforce Raff Campaign.   I was recently playing the Tank Section Attack scenario (made by @Bil Hardenberger) and i was trying to move by a concealed route from an enemy AT gun. After setting a waypoint and checking the LoS from there i confidentely left one tank on that position. It took about 30 seconds to take a deadly shell from the AT gun and my tank was gone.

[Zloba]

Oh that one, i got confused, because you didn't quote it so i thought you were replying to the last post.

To correct you, that wasn't Taskforce Raff campaign, but the Tank Section Attack drill made by Bil. In that scenario, you have only 5 Sherman tanks and need to proceed carefully to destroy few AT guns and other enemy assetts. You have no mortars or infantry support.

That example however was posted to show that TARGET from a waypoint is not gamey, because even when it showed no LoS for the tank towards the enemy AT gun, the tank got destroyed by it in the end, so it's not something i can always count on.

It's hard to keep conversation in one direction if you keep taking something out of context and start a completely different topic .. just saying 

[Warts 'n' all]

1 hour ago, Zloba said:

It's hard to keep conversation in one direction if you keep taking something out of context and start a completely different topic .. just saying 

Agreed.