Weird stuff in CM. Why is CM great?

[Vacillator]

12 minutes ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

This is a lotta sugar for nickel.

Especially from 3 months ago...

Also a good point, and the OP hasn't been on the forum since January 3rd.  Oh well, hope his issues didn't totally put him off and that he'll be back.

[Phantom Captain]

2 hours ago, BFCElvis said:

You hit the nail right on the head, at least for me. And @The_Capttouched on it as well. If a soldier doesn't spot a Sherman 100m away I think of it as heat of battle/fog of war. It doesn't take much of an imagination for me to think that in the confusion of battle soldiers don't see everything. I've had that attitude since CMBO. It's a feature, not a bug.

I also agree with @Vacillatorthat  this thread isn't a whinefest. Sometimes they highlight things that should be of legitimate concern. And, sometimes, the replies to comments like the first 2 posts might give them something to consider. A way to look at it that they hadn't considered before.

Exactly!!  I mean simply enough, tunnel vision is a very real thing.  And being shot at?  Under stress?  Dust in the eyes from bullets hitting around you? Over focused?  Someone (maybe even a buddy) screaming in pain 20m away and being utterly distracted by that?  There are a million different "real" things that can be happening that would make one not "see" something in the distance or even up close for that matter.  Same with behavior.  I do think of it as a feature as well!  

We also know as a fact that the human brain does not see things sometimes that it isn't looking for.  It's how people don't see motorcycles on the road because our brains are programmed to look for cars.  Perception can be very imperfect.

 

Edited February 15, 2022 by Phantom Captain

[chuckdyke]

Spotting goes for you and against you. The M4 Sherman buttoned up spotted the German open halftrack which remained unaware facing in the right direction. The AI didn't come up with an evasive action or was it the lack of a 'trigger'?

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

This is a lotta sugar for nickel.

Especially from 3 months ago...

We try harder....

[Simcoe]

4 hours ago, Phantom Captain said:

This!  I think a lot of what makes CM so great is all the micro stories that happen over the course of a battle and how you really fill in the lines in your head on what's going on.  It can be more immersive than any other game I have ever played.  In a recent PBEM, this exact thing was occurring for both me and my opponent simultaneously as we did discuss it after the fact.  It was one of those moments where I had a Russian 3 man recon team start to tangle it up with a Ukrainian infantry team cresting a ridge and advancing.  My recon team opens up on them and took out a couple men.  The Ukrainians, in shock, begin to fire back and hit one of my team.  I displace back out of the building I am hiding in and take up a new position.  A minute later the Ukrainians again press forward only to engage with my team again, and we both take another casualty.  This little running gunfight went on for five minutes or so as the the two teams would displace and continue hunting each other. Both teams raging that the enemy had hit their teammates!  Eventually, my last surviving man, wounded even, made a dash back to safety and survived.

These little incidents and how they develop and play out really make CM different than anything else.  And having the ability to go back and watch each one minute of battle play out from so many different perspectives as many times as you want, game changer.  

Regardless of all the whinging (that has been going on forever, mind you) I am with @The_Capt in that for most of us, CM is great because of all of these little detail things that can't be found anywhere else.  There really is nothing else even remotely close in my opinion.  No other game creates the tension and nervousness as you wait for a PBEM turn to see how that last minute and your decisions played out!

Awesome story. This is what I love about Combat Mission as well. One of the most epic moments was during the final mission of the NTC campaign in Cold War.

My company combat team was situated behind a slight rise with dense, hilly terrain to the left and open ground on the right. I needed to hold off the enemy for a period of time then extract to my left. An entire BMP battalion split raced across both fronts as my tanks and TOW launchers valiantly stemmed the tide. As I got the green light to retreat the BMP's on my right hooked around my defenses and on my left three BMP's made it past my defenses and cut off my retreat. It was at that moment I heard the sound of an enemy helicopter (my vulcan was out of ammo). My tanks leap frogged, one defending the other as they retreated while my infantry were strafed running to the safety of the M113's. Desperation began to set in as my vehicles piled up behind the small hill the BMP's/infantry were defending.

I gathered a scratch team of infantry from various squads and a tank to take the hill. There was no time for caution, a mortar carrier had just been taken out and the BMP's on the right were just around the corner. My boys charged over the hill like maniacs. The Russians seemed to be taken by surprise but they quickly returned fire and casualties were heavy on both sides. It looked to be a futile effort as the BMP's guns opened up but at that moment the lone M-60 crested the hill and engaged the BMP's. He took out two before the final one got a solid hit and knocked out the tank. It was all worth it as reinforcements arrived and the convoy made it's move to the extraction point all the while harried by the helicopter. 

I don't think you get stories like this from any other game.

 

[BFCElvis]

2 hours ago, Phantom Captain said:

Exactly!!  I mean simply enough, tunnel vision is a very real thing.  And being shot at?  Under stress?  Dust in the eyes from bullets hitting around you? Over focused?  Someone (maybe even a buddy) screaming in pain 20m away and being utterly distracted by that?  There are a million different "real" things that can be happening that would make one not "see" something in the distance or even up close for that matter.  Same with behavior.  I do think of it as a feature as well!  

We also know as a fact that the human brain does not see things sometimes that it isn't looking for.  It's how people don't see motorcycles on the road because our brains are programmed to look for cars.  Perception can be very imperfect.

 

Exactly. It seems darn near everyone has friend that is a cop. Ask them how many different eye witness accounts they get for things. And those witnesses are not usually in combat zones.

[chuckdyke]

Diehard Mark IV took five penetrations from a 75 mm Sherman. I recall another battle that the M8 Greyhound was far more effective. But then I played a German. The AI trigger says attack it will keep on attacking. It is a spoiler, just give them enough rope. 

No spotting problems tentative contact and an armor cover arc ensured the first hit. Range was less than 400 meters.

Edited February 15, 2022 by chuckdyke

[Bil Hardenberger]

11 hours ago, Simcoe said:

Awesome story. This is what I love about Combat Mission as well. One of the most epic moments was during the final mission of the NTC campaign in Cold War.

My company combat team was situated behind a slight rise with dense, hilly terrain to the left and open ground on the right. I needed to hold off the enemy for a period of time then extract to my left. An entire BMP battalion split raced across both fronts as my tanks and TOW launchers valiantly stemmed the tide. As I got the green light to retreat the BMP's on my right hooked around my defenses and on my left three BMP's made it past my defenses and cut off my retreat. It was at that moment I heard the sound of an enemy helicopter (my vulcan was out of ammo). My tanks leap frogged, one defending the other as they retreated while my infantry were strafed running to the safety of the M113's. Desperation began to set in as my vehicles piled up behind the small hill the BMP's/infantry were defending.

I gathered a scratch team of infantry from various squads and a tank to take the hill. There was no time for caution, a mortar carrier had just been taken out and the BMP's on the right were just around the corner. My boys charged over the hill like maniacs. The Russians seemed to be taken by surprise but they quickly returned fire and casualties were heavy on both sides. It looked to be a futile effort as the BMP's guns opened up but at that moment the lone M-60 crested the hill and engaged the BMP's. He took out two before the final one got a solid hit and knocked out the tank. It was all worth it as reinforcements arrived and the convoy made it's move to the extraction point all the while harried by the helicopter. 

I don't think you get stories like this from any other game.

 

Thanks for that vignette.. I haven't heard a lot of feedback from that particular battle in the NTC Campaign (there are two versions by the way, depending on which Decision you take)... I think it is the most challenging battle in that campaign, but then it was designed to be.

Bil 

[Centurian52]

On 10/14/2021 at 4:11 AM, Zimtstern said:

Horrible marksmenship on all ranges. It almost seems like my units find it more important to get many shots close enough to the enemy than actually putting them in danger of getting hit. Especially on closest ranges this leads to spectacullar fireworks with slow conclusions looking more often than not really funny.

I personally stopped complaining about marksmanship after digging for information about hit probabilities on Napoleonic battlefields, and found figures suggesting that it was common for it to take somewhere between 200 and 500 rounds to inflict 1 casualty. I know it's the wrong time period, but the chances of a round finding it's mark would have actually been significantly higher on a Napoleonic battlefield than on a modern one. The enemy on a Napoleonic battlefield can be clearly seen, and is standing in a dense formation. The enemy on a modern battlefield is in extended formations, and each soldier is taking cover and concealment on their own initiative. Cover was used on Napoleonic battlefields, contrary to popular imagination. But not on the initiative of the individual soldiers. Rather, a battalion commander would have to find a suitable linear terrain feature that could provide decent protection for their whole battalion (a ditch, tree line, wall, etc...), which is a much harder task than an individual finding a terrain feature that could protect just themselves.

The fact that they had muskets and not modern rifles does not account for the low hit probability. Muskets, while inaccurate compared to modern rifles, are far more accurate than people imagine. About 30 arcminutes (+/- 6 arcminutes), or about half a degree is the accuracy of a typical musket, which is abysmal by modern standards. But it is just accurate enough that a perfect marksmen should be guaranteed hit someone in a close order formation at 200 yards with every round. Clearly it was the humans that were inaccurate. Specifically, the humans under battlefield conditions, since they achieved much higher accuracy when shooting at targets on a range. Considering how much more elusive modern targets are, I now find estimates that it takes 2000+ rounds to inflict 1 casualty on a modern battlefield (which I used to find absolutely absurd) to be completely plausible.

I came away from this with two conclusions:

1. The marksmanship in Combat Mission is perfectly fine.

2. Imperial Stormtroopers are actually excellent marksmen and the "stormtroopers can't aim" memes need to die.

[Codreanu]

I find the AI's accuracy to be spot on, it would be very difficult to actually, in the heat of combat with your adrenaline surging and your fine motor skills failing, find your target, align your front and rear sight, apply the proper lead, and actually deliver a smooth pull of the trigger to actually hit your target, not to mention that if you're working a typical bolt-action rifle you're going to have to move your face away from the gun to cycle the bolt, having to start the whole process again with reacquiring your target. At very close range your adrenaline would probably be replaced with sheer panic and terror and I doubt you'd really try aiming at all, just pray that you're one of the lucky few with a submachine gun and can just hold down the trigger with your gun pointing in the general direction of the enemy and hope that you hit him with something.

[Phantom Captain]

4 hours ago, Codreanu said:

I find the AI's accuracy to be spot on, it would be very difficult to actually, in the heat of combat with your adrenaline surging and your fine motor skills failing, find your target, align your front and rear sight, apply the proper lead, and actually deliver a smooth pull of the trigger to actually hit your target, not to mention that if you're working a typical bolt-action rifle you're going to have to move your face away from the gun to cycle the bolt, having to start the whole process again with reacquiring your target. At very close range your adrenaline would probably be replaced with sheer panic and terror and I doubt you'd really try aiming at all, just pray that you're one of the lucky few with a submachine gun and can just hold down the trigger with your gun pointing in the general direction of the enemy and hope that you hit him with something.

People who have no experience actually using firearms have a terrible misconception of their inherent accuracy.  People truly believe that you can point an SMG or automatic rifle, hold the trigger and hose down and annihilate every thing in front of them at a whim.  The truth is far from that.  I think movies, TV and VIDEO GAMES have added greatly to this misconception.  Bullets occupy a very very tiny amount of space for an almost miniscule amount of time.  Factoring in all the other human components when it comes to combat and actually trying to hit another person who is also moving, stressed, trying not to be hit and firing back at you it's pretty amazing that anyone is actually ever hit.  

This is exactly why you hear stories of a police officer and a suspect unloading on each other from 10 feet away and both completely missing with every shot.  How many war stories have you heard the same thing?  

That all being said, I think the AI's accuracy is pretty spot on too.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Phantom Captain

[chuckdyke]

I always suspect the complaints by people who plot manually their LOF. I started to enjoy the games a lot more by following the manual and leaving it to the TacAI to deal with full contacts. Play experiment and develop some SOPs. Marksmanship, give a new shooter a .22 LR Pistol and see how he goes from 25 meters at a bullseye target.  Some of the shots won't even make it to the paper. Three months later he is average keeps most of his shots in the 8-ring. When he started it was stress and by looking at the target instead of looking at his sights. The same reason he misses RL stress and looking at the target. 

Edited February 16, 2022 by chuckdyke

[Phantom Captain]

17 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

I always suspect the complaints by people who plot manually their LOF. I started to enjoy the games a lot more by following the manual and leaving it to the TacAI to deal with full contacts. Play experiment and develop some SOPs. Marksmanship, give a new shooter a .22 LR Pistol and see how he goes from 25 meters at a bullseye target.  Some of the shots won't even make it to the paper. Three months later he is average keeps most of his shots in the 8-ring. When he started it was stress and by looking at the target instead of looking at his sights. The same reason he misses RL stress and looking at the target. 

I think pretty much the only manual targeting orders I ever give are "Target briefly" when I am trying to suppress a known or suspected position in coordination with my troop movements, otherwise I just let my pixeltruppen figure out who to shoot at.  They are pretty good at figuring it all out.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Phantom Captain

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Phantom Captain said:

Target briefly

Same here preferably at a solid tentative contact. 

[slysniper]

Well, for the original poster.

if they come from other games and most games do nothing to try to reflect the aspects he is not use to. So of course it does not feel natural to what he is expecting.

If you never been in combat, again many of the chaos type events in the game do not make sense either.

Does the game have it correct, well not exactly, but as mentioned, its the only game that even tries to simulate it. 

 

Now the sad thing is, as for infantry fire, the game might actually be over accurate compared to real life. So dont complain too much because most test I have seen or done seems a little too accurate compared to RL.

Spotting does have flaws and is not perfect by no means. But in the big picture can be accepted because there should be some fog of war aspects that no game ever hardly reflect.

But What will be interesting is when cm ever gets the next engine released, spotting is likely getting a whole new treatment, and I am sure it will be an improvement from what they have learned doing it in this engine.

 

SO  if you dont try to expect the game to give the results you think it should have, but look into trying to understand what the real environment is more like. You will learn that the game is doing things that can reflect more realistically than most other games do. 

Can there be improvements, sure, but it will not be the borg type aspects that most are use to from other systems.

 

[Bud Backer]

Why is CM Great? One answer might be that real militaries use it as a training tool, and I doubt they’re trying to simulate what may keep them alive… badly. 

Another answer might be that I can realistically simulate countless battles with friends and learn real tactics.

Another are the fantastic mini-stories we see happen in each battle. Like, perhaps this One  that takes place over 5 panels. Could not believe my eyes when I saw it occur.

[Simcoe]

On 2/15/2022 at 5:31 AM, Bil Hardenberger said:

Thanks for that vignette.. I haven't heard a lot of feedback from that particular battle in the NTC Campaign (there are two versions by the way, depending on which Decision you take)... I think it is the most challenging battle in that campaign, but then it was designed to be.

Bil 

For sure. The 2nd helicopter and the extraction point really ups the excitement. The ai plans felt very realistic as well.