Gamey Recon Technique?

[iggi]

And if someone should ask what happens if the HQ unit dies. The next highest ranking squad becomes HQ with a severe restriction to distances for waypoints that other squads can plot from it.

[Sirocco]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I haven't a clue what can be done to prevent wild charges by light AFVs into the rear with the intention of knocking out tanks from the rear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only real solution is a long term one; an increase in the complexity of the games AI which will give each man "consciousness", the ability to evaluate his environment fully, and to therefore reject tactics of this kind. But that, of course, is something not possible with the current level of widespread computing power.

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

"He belongs to a race which has coloured the map red, and all he wants are the green fields of England..."

- Joe Illingworth, Yorkshire Post War Correspondent

[iggi]

Units don't operate in vacuums. At least squads have a command radius. There is no equivalent for vehics.

See my element idea above for a solution.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Los:

Sigh....

........

It seems to me perfectly reasonable if a player wants to send one of his AFVs off at full speed in an attempt to draw fire, it's a legit tactic. So long as if that vehicle is alone, and it is unable to see/spot as well as if it were stationary, then you'll ge ta reasonable result out of the game. Better still so long as the player leaves vehicles in overwatch, he should still be able to garnish the info he's looking for even if it results in the death of the vehicle. It's a legit tactic even if a little harsh for the guys being the rabbit.

Los<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perfect!

That sounds good to me, I always thought that I should not be labeled gamey for being so harsh as to send the occasional "rabbit" out for a run every now and then!

Thanks Los, you know I'm going to quote this every time I use the "rabbit" tactic and get labeled gamey for the use of "dash to death or glory" tactic.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 09-25-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Henri wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm not sure that this was your intention, but this is an admission that the game is so imperfect a simulation of reality that "rules" of what players can and cannot do are necessary to make it realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(sigh) Henri, Combat Mission is nothing but a collection of rules. EVERYTHING in it is rule based. EVERYTHING. So EVERY rule in Comabt Mission is not only designed to make it more realistic, they are the only things that make it anything but a bunch of graphics and sound effects. If you can not understand this point, there is no way we can have a discussion about this. Combat Mission is not some mystical recreation of the real world that we are hacking rules into in order to change the mystical recreation of the real world.

There are practical limitations as to what the computer can do. There are also limitations as to how much we can code, or how much we can code correctly the first time through. With the "Jeep" thing we made some errors and therefore we had to make some corrections. Just like as if we made a data entry error in the frontal armor for a particular take. Yet you keep insisting on looking at the changes were are going to make as if they are somehow different. They are not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The argument that something "was not done" has to be supported by more than historical precedent, otherwise the player is simply being forced to play according to some stereotyped idea of warmaking.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Using this logic we should allow the Soviets the SAME tactical flexibility as the Germans in 1941. This is just nonsense. The Soviets couldn't do certain things because reality dicatated, at the time, that they could not. Letting you, the player, do whatever the heck it is that pleases you makes Combat Mission fundamentally unrealistic. The same thing goes for the armored car thing you described...

This tactic DID NOT HAPPEN IN WWII, therefore to allow it to happen is NOT HISTORICALLY CORRECT. I find it absolutely amazing that you are worried about historical reality when you are strongly arguing in favor of making Combat Mission inherently unrealistic. I mean, we are making a WWII simulation here, not some mythical figment of the player's imagination.

The armored car tactic you described did not happen in real life because donctrin and humans would never allow for such thing. If you ordered an armored car driver to race off into unknown territory so that you MIGHT get a shot into the rear of a Tiger you would be drummed up on charges and busted to the rank of private.

Combat Mission is a game. And because it is a game it can not POSSIBLY simulate all the things in real life that would realistically prohibit such a tactic from being employed. You want to treat this tactic as if it could have been used in WWII if someone was just bright enough to think of it. Tell me Henri... do you REALLY think that a handful of year 2000 wargamers, probably none of which have seen combat or even military service, are smarter than millions of service men in both the Allied and Axis armed services? Please don't tell me that you do.

Your example of the 88 is a total red herring. The 88 could, in real life, perform as a great AT weapon. Therefore, once someone thought of how to use it that way (Rommel was not the first BTW) it could in fact be employed in the AT role. And it was, in real life, because it COULD BE in real life. To then extrapolate from this that ANYTHING NEW that you can think up in game would be possible in real life is just silly.

Combat Mission is not real life and therefore it has holes in its reality. Being able to charge armored cars into the rear, without fearing any serious consequences, is very simply put...

GAMEY

If there is any way for us to better model WWII reality that will close up this hole, we have not thought of it. The coding that would be required to disuade the utterly unrealistic and ridiculous use of armored cars in this manner has so far escaped us. So we are at a loss as to how to correctly model the REAL WORLD reasons why this tactic couldn't work on the real WWII battlefield.

For now, anyway

Steve

[Major Tom]

Nobody ever sends out scout vehicles knowing 100% that an enemy is hiding in a forest/house ready to kill anything that drives by. They are hoping that where they are patrolling there IS NO enemy to kill them, then they can be extra sure and bring up their extremely important units.

Usually if one uses AT Infantry (zooks and schrecks) as scouts they lose a valuable AT asset for gaining minimal recon. Tank crews are now worth more VP’s, and lack morale enough to make effective scouts, and artillery troops are just as weak as Infantry AT (and usually by the time they are out of ammo everything is scouted out anyway!).

I can cite war movies that use ‘gamey tactics’. Using jeeps to scout out possible positions, then after the jeep is knocked out using the rest of their mobile forces (Jeeps, scout trucks and halftracks) to speed in and knock out the enemy position.

I can cite books with stories AND pictures of failed scouting missions showing knocked out jeeps and halftracks (as the kept their tanks back to keep them safe from possible ambushes).

Scouting missions using thin skinned vehicles was the norm. Scouting using vulnerable infantry formations (AT and FO) is not worth the losses.

A good defence will be able to destroy a recon unit and STILL cause havoc on a strong enemy force. Never position AT guns without covering infantry support, and predict all possible enemy moves on that position and cover it with other units. Even still, if your ambush is found out, just retreat the unit to a rear position (before the Arty falls), resulting in the now destroyed enemy scout vehicle being sacrificed in vain (as the unit survived to kill again). Never assume that an ambush will stop the enemy in their tracks, just delay them.

Jeremy

[Guest Big Time Software]

Futher analogy problems with Henri's 88...

OK, the 88 was supposed to be a Flak weapon, but someone thought it would make a good AT weapon. This was tried in the field and it worked VERY well. So it was done for the rest of the war.

Now... what if you are playing Combat Mission and find out that the 37mm Flak gun is great for taking out Shermans at 1000m. You might then say, "gee... the Germans missed something in WWII. I will forever buy 37mm Flak guns and use them as a superior AT gun".

This is nonsense. The 37mm Flak gun was NOT a good AT gun. If CM allowed it to be that way it means that there is something wrong in CM's simulation. So let us say this happened and we found the glitch. It was a problem with a certain equation that the value given by the 37mm Flak happened to cause a penetration instead of no damage at all.

So now that we have found the problem we introduce a fix. Then what happens? Someone cries out that we are distorting reality by enforcing artificial rules to prohibit the German player from using this 37mm Flak gun as a great AT weapon.

Bottom line is the 37mm Flak gun COULD not do what it is that the game allowed (hypothetically for this example anyway), so fixing that hole in reality is NOT taking away a legit tactic but rather removing one that never should have been REALISTICALLY allowed in the first place.

And if for some reason it turned out to be impossible to fix this problem, it does NOT mean that the "gamey" use of the weapon is legit. It is still a loophole and therefore the ahistorical, inappropreate use of the weapon in an utterly unrealistic way in no way shape or form legitimizes the tactic as historically possible.

End of story.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Futher analogy problems with Henri's 88...

OK, the 88 was supposed to be a Flak weapon, but someone thought it would make a good AT weapon. This was tried in the field and it worked VERY well. So it was done for the rest of the war.

Now... what if you are playing Combat Mission and find out that the 37mm Flak gun is great for taking out Shermans at 1000m. You might then say, "gee... the Germans missed something in WWII. I will forever buy 37mm Flak guns and use them as a superior AT gun".

This is nonsense. The 37mm Flak gun was NOT a good AT gun. If CM allowed it to be that way it means that there is something wrong in CM's simulation. So let us say this happened and we found the glitch. It was a problem with a certain equation that the value given by the 37mm Flak happened to cause a penetration instead of no damage at all.

So now that we have found the problem we introduce a fix. Then what happens? Someone cries out that we are distorting reality by enforcing artificial rules to prohibit the German player from using this 37mm Flak gun as a great AT weapon.

Bottom line is the 37mm Flak gun COULD not do what it is that the game allowed (hypothetically for this example anyway), so fixing that hole in reality is NOT taking away a legit tactic but rather removing one that never should have been REALISTICALLY allowed in the first place.

And if for some reason it turned out to be impossible to fix this problem, it does NOT mean that the "gamey" use of the weapon is legit. It is still a loophole and therefore the ahistorical, inappropreate use of the weapon in an utterly unrealistic way in no way shape or form legitimizes the tactic as historically possible.

End of story.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow....

Steve you sound pretty worked up over this one.

I think (I could be wrong) that Henri has been on record here as supporting ALL efforts by you and Charles to make the game more realistic.

But maybe I'm mistaken?

I say...

If you choose to reduce the spotting ability of ALL fast moving vehicles (especially fast moving buttoned vehicles) and, ALL passengers on or in fast moving vehicles I think that will go along way to dealing with the "jeep" problem. And that sounds great to me!

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "It seems to me perfectly reasonable if a player wants to send one of his AFVs off at full speed in an attempt to draw fire, it's a legit tactic. So long as if that vehicle is alone, and it is unable to see/spot as well as if it were stationary, then you'll ge ta reasonable result out of the game. Better still so long as the player leaves vehicles in overwatch, he should still be able to garnish the info he's looking for even if it results in the death of the vehicle. It's a legit tactic even if a little harsh for the guys being the rabbit."

-Los

(And he KNOWS what he's talking about!)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[iggi]

Steve. Can using element rules as I described above reduce single units from going off unrealistically by themselves?

[Shandorf]

IMHO alot of people on this forum like to compare reality to CM (you know who you are ), and all I have to say to that is "fooey".

CM is game. There are no bullets or bombs or llittle men running around in your computer. It is all a bunch of 1s and 0s put together to SIMULATE reality. Of coarse Steve and Charles did their best to make it as real as possible, and might I say they have done the best job I have EVER seen, they can never..ever...ever.. make it real. Period.

If you are going to complain, or even maybe offer a suggestion just keep this in mind. Just because it might have, or could have, or should have, happened a certain way dosn't mean you can program a computer to simulate it all, and crying that you should does nothing but piss off the people that worked so hard to bring this game to you.

You have to make abstractions and hope that doing so will capture the essence of what was real and leave the rest up to our imaginations.

If some dolt wants to buy a buttload of jeeps and play "Flight of the AFVs" then so be it. Watch, enjoy, laugh, and then crush his stupid jeeps and the rest of his guys under the boot of your forces. Next time he might not do it, and if he does.. well, then don't play with him again. It's that simple.

Whew... take it or leave it. Now go and play nice.

Jeff

[iggi]

Or you can use your imagination and come up with some ideas instead of accepting things as they are.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tom wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve you sound pretty worked up over this one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only because I have repeated this same thing over and over again Others have also tried to explain the difference between simulated reality and reality. And as hard as I and others have tried, we now have a second example being thrown into the mix as if the discussion over the first one doesn't apply. The fact that it should be rather obvious that CM can not simulate everyting which constrains a real life commander is not helping matters.

Iggi, AFVs in this theater, at this time, had radio communication with each other. The range of which extends over a CM sized battlefield. So putting in C&C would have no effect.

Steve

[Shandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by iggi:

Or you can use your imagination and come up with some ideas instead of accepting things as they are.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pleeeeze... spare me the sarcasm.

Modifying the game's physics to correct an obvious flaw is one thing but trying to implement rules that would limit the actual play?? No way... Steve or Charles will never do it. If you want to play gamey then play gamey. I will promise you it will not win you battles. If fact.. E-mail me a game and implement every little gamey tactic you can concieve and I will promise you it will not win you the battle. Sure your get some intel, but so what.? After I elminate the pesky fly you send my way i will just reposition my troops. No big deal.

I have encountered a couple of players that have sent jeeps racing forward and you know what? It did nothing for them.

I don't see any problem that needs fixing. Do you?

Jeff

[iggi]

Yes I do. Read what I wrote above about introducing rules that govern platoons. ie a squad has to plot waypoint in relation to it's HQ position. It's unrealistic to be able to send squads from the same platoons in different and far directions.

This lack of group control then manifests itself in recon through jeeps.

If you want to simulate what was done, more control has to be introduce beyond command radius'.

I don't like subjective agreements between players. I'd prefer a stronger rule set in game. Agreements in war go beyond the Conquer in me

Comment on my element idea. Criticise it if you want but don't just raise your hands up in the air and say throw your jeeps at me, I can take it.

Read my element idea and comment on why or why not THAT will improve CM.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ok... let's not make this a candidate for the 'ol padlock!

Jeff, we will make changes that eliminate gamey tactics when, and if, we can. The jeep recon thing might not have worked against you, but it most certainly can work against another player in another situation. But I don't want to rehash this as it is all written clear as day above.

Although it is impossible for us to completely simulate the real world situations commanders and units found themselves limited by, we can try. And the degree that we have is DIRECTLY releated to how much people have been enjoying CM. A little bit of gamey doesn't kill a wargame, but a lot certainly does.

Steve

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

gee... the Germans missed something in WWII. I will forever buy 37mm Flak guns and use them as a superior AT gun".

This is nonsense. The 37mm Flak gun was NOT a good AT gun. If CM allowed it to be that way it means that there is something wrong in CM's simulation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've found 37 flak to be an excellent AT gun.

OK, not head on, but it's brilliant against light armor and

easily kills a Sherman with a flank shot.

What makes it really shine is the way it hits almost certainly

every time.

Better than 50mm, usually.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Dr Dan]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Although it is impossible for us to completely simulate the real world situations commanders and units found themselves limited by, we can try. And the degree that we have is DIRECTLY releated to how much people have been enjoying CM. A little bit of gamey doesn't kill a wargame, but a lot certainly does.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I think there are many reasons why gamers like CM. For "plain-old" strategy gamers (i.e. not historical war gamers), CM is enjoyable because it is PLAUSIBLY real, because it has a very well conceived, easily accessed interface, because of the WEGO system, and because, like most successful games, it is infinitely variable. By plausibly real I mean that CM's world has consistent rules/physics, units that function logically within that framework, and sufficiently good AI to mimic some level of true intelligence, as opposed to say scripted behavior. As you (Steve) have essentially said, it is a very good simulation.

It is true that a variety of non-historical things can happen in CM. But I'm not sure that is such a bad thing. It means that while two dedicated historical wargamers can fight it out "as it happened," a couple of (previously ) bored strategy gamers can be stimulated by a no-holds barred battle. In either case people are having fun with the world you guys have created. Isn't that a large part of what you have sought in developing CM?

IMHO, I believe the appeal of CM is much broader than historical accuracy/reality. I think it is great that precise re-creation is possible; playing CM has certainly pushed me to learn lots more about WWII. However, other types of gamers with different interests also play the game and come to this forum. Isn't that a remarkable thing? Shouldn't that balance continue?

Dan

CM is fun!

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Henri wrote:

The armored car tactic you described did not happen in real life because donctrin and humans would never allow for such thing. If you ordered an armored car driver to race off into unknown territory so that you MIGHT get a shot into the rear of a Tiger you would be drummed up on charges and busted to the rank of private.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yeah? How about the time in Africa that Field Marshall Rommel jmped into a vehicle and "crossed the wire" into Egypt on a recon mission with a single thin-skinned vehicle? Was he busted to private? Was this gamey? This horrified his staff, especially that he got lost behind the wire and had to sped the night meters from passing British military traffic.

You are whipping a dead cat by insisting on my alleged opposition to making changes inthe game to make it more realistic -make whatever changes you want. I DO have objection to forcing players to play in a so-called historical manner by additional rules that are not programmed into the game.

Let us assume that CM is a perfect historical simulation (which it is not as you admit); the main use of a historical simulation in my view would be to try out modifications of historical situations in order to try out what-if situations.If your position were accepted by all, then this would be impossible by definition.

The argument that 20th century players don't know any better what to do than did their WW2 counterparts assumes that the latter always did what was BEST, which is ludicrous. As described above, even geniuses like rommel occasionally made disastrous mistakes.

Our difference of opinion does not lie with whether or not you should try to improve the program: it lies in whether or not players should be constrained to follow so-called historical tactics when the game mechanics cannot constrain them, and it lies to some exten on how good a simulation of WW2 combat mission really is.

My position is that there are a lot more unrealistic things in the game compared to which deep recon with armored cars pales, and that it is an illusion to claim that this will be improved by adding layers of player rules.

Adding expressions like "plain and simple" and "period" at the end of messages don't change the facts at all.

Finally, although we have some slight difference of opinion, I appreciate your participationin the discussion. Rest assured that if you don't reply to every one of my rants, I will not assume that you agree with me

Henri

[aka_tom_w]

Looks like the discussion is heating up again...

So this is just a good natured request to keep the discusion civil and mature. So far I think we have been pretty good.

This is a GREAT thread and all here should be congradulated for their conributions to make CM better. Seriously.

Please, lets not forget our focus here, its not about who is MORE right or who is MORE wrong (althought it sure can seem like that if it gets TOO personal), BUT it is about trying to collectively and constructively iron out gamey issues to make Combat Mission and CM2 a BETTER game.

Steve has been incredibley generous to indulge our rants (and there have been more that a few Long ones here), so lets respect the years of dedication and hard work that went into CM already by two guys that risked a GREAT deal to make it happen.

Sure we all hold VERY strong opinions in this thread, but lets not make it so hot and or personal in here that we end up with a padlock.

I would consider the need for padlock on this thread as an admission of failure and a sad comment on our maturity and ability to communicate constructively and co-operatively on this vitally important subject area.

Henri, we have mostly been on the same side on this issue but at the risk of sounding like a moderator, (which I'm most adsuridly, NOT) I would like to suggest to you that your most recent post may have hinted at provocation (a strong word I know, but it seemed like the best one I could come up with, sorry).

I'm sure by now from reading Steve's replies he COMPLETLY understands my position and your position, we have stated our cases, articulately and in great detail. Now lets just wait for the next patch and see what it brings.

I think it will make the game more realistic and if there is a really big problem with that you and I can always go back and not upgrade to the next patch, (althought we'll need it for TCP/IP ) and play gamey "what if" scenario's ALL day long using CM v1.05 and NOT use the latest patch. And I'm sure this won't bother Steve or the rest of them in the least as long as we don't keep RANTING about it here.

Cheers

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "It seems to me perfectly reasonable if a player wants to send one of his AFVs off at full speed in an attempt to draw fire, it's a legit tactic. So long as if that vehicle is alone, and it is unable to see/spot as well as if it were stationary, then you'll ge ta reasonable result out of the game. Better still so long as the player leaves vehicles in overwatch, he should still be able to garnish the info he's looking for even if it results in the death of the vehicle. It's a legit tactic even if a little harsh for the guys being the rabbit."

-Los

(And he KNOWS what he's talking about!)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[:USERNAME:]

GRT is a thread that wont die.

I think 37mm flaks are a great antidote to the jeep bum rush. Since they werent that great at shooting at fighter bombers and couldnt reach to regular bombers, heck , shoot at jeeps.

Actually being in a jeep under fire is OK if you arent too close and haul ass AWAY. You are relatively close to the ground and most people hunker down under fire. If you are on some reasonable terrain just boogy away. If you are in mud, then bail out and crawl away.

Being in a truck is a deathtrap. You are too high up and vulnerable. Something most people dont think about is acceleration as opposed to speed. Trucks accelerate very slowly. If you were in a truck and took fire you would bail out ASAP.

So in game terms, yeah order a jeep into a field, but model it so he "seeks cover" by driving away from the source of firepower. Noone would robotically follow such a death sentance order.

The game should hopefully get players to adopt more realistic uses for these vehicles like flank protection, rapid position changes for small units, etc.

Lewis

[Mikeydz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri:

You are whipping a dead cat by insisting on my alleged opposition to making changes inthe game to make it more realistic -make whatever changes you want. I DO have objection to forcing players to play in a so-called historical manner by additional rules that are not programmed into the game.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And just who is forcing anyone to play in a "so-called" historical manner? If you and I set up a PBEM game, and I ask that you not use "jeep rush recon", you have 3 choices.

1. Agree to play me using my request.

2. Agree to my request, then violate it by using "jeep rush recon".

3. Not play me.

At no point has BTS or anyone else said that you MUST play using "house rules" that attemp to add realism, or return the game, since you aren't worthy. No one has said anything like this, and no one will. You are free to play the game as you wish, exploiting any loophole or bug in the code that you wish.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Let us assume that CM is a perfect historical simulation (which it is not as you admit)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where, in the 100,000+ posts, on any page on this website, or any interview given by BTS, did they evey say this was a perfect historical simulation of anything. This stamement makes it sound as if you finally got BTS to reveal some secret that they were trying to hide.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Our difference of opinion does not lie with whether or not you should try to improve the program: it lies in whether or not players should be constrained to follow so-called historical tactics when the game mechanics cannot constrain them, and it lies to some exten on how good a simulation of WW2 combat mission really is.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as the first part of your statement, I think it is safe to state that almost no one disagrees with you. Like I said before, no one wants to force you to play with any rules tahat are not coded into the game, if you don't want to. But the inverse is also true. I can't be forced to play someone who doesn't want to play with "house rules" either. Just what is wrong with this?

So far as the original point of this topic, the only thing BTS has done is state...

1. A mistake was made on just how fast a vehicle could move over terrain. This error will be fixed.

2. An mistake in the spotting ability of a unit that is moving at max speed using the Fast move command. This also will be fixed.

[Bombardier]

I have to agree with Steve. There never has been nor will there ever be a GAME that simulates reality perfectly. There will always have to be compromises when it comes time to implement rules. As much as we hate to admit it, CM is a game. A very entertaining and involved game but a game none the less. My friends and I used to have the same type of arguments with Squad Leader and Advanced Squad Leader. (Some of them pretty vicious!)

If a player does not like his opponent’s use of mass jeep attacks. Guess what? He will not play that person in the future. It’s just that simple. IMHO.

I mean, come on! We’re not playing for money!! (Are we?)

[Los]

"This tactic DID NOT HAPPEN IN WWII, therefore to allow it to happen is NOT HISTORICALLY CORRECT."

If we can get the units to behave in a fairly realistic manner (they already do) then gamey or bull**** tactics will be rewarded in exactly the same way as they were rewarded in actual combat, with failure.

So you have the "fast mvmt tweak" bringing the spotting bahaviour more in line with actual behaviour. The only reason to go FAST is to minimize exposure to danger when crossing some exposed area, or to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. You can't hit sh*t when you are going fast and you can't see sh*t when you are going fast.

If this is modelled properly (and it will be), then anyone who tries the jeep bumrush tactic will be rewarded exactly as they would have been rewarded for real, with a bunch of smoking wrecks and you are none the wiser as to enemy disposition. More so, you overall force morale level is lowered by that much...

Properly modelled CM is as much about learning why stupid tactics didn't work as it is about learning why good tactics do work.

Los

[Mark IV]

I find that a two-line email with the setup sets the atmosphere and avoids misunderstandings nicely. It would also obviate most of this thread.

An incomplete model is fixed, and now does a better job of simulating reality. Good!

You can agree with an opponent to an anything-goes game and be as creative as you like.

[Los]

ON a different but related front. With absolute spotting being what it is, how do friendly fire incidents occur?

Example: last night, I'm playing a night battle of the Carentan Op, I have my paras counterattack an enemy company that has penetrated deep into one flank. It's night. The two para platoons are close together but as the fighting heats up and everyone is firing and manuevering I start noticing a number of friendly fire incidents occuring. Most of the incidents are occuring between platoon where the squads are pretty close together so it's not like they didn't know who was who when they started. Now onto the point:

FIRST: I am well aware that friendly fire incidents ocur all the time, I'm not complaining that this happened last night! In fact it kind of pleases me a little. I mean, how often do you see that in other games?

SECOND: That being said, if the units are subject to "BORG like spotting" and perfect intel then how does this happen? Here you have two platoons, sort of on line, fighting an enemy to it's front. A unit from one platoon starts shooting at a unit from another platoon 100m distant. The tgt squad is ten meters from other squads that clearly see it's freindly. SO how is it with borg spotting that the entire German side doesn't have perfect intel that this is a friendly unit. What am I missing?

Please help resolve this conundrum between absolute spotting/intelligence and how friendly fire incidents occur within CM. Eiher all the units know exactly what everyone else is seeing or they don't. Or is there a calc occuring during night battles that can make one firer drop out of absolute spotting? If it was absolute spotting and the squad was misidentified as enemy then many units would have fired at this one tgt, especialy those close by where it would have been a perceived high threat. (And this occured with a number a different friendly tgts during the same engagement.)

Los

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 09-26-2000).]