What was the final decision?

[JediJobu]

1.) On firing through smoke at a target the you had previously been firing at but now just hid behind smoke?

2.) MG's engaging more than one target at one that are very close to each other?

some other questions that I can't think about right now..

Bartender...gimme another.....

[Guest Germanboy]

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

1.) On firing through smoke at a target the you had previously been firing at but now just hid behind smoke?

2.) MG's engaging more than one target at one that are very close to each other?

some other questions that I can't think about right now..

Bartender...gimme another.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. can't have that, think about it, I am sure you get it after you recover from the drunken stupor.

2. Don't know.

3. Here ya'go, mate, that'll be 7.50

[Jarmo]

2. Grazing fire is in. You can even shoot your own men if they

stumble too close to the target.

[JediJobu]

hiccup,....

Why can't you shoot thru smoke????? especially when you know the target is 2 inches inside of it?

and if grazing fire is in for the MG, how do you do it, I haven't seen that ...

here's a $20...don't gimme change, just keep em coming

[Guest Germanboy]

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

hiccup,....

Why can't you shoot thru smoke????? especially when you know the target is 2 inches inside of it?

and if grazing fire is in for the MG, how do you do it, I haven't seen that ...

here's a $20...don't gimme change, just keep em coming<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. Because you only know that due to absolute spotting (see the thread about relative spotting), so basically the unit shooting into the smoke knows somefink they would not know by themselves because of a limitation in the game engine.

2. Is done automatically, AFAIK.

[JediJobu]

ok, maybe it just doesn't make sense to me. but let me illustrate my usual circumstance

Me in tiger, other in sherman.

both with LOS to each other and not obstructing obstacles nearby, on flat terrain.

sherman shoots tiger and bounces off.

tiger shoots sherman and missed - darn

sherman & tiger keep shooting as sherman begins to go into an automatic reverse b/c the crew is messing up their pants.

sherman pops smoke as he backs up as soon as the tip of the barrel finishes going into the smoke, the tiger finishes reloading but looses LOS and does not shoot any more

now why can't you make the tiger shoot into the smoke a round or two (at even decreased chance of hitting) where the sherman was - kind of a "hail mary" shot to see if can score some damage on it?

same goes for INF emplacement that you get smoke in front of and now cannot shot it with a SP gun or anything like that even though you know the inf is there and the only thing between it and you is a cloud of smoke?

[Guest Germanboy]

Try this example:

OPFOR lays smoke-screen to cover their advance, rather wide (say 50 yards). Your HMG and IG can not see through it, so they have no idea where the enemy is advancing behind the smokescreen. Any sort of fire (apparently it was German SOP to fire into smoke) would be highly ineffective. So far we are in Real Life Now for the game - fortunately enough you have a lone sharpshooter with clear LOS to behind the screen. Now as the player you can see exactly where OPFOR advances, and you lay area fire as close as possible to (or even onto) the advance. IRL you would not have that possibility b/c the sharpshooter would have absolutely no means to communicate his observation to the HMG and IG crews.

That is why you can not have firing into smoke in a game with absolute spotting.

[JediJobu]

Ok, I understand the bove perfectly and would not fire under those circumstances.

but what about my example where you could to a "guess" shot without LOS into an area where is it your best "guess" of the unit location -- if he just wnet into the smoke, he must be right there shouldn't he...

[Jadayne]

wouldn't it then be, in effect, the same as "area fire" at the spot where the sherman was last sitting?

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

"I'm the Quarterback. I make the plays. You back the plays I make." -Harvey Keitel to his adopted son in the movie "Dusk til Dawn" (about 3 hours before they're both ripped apart and eaten alive by vampires)

[JediJobu]

EXACTLY!!!!

I know it would be low yield, but maybe I want to give a crack at it b/c low % to hit is better than no percent

[Guest Mirage2k]

Basically, JediJobu, the idea is that the designers would not be able to accomodate your wishes in regard to your prementioned scenario without ruining the situation in Germanboy's scenario, due to the current model of absolute spotting in the game. Sacrifices have to be made in order to make the game more realistic on the whole.

-Andrew

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

"No, it's not that kind of relationship. We're just friends. We are together all the time, but I never touch her porcelain skin, her soft, red lips, like rose petals from the emperor's bathwater! Bathwater, I tell you, bathwateeeeeeer!"

[dog6880]

ok i am new to the game but not to real life infantry. so its a matter of game defect or limitations that keeps you from firing into smoke? as an M60 gunner when someone lobs smoke to cover a move i blaze a full 200 rounds per in into their stupid cloud. ever run across a stream of 7.62??? not fun...

[Jeff Heidman]

Dog,

I would typify this as a innate problem in the games depiction of MG fire, nit just a problem with smoke.

One of the most useful things about MGs is their ability to deny passage to an enemy, whether that is behind a smokescreen or not. Currently CM does a poor job of re-creating that ability. There is no ability to lay a fire lane or beaten zone with a MG. All you can do is target an individual unit (effective against that guy, but ineffective against anyone else) or use area fire, which treats a MG like a squad weapon.

CM could really use some code to differentiate MGs from personal weapons. They really were used in a very different manner much of the time.

Jeff Heidman

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Dog,

I would typify this as a innate problem in the games depiction of MG fire, nit just a problem with smoke.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dog,

I would not agree with this statement (regardless of whether the criticism about the modeling of MG fire is correct, it may well be, I don't know enough about it), because it is simply a result from a (necessary) design limitation, not a defect. Try to imagine how the game would work with relative spotting, and how much control you as the player would have. It would not be a lot of fun. I also highly recommend reading the thread 'What is realtive spotting' by Dr. Brian.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-28-2000).]

[dog6880]

sorry for using defect i guess limitation was the right word. but really machine guns need more attention. i am an M60 gunner, it is the bread and butter of an infantry platoon, it accounts for something like 60-70% of all enemy casualties inflicted by a platoon. grazing fire and anything form the barrel to the target gets hit. (i dont know does that work in the game?) can the enemy cross my MG's stream of lead? or at night we have a FPL (final protective line) it is about 3 feet in front of your lines position. picture a triangle with a MG at each angle. each gun can traverse to the far right and fire a stream in front of the whole line. you pass or cross that stream you die. i hear it works. tell you after i see combat....

can any of this be done wiht the games MG's?

[JediJobu]

I see your point Mirage2k, however, I still wonder whether it would be possible to allow area fire through smoke irregardless of unit spotting. i.e., you don;t need relative or absolute spotting for this. just click on an area on the other side of the smoke that you would normally have LOS to and fire through the smoke - taking your chances. whether there is a unit there or not.

Smoke should not act like a hill or a house to keep you from shooting through it. no LOS, yes it should keep you from that, but you should be able to fire through it if you want.

I'm not a programmer and woudn't know the first thing about implementation of this but think that should be made possible that smoke should block LOS but not line of fire

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Dog,

I would not agree with this statement (regardless of whether the criticism about the modeling of MG fire is correct, it may well be, I don't know enough about it), because it is simply a result from a (necessary) design limitation, not a defect. Try to imagine how the game would work with relative spotting, and how much control you as the player would have. It would not be a lot of fun. I also highly recommend reading the thread 'What is realtive spotting' by Dr. Brian.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Andreas, if it would make you happier, replace the ocurrence of "innate problem" in my post with the words "design limitation".

Notice then that the point of my post is unchanged. Then ask yourself why it was necessary to quibble over meaningless semantics.

Jeff Heidman

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Notice then that the point of my post is unchanged. Then ask yourself why it was necessary to quibble over meaningless semantics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff, sorry for not being clearer - I disagree with your point, and Dog's statement that it was a defect. I do not think that the fire-through-smoke problem in its current incarnation has anything to do with the modeling of MGs in the game, which I understood was your point. I am not able to comment on the MG fire modeling, but I am capable of understanding the logic behind the design decision leading to the limitation. No quibbling about semantics, I really and totally disagree with your point.

[Jeff Heidman]

OK, that makes sense.

You are wrong, but at least you make sense (insert smiley here...)

I may have over-stated my point a little bit. I shall re-phrase:

The problem with firing through smoke is similar to a limitation of MG use that is generally apparent in the game.

I agree that the problem itself is not directly related to the MG limitations I spoke about.

What I was really trying to get across (and clearly not very well) was that as it applies specifically to MGs, solving the limitation in use would also help to solve the firing through smoke issue.

Jeff

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

What I was really trying to get across (and clearly not very well) was that as it applies specifically to MGs, solving the limitation in use would also help to solve the firing through smoke issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff, IIRC you propose that there should be dedicated fire lanes and ranging for HMGs (could be wrong though, feel free to correct me) - whether that would be a realistic or not I can not tell, but I agree that this would be a way to solve the firing through smoke problem for HMGs, if someone comes up with a solution that somehow avoids the firelanes miraculously only being used when a spotted enemy is in there an instead enforces German SOP of firing into smoke regardless (maybe simulate it through higher ammo expenditure when firing through smoke?) So no issues here.

[dog6880]

ok this is beating a dead horse but what about concealment? Not cover. my MG can shoot down trees and through light buildings and through bushes. anyone in the army knows what MILES is. its like lazer tag its how we train. lazer adapters on the weapons and halos on the helmet and vests that both have lazer recievers. you get hit you get this loud buzzing noise.

The training problem in real life is soldiers seek cover behind bushes and thin walls say "haha!! cant kill me." give me a live belt and i will. lazers can't pass smoke either sort of like in this game. its a great game and i love it but i could be better. i trust the game developers to fix what they can seems the same in the game

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hello all,

Germanboy has hit the nail on the head in regards to smoke. The problem is that allowing firing through smoke would create far more UNREALISTIC situations than exist in the game now. This is because of limitations in the way units are spotted and targeted. Until we address the fundamental problem (replacing Absolute with Relative spotting) we will not allow units to fire into/through smoke.

As for general concerns about MGs... CM does in fact simulate grazing fire. What it does not simulate, as Jeff points out, is constrained firelanes. This isn't a problem for Squad LMGs, but is for team MMG/HMGs. We are not exactly sure what to do about this because there would be a serious hit to the CPU for each established firelane. Think about it...

Say a typical HMG42 team might be cover an area roughly 200m wide by 1000m deep. Assuming that this is a rectangle, and not a cone (easier to do the math this way), the total area would be 200,000 square meters. Any enemy unit moved into this area would then be considdered a potential target. Right?

The problem here is that there are 50,000 potential "trigger" points for this ONE HG based on a CM subtile size of 2mx2m. So basically a part of CM has to pay special attention to this area probably 10-15 times per turn, for every turn the area is designated, just in case something happens to move into one of those 50,000 subtiles. Multiply this by a couple of MGs and you can see how this can quickly become a huge problem.

I am not saying that we CAN'T do anything about firelanes, only that there are reasons why they aren't in the game already. As powerfull as today's computers are, they are still underpowered for what we all would like CM to do.

Thanks,

Steve