CM is NOT realistic in my opinion

[Guest Big Time Software]

Actually, I think Ricky has simply fallen into a trap that I have seen other guys fall into before. If one gets a sense of warfare from wargames FIRST everything will be distorted when reading historical accounts. In other words, wargames before CM largely have infantry as an after thought to flesh out the cool looking vehicles. Infantry modeling has been anywhere from horrible to bad, but never good at CM's scale. If these experiences in wargaming are taking without more than a pinch of salt than it is easy to see how a distorted perception of lethality can come about.

This is the same thing for the people complaining that CM's artillery is too effective, since other wargames at this scale have their artillery unrealistically ineffective. Without bias, I think the only other wargame where I found artillery to be effective is TacOps.

It is going to take some getting used to for people like Ricky (no slam on you BTW), since it makes for a fundamentally different game than others. And that is good

And although I don't have Sgt.Morgue's real world experience, I have played my fair share of paintball. NOOOOOOO it isn't anything like the real thing, but there is one thing I learned -> sometimes it is one shot one kill, othertimes it is 100 shots and no kill. The difference is in the real world a kill is really a kill, and in paintball it is just a huge waste of money when you don't zap someone after emptying a 100 round hopper into the guy's position

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 06-23-2000).]

[Kraut]

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

Oh, and Manx is spot on. Open terrain is not like a billards table. There are shrubs, rocks, dips, etc. for infantry to find some degree of cover.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I always tried to explain this very thing to the makers of cc3 and cc4. But apparently they just don't get it, or they don't want to get it.

Since no game can model every little ditch, rock and rise in the ground (at least not yet ), there has to be some calculations going on in the background to model this, ie. make the MG's and other small arms less effective overall.

Once we all have 5 Ghz, 500MB+ RAM machines with super gfx cards it might be possible to actually display each little stone and rise in the ground, and show how the bullets are deflected or stopped by them.

Uhhh, just my take on the whole issue

MK

[Commissar]

If you didn't like the demo or find it realistic enough for you, why in the world would you shell out the dough for a full version? The reason I got the full version of CM is because I was so impressed by the early beta demo.

Not realistic enough? Excuse me while I laugh. After having to deal with the "realism" of CC and the various turn based wargames, CM is a MAJOR leap forward. It's about time someone made the battlefield in 3D and up close and personal. The degree of detail is amazing, even right down to the types of grenades. Today I was watching my SS troops duke it out with some Yanks and I could actually see the different grenade types being thrown by each side. The Germans with their potato mashers and the Yanks with their egg grenades. I am definitely committed to CM2 and all the rest of the incarnations as they come out. I can't wait to see how BTS does the Eastern front. No matter what side I chose, I always get to be the 'bad guy.'

No game is perfect but then that is why it is called a game. Try the other 'realistic' wargames out there right now and compare CM to them. Maybe you'll get a glimmer of understanding why the rest of us grogs are so excited over this game.

[Guest Seimerst]

<taking a deep breath>

Nah.... I'll just save my two cents... everybody else did a better job than I can on addressing just how realistic this game is. BOTTOM LINE: There is nothing even close to this-- nor will there be until the patch tweaks and CM2 comes out. <grin>

[Seanachai]

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

Actually, I think Ricky has simply fallen into a trap that I have seen other guys fall into before. If one gets a sense of warfare from wargames FIRST everything will be distorted when reading historical accounts. In other words, wargames before CM largely have infantry as an after thought to flesh out the cool looking vehicles. Infantry modeling has been anywhere from horrible to bad, but never good at CM's scale. If these experiences in wargaming are taking without more than a pinch of salt than it is easy to see how a distorted perception of lethality can come about.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 06-23-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve, Thank you for this and previous posts of this nature. I am so pleased to be playing a wargame that actually deals with infantry as something other than window-dressing thrown in to round out the table of organization. My experiences with CM are similar to what I've read in a lot of 'soldier' level books, and that is that the life of an infantrymen is short, brutish, uncomfortable, and chaotic, but that they're more difficult to overcome and root out than cockroaches.

Ricky, read some history, my friend. Read some first hand accounts. Infantry weren't recruited to perform like a bunch of movie extras, falling about and dying to emphasize the glory of the arrival of armour. They're the people on every side of the conflict who fought the war. There's not one inch of ground gained by armour that didn't have to be held by infantry, and not many tanks that went into combat without infantry to lead the way.

As for the realism of what you see troops doing on map, you haven't given anyone here enough specific info for anyone to respond. Specifics, old son, specifics. I've seen troops do things so apparently weird, that I've gone: What the hell was that about? But, upon inspection, I was sitting in a comfy desk chair, crying for blood and iron, and the troops I was watching were, upon analysis and reflection, doing what humans do.

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

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[Guest grunto]

..1) I can move a tank within 5 meters of enemy infantry and open fire. Instead of the infantry dropping dead, they calmly walk away amongst a hail of bullets from my tank. Realistic?? Hell no.

..

dude the 'infantry counters look ok walking away' but they're probably being riddled. put the focus on one of them in that situation and typically (at least if memory serves) that unit's strength will be dwindling before your eyes. yes the men on the screen 'look ok' most of the time but they're probably losing men if they're taking that kind of fire.

when the man is lying face up the unit is dead.

andy

[von Lucke]

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

I am so pleased to be playing a wargame that actually deals with infantry as something other than window-dressing thrown in to round out the table of organization... There's not one inch of ground gained by armour that didn't have to be held by infantry, and not many tanks that went into combat without infantry to lead the way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly! That's what I love about CM, too. It's an Infantry wargame that just happens to include tanks!

[Guest grunto]

yes i would agree too that my tanks would not be sitting 5 meters from enemy infantry... they would be moving through possibly inflicting spot casualties and trying to get to better firing points away from the line of resistance in the enemy rear.

moving through german infantry is as close to suicide as it gets. moving next to is suicide. heck even americans and british are probably dangerous at 5 meters.

standoff weapon indeed. that's why armor is so difficult to employ in close terrain like forest-roads and cities.

like i mentioned, even buttoned up although that tank is in mortal danger from infantry at 5 meters, it is also probaby 'dealing death' so my bet is that the original poster isn't putting the focus on the unit 'walking away' and watching its strength dwindle should the afv have weapons trained upon it.

as long as that afv is alive and targeting, it's going to murder infantry.

that's been my experience at least.

andy

[Guest grunto]

--I have played my fair share of paintball. NOOOOOOO it isn't anything like the real thing, --

actually an ex-special forces dude told me he sometimes didn't like playing because it reminded him of real combat.

yeah the ballistics are way off but things like 'bounding overwatch' and 'staying on line' and 'target discipline' and 'suppression fire' and all of that come into play. it sure is an adreneline rush when those first brightly-colored balls come whistling in to toward your team amidst the background sounds of 'semi-autoatic fire.'

sometimes on say a 500 meter wooded field you'll here a bunch of semi-autos and shouting break out in the distance and you'll wonder how it's going over there and if you're about to make contact on your side.

perhaps you're advancing with no resistance and hoping to get around the back of the other team while your team's other element is engaging them head on.

you dash through a couple hundred meters of woods, hoping you don't run into a screen, or worse yet their main combat force.

will you get mowed down or finally set up position behind the other team's main force unbeknownst to them and start mercilessly splatting them with fully exposed rear shots?

yeah man once i infiltrated and got directly behind a 2-man firing position, about 30 meters. they didn't have a clue i was there.

i lined up my pmi3 with 20oz tank and long barrel with 250 round hopper and let out about a 5 round burst, taking one of them out and leaving the other clueless as to my disposition. he didn't even know i was directly behind him and set up position facing the opposite direction with his back fully to me. i let out another burst and ducked behind a log. he checked behind himself again, thoroughly bewildered but releluctantly faced forward again. this time i pegged him with a 2 or 3 shot burst.

i kept sweeping deeper and trying to find other enemy positions when one of their laggards 'flanked the flanker' and with a loud 'eeeeeeyeeaahhhhhhh' he riddled me with a quick burst and i walked off the field.

another time my buddy and i set up looking down a road which ran the length of the field. the road had foot bridges going to it on each end across a swamp. the rest of the field was on the other side of the swamp.

so 2/3 of the field was on one side of the crick/swamp and road ran the length of the other 1/3 and there were bridges running perpendicular to the road on each end of the field, connecting the whole field together. the swamp banks were lined with thick vegetation which no one ever went through.

i went to the far right, up off of the road on a bank, in the far defensive corner of the field.

i was in fairly thick brush with visibility of about 5 meters. three players from the other team must have snuck across the road at the far end and approached through the brush, thinking they were just going to walk down and secure the bridge without resistance. i let them close further and at about 3-5 meters let them have it through the brush. i must have pumped out 50-100 rounds of semi-auto fire. i wanted to make sure they were screaming 'hit' before i stopped firing.

i went down and backed up my buddy who was looking straight down the road with the bridge directly down the crick bank to our left.

i picked off a guy way down the road. there was rustling in the bushes. 2 dudes came running out... i picked the first one off but the second charged my buddy's tree.

at one point he had made it to the opposite side of my buddy's tree and the two of them were sticking their guns around the tree and shooting at each other. i was sitting back watching in horror. finally i charged and would have finished the guy off but my buddy did first.

i think we held the flank with aplomb in that one while our main force toasted what was left of their team. we had 2 dudes take out 5-6 of theirs.

in another one on the opposite side, we set up on the far left, up way in the corner off of the road. this time i did the thing where you put your gun over the tree without looking and fire away. only my aim was terrible and i riddled my buddy. only when he emerged below on the road with a bewildered look on his face did i realize what had happened. i think that introduced me to the concept of fire discipline. the advancing players from the other team quickly took my understrength, known position out.

some of the best moments in paintball are where a buddy and yourself are working through a series of the other teams' positions, using bounding overwatch and one guy supressing in each encounter and one guy advancing for the flank shot.

i should say 'guy' with '' because i knew a great female player once.

andy

[dumbo]

Death to tankies!

One of the great things about CM is that Infantry is actually useful as opposed to bullet sponges for tanks. Queen of the battlefeild indeed.

Steve: As for your quip about us folks who think CM arty is over powered, while I did think CMs arty was somewhat overpowered that was not due to playing other games; whose arty is even MORE overpowered (SP's infantry vacuum cleaners being the prime offender here) 8)

However after receiving my full version my opinion has mellowed somewhat. Mainly becuase:

a.) arty is much rarer in quick battles (which I play most)than in the demo scenarios.

b.) I can just design my own scenarios without heavy artillery.

c.) most of the worst case artillery deaths in CM come from artillery which should be rare. For example in a company sized meeting engagement I would raise an eyebrow if either side has a battery of 155mm available.

d.) Arty maybe deadly but look at the PRICE in points. Choose between having a king tiger (283pts) or 4 rounds of 240mm artillery shells (296pts). If you are paying attention to points this makes artillery seem a LOT less attractive to would be stonkers.

Cheers

_dumbo

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...but the part about the tanks not being able to kill infantry at close range in open terrain really baffles me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They can... however, the reverse is more likely.

[ironcross]

it actually took a million rounds of small arms to kill a soldier in ww11.Not that each soldier had a million fired at him,and how the statisticians came up with that figure i dont know.Having been in a armoured regiment if i was buttoned up and had a squad of men 15 metres away,dodging an weaving id be more likely to have shot thin air

[Weasel[FT]]

This games is just brilliant. I was playing as the germans the other day and I had my Panther up on a hill far away from the action. The crew was calmly picking out enemy tanks when suddenly a lone Bazooka team pops up 50m from my tank and it's aiming at the side of my tank! Luckely it missed my Panther twice so my crew was able to attack it, but it was a brave attack.

[DEF BUNGIS]

Hey ricky, Have you gotten the point yet?

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

Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all

[Wild Bill Wilder]

Sometimes we expect from a game more than it can give. Sometimes our perception of how things "should" be is not how things "are."

We all have our concepts of realism. Only men who have been in combat REALLY know how things are.

What do men do under fire? All kinds of things! And not necessarily the same thing.

Some freeze; some run; some charge the guns.

Expect the unexpected. Don't think that your concept of reality is reality. Be open to other possibilities.

The game is one of the most realistic from my point of view of realism that I have ever played.

Turn off fog of war in a game. Watch how the computer moves and uses its forces. Just watch! Now THAT, in my book, is realism. See a tank come under fire, slam into reverse and back out of the line of fire.

Watch as infantry try to flank your guys. Realism is here. It is how we perceive it.

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

Wild Bill

Lead Tester/Designer

Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord

billw@matrixgames.com

[Steve Clark]

You know, in every single strategy/wargame forum, there are always debates about realism. There are those that expect all games to be realistic, not only in the way it looks, but in the way the human and AI plays. Case in point, the discussions in the Civilization III forum (right now in the design phases), some folks EXPECT the AI to think like a human. Sheesh.

As a someone who has been involved in game design and AI development, there are always certain levels of abstrations that MUST be made. Alot has to do with the limitations of programming and computer processes. Right now, one can program the AI to be an expert player within a LIMITED field (like a chess board). But throw in a large, complex world (like in most games including CM), shortcuts have to be made. As far as graphics, the FPS 3D demands of 16- or 24-bit colors at 1024x768 are still very high and if you want to market a game to a majority of wargamers, you must compromise on graphics quality.

[Dalton]

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

And a lot of times both my troops and the enemy will *walk* away when under attack. I'm not kidding. Many times they run but many times they walk. Walking away from someone shooting at you seems very bizarre.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How your troops retreat (from what I've seen) is affected by the morale. If they are trying to get away as quick as possible - to stay put ensures death - they run.

If they are suppressed and think they can sneak away using available cover they crawl.

If they are performing a fighting withdraw they walk.

I tend to use the same logic when I give my troops instructions. A walking retreat is useful because the squad will return fire if there is a good opportunity. When they are crawling or running they don't (generally) return fire.

From what I've seen, running away from a bad position results in lots of unnecessary casualties as the troops are fully exposed and not attempting to suppress their attackers.

...Dalton

[killmore]

Here is my take.

1 vs 6 - In this case maybe he attacked with "Command unit" - like Company commander.

At 5 meters infantry should be either suffering losses or be out of line of fire.

If tank is so close - its machine guns might not be able to turn far enough to fire at infantry 5 meters away.

This goes toward infantry survivability which does feel a bit too high from time to time. But I have no idea what it is in real war.

Guys when you try to defend CM try not to sound like you are saying "100 jeeps will kill one tiger!". Replying than infantry should never be that close does not unswer the question.