**Detailed Gun Hits** please vote as if you matter

[Phoenix]

>I like some feedback from the game engine.

So do I. But I want feedback that would be realistic. I doubt that on the field of battle I would always know a gun was damaged.

>For those that don't like it, switch the >option to OFF.

I do in single player.

>For PBEM, just agree before what options to >use and what not.

Yeah right.

I can't see what's wrong with adding a toggle switch for PBEM that turned detailed hits on or off for *both* sides. Certainly if you want detailed hits you should see them. But if two PBEMers want it off it would be nice to have that as an option. A gentlemans agreement ain't gonna cut it here Im afraid. Too easy to toggle that detailed hits button by "accident".

[This message has been edited by Phoenix (edited 09-06-2000).]

[Nitsud42]

Fog of war should be Fog of War! There is always more going on then what the crew of a single tank know about. I like the one suggestion, make "Full Fog of War" an option during game setup, if chosen, then detailed hit messages are dis-abled.

My 2 cents.

[dalem]

I think it's okay the way it is now, with detailed gun hits 'off' I don't get too much info - I still don't feel safe until I see a drooped barrel or smoke.

I'm of course in favor of anything that increase FOW and loathe to even imagine anything that decreases FOW, but that's like saying I like to breathe Oxygen.

-dale

[kmead]

My vote is that when fog of war is on, that you only know what has occured on your own forces vehicles. Even with with field glasses, or through gun optics it would be unlikely that you would see a 3" or 3.5" (76mm to 88mm) hole in the glacis of a tank with all of the shadows and so on. A brewed up vehicle or a vehicle with its crew pouring out of its hatches would be noticeable and a clear message to cease firing on that target.

In general, if you were in command of a ronson, wouldn't you keep pumping shells into what might be a very offensive target? I think too many of us try to micromanage indiviual units to a degree that is really outside the scope of this game. We give the general orders to advance (retreat) fire in general at a given target. It is the reponsibility of the AI to carry out those orders to the best of its ability, just as any second louie or squad leader would. They are responding to the local threat as they see it, and a tanker in particular has a very narrow focus ( not to mention a very limited view) of what is threatening. They are fighting the battle they see,we in our omnipotent all seeing overview of the battle really would like to force them to apply their force more efficiently to win. If this were a squad/plattoon level game I would see it as reasonable to lead my troops down to that level. With a hundred or two its not possible, nor in my estimation likely to be very enjoyable.

So, no detailed gun hits on opposing forces beyond that which would be obvious to forces in the field.

[IntelWeenie]

* Another vote for Detailed Info of own forces only *

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

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[Sarge]

i choose option 1-

there is too much known now. i think in the heat of battle a TANK! would be fired at unless it was smoking or obviously charred from privious brew up.

yes i turn it off in PBEM, but how do i know beyond gentleman agreementthat my opponent has as well?

a toggle a start of scenario would be nice.

[tedrik]

hi

i'd like to see the detailed gun hits turned off in full FOW. as was said elsewhere, if the soldier on the ground couldn't be sure i don't want to know the detailed info.

cheers

tedrik

[82nd Airborne]

As the "gun hit" doesn't always mean gun damaged. (at least as far as I can tell) I don't really see it as an issue either way. In fact it makes it more nerve racking sometimes, not knowing whether you should chance the gun being damaged or not.

Regards

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

What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

[infohawk]

I'm often surprised to know my tank dudes know they've killed a tank. How do they know they've finished a tank if there's no smoke (in real life and the game?)

[Von Fauster]

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

As this is a vote,I say

leave it the way it is.

I like some feedback from the game engine.

For those that don't like it, switch the option to OFF.

It is already implemented, so no need to change the code.

For PBEM, just agree before what options to use and what not.

Fred

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What he said.

[Daveman]

**Carefully unbuttons and sticks his head out the hatch**

I realize this wouldn't always be the case, but when a "Gun Hit" is scored why shouldn't I be able to see a blasted/bent/drooping barrel? Internal damage to the gun wouldn't be seen, but I don't think it's a stretch to believe that "Gun Hits" are most often external damage.

As for a non-brew kills, the crew always bails... would I not be able to see them scurrying out? At long range, if the tank is in cover perhaps not, but at the typical ranges in this game if I can see the tank I should be able to see the crew... it's not like they're being sneaky.

**quickly slams the hatch back down**

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

"You know our standing orders. Out of ammo become a bunker, out of commission become a pillbox, out of time... become heroes." - The Beast

[Wako]

I vote for leave it as it is in CM1 at least. If BTS can improve the AI handling of FOW in CM2 enough to allow more for a realistic FOW then by all means do so. But since now the only option is no info or some info, I'll pick the some info. Playing with no info would not be any fun to me. I like to know where I hit the enemy (i.e. front upper hull, etc.), and just seeing rounds disappear into a black hole is not a fitting solution for me.

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

wako

"All models are wrong - some are useful.'' - George E.P. Box

Check out my CM webpage at http://ccpirate.webjump.com

[Raze]

I think leaving the way it is is OK. A gentlemans agreement for mutual settings before a game. One Point and one issue to follow:

1). POINT-With Details off does the computer still know what the damage is?

2). ISSUE- Was playing a quickie, had several infantry units closing and out flanking a single american rifle squad and I had Puma (with a damaged gun) pressing them as well. I was hoping that the puma would intimidate them but they ignored it 'cause the gun was damaged!

They wouldn't have known!!! (unless it was a bent barrel). BUG?

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

Hey look, the bleeding stopped. Uh oh. . .

[Holdit]

If the opportunity came up, I'd vote for option 1, but the issue doesn't bother me at all. I'd been playing with it accidentally switched off for two weeks before I wondered what happened to to the detailed hit info. Then I just left it off anyway. It would be nice for your own tanks only, though.

[Bastables]

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

I'm often surprised to know my tank dudes know they've killed a tank. How do they know they've finished a tank if there's no smoke (in real life and the game?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do a search and be amazed at the amount of info the crew can see when a shell hits another tank.

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Originally posted by Kwazy

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyways, thats just some of the complexities involved with allowing this level of FOW. As you can see, its not just a matter of not labeling tank as knocked out, but requires the take AI to decided which options to take and thus require extra coding. Something that Id say hasnt been ruled out totally, but not as easy as it sounds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is putting my ignorance on display, but I wasnt aware that the Tac AI took into account gun damage while deciding which target to shoot. I assumed that any armor unit that was still "live" was a valid target and considered in the same light by the Tac AI. Is this really true?

Even if the Tac AI knew these little secrets, I think it would enhance PBEM play to keep the players from knowing these subtle little details. We are not just talking about Gun Hits, but immobilizing hits as well.

I say let the Tac AI make whatever decisions it wants, but in player orders phase keep us in the dark as much as is deemed to be realistic.

The other point I havent addressed is whether or not these non lethal hits would be decipherable by a tank crew, or to what level they could deduce it.

My general sense is that in the heat of battle, the majority of non-lethal hits could not be examined too clearly, and soldiers would want to keep shooting until something obviously nasty happens to their enemy. There would be a minority of situations (IMO) where the hits COULD be figured out, but weighed against the full FOW benefits by changing, I feel it would be a worthy trade-off.

Anyone with first hand knowledge is welcome to challenge me on this, I am just a civvie with hunches about it.

The idea to put it as an option in pbem games is great.

[Abbott]

Turn them off in full FOW.

[Guest KwazyDog]

Hi Foob.

Actually, I was answering Michaels question as to the Tac AI treating tanks that have been knocked out as live targets, something which I have spoken to Charles about and thus know the technicalities behind

As to the topic of the conversation, I was under the impression that currently if you hit an enemies gun or mobility you are not informed 100% of the time if this is disabled, thus you must still treat the enemy as a threat even though there is a possability of the enemy vehicle being crippled.

Out of curriousity foobar, how you found this not to be the case? I will pass the question onto Charles to see if we can get a definitive answer

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 09-07-2000).]

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Kwazy,

Since you put me on the spot, I had better test it first, but I seem to remember regularly seeing detailed hit info on my enemies. I will post again as soon as I look at it.

[Guest KwazyDog]

Heya foob

Ive checked this out with Charles and youll be happy to know there are indeed circumstances where you wont be given detailed mobility and gun damage information, so its not a 100% sure thing.

I was going to give more detail on this but to be honest Im thinking in the interest of FOW its probably best not to mention details in this thread

[Fred]

KwazyDog is right,

there are "Gun Hits" that do not disable the main gun. In my last battle I learned it the hard way, as I approached an enemy tank on which I scored a gun hit the turn before and it suddenly open up with his main gun.

That I call FOW

To lock the "Detailed Hits" option to the FOW setting takes away flexibility from CM, and this is something I do not like.

Simply said, I want to play with full FOW and with Detailed Hits on. Other players prefer other styles and this is fine, but I won't be forced to play their sytles.

The vast majority plays with full FOW (it is the only way to go). All other options should stay as they are; options.

For PBEM, maybe another option would help: an option lock, that forces both players to the same settings for all FOW related options. Player One sets them while creating the first game file and from then on, the option settings are fixed for the game for both players.

For me, the best solution is, that I simply trust my pbem partners

Fred

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

"I got signals, I got readings, in front and behind of us!" - PFC Hudson on LV-426 mission

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Thanks for the help Kwazy.

Are you saying that detailed hit information in CM right now is shown in a way that reflects Fog of War? If so, I am glad to hear it.

If not, I dont think I understand how CM handles this.

I just want to play the most realistic way I can. Is detailed gun hits on the most realistic?

(crossing fingers hoping for a BTS reply)

[PzKpfw 1]

I vote that it remains an decision left up to the individual player, on how much detail he does, or doesn't want.

Regards, John Waters

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

"die verdammte Jabos".

[Guest KwazyDog]

I guess what I am saying Foobar is that currently CM does indeed detailed gun and immobilisation hit information based on FOW.

Without going into unnnecessary details I can tell you for instance that just becuase a hit is labeled 'gun hit' you cant be 100% sure that the gun on that vehicle is knocked out. Its important to remember that what a 'gun hit' tells you is that the physical gun on the vehicle was hit by the shell, not necessarily disabled (though you will be told that too, under certain conditions). Treat is as a penetration that dosnt kill a vehicle, you dont know if the vehicle is shocked with a crewman killed for instance or if the crew is ready for some revenge...

Hope that helps foobar

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Thanks again.