looking for threads 2 - overall realism?

[ropey]

There is a lot of talk about specifics of armour penetration etc, but has there been discussion of the overall feeling of realism?

After reading several unit histories I can't help but feel the battles don't come out how they would historically.

[Olle Petersson]

I've come to the same conclusion as you.

Usually the difference can be explained by one or a few vital differences for each single battle.

Typical factors:

* Time.

- A CM battle with larger forces run much faster than a real battle.

- Arty response varies from real to surreal.

- Disembarking guns take way too long time in CM, given the compressed time frame for other actions and what it takes in real time.

* Armour degrading isn't modeled in CM. (I have this historical battle where a Panther took ten 75mm Sherman hits on the front flacis within a fraction of a second. It resulted in the welding cracked up, so it had to withdraw. In CM it doesn't pay to fire volleys.)

* Camouflage of fixed positions isn't modeled very accurately.

The strong side of CM is in modeling a fluid battle with lots of movement. There you will get a pretty realistic result (although probably faster than in real life).

Cheers

Olle

[ropey]

The speed is the first thing that seems to be wrong, but I think that it is related to the openness of terrain/celarness of vision.

My unit histories often mention patrols getting to within spitting distance of enemy troops - they could clearly hear conversations and movement - but this is not possible in CM:BO in my experience. Even sneaking or crawling units at night get spotted much further out than this.

This seems to result in shorter, faster firefights, as visibility is better than historically.

I haven't expressed my doubts very well here, but the more I play, the less my feeling of historicity. (Maybe Marco's rules will restore it? )

[Gyrene]

Someone here in this forum made an excellent statement a little while back:

If you want to have realistic games, use only green or regular units

This makes quite a bit of sense, especially as far as death tolls at the end of the game.

These lower quality squads should offset our blood thirsty orders, as it has been pointed out before, there were seldom any battles especially meeting engagements were both sides would fight to the last man for so long, usually one side or the other would attempt to break contact and retreat in good fighting order.

Gyrene

[kmead]

You should also split your squads as this also makes them more likely to panic or otherwise react to save themselves like real troops do.

I think another factor would be the tactics we are using which are different from those actually used.

You also touched on the clarity of vision we have as commanders. I am constantly finding myself carefully creating very coordinated attacks against clearly understood obstacles. A real commander would not be able to do so to the extent that we do.

In regards to being able to replicate a given historical outcome, that outcome was originally the result of exactly what happened in that time and place. Consider that you can rarely get the same turn run multiple times (from a saved file) to have precisely the same result twice. I personally do not expect to be able to replicate real events as the real commanders and foot soldiers are not present in the simulation. This is a simulation: an approximation of reality, which is to say something like the reality but not in fact reality.

I liked your lucky computer thread, keep in mind that we all tend to play the game at about the same time of day (meaning after work and before bed) and if the computer is using the time of day as a modifier we are using a repeating modifier each day thus the appearance of a lucky computer. I can't imagine Charles would have chosen the time as modifier, did you Charles? :eek:

[ 05-26-2001: Message edited by: kmead ]

[Sock Monkey]

Hmmm, unless there is a lucky time zone.

If there is one, how many people would move?

And how many people would be smart enough just to change the time of day on their 'puters?

[Michael Emrys]

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

...visibility is better than historically.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not only that, but there is no provision for the degradation of visibility over the course of the battle due to smoke and dust in the air.

Michael

[Crockett]

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

I personally do not expect to be able to replicate real events as the real commanders and foot soldiers are not present in the simulation. This is a simulation: an approximation of reality, which is to say something like the reality but not in fact reality.

[ 05-26-2001: Message edited by: kmead ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree with you

CM simulates battles better than any other game I have played but it is ( and will always be ) a pale approximation of the real thing .The search was total realism is a lost battle.

In spite that I admit that what I see in CM looks like what people think that the real thing is ( like the general feeling of being there, movement of the troops and vehicles ) it is very far from being realistic.Only reality is realistic .

Saying that CM looks more realistic than any other tactical war is maybe true but it is like saying that a person standing on the roof of a building is closer to the sun than someone standing in the first floor...It is so far

I think that the overall feeling of realism of a game ( or what gamers think is real ) apart the visual things is the ability of the AI and TacAI to model real life reactions and behaviors.

I do not know a lot about tanks and tank's crew behaviors but I have a very long personal experience with infantry's behaviors .Here are some comments ( that I posted in this forum or discussed with some of my PBEM opponents )

In a PBEM I was attacking and a jeep that I sent for a recon ahead from my troops has been hit relatively far away from the main forces and the crew members killed. Now , before the crew members were killed they "saw " the enemy troops and tanks. But they are not the only one who had a look at the enemy forces...me too ,the commander( I mean , me , Crockett the CM player ) .Now , I also knew where the enemy troops were , what kind of troops and how many troops there were.This is OK for me as a gamer but totally unrealistic .In real life , the real commander who has no contact with the distant and dead Jeep crew members cannot see all that !! .These dead members cannot report what they have seen to him , but CM gives me no alternative but to see what the dead crew saw !!!

This is a game's weakness that gives me an unrealistic advantage

There is some very important basic things that CM does not model in soldiers attitude and reactions : the impossibility to use weapons abandoned by your wounded or killed squad or platoon members .This so basic and done in almost every combat situation. When I was a soldier every soldier in my squad knew to mount , dismount and of course fire an MMG or an HMG. In CM when the MMG crew is killed the weapon itself....magically disappears...which is totally unrealistic. In real combat these weapons are so precious that one second after someone drop them they are picked up like jewels.

I was not a mortar crew member but I knew to fire a mortar( of course not like a veteran mortar crew ).In CM when a mortar crew is dead, no one else can use this mortar even other mortar crew that have lost their mortars...this is so unrealistic!!

In my squad at least on other soldier in the squad was able to use my Anti Tank weapon (a Russian RPG) if something should happened to me.

The distance from which you can approach an enemy unit without being discovered is very unrealistic . In CM it looks like my enemy has some Bionic eyes.In real life you can sneak meters from the enemy and spot without being seen ( as ropey wrote in real life you can get within spitting distance of enemy troops ).In CM when you see you are seen ( not always but most of the time )

One last example:

In a game an enemy Panzer found himself surrounded by at least 2 full companies of Canadians..Like that just in the middle...It was very impressive to see all the yellow lines of more that 2 companies converging together to the Panzer who was totally covered by yellow color...My Piats were dead or far away ...Nothing happened to the Panzer who was in the middle for 3 turns...He turned around , fired here and there ,moved forward a bit , reverse a bit , turned his turret..After 4 turns he began to reverse and succeded to run away peacefully

I do not think that it could happened in a real situation ...in the middle of more than 2 companies ( almost 200 enemies soldier )?? More than one soldier may have climb the beast and throw grenades inside...even the tracks were not damaged !!

Dam ! Long post...

In spite of all that I still think CM is one of the best gaming experience I had.

Who knows maybe some of the shortcomings that I mentioned here will not be present in CM2 or maybe this thread will be a first wish list for CM3

Crockett

[ 05-26-2001: Message edited by: Crockett ]

[Blenheim]

Bump !!!

Want to know more....

[ropey]

I know all about the game is not reality - I've been playing these games for twenty years. I think CM:BO is great but for all the grog's penetration arguments, IMO something more basic is happening to throw the reality out.

I agree that the God's eye view is a real problem, so I'm going to try these 'Ironman' rules for a while, but I also think something else is going on, and it has more to do with how easily things are seen. (Like the degradation by smoke, mist, etc mentioned above, but perhaps because terrain does not give enough cover?) Higher resolutions in CM2 should allow more wrinkles, so this (apparent) problem may be lessened.

The grognard's arguments may tend to pursuade less groggy player's that this game is highly realistic. I would suggest they read some of the histories and compare their feel with the feel of the game.