Beer_n_Pretzels Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: And while you're at it, go ahead and give my Hetzers a few more mm of armor TankDawg LOVES bouncing rounds off on my TDs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You gotta love Hetzers...They're my favourite German AFV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karch Posted January 18, 2001 Author Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beer_n_Pretzels: You gotta love Hetzers...They're my favourite German AFV<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> using them or shooting them? scott did you get my turn back? [This message has been edited by karch (edited 01-18-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss: Germanboy, please translate. What is that supposed to mean? Appreciate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi, it means that the CPU could not cope with the calculations of line of sight/line of projectile flight being inhibited through moving vehicles. And as far as I can recall, that made a design decision necessary to make vehicles transparent and to make it possible to have shots go through vehicles, whether stationary/knocked out or moving. The only vehicles that block LOS are those knocked out and brewed up. I believe that the sound of bullets zipping on your vehicle is ear-candy, but that is just me surmising. All from memory, I am sure somebody here knows that better than I do. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beer_n_Pretzels Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karch: using them or shooting them? B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Abusing them actually. "You're a bad Hetzer and I've got a 17pdr for you..." I think you get the idea I think the Hetzer is value for money, although it is not an Ubertank. Great for ambushes, but limited as an Infantry support vehicle by its low ammo load out and 1 MG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: Good points, Polar. The only thing I might add is that in the context of the game, losing that damaged tank will cost you points! All Real Life considerations aside, I'd rather keep the tank alive (and the points that go with it) than lose it for no gain. Glad to see that you're not taking my debating points personally. Since this forum is for DEBATING CM issues, I'm not sure why some people see an argument as threatening (not directing this at anyone in particular...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, MT... you don't find the withdrawl of your tank to the detriment of your infantry, for the sole reason of saving some abstract win points, to be gamey? I can see Patton now... "Damn the infantry!!!! Withdraw that damaged Jumbo! That could be the difference between a major and marginal victory!" Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 Hehe...actually, since I play few ladder games, Polar, points mean little to me. I was merely making an argument from your point of view. Germanboy: Any idea how calculating LOS through vehicles can be any more taxing than the way it's currently done? Right now, the CPU must calculate LOS through woods, hills, buildings, etc. What difference will a few tanks make? Just doesn't make sense to me is all; perhaps someone can fill in the blanks for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: Germanboy: Any idea how calculating LOS through vehicles can be any more taxing than the way it's currently done? Right now, the CPU must calculate LOS through woods, hills, buildings, etc. What difference will a few tanks make? Just doesn't make sense to me is all; perhaps someone can fill in the blanks for me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They move Hills and buildings don't. I guess if you have additional variables it gets very difficult. Not that I understand the least bit about coding, but I can imagine the number of calculations to expand exponentially if you include moving objects. Since the computer would not only have to calculate where the vehicle is, but also where it goes during the next 60 secs? Don't know really. Again, this is all from memory, maybe if you do a search with aka_tom_W as username, or ask him directly, he would be able to point you in the direction of the thread. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 I think I can take a stab at it... GB is essentially right, but the reason the don't become instant cover is because the units pathfinding map is probably established before the game ever starts. This saves processor because otherwise the PC would have to dynamically evaluate cover for every unit, every turn. So we'd have a load of people here whining about how there troops didn't take cover behind the broken tank instead of the broken down shack... yadda yadda yadda... when the answer is, the AI can't be programmed to see the tank as cover because that tank was not there as cover when the pathfinding map was drawn, so it will never use it. They don't use live tanks as cover as it is, if I am not mistaken. Less headache to remove them all but graphically and take the "sorry, deal with it" approach. Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz [This message has been edited by Polar (edited 01-18-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 Good explanations guys. Thanks! COme to think of it, it WOULD be hard for 12 guys to take cover behind a sherman hulk. It would make for a great artillery target, what with the men all bunched together like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 Some of the US period stuff I've read state that after an operation is over that the tanks leave the infantry assembly area to not draw fire to the infantry. Sort of in the same vein - a Combat Lessons document (not yet posted) admonished people to not hang out at Command Posts, because the excessive people and traffic will draw enemy artillery fire! ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ for military documents written during WWII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 As Germanboy has been trying to say, there is no single GAMEY action 100% of the time. For example. When a crew is formed from a lost vehicle/gun, they don't ALWAYS have to retreat off the map. They don't ALWAYS have to run from any enemy. They aren't ALWAYS restricted from offensive actions. The problem is, is, that most people are too lazy to think and demand a strict no-tolerance rule just so that they don't have to make an informed choice. Crews have been used to take out some nearby target of opportunity that they KNOW they can handle (ie. a Zook/Schrek/PIAT or Mortor team a few meters away). However, if it was something that they couldn't handle (ie. a squad, tank, far off HMG, etc..) they shouldn't be used. It is a matter of trying to think like that unit. What would the best outcome be? Possibly attacking a nearby unit will result in a better chance for their survival? Regarding the damaged tank gun debate, I don't think that it is 100% gamey or not-gamey. It depends on the situation. If you have a lone tank, in the rear areas with a just knocked out turret without any enemy nearby charging it up will be gamey. However, like the example above, if they are in company with other AFV's (ie. doesn't have to worry about a lone tank duel) they might be able to add some covering support with their MMG against other infantry or AFV's, and add extra targets to confuse the enemy. Even my examples of when or when not to use units in gamey matters aren't 100% written in stone. Sometimes it might not be gamey. One gamey tactic that hasn't really been mentioned much is probably the most important. It is ok for a player to use the occasional 'gamey-fringe' tactic, but, what is really gamey is when one repeatedly uses gamey tactics in order to win against their opponent. ALWAYS having crews as a part of your infantry attack force is gamey, occasionally in times of necessity it isn't. Use your brains to determine when something might be on either end of the gamey fence. If you are in doubt, then don't do it. Stating that the game is made to use every underhanded tactic at your disposal will usually result in many of your opponents having a grudge with you. Gamey tactics can usually only be countered with other gamey tactics. People who play the game for 'historic' value feel cheated when they must resort to gamey tactics because of their opponent. The best bet is to inquire beforehand if you have a 'Historical' opponent, or a 'Quake' opponent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 Thank you Major Tom for stating this perhaps more succinctly than I have been, and yes I too agree that Germanboy is right as well as the rest of those that keep saying there is no one response, answer, equation, tactic, etc., that can apply to all situations, all the time, all the place, under all conditions. And... The other thought being, what difference does it make. The hulls do not subscribe to the real world laws of physics anyway. I'll give BTS the benefit of doubt, I'm sure this did not escape their notice, though I do not know what their priority time lines are for fixes, complicated by the fact they want to get on with CM2. (Here, here). Personally I'd think fixing this more important than the aspects of turreted vehicle hull turnings, but that is my little opinion maybe not shared, maybe not agreed with, maybe not business wise sound, or technically practical. Never the less, whether BTS can fix the transparent hulls or not, or wants to or not, or has time to or not, doesn't alter the fact that transparent armored hulls are about as far from reality as I can imagine, and therefore substantially reduce the integrity of reasoning for debates surrounding the historically correct or sportsman like use of the armored hull to begin with in my estimation, prior to or after its demise. ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 18, 2001 Share Posted January 18, 2001 Thank you Major Tom for stating this perhaps more succinctly than I have been, and yes I too agree that Germanboy is right as well as the rest of those that keep saying there is no one response, answer, equation, tactic, etc., that can apply to all situations, all the time, all the place, under all conditions. And... The other thought being, what difference does it make. The hulls do not subscribe to the real world laws of physics anyway. I give BTS the benefit of doubt, I'm positive this did not escape their notice, though I do not know what their priority time lines are for fixes, complicated by the fact they want to get on with CM2. (Here, here). Personally I'd think fixing this of high priority, but that is my little opinion maybe not shared, maybe not agreed with, maybe not business wise sound, or possibly just not technically practical. Never the less, whether BTS can fix the transparent hulls or not, or has time to or not, doesn't alter the fact that transparent armored hulls are about as far from reality as I can imagine. Therefore I find it hard to invest a substantial degree of seriousness in the reasoning for debates surrounding the historically correct or sportsman like use of the armored hulls to begin with prior to or after their demise. ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) [This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-18-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 And I might add, you can usually make an agreement if you try with the guy you are facing. Now I had one gentleman on Grogs who wanted to play Germans open terrain with hills and I could not get Hellcats and arty over 105mm (gamey he said, it takes all kinds). So the game starts and he has 750 points of KTs parked on hill tops (he must have chosen armour on the QB setting, I had CE, no big deal). Of course, they show up right away and plugged two of my three Shermans. But he had only bought 200 or so points of infantry, so I just occupied the victory points with my zooks and hosed him. Now that is worse case. In most cases it is just -- you attack, I defend -- random settings. Usually we agree to avoid gamey troop comboes with a gentle persons agreement (like odd platoon by platoon mixes. It is one thing to have US paras with tanks, or German Rifles squads with a security unit, but a Gerbil platoon, Falshirm Platoon, Engineer Platoon, Volksrum platoon, and a Sturmkompanie all rolled up into one is cherry picking). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss: The other thought being, what difference does it make. The hulls do not subscribe to the real world laws of physics anyway. I give BTS the benefit of doubt, I'm positive this did not escape their notice, though I do not know what their priority time lines are for fixes, complicated by the fact they want to get on with CM2. (Here, here). Personally I'd think fixing this of high priority, but that is my little opinion maybe not shared, maybe not agreed with, maybe not business wise sound, or possibly just not technically practical. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bruno - if I understand (and remember, by no means assured) BTS response to this correctly, the only 'fix' would be the introduction of 3GHz processors or somefink. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 Thanks Germanboy, understand. Wasn't holding them (BTS) to blame and figured there had to be a good reason(s). Just pointing out that I don't think one can view CM (much as we all might be tempted to at times), to an exacting reinactment of a rather complicated set of historical variables. It is in the final analysis, IMO, a game. One plays it to win. One loses and never likes it. And once in a while there's a draw. But until bullets come crashing through my monitor, (whereupon I'm gonna report it to Better Homes and Gardens), then I just ain't gonna get upset if my opponent does something that nobody in all of WWII ever did. Whatever that might be. ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) [This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-18-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts