"SMG GAP" A Proposal...Take 2

[Tero]

>I do it all the time. What is your problem

>here? I have no trouble at all ordering

>this, nor does my opponents.

That is not my experience. When there are too many units in the house that are only seen as contact markers they "block" area fire orders as there is no "room" for them in the house. But if there is even one unit seen that you can target there fire is switched to "regular" fire and you can demolish the house at will.

>So you want to be able to fire relatively

>small lumps of metal into an area where

>your troops think a unit has been?

That unit being a tank.

>You are going about this the wrong way. If

>you want to kill a tank (and kill it now)

>that you can't see you only have two

>options.

>

>1. Get a LOS to it with a unit capable of

>destroying the tank.

>

>2. Order artillery (any large calibre

>indirect firing gun capable of

>immobilizing/destroying the tank) to fire

>at the area where you think the tank is.

>

>Those are the options in RL anyway.

Nope. IRL there is a third option. Recce by (direct) fire. IRL, if you see a tank pull behind or you think you see one inside a softish LOS cover (inside a forest) you can pump a round or two at or near the location you saw it go in to see if it really is there or if it has moved on. If the enemy tank has not spotted you yet it is unwise to use HE because if it misses your cover is blown, litterally. With a AP shot the enemy tank crew may not pick up it is being targeted. Depending on the activity in that neck of the battle field.

>No, the operative phrase is "previously

>spotted." Now you see it, now you don't.

So why persistent contact markers with ID tags, if there is no real fuction for them inside the TacAI ? They are great references for the player but they also create an illusion that the TacAI uses them in its calculations.

>You can always be sure of what your troops

>can and can't see. That is what the LOS

>tool does. You must already know this.

I used to think that is the case, yes. But now I am not so sure.

>As a trooper you are not firing at "the

>last known position", that is not an issue,

>you are firing at an area that your

>commander tells you to fire at.

Nope again. IRL a trained unit commander always nominates the target being fired at and what it is you are supposed to hit in case there are people in his units that can not see the indicated target. It can be called area suppression fire when you are trying to keep the other guys heads down and perhaps even inflict a few casualties. If you are firing at a location where an enemy unit was seen the location is last known position. But if a clear target presents itself close by and it poses a treath to the unit the fire is automatically shifted to the new target. If it is "only" a target of opportunity a unit commander can order for example his LMG and a few men fire at the new target while the rest keep on firing area suppression fire at the old target location.

>Please trust me (and everyone else) when I

>say that you never ever want to fire large

>calibre AP at a location, ie as area fire.

"Never ever" is a pretty strong expression. If you see a tank enter brushes and you can hear it revving up as it goes along you can pump a few rounds in hope you can hit it.

>If a threat pops up elsewhere you either

>continue to obey your last order (Elite

>troops almost never disobey orders, think

>about that)

I would have thought Elite troops would recoqnice a mortal treath when they see one and act accordingly more readily than green troops. There is a difference between disobeying orders and acting stupidly.

>and figure that your brilliant

>commander have you covered, or you disobey

>a direct and specific order and try to kill

>the new threat. I've seen both happen in CM.

Me too. But it is the marginal cases (like AT guns targeting infantry units when there are tanks about) where the gripes lie.

>I think you might suffer under several

>misapprehensions of what CM does and what

>is represented.

The term "abstration" has fallen into disuse in this forum.

>There might be several faults with CM but I

>haven't seen you present even one so far.

All the good ones have already been covered. Why go over them just for the hell of it.

>Accepting that someone else (not me, I mean

>the game designers and beta testers here)

>knows more about something than you do

>isn't a bad thing you know.

I accept the fact that they know more about a lot of things inside the CM world. But having some experience IRL small unit tactics I see there are design desicions and features in the game (like including stabilizers in Allied tanks) that are not very clear and/or not very well explained.

[Geier]

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

Nope. IRL there is a third option. Recce by (direct) fire. IRL, if you see a tank pull behind or you think you see one inside a softish LOS cover (inside a forest) you can pump a round or two at or near the location you saw it go in to see if it really is there or if it has moved on.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. Don't even try to tell me that you know "flushing" tanks out from cover and into LOS with AP was SOP in WW2. And that it is such a good idea that it would be worthwhile to put it in CM. If firing area fire with AP worked wonders why was dropping smoke considered a decent idea up until ten years ago? Firing through foliage is one thing and it happens quite often in CM that you are able to get LOS through woods. When you do, you shoot.

Plus, there are other ways for a unit to be out of LOS, it can be behind a hill for instance. I don't believe that the TacAI tracks what obstructs LOS but I don't know that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So why persistent contact markers with ID tags, if there is no real fuction for them inside the TacAI ? They are great references for the player but they also create an illusion that the TacAI uses them in its calculations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are great references for the player. Works for me. If you know it's an illusion why not just ignore it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

IRL a trained unit commander always nominates the target being fired at and what it is you are supposed to hit in case there are people in his units that can not see the indicated target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. You remarked that never ever were pretty strong words. "Always" in your example above goes against everything I have ever read, experienced (no combat) and know about human nature. But anyway, your order would then sound like:

Gunner! Left! Copse of firs, range 800 meters. Load AP and try to hit that tank we saw before. Aim somewhere in the middle. What? Yes gunner, the middle of the trees.

Fire!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But if a clear target presents itself close by and it poses a treath to the unit the fire is automatically shifted to the new target. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing I have ever read has led me to believe that anything is done automatically during combat. Define "the unit". The squad/crew? The company? The platoon? The battallion? From my short service with an AT-platoon I would say that the best thing to do if there were no other targets present would be to try and track the tank and figure out where it would pop up in LOS, aim for that point and wait for it to show itself. This exact procedure can be done in CM and I have used it with some success. This would also allow me to stay in cover until I fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I accept the fact that they know more about a lot of things inside the CM world. But having some experience IRL small unit tactics I see there are design desicions and features in the game (like including stabilizers in Allied tanks) that are not very clear and/or not very well explained.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a whole different ball game isn't it? If something is unclear or poorly explained it isn't necessarily wrong, faulty or bad, right?

I point this out one more time, you have totally failed in convincing me that you know what you are talking about when claiming these errors in CM. I realize that I might not be your primary targeted audience but there you have it. Since you said I could suggest all I wanted I'll suggest that you read BTS civil answer to you one more time. There just might be stuff that you have misunderstood.

[ 07-21-2001: Message edited by: Geier ]