Sgt. Beavis Posted November 23, 2001 Share Posted November 23, 2001 ok.... 1) How are 2 man panzerschreck and bazooka teams visible in woods from 300 meters away? Or even 150 m away? No enemy tank or infantry unit should see them unless they fire. but somehow, when i have a 2 man team crawling thru woods, 900 feet away from the nearest enemy, they're spotted and they get hammered by all available weapons. Yea right... they would be invisible at that range. A full squad of 8-12 guys in woods would be invisible at 300 m too, unless they were running around in circles firing their weapons into the air. This aspect of amazing visibility in the game desperately needs to be changed a bit. it's totally unrealistic. 2) Please tone down the superhuman platoon and company leaders. I have played many games while witnessing a platoon leader charge through machine gun and rifle fire over open ground, at short range, and somehow survive. Numerous other games see a platoon leader in a foxhole...with all the squads under his command destroyed or routed... and with the firepower of my entire platoon focused on them... and the enemy platoon leader is returning fire, inflicting casualties, and remains unsurpressed. the lack of supression is a bit...asinine. come on...it's 4 guys, armed with 2 pistols, an smg, and a rifle. They can not and should not stand up to lots of fire. 3) Nearly destroyed units should almost never fire at enemies...they should surrender or run away. Yet in the game, it is extremely common for a squad or machine gun team with 2 guys left to continue the fight. No way. The 4 corpses of your fellow machine gunners are lying around you, and you're still firing the gun? While in open ground? While...again...an entire infantry platoon is firing at you? And somehow these supermen arent surpressed at all, either. please no talk of fanaticism. I didnt say that a decimated unit should ALWAYS surrender or run away. but it should happen very often, and it doesnt in the current game. And if they are fanatics...or berserk... they dont stop bullets any more effectively. This, as much as i hate to say it... reminds me of steel panthers, world at war. an infantry squad or crew with 2 guys left would still be firing at you in that game. Um... no. They'd be busy cleaning out their pants and desperately trying to hide or surrender. The last thought on their minds would be to continue fighting. I say that a squad with 2 or 3 guys left should be rendered "combat ineffective" and unable to do anything for the remainder of the game, except to run off the map. Or die, if they happen to be caught in a crossfire or in artillery barrages. But...they should not fight anymore. Maybe...a 1% chance of them going crazy and firing their weapons at someone. That's it. Same goes for crews, machine gun teams, and mortars. 4) allow for placement of AT guns, infantry guns, and AFVs inside buildings. It was done very often during WW2, and anyone interested can look up dozens of photographs and testimonials showing this to be true. 5) the 81 mm mortar seems to be a hell of an AT weapon. near misses will fairly often immobilize or gun damage AFVs. The damage those rounds caused was based around a principle of FRAGMENTATION, not pure explosive power. Shrapnel will not immobilize a tank. nor will it shear off the gun tube. Perhaps an antenna, or a TC's head. but that's about all i can imagine. Of course a 155 mm might do some significant damage. There is a lot more HE involved in that case. but my doubts have to do with small caliber mortars. anyway... i think it's a great game overall, and i will purchase the next one. but... please make some changes with regards to some of the things above. they seem sensible to me, and would help make the game more realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted November 23, 2001 Share Posted November 23, 2001 I may as well be the one to give you the bad news... Development on CMBO has stopped as BTS are fully devoting their resources to getting CM2 out. Now for the good news: There are a wide range of adjustments being made to the engine for that, and I suspect you'll find many of these issues are addressed. Stay tuned to this board for more exciting updates on CM2! [ 11-23-2001: Message edited by: Brian Rock ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted November 23, 2001 Share Posted November 23, 2001 Sgt. 1) I just ran this test, 7 regular Panzerschreck teams crawled and sneaked in tall pines and woods, back and forth 200 meters away from 2 veteran infantry platoons and 2 veteran Shermans. For 30 minutes they went up and down they but they were never spotted. When I decreased the range to 100 meters the crawling Panzerschrecks were quickly spotted in woods but remain undetected in tall pines, both crawling and sneaking. As far as I can see it is purely a chance thing if they get spotted, if even that. Granted, this observation is not based on a statistically secure sample but in my experience that is also about the size of it in normal play. 2) I for one have never noticed that HQ’s have a higher survivability, beside the fact that they are never out of C&C. How have you come to this conclusion? 3) In real life a decimated group would join the rest of the platoon and a decimated platoon the rest of the company, if the moral didn’t break down completely. This ”automatic” reforming of units has been deemed marginally out of CM’s scope and would no doubt pose a little problematic to code into the game. This might seem to assume that men are a whole lot braver than you think but I simply think it is a matter of limited options. Some hang on because they have the guts, some because they are too ingnorant to realise the danger but most of those who stay put when their comrades fall down beside them stay because they don’t have any real alternative. It’s not like running away will save your life with any more certainty when the enemy is in the next trench. It is when you break and rout that you run, and get cut down most of the time, and that most definitely happen in CM. 4) As I understand it this will indeed possible in CM:BB, to some limited extent. 5) The on board mortars have been accused of being to accurate against open topped vehicles, and I tend to agree with that. As for the 81mm OB’s I just don’t know, how much is fairly often, what do you base your assumption on? Are you saying that it should never happen or just slightly less often? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted November 23, 2001 Share Posted November 23, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mattias: Sgt. In real life a decimated group would join the rest of the platoon and a decimated platoon the rest of the company, if the moral didn?t break down completely. This ?automatic? reforming of units has been deemed marginally out of CM?s scope and would no doubt pose a little problematic to code into the game. <hr></blockquote> I think the reforming of units is already in the game, but only for operations. Recently I had a severely beaten up platoon at the end of one battle (1 squad eliminated, two at half strength, HQ still alive) and at the start of the next battle both squads were united into one full squad. I don't think this is done at a higher level though. Dschugaschwili Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted November 23, 2001 Share Posted November 23, 2001 True Dschugaschwili, I was thinking of battles only. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted November 23, 2001 Share Posted November 23, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mattias: True Dschugaschwili, I was thinking of battles only. M.<hr></blockquote> Also, a unit that has one surviving soldier actually does not have 9 dead ones (or whatever) but over half of the out of action men are not even hit, just tending wounded, stopped being effective for the rest of the game, etc. Platoon leaders and other leadership units can seem much harder to break because they are much harder to break. Some of it is that open ground is not truly billiard table but has lots of places to hide in, and a unit, unless it is running, is taking advantage of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted November 23, 2001 Share Posted November 23, 2001 What I would like to see changed: if infantry in forest receives fire and maybe lost already several men to an unspotted (or even spotted?) enemy, they first complete their movement order! And I mean 'Move', not 'Run'! The first thing everyone will do would be to get close to mother earth and try to spott the enemy. This has also been described by Erwin Rommel in his book 'Infantrie greift an' ('Infantry attacks'). Just imagine this in reality: 'Oh look, Franz is dead. Maybe it has something to do with this loud rifle fire from somewhere 20m away? Well, who cares?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted November 23, 2001 Share Posted November 23, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Scipio: What I would like to see changed: if infantry in forest receives fire and maybe lost already several men to an unspotted (or even spotted?) enemy, they first complete their movement order! And I mean 'Move', not 'Run'! The first thing everyone will do would be to get close to mother earth and try to spott the enemy. This has also been described by Erwin Rommel in his book 'Infantrie greift an' ('Infantry attacks'). Just imagine this in reality: 'Oh look, Franz is dead. Maybe it has something to do with this loud rifle fire from somewhere 20m away? Well, who cares?'<hr></blockquote> Lol, I'm playing a game now where I rushed a clump of woods and way back hidden in a foxhold is a half squad of enemy infantry. The squad that moved towards the foxhole didn't see the enemy until they were completing a move order, 20m away from them! But instead of turning and shooting and dealing with the situation before completing the order, they are simply ignoring the enemy and walking away...getting shot in the back. Meanwhile the HQ is down but I guess they don't seem to mind. How about any squad who comes under fire, deals with that priority first and THEN completes the move order... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted November 23, 2001 Share Posted November 23, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: How about any squad who comes under fire, deals with that priority first and THEN completes the move order...<hr></blockquote> There is the move to contact order in CMBB. So you might Run across the open field to get across as quickly as possible, and when your guys hit the treeline, give them a Move to Contact order. The Assault command may also do what you want. Gamespot Interview - Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 23, 2001 Share Posted November 23, 2001 Regarding whether squads should complete their movement orders if fired upon, wouldn't that make a great SOP setting? (like in tacOps?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted November 23, 2001 Share Posted November 23, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Wolfe: There is the move to contact order in CMBB. <hr></blockquote> Thanx god!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiloIndiaAlpha Posted November 26, 2001 Share Posted November 26, 2001 How about having two new human player options/orders? A 'stop firing and hide' order and a 'surrender now' order. This would allow a player to override the AI if they felt that a particular set of circumstances were producing non-credible activity. Any comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts