A open debate on "gamey" tactics.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Remember that fires in CM often start out VERY small (especially in CMBB). Oh... sometimes maybe 3mx3m. In a field or woods this could spread quite quickly if the weather was right. But like I said, the chance of fire spreading is rather small and it does take time in most cases. We can always tweak it to be slower if folks think it is too fast.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check with BH - he's a firefighter. But I would be really careful with this. Should depend on wind-speed (is that going to be modeled? Would be good re: smoke dispersion...) and general humidity. I don't know a first thing about the geography of the Soviet-Union, compared to NWE, but I would expect there to be differences between, say, Finland and the Steppe.

[FFE]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Anybody interested in the topic of "gamey" tactics should use the Search feature.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great info in your post! Thanks.

As for the search...

Search Words: gamey tactics

Search Forum: Combat Mission

Search In: Entire Message

Search By Date: Any Date

Would you please test this? After a ten minute wait the result is "The page cannot be displayed."

[Vanir Ausf B]

Try shorting the search words to one word only (gamey) or searching in thread titles only. The search engine usually chokes on more than one word unless it is just searching titles, and sometimes even then. Also, sometimes it will choke and then you try the exact same search again the next day and it goes through.

EDIT: I just tried searching for "gamey" in thread title only. Came up with 78 threads :eek:

[ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[GravesRegistration]

I am Quite suprised that there is no talk about the "gameyest" Tactics in CM.

It's a combination of the Psychic link that guns and tanks have on the map where they all turn and fire onto a single building. (often with units downstairs that no attacker can see) Now this wouldnt be so bad BUT the buildings are made of cardboard and popsicle sticks and no cellar to run to. (hell, and they even explode!)

Additionaly the AI does incredibly stupid stuff to have units flee the damaged buildings often directly relating to their quick demise (even if elite and under little or NO supression).

And what shocks me the most is i have now seen many builings go down from 20mm or a hand grenade. (including knocking down a building entirely with 20mm) Hell if a 20mm can drop a 4 story department store block made of stone and brick then you might as well let .50 cal do it(12.7mm) 9mm? mess tins ? bad language?

If the new CM does not take care of the cardboard buildings and 2 dimentional rubble, battles like Stalingrad will be impossible to even attempt to simulate.

[i know some people like to think of CM as "just a Game" but it is the best tactical simulation of WWII combat in existance.]

Additionaly the most MISSING thing when one of these flimsy buildings explode is that they leave NO dust or smoke or anything. (CM could easily just have smoke apear on and near the building when it goes down (alot of it))

Easily collapsible buildings (into pancake like rubble) with no dust allows the "gamey" tactic of knocking down buildings to catch a tank sitting behind it. Dust is an esential element overlooked entirely.

One day (far far in the future) i even hope to see wind.

...

Sure the infantry mob(or swamp)rush againsts MG's works because of the failure to model the Mg's properly but those tactics (or attempted tactics) will be good practice for all our future russian comanders.

If BF had not fixed the MG thing the (simulated) russians would be in Berlin in 43' (in the CM world)

Hey and whats up with there being NO AA mg's on ANY german vehicle.. by 1945 almost every kraut AFV had an AA mount as they had completely lost air superiority.

Single most "Gamey" unit :flampanzer Hetzer, twenty were built(modified acctualy) 6 of them were lost in their first action (Norwind). Hell there were way way more pzkw mk III's (not in CMBO) still around fighting in europe(including Arnhem) than those things.

Well hope this wasnt to long winded but i just finaly wanted to share my thoughts with all of you.

I'll end this with my official saying for Advanced Squad Leader.

"it aint what you know. I'ts what you throw"

god help me but i will always miss throwing those dice....

GravesRegistration - out.

[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: GravesRegistration ]

[Mark IV]

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

...the Psychic link that guns and tanks have on the map where they all turn and fire onto a single building. (often with units downstairs that no attacker can see)...

...And what shocks me the most is i have now seen many builings go down from 20mm or a hand grenade. (including knocking down a building entirely with 20mm) Hell if a 20mm can drop a 4 story department store block made of stone and brick ...If the new CM does not take care of the cardboard buildings and 2 dimentional rubble, battles like Stalingrad will be impossible to even attempt to simulate.

Additionaly the most MISSING thing when one of these flimsy buildings explode is that they leave NO dust or smoke or anything...

Hey and whats up with there being NO AA mg's on ANY german vehicle.. by 1945 almost every kraut AFV had an AA mount as they had completely lost air superiority.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wonder if we're playing the same game? What kind of AA is missing from German AFVs? They (mostly) have roof-mounted MGs and they shoot them at Jabos, always have, provided they're not suppressed.

The problem with 20mms and grenades dropping 4-story buildings must be due to the mods you're using (mine are all 2-story???). When a grenade drops a building in CM, it is already "**" from other sources, and the grenade was just the last straw. A real 20mm would chew up a light one-story building in CM pretty quick. The .50 doesn't have HE loads. You must be using 20mms a lot. Tsk, tsk, gamey, you know.

The big bubble when the building "explodes" IS the dust cloud, not the explosion. It is not persistent for LOS purposes like a real dust cloud, but it is not a 5 kiloton shock wave either.

Dunno where the psychic link comes in, or if you're referring to the AI or PBEM opponents, but the AI is not one to indulge recon by fire much. If he is firing live ammo then he's spotted something. AI's biggest failing is firing smoke at things he should be throwing real bombs at. Answer? Play humans (the bastards).

These have all been discussed and are often a result of a first-generation sim that was breaking a lot of new ground. BTS has acknowledged some areas that fall short of perfection, and alluded to advances yet to be seen in CMBB.

You completely missed the American robin call, for instance...

[ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Mark IV ]

[Redwolf]

Mark IV, as explained in the manual, a building that has a single-story graohics simulates a one-or two story building, one with a two-story graphics simulates 3 or 4 stories.

I am not sure that buildings are too fragile in CMBO, at least not when coming under "normal" HE fire from 75mm or 105mm AFV direct fire. The AA guns model in CMBO is not as sophisticated as the normal model (accuracy boost given too freely, IMHO) and this seems to lead to unrealistic effects of AA HE fire. If you ever used a Bofors gun as a "anti-gun" gun, you know what I am talking about.

My father is a stress analyst for buildings and based on what I gathered from his work, the resistence of buildings against unforseen forces varies greatly. A HE shell low into the side is unforseen.

Also, building quality varies form region to region, even within a country. See an analysis about the effect of British and German cities. The smaller early-war bombs on London did quite some damage, the same bomb size was useless against some (but not all) German buildings.

[Moriarty]

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

Check with BH - he's a firefighter. But I would be really careful with this. Should depend on wind-speed (is that going to be modeled? Would be good re: smoke dispersion...) and general humidity. I don't know a first thing about the geography of the Soviet-Union, compared to NWE, but I would expect there to be differences between, say, Finland and the Steppe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A fire in freeburn stage, i.e. active flame, sufficient oxygen and fuel, will double in size every minute. BTS's example of a 9m-square fire would be 18m-square in the next minute, 36m-square the third minute, and so on (in controlled conditions such as no significant wind, "normal" humidity, etc.)

Wind speed, humidity, presence or lack or fuel, etc., would be limiting or aggravating factors.

[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: Moriarty ]

[Col Deadmarsh]

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

I am Quite suprised that there is no talk about the "gameyest" Tactics in CM.

It's a combination of the Psychic link that guns and tanks have on the map where they all turn and fire onto a single building. (often with units downstairs that no attacker can see) Now this wouldnt be so bad BUT the buildings are made of cardboard and popcicle picks ,with no cellars. (hell and they even explode)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, we haven't had the cardboard building debate in a long time. In fact, I think I was the one who was initially flaming the fire on that subject cause I too thought the buildings were too flimbsy. Then again, I was coming over from Close Combat where as Matt put it, "the buildings were made with reinforced titanium."

Since then I've grown accustomed to dealing with the fragility of structures in this game but I still agree that they should be a tad stronger--a tad mind you.

[Andreas]

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

Wind speed, humidity, presence or lack or fuel, etc., would be limiting or aggravating factors.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately there are very few controlled conditions in your typical NW-European forest. Since I have never been to a big North-American forest I can not really compare, but suffice to say that we don't get large forest fires here, at all.

In cities, buildings have firewalls in between them when they are directly next to each other, or very often would be sufficiently far away from each other or have trees between them, that can delay spreading of fire.

Due to the climatical situation, and the fact that NW-European forests are all managed, there is little fuel on the ground, and the ground itself is very moist.

This is of course a bit different in Eastern Europe, depending on where you go.

[hansfritz]

I dont think the buildings in the game are to flimsy.We've all seen news footage of tanks firing H.E into houses,with the result of the side of the building collapsing.

[D'arcy Montague]

Cheer's Deadmarsh

[D'arcy Montague]

Yeah! right on Hansfritz.

Its a widely known fact that all French peasant's houses were stacked full to the brim with TNT, ever prone to explosions of cataclysmic fury.

Those silly French! Bet they don't even know what 'hazardous goods containment facilty' means. Sheesh!

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by D'arcy Montague:

Its a widely known fact that all French peasant's houses were stacked full to the brim with TNT, ever prone to explosions of cataclysmic fury.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's probably all that campagne. Ever seen a bottle of it run amok?

Seriously, it seems some of you should place some squads beside a house, wreck that house with a Bofor AA until it collapses and then realise that it in fact collapses, and not explodes with everyone within the graphical effect being killed.

[GravesRegistration]

One problem here is that the result of making the structures so fragile it leaves open to these tacics (like training ALL guns(from all over the map) on a single building in the same minute to get it to collapse before any can run out of it or to catch a tank sitting behind it) These are silly and unrealistic tactics and they can be prevented by simply making the buildings stronger. (more than a tad in my opinion)

Cellers cannot be modeled (i supose) but maybe casualties from collapes buildings can be slightly reduced to compensate.

The Cellar was the true value of a building for the infantry in most cases.

You may say , many buildings dont have cellars,

But we are talking about western europe!!!

(think wine cellar 8)

cellars are More than common.

This will also fix the fact that infantry in stong stuctures (brave in this case) will be completely erradicated from a constant barrage(105mm+) Every single time ! as compared to many real life occurances were troops would sit it out in cellars or center lower floors interior rooms of solid buildings (away from windows) and then hope their nerves held out. My Great Uncle Lester sat through Many a barrage in 44/45 ! Sure he was clinicaly deaf... but he sat them through and survived the battles. But in CM, do to flimsy structures and AI panic from the dreaded "**" they are all casualties.

How about the silly tactic of weakening many buildings in the suspected avenues of approch then have a 20mm shoot at any units comming in to them... this sets off the

"run out of the building to your death AI"

for the mear expenditure of one 20mm round !!!

and if your lucky the whole ENTIRE Block of building with 80 rooms (my rough guess) and four stories of concrete or brick or stone is comming down....

we know it doesnt happen like that.

I am going to be redundant and mention Dust once again as i'm hoping for some feedback from ya al'

GravesRegistration - out

[Andreas]

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

My Great Uncle Lester sat through Many a barrage in 44/45 ! Sure he was clinicaly deaf... but he sat them through and survived the battles. But in CM, do to flimsy structures and AI panic from the dreaded "**" they are all casualties. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hats off to your uncle - the question than is whether he and his squad went out to immediately fight, or whether a unit surviving in a cellar did just go out and fight immediately after the rubble settled? Casualties in CMBO include those who have dropped out of the fight for various reasons, and this can IMO include loss of cohesion.

Just a thought.

[xerxes]

Graves has excellent points. I also think "rubble" should have multiple states, the existing rubble is too flat. (imho)

Rubble provides better concealment than the original building in many cases.

-marc

[LGMB]

Soldiers,

I here by curse this thread in the name of the lurker army!

Be gone ye foul fools!

[Battlefront.com]

GravesRegistration wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>These are silly and unrealistic tactics and they can be prevented by simply making the buildings stronger. (more than a tad in my opinion)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then we would have Titanium buildings like in Close Combat, which is on balance far less realistic. The problem isn't that buildings are too flimsy, it is that the human player can bend the rules of reality simply because there is no way to prevent it. This is what we call the Borg principle. Short of removing the human player from the game, there is little we can do to fundamentally counter it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Cellar was the true value of a building for the infantry in most cases.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct, and we do simulate them in an abstract way. See next point...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But in CM, do to flimsy structures and AI panic from the dreaded "**" they are all casualties. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true at all. I have seen buildings colapse and not cause a single casualty. What's more, I once say a building come down and the MMG team that was in there didn't even stop firing at me!

It is all circumstantial. Making buildings unrealistically solid is a very poor solution to whatever problems exist.

BTW, the AI logic to run out of "**" buildings was added by player request. It isn't always perfect, but I think most would agree less friendly casualties are caused by the current logic as compared to the previous lack of it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How about the silly tactic of weakening many buildings in the suspected avenues of approch then have a 20mm shoot at any units comming in to them... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is, of course, a totally "gamey" tactic. I suspect that many people I know would refuse to play such a person again if they did this. As I said, it is impossible to eliminate all gamey tactics. This is, afterall, a game

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>for the mear expenditure of one 20mm round !!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true. The player would have to have some heavy stuff AND expend quite a bit of its ammo to significantly weaken enough buildings to make a difference. In doing so he would have to expose his vehicles and keep them distracted. If the other player isn't a complete noodlebrain, he would take advantage of this AND avoid the buildings which are obviously being set up as a trap.

Overall... I think this is inherently not a problem which requires much action on our part. In any case, there is little that we can do until we totally rewrite the game engine so that buildings are simulated in far more detail. Even then, gamey tactics will ALWAYS be possible in regards to knocking about buildings. There is no way for us to prevent this without making the game less realistic overall (i.e. Titanium buildings).

Steve

[xerxes]

I don't see speculative HE fire against buildings as gamey. Didn't commanders order HE fire against positions that they thought might be occupied?

I still think gradual rubblization (with the necessary dust/smoke) would improve realism, and would eliminate the abuses that graves pointed out.

-marc

[FFE]

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

How about the silly tactic of weakening many buildings in the suspected avenues of approch then have a 20mm shoot at any units comming in to them...

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

Big Time Software Wrote:

This is, of course, a totally "gamey" tactic. I suspect that many people I know would refuse to play such a person again if they did this. As I said, it is impossible to eliminate all gamey tactics. This is, afterall, a game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is more the fool? The person ordering men into a collapsing building or the person who expended ammunition destabilizing the structure? GR points out a single 20mm round will force men out of a '**' building. Although true, I smile when my opponent tries to use '**' buildings against me. '**' buildings are not a secret for they are easily viewed by your opponent. A single, large round tends to level a severely damaged building allowing infantry to occupy pleasant rubble terrain. I always expect my opponent to use damaged buildings against me. Buildings are death traps. This is a flat out reality and not something to be considered 'gamey.'

Gaminess entails running trucks around the side of a map trying to take a sneak peek at your opponent forces.

Gaminess entails running trucks around to distract enemy fire and then use the truck crews to secure VL.

Gaminess does not entail waiting for enemy forces to cross a bridge, then opening up on the bridge itself.

Buildings in CM are modeled fine. If BTS wishes to give building damage more detail then I am all for it.

[jshandorf]

Yar!

Sorry, Grave, but you didn't play the game BEFORE the * indicators were added AND units DIDN'T leave buildings that were about to collapse. All I can say is that it is MUCH better this way.

Steve,

I remember I first mentioned adding the * thingies to Madmatt in the chat rooms. I did this because I thought it was strange that you couldn't tell how damaged a building was when you have troops in it, and since they didn't (at THAT time mind you) evacuate of thier own free will I mentioned the * thingy to Madmatt as a solution. Now I have a second idea...

How about if you get rid of the star thingies since now troops will evacuate buildings when they think they are going to collapse? Then players can't take advantage of the intel of the building damage for "gamey" reasons? Another solution is to maybe only reveal building damage status to the player who is occupying the building?

Just some thoughts,

Jeff

[Andreas]

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

How about if you get rid of the star thingies since now troops will evacuate buildings when they think they are going to collapse? Then players can't take advantage of the intel of the building damage for "gamey" reasons? Another solution is to maybe only reveal building damage status to the player who is occupying the building?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it depends on what is modeled here - but in my mind the building does not magically go from undamaged to collapse. If you fire at it, you will see it getting close to collapse, roof caving in (one star), some outer walls crumbling (second star)... In which case both players should get that info, since it would be very obvious.

The problem Graves has is that he seems to believe the lack of a graphic representation of a gradual increase of damage in the building is relevant to what is happening in the engine.

Buldings are death-traps. There is a reason that AFAIK German doctrine was to defend inside a town, and not really the outer buildings, while US doctrine was to defend outside a town, in the surroundings. I would be interested in an army that had a doctrine of defending the outer row of buildings that is in full view to the enemy, and was successful with it.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Mark IV:

[QB]

AI's biggest failing is firing smoke at things he should be throwing real bombs at. Answer? Play humans (the bastards).

I wish it were that easy. My TacAI loves to have my own troops fire Smoke when I ordered HE. Example: I was green Heer about to be overrun by Vet.Ami infantry. The AI bunched a platoon or so in one house. I had destroyed all his armor, and so ordered my Pak40, which was perpendicular to the inf.engagement, to knock the house down with HE. Dumb thing shot smoke, and only blocked its own LOS.

It was later KO'd by arty, and that was the turning point in the fight.

[jshandorf]

I remember the smoke thing being a HUGE problem in one patch release and while, yes, I have seen it from time to time it is not nearly as bad as it was before.

Besides.. They are shooting smoke to give your infantry units cover from suppression fire.

Germanboy,

While I agree you should be able to tell how badly the building is damaged it doesn't matter nearly as much to the units that are IN the building as it does to the units that are firing at it. Besides.. It was only a suggestion to counter the "gamey" play with shooting up buildings.

Come to think of it.. Do you even need LOS to a building to determine the damage? Gonna have to check on that...

Jeff

[Mark IV]

Yep, it will fire smoke sometimes. Was the Gun Green too? You could picture this:

Gun: Well, those greenies are screwed now, here comes a Vet Ami platoon.

Cmdr: Shoot that house and collapse it on them.

Gun: That will take numerous shots, because houses are too strong, and the most of the Vets will survive, because houses are too weak. They will be unhappy and shoot at ME. I will shoot smoke instead and protect my own breechblock ‘cause those greenies are screwed anyway.

Greenies: AHHaahharrgh.

Arty: Guns! We hates guns!

Gun: AHHaahharrgh.

Sounds like there was a bit of trouble in Greenville already....