Improved Anti-tank gun behavior in CM2

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Reread Steve's response again. He said you CANNOT target something YOU see unless that target is already on the units' spotted list. I for one appreciate how this will work and am looking forward to seeing it implemented.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Steve was talking about how relative spotting will work when it is implemented (CM4 maybe). He was not talking about how it will work in CM2, which will not have relative spotting.

[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Battlefront.com]

Robo wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You'd have alternating relative (during the turn) and absolute spotting in the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, that isn't necessary. You can have a system that combines (graphically) Absolute and Reltaive Spotting. We aren't exactly sure how we will do this, but the most likely idea is to have all enemy units somehow marked differently (say, MUCH darker) when a unit can not see them. So I click on my AT gun that can see 2 out of 3 targets, 2 being displayed as "spotted" and the 3rd as "unspotted". Then I click on a different AT gun, which can't see any of the targets so all three are "unspotted".

This Relative spotting system can work and is a huge, fundamental improvement over Absolute Spotting that we would be fools not to implement it. However... we would be fools to attempt to do so for CMBB. It will probably take us about 2-6 months to get Relative Spotting working as deeply as we want it to. And that is with a complete engine rewrite. So it will show up after CMBB for sure.

First of all, crews do not abandon guns automatically if one crew member is taken out. I have seen AT guns with 4 losses still firing at enemy tanks. Very slowly though All depends on the circumstances. Generally 2/3rds losses will result in the crew taking off.

Crews will not be allowed to reman guns in CMBB. Unfortunately, a lot of programming would have to be done to get them to do so. That means it won't happen until we rewrite the game engine. Until then, Charles and I discussed some tweaks to make "good condition" crews less likely to bail out.

I'd like to thank folks for tossing in examples of how well the system DOES work as is. There is certainly room for improvement (read my previous statements), but messing with the existing system is likely to cause problems with situations that currently work just fine now. Therefore, we are not doing anything in terms of spotting factors for AT guns.

John, when an AT gun is emplaced it is considered to be camoed. Such a position is a "prepared position" and disguising the gun is a standard part of any such action. However, we are planning on introducing camoed pillboxes/bunkers into CMBB. This will give the players two types of fortifications to use (hard to spot and VERY hard to spot) to better simulate the range of fortification concealment that was found on the Eastern Front. Camoed fortifications will, of course, be more expensive than the regular types.

Steve

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Mr. Johnson--]

Sounds pretty good BTS, I've seen gun crews down to 2 men still trying to fight.

But when you get into the remaning of guns your gonna have to factor in the possibility of the gun taking damage to the barrel like taking a gun hit on a tank, that would prevent all chance of remaning the gun.

[Battlefront.com]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ut when you get into the remaning of guns your gonna have to factor in the possibility of the gun taking damage to the barrel like taking a gun hit on a tank, that would prevent all chance of remaning the gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is currently what we are generally assuming happens when a "good" crew runs away from their gun. But we aren't making that very clear to the player at the moment. We hope to improve the feedback for CMBB so people don't assume the opposite (i.e. a perfectly good crew abandoning a perfectly good gun).

When we do implement remanning we will also make it so sometimes this is not an option. If the crew is too shaken up, they are outta there!

Steve

[Tero]

>This will give the players two types of

>fortifications to use (hard to spot and VERY

>hard to spot)

Hopefully you plan on doing something to those gamey sound contacts that reveal the pillboxes/bunkers presence now. Those sound contacts they give are highly accurate in revealing their location too.

[Redwolf]

Steve,

would it be possible to implement an "abadon weapon" command for heavy weapons like guns, mortars and MGs?

When a heavy weapon is threatend to be overrun or the game is approaching autosurrender, I want to evacuate the crew at infantry speed.

For most heavy weapons, the crew costs more victory points than the weapon even when killed, not to speak of getting captured.

In the past, I fired mortars at my own guns to get the effect, but that costs ammunition I want to spend otherwise

It seems to me that this is easy to implement for CMBB.

[Tero]

>would it be possible to implement an "abadon

>weapon" command for heavy weapons like guns,

>mortars and MGs?

Good idea. But please include a confirmation routine so that there are no accidental abandonments due to sloppy mouse technique.

[Barleyman]

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

This Relative spotting system can work and is a huge, fundamental improvement over Absolute Spotting that we would be fools not to implement it. However... we would be fools to attempt to do so for CMBB. It will probably take us about 2-6 months to get Relative Spotting working as deeply as we want it to. And that is with a complete engine rewrite. So it will show up after CMBB for sure.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve,

You have this sudden urge to release CMBB Elite Edition with relative spotting engine..

Seriously, I don't think Kursk op etc will be very well simulated at all with absolute spotting. Other people have pointed it out that boilerplate for boilerplate, soviet gear was very good, but their C&C absolutely sucked.

So just to dismay certain revisionists it'd be very nice to see eastern front game with relative spotting .. eventually. Of course I'll buy the game as soon as it comes out in any case!

On the topic of relative spotting, it might be useful to assign broad vectors to watch for. Actually this would work just fine with absolute spotting engine, too. I'd just like to tell panzer battalion Ohra that a T-34/85 was spotted on hill 274 and they should be on a lookout for them. And not go rotating the ...damn turrent to blast some dismounted crew! More experienced crew would be more likely to follow orders, naturally.

[CMplayer]

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

>would it be possible to implement an "abadon

>weapon" command for heavy weapons like guns,

>mortars and MGs?

Good idea. But please include a confirmation routine so that there are no accidental abandonments due to sloppy mouse technique. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They should ideally take some time to

destroy the gun first. It would be

cool if you could get victory points

for capturing intact weapons. (perhaps

make that scenario optional)

--Rett

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>would it be possible to implement an "abadon weapon" command for heavy weapons like guns, mortars and MGs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No go for CMBB most likely. Trust me, I have been asking for this feature for almost 2 years, so it has been brought to Charles' attention more than once Unfortunately, certain assumptions were made when the core of the program was written. Meaning that this can not be easily done from a coding standpoint. However... we *might* be able to do something for guns and vehicles, even if other weapons (like PS & HMGs) are definitely not possible to do. We will just have to see how things shake out.

Tero, I will ask Charles to look into the sound contact issue with fortifications.

Barelyman:

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

Seriously, I don't think Kursk op etc will be very well simulated at all with absolute spotting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I completely disagree here. There is nothing special about the Eastern Front compared to the Western Front that makes a difference in terms of spotting. So while EITHER front would be better simulated using Relative Spotting, neither one suffers more than the other for having Absolute Spotting. And since no computer wargame I can think of has used Relative Spotting I certainly don't think of it as being mandatory. Just like 3D isn't mandatory. Better, in our opinion, but not the only good way of going about things.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Other people have pointed it out that boilerplate for boilerplate, soviet gear was very good, but their C&C absolutely sucked.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is exactly why the C&C system for CMBB is being completely overhauled. Spotting and C&C aren't inherently related. Obviously the more tools you have at your disposal to simulate chaos on the battlefield (Relative Spotting is one such tool) the better, but they are inherently different systems. Trust me, if we didn't think we could adequately make the Eastern Front reflect the differences between various nations at various points in time we wouldn't have bothered with it until we could. We aren't interested in creating a joke An Eastern Front game where the 1941 Soviet forces behaved like German 1941 forces would be a very bad joke indeed.

Steve

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[WineCape]

This is the reason why I will buy this game in the future, and say "NO" to my friends when some ask if they can make a copy of my CMBO CD. :mad:

My response always: "Go BUY this game! No such pirated ideas will be entertained, ever!"

Thanks Steve for some of the best insights as to the inner workings of CM as well as time spend on the Forum to explain.

Kind regards,

Charl Theron

[Barleyman]

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

Well, I completely disagree here. There is nothing special about the Eastern Front compared to the Western Front that makes a difference in terms of spotting. So while EITHER front would be better simulated using Relative Spotting, neither one suffers more than the other for having Absolute Spotting.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, how about longer engagement ranges, severe comm problems with early-war soviets and so forth? More panzer vs tank action in general?

"Radios? What Radios?"

Anyways, just since wego represents a radical improvement over the traditional ugo-igo counter pushing excercise .. I see no reason not to go the whole nine yards and throw out some more oddities from boardgame heritage

[WWB]

Steve, on a related issue, are there any plans in the works to let AFVs hide in ambush in scattered trees or bushes?

WWB

[Barleyman]

Oh-oh!

I read the CMBB FAQ, and are they ever including covered arc! Cool!

And assaulting! Oh god.. Flashbacks of basic .. I always thought it's a joke you become so exhausted you cannot lift that dinky 3-kilo assault rifle .. but after doing the jump up - run like hell - hit the dirt - fire couple of rounds - repeat routine for half a click.. Syöksyyn .. Mars!

In any case, even if you cannot give quick orders to a T-34 separated from it's platoon, it'll still automagically know where the StuG-IIIf is that blew rest of the platoon to smitheerens.

Still on the subject of backwards compatibility.. Maybe it'd be reasonable to ask for scenario converter, so we could play CMBO scenarios with CMBB and/or CM2 engine?

That way you'd give bonus to people who buy both, but no free lunches to anyone.

[Panzer Leader]

Hey why didn't you bump it to the top????

It's not free, ya know!

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ]

[argie]

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

First of all, crews do not abandon guns automatically if one crew member is taken out. I have seen AT guns with 4 losses still firing at enemy tanks. Very slowly though All depends on the circumstances. Generally 2/3rds losses will result in the crew taking off.

Steve

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I have had this little Pak of 50mm with his crew down to a man still fighting... But the really weird thing was, unlike HMGs, this lonely man was able to MOVE the gun!!!! :eek:

Is a kind of bug or somefink? :confused:

[Battlefront.com]

Barleyman:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, how about longer engagement ranges, severe comm problems with early-war soviets and so forth? More panzer vs tank action in general? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Different issues. Spotting is, to some extent, a function of C&C. But no more so than the fact that almost everything at the tactical level is in some way related to other elements. But fundamentally they are different. So as I said before, there is no special reason why Relative Spotting is more valuable for Eastern than Weastern Fronts.

And yes... we are putting in lots of things that will make sure to highlight the differences between the various forces at various points in the war. Command and Control is the biggie in that regard.

WWB_99:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve, on a related issue, are there any plans in the works to let AFVs hide in ambush in scattered trees or bushes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is similar to the AT discussion, infantry, or whatever. A vehicle, which does not fire or move, in such terrain is generally hard to spot as is. But there are certainly limitations to the curent spotting system works. There is not likely to be any improvement in CMBB. However... there might be something we can manage to do to improve this. No promises or details at this time

Barleyman:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In any case, even if you cannot give quick orders to a T-34 separated from it's platoon, it'll still automagically know where the StuG-IIIf is that blew rest of the platoon to smitheerens.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... I think you under estimate the power of being able to manuever. Picture a platoon of T34/76c coming into an open field at 1000m. Picture a StuG, previously unspotted, taking aim and firing on this platoon. Now picture the Soviet player being unable to quickly alter the orders of those tanks. Also picture 4 man crews, with a buttoned up TCs and no cupolas, trying to figure out where the shots are coming from. Finally, toss in vehicle morale and the affect it might have on these crews if they weren't a cut above the rest. What is the mental image you come up with? I see several possible images, most of which involve a bunch of burning T34s and an unharmed StuG

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Still on the subject of backwards compatibility.. Maybe it'd be reasonable to ask for scenario converter, so we could play CMBO scenarios with CMBB and/or CM2 engine?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huge discussion on this recently. I have nothing more to add other than a quick and dirty converter is NOT possible from a technical standpoint. So what you suggest will certainly not be able to happen. For more details try a Search on something like "compatibility" or "backwards" and look for a large thread from about a month ago.

Arge, if you saw a 1 man crew move the gun (except for rotating) then that is a bug. I'll make mention of it to Charles.

Steve

[lcm1947]

Well after reading all this I've decided not to make a war game myself. I'll stick to insurance. Thanks Steve for your game, your involvement in the forum , continued improvements in the game and your patience. My hat is off to you and your guys!!!!! Said very sinerely!!

[argie]

Steve,

Many thanks for taking care of us

Yes, I saw the gun moving. I give it the order and the little pixel guy move the gun to a better firing position. As it happens in a QB against the AI, I didn't keep the file

But maybe was some Finn in German suit, so perhaps is not a bug after all

[Tero]

>I will ask Charles to look into the sound

>contact issue with fortifications.

OK.

In case materiel is needed I think I still have the turns from a particularly graphic and blatant case (in my favour ) during a PBEM with night and thick fog rendering the LOS down to below 30 meters but the bunker gave away its location through a sound contact well outside LOS.

[SlowMotion]

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

Barleyman:

Huge discussion on this recently. I have nothing more to add other than a quick and dirty converter is NOT possible from a technical standpoint. So what you suggest will certainly not be able to happen. For more details try a Search on something like "compatibility" or "backwards" and look for a large thread from about a month ago.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was the topic: Will CMBO Become Obsolete Upon The Arrival Of CM2?

If scenario converter is not possible, how about scenario extractor? Many CMBO scenarios will be used as a starting point for making CMBB scenarios anyway, like all the ASL conversions for CMBO, so anything that reduces the amount of work would be nice.

So, I have in mind a program which could read a CMBO scenario and extract from it:

1. the map

2. briefings

3. list of troops (just a text file)

(and maybe mark those troop positions in the map somehow

Then people could use files 1-2 in CMBO scen editor, print file number 3 and use that as a help when deciding which CMBB troops should replace the CMBO troops.

IMO the huge number of user created scenarios and mods is the number one reason that keeps CMBO as great as it is. Immediate access to all the CMBO stuff would make CMBB sooooo good the moment it is released.

[Andreas]

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

[QB]If scenario converter is not possible, how about scenario extractor? Many CMBO scenarios will be used as a starting point for making CMBB scenarios anyway, like all the ASL conversions for CMBO, so anything that reduces the amount of work would be nice.[QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a scenario designer, I have zero (0) interest in that. I don't know how others feel about it, but I would not use it if I got paid a fiver for every one of my scenarios I convert like this. Waste of programming time. Scenarios are best designed from scratch, based on historic knowledge and events. The weapons used in the Soviet-German war were so different from those used on the Western Front (except for the 11 months following D-Day) that I don't think that there would be any value in having that. YMMV.

[rexford]

88 ground mounts should have a really high rate of fire compared to tanks, which is one of the reasons why 88 Flak units might be expected to torch alot of Shermans.

88 ground mount is also relatively flat trajectory compared to 75 on Sherman, but low velocity HE fire is easier to bring onto a target then higher speed HE.

Higher rate of fire of 88 ground mount and bracketing use, plus first fire, plus possible recon of terrain for range card use, plus likely use of range finders, means that a handful of 88 kills before they meet their end sounds bogus, dude!

[rexford]

If guns are 88L71 kill total should increase above 88L56.

Germans would also know fairly well that one hit on a Sherman is enough, so they might change targets faster than they would against an IS-2m or Sherman Jumbo after a hit without smoke or flames.

Hit the Sherman, move on to next target. If all Shermans at about the same range, one doesn't even have to change range setting of 88, just move gun over to adjacent Sherman and blast it back to Normandy!

Low kill rates seem realistic, NOT!!!!!!!!

[PzKpfw 1]

Thx for the reply Steve does this include say an tank I wanna hide in hakf a barn? or a TD in rubble.

Also what would realy help IMHO is an enagement menu for gun systems for each unit Ie, you can order tanks & AT guns to engage only AFVS,etc, that would help with the AI stupidly engageing that PIAT team at 850m while a Sherman V is blasting away at the AT gun 600m etc.

Regards, John Waters