MG team recommendation

[Username]

Another summary:

1. Running Tests were out of context in the last MG thread, but now even Steve is doing them. First he poo-poo's them and then we find out he's using them also.

2. Lots of changes coming for CM2. Nothing coming for CMBO. Can anyone say "CMBO Gold Edition"? CMBO went through a change earlier by the way. It was brought to BTS' attention (by myself and others) that all infantry firepower was weakly undermodeled. I guess that iteration was all we got. It was obvious that testing must have been done with combined arms type scenarios masking infantry deficiencys.

3. Water cooled US MGs are definetly in the game. And undermodeled. And I believe that Steve is wrong about US heavy weapons platoons not using the M1917 as a standard weapon.

4. Cover states are modeled wrong. If running in the open gives "cover" (75%) then Ill be damned. Motion attracts the human eye like nothing else. Its from our primitive hunter days. Some gangly volksgrenadier running a couple hundred meters cartainly draws attention to themself. Someone in a foxhole is 45% covered? Sounds like a hasty fighting position than a foxhole. Thats part of the equation why the tests against foxhole positions favored the attacker. Any tired ass squads running within a hundred meters starts plinking defenders under cover.

I like some of the changes that BTS seems to be working on. It will be hard to imagine anyone playing much CMBO once CM2 comes out.

Lewis

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Another summary:

2. Lots of changes coming for CM2. Nothing coming for CMBOLewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought the conversations have indicated that they will look at making some of the "new technology" as it were retroactive to CMBO but were not promising anything. Has that changed?

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I thought the conversations have indicated that they will look at making some of the "new technology" as it were retroactive to CMBO but were not promising anything. Has that changed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Last I heard is what you bought is what you are getting.

Steve usually needs to close down a thread to change his mind. Allows him to cool off and regroup. He might see the wisdom in just increasing running exposure in CMBO as well as some tweaks on the other exposure levels/formulas.

They have never released how these things work exactlty, so I think that people here do a pretty good job figuring things out from experience.

lewis

[Andrew H.]

I like the idea of MG's occasionally going "hot," for several reasons. One is that it is realistic behavior. Another reasons is that, especially if it is tied to unit experience, it adds another level of interest to overall game strategy. For example, in a BYO game, one might consider whether it would be useful to purchase above average experience MGs because of the increased chance of going hot (similar to how people sometimes purchase more experienced FO's). Also, in a scenario where there are MGs with differing experience levels, it will be important to factor this ability into unit placement.

I also think that linking this to unit exposure will make it more realistic both in term of not using MGs to blast units out of heavy buildings as well as in terms of providing proper (dis)incentives to the opposing side.

Finally, I like having a wider variety of possible outcomes, even if the chance of a regular MG going hot was something like 1-100 against moving units in light cover, and 1-20 (or so) against units moving in the open.

While I don't think that SL's treatment of MGs was particularly realistic (indeed, with the favored 6-12 HMG + 10-3 leader on the top floor of the stone building to repel the attacking hordes, the HMG acted more like a phaser cannon (apparently vaporizing enemy squads) than a WWII HMG)), I did really like the variation in results that you could get. I.e., while the normal result of being attacked by a MG, even if moving in the open, might be a chance of a morale check, things were much more dire if you happened to be moving in the open when the opponent rolled snake-eyes (or a three, even). Just the possibility of this even happening encouraged realistic behavior. Although, on the other hand, sometime you would go for broke and the opponent's roll of 11 would make your suicidal tactics pay off. I also liked the ROF roll that ASL added.

While the above SL results may be less than realistic, some sort of variation *is* realistic, and also adds a lot to game play.

From a purely eye (or ear) candy perspective, it might be nice if a MG that went hot had a different sound associated with it, so that the players would know that this was happening. (Because it's cool to know this, and I think everyone involved would know this). Perhaps the simplest and most appropriate way to indicate this would be with a different MG firing .wav sound. I like the idea that the MGs fire would sound like sustained full auto...maybe slightly louder to suggest intensity.

Whatever you do, Don'thave an "NBA Jam" style ON FIRE! .wav. And combining it with a red "On Fire!" graphic (like the hulldown graphic) would be even worse.

[ASL Veteran]

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

Incidentally, it would also be less ruinous to go to "crawl" or stationary in the open, if the cover from that were better than moving, assaulting, running. Even if the effect is not large. How so? A small cover difference may lead the enemy shooter to prefer a different target, at a slightly greater range. Thus going to ground can works as an "after you, Alfonsi" sort of thing.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, if grazing fire were simulated, the MG could still engage the closer target using the danger space from the line of fire. I'm still hoping for full grazing fire simulation, although these other things are very important too.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

I like the idea of MG's occasionally going "hot," for several reasons. One is that it is realistic behavior. Another reasons is that, especially if it is tied to unit experience, it adds another level of interest to overall game strategy. For example, in a BYO game, one might consider whether it would be useful to purchase above average experience MGs because of the increased chance of going hot (similar to how people sometimes purchase more experienced FO's). Also, in a scenario where there are MGs with differing experience levels, it will be important to factor this ability into unit placement.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. And sometimes a green unit might just go "hot" at a target that isnt even close (blowing off his ammo and/or melting down the gun). Works both ways maybe..

It will definetly be another level of play; what to buy and where to put them. Crack MG bunkers might be really nice. In fact, that is what got me started on my testing kick. I had played a game where I bought a MG bunker and put it behind a Flag on a reverse slope. I put minefields on the flag (gamey) and had two lmgs covering the bunkers left and right flank. Didnt matter. The AI just ran through the minefields and past the MG bunker to a flag behind the bunker!. The lmgs just folded up too.

Lewis

[JasonC]

Originally posted by WineCape:

I think that is a pretty accurate summary. And I am sure the people at BTS will do something sensible, with their understanding of the issues. If we can add to that, great.

I also agree with two points Andrew made - first, the humorous one about SL HMGs with leaders. Phaser cannons indeed, LOL.

That was a particular clear case of a system being bent to near breaking by players finding one optimum. The factor that it exploited, was the cumulative, larger and larger effect of die roll modifiers (DRM for short), in a 2d12 probability distribution. For small mods, those gave interesting and realistic effects, but large DRMs gave out of this world, fantasy role-playing effects.

See, -1 DRM in a 2d12 system makes a 1/12 event (e.g. raw roll of 2 or 3) twice as likely. (2-4 is twice as likely as 2-3). But -4 makes the same event 7 times more likely. They made leaders and target moving in the open cumulative negative DRMs, and the result was akin to an Improbability Drive.

It is a cautionary tale, to avoid unintended "linked multiplier" effects in a combat system.

Second, I agree with Andrew that variance is good. In the sense that some randomness in the effectiveness one can expect from given weapons, makes the game tense and allows people to try things, even to try to get away with things in a sense. And this is better than a system in which all the random rolls that do take place are about equally important and small in their effects, and thus average out to more or less an "ergodic", near deterministic outcome.

The key game design factor needed to bring about that kind of edginess, is random determinations that have effects on different scales. There is quite a bit of that in CM now, especially in the tension of armor combat, tank alive or tank dead. Also in morale effects on key units doing hazardous and important things. The point is, these special events have more of an impact on the outcome, yet turn on a very limited number of random "rolls". There aren't enough of them to just wash out to an average the player can just count on.

So, you get different game play results from a 1/10 chance of a big effect, than from a lot of 1/2 chances of little ones. The second washes out to predictable, pretty much. The first can set outcomes on a knife-edge, as the saying goes.

Depending on whether an outcome is something you think players *need* to be able to count on, or not, you can lean toward the one or toward the other. Thus, players need to be able to count on their men going where they are told, most of the time. Otherwise they don't have enough control of the battle to make it a battle of wits as well as bits. But they can't know beforehand whether the schreck will kill that Cromwell or vice versa.

So the issue with hot MGs, is where they belong along that continuum. I would like players to be able to more or less count on 4 MGs getting hot if shooting into open ground over 2 minutes - 1 or 2 of them I mean, regulars. But when it is a matter of 1-2 MGs, it should be tense and uncertain.

So what does that work out to? Perhaps, when an MG shoots at a unit with low cover / high exposure, somewhere around 2% it goes hot. See how that adds up? An MG firing for a whole minute, at guys in the open 100-200 yards away, can shoot ~8 times. If 1 MG has 1 minute, its overall chance is ~15%. Two MGs for 2 minutes, ~50-50. 4 MGs for 2 minutes, ~3/4 for at least one. So you "go ergodic" somewhere around 8 "MG-minutes". Under that starts out iffy, over that somebody is going to get hot.

For what it is worth.

[Michael Dorosh]

Asked and Answered. thanks Lewis.

[ 04-20-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Username]

Theres one way to make snake eyes. So that is one in 36. To make a 3 or less its three ways, 1/2, 2/1, and snakes (1 in 12). To make an even 3 result is then two in 36 (1 in 18).

Lewis "sweatin at the craps table"

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Theres one way to make snake eyes. So that is one in 36. To make a 3 or less its three ways, 1/2, 2/1, and snakes (1 in 12). To make an even 3 result is then two in 36 (1 in 18).

Lewis "sweatin at the craps table"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ach, I just caught that. Of course - 1 possibility of 2, 2 possibilities of 3 = 3 of 36 or 1 in 12. Thanks.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Ach, I just caught that. Of course - 1 possibility of 2, 2 possibilities of 3 = 3 of 36 or 1 in 12. Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh. I remember how much fun it was working out formulae and charts for various SL events, like what was the probability that a given squad would break if in a given level of cover, receiving a given amount of fire, and stacked with a leader of given morale and leadership bonus. Interestingly, when AH published their own tables in The General, they were indentical with mine. Loved those 2d6, but 2d10 is a lot better.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Heh. I remember how much fun it was working out formulae and charts for various SL events, like what was the probability that a given squad would break if in a given level of cover, receiving a given amount of fire, and stacked with a leader of given morale and leadership bonus. Interestingly, when AH published their own tables in The General, they were indentical with mine. Loved those 2d6, but 2d10 is a lot better.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I prefer a 100 results DR myself. Why does Jason call it 2d12? The new math? LOL

We've discussed Bob Medrow's numbercrunching before. I might have been a better player had I paid more attention to those charts, but I doubt I would have had as much fun.

BTS needs to appeal more to the adolescent in all of us. We all played the SL DYO where the hottest girl in school was being held prisoner by the enemy, yes? 109Gustav hit it on the head when he recognized that we all draw maps of our home towns as well....

[Username]

I also would like to see a greater chance of putting out a lead shower if targeting an ambush marker. This gives a little control over it.

I would expect water cooled weapons to have a little less susceptibility to meltdown under these events.

Lewis

[Username]

Some nice reading:

"A general advance against the German center was launched and the Russians were making certain that the village, directly in the line of advance, had not been occupied by the German machine guns during the night.

So far, though I had been witnessing a battle of obviously tremendous magnitude, I had not seen the enemy. From our position slightly in the rear of the German flank, it was comparatively easy to trace our own line through the glasses, but the general line of the Russians was hard to determine, being indicated only by occasional flashes of gunfire.

With the start of the Russian attempt on the German center, however, the entire scene changed. Yesterday, for the first time since the start of the battle on Sunday, the Russians attempted to carry the German center position by a storm.

All Sunday and Monday the opposing artillery had been hammering away at the opposing trenches. The marksmanship of the Russian artillery had been bad, but I was told that a Russian aeroplane had made a reconnaissance of the German position shortly after dawn yesterday.

I saw no machines in flight. Twice under cover of their field artillery the Russian infantry advanced in force yesterday. Twice they were forced back to their defensive positions Now they were to try again.

The preliminaries were well under way, without my appreciating their significance until one of my officer escorts explained.

At a number of points along their line, observable by us, but screened from the observation of the German trenches in the center, the Russian infantry came tumbling out and, rushing forward, took up advanced positions awaiting the formation of the new and irregular battle line.

Dozens of light rapid firers were dragged along by hand. Other troops -- the reserves -- took up semi-advanced positions. All the while the Russian shrapnel was raining over the German trenches.

Every move of the enemy was obviously being communicated to the German center. The German reserve column moved in closer. The rifle fire from the German trenches practically ceased.

The German officers moved along in the open behind the trenches encouraging and steadying their men, preparing them for the shock. Finally came the Russian order to advance.

At the word hundreds of yards of the Russian fighting line leaped forward, deployed in open order and came on. One, two, three, and in some places four and five successive skirmish lines, separated by intervals of from 20 to 50 yards, swept forward....

From the outset of the advance, the German artillery, ignoring for the moment the Russian artillery action, began shelling the onrushing mass with wonderfully timed shrapnel, which burst low above the advancing lines and tore sickening gaps.

But the Russian line never stopped. For the third time in two days they came tearing on, with no indication of having been affected by the terrible consequences of the two previous charges.

As a spectacle the whole thing was maddening. I found my heart thumping like a hammer, and with no weapon more formidable than a pair of binoculars, I was mentally fighting as hard as the men with the guns.

For the first time I sensed the intoxication of battle and learned the secret of the smiles on the faces of the battlefield's dead.

On came the Slav swarm -- into the range of the German trenches, with wild yells and never a waver. Russian battle flags -- the first I had seen -- appeared in the front of the charging ranks.

The advance line thinned and the second line moved up. Nearer and nearer they swept toward the German positions.

And then came a new sight! A few seconds later came a new sound. First I saw a sudden, almost grotesque, melting of the advancing lines. It was different from anything that had taken place before.

The men literally went down like dominoes in a row. Those who kept their feet were hurled back as through by a terrible gust of wind. Almost in the second that I pondered, puzzled, the staccato rattle of machine guns reached us. My ear answered the query of my eye.

For the first time the advancing lines hesitated, apparently bewildered. Mounted officers dashed along the line urging the men forward.

Horses fell with the men. I saw a dozen riderless horses dashing madly through the lines, adding a new terror. Another horse was obviously running away with his officer rider.

The crucial period for the section of the charge on which I had riveted my attention probably lasted less than a minute. To my throbbing brain it seemed an hour.

Then, with the withering fire raking them, even as they faltered, the lines broke. Panic ensued. It was every man for himself. The entire Russian charge turned and went tearing back to cover and the shelter of the Russian trenches.

I swept the entire line of the Russian advance with my glasses -- as far as it was visible from our position. The whole advance of the enemy was in retreat, making for its intrenched position.

After the assault had failed and the battle had resumed its normal trend, I swept the field with my glasses. The dead were everywhere. They were not piled up, but were strewn over acres.

More horrible than the sight of the dead, though, were the other pictures brought up by the glasses. Squirming, tossing, writhing figures everywhere! The wounded!

All who could stumble or crawl were working their way back toward their own lines or back to the friendly cover of hills or wooded spots.

But there appeared to be hundreds to whom was denied even this hope, hundreds doomed to lie there in the open, with wounds unwashed and undressed, suffering from thirst and hunger until the merciful shadows of darkness made possible their rescue -- by the Good Samaritans of the hospital corps, who are tonight gleaning that field of death for the third time since Sunday."

web page

So it CAN be the case where MGs cut down infantry like dominos (under the "right" conditions). If the game cant reproduce this effect, then its foundation is cracked. Pillar made a good point in the shut down MG thread; if it IS in the game it will be abused. This simple observation is interpreted as "whining" by Steve.

Lewis

[Michael Dorosh]

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

The men literally went down like dominoes in a row. Those who kept their feet were hurled back as through by a terrible gust of wind. Almost in the second that I pondered, puzzled, the staccato rattle of machine guns reached us. My ear answered the query of my eye.

After the assault had failed and the battle had resumed its normal trend, I swept the field with my glasses. The dead were everywhere. They were not piled up, but were strewn over acres.

So it CAN be the case where MGs cut down infantry like dominos (under the "right" conditions). If the game cant reproduce this effect, then its foundation is cracked. Pillar made a good point in the shut down MG thread; if it IS in the game it will be abused. This simple observation is interpreted as "whining" by Steve.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This doesn't seem like a particularly good quote. It gives no idea of the size of the units involved; could be anything from a platoon to a regiment. Worse, it gives no idea of the proportion of killed to wounded, only purple prose about dominos. The wounded are spread out over "acres." Should a machinegun be able to dominate acres of terrain? Or was there an entire machinegun battalion defending these acres?

How many tiles to an acre?

This also mentions that the attackers faltered and ran. Significantly, it doesn't mention them running forward into cover, which we have all agreed is a silly byproduct of CM's code. But I don't see what such a vague reference is supposed to illustrate. Did one single German MG hold off 4000 Russians?

Did several German MGs hold off 200 Russians?

These are things we need to know, or be able to guess at, for this selection to have much relevance.

[Battlefront.com]

Misc. responses:

Michael:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Very intriguing, but I'm not sure I'm getting all this, especially the sentence, "Some units will NOT be capable of using the order in the first place..." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Assault Move is simulating a skilled and coordinated effort to "leapfrog" men, with some running to new cover and others providing covering fire. Conscripts have no military training, and therefore this is something they aren't capable of even attempting. They were more concerned about figuring out which end of the Boom Stick to point at the enemy

JasonC wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, I for one do not notice the 1 more than the 100. I mean, I bought the game 4 months ago, and I have to do a detailed test to find this sort of behavior - LOL. It was relatively hard to find simply because I don't normally make a tactical point of moving 62 men at 4 MGs, frontally, at a walk, through open ground. The things I do more often, work great in game terms, of course. But if someone did that to me and it worked, I am sure it would be noticeable enough.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you. My point since the very beginning. MGs work as intended for the majority of realistic situations that are likely to happen within a game. But as I have been discussing, we do understand that there some shortcomings. Taking out of context tests and making conclusions that are aimed at reflecting upon the game as a whole is bad science. Some still don't understand this, but I can't help that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My second take on it is to focus much more on the unit taking the fire, and on routines that seem to be used now. What about something like this?

In alerted or cautious morale states, if taking fire in the open, then check (in pseudocode) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is pretty much how the system works right now. However, it generally sees Crawling as not as good of an option as it should.

Lewis:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1. Running Tests were out of context in the last MG thread, but now even Steve is doing them. First he poo-poo's them and then we find out he's using them also.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Typical muddled thinking there Lewis (yours, not mine). All I am doing is comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. I said from the beginning that you can only carry forward conclusions as much as the test allows. There are problems with rushing lone MGs. I have said as much. I have also agreed that this needs to be fixed. So why on Earth would I do tests with combined arms to figure out the problems with just a MG vs. a platoon (or so)? It would be just as wrong as those who said that MGs are useless, on the whole, after only testing one isolated abstract case.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It was brought to BTS' attention (by myself and others) that all infantry firepower was weakly undermodeled. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, lots of people have said lots of things about practically everything. Infantry firewpower is not weak or undermodled on the whole. If it was CM would be a laughing stock of a game from a simulation standpoint. It is not. In fact, we don't plan on making any changes to firepower treatment in CM2. Where things are not working as well as they can be, it isn't because of firepower. So toot your own horn as much as you want...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Cover states are modeled wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, this is just your uninformed opinion. While cover stats might be contributing to the problems I have been discussing, it is a minor part of the whole.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If running in the open gives "cover" (75%) then Ill be damned. Motion attracts the human eye like nothing else. Its from our primitive hunter days. Some gangly volksgrenadier running a couple hundred meters cartainly draws attention to themself. Someone in a foxhole is 45% covered? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Folks... ignore these numbers. Lewis is pulling them out of his you know where.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I like some of the changes that BTS seems to be working on. It will be hard to imagine anyone playing much CMBO once CM2 comes out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fully expected. When you buy a new PC, do you use your old one as much? As for updates, we have given the customer more than they should reasonably expect. Everybody has got their $45 worth out of the game dozens of times over. And that is all that matters.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So it CAN be the case where MGs cut down infantry like dominos (under the "right" conditions). If the game cant reproduce this effect, then its foundation is cracked. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is exactly why I insisted that if someone wishes to use historical examples like yours, that they set up the SAME situation and see how it plays out. Taking one particular type of squad and rushing it against a particular type of MG, with particular types of Experience and terrain conditions, is a poor way to see what is what. Like the faulty examples of WWI that some dragged out. You can't look at a whole battlefield situation and then compare its results to an isolated and totally different test situation and expect it to yield relevant results. Sorry, science doesn't work that way.

As Michael stated above, this is a really bad example. It is completely void of details needed to recreate a similar setup in CM. Hell, the example even states that artillery was being used against these rushing Soviets, so maybe it was the artillery that took them all out? Where in the tests you and folks like Pillar did was there any use of artillery? And were you using Conscript attacking forces like were probably in use in this example?

Lewis, you sometimes seem to know what you are talking about, but then you muddy the waters with crap like this. If you are doing it on purpose, then my already very low level of respect for you dropped another notch. If you are doing it through ignorance, well... I'll cut you some slack because there is always hope you might learn something from your mistakes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pillar made a good point in the shut down MG thread; if it IS in the game it will be abused. This simple observation is interpreted as "whining" by Steve.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously this is your typical axe grinding look at things. I guess the dozen posts I made discussing what was observed by Pillar, in the correct context, was somehow missed by your keen powers of observation? What I have said since the get go is a small, isolated, limited in scope, tighly defined set of variable example can not serve as the sole basis for making game wide conclusions. So far nobody has even bothered to challenge this logic. It would be hard, obviously, since it is this basic concept is the foundation of scientific methodology. Or do you think that if you bump your head getting out of your car that, without any doubt, every person who owns the same car also bumps their heads?

Steve

[ 04-21-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[aka_tom_w]

Great Post Steve!

I am VERY confident that you have a very good understanding of the MG issue (Doh! I guess so you designed the damn game !, poking fun at myself ) and I'm very supportive of your suggestions to attempt to deal with the problem in CM2.

Again I am hopeful that CMBO will not be totally abandoned and might also benefit from the same MG fix as is coded into CM2. (not likely I guess, BUT we can hope )

Thanks again for the dialogue and comments in this thread, lets hope it stays positive and constructive with the emphasis on suggestions for IMPROVEMENTS and solutions that might work well in CM2.

-tom w

[ 04-21-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[ 04-21-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

This doesn't seem like a particularly good quote. It gives no idea of the size of the units involved; could be anything from a platoon to a regiment. Worse, it gives no idea of the proportion of killed to wounded, only purple prose about dominos. The wounded are spread out over "acres." Should a machinegun be able to dominate acres of terrain? Or was there an entire machinegun battalion defending these acres?

How many tiles to an acre?

But I don't see what such a vague reference is supposed to illustrate. Did one single German MG hold off 4000 Russians?

Did several German MGs hold off 200 Russians?

These are things we need to know, or be able to guess at, for this selection to have much relevance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't grade its "prose" level but I think its a very good account of WWI action. I believe its from 1914. I actually enjoyed reading it and felt it conveyed the terror of just being an observer. I cant imagine being the russians..

It gives some idea of the size in that there were multiple waves of infantry charging the german line. I would certainly say the attackers outnumbered the defenders. Roughest guess; three to one.

Why the proportion of killed to wounded could possibly interest you is beyond me. Explain why its "worse"? I cant see the importance.

The fact they are spread out shows that yes, MG fire seems to have a ranged effect. Did you want them all piled up in a heap or something? In rows?

This "vague" reference is a first hand account of what MGs (dont be obviously obtuse and start demanding how many and what the gunners shoe size is) can do when suddenly opening up on a group of advancing infantry. He mentions weapons going silent (rifles stop firing) and yes theres artillery, but he seems to be pointing to the fact that automatic weapons (werent too many MP44s or Garands around in 1914) had a sudden visable (yes I am going to say it) mowing down effect.

Thats it kids. Its an example of how bad it CAN be.

Dont really have all the numbers but its an example. Does it matter that the germans are firing weapons that are 30 years older than WWII weapons? They actually fired slower if I recall back then. Think similar scenes werent played out on the eastern front in WWII? Guess again.

How many tiles in an acre? Its an area related mathematical problem. Any high school grad should be able to figure it out. Whats your point?

Did one MG hold off thousands of russians? I would guess thats a little high. Did several hold off 200 russians. My guess, you are a little low.

A Good Question (Rhetorical):

Was the average german battalion in 1914 as well equipped with MG firepower as the 1941 version (wow, look the numbers reverse)? I would venture a guess and say not as much MGs in 1914.

take it for what it is worth.

Now as far as Steves:

"What I have said since the get go is a small, isolated, limited in scope, tighly defined set of variable example can not serve as the sole basis for making game wide conclusions. So far nobody has even bothered to challenge this logic. It would be hard, obviously, since it is this basic concept is the foundation of scientific methodology. Or do you think that if you bump your head getting out of your car that, without any doubt, every person who owns the same car also bumps their heads?"

Hes off track again. I am not making game wide conclusions. I am making conclusions on aspects of the game that are fundamental. They should hold true in testing. As higher levels of the game are built on top of them (armor effects on infantry, etc), they will change. The proof is in the pudding? No, I say. The pudding shouldnt use sour milk. either you get it (from the get go) or you dont.

"Folks... ignore these numbers. Lewis is pulling them out of his you know where."

They were on the screen when I played the game last. I will have to reiterate this again for Steve. Thats the info up on the screen guy. How it is manipulated in the game is not released to the public. Fine. But I am just going on what the game is outputting. You sound alot like the Wizard from Oz by the way. Pay no attention to the man behind the....

You just might review alot of what was said by alot of people. It was acknowled by BTS that a rev directly was the result of infantry firepower being too weakly modeled. It WAS brought up by myself and others. Glad our contribution stuck so firmly in your bumpy head. Want me to do a search for you?

"Typical muddled thinking there Lewis (yours, not mine). All I am doing is comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. I said from the beginning that you can only carry forward conclusions as much as the test allows. There are problems with rushing lone MGs. I have said as much. I have also agreed that this needs to be fixed. So why on Earth would I do tests with combined arms to figure out the problems with just a MG vs. a platoon (or so)? It would be just as wrong as those who said that MGs are useless, on the whole, after only testing one isolated abstract case."

First you were saying that the tests people were doing dont mean anything and now you say this and I have muddled thinking? Why not just break down and give some of us credit? We dont know all the intracies of the games engine. We are feeding back info. So use it to "fix" it. I say "fix" it cause you arent fixxing CMBO but developing CM2. Another product. You take crap personally and have just got to be right no matter what. Dont hide behind some so called scientifical methodology. you are making a game for Christs sake! People are doing alot to contribute to it. You are the muddled one.

WOW!

Its more like the playtesting that brought the game out in the first place was using combined arms and not concentrating on the basics. Was that the case or not? Dont bother answering that.

Someone else said:

"Again I am hopeful that CMBO will not be totally abandoned and might also benefit from the same MG fix as is coded into CM2. (not likely I guess, BUT we can hope )"

Thats what I am talking about Tommy boy. Expect some tirade against me for standing by that. I am not even expecting the full monty, just some tweaks to obviously flawed parts of the modeling.

Lewis

[Battlefront.com]

Ah Lewis... reminding me why you are my favorite person to discuss issues with...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hes off track again. I am not making game wide conclusions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man... can you confuse things around or what. Game wide conclusions were being made, and that is why I objected to the original test. If you weren't making those claims, then obviously what I said was not directed at you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am making conclusions on aspects of the game that are fundamental. They should hold true in testing. As higher levels of the game are built on top of them (armor effects on infantry, etc), they will change. The proof is in the pudding? No, I say. The pudding shouldnt use sour milk. either you get it (from the get go) or you dont.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Works in theory, doens't always work that way in simulations. Someone else (I think JasonC) pointed out that any system can be stressed to have a breaking point. It doesn't matter how well the componant pieces work, or how well the over all results are. It is possible to use the correct milk and still get some sloppy soup that isn't pudding you know. I'm sure there were situations your bulldozer couldn't handle. And if you don't think there are, you are fooling yourself.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They were on the screen when I played the game last. I will have to reiterate this again for Steve.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is what you said Lewis: " If running in the open gives "cover" (75%) then Ill be damned."

You have it the wrong way around. What you saw was "Exposure, 75%", meaning that the unit has only 25% "cover". At least that is what happens when I put infantry out in the open and target them. And yes, this is just a base, unmodified value. Things, like the movement order, experience, etc. detract from that number.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You just might review alot of what was said by alot of people. It was acknowled by BTS that a rev directly was the result of infantry firepower being too weakly modeled. It WAS brought up by myself and others. Glad our contribution stuck so firmly in your bumpy head. Want me to do a search for you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, knock yourself out. I remember some firepower tweaks, like changing the FP for MP44s. I also know that we added behavior to make MGs target more frequently at closer ranges, and also that an abstracted form of Grazing Fire was added. I have noted those above in previous posts. But what you said was: "all infantry firepower was weakly undermodeled". This is totally overstated and unsupportable. And we certinly have never said that this was the case and we certainly have never made a complete change of the way firepower is handled.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First you were saying that the tests people were doing dont mean anything and now you say this and I have muddled thinking?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but basically because you obviously don't really read what I say and are so Hell bent to embarrass and attack me that you don't appear to be able to actually think about any of this. I said at the time, and after, and now, that the test being conducted did not support the conclusions being drawn from it. In that context, the test was unfair and not good enough to draw those conclusions. I asked people to try other tests and was either ignored or the other tests showed different behaviors and therefore different conclusions. There was even a challenge about CM being able to simulate a WWI battle, to which someone replied that they did this successfully. All of this is totally ignored by you Lewis so that you might continue to grind your axe.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why not just break down and give some of us credit?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhmm... reread my posts and see how much credit I am giving people. If I am not giving you credit, perhaps it is because you don't deserve it? But I guess you do since, by your very humble assessment, you were the one that thought up all the stuff that works in the game and we are planning on putting into CM2.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We dont know all the intracies of the games engine. We are feeding back info. So use it to "fix" it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What the Hell do you think I am doing here Lewis? Chatting with you because you are such a pleasent person to converse with? Cripes... talk about having blinders on. If I don't kiss your butt I guess I am not listening to anybody, eh?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I say "fix" it cause you arent fixxing CMBO but developing CM2. Another product. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what is your problem with that, BTW? Should we not make CM2 and just keep tweaking CM1 for the next 20 years? When Ford comes out with a new minivan with a few more cup holders, which probably would have been a good idea the first time, do you expect them to come around and retro fit all the minivans they sold before? We have done this far more than any other software company I can ever think of. Suck it up and deal with reality. We were not put on this planet to serve you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You take crap personally and have just got to be right no matter what.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't just have to be right. I admit when I am wrong, or did you not see my do this to you personally? And yes... I do take your posts as personal attacks. How the heck should I take them? Constructive, well thought out, respectfull criticism? Give me a break. Most people here would be more than happy if I just banned you, even though you have mellowed out recently. You have no credibility in this respect.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Dont hide behind some so called scientifical methodology. you are making a game for Christs sake! People are doing alot to contribute to it. You are the muddled one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I see... we shouldn't use sound methodology and instead we should wing it? Gee... I am sure that will make CM the best game out there instead of the crap we have now, which was based on scientific methodology. Thank you for pointing out the errors in my way. So let me change my position....

Folks, all the well thought out, well reasoned, soundly sceintificly arrived at decisions I laid out in this thread are now off the table. Lewis has pointed out that this is just a game and using science and sound logic is just a waste of time. So I have asked Charles to simply increase the firepower of every infantry unit by 2 and MGs by 5. Why these numbers? Well, why not? It is just a game for Chris sake and I don't want to muddle things up any more.

Steve

[Username]

Didnt answer my question about how you initially playtested the game but I thought as much. A macroscopic top down approach will iterate to the correct small level modeling I am sure.

Heres a good website: http://raven.cc.ukans.edu/~kansite/ww_one/comment/crane.htm

from the website....

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

"Technological Factors

The recurring theme of the First World War is the machine gun. No major war had been fought on the European continent since 1815, with the possible exception of the Crimean War (I leave the decision whether the Crimean War was "major" to the reader), which was fought without the "benefit" of twentieth-century advances in weaponry. In the interval, there were no tactical developments to match the developments in weaponry. The successful German wars of unification had not persuaded even the great elder Moltke to adopt more modern tactics and formations in the second half of the 1800s, and one does not usually argue with success (the elder Moltke did, however, institute some modifications of existing tactics in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71). On the other hand, there were striking examples of wars that cried for tactical reform in the European armies, notably the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 and the Second Boer War of 1899-1902.

It was thought, at least by the French, that the machine gun would not affect the course of battle very greatly. In a London Times article in March 1908, the French Senate's debate on machine guns was reported. The august senators felt the gun was of limited, if any, value. The British leadership, even in 1915, was debating whether to raise the number of machine guns in a standard battalion from the pre-war complement of two (today, an American platoon of 42 men has as many)! The Germans were alone in appreciating the value of the machine gun, and in organizing machine-gun companies to support standard infantry companies.

In the event, machine guns in fixed defensive positions soon became a dominant factor. But why? First, it was soon discovered in battle that one fortified (or entrenched) machine gun, with a full crew and plenty of ammunition, could destroy an entire attacking infantry battalion of 600-1000 men advancing across the barren stretch of ground between the trenches, known appropriately as No Man's Land, before the attackers could close with the defenders. Since there were always several such defending emplacements in any given stretch of trenchline, it is easy to see how a few machine guns could grind up a division of 10,000 men in a half hour or less. The second and more important factor, however, is that the attacking Allied, and to a lesser extent German, armies continued to use "traditional," that is Napoleonic, tactics and formations. Just like the "enemy" in so many war movies, the attacking soldiers placidly lined up like proverbial sheep for the slaughter, advancing in four or five waves, each in its turn to be cut down like so much wheat before the scythe.

One important argument needs to be made at this point. There were only two offensive actions that came near to causing a strategic breakthrough by attacking forces. The first was the British attack at Cambrai (20 November to 3 December 1917); the second was the German Kaiserschlacht offensive between Ypres and Rheims in the spring of 1918. The first example turns on the first use of massed armor, while the second turns on the use of then-revolutionary infantry tactics. The reason the second example is of importance in my analysis of the machine gun is that the offensive was very nearly successful, as we shall see later. That fact implies that technology was not required to overcome the effects of the machine gun; that is to say, the deadlock could be broken by men as well as machines if those men used the right tactics.

The number of machine guns per division had increased by 1918. In 1914, the average infantry division had twenty-four machine guns, whereas by 1918 that same division had increased its complement of machine guns to between fifty and one hundred, with one hundred to two hundred automatic rifles as well. Obviously, defensive firepower per man had vastly increased in four years, especially when one considers that few, if any, divisions were at full strength after 1914. Given that the Kaiserschlacht offensive was very nearly successful, it would seem that to argue that strategic breakthroughs were prevented by the advent of the machine gun is rather shortsighted. Rather, it seems that the machine gun imposed a new obstacle for the military leaders to overcome.

Another technological factor of the Great War was the advent of rapid-fire (breech-loading) artillery. It was assumed that the combination of artillery and the offensive spirit of the infantry would prove overwhelming to any defending force, even one of equal size. This assumption had its roots in the Napoleonic doctrine of frontal assault backed by powerful direct artillery fire. It was widely held in the century following the Battle of Waterloo that the way to win battles was to press hard in the center with the main infantry force, with artillery providing close support. The French were not the only proponents of this doctrine, just the most zealous. This doctrine overlooked several things, however.

First, Napoleon won his great battles through the use of maneuver when his was the numerically inferior force, notably at Marengo and Austerlitz. He only used his center-thrust strategy later when he possessed the superior force, notably at Borodino and Waterloo (and at Waterloo, his margin of numerical superiority was slim indeed). It was not the center-thrust strategy that gained Napoleon his reputation; it was his ability to lead troops in complicated maneuvers that made him a Great Captain.

Second, weaponry in Napoleon's day was much less effective. Rifles were not in abundant supply; muskets had an effective range of fifty or perhaps one hundred yards. Infantry dealt with enemy infantry with the bayonet, not always by killing the enemy with their bayonets, but sometimes by merely charging or threatening to charge, thereby causing morally or numerically weaker enemy forces to run away. Artillery was of the (relatively slow) muzzle-loading variety and artillerymen used rather unsophisticated fire-control techniques. Furthermore, the effective range of the guns and the killing power of artillery loads were inferior (if that is the right word) to their twentieth-century counterparts. In the days of Waterloo-style battles, the most effective round was the solid-shot cannonball, since it acted like a very lethal bowling ball which, when properly aimed, had the effect of transforming the packed enemy troops into so many bowling pins. By 1914, artillery shells had become much more sophisticated, including a wide variety of exploding shells.

Third, the armies of Napoleon's day did not possess the machine gun or anything like it. It is obvious, reviewing what we have seen, that some tactical and strategic learning was in order, but the only way to learn total war is to practice it, and the great powers, as we have also seen, had managed to avoid just that experience for ninety-nine years."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would even say that 600-1000 is a bit much but maybe under ideal conditions. But I would expect 4 M1917s to slaughter an infantry company coming on balls out over open ground. Actually two would do nicely.

But my point is that in CMBO, the game makes it possible to be as bad a commander as you could have possibly have been in WWI. The game ALLOWS you to do exactly as the dumbass generals did from 1914-1917. The game is actually somewhat retro in that promotes napoleanic warfare because it doesnt punish the commander (more about this later) or whack the troops!

The game allows infantry behaviour that is unrealistic for its time frame. It isnt that I have to simulate WWI with CM but rather, BTS has to simulate WWII with it!(and fix the MGs and behaviour of troops).

It would be expected in a WWI game that stupid advances into kill zones might be allowed. But in WWII, charging into blazing MG fire was verbotin MOST of the time. It is too easily abused as is. In actuality, a burst of MG fire would "mow down" troops in WWII. Thats because while maybe one or two were hit, the rest would just hit the dirt.

So while the main focus has been to discuss to death MGs firepower, cover states, firelanes, abstractions, etc. I think that BTS has to address some level of orders limitations and possible ramifications from just plain stupid behaviour. And yes, I have previously posted ideas about this topic and remember lovely arguments and strange logic being thrown around. If I can dig it up I will find Steves post where he stipulates something about "Why wouldnt a squad leader have the right to do as he sees fit?". The answer is , of course, that unless you are part of some independant secret recon team, you actually just do as you are told. And the guy above you does the same. This aint no soccer match with people running willy nilly over a field. Its war, or a wargame, and you would be surprised how slower things go in the real army.

So I dont think that remixing history is a good idea. Taking the stance that MGs are over rated uber weapons might make someone feel revisionistic and edgy but its just a plain lie. WWI DID happen. It wasnt till the very end of the war that the germans starting updating their infantry/artillery tactics to offset the MGs advantages.

So unless BTS would like to discuss orders limitations and more realistic infantry behaviour to firepower, I am done with this.

Likewise Steve; I find it a pleasure to follow your ever evolving take on things. Your discretionary choice of what is worth ignoring and your need for constant adulation. Do you?, perhaps, have a Napoleanic complex? Is it possible that people can like the same thing yet not exactly like each other.

Grow up.

Lewis

[ 04-21-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[ 04-21-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[StellarRat]

Steve, I'm with you 100% on this one. I don't know why Username choose fire off a big tirade. I believe all the questions Mr. Dorosh asked were relevent. Certainly, without knowing numbers, positions, training, area, etc, etc...no one could make any type of logical conclusions or analysis of the problem. The only games where you can make-up numbers and not lose the respect of any intelligent gamer would be some type of science fiction or fantasy game.

I respect all the work you guys have done to make CM as realistic as feasible and hope you continue your efforts along those lines. Your company is one of the few that actually listens to the users and tries to fix anything that appears to be a not right. The number of patches you released for CM is a testament to that fact.

[ 04-21-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

[aka_tom_w]

HEY!

Lewis are you really trying to get the SECOND Good MG thread locked??!

I mean really it would be a shame to see this thread locked because you keep antagonizing Steve.

I'm not just sticking up for Steve, I'm very sure he has done and will do a fine job of that for him self.

I'm just compelled to comment because this once interesting thread, with insightful and well informed posts from folks here with actual infantry military experience, has now more recently become a showcase for Lewis to sling mud at Steve. And thats a SHAME!

If I was a moderator (ha!) which I'm NOT I would politely request that Steve and Lewis no longer reply to each other's posts. This is somewhat problematic here as Lewis, (as of this writting) currently has the last word.

I will be very sorry to see this thread locked because Lewis provoked Steve, and Steve continues to reply to Lewis.

I think that would be very unfortunate if this thread was locked down at this point. I thought there was a very good contribution my many folks here earlier in the thread that was very interesting and informative for me to read.

oh well.....

I tried

-tom w

[ 04-21-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Username]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

[QB]HEY!

Lewis are you really trying to get the SECOND Good MG thread locked??!

-tom w

I didnt lock down the first OK? I cant lock em down. Steve locked it down for whatever reason he had at the time. I honestly forget. But I truly believe he did something like a 180 between then and now. Or maybe a 135, I dunno.

I think that BTS has got alot of good ideas and I hope that they need to wring em out. They need to be tested as others here are doing to uncover things.

I hope they see the rational behind my last post. If they cant, then thats really sad. If they dont want to fix CMBO (and get valuable "beta" test feedback), then its just tough titty for us.

Anyway. I have had it. Steves got his point of view and I have mine. We arent going to change each other much. Yeah it degrades to mutual BS but thats life. If you think this crap is something, you cant imagine what its like to work with me.

lewis

[Abbott]

Thanks Tom,

That needed to be said, I was thinking along the same lines.

Lewis,

Your reply actually gained back some of the respect I was beginning to lose for you. I do realize your posts have some merit (as Steve does) however your antagonistic ways scratch at ones nerves at times. I am glad to see what I think may be a settling down a bit on this thread.

Regards,

Abbott

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I prefer a 100 results DR myself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right. That's what a 2d10 or a 2d20 gives you. With a hundred percentage points to play with, you can design a CRT that will give you fairly accurate and unpredictable outcomes. Sort of like CM in that way.

Michael