Questions and comments from a dedicated player

[dougman4]

1. Is it just me that is annoyed that there is a “snap to” feature when targeting (e.g. mortar fire). You can’t target the ground beneath a unit that is in plain line-of-sight even though the unit may not be target-able. It seems ridiculous that you can’t target 1/3 of a tank because 2/3rd of it are hidden, or even the ground beneath it.

2. Units in ambush position should get off the first shots. In my experience units in ambush position are no more likely to get shots off before ambushed units fire themselves.

3. There should be an ability to toggle on a line-of-sight ring around any (friendly) unit selected. This ring of maximum visibility would preclude the tedious need of having to continually draw blue lines to points of interest.

4. It seems haphazard that some fresh troops readily panic/broken/surrender while other troops hang on indefinitely under extreme fire from many directions.

5. There should be an ability to “ignore” enemy units of a particular class or with a low/none target kill forecast. For example, it seems senseless to see AT guns pling away at Tigers that they have no way of wounding much less killing when killable halftracks escape.

6. How close do you have to be to throw grenades and satchel bombs or Molotov cocktails? Is there a way to specifically throw grenades and satchel bombs or Molotov cocktails versus attacking with other weapons?

7. How many people can be in a building? Why not list a building occupancy limit number when you pass a cursor over the building to alleviate guesswork? Why do units in an overcrowded building invariably exit in directions that are exposed to enemy fire (when there is “safe” cover to be had at other sides of the building)?

8. Why don’t units choose the closest available cover when advancing or assaulting and taking heavy fire? Often, advancing/assaulting units fail to go the last couple of meters and instead run 50 or 100 meters to the rear – exposed the whole time and take far more losses than need be.

9. Advancing/assaulting infantry units are easily suppressible to the point of artificially limiting their role in CMBB.

10. When playing PBEM, it appears that the victory percentage appears different to each player throughout the battle. This seems to be a fog of war feature, but it would be helpful to understand how the computer calculates the victory percentage each turn.

11. Same question, but concerning control of flags. Obviously, fog of war will cause out of sight flags to appear unknown. But, why would visible flags appear different to each player which occasionally occurs in my PBEM games?

12. What is the spotting range for hidden units in various terrains? Surely there must be a table somewhere.

13. What are the defensive bonuses for various types of units in various types of terrain? Surely there must be a table somewhere.

14. Do foxholes’ defensive bonuses cumulate with the underlying terrain? For example, do I get an extra defensive bonus for digging a foxhole in woods or do I just get either the foxhole or the woods bonus (if so, which would it be)?

15. Do foxholes give defensive bonuses to all units including AT guns and armored units?

16. Why do my mortars never seem to get the line of sight range which my spotter unit should be able to provide them?

17. Why do units (heavy tanks to be sure) miss so often at point blank range (50 meters or so).

18. Why don’t units in a column stop when the lead unit gets whacked by an ambushed? Instead, they each keep going one by one into the ambush and getting slaughtered. I could understand that if the end units in the column were getting picked off, but it seems ridiculous when the lead ones are being destroyed.

19. Why is it modeled that all Soviet units immediately run from German heavy tanks, when their penetration ability is similar or better than the Germans? It seems silly for the Soviet units to continually backpedal when they are an even or superior match.

20. Why is it that units can shoot through each other, friendly or enemy, to reach their targets? I’ve seen columns of units open fire on other columns which not apparent blocking of view.

21. Why is it that there is instantaneous situational awareness of enemy units? Just because enemy units may be within spotting range doesn’t mean they are acquired the instant that spotting is possible.

22. Why is it that all units tend to fire on just one other enemy unit? I can’t tell you how many turns one enemy tank was repeatedly killed, perhaps a dozen times or more, while numerous other adjacent enemy units remained unscathed. It is to the point that is laughable, where I see dozens of penetration reports just to invariably find one unit had been targeted the whole time.

23. 12 minutes for a spotter to bring in rounds? Please, just leave him out of the game in the next version. That spotter is worthless, even with pre-plotted target areas.

24. How many rounds of different types does it take to bring down different types and sizes of buildings?

25. Are air units really so bad that they bomb friendly as often as enemy units, even in the friendly rear?

[nevermind]

Answer to 22 i know.Its the death clock.Its not realistic to know for sure everytime that you get a "knock out" from 1000 meaters.There needs to be indications that it is indeed dead.

I think 21 is a reference to "borg spotting" it has been discussed,and IIRC it was something to be addressed in CM 3,not sure tho.

Some of your other questions are good,i look forward to the answers.

[ February 18, 2003, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Ares_the_Great ]

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by dougman4:

1. Is it just me that is annoyed that there is a “snap to” feature when targeting (e.g. mortar fire). You can’t target the ground beneath a unit that is in plain line-of-sight even though the unit may not be target-able. It seems ridiculous that you can’t target 1/3 of a tank because 2/3rd of it are hidden, or even the ground beneath it.

It annoys me also with non-vehicle enemy units. With vehicles you can toggle them off and target right underneath (with HE only of course).

Originally posted by dougman4:

3. There should be an ability to toggle on a line-of-sight ring around any (friendly) unit selected. This ring of maximum visibility would preclude the tedious need of having to continually draw blue lines to points of interest.

This is a brilliant idea IMO. For me it would enhance the game immensely. I'd even be willing to pay extra $$for a feature like that! :cool:

Originally posted by dougman4:

4. It seems haphazard that some fresh troops readily panic/broken/surrender while other troops hang on indefinitely under extreme fire from many directions.

Must be fanatisicm. But that would only be in scenarios/ops. QBs don't have fanatic units that I know of....

Originally posted by dougman4:

6. How close do you have to be to throw grenades and satchel bombs or Molotov cocktails? Is there a way to specifically throw grenades and satchel bombs or Molotov cocktails versus attacking with other weapons?

I think around 30 meters. But you can manually target other squad weapons (eg. satchel charges, grenade bundles) to a point up to 30 meters away.

Originally posted by dougman4:

7. How many people can be in a building? Why not list a building occupancy limit number when you pass a cursor over the building to alleviate guesswork?

Well it can be learned with practice. Here are a couple of examples: Heavy Small Building holds 2 infantry units of any kind. But they must be at opposite corners. Large Heavy Building can easily hold one platoon plus and AT team on each floor. But you have to keep your spacing right about 10-15 meters apart.

Originally posted by dougman4:

9. Advancing/assaulting infantry units are easily suppressible to the point of artificially limiting their role in CMBB.

This is realistic IMO. Advancing units may pin when under fire but it is more rare for them to go straight to panic like running units. However, Assaulting units do get a bravery bonus I think. Also, be sure to use your bravery command bonus HQs to command assaulting units. Do that and you (and your opponents) will be amazed at how your untis continue to advance under MG fire!

Originally posted by dougman4:

14. Do foxholes’ defensive bonuses cumulate with the underlying terrain? For example, do I get an extra defensive bonus for digging a foxhole in woods or do I just get either the foxhole or the woods bonus (if so, which would it be)?

I don't think so and I wish the defensive bonus where cumulative. This is probably a limitation of the current game "engine".

Originally posted by dougman4:

15. Do foxholes give defensive bonuses to all units including AT guns and armored units?

Yes for AT guns. Tanks that "dig in" are permanently hull-down.

Originally posted by dougman4:

24. How many rounds of different types does it take to bring down different types and sizes of buildings?

This varies widely and is somewhat random (even more so it seems in CMBB than BO). For example a 75mm HE gun slamming into a small heavy building may take up to 10 rounds to take it down. But I have seen "lucky" hits blow up a building (once it was weakened by 2 or 3 rounds) without a long time pounding.

-Sarge

[ February 18, 2003, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[SaTyR]

1. Use shift-C to set the unit scale to realistic, can help to target area fire a bit closer.

2. Use covered arcs with hide (I usually use 180 degree arcs)

3. Great idea, but we're stuck with the one we have.

4. See leader bonuses and if the unit is in command. And fanaticism might take part in some cases.

5. If I were an ATG gunner, I'd fire at the Tiger hoping for a miracle (or then I'd run away) more readily than at some escaping HTs. Remember, while they are only virtual soldiers, they've been coded to have some sense of self preservation.

6. I've seen grenades and molotovs thrown up to 45m, the heavier ones max. 30m.

10. Known casualties on both sides and the known state of the VLs. Or so it seems.

11. FOW on you cannot be sure where the enemy units that just dropped out of LOS are for 100%. The state of the VLs change according to this information. You might have had a platoon hidden spot on a VL, but the VL seemed to be in enemy control, when there was an enemy tank 50m away (even to you). In multiplay, both players are affected by the information they get from the battlefield. You know where your troops are, but you only guess where his are. The game will calculate the VL "ownage" the right way even if you'd never reveal the hidden platoon and the game ends (the VL would be contested or yours).

13. IIRC JasonC addressed something like this in a thread a while ago. Something about trenches and exposure percentages, going on to details about terrain and cover they provide.

14. IIRC and very much IMHO, the only bonus for digging foxholes in forests comes from how hard they are to spot. Foxholes in forests are harder to spot from a distance than the ones in the open. The cons are obvious, treebursts.

15. Yes, and the armor units are considered to be hull down.

16. Spotter units don't provide LOS for on board mortars, the commanding HQ does. Spotters are just for firing off board artillery. Use company (and higher) HQs for spotting for the on board mortars.

17. Were they moving ? What was the crews experience rating ? Was it night or day ? A bit too vague of a question. They will hit eventually, and they do hit from longer distances as well. Check the hit % and ponder on the possibilities. Also remember that the germans had different optics than the ruskies (like the stug, long range optics made short range spotting hard, again IIRC).

18. Well the game ain't fully automated. The AI just follows orders that you give. Use shorter move orders or move to contact.

19. That is a bit silly yes. I've seen them running from a perfectly good flank position only firing smoke.

20. Explained to have something to do with the calculations needed to track every shells flight path to be really hard for the computer. Also check the shift-C for realistic scale and see if the units are really shooting through something or was it just the scale +X that makes one believe so.

21. Well that just ain't true. Have a platoon sneak up a wheat field and it'll never be seen by the defender until right at the edge of the field.

22. Death clock. WW2 tankers didn't stop firing at the enemy if the enemy wasn't on fire or seen to be abandoned. OTOH I've seen my ATG shift fire to a bigger threat on their own. The tank they were previously shooting wasn't abandoned yet, but was "dead" (not moving, firing, rotating turret etc)

23. Explained many times. Poor communications from the battlefield to the firing units, more so in the soviet side. Use them for pre planned barrages and the lighter ones for battlefield support.

24. Depends on the gun doing the firing and the type of building. Small wooden ones can be destroyed by two shots from an 75mm IG. Test by yourself, as the effect varies from gun to gun (or building to building)

25. Nope. They do hit the enemy more often that your own troops. Try flying 400kph and identifying which of the land crawling tiny targets are your own and which the enemy (IL-2 springs to mind). Hard isn't it ? Both the Axis and the Allied tried very hard to lessen the possibility of their own air cover to fire on friendlies, use the search function and dig up a thread about it (germans pinning nazi flags on their vehicles, russians using painted figures for aerial recognition)

Check the FAQ thread, use the search and play the game a lot to get answers for future questions. Most answers for most of your questions a) have been answered in previous threads are answered in the FAQ thread or c) can be answered when playing the game and experimenting. And when everything else fails, ask. There's always somebody with time and will to answer.

Cheers and keep on playing the game

[edited for spelling or sumfink]

[ February 18, 2003, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: SaTyR ]

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by dougman4:

1. You can’t target the ground beneath a unit that is in plain line-of-sight even though the unit may not be target-able. ...

As mestioned above, Shift-V will hide vehicles and allow you to target underneath. Unfortunately there's no such feature for leg units.

2. In my experience units in ambush position are no more likely to get shots off before ambushed units fire themselves.

Then your ambush setup is flawed in some way.

The reason your intended victims shoot first is either that your ambushers hold their fire until after having been spotted, or that the enemy is doing some "recon by fire", shooting at suspect locations.

To solve the problem your troops should start shooting at longer range and preferably from the enemy flank.

3. There should be an ability to toggle on a line-of-sight ring ...

This will be looked at for CM II.

4. It seems haphazard that some fresh troops readily panic/broken/surrender while other troops hang on indefinitely ...

That's a feature known as "Fanaticism".

5. There should be an ability to “ignore” enemy units of a particular class or with a low/none target kill forecast.

You have some control in this matter;

- Selecting between "Cover arc" and "Cover armor".

- Manually pick a specific target.

- Hide units that you don't want to shoot at all.

The AI usually do some sensible choices as well.

8. Why don’t units choose the closest available cover when advancing or assaulting and taking heavy fire? Often ... units fail to go the last couple of meters and instead run ... to the rear.

I think this is a fix for a problem often encountered in CMBO.

Units did run to the closest "cover", which quite often was the area occupied by the enemy. Why do you think it's better to run into the enemy than to retreat? How do you know that the "cover" in front of your troops is free from enemies?

The CM engine can't handle such abstract thinking, yet.

9. Advancing/assaulting infantry units are easily suppressible to the point of artificially limiting their role in CMBB.

Only if attacked...

Keep them unnoticed and/or suppress enemies within LOS to the attackers.

10. When playing PBEM, it appears that the victory percentage appears different to each player ... it would be helpful to understand how the computer calculates the victory percentage each turn.

The percentage is calculated on the information presented to the player. That's known kills, own losses, assumed flag control and so on.

11. Same question, but concerning control of flags.

Flag control is seen as the effect of your troops (all known) and spotted enemies.

If both players have troops close to the same flag and these troops haven't spotted each other, then both players will see the flag as theirs.

12. What is the spotting range for hidden units in various terrains? Surely there must be a table somewhere.

Since spotting depends on many factors, randomness being one, it's way too complex to do a table unless BTS release the used equations (which they most probably won't).

Then you'd be able to do a table of probabilities.

I recall Jason C did a test to see the typical ranges at which some ATGs would be spotted, but doing this for all units is too cumbersome.

13. What are the defensive bonuses for various types of units in various types of terrain? Surely there must be a table somewhere.

Someone made a table on exposure percentages, which is what you want. Unfortunately I can't remeber who or where.

Do a search.

14. Do foxholes’ defensive bonuses cumulate with the underlying terrain?

See the table mentioned above.

15. Do foxholes give defensive bonuses to all units including AT guns and armored units?

Foxholes bonus all leg units and towed guns.

Dug in vehicles receive a 360 degree hull down bonus.

16. Why do my mortars never seem to get the line of sight range which my spotter unit should be able to provide them?

Not sure what you mean.

I suppose you mean on board mortars with a spotting HQ.

Then they shouldn't (and don't) get LOS, but will still be able to target the area seen by the spotter.

Your mortars get LOS to what they can actually see.

Perhaps with CM II, implementing your request in point 3, there will be some superimposed marking of the area seen by the spotter when checking LOS for the mortar.

17. Why do units ... miss so often at point blank range.

Because the gunner is extremely stressed. If there's a relative motion between gun and target it's also very difficult to track the target properly at that range.

18. Why don’t units in a column stop when the lead unit gets whacked by an ambushed?

Because they follow their orders to continue moving.

You'll rarely see it happen when they have a good player commanding them.

It's a function of the tach AI that care for all units independently of each other. The followers are not effected by what happened to the front unit, other than secondarily through loss of global morale, even if it was in plain sight.

19. Why is it modeled that all Soviet units immediately run from German heavy tanks, when their penetration ability is similar or better than the Germans?

There was a long thread about this recently.

Think about that penetration is only an issue if you hit, and German gun sights are better. Therefore it's more likely that the German gunner score the first hit in a one-on-one battle.

If the situation is "many vs many" it get worse, because the TachAI see this as several "many vs one" battles, where the "one" (which actually is all of them) under TachAI control is likely to take defensive actions.

The reason is explained above.

20. Why is it that units can shoot through each other, ...

You can only shoot through vehicles (which include bunkers and pillboxes).

A known glitch stemming from the need to keep CPU usage down a bit.

21. Why is it that there is instantaneous situational awareness of enemy units? Just because enemy units may be within spotting range doesn’t mean they are acquired the instant that spotting is possible.

You don't spot enemies as soon as they get within LOS, unless you play with FOW off.

Once a unit is spotted it will be seen by everybody in sight though, but it may still take some time, at least for AFVs...

22. Why is it that all units tend to fire on just one other enemy unit?

Because that unit is seen as the major threat at that moment.

I can’t tell you how many turns one enemy tank was repeatedly killed, ...

It can't have been a confirmed kill more than once, unless it was attacked by aircraft.

There is of course this "death clock" feature where the shooter don't get a confirmation of kill until a) the crew abandon the vehicle, the vehicle starts burning or c) some random time has passed since the killing hit. The time needed is typically less than a minute.

I see dozens of penetration reports just to invariably find one unit had been targeted the whole time.

And that target was still fully functional, from a technical point of view! (Albeit with a panicked or broken crew...)

23. 12 minutes for a spotter to bring in rounds? ... That spotter is worthless, ...

Not if used correctly.

24. How many rounds of different types does it take to bring down different types and sizes of buildings?

Too complex to give a straight answer.

25. Are air units really so bad that they bomb friendly as often as enemy units, even in the friendly rear?

No. I've never had my troops attacked by my aircraft.

It might be a problem if all enemies are hidden and the friendlies in plain view though.

Cheers

Olle

[Franko]

Originally posted by dougman4:

1. No it doesnt see ridiculous. The game does not allow you to targeting specific aspects of the vehicle.

2. In my experience, they usually do in this game.

3. Um..this is coding issue. Maybe in the next version.

4. This seems HIGHLY realistic and should not be changed.

5. This seems highly realistic, too. I mean, if you are a terrified crewman, you are most likely to chose the targets that are more likely to KILL YOU, regardless of whether, as a matter of detached reflection, it is illogical.

6. This is abstracted. Usually within 20 meters has been my experience.

7. Or the corollary: why do players stuff buildings full of troops and then get made when they get gunned down trying to leave? Besides, there should be no "posted" limit..I mean, each house varies enormously, and the limit would be impacted by many, many different factors (e.g. damage, furniture, ad nauseum).

8. Good point. But then again, we're all assuming that real soldiers under withering fire behave logically. I dont know if we can assume that.

9. I'll respond to this when I'm not quite through misunderstanding it. I think you mean "why do infantry units get suppressed easily?" Well, the WW2 battlefield is an extremely dangerous place.

10. This is a guestimate and should be a FOW procedure. The manual explains it, too.

11. I have never heard of this.

12. It varies though. There is "fuzzy" logic going on, and it varies even among identical terrain types. Its not a "hex" game in a sense that there are "fixed" lines of sight. At least that is how I understand it.

13. There is. And I've got one!

14. I heard they don't. But good question.

15. I dunno. Another good one. I think "yes" to AT Guns, no to armored units. I think they also increase bog risk for the latter, but I'm not sure.

16. You're doing it wrong. This works fine.

17. I think it is often HARDER to hit someting that is extremely close if you're a tank. In fact, the closer you get to a tank, the more likely it can't see you -- especially if you are close assaulting infantry. I think your premise works within all other ranges until you GET to point blank range.

18. DAMN GOOD QUESTION. There should be some sort of "column" logic. But I've seen units stop to deal with the threats, so go figure.

19. Bold claim. I'm not going to touch this, is because its been debated ad nauseum.

20. DAMN GOOD QUESTION.

21. This is "relative spotting" -- maybe next game. This has been discussed at length.

22. THIS IS REALISTIC AND I LIKE IT. Please dont change this. Its often impossible to determine whether an enemy tank is dead at range.

23. NO WAY. Not every army had "instantaneous time-on -target capability. I mean, while we're at it, why include a lot of those really really ****ty tanks?

24. I dont want to know this. It should be random and arbitrary: like destruction.

25. Yes, they suck. "Close" air support (for combat support ON the front line of the battlefield) was not really that useful during the war. It was better at shooting the hell out of trucks and troops on their way to the front (or running away.

My two cents.

[ February 19, 2003, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: Franko ]

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

5: Like when my MG switches targets from suppressing an enemy squad to gunning down a crewman that's running away... shot in the back!

[JasonC]

There seems to be a serious misunderstanding about foxholes. They improve your cover (practically) always, but the improvement is larger against some sorts of fire than against others, and depends on the terrain you are in.

The game shows you a "percent exposed" number that gives you a good idea how vunerable a given target is. But exposure is a compound measure of two forms of protection that internally are tracked seperately, called "cover" and "concealment".

Cover means something substantial enough to stop most bullets and shrapnel. Concealment means something that blocks sight and therefore aim, but does not actually stop bullets or shrapnel. In game terms, aimed small arms fire is effected by both. But HE, and area fire effects, are only effected by cover, while they -ignore- concealment.

Foxholes provide about 50% cover. There is some concealment available even in open ground and that remains, so you typically see a 45% total exposure rating for a foxhole in the open, but half of that is the foxhole itself and pure cover.

That means, they will reduce by half the incoming firepower received, if there is not cover already. Even if there is concealment already, this can be a very large effect, particularly against HE. A lot of the "vegetation" forms of cover provide more concealment, less cover. Woods and tall pines provide decent amounts of both.

But e.g. brush or wheat, while the providing about as much in the way of concealment and thus total exposure reduction as a foxhole in the open does, are not protecting you at all from HE.

Now, woods and pines can provide total exposure at good at 15% or so, even without a foxhole. The benefit in total exposure terms of adding a foxhole is marginal, down to 13% typically. But the benefit against HE is more dramatic than that, because "cover" makes up more of the combined total, "concealment" less of it.

Since men in woods (or even scattered trees, which aren't great cover to start with) are particularly vunerable to HE airbursts from mortars and indirect arty, this matters quite a bit. Foxholes in woods are certainly more vunerable to airbursts than to ground bursts. But troops in woods without foxholes are even more vunerable to airbursts.

The best forms of cover (in practice) are trenches, stone buildings, and foxholes in woods or tall pines. Trenches have no real vunerabilities. Stone buildings are somewhat less effective against HE that directly strikes the building - not a near miss outside - which in practice comes from flat trajectory, direct fire HE. Foxholes in woods or pines are less effective against high trajectory HE with its chances of treebursts. All are outstanding forms of cover against enemy small arms fire.

In practice again, the key question for a defender is not just how good his cover is, but how wide the "cover differential" is, between what he has and what the other guy has. That is where wooded foxholes can sometimes come off worse, if you don't catch the attackers out in the open fields.

If you do get them in the open, you get a cover differential of 5-6 times. But if they make it into the same woods as you, the cover differential is quite small. You would stand up to mortar fire better than them, but in the small arms exchange you aren't much better off. Prone behind a tree is pretty good protection from mere small arms.

Craters, incidentally, seem to act like foxholes in open ground. Foxholes do not replace the other form of terrain you are in, but craters do. It becomes "open", but with the "foxhole", thus typically 45% exposure (50% of it cover).

[JasonC]

The answer to #18, why don't units in column stop when others are shot at, is "because you ordered them not to."

If you want them to stop if fire is taken, use "move to contact". If you want a vehicle to continue moving until it has a target, then halt and fire, use "hunt". If you want them to continue moving regardless of newly acquired enemy sightings or enemy fire, use "move" or "fast move" or "assault" etc.

The "halt the column if ambushed" behavior you want is what occurs if the whole column is ordered to "move to contact". If instead you want only the lead element to halt if you encounter an ambush, and the other elements to continue forward (e.g. expecting to overwhelm weak defenders encountered), then use "move to contact" only for the "point", and a different movement order for the rest of the column.