SFJaykey Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Ok, maybe on this one small point.... In Close Combat infantry taking fire from several directions broke or became pinned quite quickly, definitely more quickly than from the same volume of fire coming from one direction. This seemed realistic as it modeled 1) the psychological impact of being outflanked, possibly cut off, and 2) the practical reality that most cover is much less effective in blocking fire/LOS from multiple directions. You can't hide on both sides of that wall/tree/tombstone at once! This doesn't seem to be modeled, at least not nearly to the same extent, in CM. Just for example one of my first PBEMs is winding down now, and I have about a platoon of German infantry completely surrounded, in brush, outnumbered probably 3-1, taking all kinds of fire including MG from all directions at ranges around 100m, and they have taken several turns to break. In CC I think those infantrymen would have been "hands up" a long time ago, and that seemed a little more realistic....Comments? Also, while CM is overall a vastly superior game and I haven't played CC since getting it, I did enjoy the fact that in CC each soldier was depicted individually. Any rumors on whether this may be the plan for CM3? - Matt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 I recently had a PBEM game where infantry under fire from 2 directions surrendered en-masse (about 20 remaining of 30-40) - one of the directions was a single tank from about 50 metre, the otehr was 1 1/2 platoons of infantry. I guess a lot depends upon some very specific circumstances - for example do the enemy have a leader? If so what morale bonus is he giving? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 I atleast have noticed that inf under fire from multiple directions breaks much more easily. Could be that your one sqd is fanatics, u know! That said, send me my turn Matt! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laxx Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 yup, i find that enemy troops suppressed under fire will surrender or break quicker when I have AFV doing a flank shot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rosenrosen Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 On a similar point, although CMBB is by far a superior game, I liked the fact that Close Combat gave medals, etc. to your men if they did something exceptionally brave/stupid. Sometime my men in CM do some really outstanding things: taking out tanks, a bold dash through MG fire to take a building, obey my orders no manner how misguided, etc. It would be cool if the engine could evaluate such heroics and provide an honorary medal in recognition. I didn't play CC enough to know how sophisticated their algorithm for this was, but it's a neat concept. Perhaps I've just been reading the descriptions of Medal of Honor recepients' heroics online too much. Check it out Dr. Rosenrosen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_Wildman Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Case in point. I just had at 45mm ATG take two shots at MrSprk Tiger. After bouncing twice the Tiger turned fired one shell, killed one crew member and put the gun out of action. (Here is the kicker) One second later the crew surrendered. One question for everyone out there. After the crew surrendered it went into FOW disappearance. I no longer could see the unit I had no German icon and no Russian icon, however, MrSpkr's tanks still felt the need to shoot at it and when it moved it would pop back into view. Run a few steps, lie down and disappear. Has anyone else seen this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeo Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Whatever the finer points may be, simply the title of this thread makes me want to retch. "Fanboy" Leeo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Fire from flanks is worse than from front. Fire from rear is really bad. How bad depends on many factors, not the least of all is luck. Strength of fire, unit's Experience, casualties, C&C connection, leadership bonus (if any), cover terrain, length of time, Global Morale, etc. all are important factors. I just had a platoon of vets practically melt away because some jerk got into my rear when my front was getting lit up quite badly. Like my guys needed an excuse to run (the wimps!). We did not change this much from the time of CMBO Beta. A lot of servicemen, past and present, seem to think it works just fine. How it compares to CC series is irrelevant though. As for the 1:1 man representation in the new engine... we'll see what we can do. We honestly don't know if we can swing it due to hardware demands as well as a host of interface and AI issues that go along with it. But inherently we won't make any code to restrict the option for the future in case things change over time. A 1:1 representation has always been desiriable, just not practical. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFJaykey Posted February 10, 2003 Author Share Posted February 10, 2003 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Fire from flanks is worse than from front. Fire from rear is really bad. How bad depends on many factors..... A lot of servicemen, past and present, seem to think it works just fine. How it compares to CC series is irrelevant though..... .....A 1:1 representation has always been desiriable, just not practical. Steve Thanks for replies! Steve I'll take your word for it that flanking fire is modelled and watch for its effects more closely. You're right of course...CC is no authoritative source for realism, but the fact that the modelling in CM is apparently more subtle has made it less noticeable to me, up till now. Sorry to those who found the provocative thread title upsetting to the stomach, but it did earn a reply from The Authorities. Glad that Steve apparently read to the bottom of my post and saw that I do think CM is tops!! And BTW I liked the medals in CC, too....in CM I have starting doing it myself, saving a screenshot of the "heroes" of each battle. If I ever get around to putting a website up, there will be a gallery... - Matt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 SFJaykey, Steve I'll take your word for it that flanking fire is modelled and watch for its effects more closely. You're right of course...CC is no authoritative source for realism, but the fact that the modelling in CM is apparently more subtle has made it less noticeable to me, up till now.I think you were just getting a bit lucky there Sometimes the Gods of War smile upon you. Probably also had a good HQ in contact too! Sorry to those who found the provocative thread title upsetting to the stomach, but it did earn a reply from The Authorities. Glad that Steve apparently read to the bottom of my post and saw that I do think CM is tops!!Title was rather silly, but there was nothing wrong with your post. No need to make sure that we understand your love for the game, although we don't discourage it In any case, it has been a long time since we had a CC comparison thread. The game is slowly fading from the discussions now that it has been defunct for about 2 years. But like any classic game, it will never fade from memory! And BTW I liked the medals in CC, too....in CM I have starting doing it myself, saving a screenshot of the "heroes" of each battle. If I ever get around to putting a website up, there will be a gallery...We are planning on doing something more for the brave units which distinguish themselves. At least with CMBB we managed to get accurate counts for inflicted casualties. With CMBO the count was never updated at the end of the game to reflect the removal of FoW. There were a few nervous moments in development when Chalres wasn't sure it was going to work without major code rewriting, but he managed to figure it out Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 This is not a flame so don't take it that way, it is simply an observation. Much of the comparison and complaints about CM come from a misunderstanding of the scale of the game. Individuals will react different to squads and squads will react different to platoons and so on. As a former infantryman I can tell you that CM is pretty much right on with how squads behave. The scale requires a level of abstraction that you may not see with games like CC where the scale is an individual level. Just keep in mind that the more minutia you are burdend with the lower level of command you tend to simulate. If you are busy pushing around every individual trooper you tend to think like a squad leader. If you have 100 individuals you tend to think like a BIG squad leader. With squad sized elements you tend to act on a higher level. If the units were platoons you would act even higher, etc. So in the end you have to fit the games you play to the level you want to simulate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thin Red Line Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: At least with CMBB we managed to get accurate counts for inflicted casualties. With CMBO the count was never updated at the end of the game to reflect the removal of FoW. There were a few nervous moments in development when Chalres wasn't sure it was going to work without major code rewriting, but he managed to figure it out Steve I like this new feature, it's always nice to know how your prep. arty barrage worked 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 it's good to hear that the 1:1 ratio is wanted. i would really like to see it but of course then you expect to see them going through doors, setting up their MG's etc so there has to be a cut off. no need to go mad for 2.0. also, what's the point of giving out medals etc if they have no effect other than looking good? unless a man gets a medal so they get a morale boost for the NEXT game...? [ February 10, 2003, 06:42 AM: Message edited by: Other Means ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFJaykey Posted February 10, 2003 Author Share Posted February 10, 2003 Originally posted by Sgtgoody: This is not a flame so don't take it that way, it is simply an observation. Much of the comparison and complaints about CM come from a misunderstanding of the scale of the game. Individuals will react different to squads and squads will react different to platoons and so on. As a former infantryman I can tell you that CM is pretty much right on with how squads behave. The scale requires a level of abstraction that you may not see with games like CC where the scale is an individual level. Just keep in mind that the more minutia you are burdend with the lower level of command you tend to simulate. If you are busy pushing around every individual trooper you tend to think like a squad leader. If you have 100 individuals you tend to think like a BIG squad leader. With squad sized elements you tend to act on a higher level. If the units were platoons you would act even higher, etc. So in the end you have to fit the games you play to the level you want to simulate. When CM is endorsed like this by people with experience as real infantry, it becomes even more enjoyable to play....knowing that it is a good simulation. No flame was inferred here; thanks for the reply. Re: the comparison to CC, which I don't want to beat to death: In CC orders were given to squads as units, and they acted as units, including surrender etc. Only occasionally would a man or two become separated, but most often the separated individuals were at very low morale and wouldn't listen to orders, anyway. So the burden on the player seemed no greater than in CM. But in CC the soldiers were _depicted_ as individuals graphically, ten little guys each with their own name, weaponry, morale. It just felt a little more real, by removing a level of abstraction. The realism of the simulation is the most important thing (to this player), but if that can be maintained or improved while going to 1:1 depiction, that would be my ideal. - Matt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmdr DeadMeat Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Eww. How can you compare Combat Mission and Close Combat? That's discusting! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Originally posted by Cmdr DeadMeat: Eww. How can you compare Combat Mission and Close Combat? That's discusting! CM:BB engine and game system + Close Combat 2 campaign = ultimate win 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 CMBB = realistic tactics, Close Combat = fast mouse. Nuff said. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Visom Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 The 1:1 concept would be fantastic. If that can't be done how about going halfway? What I mean is to create 'subsquads', each with their own properties. For example, one subsquad for the rifles, one for the MG/BAR and one for the guy with the faust. (I haven't looked very close, but most infantry squads seems to have 2-3 different weapon categories, which means 2-3 subsquads on average.) Each subsquad has its own reload time and ammo supply. Each subsquad would be able to engage different targets (MG subsquad at 100+ meters, subMG at 50 meters etc). That would cover my main complaints in todays infantry model. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrapin Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 Originally posted by Visom: Each subsquad would be able to engage different targets (MG subsquad at 100+ meters, subMG at 50 meters etc). That would cover my main complaints in todays infantry model. I thought they did this now. At 250M, isn't only the LMG firing on most squads? I never see the SMGs light up at 250M. Anyone confirm? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Originally posted by Terrapin: I thought they did this now. At 250M, isn't only the LMG firing on most squads? I never see the SMGs light up at 250M. That's true. However, even if just the LMG is firing, the entire squad loses AMMO points as if the entire squad was firing. It would be nice, as he mentioned, to be able to pick who stays and who goes when splitting squads. I'd like to split a squad into a 2-man LMG team and an 8-man assault team instead of two 5-man teams. The main advantage of 1:1 is that my 88s have more than one guys manning them. Aaron 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coe Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 It appears that squads have a facing of sorts (which makes sense) but how can one take into account an "all around defense" mode. when a squad is in foxhooles is this kind of assumed? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Aaron, you make a good point about ammo expenditure for the whole squad when only the lmg fires; though I dont see your point about the 'main advantage of 1:1 being you have more than one guy manning your 88' It's depicted as one person in CM but there are still 4-6-8 guys there on all the gun teams, etc...? I dont know.. ignore this if I completely missed what you intended to say? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.