How CMAK handle infantry unit ?

[Darkmath]

I wonder how CMAK manage infantry unit in the battlefield, especially with large formation such as squad

Is individual position of each soldier is computed ?

Also, CMAK battlefield is a grid built up of

20*20 metres terrain element.

Does a 12 men squad on this battlefield occupy ONLY a 20*20 metres surface? In this case, that makes an easy target for mortar, more than it is represented on CMAK.

I read that a squad can form a 100 meter long line, 5 times the length of a terrain element in CMAK.

I don't know if the tight formation as represented in CMAK is usual in real life, but it seems unreasonnable when you face an artillery support.

Thanks in advance

[flamingknives]

No, position of individual soldiers are not modelled. The squad icon you see is the centre point of an abstracted area that the squad covers. Likewise terrain is abstracted, so there is potentially cover in open ground from artillery. The position of a squad is not defined by terrain elements either - it isn't ASL.

[Darkmath]

So, a soldier from a squad can be located out of the terrain element where is the centre point of the squad?

Could BTS developpers confirm that ?

[flamingknives]

I'm pretty sure that it's in the manual, but in answer to your question, no.

The soldiers are abstracted, therefore they cannot be anywhere specific, be that the same or different to the rest of the squad. The amount of cover a squad recieves seems pretty binary in terms of one cover or another. The distance of terrain between a squad and its attacker does have an effect on spotting and cover on a finer detail than the 20m tiles though

[JasonC]

Also, while the terrain editor changes terrain in 20m tiles, the location of units is actually tracked down to 2m by 2m sub-locations within those tiles.

[Darkmath]

Is the whole squad is concentrated within this 20m tile?

[Wodin]

Darkmath,

I see what your getting at. Is the squad crammed into the 20 metre tile or are they infact spread out over several tiles?

[flamingknives]

The 'squad' is statistically distributed about the centre point, to which all lines of sight are drawn. This point can be anywhere on the battlefield to an accuracy of 2m. Since this point can be 2m from a 'tile' edge, then, statistically, some soldiers will not be in that tile. But it makes no difference, since where the point is is the only relevant point.

I've not seen any figure as to what area the squad is assumed to cover, but then this will only be important as the basis of the algorithms that determine the effects of incoming fire.

As far as determining cover goes, AFAICT, the squad is all in the same tile. For the purposes of area-effect weapons, they might be spread over a larger area.

Why is it important to you?

[Kingfish]

They are concentrated in one tile, even if they were placed at the extreme edge of the tile itself.

It is an abstraction that may not jive with reality, but then again consider that this game is playable on most mid-range computers available. If you wanted tracking of each individual soldier, and still have the option to play games up to reinforced regiment in size, then what you'll need to do is first get one of these, then pour 2 cups of double strength Expresso into Charle's jar and wait a week for the demo.

My guess is it will be ~50 Yottabytes in size.

[Darkmath]

Wodin,

yes that's what I tried to mean. (I'm not sure this sentence is gramatically correct. Excuse my English, i'm a cheese eater surrender monkey !)

Flamingknives,

It is important to me because different squad formations don't imply , as you said, the same effect of incoming fire.

A grenade, for example, would be more deadly for a scattered squad than a packed one (BTW ,I find grenade unrealistically unefficient in CM).

So, I wonder if CM engine change data about squad distribution according to the TACAI , like in area fire or moving in a wood tile...

[Darkmath]

Yeah, a Cray XT3... Wainting for quantum Computer. :cool:

But vector processor rulez ( at least until 2004 ); go see this one :

http://www.es.jamstec.go.jp/esc/eng/

[Darkmath]

I thinks that include a Schrödinger Cat in a quantum computer would have the same effect as a bug in classical computer.

[flamingknives]

I suspect that different squad distributions in different terrain is something that would be more easily (and certainly less computationally expensively) factored into the exposure modifier. Tight terrain may mean more bunching, but it's easier to find things to hide behind.

I'm curious. Why do you think that grenades are unrealistically ineffecient?

[JasonC]

They are not remotely packed into a 2m square. Fire 25 meters away will slightly suppress them. Fire within 15 meters or so will seriously suppress them, occasionally cause losses. It is not broken, you are picking imaginary nits without having played the game enough to learn how it works.

[Wodin]

Dont think anyone is "picking" just asking for clarification. Also he asked about 20m squared not 2m.

[Darkmath]

Since I play Combat Mission ( mostly during 2001-2002. Actually, I play CMAK sometimes), I rarely saw a grenade causes any casualty. They are more likely to pin in Combat Mission.

In reality , a (defensive at least ) grenade could be deadly around 20 metres and dangerous around 50 metres.

I know that a squad will take cover in this case.

But taking cover could absolutely prevent any casualty?

About the squad distribution , maybe the exposure value take into account the squad formation, since the squad would be tighter in a wood than in a open ground?

[birdstrike]

I am no grog, but 20-50m for a grenade sounds a bit excessive. I think 2-5m is more like it.

That and bearing in mind that there are "invisible" terrain features that influence cover, I reckon it is not that unlikely to survive the blast.

[flamingknives]

That and grenades tend not to be fitted with impact fuses - they roll about a bit before going bang - so it gives people a chance to get behind something more solid.

While a grenade can be lethal out to 50m, these are single large fragments (like the base of a No. 36 grenade as used by the British) and the chances of getting hit by one are miniscule. Furthermore, the no. 36 is probably as close as you'll get to a defensive grenade in the time frame. I don't think that any of the specialist types are modelled. Most soldiers would be chucking offensive types anyway, so birdstrike's 2-5m is pretty much on the money, and if there's anything more solid than grass between you and it, that danger zone drops somewhat.

[Guest Mike]

Defensive grenades such as teh classical British Mills 36 typically have a possible lethal radius further than you can throw them - they generate large chunks of shrapnel that can and do travel relatively long distances.

Of course they don't generate so many chunks of such shrapnel, but they are there none-the-less.

"Offensive" grenades often use blast as their main effect rather than shrapnel - the lethal radius of a small HE charge such as a grenade is quite small - a few meters at most, with some shrapnel effects beyond that.

Modern grenades often have pre-scored wire wrappings or similar that generate vast amounts of very small shrapnel with limited lethal range.

Offensive grenades can often be fitted with heavy segmented metal jackets that turn them into "defensive" grenades.

Large components of all grenades can travel 50-100m - such as handles, triggers, parts of the fuse mechanism. But they are obviously limited in number and very random in effect.