shooting prisoners

[junk2drive]

ooh never thought of surrendered troops spotting for their own side, some one know the answer?

[junk2drive]

ooh never thought of surrendered troops spotting for their own side, some one know the answer?

[Lithuanian]

They do briefly it seems, but then they just disappear.

[Lithuanian]

They do briefly it seems, but then they just disappear.

[Spotless]

Speaking of Borg spotting, I wonder if CMXX will feature "In command" or units with radios providing spotting only? I suppose if the player's knowledge of the battlefield were tied to the highest ranking officer on the field, this might be possible. That way, the player only sees what troops can report. It would certainly make you keep those COs alive if your victory/defeat rested on them being alive.

Basically you could have a "god mode" game like CMBO/BB/AK, and a "limited mode" where the AI would take over if your designated CO unit were destroyed, and only units in command/contact with the CO provide spotting.

[Spotless]

Speaking of Borg spotting, I wonder if CMXX will feature "In command" or units with radios providing spotting only? I suppose if the player's knowledge of the battlefield were tied to the highest ranking officer on the field, this might be possible. That way, the player only sees what troops can report. It would certainly make you keep those COs alive if your victory/defeat rested on them being alive.

Basically you could have a "god mode" game like CMBO/BB/AK, and a "limited mode" where the AI would take over if your designated CO unit were destroyed, and only units in command/contact with the CO provide spotting.

[Sergei]

Spotless, I would think that is unlikely solution to the problem. It would necessitate the TacAI to be able to react to the information hidden from the player in the way a human would, but that would be just asking too much from the AI.

[Sergei]

Spotless, I would think that is unlikely solution to the problem. It would necessitate the TacAI to be able to react to the information hidden from the player in the way a human would, but that would be just asking too much from the AI.

[Rabidbvr]

Hello one and all

While on the topic of surrenderd troops i can understand troops getting back to there own due to the ebband flow of the battle...but as for walking around with no weapons ? i know its a game but many troops remanned A/T guns or took the place of wounded its a shame you can not re crew an abandoned gun... i can understand a knocked out gun is us but you do get abandoned equipment as well...

happy hunting..

[Rabidbvr]

Hello one and all

While on the topic of surrenderd troops i can understand troops getting back to there own due to the ebband flow of the battle...but as for walking around with no weapons ? i know its a game but many troops remanned A/T guns or took the place of wounded its a shame you can not re crew an abandoned gun... i can understand a knocked out gun is us but you do get abandoned equipment as well...

happy hunting..

[Dandelion]

Hi all

There is no "re-crew" function in the CM engine. The lack of which has been hotly debated. If a squad loses a weapon, the weapon disappears. The game engine does not keep track of where or if machineguns are lying around.

However, exception is made for POW. Weapons magically re-materialise when they "un-surrender". They do not pick up any weapons and need not return to a point where they lost them, weapons simply materialise in the soldiers hands.

So former POW do open up on their former captors.

This was explained by a BFC representative in a thread way back. I am too lazy to go look for it myself

Cheerio

Dandelion

[Dandelion]

Hi all

There is no "re-crew" function in the CM engine. The lack of which has been hotly debated. If a squad loses a weapon, the weapon disappears. The game engine does not keep track of where or if machineguns are lying around.

However, exception is made for POW. Weapons magically re-materialise when they "un-surrender". They do not pick up any weapons and need not return to a point where they lost them, weapons simply materialise in the soldiers hands.

So former POW do open up on their former captors.

This was explained by a BFC representative in a thread way back. I am too lazy to go look for it myself

Cheerio

Dandelion

[Kobal2]

Wow, didn't know that, I always assumed POWs to become some kind of dead weight, only worth the points they give, and so I never made much efforts to secure them... I'll have to be more careful.

[Kobal2]

Wow, didn't know that, I always assumed POWs to become some kind of dead weight, only worth the points they give, and so I never made much efforts to secure them... I'll have to be more careful.

[willbell]

In terms of sighting only enemies in command, or any other borg sighting type of issues, you have to keep in mind the abstraction inherent in CM. You are not playing the commander only, or just the troops, you are playing both. Sometimes you are moving squads, from the squad’s point of view, sometimes you are moving platoons and companies from a commander's point of view. So there is no way to model sightings accurately, you either know too much for a captain, or too little for a lieutenant. The way they have it set up is to just maximize the fun and intrigue inherent in the WWII battlefield, and to do it in such a way that it feels realistic. But you will always be able to find some kind of logical contradiction due to the necessary game abstraction.

[willbell]

In terms of sighting only enemies in command, or any other borg sighting type of issues, you have to keep in mind the abstraction inherent in CM. You are not playing the commander only, or just the troops, you are playing both. Sometimes you are moving squads, from the squad’s point of view, sometimes you are moving platoons and companies from a commander's point of view. So there is no way to model sightings accurately, you either know too much for a captain, or too little for a lieutenant. The way they have it set up is to just maximize the fun and intrigue inherent in the WWII battlefield, and to do it in such a way that it feels realistic. But you will always be able to find some kind of logical contradiction due to the necessary game abstraction.

[CombinedArms]

Speaking of weird happenings, I just had a strange one in a PBEM with a Panther and a Stuart shooting at each other through a large light building. Both tanks were right up against the building on opposite sides and the building had heavy ** damage but was still standing. (Needless to say, the Stuart lost, though he scored several non-lethal hits before being knocked out) I'd never seen that before and thought it was impossible but maybe because of the heavy damage there were openings in the building that the tanks could shoot through???

[CombinedArms]

Speaking of weird happenings, I just had a strange one in a PBEM with a Panther and a Stuart shooting at each other through a large light building. Both tanks were right up against the building on opposite sides and the building had heavy ** damage but was still standing. (Needless to say, the Stuart lost, though he scored several non-lethal hits before being knocked out) I'd never seen that before and thought it was impossible but maybe because of the heavy damage there were openings in the building that the tanks could shoot through???

[Holman]

I've seen troops shot down upon surrendering on several occasions. Every instance I can recall involves a unit throwing up its hands and being shot a second or two later. It seems that CM (intentionally or not) models a lag between the act of surrendering and the victor's decision to stop firing. This actually seems very realistic!

[Holman]

I've seen troops shot down upon surrendering on several occasions. Every instance I can recall involves a unit throwing up its hands and being shot a second or two later. It seems that CM (intentionally or not) models a lag between the act of surrendering and the victor's decision to stop firing. This actually seems very realistic!

[Carl Puppchen]

I haven't had my CMAK troops "rematerialize" their weapons. I had a recent HMG crew that had been captured that I was able to bring back under my control and they did not have their weapons for the remainder of the game. They were "unarmed". Just my experience.

[Carl Puppchen]

I haven't had my CMAK troops "rematerialize" their weapons. I had a recent HMG crew that had been captured that I was able to bring back under my control and they did not have their weapons for the remainder of the game. They were "unarmed". Just my experience.

[CombinedArms]

I haven't read the prior thread on captured units and their weapons, but here's my guess--that captured units can recover their weapons if they're quickly uncaptured and in the same spot where they surrendered. This would make sense...they threw down their weapons, then promptly picked them up again. This would be mostly likely to happen in a fluid situation with opposing forces mixed up in close promixity.

I've found the best thing to do with captured units, once I've gotten control of them is to simply march them off to the rear. I don't worry about guarding them, just give them a long move order back to a safe place or even off the board. I never have any trouble with unguarded prisoners as long as they're far from the front.

[CombinedArms]

I haven't read the prior thread on captured units and their weapons, but here's my guess--that captured units can recover their weapons if they're quickly uncaptured and in the same spot where they surrendered. This would make sense...they threw down their weapons, then promptly picked them up again. This would be mostly likely to happen in a fluid situation with opposing forces mixed up in close promixity.

I've found the best thing to do with captured units, once I've gotten control of them is to simply march them off to the rear. I don't worry about guarding them, just give them a long move order back to a safe place or even off the board. I never have any trouble with unguarded prisoners as long as they're far from the front.

[JonS]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

Speaking of weird happenings, I just had a strange one in a PBEM with a Panther and a Stuart shooting at each other through a large light building. Both tanks were right up against the building on opposite sides and the building had heavy ** damage but was still standing. (Needless to say, the Stuart lost, though he scored several non-lethal hits before being knocked out) I'd never seen that before and thought it was impossible but maybe because of the heavy damage there were openings in the building that the tanks could shoot through???

No, there is an area around bulldings that can been see from the far side. Typically it is quite small (i.e., only extends a short distance out from the building), but it is not affected by the range at which the observer is viewing from.

In a recent PBEM the weirdness of this became apparent. I had an ATG several hundred metres away which was able to shoot through the building at a tank parked hard up against it, while the target tank could not see the gun. In fact, the tank couldn't see more than a few metres beyond the far side of the building in the direction of the gun.

This is totally counter-intuitive. An obsever close to an obstacle should be able to see through and beyond it quite well, while an observer far away shoulnd't be able to see very far past the 'near' face of it.

The only mitigating factor was that the gun had watched to tank move into position behind the building, so I can sort-of rationalise that 'he knew where it was'. The bright targetting line indicates that that wasn't what was going on though.

Regards

JonS

[ June 07, 2004, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]