Biggest shortcoming of CM system

[Priest]

M Bates

Artillery has a great effect in the game. But as so many others before you, you ask for something that is out of the scope of the game as it stands now. So I am guessing you want a pre-bombardment phase, well right now you can set that up to an extent by the scenario editor. By editing troops and such, don't believe me, well that is how we are playing CMMC so hence while each squad starts out full each platoon need not.

Next, if you are playing CMBO like Waterloo then you need serious help. Seek Help and more importantly seek cover.

And while I cannot remember the scenario name right now (I am at work would need to go home to look it up) someone did create a ditch in a scenario, not to mention there was talk on how to simulate trenches. You should research before you speak. Just some advice.

[Ozzy]

Originally posted by M. Bates:

Europe is many shapes and sizes, but I have never seen undulating slopes, four times the height of a man, which fall away just as quickly. Battlefields shouldn't look like Teletubbie episodes. Now, this might be more of a problem with the QB system. A scenario designer could produce good results. I still suspect that CM hills are too broad, too frequent, too high and too smooth.

I do not know where you have been in Europe, but I see every day such terrain here.

Yes, but it is all abstracted and so the end result is clean LOS across all open ground for the enemy.

I fear you have not understood how the CM engine works. You can have LOS on a unit which has 90% coverage - the fact that you have LOS means you can directly fire on it. The question is: can you *harm* this unit, and this of course does not depend on LOS, but on the cover the unit has.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

What I mean is, WW2 was WELL BALANCED. Must have taken a lot of play-testing to get that war right

I wonder if the Polish cavalrymen would have disagreed with that...

[Caesar]

If the worst features about this game that Bates can moan about is just a lack of ditches etc and having to abstract a few terrain details then BTS has done rather well IMO. Considering the crappy PC that I first ran this game on (the only problem being it took a bit too long to calculate turns sometimes) I think that BTS has done a good job of balancing PC load to detail displayed.

Hopefully in the future BTS will be able to improve the Tac AI some, I would like a scout command for infantry and some sort of move to a point where I can see X command. Probably there are a few other features that others want as well, but this all has to be able to run within the constraints of the power of the average PC (or MAC)

This all sounds like whinging to me.

[Ozzy]

The question of existance of trenches and ditches in CM as well as the removal/breaching of obstacles is in many cases simply futile - for the lack of time.

Usually, an infantry unit (squad or gun) needs approx. 2 hours to dig its foxhole - can you imagine how long it would take to create obstacles like AT trenches or a net of ditches and shelters/bunkers, especially when without Engineering support and heavy Construction Assets?? A 60 turns CM battle is equivalent to 120 real life minutes - FAR to less for construction.

Now one could argue such trenches can be constructed long before the battle starts - yes, I agree. But then it either must be a terrain feature in the map editor OR -if it can be purchased- it must be VERY expensive to take in account the huge engineering efforts required to construct such trenches.

The construction of trenches in areas which were not supposed to be defensive lines (such as Gustavlinie or Westwall) was not very common - much more likely was the usage of other terrain features like slopes or walls with additional sandbags and similar. So what I would like to see in CM:BB is rather sandbag walls as additional fortification assets than the presence of ditches.

[Phorncastle]

Also there is all the emphasis on reverse slope defending. Once again the enemy has no LOS until at point-blank range.

Well I think its probably been mentioned already but heres a little story that emphasises that this was an excellent military tactic. Reading about a former british horse trainer called Ryan Price who was also in the commandos. After landing at Normandy they had to take this objective near this village begining with B (bresailes or something cant remember). Well they took this hill and woodlands then set everything up on the reverse slope out of sight from the village full of bosche, the Germans mortored the edge of the woods and attacked but were slaughetered in the suprise reistance and positions once they got over the top of the hill.

[xerxes]

The topic of what is a good level of control is a very reasonable one. Players naturally ask for more control, but the possibility that less control might make a better game is much more difficult to see. The suggestion of having the TacAI take care of the details of exact positioning is really an interesting one. It would emphasize tactics instead of endless LOS checking.

I think lessening micromanagement of exact positioning would be an improvement. And it would increase realism (from a player=commander perspective).

-marc s

[Juju]

Originally posted by KNac:

as well if in the future we get full represented squads or crews (i mean if a squad have 9 soldiers you see the 9 soldiers on the battlefield)

Imagine the number of men your CPU would need to draw in a Batallion sized engagegement. Imagine you cranking up the unit size (shift-C) a couple times...

[Uedel]

I think the MM in CM is sometimes a little to heavy, and i would be glad if the AI is smarter.

In CloseCombat there was a little nice TacAI of the Infantry, that i would like to see in CMBO.

It worked like this, take a platoon near to a Wall and u could see the infantry men grouchying up to that wall and using it as cover (when close to 2-3 meters to it) the createt a smart line of inf. behind that Wall. Also the same when placed to Trenches or something like that.

In woods you could see the Infantry spreed out using the trees as cover etc etc.

I know CM and close combat are a little of a different scale, where u could see single Soldiers in CloseCombat u cant see it in CM but it is sometimes very Timeconsuuming to move your squad to this "perfect" positions. I would like to see it if the TacAI is able to move on it self to positions in a range for example of 5-8 meters with a much higher covervalue instead of staying in open ground.

As a side note, the mechanics for this are allready in the Game (Test: take a squad place it in open ground and put a pile of woods in the adjectent pile, put the squad in hide and wait, after ~5-10 turns the squad runs to the woods, faster if a thread pops up, but also witout one) it would only take some optimizing of this code to let this happen faster (i.e. if laying on open ground and a slope is 5 meters behind the inf should quickly (after max 1 turn of inactivity) decide to fall back to that slope to benefit some of the cover provided by this. Also they should use crawl instead of run to minimize the change to get explored (right now the standart move for TacAI moves is run)this would not disturb the player decisions (because it takes a while of inactivity) but would help for units currently not in the scoope of action and unnoticed by the player for a while.

[aka_tom_w]

the biggest shortcoming of CMBO

That was the title on this thread.

IT MUST be absolute spotting and there is virtually NOTHING BTS can do about it in the near future.

MG's and HMG's and men assualting them in the open by charging strait at them will be addressed in CMBB.

TANKs get LOS and shoot right through each other and vehicles (unless they are buring) and Pillboxes, this is a shortcoming and it will NOT be fixed in CMBB. Therefore infantry and other vehicles dervie NO cover or protection of any kind from abbandoned vehicles or live vehicles (but troops and vehicles can "hide" behind burning vehicles, not too close though )

Those are the REAL short comings of this game

BUT its still a great game and we can live with it the way it is I think

-tom w

[ March 25, 2002, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Yup, when you take into account that in CM one of the roles one plays is the AFV commander and the squad leader/commander then micro-management is a must. It is a big part of the fun for many players. The fact that one can adjust for the exact line of site and such is important. I should add that realism is what I am after, so I would not ask for anything that I did not feel was realistic. Of course, we all have different views on this.

Having said that I often just play as the platoon commander and allow the excellent TacAI do the work for me. Especially in attack.

Absolute and relative spotting will in large part be dealt with by the introduction of team play after the engine re-write, whenever that happens.

I am not against a “command game”, but it would not be CM.

All the best,

Kip.

[flamingknives]

Platoon HQs need to have a greater command radius in urban areas

Errm, what? Greater? Urban combat is very messy. Why? because no one knows where everyone else is (short line of sight and therfore communication). In a true urban combat, you can expect a significantly higher amount of casualties caused by friendly fire.

A 60 turns CM battle is equivalent to 120 real life minutes

Again, errm, what?

60 rl minutes surely. But you're right, too short to construct or destroy serious fortifications/ roadblocks.

Europe is pretty hilly unless you're in Holland, and remember, each of those terrain squares is 20m across.

Open ground is fairly open. most open ground in europe is either grazing or arable. you wouldn't catch me in the middle of a field when someone's trying to shoot me.

Most European fields are however, enclosed by hedges (esp in WWII). this gives you some more cover.

[TSword]

Some MM really is tiring, for example you cannot lay multiple movment orders for a selection. Much time would be saved if this would be possible (Maybe already in CMBB ?).

Actually more "Control" would be great, but of the kind:

- You setup your platoon with added Supportunits

- You give the whole platoon multiple waypoints

- You give an additional order "platoon should only move as fast as it's slowest member" (at the time of selection). (Now Sneak is slower than move, MG-teams can only move, so they overtake..). Voila the platoon and it's Supportunits move in some order without intervention at every turn.

Remembering groupings(Selections) with key-shortcuts would also be of great benefit, so you can easily recognize your groupings even after some tumultuos fighting.

More MM for tanks would also be great:

1 Command to face enemy "over the corner"

2 Command to engage only enemy tanks, or defensively other AT-assets (when in danger).

3 Interdiction fire (Tank goes Hulldown fires until target destroyed (Command 2 becomes very important here), then immediately goes into defilade again).

And last but not least. It's extremely tiresome to group the troops in the setup phase in a > 3000 Point QB, (Especially an american battalion brings you near a heart attack with all those bazookas, MG's and mortars). It would be nice if the CM engine would be able to group them a little bit already. (Well, maybe very expensive to code..).

I agree that there should be the possibility for units to dig in.

It was common practice (atleast for the experienced troops), as soon as being at the objective, or even worse if an attack stalled (and no shelters near), you had to dig-in in no time, because the enemy would plaster your position for sure, because he knew only to well where you were... The shovel was the most important lifeinsurance for a grunt on the frontline. If only you dig a hole some centimeters deep it already gave you added protection. (If you think of operations it becomes even more important..)

If gound was frozen you could only pray the engineers would arrive some time before enemy barrage...

[Redwolf]

I gained the impression that Mr Bates is only here because he enjoys flamewaring more than wargaming and he is not interested in actually working towards solutions.

His responses quoted bwloe illustrate how I came to these conclusions.

1) a minute before he was talking about the geneal outline of terrain with regards to woods and building placements, in fact he was even speaking of the Quickbattle generator. When I point out to him that he misses even the most basic point about that, the he shouldn't judge CMBO by the quickbattle generator, he switches subject, but had cut my quotes to veil this.

2) artillery *inside* a CMBO game is absolutely deadly, anyone doubting that can pick up any random opponent at the tournamenthouse ladder. When I pointed that out to Mr. Bates, he switches to a subject that is only by words related, and that is initial state of the CMBO battlefield. CBMO is designed to happen after the artillery preparations, and anyone and everywhere that is being made clear, in first place in the manual. It is the responsibility of the designer to place defeners whose number and state reflects being through the preparation. Yes it would be better if the designer could delete sub-squad and sub-team items, but depleted platoons, initial broken state, or just lowering experience to green or conscript will simulate this quite nicely. Anyway, I'm drifiting, Mr. Bates initial comment was very wrong, a simple brain shortcut maybe for his undeveloped own artillery skills, and he answers my correction by pulling the discussion into new and unrealted flamewar country, without actually getting any

less wrong than he was all the time.

3) If Mr Bates missed that vehicles will still not be solid in CMBB, he isn't listening to this board anyway, so why bother?

I think few people following my posts will accuse me of "yessiring" every BTS design issue and implementation design, and I am annoyed by the like of this gentleman who will only ensure that BTS gets more and more reserved against feedback from this forum.

Originally posted by M. Bates:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

Don't throw the Quickbattle generator in one pod with what a scenario designer can do.

Show me a scenario designer who has created a ditch (plenty of ditches in Europe).

You haven't played swamp or skelley lately, did you? Read some AARs at tournamenthouse.com, artillery is *the* item that turns games.

Comes in variants, either you get clobbered by lots of big and fast mortars, by 105mm VT everytime you step into the open, or by just plain big stuff.

Your comment is simply wrong.

If artillery is so important... then why do both sides join the battle with fresh, rested troops that have suffered no casualties, not even a grazed knee??

Symmetrical warfare is easier to simulate in a realistic way. Every new defensive item, including improved cover, things like premeasured distances for guns and tanks, needs to be balanced, and that usually needs playtesting. A lot of work. The same work invested into symmetrical items may give more bang for the bug for a majority of battles.

Symmetrical warfare? More defensive items and options are needed. Often meeting engagements feel like re-enactments of Waterloo, 1815.

True, this is a matter or work for the CPU and the programmer and has been announced to be on the TODO list for the next engine.

Unfortunately if that's correct then "solid" vehicles will make it for the desert warfare of CM3 and not some of the urban fighting of CM2.</font>

[M. Bates]

Originally posted by redwolf:

1) a minute before he was talking about the geneal outline of terrain with regards to woods and building placements, in fact he was even speaking of the Quickbattle generator. When I point out to him that he misses even the most basic point about that, the he shouldn't judge CMBO by the quickbattle generator, he switches subject, but had cut my quotes to veil this.

By the same token it would be wrong to judge CM purely by the efforts of accomplished scenario designers.

CBMO is designed to happen after the artillery preparations,

Oh yes I am forgetting that CM also has a Recon game mode!!

Yes it would be better if the designer could delete sub-squad and sub-team items, but depleted platoons, initial broken state, or just lowering experience to green or conscript will simulate this quite nicely.

You might think that a full strength Green squad is a good simulation of a beaten up under-manned Veteran squad but I definitely wouldn't.

3) If Mr Bates missed that vehicles will still not be solid in CMBB, he isn't listening to this board anyway, so why bother?

Why not read what I wrote? I already acknowledged that tanks made of anti-matter will appear in CMBB.

No where have I said that CM is a bad game, I think it is a very good game.

Finally, it's ironic that many of niggles in CM at the moment would not be such an issue in a North African game and I hope they will be reduced in any Eastern Front game.

[ianc]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by ianc:

In CM, you see trees, or a couple of bldgs, but you don't know whether or not they'll provide an LOS obstruction until you get behind them and use the LOS tool.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andreas replies:

And that is different from reality how?

Here's how:

Reality - I'm in a house next to a grove of trees. I look at the trees and cannot see out the other side. Hence I know that unless there is someone actually in that grove, I can safely move behind it out of enemy LOS.

CM - My unit is in the house, and it sees the grove of trees there. Since trees are just represented by a dark patch on the ground and few tree models, the unit can't immediately tell whether it can be seen as it attempts to move behind the trees.

Make sense? The impreciseness of the graphical treatment of the terrain can lead to problems or uncertainties which would not be encountered in real life.

ianc

[Deadly Dave]

Originally posted by TSword:

And last but not least. It's extremely tiresome to group the troops in the setup phase in a > 3000 Point QB, (Especially an american battalion brings you near a heart attack with all those bazookas, MG's and mortars). It would be nice if the CM engine would be able to group them a little bit already. (Well, maybe very expensive to code..).

.

here here thats one thing i find tresome in fact the first thing I do is to group them together then rank the PLAtoon HQ's according to ablities star moral etc.

actually we cant really expect the game to meet everyones personal taste because we play for a number of differant reasons and desired outcomes. Some times the moves can be played quickly by group selection and sometimes its important to play incremantly by the metre Its nice to have the option. more MM would be good so that those who wish to use it can do so and those who dont wont -simple really

[Shandorf]

The biggest short-coming of CM is that people like M. Bates are allowed to buy and play the game.

Jeff

[Moon]

Ianc, not sure where the difference is in your example? Place your unit in the house so that it can "look outside". Use the LOS tool to see if LOS passes through the trees or not. If it doesn't, the red-black LOS line will show you if LOS is barely stopped (near the far end of the tile). If that's the case, you can assume that when you move forward, you get to the point where LOS clears through. Maybe I just misunderstand what you mean, and I have to admit that I haven't followed the thread - so sorry if the above doesn't make sense

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by xerxes:

The topic of what is a good level of control is a very reasonable one. Players naturally ask for more control, but the possibility that less control might make a better game is much more difficult to see. The suggestion of having the TacAI take care of the details of exact positioning is really an interesting one. It would emphasize tactics instead of endless LOS checking.

I think lessening micromanagement of exact positioning would be an improvement. And it would increase realism (from a player=commander perspective).

Agreed. I was thinking about this whole issue last night, particularly in regard to Jason's suggestions, and it occurred to me to wonder how one would go about programming an order to a unit to proceed to a location A so that it could then observe location B. Then the Tac AI would take over once the unit arrived in location A to reposition the unit within, say, a 5 meter radius as necessary so that it could acquire LOS on B. This would both be realistic behavior on the part of the unit and would, as you say, locate the player better within the role of tactical commander.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by ianc:

Reality - I'm in a house next to a grove of trees. I look at the trees and cannot see out the other side. Hence I know that unless there is someone actually in that grove, I can safely move behind it out of enemy LOS.

CM - My unit is in the house, and it sees the grove of trees there. Since trees are just represented by a dark patch on the ground and few tree models, the unit can't immediately tell whether it can be seen as it attempts to move behind the trees.

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. I feel that I can derive a great deal of information about the density of a group of trees through use of the LOS tool. I watch how far an LOS can penetrate into the trees. This varies by season, but once you have some experience with the game in various seasons, it becomes pretty intuitive.

Do you have a problem with that? Maybe I've missed something in what you are trying to say.

Michael

[ March 25, 2002, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[BloodyBucket]

Originally posted by TSword:

[QB]...

And last but not least. It's extremely tiresome to group the troops in the setup phase in a > 3000 Point QB, (Especially an american battalion brings you near a heart attack with all those bazookas, MG's and mortars). It would be nice if the CM engine would be able to group them a little bit already. (Well, maybe very expensive to code..).

QB]

Yup. I really hate lining up the troops at the start of a QB. Perhaps a CMBB item? A minor quibble, but you are spot on.

[Louie the Toad]

There are some legitmate questions and discussions in this thread but there a are also comments from the likes of M. Bates and BlackVoid that reveal that they do not have a basic grasp of the game.

Yes, asking questions is a fine way to learn, but

PLEASE, do your homework first!

Have you read the manual at least twice? Have you read books (mostly) and seen (some) movies depicting squad level combat in WWII ? Please do so. Especially the reading.

Have you played SplatBall or gone for a walk in the country and looked at terrain with a military eye?

Have you figured out that CM is not 'a first person shooter'?

Have you figured out that CM is not RISK ?

I am certain that every one of the people on the forum who are trying to help you have done most if not all of these things.

There is nothing we can say or do for you over the forum that can take the place of basic knowledge about the genre of CM.

As Sarge would say, " Boy, you need some more Basic Training".

Educator....... Toad

[Louie the Toad]

Dear TSword and Bloody,

At the Set Up I like to move all of my T assets together in 'the T pool' . Then I line up my platoons one in front of another so I can easily move from one HQ to another to survey the HQ effectiveness. Then I place any loose HQ and the AO and A1 A2 etc HQs nearby. Sometimes I will even group my AFVs together by type, say all Sherman 75s, all Tank Destroyers.

This helps me decide what assets I have to do the jobs that I need to do, to win. From there I begin to develop a plan, selecting the HQs and their platoons that will do the best job. For instance for the recon job my HQ would have a large control radius and be my best unit at sneaking. My assault troops would have a HQ with high fire control and morale values.

Then I would look at the 'T pool' and select what assets would be best to attach to the platoon HQ, depending upon the job that platoon was going to do.

I also look at the AFVs in that same manner, selecting certain units based on their characteristics and depending on the job they are going to do, then assigning them to work with the platoon HQ.

I am sure this all "goes without saying" for many gamers. But it does help me with planning and organization and makes the initial set up not so daunting when faced with a plethora of units.

I would like to hear from others as to their set up techniques. BUT I WILL START A NEW THREAD FOR THIS TOPIC. PLEASE SEE THE NEW THREAD: HOW DO YOU HANDLE SET UP?

Curious Toad

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Louie the Toad:

There are some legitmate questions and discussions in this thread but there a are also comments from the likes of M. Bates and BlackVoid that reveal that they do not have a basic grasp of the game.

Yes, asking questions is a fine way to learn, but

PLEASE, do your homework first!

Have you read the manual at least twice? Have you read books (mostly) and seen (some) movies depicting squad level combat in WWII ? Please do so. Especially the reading.

Have you played SplatBall or gone for a walk in the country and looked at terrain with a military eye?

Have you figured out that CM is not 'a first person shooter'?

Have you figured out that CM is not RISK ?

I am certain that every one of the people on the forum who are trying to help you have done most if not all of these things.

There is nothing we can say or do for you over the forum that can take the place of basic knowledge about the genre of CM.

As Sarge would say, " Boy, you need some more Basic Training".

Educator....... Toad

bah this is nothing we used to have a chap called Oscar who used to say CM would not sell due to its 3d nature.

Then there was a little man called Gunny Bunny who said the game would not sell due to the simplistic 3d graphics. Entirely missing the point of the game every one of em.