Biggest shortcoming of CM system

[BlackVoid]

Dalem: I completely agree. I realize the shortcomings of my suggestions. My conclusion was badly worded.

The problem is: LOS is too coplicated, and often very hard to decide on it, unless you can use the LOS tool.

************************

Then why not give a LOS tool, that works like this: You choose a special LOS command, click on a point on the map, and the program shows all visible areas with LOS to that point.

************************

It does not eliminate micro-management, but at least it makes it easier a bit.

[Panzer Leader]

OK, first of all, Dalem stop peeping into your neighbor's bedroom. Secondly, I do see what Blackvoid said, though it is not as huge a deal (to me) as he seems to think.

His gun example is a perfect illustration of how LOS breaks down. Oftentimes the LOS of a unit to an enemy can be adjusted down to the smaillest fraction of space. For instance, a squad might not see into a tree-line at one point, but if they move a single meter forward suddenly they have perfect LOS to the enemy. That to me is the opposite of the "abstracted squad" idea that BTS uses. It seems the guys in the squad ought to automatically fan out in their "square" to get optimal LOS. Of course I don't know how the computer would handle this since it doesn't know what the unit is "trying" to see.

Talking out my ass, I think a cool work-around would be something on the lines of "no LOS but can ty the shot anyway" where even if the line shows that you have no LOS you are still able to target and fire in hopes that a miracle occurs and the shell/round/whatever penetrates those branches in the way and strikes it's target.

That way, knowing there is a chance of a hit, players will not always search for that "perfect meter forward" and instead try their luck, while opponents will not put there units in "the perfect spot" and automatically KNOW that no one can touch them. It's sort of a "one-in-a-million" type of targeting feature that would add even more versatility to targeting and allow units to target other units that are not in "perfect LOS".

I totally see what Blackvoid is trying to say

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Now I have read most of the posts on this thread it is still my view that some people are forgetting that CM is not a command game.

The ability to micro-manage squads and individual AFVs is a large part of the game. In CM you play the role of the battalion, company, platoon and importantly the squad/AFV commander. The exact location of an anti-tank gun/missile system is of great importance. A narrow view/line of site, say between two buildings, will often have been much sort after. With a narrow line of site, again say between two buildings, and then out over a field, you can sometimes pick-off one target after the other while still protected against the attackers covering fire. There is nothing unrealistic about such modelling.

There are times when it is the total volume of fire that you wish to use. In such cases you may line up your units just inside the edge of a wood overlooking some open ground. However, if you are greatly out numbered then the exact location of each unit, again, using narrow fields of fire, may be your favoured strategy. Once more, there is nothing unrealistic about this.

Having said all of the above I must admit that I do not normally micro-manage. The TacAI is so good I often play as the platoon commander rather than the squad/AFV commander. However, I would hate to lose the option of micro-management if I wished to use it. In CMBB there will be times when Soviet units cannot be micro-managed quite as effortlessly as the Germans. As long as this is due to real world short comings in Soviet training and equipment, during that particular period of the war, that is fine by me. What I would not be a fan of is the idea of giving up the role of squad/AFV commander.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. In my view the terrain is not yet complex enough, due to the limitations of current computers. For example the addition of more terrain features in CMBB, fences and grave stones, I see as a plus.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

...why not give a LOS tool, that works like this: You choose a special LOS command, click on a point on the map, and the program shows all visible areas with LOS to that point.

This has been suggested and debated on more than one occasion and found to be a non-starter. It gives the player (who already enjoys quite a few perks his real life counterpart has no access to) a very unrealistic tool. What you are suggesting is that the platoon leader, or his higher-up, exercise clairvoyance and be able to view with precision terrain from a POV he does not occupy yet.

A much better solution IMO would be to order a unit to a location and tell them to keep watch over a stretch of terrain. Then once they arrived at their destination, the Tac AI would adjust their position as necessary, within a limited radius, so as to obtain LOS on the desired terrain if possible.

Frankly, I just don't worry about it all that much. If I move a unit and it ends up without the LOS I wanted, I simply adjust its position in the next turn. Given the shortness of the CM turn, that's not at all unrealistic. If it happens to miss out on something important in the meanwhile, well that's the fortunes of war, isn't it?

Michael

[BlackVoid]

PanzerLeader: I am happy you saw my point.

Its exactly that perfect meter what I am talking about.

Another idea: how about a switch: maximize view, minimze view, normal, stay hidden. In maximive view the unit would seek position so they have the largest area covered, min the opposite, normal would be normal (like now) and with hidden they would try to hide. These could be set along with a direction.

This is something real troops would do on their own according to the situation.

And one more: terrain generator should generate a 'cleaner' terrain, not so bumpy all over, but just plains, treelines, hills. The number of elevation changes should be reduced. Current generated maps are too 'bumpy', too random. Maybe a setting in map setup: bumpiness?

[Das Reich]

Originally posted by M. Bates:

It only takes one bailed crewman to spot an advancing platoon for all enemy units up to an infinite distance away know exactly where that unit is.

Yes, this is something I hate also. I can understand if the unit is in command to an HQ, then it could relay the information by radio. But if the unit is not within command, then the Fog of War should be thicker. Should only see symbols, or have the crew work through the tac AI only.

I, personally, think tank crews should only be able to move into a dangerous situation if it is in command. Probably not possible to model in CM in its current form. But I would like to see something like this make the engine re-write.

I think that limiting what you can do with units who are not in command can go a long way to eliminating some of the relative spotting problems.

[dalem]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

Dalem: I completely agree. I realize the shortcomings of my suggestions. My conclusion was badly worded.

The problem is: LOS is too coplicated, and often very hard to decide on it, unless you can use the LOS tool.

************************

Then why not give a LOS tool, that works like this: You choose a special LOS command, click on a point on the map, and the program shows all visible areas with LOS to that point.

************************

It does not eliminate micro-management, but at least it makes it easier a bit.

Oh, okay, I see what you're getting at now. I disagree with it, but I see it now.

I guess I'm happy with the way the LOS mechanic works now, essentially. Even with eventual improvements such as relative spotting, if that can ever be done, I wouldn't want a tool such as you describe. I like the limitations we have.

-dale

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

PS. For me one of the great things about CM is that you play the role of the battalion, company and platoon commanders, but importantly also the AFV and squad leader. I do not normaly micro manage a lot, but like the fact that I can if I wish to.

Exactly! Listen to this guy, he's got his head screwed on straight.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Mud:

Vehicles being transparent to fire also bothers me. Infantry should be able to use vehicles for cover against small-arms fire

This will be great once it's implemented, but a related issue is that, if the infantry is on open ground, but covered by a tank, they need to _know_ that so that they don't run off when they take incoming fire. Same goes for infantry behind a wall.

(This implies that the tank wouldn't _block_ small arms fire to a squad behind it, but would simply provide a cover rating)

[ March 31, 2002, 05:06 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by M. Bates:

Perhaps CM needs more micro management options. Such as the ability to dig in whilst in woods. It's stupid that infantry who have been stationery in some woods for five turns are not better fortified than enemy infantry who blunder right into their position.

Agree that stationary units should have their cover factor gradually increase for a few turns after they halt. This could even be the case in open ground, as they find small dips, or old rusty tractor wheels or whatever to get behind. Perhaps they should even be able to retain this bonus when rotating. Conversely, units moving in covered terrain should perhaps get a bit more of a penalty.

Also, why is infantry in open ground so hopelessly exposed to enemy fire? The only way that infantry are prevented from getting cut to bits is by having maps full of bumps, hills and mounds. That is not realistic. At the moment CM maps are either lots of impenetrable forest or billiard table-like expanses of freshly cut grass.

Actually, lately I've been having better luck with fighting from open ground. They key seems to be having enough cover fire to keep the incoming fire on the guys in the open from getting too unbearable. This seems pretty realistic. (or it seems like the way it looks in the movies I should say)

In any case, the choices that units make when they 'run for cover' are often really bad. There are two ways of responding to that: One is that if you were in a satellite watching a WWII battle from above you would probably go insane from frustration over all the really bad choices squads made. The other is that we could admit that the current system of evaluating where to run for cover is extremely weak. It relies on the concept of covered terrain tiles only, not blockage of LOS to the firing party. Hence infantry won't move to open ground behind a building or wall. It also uses the very clunky concept of 'friendly, hostile and neutral' map edges which breaks down completely once the axis of fighting isn't neatly lined up with the initial starting deployment. The concept of the 360 degree battlefield isn't well represented in CM at present. Also, alerted units plot a move to the closest, in meters, cover, regardless of obstacles in the way, so they will do things like get stuck in barbed wire or on a wall, trying to run to a patch of forest. The entire system of how squads plot their own movement, once alerted, doesn't appear to have gotten 'quality time' from the programmer. I hope it will get attention in the future, so that a really subtle approach to the issues can be developed.

[CMplayer]

I would like to add that complaints don't need to be taken as complaints. CM is very much a work in progress. It's an amazing achievement just to have gotten all these units onto a 3-D playing field in a playable way. So now we bitch about whatever bugs us, and BTS can ignore it or pay attention exactly as much as they like. Maybe, once in a while, someone mentions something they haven't noticed themselves. In that case, everyone wins.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Shandorf:

My gawd... why does anyone even debate with M. Bates?

So far I have heard nothing new dicussed in this thread and on top of that all the bitching I have heard before over a year ago. Odds are... if people have a bitch about the game, and it is not legit, they just suck at CM and want to blame the game for thier lack of skill or will to improve at it.

This is exactly the kind of 'hurt pride' response I meant. This attitude being expressed by Shandorf is just not constructive. It's just more whining about whining. (And that means I'm whining about whining about whining).

I've benefited from many people's constructive responses to whining posts.

[ March 31, 2002, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Pak40:

When you think about it it's a really beautiful game.

It really is. It's like chess, backgammon, poker and billiards all rolled up into one.

[CMplayer]

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.

For me this depends on the size of the battle. If I'm playing something small, with only a few platoons of infantry, then I'd like to micromanage the hell out of them. But if I've got two battalions the situation is reversed. I hope CM will remain flexible enough to allow both ways of play.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

In any case, the choices that units make when they 'run for cover' are often really bad. There are two ways of responding to that: One is that if you were in a satellite watching a WWII battle from above you would probably go insane from frustration over all the really bad choices squads made. The other is that we could admit that the current system of evaluating where to run for cover is extremely weak. It relies on the concept of covered terrain tiles only, not blockage of LOS to the firing party. Hence infantry won't move to open ground behind a building or wall. It also uses the very clunky concept of 'friendly, hostile and neutral' map edges which breaks down completely once the axis of fighting isn't neatly lined up with the initial starting deployment. The concept of the 360 degree battlefield isn't well represented in CM at present. Also, alerted units plot a move to the closest, in meters, cover, regardless of obstacles in the way, so they will do things like get stuck in barbed wire or on a wall, trying to run to a patch of forest. The entire system of how squads plot their own movement, once alerted, doesn't appear to have gotten 'quality time' from the programmer. I hope it will get attention in the future, so that a really subtle approach to the issues can be developed.

Agreed. Also, there is that hilariously absurd dance that units often do where they march and countermarch indecisively under fire until they are finally exterminated.

Michael

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by redwolf:

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.

Do you really see it that way? That we have to worry about BTS's feelings? They have every reason to know how good their game is, and they also are undoubtedly more aware of it's shortcomings than the rest of us, for the simple reason that the game is their work and livelihood.

What's the problem with someone writing unclear, repetitive criticisms? I have learned quite a lot from people's constructive responses to Bates' posts. I've learned about the game engine and about design issues. To me that's positive.

I haven't learned anything from the less constructive responses, where people whine about him whining, bitch about him bitching, and complain about him complaining. (I don't see your post as doing that btw).

But if you're right that BTS will change the forum in some way because of it, then I can see your point. Otherwise anything that provokes discussion is a good thing imo.

[ March 31, 2002, 05:10 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Agreed. Also, there is that hilariously absurd dance that units often do where they march and countermarch indecisively under fire until they are finally exterminated.

As has been pointed out before, this is especially bad on bridges, since they will try to run to nearest cover _as the bird flies_ instead of paying attention to the actual route needed to get there.

To return to the original topic of the thread, this is, to me, the greatest shortcoming of the engine.

[flamingknives]

What is this 'bumpiness' that people keep refering to? The CM maps don't seem overly 'bumpy' to me. There is the slight problem due to the resolution of the ground tiles, but I hardly think it's worthwhile moaning about.

Could someone post a screenshot of said bumpiness?

Incidently, on the same subject (as the thread title) does CM model for infantry lying prone and shooting?

[lassner.1]

I think that kipanderson hits the nail on the head. And I, for one, would not accept the loss of micro-management.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

What is this 'bumpiness' that people keep refering to? The CM maps don't seem overly 'bumpy' to me.

Could be purely a matter of taste. As I posted earlier, they don't seem overly bumpy to me either. I think I have noticed that the "bumpiness" seems to increase if you pick a map with more and larger hills.

There is the slight problem due to the resolution of the ground tiles, but I hardly think it's worthwhile moaning about.

What problem is that?

Could someone post a screenshot of said bumpiness?

I don't presently have a way to post any, but could e-mail you some if you like. In a recent QB the map engine made some very curious terrain indeed. There are places where a road goes straight up a cliff, for instance. :eek: Be forewarned though that unless you have a broadband connection of some sort that they might take some time to download.

Incidently, on the same subject (as the thread title) does CM model for infantry lying prone and shooting?

Apparently not. At least it isn't graphically represented. When the graphic shows prone troops, it means that they are taking cover. However, I think it likely that the kneeling graphic is meant to represent troops in a variety of positions and poses ranging from prone to standing depending on the terrain in their personal immediate area.

Michael

[ March 31, 2002, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[OGSF]

Originally posted by LeeW:

On the question of troops having to exit buildings to move from one to the other. This seems real to me unless you have time to blow a hole in the wall.

lee

Which is one of the things they did. Used bazookas to blow holes through adjoining walls so they could avoid the street. Doubler describes the practice being used by U.S. troops in Achen, in "Closing with the Enemy".

The other tactic was to throw smoke grenades into the street before makeing the dash for the next building.

Neither of these tactics are modelled in the current CM game engine, but they were used.

OGSF

[Cani]

Sorry for jumping in here, is this the thread where I post the improvements I want? Here's some minor onesI want in CMBB or the next sequel. Sorry if this has been mentioned before, I think they are kind of obvious.

Railroad/road crossings.

Terrain mixes (including water) that are split on the diagonal, so that the map isn't just squares.

Streams, with the same combinations as roads to connect them. Streams should be passable by all, tracked vehicles only or infantry only.

More house types. Train station, barns, three story buildings etc.

There should be no open ground between scattered trees and woods.

There should be a possibility for briefing in quick battles as well, to state your requirements (no gamey tactics, max 5 SMG squads bla bla)

A commanders log. If you process one turn every second week you need to take notes in order to remember your overall strategy and why you did some unorthodox orders last turn, if you have asked for a cease fire, when the opponent goes on vacation and won't read mail etc. Nice if that could be implemented in the game. Just a plain text file is enough, a bonus if the game keeps track on when when (date/turn) entry was created.

[flamingknives]

quote:

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

There is the slight problem due to the resolution of the ground tiles, but I hardly think it's worthwhile moaning about.

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

What problem is that?

As each 20m terrain square is divided up into a number of polygons, changes in elevation can sometimes lead to "butresses" protruding from the side of a hill, where IRL the hill side would be smooth. The little pockets formed in this way are great for positioning a unit in, but a little unrealistic. Like I said though, it doesn't really bother me.

I have encountered the crazy roads before, to the point where I couldn't get jeeps to drive up it. It's only really a problem in a QB because the map generator cannot relate slope to the terrain that it puts on it.

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

I have encountered the crazy roads before, to the point where I couldn't get jeeps to drive up it. It's only really a problem in a QB because the map generator cannot relate slope to the terrain that it puts on it.

Me too, but that was in real life.

Seriously, sometimes it throws some weird curves into the dec, but that is why built maps are better.

[BlackVoid]

What I meant by bumbiness is the many chaotic elevation changes on a map. Real life terrain tends to be a bit simpler: smoother hillsides, etc. Go to any location in your area and you will see that terrain most of the time is simpler than in CM. Positions that have good LOS coverage are quite readily apparent. In CM it is often tricky to find good positions because of the 'bumpiness'. I would like to have an option in terrain setup that would set this 'bumpiness' level.

A cleaner terrain with more objects (ditches, railroads, etc) would be more realistic than the current one.