lassner.1 Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 I know that this subject has been beaten to death, and the following suggestion may well have escaped my searches on this topic, but at the risk of being immolated .... It occurred to me that other night that there might be an “interim solution” so that infantry in CB:BB could take advantage of armor for cover. I wondered if the game code could be altered so that the following could occur: infantry squad Y could be clicked upon, given an order “move w/ armor,” and then a stationary tank Z could be clicked upon – in the same way that one currently does to have a squad load onto a tank. At that point the squad Y would move to tank Z and become “attached” to tank Z. Thereafter, as long as the infantry was so attached, tank Z could only use a “move” order, and the infantry could derive certain defensive benefits as it moved forward. My apologies if this is a wildly impracticable idea: I admit that I know nothing about computer programming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 Originally posted by lassner: My apologies if this is a wildly impracticable idea! [/QB] A remarkably original thought! Expanding on the proposal, the handling would be similar to mounting a tank. The "attached" squad would move behind the tank and get a cover benefit. As it takes fire from one flank it would be able to "rotate" around the tank until, again, it is shadowed from the most severe threat. Movement of the squad should be tied to the tank, that is, if you want the squad to stop and shoot or take cover, stop the tank or cut the bond between tank and infantry. As soon as the infantry is panicking it can decouple just as it disembarks right now. It sure is a workaround, but it should model infantry following a tank with much less programming effort than infantry looking for cover and coincidentially ending up behind a tank as the result of their independent tactical decision. It would sure add to the atmosphere of combined arms attacks. It would be especially useful for using a tank as a shield in city fighting. I am not so sure if the impact is the same in a large scale assault over open ground (=higher probability of flanking fire). VERY nice idea, lassner! Regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 I forgot to mention how much I loved it when soldiers took cover behind wrecks in Close Combat ... still a really cool game engine, in my humble opinion! Regards, Thomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lassner.1 Posted April 10, 2002 Author Share Posted April 10, 2002 Thanks for the kind reception. Now lets see if BTS thinks its worth considering ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 I really like the idea. I was very skeptical about a general "solid vehicles" implementation, because it creates a nightmare for the TacAI, and it will make plotting moves for tank platoons much harder, when all tanks should have LOS to one point in the end. The transparent tanks help a lot here and only make up for some command limitations the player has, thus weighting two problems to create a better middle. Your idea needs an additional twist in that if the squad is shot at from multiple directions it should lose the cover benefit. But I believe that this can be implemented reusing parts of the existing logic that makes squads more vulnerable from the sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 Originally posted by redwolf: skeptical about a general "solid vehicles" implementation, because it creates a nightmare for the TacAI, and it will make plotting moves for tank platoons much harder, when all tanks should have LOS to one point in the end.In one of my first games against the AI I remember how proud I was when I had a line of tanks that needed to round a bend and engage enemy armor. I layed smoke, and then swung them around like a door, so that they ended up 'crossing the T' against the enemy armored column as the smoke cleared. It was a bit of a fiddle but came off beautifully. And then I found out that it doesn't matter because tanks don't block fire. And then I found out I can have my guys assault with their support MGs firing right through them. And so on... So many important deployment issues are just lost. If a game is supposed to recreate tactical situations, then realistic tactics should be modelled, so sooner or later tanks blocking fire just has to make it in, nightmare for the AI or not. IMHO of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 I remember my first advance in "Chance Encounter" with the demo. They said "play it like you would in real life". Of course my men huddled behind my tanks were shredded with MG fire. Very disapointing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lassner.1 Posted April 10, 2002 Author Share Posted April 10, 2002 What I don’t want to do is to make this proposal so complicated that it gets nixed by BTS. Thus I think that we should see my *interim* solution as a grand abstraction. The infantry need not loose the cover benefit if shot at from multiple directions. They are ten men “dancing around a tank,” so to speak. This may not be fully realistic in all situations, but it is more realistic than getting no benefit from the armor at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mud Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 I like it. It should also apply readily to non-functional tanks, methinks -- including the ones that aren't smokin' and thus don't yet provide cover at all. Say, er, is there a reason why roadblocks, bunkers and PBs don't provide cover? You'd think they'd be far easier to handle, AI-wise, than vehicles, since they don't move at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 An excellent idea. I really hope CMBB corrects the problem of being able to sight through solid objects. I know it's been mentioned but can't remember what the answer was. Let's hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 YES!!! Great idea, that! I can just picture a squad of infantry (or a couple of flamethrower teams) at a MOVE right next to a buttoned Sherman, ALSO at MOVE, as they cross an intersection under fire. The Shermans turret turns to fire in the direction of the enemy. All the while the infantry is recieving excellent cover. Then, safely across. The HQ unit welcomes them into command radius, and they are OFF! Down the secured boulevard to the next assault position. Ooooh. I love it! Gpig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 Originally posted by lcm1947: An excellent idea. I really hope CMBB corrects the problem of being able to sight through solid objects. I know it's been mentioned but can't remember what the answer was. Let's hope.The last time this came up Charles and Steve indicated that it was not an easy thing to fix at all. I don't understand the technicalities behind this one but for CMBO it was a BIG stinking Hairy issue (right from the get go in the DEMO) and, we were told impossible to fix (so live with it), so since CMBB is based largely on the CMBO engine I would not expect any miracles on this front, in CMBB. I think this issue is as big a problem as absolute spotting and I would not expect any improvement on either issue until the FULL rewrite in CMII the NEXT generation. BUT thats only my opinion I would be thrilled to see this issue resolved in some new way in CMBB, but I am not holding my breath -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lassner.1 Posted April 10, 2002 Author Share Posted April 10, 2002 Gentlemen: I am *not* *not* repeat *not* proposing that CM:BB correct the problem of being able to sight through solid objects: as Tom notes, this cannot be done without a total rewrite. I am only proposing, as I make quite clear at the start of this post, that squad Y hooked to tank Z obtain a cover modifier (i.e., so the squad is not counted as simply being in open terrain [c. 72% exposure]). Please take the time to read the proposal I have made and not one you may think I have made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCHRD Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 German tactical manuals emphatically discourage the use of tanks for cover. Tanks draw fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 Do you know whether that was also the case for allied forces? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mayer Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 Doctrine may have discouraged hiding behind tanks, but something tells me that in the heat of combat men tended to hunker down behind large steel objects between them and the guys shooting at them. It would seem this would be true of all sides in the conflict. Of course, do you want your game to simulate what should happen or what did happen, I guess that's the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 Perhaps guys could 'hook up' to a stationary wreck as well (did someone already say that?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 Originally posted by RCHRD: German tactical manuals emphatically discourage the use of tanks for cover. Tanks draw fire.Well I believe they did it anyway. In any case it would be cool to have the option and let us derive our own doctrinal conclusions from trying it out in a somewhat realistic simulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 Perhaps guys could 'hook up' to a stationary wreck as well (did someone already say that?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 Originally posted by lassner: Gentlemen: I am *not* *not* repeat *not* proposing that CM:BB correct the problem of being able to sight through solid objects: as Tom notes, this cannot be done without a total rewrite. I am only proposing, as I make quite clear at the start of this post, that squad Y hooked to tank Z obtain a cover modifier (i.e., so the squad is not counted as simply being in open terrain [c. 72% exposure]). Please take the time to read the proposal I have made and not one you may think I have made.OK that does make sense. So... the order is like "Take Cover" near that tank so some form of modifier is coded to the infantry so long as it is not being fired on from multiple directions and it is so many meters from the tank. I think the idea has merit for sure. I like it. -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted April 10, 2002 Share Posted April 10, 2002 And then there have to be accidents like where Mr. Tank sees a Tiger, slams into reverse and rolls over poor Cpl Wscniewski. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lassner.1 Posted April 11, 2002 Author Share Posted April 11, 2002 BTS any idea if this idea might work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 11, 2002 Share Posted April 11, 2002 I think you boys might be slightly underestimating the difficulty of coördinating the movement of tanks and infantry in the heat of battle, but I don't want to throw cold water on your brainstorming session. This is an issue that needs to have something done about it. Even more urgent IMO is the problem alluded to by CMplayer of fire through friendly units, but that's for another thread... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSulo Posted April 11, 2002 Share Posted April 11, 2002 Great idea (it seems so far, at least ). It could work like the embark command, but instead of riding on the tank, they walk behind it (using that new CMBB "scattered walk" shown in that screenshot ), following the tanks movement, ie no direct control over the inf, just like then riding. How much cover should they get? +80%? That have to be tested ofcourse. And what about when they get shot at from multiple angles? 90° shouldn't be any problem (just "rotate" around the tank) but between 90->180° the cover value should drop linear to the default of the current terrain value. Eventually they should break from the "move along" status and run toward the nearest wood, like they do now . Oh and should they be able to fire back from "behind" the tank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lassner.1 Posted April 11, 2002 Author Share Posted April 11, 2002 Indeed SuperSulo: you have the gist of what I am proposing. I persoanlly do not think that the infantry must loose cover if fire erupts from all sides *if* doing so would render the proposal impossible. This is, after all, an abstraction. And if the choice is between some cover for being associated with a tank, and no cover ever (as it is now), the better choice would be for some cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts