Er... correction... one small thing

[Battlefront.com]

Hi all,

Well, I recently stated that I rarely have to retract statements since I'm so careful to not talk about things that I'm not sure will go in. Now something even rarer has happened... I need to retract a retraction

Here is the original thread:

Silly Post

The first part about LOS/LOF still stands, but that second bit... forget I even mentioned it Seems I have been up too late and doing too many things lately and my poor 'widdle head got all confuzed.

As I originally stated (i.e. before the retraction), Squads can be split in CMx2. It is TEAMS that can't be split. So if you read all my reasons why Squads can't be split in CMx2, swapping in Team for Squad, then everything I said will be correct. There is reason I got this confused today, but that is none of your business so don't ask

Anyhoo... to restate... you can split up Squads like you could in CMx2. You won't really gain anything from it that you shouldn't, unlike CMx1, but you can get the realistic flexibility from it. There are C&C ramifications for doing this, which does have some affect on Morale, but other than that a Squad split into Teams should be no more or less effective than a Squad maintained in one piece.

Sorry for the confusion. Time for me to get some sleep

Steve

[ September 04, 2005, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Cpl Steiner]

Now it all makes sense. Thanks for the clarrification.

[aka_tom_w]

The first one is vehicles blocking LOS and/or LOF. The word is final (for now) that they can indeed block LOF but they can not block LOS. This has to do with computation and RAM costs for tracking moving, variable sized objects. LOF is a lot easier and therefore we can do that. Out of the two, LOF is the more important one. LOS would be hard for most vehicles to block effectively for any length of time anyway, so from a simulation standpoint it really isn't a big deal to leave it out. Leaving out LOF would be, as you CMx1 guys know full well since CMx1 didn't support LOF blocking.

OK ....

I hope, if I read that correctly that that means that if a tank or AFV moves (during the one minute turn) INTO the LOF of the round inbetween the shooter and the target the "stray" AFV friendly or otherwise will intercept the round and "feel" the impact of the friendly fire or whatever.

Is that correct?

So while you can get LOS through AFV's, if you have a friendly AFV in front of you and you attempt to fire through it you will shoot your own AFV in the rear? Yes?

Sorry

Just looking for clarification....

Other than that the rest of the retractions and limitations are no problem. So Squads can split and that is still a good thing.

Thanks for the update.

-tom w

[JonS]

Will I be able to PBEM a battalion of split teams?

[Battlefront.com]

Dear JonS,

I hate you. And I really, really mean that from the bottom of my heart

Sincerely yours,

Steve

P.S. I hope you're friends find you funnier than I do

[Battlefront.com]

Tom,

No. When a unit doesn't have LOF it doesn't fire. So if a vehicle comes inbetween target and shooter, the shooting stops.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

OK thanks Steve

But....

If the shooter has LOF and the target is 1-2 km down range

and the round leaves the shooter THEN the "stay" AFV gets between the shooter and the target (during the 1 minute action) before the round hits the target does the round impact the stray AFV instead of the target.?

Thanks

-tom w

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dear JonS,

I hate you. And I really, really mean that from the bottom of my heart

Sincerely yours,

Steve

P.S. I hope you're friends find you funnier than I do

We're not "take long hot showers til the wee hours of the morning" kinda friends, but he makes me giggle sometimes. *shrugs*

[Sergei]

About the 'AFVs block LOF' bit, can I tell my grunts to keep close to a tanky? If so, can I tell them to make it look like they're using the tank for cover, not like it was some Rio samba carneval?

[Battlefront.com]

Tom, the answer is probably no for the same reasons as CMx1. And that is, having a shot in flight constantly checking to see if some random thing has come into its path is computationally expensive. Especially since 9999 out of 1000 times (or probably more) it doesn't matter.

Sergei, we'll have to wait and see on that one. It's a larger issue.

Steve

[Andrew Kulin]

I thought that one of the things CMX1 did do was account for things such as shell trajectories being calculated so if a round missed, it still had to land somewhere and so could do damage to something else.

Does what you are saying therefore mean that I do not have to worry about hitting my own tanks from the rear when I have them all bunched up together, cowering behind a building, looking for Panthers?

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i'm not sure if this was mentioned earlier, but is friendly LOF blocked as well?

and does this also mean that machineguns can now fire proper grazing fire instead of just point fire?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Andrew Kulin:

I thought that one of the things CMX1 did do was account for things such as shell trajectories being calculated so if a round missed, it still had to land somewhere and so could do damage to something else.

Does what you are saying therefore mean that I do not have to worry about hitting my own tanks from the rear when I have them all bunched up together, cowering behind a building, looking for Panthers?

While the whole concept is still sounds good the details are still fuzzy to me, but this might help answer your question:

Battlefront.com

Administrator

Member # 42

posted September 05, 2005 01:07 AM

Tom,

No. When a unit doesn't have LOF it doesn't fire. So if a vehicle comes inbetween target and shooter, the shooting stops.

Steve

I am still not sure how you can get LOS through AFV's BUT NOT fire through them.

Your question was about a situation where you own tanks have LOS through friendly tanks to enemy tanks, BUT Steve says the game won't let the tank shoot if there is a unit inbetween the shooter and the target.

My question is what if that unit inbetween is an enemy unit crossing in front of the target? I can get LOS straight through the enemy unit to the target. Will the game let me take the shot? How does the game know when to not shoot due to lack of LOF?

Simple rule? NO Line of Fire = No Shot?

dunno?

:confused:

-tom w

[Steiner14]

So there still is hope, that at least AFV's commanders can be split from the crew for spotting?

I'm asking this, because with the reduced battle-size, it becomes even more important to be able to use this standard procedure.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

i'm not sure if this was mentioned earlier, but is friendly LOF blocked as well?

I would suspect so. I hope so, too, as it would force players to consider how to deploy their tank platoons.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, LOS/LOF is always a two way street. If one side can see the other, in theory it works the other way around. However, spotting can throw a monkey wrench into this with one side not being able to see the other, even though he has LOS/LOF.

I expected a question about LOS/LOF, so I'll type up a new thread on this. They appear to be the same, but they are not. Which is why we can sometimes support one but not the other.

Steve

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I am still not sure how you can get LOS through AFV's BUT NOT fire through them.

Your question was about a situation where you own tanks have LOS through friendly tanks to enemy tanks, BUT Steve says the game won't let the tank shoot if there is a unit inbetween the shooter and the target.

My question is what if that unit inbetween is an enemy unit crossing in front of the target? I can get LOS straight through the enemy unit to the target. Will the game let me take the shot? How does the game know when to not shoot due to lack of LOF?

Simple rule? NO Line of Fire = No Shot?

dunno?

:confused:

-tom w

My simplistic understanding of the concept is that LoS is like a lightbulb. Light is thrown in all directions, and anything lit up can be seen. Having a moving object cast a shadow while,potentially, the bulb is itself moving would seem to create a big hit on processing power.

By comparison, LoF is a laser. A single beam that is only generated when the unit wishes to shoot at something. The computational expense of this would seem to be far less than constantly updating the full sphere.

Of course, I know little enough about programming and less about how it will/does work in CMX2. So take it all with a pinch of salt.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I expected a question about LOS/LOF, so I'll type up a new thread on this.

Steve

oh OK

Thanks .....

-tom w

[ September 05, 2005, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Battlefront.com]

flamingknives has it right. The basic concept is that LOS has to check everywhere all the time, LOF only has to check a specific straight line only as needed. Huge difference in terms of the impact on the hardware and game performance.

Steve

[Simon Fox]

So can I take the Bren 'teams' from my platoon sections and my 2in mortar and form a Bren group commanded by the Plt Sgt and the have the platoon commander take the rest of the Riflemen/Grenadiers and conduct the assault?

No, I didn't think so.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

So can I take the Bren 'teams' from my platoon sections and my 2in mortar and form a Bren group commanded by the Plt Sgt and the have the platoon commander take the rest of the Riflemen/Grenadiers and conduct the assault?

No, I didn't think so.

Some interesting diagrams on pp. 70-72 of MILITARY TRAINING IN THE BRITISH ARMY, 1940-1944 that would be germaine here; the pics show Bren Guns (organized into 3 man Bren groups) also dismounted from the Carrier platoon and used to cover a platoon assault.

[Battlefront.com]

No, I didn't think so.

Actually, you are almost wrong

You can split off the Bren Team (Group) from a Rifle Squad (Section). So you can have your force divided up just like you say. Heck, if it is that common we could even preassemble the formation as a purchase option. All that works just fine.

The problem comes in with splitting up a Platoon HQ so you effectively have two sources of C&C instead of one. At the moment there is no ability to have two different HQs at the same level within the same formation. What we need to add is a command level inbetween the highest authority within the formation and whatever comes lower than that.

For example, normally a Platoon Leader is in charge of Squad Leaders who are in charge of Team Leaders. What we need is a variable command spot inbetween Platoon and Squad Leaders. In your example, and in most nations, this would be the Platoon SGT. Between Company Commander and Platoon Leader it would be the Company XO. Between Battalion Commander and Company Commander it gets a little more complicated since there are multiple choices depending on tactical circumstances.

This extra layer of command complicates things quite a bit for us, so it certainly isn't going into CMx2's first release. But it is something I want to get into the game sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, other things need to happen first and that is the stuff we don't have time for.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No, I didn't think so.

Actually, you are almost wrong

You can split off the Bren Team (Group) from a Rifle Squad (Section). So you can have your force divided up just like you say. Heck, if it is that common we could even preassemble the formation as a purchase option. All that works just fine.

The problem comes in with splitting up a Platoon HQ so you effectively have two sources of C&C instead of one. At the moment there is no ability to have two different HQs at the same level within the same formation. What we need to add is a command level inbetween the highest authority within the formation and whatever comes lower than that.

For example, normally a Platoon Leader is in charge of Squad Leaders who are in charge of Team Leaders. What we need is a variable command spot inbetween Platoon and Squad Leaders. In your example, and in most nations, this would be the Platoon SGT. Between Company Commander and Platoon Leader it would be the Company XO. Between Battalion Commander and Company Commander it gets a little more complicated since there are multiple choices depending on tactical circumstances.

This extra layer of command complicates things quite a bit for us, so it certainly isn't going into CMx2's first release. But it is something I want to get into the game sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, other things need to happen first and that is the stuff we don't have time for.

Steve </font>

[jrcar]

When attacking Post 11 at Bardia D Coy 2/6th Bn detached the Bren teams from the sections (squads)and attached them to an MG Platoon of the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers to provide the fire support for the company attack.

This was the first action the 2/6th Bn fought, and it was noted that detaching the Bren teams was not a good idea. They were found to be more useful integral to the section.

Having the potential for a second command team at the platoon level is a good idea, although battle casualties usually quickly reduced this to a single command team.

Is having troops officially left out of battle a commonwealth thing only? I see reference to it in many of our orders but haven't really seen it in other countries.

Usually it was about 1 in 10, with either the OC or the 2IC of a company being left behind.

Also the company warrant officer (senior non-commissioned officer)in commonwealth units is usually an admin guy, making sure the forward troops get what they need. It is almost always an officer in charge of the company, even if it’s only a senior Lieutenant.

Cheers

Rob

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jrcar:

When attacking Post 11 at Bardia D Coy 2/6th Bn detached the Bren teams from the sections (squads)and attached them to an MG Platoon of the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers to provide the fire support for the company attack.

This was the first action the 2/6th Bn fought, and it was noted that detaching the Bren teams was not a good idea. They were found to be more useful integral to the section.

Having the potential for a second command team at the platoon level is a good idea, although battle casualties usually quickly reduced this to a single command team.

Is having troops officially left out of battle a commonwealth thing only? I see reference to it in many of our orders but haven't really seen it in other countries.

Usually it was about 1 in 10, with either the OC or the 2IC of a company being left behind.

Also the company warrant officer (senior non-commissioned officer)in commonwealth units is usually an admin guy, making sure the forward troops get what they need. It is almost always an officer in charge of the company, even if it’s only a senior Lieutenant.

Cheers

Rob

I've not seen reference to it in other armies; the CW used it in World War One, and very commonly in WW II. My own regiment, the Calgary Highlanders, normally went into action with rifle sections of 5 or 6 men instead of the "normal" ten. This was partly due to casualties, partly to the LOB doctrine. A section commander with a 2 or 3 man Bren team leaves only 3 or 4 riflemen in the section - or two very small teams. I've never read a detailed account of how they operated in action, however.

I have, though, read that even platoons would leave either the Platoon Commander or the Platoon Sergeant LOB.

The CSM was very much, as you describe, an admin type.