Melee?

[BCW]

I heard on one topic that melee is not in the game?

If no why not?

[RMC]

Not in.

The complexity of animating the soldiers and making it look believable in hand to hand combat was simply too much.

[M Hofbauer]

in other words, it wont look good so there will be no kung fu at all.

instead they will stand at rifle's length apart and aim their guns at the opponents left eye. Or stick it in.

And fire.

as with any good boxer they are probably safe if they "hug" the enemy.

I am looking forward to all this.

[RMC]

Ok, hotshot. You make it work.

[ComradeP]

RMC: they had the time to make it work at least a bit, a generic stabbing or hitting animation doesn't cost 5 years to code.

The development time/features balance/ratio is a tad off currently. It's still a good game from what I know of it, but I don't see why some features actually got "nerfed" out of the game.

As a clarification: nerfing is spending (a lot of) time to code something, only to take it back out or reducing its value.

[RMC]

Originally posted by ComradeP:

As a clarification: nerfing is spending (a lot of) time to code something, only to take it back out or reducing its value.

No, nerfing is taking a game feature and tweaking it so that it is less effective than before. Usually done when something gets labeled as "overpowered."

[PseudoSimonds]

Hey, I just realized that there was no melee in CM either. I think I'm going to sell all 3 games now that I've seen that they made compromises to total realism.

[RMC]

Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:

Hey, I just realized that there was no melee in CM either. I think I'm going to sell all 3 games now that I've seen that they made compromises to total realism.

Finally! Someone with some sense! Selling your CM games is the only way go now.

[Melnibone]

Selling is too good for them I say....pile them up and burn them.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:

Hey, I just realized that there was no melee in CM either. I think I'm going to sell all 3 games now that I've seen that they made compromises to total realism.

of course there was melee in CM.

actually, getting below 40m to start the melee mode (recognizable by flying grenades and the sounds of fighting/clubbing with guns or whatever those sounds were supposed to mean, I always thought it sounded like dry branches snapping)(bones maybe?) was often the best way to use your infantry effectively.

RMC/hotshot2,

I would be content if the melee would be abstracted in a similar way in ToW. But thats only me - all the rest will wonder and bitch about a melee thats in but not shown in full animated colorful 3D glory.

So its gonne be left out completely. Thats what I am looking forward to in the game, I am really curious. Especially if they have run out of ammo.

What happens then, hotshot2 ?

will they just stand there and stare each other to death ?

I remember some nice scenes from Mil Mi-24 flight simulator where I was watching enemy squads get mixed up. They had a limited own activity and would shoot at each other, but this was intended as a nice side show on the ground, barely noticed by the player. So they would only fire bursts every ten , twenty seconds or so. The rest of the time they would follow their path or, well, stand right next to the enemy soldiers when the squads would get mixed up due to weird movement paths making the enemies meet in one place. It was eerie, funny.

p.s.: when I say I am looking forward to it I don't mean to be sarcastic. I really am interested in that. I liked CC most after the map had been largely cleared, or when you had only two men with rifles left and tried to still make a fight with the remnants of the enemy.

edited: typos

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

of course there was melee in CM.

Then why didn't they just add the animations? It wouldn't have taken that long, maybe 20 minutes or so. *plays frisbee with CM cds*

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

of course there was melee in CM.

Then why didn't they just add the animations? It wouldn't have taken that long, maybe 20 minutes or so. *plays frisbee with CM cds* </font>

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

because all infantry was abstracted, remember? all we had back then originally were three-headed zombies and all? peloton salvo fire?

Infantry was abstracted? Hmm, doesn't seem too realistic to me. I can't believe I actually played that game when it wasn't even totally realistic.

Sarcasm aside, it's not as if I don't wish that some of this stuff were in the game. It's just that I realize that realism isn't an either/or proposition and so even with its compromises ToW should be high enough on the realism spectrum for me to get some good wargaming out of it. And then perhaps some of this stuff can be added later to make it even better.

[WineCape]

I want cocks with melee spurs.

[ComradeP]

No, nerfing is taking a game feature and tweaking it so that it is less effective than before. Usually done when something gets labeled as "overpowered."

In which way does that differ from "reducing its value"?

As a reply to the topic: Even abstracted melee (the generic stabbing animation I mentioned) would be better than absolutely no melee. I can understand that without a lot of urban maps, it might not be very important, but that does depend a lot on the other maps. Judging by the maps shown in the screenshots/AAR's, I don't think there will be a lot of opportunities for melee.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by ComradeP:

Judging by the maps shown in the screenshots/AAR's, I don't think there will be a lot of opportunities for melee.

agreed, methinks that if the current ratio of two tanks and one aircraft per one leg soldier (as in the AAR's so far) is kept up during the game there indeed will be very little room for melee.

[ComradeP]

I think the ratio stands at 1 vehicle for every 4 infantry guys, roughly (look at the mission complete assessment, and compare the "human" figure, which probably includes crews, to the various vehicle figures). That number is still quite high, but I don't think the game would be "fun" to more casual gamers without a relatively high number of tanks. On the other hand: Blitzkrieg (to use a more "casual" WWII RTS game example) usually included a good infantry/tank ratio and allowed the player to have 4 to 6 tanks in his core. Most maps only had a couple of "auxiliary" tanks and vehicles, but plenty of infantry (not to mention that you could "spawn" infantry out of the blue, but not vehicles).

[RMC]

Originally posted by ComradeP:

In which way does that differ from "reducing its value"?

Something can be softened and made cudly and not lose its value.

See, Nerf is actually a brand name for foam footballs, basketballs, and such. They're much safer than the real things. They won't hurt you. So if they, say, made the 88 really inaccurate, then it would be nerfed since it is no longer a potent weapon. Nerfing has to do with potency and power to cause injury not a measure of feature content.

[ComradeP]

Something can be softened and made cudly and not lose its value.

...but games usually don't include cute fluffy nerf balls, so a "nerf" generally means a reduction in power/capabilities/value for a unit or ability. We both mean exactly the same thing, and although the nerf ball picture made me laugh we should not take this further OT.

(Unless you want to melee me with a nerf ball, or want to throw nerf balls in game).

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by ComradeP:

I think the ratio stands at 1 vehicle for every 4 infantry guys, roughly

no ****.

I was being sarcastic, I didnt do any counting:

even then, a ratio of 1:4 is just ridiculous.

seems you're not grasping that in all its weight...heck, you even make pull out some of my books...

for the invasion of Poland germany committed 1,5 million soldiers but less than 3,000 tanks including 69 Pz III and 205 Pz IV.

The po0lish had 130 7TP tanks, 55 M-17, 49 R-35 and less than 500 useable TK/TKS minitanks.

for the french campaign the germans had 136 Divisions with a total of 2,8 million soldiers...and committed a total of 523 Pz I, 955 Pz II, 349 Pz III, 278 Pz IV, 128 Pz 35(t) and 229 Pz 38(t).

The allies had 148 Divisions with a total of 3.7 million soldiers...and the armor: 534 FT-17, 945 R-35, 821 Hotchkiss H-35/38, 261 Somua S-35, 314 Char B-1, and roughly 100 tanks other french tanks of various sorts...add 310 british tanks.

now you do the math.

The number of tanks per infantry found in CM battles, especially CMBB for the war in russia, was unrealistic by above standards. Together with the focus on a rather detailed armor system and the oversimplification of infantry into generic squads means CM catered heavily to the tank-hungry audience. Can't blame them - judging by the tank pictures in war books and publications the public is focussed on tanks.

But those CM battles were realism gold (platinum!) compared to the ratios found in those ToW AARs we've been shown so far.

And dont get me started on air support, or, to be more precise, the real-world scarcity thereof on the average piece of WW II frontline.

Originally posted by ComradeP:

That number is still quite high, but I don't think the game would be "fun" to more casual gamers without a relatively high number of tanks. On the other hand: Blitzkrieg (to use a more "casual" WWII RTS game example) usually included a good infantry/tank ratio and allowed the player to have 4 to 6 tanks in his core. Most maps only had a couple of "auxiliary" tanks and vehicles, but plenty of infantry (not to mention that you could "spawn" infantry out of the blue, but not vehicles).

I dont know that game you are speaking of.

I can tell you though, that Close Combat, the original CloseCombat, had a rather healthy tank ratio. Allies had tanks only every once in a while, and the germans only very rarely. But if they were there, they made a huge impact and required a totally differennt tactical approach. Even a lousy Stuart or a Marder SPG, heck, even a SdKfz 250 with its machine gun dominated the battelefield.

I think that is an important comparison because I had the impression ToW would go a similar way. Whiocjh is why IO thought the range issue with the guns wouldnt be that much of a problem, since it would focus on infantry so much and only had occasional tanks in it. And that tank would not be very likely to see an enemy tank, much less to speak of outspoken armor battles.

But now I see that this game seems to be quite a ridiculous tank fest.

(it cant be the players moon and rune in those AAR games since they used battles from the game)

so there, harumph

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by ComradeP:

and although the nerf ball picture made me laugh we should not take this further OT.

(Unless you want to melee me with a nerf ball, or want to throw nerf balls in game).

he was merely explaining to you exactly where that term originates from.

[ComradeP]

even then, a ratio of 1:4 is just ridiculous.

I never disagreed with that, and in fact stated: "it's still quite high" but the problem is that realism doesn't attract as many players as "fun" which is why I'm afraid the infantry/tank ratio will remain unbalanced.

Even though I knew of the figures you posted, I still felt the need to post about it.

The air power is still unbalanced, and the call time is ridiculous, but a strike by Me110's (a gruppe returning from a mission could always strafe ground targets, if they had the fuel) is at least easier to bear than a He 111B bombing.

[RMC]

I'm waiting for the full blown "2 huts and a pigpen" speech.

[BCW]

Why have beautifuly designed soldiers...but have no melee at all?

[RMC]

Because most combat deaths were from artillery and small arms fire, not kung fu grip.