Help, information of kill stats, cowering etc.?

[Jorges]

Hello,

not sure if this's the right section, hope so. I have searched forums, read the manual few times and so on but couldn't find what I would like to know. Wouldn't surprise at all if I just missed a line or two though

1. Is there any way to see unit's kills (like in the middle of the battle or so). It was possible in CMx1 games.

2. I know that infantry behaves pretty wisely when they need to take cower from firing. After moving, how would I know which is better cower for my unit, the bush/trees or the wall/fence next to it? Is there any data anywhere for what kind of cowering different ground types/buildings can offer?

3. When I choose the TARGET option from the menu, RED line is the one, that the unit have a clear sight to the target? How about GRAY line? It also gives opportunity to fire the target but maybe the sight isn't that great or it's partial?

---Optional reading:

I bought this game when it was released. After taking a long break and after all these patches this game has come amazing. Few mods from here and there and this is just pure fun now (as fun as war could ever be of course). I'm "selling" this game for a few of my friends who were huge fans of the CMx1 (especially Barbarossa one, my favorite too. We are from Finland so no surprise there) but they didn't like the idea of a modern warfare. And the new QB setup didn't help at all. So I am going to set up some well done scenarios where both sides plays quite as well. The game have some but you guys have done some excellent job with the scenarios and mods also. I just want the good old Hotseat (usually 2vs2, splitted troops) fights back with my friends and they sure are going to ask a lot of questions at first, so it would be nice to have some answers for them and for me of course.

---

Thank you all for one of the best communities, very informative and fun reading. People makes the difference.

Cheers,

Jorges

[Falconander]

Jorges,

I would love to see some kill stats but alas you will not find it here in the current setup. You have the AAR (After Action Review) at the end but this does not list by soldier. We can hope to keep our fingers crossed that the next addition has it included. Their TOW does a really good job at this so I can only think this will be included at one point.

I don't care about pathing issues and 85% of the stuff people gripe about but what is sorely missed is the kill stats and a good purchasing systems for Scenario/QB/maps etc...

Red line you are good to go with as long as it leads to a 'bright' icon. if the icon is dull you might not get the desired effect. I believe the grey line is out of effective range or ineffective against the target. Try aiming a pistol at a tank and see what you get.

You can area fire to targets that are suspected of having enemies around or to create some suppressive fire.

Last night had 3 machineguns area targeting a hole in the wall where the enemy was rushing out. Even though I could not see "Blue" force, it caused some hummers to become knocked out.

Hot seat is a load of fun so you are sure to enjoy...

[MikeyD]

1. Even Steve would like to see kill stats! We can only keep our fingers crossed for the WWII titles - but the wish list on that title is very VERY long.

2. There's no published cover percentages for brush vs grain vs tall grass, ect. CMx1 is so much more complex that CMx1. You can have brush scattered through tall grass, low trees intermixed with tall trees, half on sandy ground half on rocky. Plus you've got individual bullet trajectories intersecting with individual units. Plus it can all be happening in thick haze, or under a full moon, or on a moonless night. And there's the difference between line-of-sight and line-of-fire. A simple percentage number wouldn't mean much. Some brave players have tried quantifying different terrain types but the numbers seem to be all over the place depending on whose testing.

3. A grey target line most often means only a fraction of your team or your available weapons have LOF on the target. Like three men of your squad are able to fire, or the tank commander's HMG has LOF but not the main gun. There's occassional odd instances where one-weapon units still get a grey bar. Maybe it means the guy can fire using his right hand but not his left

[Canada Guy]

The complexity of the terrain is probably one of the reasons we do not get a picture in the UI anymore of what type of terrain the unit is occupying. It would be nice though as I never know what type of terrain my unit (or the enemy) is in or what type of cover/concealment bonuses the troops are receiving.

It would also be nice if I used my target command and could see what type of terrain I was firing into and have some sort of visual identification to show if it is truly worth firing or not. I liked the CMx1 visual of 62 firepower and 32% effectiveness due to terrain etc

If BF does not want to show the exact numbers, what about a hint. E,g, I use my targeting command and the visual identification shows “firepower-3 stars, enemy concealment-1 star, enemy cover-1 star, my effectiveness (morale, status, training) – 3 stars, overall effectiveness-2 stars” or what ever have you. It does not even have to be exact percentages but a way for some of us less able commanders to determine if it is a good thing to fire or not. Sometimes I have no idea what I am doing and do things I thing should be effective and are not.

An example of this was in Hammertime v2 - Syrian rifle squad in a 2nd floor firing at a US squad advancing towards the building at about 50 meters in what looked like open terrain. 2 minutes later all Syrians dead or wounded, only 1 US troop wounded. I thought this would be a good thing to fire on the US troops what they were advancing while in the open but apparently it was not. I had no visual clue to tell me that this was going to be all one sided.

[Other Means]

Jorges - welcome. Good to have you on the forum. As MikeyD explained, the main difference between LOS lines is when the line is grey it is sub-optimal. Generally that means less than the full squad have LOS to the enemy.

Canada Guy - I think the main thing preventing your idea is that - to take being in woods for example - one guy could be behind a tree and have 100% cover & 100% concealment, one could be in long grass and have 5% cover & 80% concealment etc. Plus it's directional dependent so the guy behind the tree would get 0% & 0% from another angle.

It's pretty much WYSIWYG. There is some abstraction but very little. So you're best just looking at the guy and judging for yourself.

[MikeyD]

Another thing is it might be a nice feature for newbies but after you get a few games under your belt you'll no doubt have enough 'seat-of-the-pants' experience to 'guesstimate' hit probabilities well enough. Remember, in the real world a squad leader doesn't get a pop-up screen telling him he's got a 47% probability of hitting his target.

[Canada Guy]

Other Means & MikeyD,

I understand that it is WYSIWYG but for some of us that have never been in the military (cadets does not count), we need a little more information than those that have been in the military would just take for granted. I also understand that everything is situationally dependent so someone in trees could have 50% cover from one direction but 0% from another in CMx2.

This is one of the problems for someone that is just looking for a game has with CMx2. In CMx1 if my men were in trees, I realised that this was an abstraction but I could assume that my men were making the best of the terrain that they were in to carry out the instructions they were given based upon the tactical training that they had received. I did not have to worry if Larry, Moe or Curly was each in the terrain, they would use the training to carry out the instructions. It was an abstraction but it allowed me to act as a commander and relieved me of the responsibility of having to instruct each individual soldier with the duties that they were to perform. I was not the squad leader but the commander of a company or battalion. The abstraction worked well (not great) for me to take on this role.

In CMx2, I do not have that layer of abstraction any more. It does make it more realistic but it also makes me have to try to micro-manage each individual unit and in some cases each individual soldier. What CMx1 did with abstraction, CMx2 has attempted to do with realism and then create computer code that each individual computer soldier uses to act as a real soldier.

In many ways the abstraction created more of a realistic feel for what it was like to be company/Battalion commander. They do not have to worry that one individual soldier refuses to get behind cover even though that was the order. In real life, that one soldier would want to get into cover. Using computer code, this folly is allowed to happen because you can never create enough computer code to handle all situations. So in some ways CMx2 is less realistic that CMx1. The CMx1 abstraction created realistic results for a commander even though it did not create realistic tactics. But the results were what mattered.

This is not the fault of Steve/Charles et al., it is based upon the assumption that computer code can be written that can create realistic results as well as realistic tactics (though I am using tactics in a more non-traditional sense of movement and placement of individual soldiers). One man no matter how talented cannot create computer code to take into account all situations, therefore abstractions are needed to compensate for the unobtainable. These abstractions therefore create a more realistic result due to lack of resources that it would take to get 1to1 representation and also accurate results.

What does this all have to do with having a screen hint for when we are targeting? Due to many peoples lack of knowledge of what a true battlefield would be like, we need abstractions so that I can act as a true company commander and not as a guy that was given responsibility of directing units into combat but whose real full-time job is running a university dept or working at 7-11. This person, my true self, would never be given this kind of responsibility because I have no intimate knowledge of what it all entails. But I am not seeking to simulate an office jockey directing combat units, I want to simulate being a company commander directing units into combat. Abstraction that yields correct results (or close to correct) is better for me so that I do not have to keep trying to get that one soldier into cover no matter how hard I try. I want that unit to take over (and use training that should be inherent to the unit) the responsibility of this from me so that I can enjoy the experience.

I will never play this game with much skill. I realise this even after playing CMBB/CMAK for the last 6 years. My PBEM score against random people is about 1-6-4. Not great. I also realise that many of you are very good at this and having served in the military has given you the insight of what is all needed to play this game. I will never have this and never will. I just want an enjoyable experience that I can play for a few hours on a weekend and come away feeling that I have had some fun. A little bit more abstraction for me = more fun.

So after all that, can I just have a little mouse-over telling me how much firepower I can direct against a unit and how effective it will be, even if it is not 100% realistic?

[Other Means]

I've never been in the military either. Your guys will take cover as well as they can given the incoming fire and available cover. In woods they get behind trees, they line up along berms etc.

As to firepower I agree - it would be nice. But then how do you calculate it? For a blue squad they have a Javalin, M16s, under-slung grenade launchers etc. All or none of which they could use. So the complexity of what is being simulated prevents simple solutions.

I'd like to see it myself - hopefully for Normandy.

[Canada Guy]

Don't get me wrong. I understand that just because I find it difficult does not mean that BF does not have to change the paradigm (and do not shoot me for using that word ) for its game engine.

I said in another thread that just an indication that what I am doing was great, good, OK or bad (maybe with stars or colours or some other indication) instead of straight percentages might also work if that makes it easier but I have a feeling that if the game engine can do that, it can just as easily show the percentage.

It would be harder if the unit is armed with different weapons but it was done in some ways in CMx1 (e.g. units armed with Panzerfausts or grenade bundles and rifles) so I think it is doable again. There may then have to be different sorts of firing but they have already modeled this to some degree.

I also hope to see something in Normandy. But even though I am bad, I am still a sucker for this game. I will buy the Brits and the 3rd module and Normandy, and Bagaration. While I do not like everything about the game, it is evolving into something that I will enjoy and it is still one of the best games out there. We complain because we care. Apathy would be worse.