Questions about WWII infantry for CMx2

[Lanzfeld]

Adam,

Not sure what your goal is posting like that but...

Foxholes MAY be made to have FOW but we are not sure yet.

Trenches are not going to get "fixed" so they have FOW. Not a deal breaker as you can have a big complex trench system and the attacker will not have a clue as to where in that trench system you are defending.

[Battlefront.com]

c3k,

Why not have a "vehicle" which is a flat square, oh, say about 8m x 8m, immobile, and very flat? With different skins, VERY close to the terrain skins... And the "vehicle" can park on top of the existing mesh. When LOS exists to the "vehicle" it, err, disappears. No mesh-messing; just vehicle modding...

Not sure I understand you there, but I'm sure it's a "no"

Adam,

Knowing where the enemy is is like, the whole battle, once you have sufficient firepower such as aviation or artillery. Things that are in high supply on modern battlefields, for example, or in Normandy.

Incorrect. If that were the case then every battle in Normandy would have been an overwhelming victory as soon as the first US soldier spotted something. Obviously that's not the case, so such a claim is obviously false.

You guys have got to understand that there are already major problems with FoW and enemy positions before you even boot up a game. For example, the attacker always knows that there will be a defender, and vice versa. The defender can be pretty sure where the attacker will come from, despite the reality of uncertainty in real life. The defender knows that the attacker MUST press home his attack because, unlike real war, the attacker isn't going to call off the assault when it appears surprise is going to get the better of him. The defender with full CMx1 FoW was unrealistically protected and the attacker was unrealistically hindered from having some idea of where the enemy was. So on and so forth. Yet all of these problems are apparently not an issue for you, or most gamers, simply because you accept the fact that this is a game and games inherently have certain "givens" in order from them to work.

As I've already argued, the chances that a Rifle Company would bumble into such a well organized nest of resistance, with ZERO intel about what is where and how much, is absurd. Two Battalions struggled for 2 days against a very small force within a very small geographical area over and STILL didn't take all the enemy positions. Do you really believe for 2 days they didn't know where the enemy was or that they somehow weren't able to use artillery or other combined arms that even you say they should have had in abundance? If you want to argue realism you must concede these points or I can't take your arguments seriously.

Now, if you want to argue that FoW defenses are more "fun" within the context of the game, fine... that's an argument I won't dispute at all. But since you're arguing that the ENTIRE game fails on the point of realism (even meeting engagements and Germans attacking, let's not forget) then you've overextended your position to be something unsupportable by historical facts.

If I were in your position, and I realize you vehemently disagree with this, I would basically do whatever it takes to get FOW back, even if that means leaving off 3d deformable terrain for now. It's just not worth the loss. It's one of those things that (quite correctly, I think) make CMx2 "Fundamentally Broken." Charles did a good job on getting infantry to acceptable levels. I think we might even be at beta stage now for CMx2 in general. Congrats - lol.

Mountains out of molehills. Gamers have the luxury of putting blinders on and ignoring the ramifications. Gamers also have a wonderful way of presuming, quite egotistically, that their sense of priorities should apply to EVERYBODY. In other words, "listen to me... I'm the most important person here... ignore everybody else". It's understandable and, to a large extent, unavoidable for people to behave this way. But this is not a game designed by Aadm, nor is it a game designed by committee. So at some point you have to accept that your vision of things may not align with ours and either accept it, and enjoy the product that comes from it, or reject it and spend your time doing something more productive. I've laid it out to you like this before, and yet you keep coming back. That tells us something even if you don't mean it to.

Something has to be done about defenders not having a place to hide if you want a shred of realism. Graphics and minute gains in small arms don't cover for the lack of it.

Your logic is inherently flawed and the importance you attach to this is definitely blown out of context. Definitely hubris which can be largely ignored. Even if we did exactly as you requested, I'm sure you'd be right back at us with some other "the game can't be played unless..." argument. So why should we bother trying to please someone who has shown no interest in being satisfied?

I say "largely" because despite your drama, there is some truth to what you write. And I've acknowledged that many times already. Therefore, we will try to get FoW for foxholes. Trenches are not negotiable and will remain as they are. That's not coming from me, that's coming from the guy who has to program the stuff so arguing with me is futile anyway.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[hcrof]

Hate to say this Adam but I enjoy playing as red in multiplayer. Why? because its a challenge! (and I love defending)

More often than not I win due to deception, surprise and a mobile defence. I think you are trying to take the Americans head on, which is always a mistake

[c3k]

Expanding on what I meant from above...

Given that the terrain mesh must be identical for both sides and trenches, etc., deform the terrain mesh, why not approach the task of hiding the trench from a different direction? The terrain mesh cannot be changed. Instead of messing with terrain, ADD a unit.

I was thinking more in line of a type of camo netting. A camo net which smoothly covers the underlying tile.

Call the camo net a "vehicle" for in-game purposes, or for this thought experiment. The difference is that the spotting rules would be reversed. As long as the "camo net vehicle" is NOT in LOS, it is visible. It, in effect, hides the underlying terrain mesh. Once a friendly unit gets LOS to the enemy "camo net vehicle" it becomes UNSPOTTED; it evaporates. Permanently.

Sure there are problems there; floating icons being the most obvious.

My point being, don't try to change the terrain mesh, just try to hide it from view. Use a non-terrain based methodology.

Thoughts?

Ken

[BlackMoria]

Well, I guess I'd like to see more effort go into solving the problem, instead of pretending there isn't one, or that it is only marginal. It is a big issue. It's big enough that there are plenty of us who think that CMAK would do a better job at simulating Normandy on the whole than the new one.

I could be wrong, you know. I do know that I cannot setup a competitive mutliplayer campaign or scenario in CMSF, period. The scrapes don't protect, and the trenches are too obvious. Blue wins every time. Every time.

Are you throwing the gauntlet down on that last statement? Because there would be a long line of other forum members who would be willing to challenge your assertion and hand you your blue ass in a online game. Blue does not win everytime....

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[flamingknives]

I suppose that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I rather like all the new things that the CMX2 engine has bought. I think that it adds more than it loses in terrain FOW.

That said, I'd like to see c3k's idea implemented, but I don't think it could be implemented well enough to satisfy the hardcore. I'd be quite happy to have trenches/foxholes difficult to see at a moderate distance but there are plenty here who would not see that as acceptable. I wouldn't presume to say that Adam is one but he shares a similar mindset from what I have read.

It remains that the best way of limiting the FOW issue to to refrain from flying around on your invisible magic carpet. Doing so gives you way more information than the commander on the ground would have had. If the Allied commanders had this ability they would have shortened the war quite significantly, especially in sight-restricted terrain like Bocage.

[JonS]

As I've already argued, the chances that a Rifle Company would bumble into such a well organized nest of resistance, with ZERO intel about what is where and how much, is absurd.

True, but there are other ways to convey info to the player, all of which are optional, and can be controlled and nuanced as much as the designer likes. Having the engine deliberately disclose information is a bit jarring.

Two Battalions struggled for 2 days against a very small force

The German force is reported as being a battalion, I think. Probably a depleted battalion, to be sure, but then so were the US forces.

Do you really believe for 2 days they didn't know where the enemy was

Beyond "over there somewhere about 100 yards away" or "I think there's an MG or three in the next hedgerow. Also, we're getting mortar fire from somewhere"? Yes. I do believe that. How else can we fully explain the failure of the US forces.

I can logically rationalise 'knowing' that there's an enemy company in an area 250m x 250m (or 300x300 to allow for uncertainty and fudge). But knowing where individual men are to within a single metre? Not so much.

or that they somehow weren't able to use artillery or other combined arms that even you say they should have had in abundance?

Those are, respectively, scenario designer and player skill issues

Sydney Jary in "18 Platoon" relates another example, also from Normandy but in more open terrain, where his entire battalion was pinned down at reasonably close range (1-200m) for an entire day (roughly, 1000 through till 1900, maybe later) by an estimated six German MGs. 'Estimated' because they never were able to identify the location of any of the MGs - they broke contact and got clean away.

It remains that the best way of limiting the FOW issue to to refrain from flying around on your invisible magic carpet. Doing so gives you way more information than the commander on the ground would have had. If the Allied commanders had this ability they would have shortened the war quite significantly, especially in sight-restricted terrain like Bocage.

This is a very good, if not very practical, point.

Regards

Jon

[akd]

Hoolaman,

Bunkers already are "vehicles". As I've explained before, the terrain mesh must be disturbed if they cut into the ground. It's the mesh that's the issue here, so putting something in the ground means deforming the mesh. However, it is technically possible to set the top of a bunker on a non-deformed mesh. This would mean that anybody inside would basically have ground cutting through their shoulders, since the terrain would still be there. It's an ugly work around, but we're not sure how ugly. It might not be "too ugly" to consider. It's already on the list so we'll see

Open trenches and foxholes... nope, not going to work for all the reasons already stated.

Steiner14,

As explained before, 2D trenches aren't something we are considering for a variety of reasons. Not even as an option.

Steve

Steve,

The bunkers in CMSF are more of the command or observation type, rather than fighting position type. That big gaping open front would be a huge problem. German bunkers typically had very small embrasures, and this combined with the relative darkness inside would mean that any clipping issues would negligible. Frankly, the only way you should know if a bunker is occupied is if there is a weapon firing from it. Being able to see inside is irrevelant, especially since they are not "structures" that can be entered and cleared by both sides. From a looks standpoint, setting the bunker in a non-deformed mesh rather than excavating the hillside would probably be more realistic.

Concrete MG bunker:

Log and earth MG bunker:

The simple ringstand was another common MG bunker, and could perhaps also be handled as a vehicle while not deforming the terrain mesh (with a soldier exposed when "opened up" using the weapon on the ringstand, and invisible and protected when "closed up," unless the bunker was directly destroyed).

Exposed "tobruk"

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/2702516.jpg

[McIvan]

Regarding intel on enemy positions, there's a big difference between knowing that there are enemy positions in a wood, and knowing where they are so exactly that you can, right from the word go, bring down pinpoint area fire to the metre.

You want to pass on scouting intellligence or earlier contact reports? Do it in the briefing.

Meantime in the real world new 3-4 man fighting positions have been dug, units have shifted, light minefields laid at night, wire laid to channel attackers. It's not the same as when your scouts saw it last...and they only saw a few anyway, it being dark, the positions being camouflaged, and the enemy deployed in depth over kilometres....far further than you could ever scout. This idea, expressed by one other poster, that all you'd have to do would be to scout for a few hours and you'd know where all the enemy positions are is complete fantasy that had nothing to do with WWII. Agressive patrolling/scouting over several nights or a week (or even weeks) might give you a decent picture where the initial enemy line was and knowledge of some forward defences. It's not going to help you any further back than that, especially with strongpoint defences could go for 5-10 kilometres in depth, not to mention all the hasty defences thrown up over a couple of hours to contain enemy penetrations.

All through the war rifle companies routinely walked into fire from from previously unknown and unseen enemy positions. All you had to do, for that to happen, was to break the intial outpost line and get further into the defences than your scouts had managed. Even if they had been scouted, the odds of losing your bearings in combat were sky high. You might have the knowledge that the enemy holds that treeline, or those buildings....but where are they exactly? Maybe we know that there is a log bunker set back thirty metres or so to the right of that large tree. What is further back in the woods? Mortar positions, certainly. What else? No idea.

That's why lack of FOW is a huge problem. I think it is acknowledged as a problem, but these flailing attempts to unrealistically minimise the problem are are bit over the top.

[akd]

Buried "tobruk"

most common 50mm AT bunker:

common 75mm AT bunker:

[akd]

Squad bunkers were typically not fighting positions, but rather shelters, and the only embrasure was set deep inside to protect the main entrance. Sometimes they did have "tobruk" type observation/MG ringstands on top, but generally a squad inside would be invisible and protected, exiting to defend the position from open field works.

very common "type 501" for a single squad:

Plan views:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/afv/pdfs/bunkers501-502.pdf

Probably log/earth bunkers here:

The problem I see is handling the bunker exit (save for the 501 type), as this could very well be partially or fully covered by the mesh. I suppose exiting could be abstracted with the occupants simply appearing on the point of ground closest to the exit door.

As I've already argued, the chances that a Rifle Company would bumble into such a well organized nest of resistance, with ZERO intel about what is where and how much, is absurd. Two Battalions struggled for 2 days against a very small force within a very small geographical area over and STILL didn't take all the enemy positions. Do you really believe for 2 days they didn't know where the enemy was or that they somehow weren't able to use artillery or other combined arms that even you say they should have had in abundance? If you want to argue realism you must concede these points or I can't take your arguments seriously.

Everything I've read suggest that total lack of knowledge of German positions was typical, and that the chances US units would stumble upon an organized nest of resistance were very high. That more than anything else is what uniquely characterized fighting in the Bocage. Also, the Germans were very prone to displacing to fallback positions (or laterally), so even a previous encounter did not guaruntee knowledge of a position. I wouldn't even go so far as to say that either side could expect the enemy to be in a particular direction. I recall a company of the 29th ID was nearly destroyed when Germans overran their position in the night from down the road the Americans had just advanced on earlier that day. The hedgerows and sunken roads greatly facililated movement around the flanks of the opposition and movements could easily go undetected.

However, I agree with your other points.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Gpig]

Adam, reading from the sidelines, I read where Steve agreed it's an issue. He agreed it was an really important issue. He did not say it sucked, but that it was unavoidable. He gave many reasons why it was unavoidable.

It seems from your above post that you want him to tell you he will do whatever he can to fix the problem. But he already knows that with the limitations he's facing (staff, game engine, what have you) the answer to FOW trenches is NO. So would you rather he lie to you and say "we'll do whatever we can?" Or would you rather hear the truth?

Gpig

[akd]

Maybe Adam wants Steve to promise to cancel the game if they don't find perfect solutions?

[McIvan]

Steve has been heard loud and clear on what's possible and what isn't.

What we're having now is an argument about how big a problem it is, which is quite separate from whether it can be fixed

We like having these kinds of arguments. At least, I do.

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

It is also a strawman, since nobody suggested that at all.

I'm only indicating that your line of argument, such as this:

"Something has to be done about defenders not having a place to hide if you want a shred of realism. "

is demonstrably false. Therefore, your conclusions are flawed. Not that you don't have a point, since I've already agreed with it many times over, rather you have carried your point too far to support conclusions that simply aren't supportable.

For one, we're talking about your game, not real life. In your game, once player A knows where Player B is, he calls artillery and kills player B. It's that simple. Do you want a competitive game or not?

Yes, and we already have that despite the lack of FoW on trenches and that Blue is technologically superior to Red and anything in WW2. Which again proves that your argument is fictional more than fact.

Two, they didn't know where the enemy was to the degree that you do in any game of CM.

You know this for a fact? And what difference does it make if they know the enemy is along a certain hedgerow? According to your logic they just bring down artillery on that hedgerow and the war is over. Why do they need to know where each dugout actually is if artillery is as powerful as you claim it to be? So what you're really arguing here is that the US forces in Normandy never saw had an inkling where the German opponents because they weren't able to slaughter them with artillery.

Three, fortifications and field works were far more effective at protecting infantry than they are in your game.

We've had this discussion with you before and it always goes nowhere.

I'm saying that CMAK can create competitive Normandy scenarios for players to fight with one another, and also create reliably accurate results in the simulation. CMx2 can not, falls far short of that, and it is mostly because of this problem with firepower dominance and omniscient attackers. Stop pretending otherwise.

Oh, sorry. I forgot that everything you say is 100% accurate, like your latest rant about 120mm cannon fire in CM:SF not causing friendly casualties.

In the end it's your OPINION and not a fact. You place no value in my opinion, so I'm not sure why I should fall over myself thinking you're a source worth listening to.

Or, put your money where your mouth is. Give me attacker odds and the artillery support said battalions actually had, and I will give you a defeat. You can setup as many trenches as you please.

With CM:SF? You are aware that CM:SF isn't set in WW2, right? You can try things for yourself using Red on Red as that gets a bit closer to WW2, but it's still not the same.

When Blue can win a battle by looking at where the trenches are in setup phase, and plan an attack to keep safe ranges and simply call support fires on any field works, what is the point of that?

If you were correct, none at all. But you don't even play CM:SF, so how would you know?

I guess if CMx2 actually represented the way combat works, the war would be over before Christmas. Battalions defending in sectors as dense as Kursk would be slaughtered wholesale by the amounts of artillery available.

Why do you think you have posters on here and elsewhere suggesting that scenario designers must artificially reduce the amount of artillery available for players and try not to create pitched fights? Hint: It's not because your fortification and trench system is a good one.

Then why are so many posters NOT taking your extreme viewpoint on this issue? I suppose they're all suckups and you're the only one with integrity?

The truth is that in real life if Blue has that kind of stuff available, Red would realistically be toast. There's an excellent example of a trench system set up by the Iraqis in defense of Najaf. Something like 300 Iraqis were slaughtered by artillery and Apache helicopters. Blue casualties? None. I saw a presentation by the Battalion CO about this, but what the Hell does he know about fortifications?

BTW, it's the same in CMx1 as well. Play a battle in CMAK where the attacker has a huge amount of artillery available. If the attacker isn't a complete knob, he'd probe until he found your positions, pull back and wait until the artillery has done its work.

Especially when designers have blinders on and ignore the ramifications of their own systems.

Not ignorant, no blinders. We knew exactly what we did when we did it. The tradeoffs are worth it, even if your opinion is the opposite. The problem is you're definition of "ramifications" is so extreme and unreasonably formed that it can't be taken seriously. You have ZERO interest in having a debate about this. As per previous conversations with you, you take an impossibly high ground to defend and then refuse to engage in a meaningful debate. Then you throw a tantrum and leave, only to come back again after you've cooled down, yet with the same pissy attitude. Believe me, it's not gone unnoticed as posters have noted here and in at least one other thread going on right now.

Let us make this perfectly clear: A game you designed 10 years ago simulated concealed defenses, a key part of German defensive doctrine implemented and used successfully to counter the American/Allied enormous odds edge in firepower. The game you designed 2 years ago does not, and still won't in a year when Normandy comes out. And you lecture me about blinders.

Let's talk about blinders. You think this is the single most important issue in the entire game system. It's not. Not even close. But you have your attention fixated on this one issue and you won't let go of it no matter what. You're not only blind, you're fanatic. This is exhibited every time you make a snide comment about nothing in CMx2 being better than CMx1, then ducking when it gets tossed back at you that such a statement is ridiculous. You lack credibility as a reasonable critic.

Oh come off your high horse and stop lecturing me about ego. You will have to get over this tendancy to psycho-analyze away anything you disagree with if you're ever going to learn a damned thing about anything.

I simply state what is going on... you're not interested in an honest debate because you lack perspective and the willingness to do so. I've clearly stated that what we have isn't perfect, but that's clearly

It's not unnoticed btw, that you completely fail to analyze posts you agree with or that are helpful to your cause. You are extremely partisan, and you consistently fail to the ad hominem fallacy when people point out your mistakes. I think you spend more time talking about people personally and doing your parental lecture "I've told you all a millions times" style mini essays than you do actually talking about the issues.

I give back what is given to me. If you think I'm lecturing you as a child, perhaps it is because you are ACTING LIKE ONE. I'm certainly not alone wondering why someone with such disdain for the game, and obviously for me, keeps sticking around here. You clearly are not interested in the opinions of others when they conflict with yours. You clearly aren't interested in the CMx2 game engine, even, so as has been asked all the previous times you've gone off the deep end...

WHY ARE YOU HERE?

Unlike you, I have to be here. And when I'm not, people start speculating that I'm running away from discussions, don't care about the game, or whatever else negative people come up with. Which is a problem since I can't be here all the time because I've got other things to do with my time.

Furthermore, what I'd be doing is not even an issue. Would you not fix a problem with T-55's being immune to M1's if by fixing it, the player reporting the issue might raise some other problem later on?

Sure, but this isn't the same issue. This is akin to people telling us the game is unplayable because of map edges or because they can use Area Fire anywhere on the map. There are tons of limitations in the CMx1 game engine that you don't have a problem with, some of which are IMHO vastly worse than this issue you're making such an overblown big deal over. Yet you pretend those problems don't exist because, well, because then you'd have to admit that perhaps you are

CMAK will remain the better Normandy game without the deformable terrain. Which is fine by me, I've already paid for it.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. So why are you posting here and not the CMAK Forum?

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Steiner14]

The main problem i see is the predictability, if most of the defensive positions are always visible from the beginning.

I can understand, why Steve doesn't want to invest too much labour into spottable trenches because of the reasons he explained.

But if one thing is out of scope, maybe a kind of (easier to implement) substitution can help to go into the same direction?

1. Spotting option for foxholes.

Steve already stated, they will have a look into making foxholes spotable. If that can be achieved maybe it can also be achieved, to give the scenario designer the option to define which foxholes should be visible from the beginning and which ones need to be spotted.

2. Spotting option for bunkers.

Log and earth MG bunker:

Offering a flat bunker-abstraction for that kind of bunker. A bunker-object that does not change the underlying terrain, just sit's as very flat spottable "vehicle" on the terrain.

Again the scenario designer can decide, if he want's it being visible from the beginning or being spotable.

[Wengart]

I would just like to say that if the defenses are large enough FOW becomes a smaller problem than if the trench is only a few meters in length. Just as an example of this, in the scenario A Bridge too Far there is a fairly extensive trench system that was still able to cause serious problems; especially, because the trench system could of fit a much larger force.

And this probably wouldn't work at all but could you make a terrain piece that consists of a hedgerow with a trench inside of it? Alternatively, since All that really needs to be done is to make the trenches kinda hard to see at long and medium range. Possibly putting actual camo netting on to the terrain piece would obscure it enough? Even if we could see a bump on the ground it would be negligible when the player is observing the game in flying carpet mode.

[Dietrich]

what you're really arguing here is that the US forces in Normandy never saw had an inkling where the German opponents because they weren't able to slaughter them with artillery.

Statiscally, artillery was the casualty-inflicting weapon in WW2. Hence one of the key reasons for camouflaging fighting positions of any sort -- without camouflage, the enemy can spot you (perhaps even before you spot him) and just call down artillery on you.

The un-camouflaged-ness of fortifications was much more a factor in Theatre of War, wherein the attacking AI would bombard whatever trenches were on the map, so that I learned to set up my troops well back from the fortifications, wait for the opening bombardment to cease, then hustle them forward to take their positions in the trenches. (The trenches afforded minimal protection from artillery and only somewhat better protection from direct fire.)

in real life if Blue has that kind of stuff available, Red would realistically be toast. There's an excellent example of a trench system set up by the Iraqis in defense of Najaf. Something like 300 Iraqis were slaughtered by artillery and Apache helicopters. Blue casualties? None.

Thanks in large part to the available artillery and air assets, I completed the second mission of the TF Thunder campaign with 3 WIA, 0 KIA.

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

May I be so bold as to steer the conversation of this thread back towards talking about WW2 infantry (and not just what sorts of earthworks they did or didn't get killed in)?

As regards CMx2, might we see infantry of different nationalities fighting at least somewhat like they did IRL? For example, a German Grenadier squad in the defense using pretty much just its MG-34/-42 at normal ranges, with the riflemen and MP40-armed Gruppenführer joining in against targets appearing suddenly at close range (or all firing as able with a specific Target order)?

[Battlefront.com]

JonS,

True, but there are other ways to convey info to the player, all of which are optional, and can be controlled and nuanced as much as the designer likes. Having the engine deliberately disclose information is a bit jarring.

No argument there I've made this point several times myself, in fact. I don't like this any more than any of you, but I like the alternatives less. I also disagree with Adam's "The Sky Has Already Fallen But I'm Too Stupid To Know It" line of argument. It's an issue, at times a very significant issue, but the worth of the game as a whole doesn't rest on this one feature.

Beyond "over there somewhere about 100 yards away" or "I think there's an MG or three in the next hedgerow. Also, we're getting mortar fire from somewhere"? Yes. I do believe that. How else can we fully explain the failure of the US forces.

Keep in mind that knowing there is a dugout here or there doesn't tell you what is in it if you can't actually see the unit firing. Nor can you even be sure something is in it.

I can logically rationalise 'knowing' that there's an enemy company in an area 250m x 250m (or 300x300 to allow for uncertainty and fudge). But knowing where individual men are to within a single metre? Not so much.

See above point. Even if we don't have a way of hiding foxholes, which I've already said is something I'm hoping won't be an issue, there is still uncertainty. Not as much as there should be, granted, but it's there.

The problem with Adam's line of reasoning is that as soon as the US forces found a particular hedgerow defended that they could wipe it clean of defenders within a few minutes. No fuss, no muss, no casualties to their side. Clearly that isn't what happened in the real battle, nor the campaign as a whole. Knowing that there is enemy along a 30m stretch of hedgerow (as shown in that map JasonC posted) doesn't mean automatic elimination as Adam claims.

Those are, respectively, scenario designer and player skill issues

And inherent limitations in the effects of the weapons used at the time.

Sydney Jary in "18 Platoon" relates another example, also from Normandy but in more open terrain, where his entire battalion was pinned down at reasonably close range (1-200m) for an entire day (roughly, 1000 through till 1900, maybe later) by an estimated six German MGs. 'Estimated' because they never were able to identify the location of any of the MGs - they broke contact and got clean away.

Quite. This is where a game inherently breaks from reality. No gamer would ever sit around playing a game for 24 hours, or so, without moving to find out where the enemy is. Nor sitting around for even 10 minutes

It remains that the best way of limiting the FOW issue to to refrain from flying around on your invisible magic carpet. Doing so gives you way more information than the commander on the ground would have had. If the Allied commanders had this ability they would have shortened the war quite significantly, especially in sight-restricted terrain like Bocage.

>>This is a very good, if not very practical, point.

Yes, and that is again a limitation of a game vs. reality. People, like Adam, are so quick to find fault with the things they wish to find fault with, but are reluctant to see that they are arguing from an inherently weak position. To have such absolute, uncompromising view of FoW trenches seems surprising in the face of so many other VERY big, bad, pervasive gameplay breaks with reality. For example, I'd rank map edges far higher up than FoW terrain in terms of breaking with reality. The player as God is the worst of all breaks with reality. If Adam is so concerned about FoW terrain, then I'm surprised he's able to come to terms with the other things which are far, far worse in terms of breaking reality.

AKD,

The bunkers in CMSF are more of the command or observation type, rather than fighting position type. That big gaping open front would be a huge problem. German bunkers typically had very small embrasures, and this combined with the relative darkness inside would mean that any clipping issues would negligible.

I'm thinking the same thing. A few days ago I was talking to Charles about getting subterranean bunkers (you can fudge them in CM:SF now, but it is difficult) and I'm prepared to have clipping issues if that's what it takes to get this functionality.

Keep in mind that the German forest bunker has about 50-60 years of growth on it. I'm sure it was easier to see back in 1944.

McIvan,

Regarding intel on enemy positions, there's a big difference between knowing that there are enemy positions in a wood, and knowing where they are so exactly that you can, right from the word go, bring down pinpoint area fire to the metre.

Granted. Nobody, not even me , is arguing that this would be the case 100% of the time. I'm simply arguing the opposite, which appears to get lost in this debate, that it's not true that 100% of the time their positions are completely unknown.

You want to pass on scouting intellligence or earlier contact reports? Do it in the briefing.

That doesn't work for QB games, but it is correct that SOME information can be conveyed in the briefing. However, after the experience of CM:SF we're trying to not use the briefings for such things to the extent possible. It seems most people don't like reading them, which then makes them clueless about their ingame tasks, which in turn has them reporting problems that really aren't there. Mostly concerning mission related expectations.

That's why lack of FOW is a huge problem. I think it is acknowledged as a problem, but these flailing attempts to unrealistically minimise the problem are are bit over the top.

No flailing... I'm trying to introduce perspective. That is something which I've got the unfortunate duty of having to bring into a conversation like this. For example... there isn't a "lack of FoW". There's a lack of FoW for trenches and, hopefully not, foxholes. Bunkers are already subject to FoW, obviously units are as well. So it's simply not true that just because you see some foxholes and trenches that there isn't uncertainty, surprise, and friendly casualties. It's already proven in CM:SF right now, and that's in an arid environment without nearly as much cover as would be present in the average CM: Normandy battle.

In short, it is a problem... but it isn't a game breaker. It's something that has more impact on some battles more than others, true enough, but in some battles (meeting engagements, for example) it isn't even a factor at all.

Steve

[Runaway!!!]

If I, as an attacker can see fox holes, trenches and the displaced 3D environment from bunker positions, the game is lacking.

If I don't physically see planes dropping out of the sky to release their ordinance, the game is lacking.

If I also don't see those planes getting shot out of the sky and falling to the Earth like a comet and leaving behind a crater filled with smoldering wreckage, the game is lacking.

If I don't see Tiger tanks running out of gas in the first half hour of combat and thus becoming useless field decorations, the game is lacking.

I'm serious.