Questions about WWII infantry for CMx2

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

More personal attacks and psycho analyzing. Not interested. Grow up boy.

Yup, it's all my doing. Look at how I just ripped JonS and McIvan a new set of a-holes for daring to disagree with me. So obviously you're behavior has nothing to do with my response to you at all. Especially since you've never thrown tantrums before, nor ever made statements which show nothing but contempt. My bad.

And again you dodged the question that is asked every other time you've flipped out (it's just a matter of time with you, haven't you noticed?)...

WHY ARE YOU HERE?

Steve

[akd]

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.

Oh yes, I posted that as an example of small embrasure and virtually invisible interior, not typical camouflage (although the Germans were quite thorough in that regard). Also, would it be possible to have MGs tied to the occupying unit rather than the bunker, so that when the unit vacates the bunker, they take the MG with them?

[Battlefront.com]

Steiner14,

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

Yup, that's definitely the key issue. We can at least prevent the attacker from seeing them during Setup, which is pretty important IMHO. Especially in WW2 where Forward Observers don't grow on trees like they do in the modern Blue environment.

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

Cool, I finally fooled someone!! The real reasons are, of course, that we don't think FoW is important and that we're really, really lazy

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.

Possibly. The other thing we already offer is the chance of things being spotted somewhat randomly. This works out best for QBs where there isn't an explicit scenario designer setting things up for the players.

2. Spotting option for bunkers.

Remember, bunkers are already hidden/shown depending on FoW. The player who wants to tool around at Camera 1 position looking for signs of them might find them, of course, but otherwise they're not visible when the game starts until they are spotted individually.

Obviously if we can come up with a type of bunker that doesn't deform terrain, that takes care of all of the problems. I am an advocate of this type of bunker, even with visual problems, simply because it's very difficult to connect bunkers to trenches at the moment. One should be able to do that far more easily than is allowed now.

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.

Yes, and conversely the less artillery Blue has, or the more restricted it is, the more of a problem those fixed defenses will be regardless of knowing where they are.

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.

Inherently this doesn't fix anything. The idea of "camo netting" is the same as the "lid" concept and it isn't technically feasible.

Dietrich,

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.

True, but the statistics show the corollary... even with care taken to camouflage positions, eventually the enemy figures out where you are and rains down death and destruction. Otherwise if camouflage worked so well the proportion of casualties from small arms fire would be much, much higher as a percentage.

Runaway!!

Sadly, that's exactly what happens. Someone latches onto a pet peeve and distorts its importance out of context, then makes a big fuss about it when he's told he's doing that. The forum is rife with such things. Always has been, in fact. After all, the hundreds of thousands of posts about CMx1 games weren't all flattering "everything is perfect" discussions The Bren Tripod "debate" caps them all IMHO!

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

AKD,

Oh yes, I posted that as an example of small embrasure and virtually invisible interior, not typical camouflage (although the Germans were quite thorough in that regard). Also, would it be possible to have MGs tied to the occupying unit rather than the bunker, so that when the unit vacates the bunker, they take the MG with them?

Already in the game When we designed bunkers for CMx2 this was an explicit capability. However, we do have some heavy weapons "fixed" to the bunkers because withdrawal with them would not likely happen. That's a decision that we can easily switch around. In fact, designers should be able to do that right now by using empty bunkers and stationing HMGs or other units in them.

Steve

[Wengart]

Oh, actually with the whole flying on our magic carpet stuff. Would it be possible to allow an option for camera restrictions where you could not move the camera farther than X Meters horizontally and like Y Meters vertically from the unit you have currently selected. I hijacked this idea from the Total War games, since they have a camera option where you can not go a certain distance from the commander of your army.

[Gpig]

Wengart, that seems like a pretty cool idea. It could be tied to IRONMAN mode of play, if unpalatable to the mainstream players.

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

So I wonder why you keep asking. Are you asking me to leave or what?

No, but I honestly think it would be better for you personally if you did. Yes, I know you think I'm psycho-analyzing you again, but you clearly are not happy with CMx2, it's direction forward, nor with me personally. I can think of dozens of reasons for you to log off and do SOMETHING else with your time, but I can't think of a single reason why you'd want to continue wasting your precious little time on this Earth on something that obviously annoys you so damned much. You're young and still think you've got endless amounts of time ahead of you... hopefully you won't learn the hard way that is not even remotely true.

I know I wouldn't be here if I weren't being paid to be here.

Why do you keep asking me when I've already told you twice now that I enjoy the discussions here? (Discussions that have nothing to do with you, or CMSF, btw.)

How can you have a discussion here about CMx2 features and have it NOT have something to do with CM and me? This is a forum about CM:SF/x2 and I am really the only one of you all that can speak with any authority about it, so I find it hardly plausible that your statement is true. If you want to talk about historical stuff, without the CM context or a debate with me it's designer, then you're in the wrong place. There are hundreds of other places to go and have discussions without either CM or me being involved, so again... why are you here?

So far I haven't seen anything other than personal attacks and abuse from you in here. You have to realize I have zero respect for you.

Really? I couldn't tell. And if you can only see personal attacks in what I've written, you're worse off than I thought.

I think you're one of the most emotional and invective members of this forum.

Right.

I'm not here for YOU.

Never thought that for a minute since you've already shown that you feel superior to me in every way.

But again... why are you here? Your answer thus far makes no sense.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, I missed this beauty from Adam...

"Hi, I realize this is a really important thing, it sucks how it is now. We really have to do something about this, and will do whatever we can"

That's exactly what I said before you started going off on your latest tear. The thing that flipped your switch is that I said that, in perspective, it isn't something that kills the entire game as you believe it does. I'm sorry that pisses you off so much.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Wengart,

Oh, actually with the whole flying on our magic carpet stuff. Would it be possible to allow an option for camera restrictions where you could not move the camera farther than X Meters horizontally and like Y Meters vertically from the unit you have currently selected. I hijacked this idea from the Total War games, since they have a camera option where you can not go a certain distance from the commander of your army.

This idea has been around since the early CMBO days as a possible solution around a host of FoW/God problems that are inherent with a game such as CM. The problem is we'd have to specifically support such a feature with a lot of complementary features. We have not felt it worth the time for the expected amount of use such a feature set would get. Therefore, it's a really good idea (I would love to see it as well), but it isn't going to happen any time soon due to competition for development resources.

Steve

[stikkypixie]

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

I think I see what you mean? Maybe a camouflage netting unit, to put on all trenches making them harder to see. It might alleviate the problem, but won't solve it, but I'm sure you know that . Would be cool though.

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

You still don't get it. I don't want a personal discussion with you.

You don't get to choose who talks to you on a Forum, no more than I do. Grow up and deal with that.

I was talking about trenches in CM.

And yet you just said you weren't here to talk about CM, hence my confusion.

I don't need to address your attempt to make it into a personal drama.

Yes, I understand... you want to bash CMx2 and not challenged on that. It's clear.

I have no interest in you or your posts on a personal level. Sorry.

Sure you do or you wouldn't react the way you do.

Again, I don't understand why you are here. You don't want to talk about CM without getting yourself into a state, nor do you want to talk to me the only person that can actually do something about any issues you raise. Pardon me if I don't think you are being very honest with your answers.

Steve

[c3k]

Great gadzooks! While we have both Adam and Steve here, um, how about my "Camo Net Vehicle" idea? Yeah, it needs a bit of flesh, but it has this attribute: the terrain mesh is not distorted or changed.

Since I posted it an hour or two ago (or 4 pages or so), here it is again:

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

So, the trench is there. The mesh shows the trench. BUT, the "camo net" overlays the trench such that the enemy player can't see the trench. The "camo net" is treated as being visible until such a time as it is spotted. Hence, the vehicle spot routines get used. They just get flipped on their head; once the camo net is in LOS, it disappears.

This can be used for bunkers. Bunker get spotted as they are in CMSF; the terrain deformation under them gets the "camo net" treatment. Spot one, spot the other.

Or is this all totally impossible?

Ken

stikkypixie: exactly! It's not a perfect solution, but it would have the effect of HIDING the existing defensive works. If it can be done...

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

C3K,

Already answered on previous page It's basically the same as the "lid" idea. Definitely not going to happen.

Steve

[Dietrich]

True, but the statistics show the corollary... even with care taken to camouflage positions, eventually the enemy figures out where you are and rains down death and destruction. Otherwise if camouflage worked so well the proportion of casualties from small arms fire would be much, much higher as a percentage.

Indeed. The value of effective camouflage is that to spot the positions, the enemy must get so close as to be well within the effective range of the defender's weaponry. In other words, if the defenders' camouflaging is poor, a stealthy scout team lurking in the brush on the opposite hill can spot the positions and call down artillery on them before the defenders even know the enemy is nearby. If the defenders' camouflaging is good, they can afford to wait for the enemy to get well within range before opening fire (or refrain from firing and just report the enemy movement and possibly even call down harassing artillery of their own).

Could bunkers be stocked with ammo? For instance, if a Grenadier squad of mine is running low on belted 7.92mm ammo, can I send a couple guys (the "anti-tank team" or whatever) back to a nearby bunker to get more? Will tactical resupply be an option in the first place? (I understand that this was simulated in CMx1 by allowing units in a defensive scenario to be given more-than-normal amounts of ammo, as if each had its own ammo stockpile.)

Also, I'm still wondering about whether the squad-level TacAI will reflect national differences in tactics at least somewhat.

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

In hopes of perhaps putting the other skein of this thread in perspective: I purchased Theatre of War and played it fairly extensively. There are things about that game that I like, and several things that I really don't like. I haven't played the game at all since getting CMSF, so I hope it makes sense that I don't troll the ToW forum and belabor my gripes about certain aspects of that game. I just don't bother. I'd rather be involved in constructive discussions about CMSF -- or just play CMSF -- than spend any time bitching about a game that I don't even play. (That said, I do think ToW2 looks rather better than ToW1, and I'm looking forward to trying out the demo. )

Likewise, there are things about CMSF that I'd like to see improved but I don't bother going on and on about them.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[panzermartin]

I think Adam likes CMSF too but his tone is sometimes borderline sarcastic. Add a pinch or two of negativity and you get a quite irritating cocktail. You can't deny that he has spent some time with the game and some of his points are valid. Obvioulsy there is something he likes in it and wants it to see improved. But when every second post of him ends with a "CMx1 is a better game than this..", well its easy for someone to get pissed.

I dont mind about the spotting of trenches really. No big deal since not all of them are occupied actually. However, I have to agree that, apart from the eliminaton of borg spotting, defenders dont have much advantages over the attacker. Entrenched troops dont seem to be able to pull out a stubborn, rugged defensive action, even against lightly armed opposition. I expect trenches and terrain in general to provide a bit more cover and concealment for ambushing troops. Also, shoulnd't units get a bonus if they have occupied a building or a tree line for an hour or so, against an attacking force that barely knows what lies in the next corner? My guess is that the defending force, will perform more effectively in shooting/covering than an advancing unit that has little time to understand the terrain and find good spots or hastily prepare firing positions. Even staying in a building room for 10 more minutes than your opponent coming to get you should be enough for you to drag some furniture to camouflage, protect yourself and pay more attention to approach routes and fields of fire.

I'd love to see a kind of automated "fortifying" for troops staying motionless in certain spots of the map. Since game time is actually compressed real world time, it wont be that unrealistic to add a feature like that. Unit experience should play a major role in the time and quality of the "fortifying".

Generally my infantry gameplay wishes for Normandy are:

- More supression/ less lethality. I find easier to eliminate a squad that just keep its heads down. Less accurate fire but make it have more impact on enemy's moral and fighting ability.

- Harder to kill troops in fortified positions, like trenches, foxholes, buildings, trees etc. A defensive bonus for units staying in a building/terrain spot for over a certain period of time.

The fire and manuever should be highlighted more this way. Now its not hard to face frontally a fortified squad and take it out. In Normandy the supression effects should be greater but you should be able to kill defenders mainly with your flanking/closing team and not with your base of fire. This will bring more manuever and thinking in tactics and less "just rip apart the whole building".

- In accordance to the above point, make advancing troops a little more fragile to incoming grazing fire from MGs. An MG42 should be more of an area denial tool that the current mgs in CMSF.

- Even more self presevation AI of troops. Now troops can be in the middle of an arty barrage and dont mind if shells havent yet landed near enough. Till a shell lands really close to them and wipes them out because they were standing whistling and watching the birds.

- Effects of camouflage nets on AT guns/T hunters/ infantry, MG nests etc. Slightly Harder to spot/identify troops firing from woods, bushes. In CMx1 you could only tell from the sound contact that an MG42 is firing on you from a general direction. I'd like to see the return of this in Normandy.

[stikkypixie]

C3K,

Already answered on previous page It's basically the same as the "lid" idea. Definitely not going to happen.

Steve

Yes but with the "lid" idea, the lid has to fit exactly. A camouflage netting doesn't. It just makes the trenches harder to see than they are now.

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

Steve, you're confused again. I will discuss trenches with you. That doesn't mean I will have a personal discussion with you. Personal attacks are not welcome.

Good, I'm glad that that's all settled. Oh wait...

Nor is your endless psycho-analyzing... you're extremely unqualified for it. It's not just me, how many pages did you spend on Redwolf in this thread while he excercised enormous patience in ignoring you? (Which you took as invitation to bother him some more, on personal scores again. lol.)

Er... you mean the thread where Redwolf called me a liar, a waffler, and someone who was not posting simple answers to questions because I didn't have any? And, as someone clued me into, he was slagging off on me on another Forum while I was offline doing something else. And when I POLITELY proved him wrong on all counts he didn't bothered to acknowledged that he was mistaken? The thread where pretty much everybody called him out for being abusive? That's the thread you are talking about?

You have to get it through your head that you cannot solve arguments or disagreements by personally attacking someone or writing little essays about how people are obsessive or have ego's, or are too young and think time is endless, or whatever cockameemee crap you spout... anything but the substance of the issue. Which was what again? Trenches.

I only resort to pointing out the obvious after a poster has "gone around the bend". Otherwise, why have I singled you out for this attention despite responding to everybody else's criticism without such problems? You really don't think your attitude has nothing to do with your treatment? That starting off a discussion with such obvious contempt, hubris, and hostility isn't really the best way of starting off a calm discussion.

If you want to talk about trenches, go ahead and ask a little straight forward question and I'll answer you. But your personal analysis essays are not welcome nor impressive. And I think they say much more about the writer than the subject.

Aim that right back at you and you might start to see what I'm saying.

Steve

[Other Means]

So, the trench is there. The mesh shows the trench. BUT, the "camo net" overlays the trench such that the enemy player can't see the trench. The "camo net" is treated as being visible until such a time as it is spotted. Hence, the vehicle spot routines get used. They just get flipped on their head; once the camo net is in LOS, it disappears.

This can be used for bunkers. Bunker get spotted as they are in CMSF; the terrain deformation under them gets the "camo net" treatment. Spot one, spot the other.

Or is this all totally impossible?

The camo net going would tell the defender the trench had been spotted.

[panzermartin]

But the defender doesnt see a "camo net" but all his trenches from the start.

[Battlefront.com]

Ali-Baba

I think Adam likes CMSF too but his tone is sometimes borderline sarcastic. Add a pinch or two of negativity and you get a quite irritating cocktail. You can't deny that he has spent some time with the game and some of his points are valid. Obvioulsy there is something he likes in it and wants it to see improved. But when every second post of him ends with a "CMx1 is a better game than this..", well its easy for someone to get pissed.

I hope Adam takes a few seconds to read this because it is exactly why he gets treated the way he does and the rest of you get treated a different way. You might all be disappointed, to some degree or another, with the limitations we have to deal with... yet there aren't the obvious chips on the shoulder as there is with Adam. He said it best... he has no respect for me, nor CMx2... which is why I can't understand why he wastes his time here. If I spent all my time on things that I don't like with people that I don't have respect for, I'd expect that it wouldn't be the best use of my time.

For the record, I'm not pissed. If he really thinks CMx1 is better than CMx2, I have zero problem with that. What I have a problem with is the attitude he brings into discussions like this one. If someone hates the game so much, I really think they should go elsewhere. Plus, contrary to what Adam would like to think, slagging off on CMx2 is absolutely directed at me because I'm the one who has largely designed it and I'm the gatekeeper for design decisions. Eventually my patience runs out and I call someone on it. The reaction I got is telling.

I dont mind about the spotting of trenches really. No big deal since not all of them are occupied actually. However, I have to agree that, apart from the eliminaton of borg spotting, defenders dont have much advantages over the attacker. Entrenched troops dont seem to be able to pull out a stubborn, rugged defensive action, even against lightly armed opposition. I expect trenches and terrain in general to provide a bit more cover and concealment for ambushing troops. Also, shoulnd't units get a bonus if they have occupied a building or a tree line for an hour or so, against an attacking force that barely knows what lies in the next corner?

Yes. They had such bonuses in CMx1 for sure. I honestly can't remember if that's the case in CMx2, but a recent discussion here reminded me of that and I did make a note of it.

- More supression/ less lethality. I find easier to eliminate a squad that just keep its heads down. Less accurate fire but make it have more impact on enemy's moral and fighting ability.

This will happen as a natural result of the different weapon mixes of WW2. The potential for lethality has gone way, way up in the past 50 years.

- Harder to kill troops in fortified positions, like trenches, foxholes, buildings, trees etc. A defensive bonus for units staying in a building/terrain spot for over a certain period of time.

The fire and manuever should be highlighted more this way. Now its not hard to face frontally a fortified squad and take it out. In Normandy the supression effects should be greater but you should be able to kill defenders mainly with your flanking/closing team and not with your base of fire. This will bring more manuever and thinking in tactics and less "just rip apart the whole building".

This has a lot to do with the weapon mix. 40mm grenades, AT-4s, etc. make for a big difference, not to mention the fact that everybody in the Squad has an automatic weapon while in WW2 only a few did.

- In accordance to the above point, make advancing troops a little more fragile to incoming grazing fire from MGs. An MG42 should be more of an area denial tool that the current mgs in CMSF.

Depends on a host of factors, but it's obviously something we can look into when the game is being tested. Since we're going to have all new weapons in there we'll undoubtably have to make some adjustments. Plus, because of the weapons mix I expect that troops will have a lot harder time firing back effectively at someone firing at them with a MG.

- Even more self presevation AI of troops. Now troops can be in the middle of an arty barrage and dont mind if shells havent yet landed near enough. Till a shell lands really close to them and wipes them out because they were standing whistling and watching the birds.

This is always something we can adjust. However, we've had problems in the past where troops are too likely to go prone and stay prone from effects that are arguably not of a big concern.

- Effects of camouflage nets on AT guns/T hunters/ infantry, MG nests etc. Slightly Harder to spot/identify troops firing from woods, bushes. In CMx1 you could only tell from the sound contact that an MG42 is firing on you from a general direction. I'd like to see the return of this in Normandy.

This gets back to the pre-set up bonus for already being in place.

We're also planning on adding more shades of gray to the spotting system.

stikkypixie,

Yes but with the "lid" idea, the lid has to fit exactly. A camouflage netting doesn't. It just makes the trenches harder to see than they are now.

While definitely easier to do, it doesn't buy us much. If they really are like that then they will be easily spotted by anybody moving around the map. So it's not worth bothering with since it still isn't that easy to implement and have it look right. Not as hard as lids, of course.

Steve

[flamingknives]

Can someone mod the bus shelters? They fit neatly enough in a trench, although they are a bit tall.

A bus shelter twice as wide and half the height would hide a trench pretty well.