Questions as I Adjust From CMx1 Play to CMx2:

[ClarkWGriswold]

BFC has acknowledged this issue and said that it will be fixed in the first patch. Apparently, they made some last-minute changes to the lighting model that had the unintended side effect of making the movement action spots harder to see. Oops.

That's great to hear. I think the first patch is going to address a whole host of issues people have been having. Seemingly minor stuff like this can make a big difference though.

[Blackcat]

If you would like to see a demonstration of this, I experienced this during the "Mission 3: Battle Drill" scenario from the Devon - Basic Training battles. While firing at Hill 2014 from the instructed, "Base of Fire" firing spot, my mortar team also opened up with small arms fire at the areas of Hill 2014 that were within the mortar team's LOS. Perhaps too close by your estimate, but this fire mission was located in the area I was told to fire from as instructed by the game manual itself. I'll likely need to use HQ spotters to avoid this occurrence in the future.

Many, many years ago when I was learning to shoot I had to use standing and kneeling firing positions in the open on a wind-swept rifle-range. That didn't mean I had to stand out in the open later on when it came to putting those lessons into practice.

It is perfectly possible to use on-board mortars in the direct firing mode without any of the team using their rifles etc.. It is also possible to put your mortars in the front line, nice and close to the enemy, but if you do be prepared to see them die real quick.

[j.kehoe]

Like PlatCmdr, I too found that, in "Mission 3: Battle Drill," the mortar team used small arms fire. It should indeed be possible to prevent the small arms fire, but I haven't figured out how to do so.

[PlatCmdr_too]

I'm now struggling with an additional difference between the two versions (CMx1 vs CMx2) as it relates to the way terrain features are represented. In CMx1, terrain such as scattered trees, woods, etc have patterned bases which makes clear where my troops are positioned, in addition to the user interface will identify where my troops are located, such as "open ground," "woods," "scattered trees," etc. In CMx2, while attempting to place my troops in cover, I can't tell half the time whether they are in cover or not as there lacks clear terrain boundaries and the UI additionally fails to tell me if my troops are in cover or not. I hope the patch addresses this issue, please fix or somefink!

[womble]

I'm now struggling with an additional difference between the two versions (CMx1 vs CMx2) as it relates to the way terrain features are represented. In CMx1, terrain such as scattered trees, woods, etc have patterned bases which makes clear where my troops are positioned, in addition to the user interface will identify where my troops are located, such as "open ground," "woods," "scattered trees," etc. In CMx2, while attempting to place my troops in cover, I can't tell half the time whether they are in cover or not as there lacks clear terrain boundaries and the UI additionally fails to tell me if my troops are in cover or not. I hope the patch addresses this issue, please fix or somefink!

This has been explained before, and what I understodd was the following.

Stuff you can see on the ground provides cover and/or concealment on a pixel-for-pixel basis. So you can see that a given action spot has scrubby ground cover, or corn, or whatever (though actually identifying precisely what your pixeltruppen are trying to hide behind takes some experience). In addition terrain provides some 'micro-terrain' cover bonuses which are abstracted out. In general, you don't need to (indeed can't) know whether a given team or squad is 'in cover' or not, partly because some members of the team might be in a different kind of cover (even though they're on the same action point), and partly because the 'cover status' of an individual will be varied depending upon which direction the fire is coming from; how will the computer know which direction you're worried about at any given time? Also, cover from intervening objects will count, if it interrupts a LOS/LOF, and that's something else the computer can't predict for you. These issues get even woolier when you're talking about a Squad of 2-3 teams, each of which is usually on a different Action Spot, which could have no terrain types in common whatsoever. How would the game interpret this complex information for you?

However, it's also asserted by those as should know that your truppen will seek available cover in the action spot they are in, so you should be fairly confident that your troops are in the best cover they can be in whatever location you put them.

This is vastly different from CMx1 where the tile was a homogeneous 'cover type' with an abstracted 'cover modifier'. The game doesn't work that way any more.

[Peregrine]

Like PlatCmdr, I too found that, in "Mission 3: Battle Drill," the mortar team used small arms fire. It should indeed be possible to prevent the small arms fire, but I haven't figured out how to do so.

If you don't want mortar teams using their personal weapons it is best not to place them in direct LOS within 300m or so of whatever you are firing at.

[Bradley Dick]

Too bad they don't have a "Target Heavy" command that would basically be the opposite of the "Target Light" command.

You mean "Target"?

Whenever I tell my men to "Target" something and not "Target Light", they unleash the arsenal on the enemy. I'll have guys launching 700m bazooka lobs and rifle grenades like they were tired of carrying the rounds or something.

Actually, that might explain it. Fire the heavy stuff first so you don't have to carry it anymore.

[PlatCmdr_too]

I can appreciate the inclusion of micro-terrain elements such as terrain variation, various hard object obstacles, gopher holes , etc, etc. that provide defilade affecting LOS/LOF and which would be impossible to represent on map in the form of pixilated features. I accept as you say, these features exist on any piece of terrain thus enhancing one's cover. My vexation however is in knowing whether or not my troopers are in the woods per se where there would be greater cover offered than out in the open, regardless of these unmmodeled features being present.

[Peregrine]

The trees stop bullets and sometimes amusely HE rounds. If there is a tree(s) between whatever guy you are worried about and whatever the threat is then you are in "woods".

[Michael Emrys]

The trees stop bullets and sometimes amusely HE rounds.

And also AT rounds. The bizarre thing is the trees do not appear to be damaged by the rounds. Immortal trees.

Michael

[PlatCmdr_too]

This has been explained before, and what I understodd was the following.

Stuff you can see on the ground provides cover and/or concealment on a pixel-for-pixel basis. So you can see that a given action spot has scrubby ground cover, or corn, or whatever (though actually identifying precisely what your pixeltruppen are trying to hide behind takes some experience). In addition terrain provides some 'micro-terrain' cover bonuses which are abstracted out. In general, you don't need to (indeed can't) know whether a given team or squad is 'in cover' or not, partly because some members of the team might be in a different kind of cover (even though they're on the same action point), and partly because the 'cover status' of an individual will be varied depending upon which direction the fire is coming from; how will the computer know which direction you're worried about at any given time? Also, cover from intervening objects will count, if it interrupts a LOS/LOF, and that's something else the computer can't predict for you. These issues get even woolier when you're talking about a Squad of 2-3 teams, each of which is usually on a different Action Spot, which could have no terrain types in common whatsoever. How would the game interpret this complex information for you?

However, it's also asserted by those as should know that your truppen will seek available cover in the action spot they are in, so you should be fairly confident that your troops are in the best cover they can be in whatever location you put them.

This is vastly different from CMx1 where the tile was a homogeneous 'cover type' with an abstracted 'cover modifier'. The game doesn't work that way any more.

I can appreciate the inclusion of micro-terrain elements such as terrain variation, various hard object obstacles, gopher holes , etc, etc. that provide defilade affecting LOS/LOF and which would be impossible to represent on map in the form of pixilated features. I accept as you say, these features exist on any piece of terrain thus enhancing one's cover. My vexation however is in knowing whether or not my troopers are in the woods per se where there would be greater cover offered than out in the open, regardless of these unmmodeled features being present.

[PlatCmdr_too]

The trees stop bullets and sometimes amusely HE rounds. If there is a tree(s) between whatever guy you are worried about and whatever the threat is then you are in "woods".

Great, well so much for the certainty of hiding in "cover," which again, is my vexation.

[Michael Emrys]

Great, well so much for the certainty of hiding in "cover," which again, is my vexation.

Be not overly vexed by uncertainty. We are all playing the odds and the point of using good tactics is that they put the odds more in your favor. But we live in a universe where strange, unanticipated things happen virtually all the time. Just remember, the guy on the other side of the hill is struggling with the same problem, so it balances out in the end.

Michael

[womble]

I can appreciate the inclusion of micro-terrain elements such as terrain variation, various hard object obstacles, gopher holes , etc, etc. that provide defilade affecting LOS/LOF and which would be impossible to represent on map in the form of pixilated features. I accept as you say, these features exist on any piece of terrain thus enhancing one's cover. My vexation however is in knowing whether or not my troopers are in the woods per se where there would be greater cover offered than out in the open, regardless of these unmmodeled features being present.

I'm afraid I don't understand this vexation. Given all the variables involved, the point is that being 'in the woods' does not necessarily afford greater cover than being out in the open. If there's no more undergrowth beneath the canopy than in the shady rough just outside the wood, and the canopy is clear of the LOF/LOS, the only thing that's going to be better for your troopers than the open is that tree trunks will intercept some rounds, and you can see for yourself how relatively likely that is from any given direction.

It is a paradigm shift, and those are difficult to get your head round, but one of the reasons you're vexed about the lack of an answer to 'are my troops in cover' is that it's a meaningless question in CMx2 if you want a binary yes/no answer.