How’s that LOS tool working for?

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, CMx1's "Seek Hull Down Order" was very useful and a timesaver, when it worked. Most of the time, it worked as advertised, but IME, about 10% of the time you would misjudge things, and the tank would never find a hull down point. Because of the way the order was designed, this meant that the tank would continue to advance towards the target point, which was often disastrous. As a result, I usually didn't use it and relied on my own judgement instead.

Yes, and unfortunately that sort of unintended consequence would likely be seen again in CMx2. Every Command has it's potential downside/imperfections for a given circumstance. For example, if you use HUNT and the unit juuuuust misses seeing something and then ambles along a route that now has 0% chance of getting LOS to the enemy just passed. Or you use FAST and the unit totally ignores a juicy target of opportunity that MOVE would have engaged.

For me this is acceptable as it's within the player's control to adjust for. Specifically by plotting shorter and more carefully considered Commands. It may take a little more time to maneuver into position, but I find that to be totally realistic.

Steve, I am somewhat surprised by your response and this entire discussion. You have always stated that BF strives for realism and yet the present system where a player can highlight every waypoint and then see general targeting info all around from that point is far from realistic!

This was a compromise between realism and gameplay. Because...

You probably know this but in case you or others do not, you can trace LOS from any waypoint you plot. The line doesn't trace from the waypoint though, it emanates from the unit itself, but the LOS info is correct.

As for whether that is realistic, well it is my view that WEGO orders are a projection forward in time of actions that a unit will take during the turn so it isn't that unrealistic to get a LOS trace from where a unit *will* be.

Exactly this. In real life a unit can constantly reevaluate it's behavior based on new information. New information comes in every nano second and from multiple sources (i.e. a 12 man Squad has 12 sources of information gathering). In WeGo the player is locked out for 60 seconds and has to pay attention to dozens of other units. That itself is completely unrealistic, so it is quite legitimate to argue that allowing LOS checking at Waypoints helps make things more realistic. There's also an argument against this, but I think there's enough room in the debate to agree that it's not clear cut either way.

A system instantly highlighting every point that can see you is far more unrealistic from a FOW perspective imo.

Yes, this goes to a different extreme. Not only that, the Waypoint LOS checking isn't something that RealTime players have a chance to use much, if at all (I never use it). And that's good because the argument for it is based on WeGo's 60 seconds of hands off time. No such restriction exists in RealTime, therefore RealTime players shouldn't need to use the Waypoint LOS checking. As I said, I never use it. Don't need to

Steve

[Jaresh]

Look, the debate about LOS and LOF is not a debate.

Of course, there are hundreds of factors affecting whether the guy, gun can shoot or not and no one will ever compute/manage this.

Remember: you bought this game to PLAY.. not to get frustrated everytime you think a strategy and nothing happens because the AI has decided that your sentinel was having a pee instead of shooting at an incoming marauder..

We are here to play, no to be sheepishly accepting the fact that "factors" stop us firing at the enemy.:mad:

I have just lost a tank with its left flank to a bocage. I had a M1919 and a team behind a perpendicular bocage covering the flank of my tank with clear LOS (and LOF). And guess what, my opponent just moved a tank hunter team along the bocage and fired thru it at my M4. My "flanc-gardes" guys behind the bocage did not fire a single bullet despite being Ready/Rattled not pinned, shaken or whatever all the psy conditions this 'game' affect them with. it took the hunters about 45" to get to their point and ready their weapon.. My guess is that all the crew of the MG and the GI team obeyed their sergeant who probably asked them to go for a pee at the same time!

I lost tens of tanks and Gis because I didn't know until recently that the AI lets you believe a Blue line is ok when you fire Smoke but actually replots it to the centre of a (invisible) square that may not be with your LOS/LOF and leaves your tank without firing a single round of smoke while all your strategy ends up in tears, blood and a lot of frsutration. :mad:

please, please, please, BF, can we go back to the PLAYING part and be in control again???

[hoolaman]

I have just lost a tank with its left flank to a bocage. I had a M1919 and a team behind a perpendicular bocage covering the flank of my tank with clear LOS (and LOF). And guess what, my opponent just moved a tank hunter team along the bocage and fired thru it at my M4. My "flanc-gardes" guys behind the bocage did not fire a single bullet despite being Ready/Rattled not pinned, shaken or whatever all the psy conditions this 'game' affect them with. it took the hunters about 45" to get to their point and ready their weapon.. My guess is that all the crew of the MG and the GI team obeyed their sergeant who probably asked them to go for a pee at the same time!

I lost tens of tanks and Gis because I didn't know until recently that the AI lets you believe a Blue line is ok when you fire Smoke but actually replots it to the centre of a (invisible) square that may not be with your LOS/LOF and leaves your tank without firing a single round of smoke while all your strategy ends up in tears, blood and a lot of frsutration. :mad:

please, please, please, BF, can we go back to the PLAYING part and be in control again???

There are almost certainly still quite a few things that can be classified as bugs. Then there are parts of the UI that are poorly documented and/or poorly understood that mean players aren't doing the right things to get the results they want. Lastly there are parts of the sim that are working as designed and perhaps you don't like the results.

It would be helpful for everyone if people would provide a bit more info on these problem situations so we could all work out which is which.

[Battlefront.com]

What Hoolaman said. Sweeping generalizations tend to make me think there isn't any real problem with the game, rather something else on the player's end. Perception and mishandling units are the two most common issues. Frustration isn't a good thing, obviously, but frustration doesn't automatically mean the game is at fault.

The best advice I can give Jaresh is to post a new thread detailing something "frustrating" and see what others have to say about it. Fellow players are willing to help out and give advice. Advice which often shows that the frustration is unnecessary if certain things are done differently.

One thing, though. Combat Mission never has, and never will be, about giving the player unrealistic degrees of control over unit behavior. If we did that we might as well just throw out the notion of being a wargame and instead just call it a "game", like Company of Heros or other such RTS games.

Steve

[MikeyD]

I suspect most real world tankers would look at a typical CM bocage map and say "Holy crap! I'll stay over here in this far corner while you guys go on ahead and find me something to shoot at." All the CM franchise has had the problem of unnaturally high casualty rates, mostly because the player feels obliged to... well... win. Some situations a smart commander would prefer to say "We'll maybe stay put for a couple hours while battalion artillery pounds the area first." In the later CMSF modules a steep penalty was often put on recieving unnecessary casualties so "winning at all costs" often resulted in not winning at all.

[Jaresh]

Sorry for expressing my frustration but I just feel - and I know it's rather a generalization - that I'm not in control of what I'm doing. Hence the frustration.

I find CMBN great in that you can do more with your units thru the waypoints system. But this is almost cancelled by all these other aspects I described such as units not firing at enemy because of lack of LOF vs LOS, units not firing at all. Ok it's general, but it happened to me. I think it works great if we were on a flat piece of land with not hindrance to LOS. I've done several tries through a QB to try understand why I could not achieve things in games; and in the QB I could because it was flat and free. So I guess a lot is related to LOS/LOF issues with obstacles. Then units not firing, I just don't know.

I've played wargames since I'm 16 and I'm now 44. Went through the whole ASL series, and yes in ASL there was still a degree of risk: the two dice. But you knew what you were doing and took your chances. I'd move my half-squad, pop smoke, get the others through, etc.

Here I do feel like I'm not in control. It's very frustrating. Sorry.

[c3k]

A toggle-able terrain mesh would be great. Right now there are some terrain mods which have grids embedded, available to use at the repository. (Thanks for the work to those who created and shared them.) You may want to mod your files with one of these terrain mods.

If you suspect enemy is behind bocage, but cannot target them, some close-in camera work and area targeting will enable you to put rounds where you need them. No, they won't be very effective. After all, bocage was wonderful defensive terrain.

Without knowing your style of play, perhaps more area fire would help.

Ken

[Jaresh]

A toggle-able terrain mesh would be great. Right now there are some terrain mods which have grids embedded, available to use at the repository. (Thanks for the work to those who created and shared them.) You may want to mod your files with one of these terrain mods.

didn't know. i'll check it out. It might help.

[hoolaman]

Here I do feel like I'm not in control. It's very frustrating. Sorry.

My post wasn't even specifically aimed at you really, there seems to be a lot of extremely vague "I've seen this dozens of times and it is annoying me" posts that don't even give enough detail to know where the problem is, let alone screenshots and saves.

For example I've never seen a full LOS target line snap to somewhere else that is out of LOS and the target order being lost. Were you targeting a unit or area firing?

[Battlefront.com]

Games are not designed to be frustrating, and certainly CM:BN isn't. However, individual play styles and expectations often produce frustration. Some get over it by working through things and figuring out whatever is causing it for them, others never do. As I've said many times, when we released CMBO Beta Demo there was a HUGE negative reaction from Steel Panthers and Close Combat fans. To them there was almost nothing right with CMBO. To others it was like they died and went to heaven. Same game, totally different reactions from the same niche audience the game was aimed at. CM:BN is no different in that regard.

What I suspect, based on others who have had problems similar to what you describe, is a few basic assumption problems. By that I mean you have an idea of how bocage works based on other games, however it's entirely possible it doesn't work that way. So you may be doing things which you perceive as correct and yet get exactly the opposite of what you think should happen. Not entirely sure that's accurate, but it's at least a guess at something that might be tripping you up.

Then there's the standard learning curve of new tools (Commands), new environment (Action Spots), new capabilities (individual soldier behavior modeled), etc. It's very easy to see how someone can be overwhelmed by all of this. Unfortunately that's what happens when products innovate instead of regurgitate. Some take to the changes like fish to water, others have to roll up their sleeves a bit more.

My advice is decide if you really want to learn how to play the game. I know, this sounds silly... but there are some that seem to decide they hate it but then keep playing it anyway. I don't know why, but I do know the results are pretty ugly As you play try to observe a pattern of frustration you're experiencing and then post about it here. Post with the assumption that there is a better way to do whatever you're trying to do and that better way will ease your frustration. It's usually the way it goes and people definitely are more responsive to open minded requests for help than "this game sucks, prove me wrong" type posts.

The Forums are here for this purpose, so definitely it's the right place for you to work through your issues with the game. Hopefully you'll wind up in a better place

Steve

[Erwin]

Re "Combat Mission never has, and never will be, about giving the player unrealistic degrees of control over unit behavior." That sounds great, Steve. But, while it doesn't spoil my enjoyment too much, doesn't that contradict the logic behind getting rid of command delays? The ability to instantaneously coordinate units across the entire battlefield down to the smallest unit is a very unrealistic degree of control. (Yes, I know this is a dead subject... am just saying, not complaining...)

[Battlefront.com]

Since there is rarely one right answer, there's definitely room to make the case that getting rid of Command Delays makes the game less realistic. But... there's also a case to be made that Command Delays, as a feature (not as a concept), made the game overall less realistic. And unrealistically frustrating at times. Since everything is a judgement call, to some extent or another, we've decided that after trying Command Delays that we should try it without until we can think of something better.

Again, there's plenty of room for disagreement with the call we made. However, a call had to be made and we are the best qualified to make it. Not to say everybody should agree with us (God forbid!), but understand that it wasn't left out due to laziness, inconsistent logic, or anything other than doing what is in the best interests of the game as a whole.

BTW, people should remember that I'm the guy that designed the original Command Delays feature. I even had to lobby VERY hard for it to convince Charles it was the way to go. The worst thing a game designer can be is inflexible and ridged in his decision making or game design decisions. I think Command Delays was a decent idea implemented about as well as it could have been. But after experimenting with it for real, and talking it over with thousands of players over many years, I became convinced that overall the game is better (more realistic) without it. The game would be more realistic with something else, of course. However, that something else hasn't come to mind quite yet.

Steve

[womble]

Re "Combat Mission never has, and never will be, about giving the player unrealistic degrees of control over unit behavior." That sounds great, Steve. But, while it doesn't spoil my enjoyment too much, doesn't that contradict the logic behind getting rid of command delays? The ability to instantaneously coordinate units across the entire battlefield down to the smallest unit is a very unrealistic degree of control. (Yes, I know this is a dead subject... am just saying, not complaining...)

It's "equally" unrealistic for a unit to be unable to take advantage of a situation they've watched developing for 50s just because they have a '10s command delay' automatically. Maybe it could work in realtime: the NCO has to chivvy his greenhorns into actually dashing across that street while the tank isn't looking, but in WeGo, it would be stultifyingly restrictive. And the system as implemented in the latter x1 games, I found very frustrating, since it was based almost entirely on waypoints, so mostly only affected vehicles very much.

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, exactly. That and not being able to take a complex, but "stupidly simple", path like following a road without extra delays.

Command Delays in RT would be ever worse. The player is already constricted in terms of how much he can micromanage (pausing frequently still isn't like WeGo) and that means units naturally have "Command Delays". Ask any player that uses both systems and he'll definitely say his unit sit around idle way, way more in RT than in WeGo. It's just the nature of the beast. So putting in Command Delays into RT would add nothing positive to the realism, but sure as Hell take away from it

Steve

[Erwin]

"...not being able to take a complex, but "stupidly simple", path like following a road without extra delays."

Yeah, I agree with that, it did get silly in certain circumstances.

Elsewhere, someone else suggested having certain ORDERS greyed out when a unit is out of C2, or a delay added. Seemed like an interesting concept that could give a bit more motivation for players to respect the C2 aspect of CM2.

I mentioned elsewhere that I have been getting a lot of experience (thanks to Courage & Fortitude's "School of Hard Knocks" scenario) in handling units that have no HQ and are out of C2, and the lesson it is teaching me is that C2 is currently not that important (at least with my style of play).