Steve's post on Infantry

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I can feel the love.

Sometimes I see such a circle jerk going on here that I can't help myself, but of late I feel like you guys would rather not be interrupted and don't bother looking in here as much as I used to.
I just went back to the start of this thread and reread from the beginning. The lack of hard data on how the game works is the stumbling block. I'm not attempting to point fingers at Steve, BFC, the beta testers, posters on this forum, or any combination of the above. I think it is simply a fact that for good or ill, much of the mechanics of CM:X2 are "under the hood" and defy a complete understanding. I don't present that as an accusation, nor imply it is good or bad. Just that the condition hinders intelligent conversation about the way the game will develop.

I am happy to be corrected on this point, as on any others, and certainly welcome your personal participation in this and any other discussion here, as your contributions are certainly seen as valuable.
 

Jeph

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
188
Reaction score
4
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
I agree the system can't be broken down into a list of rules, and might be a bit baffling for a new player due to the spectacularly bad documentation, but I don't think it is that hard to get your head around.

YankeeDog said:
AIUI, yes.

Unless the basic modeling has changed since CMSF, my understanding of the way cover is modeled is as follows:

(1) Ballistic path of bullet is calculated.

(2) when and if this ballistic path intersects something in the 3D world of the game, such as a terrain feature, a wall, a "flavor object" (such as a tombstone), or whatever, the engine determines whether the bullet is stopped or deflected. The game engine uses exactly the same "3D world" information that is used to generate what the player sees on screen, so size, orientation, composition, etc. all matter. WYSIWYG.

(3) If the ballistic path intersects the 3D model of a soldier, this is a hit, HOWEVER:

(4) In the case of a hit, there may be a "fudge" which turns a hit by the 3D ballistics calculations into a miss, and this "fudge" depends on the type of terrain the soldier is in. This is to abstractly represent very small variations in terrain, small rocks & bushes. etc. that are simply beyond what the engine can specifically render. So a soldier lying in "rocky" terrain is somewhat better off than a soldier lying in the middle of a flat piece of asphalt, even if the graphics to not specifically show little rocks etc. that might intercept a bullet.
FWIW this post by Yankee dog HERE exactly supports what I said above. It's not official but I think enough playing and watching enough bullets leads to the same conclusion.

HE is similarly 1:1 but it has been turned down so entire squads aren't wiped out by a single grenade. So a big HE explosion becomes a smaller explosion so that believable casualty results are achieved. For example a grenade exploding right next to a squad might kill one or two men when visually you'd think it should kill all of them. It might have a lethal radius of three metres instead of a real world lethal radius of 30 metres (numbers made up).
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I agree the system can't be broken down into a list of rules, and might be a bit baffling for a new player due to the spectacularly bad documentation, but I don't think it is that hard to get your head around.



FWIW this post by Yankee dog HERE exactly supports what I said above. It's not official but I think enough playing and watching enough bullets leads to the same conclusion.

HE is similarly 1:1 but it has been turned down so entire squads aren't wiped out by a single grenade. So a big HE explosion becomes a smaller explosion so that believable casualty results are achieved. For example a grenade exploding right next to a squad might kill one or two men when visually you'd think it should kill all of them. It might have a lethal radius of three metres instead of a real world lethal radius of 30 metres (numbers made up).
Thank you for the reply. The 'true' effects of cover, inner workings of LOS, foliage, action spots, etc. seem harder to pin down with precision. But that is a start.
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
I don't think anybody wants a set of rules.

We want to see the result of whatever is going on under the hood, such as the exposure numbers in CMx1.
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I don't think anybody wants a set of rules.

We want to see the result of whatever is going on under the hood, such as the exposure numbers in CMx1.
My goal would be true 1-1. I dont really need to know whats going on or hit percentages or cover percentages. If it works like real life, I would be able to work all that out for myself.

I know its not attainable right now and so I play the game within its limitations, split squads down into teams, spread them out a bit. Work out by playing the game what works best for me. I dont need all the numbers under the hood, some guys might. I think my memory is good enough with most weapons systems to know roughly what it will do. I know that a Sherman 75 wont have much chance of killing a Panther from the front at 1000 yards and so I wouldnt try it. I suspect a novice would soon get to know the same after a couple of games.

I just want BF to be upfront about it, tell us whats abstracted and how it works. Then we all know and speculation can be replaced with some decent discussions on the mechanics of it all.

One thing though, does anyone know if ww2 infantry practice was to be closer to each man or have the spacings stayed pretty much the same since?
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
My goal would be true 1-1. I dont really need to know whats going on or hit percentages or cover percentages. If it works like real life, I would be able to work all that out for myself.

I know its not attainable right now and so I play the game within its limitations, split squads down into teams, spread them out a bit. Work out by playing the game what works best for me. I dont need all the numbers under the hood, some guys might. I think my memory is good enough with most weapons systems to know roughly what it will do. I know that a Sherman 75 wont have much chance of killing a Panther from the front at 1000 yards and so I wouldnt try it. I suspect a novice would soon get to know the same after a couple of games.

I just want BF to be upfront about it, tell us whats abstracted and how it works. Then we all know and speculation can be replaced with some decent discussions on the mechanics of it all.

One thing though, does anyone know if ww2 infantry practice was to be closer to each man or have the spacings stayed pretty much the same since?
5-yard spacing was taught
 

Palantir

Member #86
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
4,877
Reaction score
1,706
Location
The Heartland
Country
llUnited States
I don’t need all the numbers under the hood, some guys might. I think my memory is good enough with most weapons systems to know roughly what it will do. I know that a Sherman 75 won’t have much chance of killing a Panther from the front at 1000 yards and so I wouldn’t try it. I suspect a novice would soon get to know the same after a couple of games.
This will be long winded:

But that's you who has some knowledge of CMx1 & WW2.

I fall into the group that says that my soldiers have at least some frigging training and given some previous combat FACTS like: don't drive into the open with a Stuart and engage a Panther at 1000 yards- or was that 2000 yards or 500 yards or 2 miles?

Instead BFC wants us to believe that commanders told their tankers in 1944, "he** we don't know yet, just drive out there and when you see a Tiger or something just start shooting and if you get killed then we'll know... then MAYBE we'll tell the guys standing over there what to expect- if we bother to write it down."

It's about the same as telling a PT boat captain in 1944, "He** we don't know after 3 years of sea-warfare if your balsa wood boat can kill the Yamato alone or not. So why don't you go out there and find out for us. Then before you get your ass blown off (I mean IF you do) please try and record the exact angle you took, speed of both ships, distance, armor at target location, if your torp's hit or glanced off or, ETC. ETC. ETC.

Please what kind of C*** is that?

Normandy isn't the first combat action for either side. The soldiers knew that running out with a bazooka to take a frontal shot at a Tiger at 500 yards was suicide. So why should I be expected to do stupid stuff in a game just to find that out, THEN have to write down this in my own MANUAL: "Bazooka not good at 500 yards vs. Tiger, (or maybe I just missed) next time try at 450 yards and maybe shoot at left front side, or rear? Repeat 100 times versus every type of German tank & vehicle to understand Bazooka effectiveness.

Note to self- remember in 6 months to try same with German P-faust vs. Sherman’s and next year try same with Brit Piat vs…."

OR you could see this above the Bazooka team screen, “effective range 100 yards / % chance to penetrate vs. 120mm armor NONE.” Now which makes more sense in a tactical 1:1 game?

I'm sure all the new players will not know anything about the "stat facts" not having played CMx. So why take a step back to add frustration when they made it easy & convenient for us in CMx1? {Oh wait- you just don't get it..."} :nuts:
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
There will never be a simulation that close. The faster hardware doesn't solve the problem of having to write the software.

Just take as an example armour penetration values for guns. All that we have are approximate formulas that happen to reflect exiting test firing values. There are no physics behind them. So even if you had the fastest computer you'd still use that - abstraction.

This is why it will always be necessary that developers tell us which factors they have put into their abstractions and which ones they did not. Not as in "publish the rules". That doesn't make sense. Although there are abstractions it is still vastly complex software that comes up with values on it's own. But it is important that we get to know which factors are being put into the machine, and we need to see some form of approximate result, such as exposure numbers, or firepower or whatever.

If we don't then we cannot pick tactics. If we don't know what counts for combat calculations and what does not then you will always do useless extra things that weaken you. And the more you try to play realistic taking lots of things into account (that the engine ignores) the weaker you get compared to a player who happens to ignore the same stuff as the engine.
 

Elefant

Recruit
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
12
Reaction score
1
Location
Earth
Country
ll
This is the other thing which has me decide not to buy CMBN. They seem to be making excuses about giving any information that would reveal their mechanics of the system.
Which seems a rather deceptive approach for a company who is trying to endorse thier product? The idea that your troops do not have info on their systems or the enemies is ridiculous. I have previewed the book US vs German equipment by Isaac D. White and the accounts of men in the line show good knowledge of both equipment. They seem to forget that a Panther was captured in May 1944 in Italy and the U.S. Military Intelligence.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
This is the other thing which has me decide not to buy CMBN. They seem to be making excuses about giving any information that would reveal their mechanics of the system.
Which seems a rather deceptive approach for a company who is trying to endorse thier product? The idea that your troops do not have info on their systems or the enemies is ridiculous. I have previewed the book US vs German equipment by Isaac D. White and the accounts of men in the line show good knowledge of both equipment. They seem to forget that a Panther was captured in May 1944 in Italy and the U.S. Military Intelligence.
And a Tiger long before that by the British in North Africa.

There are photos posted to my own forum of a Canadian Army demonstration platoon that toured the "D-Day" units in German Army uniforms. They gave lectures on German kit and tactics, and did demos of German small unit tactics, etc. (They had a glimpse of these teams in Band of Brothers as I believe the British were using similar teams.)

The ones in Band of Brothers may have been far too well equipped - check out the Enfields and Brens, and custom made helmets in these contemporary photos:






Apparently they also reproduced German helmets in Britain - this Stahlelm is of British manufacture and is in the collection of Roger Lucy, noted author and helmet collector:



He wrote on my forum:

While doing some research ... I came across an entry in 7th Recce Rgt's WD to a visit to that unit, on 21 April, 1943, by the 1st Canadian Division German Demonstration Team. This group of proto-reenactors replicated a German infantry platoon, giving demonstrations of German drill, commands, and infantry tactics. They also acted as subjects for training 7th Recce personnel in controlling PoWs. The War Diarist was impressed by their "rigid discipline" and the speed with which their brought their weapons into action.

I have seen pictures that were taken in late March, 1943 of Canadians in vaguely convincing German uniforms, including replica Stahlhelm (of which I actually have an example), armed with Bren guns and Lee Enfields. The only other record of this unit I have found is correspondence from January, 1943 between CMHQ and the British Ministry of Supply ordering 100 sets of imitation Germans tunics, side caps, belts, leather equipment and helmets, most of which was delivered by the end of February.
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
Fascinating. Learn something new every day.

Wait. Is "CM:Battle 4 Norman D." NOT going to have Canadian German re-enactors with Bren guns? No? Game's gonna suck. Sheesh. Can't believe they're leaving that out. And that's exactly the kind of thing that I've been warning y'all about for the past hundred years.

-"told ya so" dale
 
Last edited:

Jeph

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
188
Reaction score
4
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
This is the other thing which has me decide not to buy CMBN. They seem to be making excuses about giving any information that would reveal their mechanics of the system.
Which seems a rather deceptive approach for a company who is trying to endorse thier product? The idea that your troops do not have info on their systems or the enemies is ridiculous. I have previewed the book US vs German equipment by Isaac D. White and the accounts of men in the line show good knowledge of both equipment. They seem to forget that a Panther was captured in May 1944 in Italy and the U.S. Military Intelligence.
Deceptive? It seems to me that you are jumping from assumption to conclusion here.

I don't think they are doing it just to divert you from the fact that they are just using a six-sided dice roll for every armour hit.

Steve has stated several times that having this sort of info is something they'd like to do, but it is pretty clear that they are technically unable or unwilling to spend the time on it. Probably a bit of both. There will be a simplified armour defence diagram like in CMSF which is not nothing.

I agree though it does make it very hard to work out whats going on, not so much to see whether the expected result happens, but to work out why it happens and if it is happeneing often enough. In CMSF you can't even really tell which part of a vehicle a round is hitting.
 

Elefant

Recruit
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
12
Reaction score
1
Location
Earth
Country
ll
Deceptive? It seems to me that you are jumping from assumption to conclusion here.

I don't think they are doing it just to divert you from the fact that they are just using a six-sided dice roll for every armour hit.

Steve has stated several times that having this sort of info is something they'd like to do, but it is pretty clear that they are technically unable or unwilling to spend the time on it. Probably a bit of both. There will be a simplified armour defence diagram like in CMSF which is not nothing.

I agree though it does make it very hard to work out whats going on, not so much to see whether the expected result happens, but to work out why it happens and if it is happeneing often enough. In CMSF you can't even really tell which part of a vehicle a round is hitting.
Yes, that is my conclusion until evidence suggests otherwise. For all I now they could be using a six sided dice as nobody has given any info on armour penetration mechanics. So I should I just rely on blind faith that features work intended like the customers who bought CMSF initially. If they talked about the mechanics openly like other companies instead of avoiding questions I would not consider them being deceptive. As a player of CMSF you freely admit you cannot even provide how the armour system works in that product to any great detail. Why is that? If I wanted simplified armour defence diagram I would play Company of Heroes not a supposed powerful battlefield simulation. Aimed for the military market. Another example is that they say AI has improved, but just take our word on that. How has it improved? Well just download the demo to find out. :argh:
 
Last edited:

Jeph

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
188
Reaction score
4
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
Yes, that is my conclusion until evidence suggests otherwise.
Well since you reached you conclusion without evidence I don't expect you'll be swayed back.

If they talked about the mechanics openly like other companies instead of avoiding questions I would not consider them being deceptive.
Are they avoiding questions? What questions have been posed that have not been answered? Sounds a little bit like you have some prejudice in the matter. Why not swing over there and post a polite question about how the armour penetration model works compared to CMx1?

As a player of CMSF you freely admit you cannot even provide how the armour system works in that product to any great detail. Why is that?
I freely admit it because it is a fair criticism. Thanks for asking.

If I wanted simplified armour defence diagram I would play Company of Heroes not a supposed powerful battlefield simulation.
Diagram showing the stats =\= bad stats.

Well just download the demo to find out. :argh:
What a crazy idea! It sounds like you won't be pre-ordering anyway. :rolleyes:. You can just read in the press about BFC going out of business and some other wargame publishing company dancing on their grave.
 

Elefant

Recruit
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
12
Reaction score
1
Location
Earth
Country
ll
Sorry, Jeph I cannot beat your infallible logic. There is no point continuing the discussion as I have got bored with it. Move on as everybody says.
No, I will not be buying CMBN thanks for reminding me.:clap:
 
Last edited:

Jeph

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
188
Reaction score
4
Location
Oz
Country
llAustralia
I post here because I read the most baffling fabricated garbage. Not from everyone of course, there are plenty of people here who are clued up and have legitimate grievances. I certainly am not a blind supporter of BFC either. Yet each time I post I wonder why I bother.

Man, do you guys go to an academy for this kind of crap, or what?

-dale
The other guy is vowing not to buy a game that hasn't even been released yet because of some imagined evil grog cover-up and I'm the one posting crap?

Life is too short.
:)
I agree. :nuts:
 
Last edited:

Patrocles

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
6
Location
Chicago, IL
I post here because I read the most baffling fabricated garbage. Not from everyone of course, there are plenty of people here who are clued up and have legitimate grievances. I certainly am not a blind supporter of BFC either. Yet each time I post I wonder why I bother.



The other guy is vowing not to buy a game that hasn't even been released yet because of some imagined evil grog cover-up and I'm the one posting crap?



I agree. :nuts:
haha

Good. I hope you are not taking all of this too CM:BN stuff too seriously here and at the "official" forum. :)
cheers!
 
Top