That is because in real life each individual body is controlled by it's own brain. In CM:SF it is not and there's no abstraction like in CMx2 either. So each individual man is prone to do something that a real life person wouldn't.
I think the number of people who have this problem with 1:1 is actually quite high.
It was the same for the CMX1 games and the Second World War titles. JasonC posted book-length treatises on that topic on the BFC forums as I recall. It's probably not something you can get around in a game - but at least the Operations let you sort of get around it by giving you a reason for force conservation. The new "campaign" model, I'm not sure it does that as well.
Maybe a lot of people see the problem with the infantry, but not the only ones who count - Battlefront. They think the core system is fine.
As promised I played through this one last night.
Well formations would stop the obvious death by bunching and cut down casualties. If every man is tracked and every bullet also, then spacing your guys out with real life formations will cut down on the casualties, as thats why its done in RL. An IA drill on contact would enhance this even more so as your guys would hit the dirt the minute fire is brought to bear and take the appropriate action/s.
I think this is a great post and is at the core of my CMSF experience.
BFC wanted to go 1:1 on the infantry. That decision came first, the question of how to implement it second.
The 3-man hack (I like that phrase) is just fine IF you're selling to wargamers, but they decided they didn't want to sell to just wargamers anymore.
I dunno. I think it would look pretty odd if you had more than 3 men move in unisono like the 3 did in CMx1. If you don't want them to move in unisono you are back to some TacAI figuring out where each man is. (this doesn't mean that this position would be used for combat computation, though)
Yes, but this is on purpose, CM is basically a miniature wargame, in which the players set up the forces (always a pitched battle), then boom, 30% casualty is the average per game. (Rough guess based on my pbem experience).
The key here is the players. I can remember one game against... I can't remember - OGSF? we played a LOT for a while - where we spent a few turns getting our rather large forces shaken out, mine into a line of attack.
I was wrong. I know a couple of you follow on the official boards anyhow but for those of you who don't - http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1145032#post1145032
This from Steve yesterday in response to a complaint on the forum that soldiers in British Forces are walking through walls and into adjacent buildings rather than onto rooftops as ordered.Yeah, we would need to see a save game of that. We did put in some fairly recent changes (last month?) to better support walking onto roofs from adjacent buildings. The testers hammered at that and a few problems were found and fixed. But buildings are very complicated, situationally dependent elements and so I wouldn't be surprised if we missed something. After all, this is why most games don't allow you to enter into buildings at all
Panzer Command also has this problem, or at least the first incarnation did.
I don't know that it's that clear-cut. I mean, no RTS that I can think of allows troops to walk around in buildings; you "garrison" the building and the unit becomes an icon inside it. But every first-person shooter allows you to walk around in buildings; how stupid would it be not to? So the real question becomes, when Steve says "most games" what is he comparing to?
Agreed. But do you think Steve really took that step before making the comment? I got the impression it was just more hyperbole in the "slick car salesman" kind of way.
