A few thoughts on combat information

[Perturabo]

I have noticed that player in CC receives too much information about combat.

The information has a form of visual/sound effects and unit information which gives him an unfair advantage.

unit information:
*When player destroys an infantry units, he receives information about its type and size and a confirmation that it's destroyed.

visual/sound:
*Bodies are visible to player even when his soldiers don't see them. It allows to "find" units by firing support/indirect fire/heavy weapons at various places and waiting for bodies to appear.

*Muzzle flashes/backblasts/tracers are visible to player regardless if they are seen by soldiers or weapon really uses tracers.
It allows player to quickly see from where their soldiers are fired upon, giving him an unfair advantage over the AI.
Also, it forces player to actively search for such signs.
Player should see only those fire effects that are visible to soldiers and muzzle flashes seen by soldiers should be marked with some kind of contact marker that could be targeted by AI and player.

Could those things get corrected?

[lstp04]

Interesting suggestions - Agree with a few - Some may make the FOW on this level of game too much -
 
The idea of not seeing firing tracers, I don't agree with - I think it works well as is - It sometimes gives a general idea of where fire came from....but not exactly where (which is realistic).

I think the close Qrts combat needs to be enhaced / tweaked - Path finding issues - Increasing the value of elite soldiers - Having sometime of one time "helo-insertion" (via the same method airstrikes are called in).....and more ability to direct how you want forces to react when setting up a new mission / scenario -  We should be able to direct Opfor to attack, defend, try and escape a given area, etc....

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: lstp04

The idea of not seeing firing tracers, I don't agree with - I think it works well as is - It sometimes gives a general idea of where fire came from....but not exactly where (which is realistic).

Well, tracers should be visible, but only when soldiers actually see them and when weapons actually use tracers/visible projectiles.
And when the soldiers see them, there's no reason why they shouldn't be marked on map for a longer time. After all, it's a tactical simulation, not a "find a tracer" game.

As for the rest, I prepared a little visual presentation of the unfair advantage:
An enemy team fired at me from that building. I was able to supress it with fires from 2/3rd of my platoon, while one squad was closing in for assault.
I won that fight because I could target muzzle flashes, in opposition to the AI.

[Perturabo]

Another one:
I was searching for the town and my infantry spotted a group of unarmed rebels. I fired at them and a soldier from a rebel fireteam got killed. His previously unseen body magically appeared.
Suddenly, I knew where the most dangerous enemy is.

[LitFuel]

I can't agree I think most of the things you mentioned are actually good things...yes this game is better than most as far as realism for a real time game but let's not suck the fun out of it. The things you mentioned won't add to the "game." per say.  I will say that Modern Tactics is a little different then the other CC's and I feel that CC is best suited for WW2 settings not modern combat.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL.: LitFuel

I can't agree I think most of the things you mentioned are actually good things...yes this game is better than most as far as realism for a real time game but let's not suck the fun out of it. The things you mentioned won't add to the "game." per say.

They do add to the "game" part as they would make the game more fair and more tactical.

Cheating and metagaming doesn't make the game more fun, especially, when playing against the AI.
I wouldn't call slaughtering the AI because I can see things that I shouldn't see and it can't see things that it should see fun.
Similarly, I wouldn't call carefully preparing an ambush and then losing, because body of a soldier killed in preliminary bombardment magically revealed positions of my troops to opponent fun.

Also, how exactly allowing the AI to target muzzle flashes and moving spotting the source of fire (and corpses) from player to soldiers would suck the fun out of the game?

[lstp04]

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

ORIGINAL.: LitFuel

I can't agree I think most of the things you mentioned are actually good things...yes this game is better than most as far as realism for a real time game but let's not suck the fun out of it. The things you mentioned won't add to the "game." per say.

They do add to the "game" part as they would make the game more fair and more tactical.

Cheating and metagaming doesn't make the game more fun, especially, when playing against the AI.
I wouldn't call slaughtering the AI because I can see things that I shouldn't see and it can't see things that it should see fun.
Similarly, I wouldn't call carefully preparing an ambush and then losing, because body of a soldier killed in preliminary bombardment magically revealed positions of my troops to opponent fun.

Also, how exactly allowing the AI to target muzzle flashes and moving spotting the source of fire (and corpses) from player to soldiers would suck the fun out of the game?

I don't think the muzzle flashes / tracer fire is all that unrealsitc - In that from what I usually see .....you can't tell exactly where the fire is coming from....only a general direction....and with today's Comms....that is not unrealstic for units somewhere away from the battle....to be given the general location of where fire is coming from (via Comms).

The seeing of bodies (is more visual) than actual useful (in terms of the AI, using it). Now if you are suggesting when you just hap-hazzardly bombard an area and kill one of the enemy AI .....(then see a body)...that is somewhat of an issue / cheat. Correct. (though, just don't do that, then).

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: lstp04

I don't think the muzzle flashes / tracer fire is all that unrealsitc - In that from what I usually see .....you can't tell exactly where the fire is coming from....only a general direction....and with today's Comms....that is not unrealstic for units somewhere away from the battle....to be given the general location of where fire is coming from (via Comms).

If it's reported by comms, then it can be marked on a map. Also, there are not always other units away from battle in position where they can be spot the tracers/muzzle flashes.

As for the general direction thing...
I easily trace the fire to it's source. Even if it's a sniper fire. The problem is that not all fire is easily visible IRL and and tracing fire to its source and searching for muzzle flashes on topdown view doesn't really make much sense as it's a pure metagaming.
BTW.
Lack of map markers for events like enemy fire, etc. makes the game unplayable from zoomed-out view.

ORIGINAL: lstp04

The seeing of bodies (is more visual) than actual useful (in terms of the AI, using it). Now if you are suggesting when you just hap-hazzardly bombard an area and kill one of the enemy AI .....(then see a body)...that is somewhat of an issue / cheat. Correct. (though, just don't do that, then).

It doesn't have to be deliberate. It can be an effect of using an mortar/cannon/missile/rocket on another unit that is visible.

[lstp04]

I do agree about CCMT being uplayable in the "zoom out view" - That is true -

As for the mortor attack (and dead bodies appearing) in some ways I see what you are saying and in others.....there are times where you make strike a given zone only to see what response happens - Seeing of dead bodies (if KIA) may in some ways help otherwise show movement from that zone (which was attacked) that would otherwise be hard to do. But it is not unreasonable to assume when a mortar attack happens....there are ways of picking up movement, SIGNIT that other wise wasn't there prior.....(KIAs are just another way of showing this to the player).

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: lstp04

But it is not unreasonable to assume when a mortar attack happens....there are ways of picking up movement, SIGNIT that other wise wasn't there prior.....(KIAs are just another way of showing this to the player).

On eastern front too?