Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: thewood1

One thing that really doesn't seem to show up as a huge factor is the borg spotting. I still feel this is overblown to some extent, unless relative spotting can be made to work properly.

thewood1,

I went back and read JasonC's post ... it's a very good read btw.

I also looked at the spotting that was occuring in his post. It appears to me that when the MG starting firing it only had one squad in it's LOS, that being the shaken squad. I say this because the other squads never got an LOS to the MG ... unless they got an LOS to it while moving between the shadows but it wasn't firing at that point ... If the MG was in LOS to the other squads then they should have seen it.

Anyway, he didn't give ranges (except the foxhole range of 175m later on) but we know at the end where the MG was (in the house).

So ... I didn't run an example in Pck but I looked at the sighting tables and came up with this for comparison ... base sighting for infantry (40 factors, 875m)

Target Unit - MG :
1) Target Unit Firing ... +10 factors
2) Target Unit Infantry Team ... -19 factors
3) Target Unit in Building Terrain ... -20 (minimum infantry)

These leaves us with 11 factors ... or 75 meters. So, if the MG was beyond 75m the infantry unit under fire would never see him. Now, I didn't include that the unit was shaken because I don't know what that would translate to Pck. At any rate that would have dropped the distance even further, ie suppreseed, pinned,firing weapons,broken.

Someone tell me if my calculations are wrong but if this scenario happened in Pck then it wouldn't see the MG either?

The tactics were very good ... stay out of LOS when approaching the MG.

I dunno ... I wouldn't see any borg spotting in Pck if this was a similiar situation. Sure, they had sound contact ... but I would think that having an MG sustain the fire that it did for it to jam and pause for a barrel change (or whatever) then you'd think you should know it's location. He didn't mention the experience level of the troops involved ... unless I missed that too. Perhaps that could have been a factor, I dunno.

Again, thank you thewood1 for posting. I know I'm comparing game systems again and not talking tactics for Pck but frankly I thought the boot camp stuff was enough to say with regards to this type of engagement. Perhaps we need more!

Rob

EDIT NOTE : Also, I'm guessing that the MG42 didn't use tracers? How often were tracers used for MG's? CM doesn't model tracers (star wars or not) ? ... or do you have to see the unit to see the tracers it produces?

EDIT NOTE #2 : Even if it didn't use tracers you might still be able to observe a temporary contrail from the shell depending on air temperature and humidity ... CM models realistic ballistics and weather and they still couldn't figure out the location of the MG?

ORIGINAL: Mraah
Target Unit - MG :
1) Target Unit Firing ... +10 factors
2) Target Unit Infantry Team ... -19 factors
3) Target Unit in Building Terrain ... -20 (minimum infantry)

These leaves us with 11 factors ... or 75 meters. So, if the MG was beyond 75m the infantry unit under fire would never see him. Now, I didn't include that the unit was shaken because I don't know what that would translate to Pck. At any rate that would have dropped the distance even further, ie suppreseed, pinned,firing weapons,broken.

Someone tell me if my calculations are wrong but if this scenario happened in Pck then it wouldn't see the MG either?

Once one unit has spotted the MG at 75m other friendly units get a +5 factor bonus. This totals 16 factors or 100m spotting distance of the MG.

Why is 40 factors = 875m when 10 factors = 75m.  Is it not linear?
 
Also, when a unit is shaken, its on the verge of being broken, so not being able to spot a MG at almost 200m doesn't seem unusual.  CM does model tracers.  Not sure what that has to do with it though.  There is also a random factor in the spotting calculation.  I assume spotting also has a random factor in PCK also.
 
As for tracers in MG42s, my reading is they were standard in defence.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Again, my statement stands...where are the fans with tactical nuggets?  Heated discussions on tactics would be a blessing, versus CM vs. PCK bashing.

Don't know, but for me there is a lack of involvement with PCK. The design choice of no waypoints and the inability to position units where I want them(forget the whole platoon commander's role arguement, that's a red herring imo), creates a disconnect with the battlefield. The poor infantry modeling and small/same maps make for a certain blandness also, just more of the same. I think the model needs to be less on/off, and more interactive with the player. Maybe it is just me but I quickly tired of playing and felt no compelling reason to revisit.

It's not linear ... the closer you get the smaller the change in ratio between factors and meters. Also, I don't think Pck has randomness for spotting ... only the sight rays that would cross objects in between will temporarily lower the sighting range and it would vary.

Yeah ... CM has tracers (bullet graphics) but I forgot whether they are generated when a unit is spotted or they appear all the time. If JasonC had the opportunity to spot the tracers he would have known from the first burst where it was located, wouldn't you agree? He had to work with the sound bearing only to formulate it's location.

Pck, on the other hand, has way too many tracers ... all the guns have them, which I disagree with.

Rob

ORIGINAL: Mraah
Pck, on the other hand, has way too many tracers ... all the guns have them, which I disagree with.

I'm not sure what is going on with the tracer fury. I guess it's suppose to liven up the battle or show that shooting is getting done.

I would like to see more random start positions and reinforment locations of both players. Obviously somethings could not be random as gun and bunkers should be at useful locations.
Also more FOW in flag and goal placements. Enemy flags and point values shouldn't be common knowledge. And goals such as getting so many points of a certain kind of unit off the map would be very interesting. And this goal shouldn't be known to the opponent.

ORIGINAL: Ron

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Again, my statement stands...where are the fans with tactical nuggets?  Heated discussions on tactics would be a blessing, versus CM vs. PCK bashing.

Don't know, but for me there is a lack of involvement with PCK. The design choice of no waypoints and the inability to position units where I want them(forget the whole platoon commander's role arguement, that's a red herring imo), creates a disconnect with the battlefield. The poor infantry modeling and small/same maps make for a certain blandness also, just more of the same. I think the model needs to be less on/off, and more interactive with the player. Maybe it is just me but I quickly tired of playing and felt no compelling reason to revisit.

Good expression of the feelings I have too... Stopped playing both PzC games rather rapidly because of this also.

ORIGINAL: Mobius

I would like to see more random start positions and reinforment locations of both players. Obviously somethings could not be random as gun and bunkers should be at useful locations.
Also more FOW in flag and goal placements.

Steve,

The RBG and RCG can already do all this with as much or as little randomness of you like, if you take the time to set it up. Once set up you can then share the settings with other users.

Regards

S.

ORIGINAL: Stridor

ORIGINAL: Mobius
I would like to see more random start positions and reinforment locations of both players. Obviously somethings could not be random as gun and bunkers should be at useful locations.
Also more FOW in flag and goal placements.

Steve,
The RBG and RCG can already do all this with as much or as little randomness of you like, if you take the time to set it up. Once set up you can then share the settings with other users.

John, I don't understand how I would get a historically named platoon of say 4 PZKW IVG to always show up but at random spots along one edge.

ORIGINAL: Mobius

John, I don't understand how I would get a historically named platoon of say 4 PZKW IVG to always show up but at random spots along one edge.

Mobius,

What about page 9 and 10 of the Random Battle and Campaign Generator Addendum ... attack and defend parameters?
Wouldn't this define the setup location?
I guess you would have to make up several XML's ... one for each side of the map.

I can't think of any other way you could do it [:(].

Rob

ORIGINAL: Mraah

ORIGINAL: Mobius
John, I don't understand how I would get a historically named platoon of say 4 PZKW IVG to always show up but at random spots along one edge.

Mobius,
What about page 9 and 10 of the Random Battle and Campaign Generator Addendum ... attack and defend parameters?
Wouldn't this define the setup location?
I guess you would have to make up several XML's ... one for each side of the map.
I can't think of any other way you could do it [:(].

Oh it looks like a zone setup system has been added since I last worked with the RBG.

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Also more FOW in flag and goal placements. Enemy flags and point values shouldn't be common knowledge. And goals such as getting so many points of a certain kind of unit off the map would be very interesting. And this goal shouldn't be known to the opponent.

You know, right now we could make an invisible flag mod, one set for each side. If you play the Germans , you could activate the german mod which only turns the german flag and flagpole off. The only flags you would see are the Russian objective flags.

I think it would work because there are two X file models for objectives, one for the germans and one for the russians. Each objective contains both flag references which means the initial ownership would be displayed ... or in the case of playing the germans, only the initial russian held flag would be displayed no matter who owned it. Of course, your germans objectives would never be seen even if the russian took it ... you would have to monitor the victory meter every turn to see the change and check the russian unit locations to figure out where the objective was that they took.

Any thoughts?

Rob

Edit NOTE : In my example at the end ... If the Russians did take your invisible objective I believe it would now reveal the location as being Russian. You would then have to make a note of that location because once you retake it, it would vanish again. But, at least you didn't know what they were after until they took it! I dunno ... I'd have to test this theory if anyone thinks it worth a try.

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Stridor

ORIGINAL: Mobius
I would like to see more random start positions and reinforment locations of both players. Obviously somethings could not be random as gun and bunkers should be at useful locations.
Also more FOW in flag and goal placements.

Steve,
The RBG and RCG can already do all this with as much or as little randomness of you like, if you take the time to set it up. Once set up you can then share the settings with other users.

John, I don't understand how I would get a historically named platoon of say 4 PZKW IVG to always show up but at random spots along one edge.

I assume you mean for the AI force.

Depending on how you want the rest of the force to be set there are at least 2 ways to do this (and perhaps more).

You can use a custom setup zone (this will limit whole force setup).

You can use a custom template (which is designed for that scenario variant only) and place several (as many as you like) edge setup positions for tanks. Then set the IVGs to be reinforcements with 100% probability arriving at turn X. This way they will always show up at a random spot along the map edge.

In terms of custom platoon naming, you can do that in the battle plan or preset.

The RBG system is pretty comprehensive in what it allows, but because of this it takes a while to learn its intricacies. I obvisouly can't cover every potential possible random variant system you can imagine, but it can do a lot.

Regards

S.

ORIGINAL: Mraah

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Also more FOW in flag and goal placements. Enemy flags and point values shouldn't be common knowledge. And goals such as getting so many points of a certain kind of unit off the map would be very interesting. And this goal shouldn't be known to the opponent.

You know, right now we could make an invisible flag mod, one set for each side. If you play the Germans , you could activate the german mod which only turns the german flag and flagpole off. The only flags you would see are the Russian objective flags.

I think it would work because there are two X file models for objectives, one for the germans and one for the russians. Each objective contains both flag references which means the initial ownership would be displayed ... or in the case of playing the germans, only the initial russian held flag would be displayed no matter who owned it. Of course, your germans objectives would never be seen even if the russian took it ... you would have to monitor the victory meter every turn to see the change and check the russian unit locations to figure out where the objective was that they took.

Any thoughts?

Rob

Edit NOTE : In my example at the end ... If the Russians did take your invisible objective I believe it would now reveal the location as being Russian. You would then have to make a note of that location because once you retake it, it would vanish again. But, at least you didn't know what they were after until they took it! I dunno ... I'd have to test this theory if anyone thinks it worth a try.

Yes you could do that, better do to do it in the code, and it wouldn't be a big change either.