Soapbox and Pot Stir.....Bunkers and Pill Boxes

[Dan Caviness]

Dam skippy Mr. Earl!!!
(:O)

Some post...some play...I'm gonna go find a bunker and bust it...
Where's Von Luck hiding now?
(sorry John...had to go there...:O)

[Kool Kat]

I'm not as driven as some to achieve ultimate reality in this game. I salute those who are, and certainly have no problems with reality, but I do feel the game makes it's own reality. One I enjoy very much, even if it does occasionally stray from the reality it attempts to depict.

I believe that is the best statement in regards to the continuing "realism" versus "playability" debates that spark up now and again. Well stated Dan!

[Hawk Kriegsman]

What I would like to see is if a bunker or PB hex is isolated, and remains so for multiple turns, the resident units inside should suffer losses, disruptions, and make it easier to take them out.

I have to disagree here with respect to CS. The time frame of the game is too short for a surrounded unit to suffer losses. In a large sceanario you are talking about a few hours and in a short scenario you are talking about an hour or less.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Skryabin]

I'm not as driven as some to achieve ultimate reality in this game. I salute those who are, and certainly have no problems with reality, but I do feel the game makes it's own reality. One I enjoy very much, even if it does occasionally stray from the reality it attempts to depict.

I believe that is the best statement in regards to the continuing "realism" versus "playability" debates that spark up now and again. Well stated Dan!

That was a good one I agree :) But I personally would like to play a wargame that is as close to reality as possible. When you was a kid didn't you imagine yourself a "real" soldier with that toy machine gun? You did not want to fight in some different and special reality.

I am just curiouse if CS "makes it's own reality" what is the porpuse of choosing it? So much fun? If it is some fiction reality why don't we play then something more at least graphicaly advanced? LOL

I left Company of Heroes (hi end WW2 RTS) exactly for realism, nothing more. And therefore I bielive that every atempt to make it closer to reality is worth a try. Or at least worth to be disscussed :)


Dmitriy

[K K Rossokolski]

This is exactly the point. The game is supposed to be a simulation of reality, in the same way a flight simulator is a simulation of flight. Everything except the danger....or in the case of war the death, the maiming, the boredom, and the stink of burning shit on a Delta morning.

OK, 'nuff said there.. I believe we should be seeking exactitude in simulation, by whatever means we have available. We have, let's face it, an ancient game, which a lot of people are working hard to improve, with a mixture of great sucess and, in my view, unfortunately, some real failure. It may well be that the game engine can't do all we would wish, but maybe we can help with things like procedures and rules. Which is why I opened this thread...on a known and generally agreed weak point....can we do bunkers and pillboxes better, even if only at the margins?

[Skryabin]

For example, my infantry platoon spots the enemy and call for an artillery strike (which means it sends all necessary coordinates to a battery). During my opponent's turn this very platoon was forced to retreat or even let's say eliminated so that the target gets out of it's LOS. In the beginning of my following turn my artillery strike misses the target as if I would plot it in blind.

The question I am asking myself is what's the difference between strike coming with my platoon enjoying watching it and a strike that comes without any beholder if coordinates were already given away?

;)
Dmitriy

[Wolfman]

For example, my infantry platoon spots the enemy and call for an artillery strike (which means it sends all necessary coordinates to a battery). During my opponent's turn this very platoon was forced to retreat or even let's say eliminated so that the target gets out of it's LOS. In the beginning of my following turn my artillery strike misses the target as if I would plot it in blind.

The question I am asking myself is what's the difference between strike coming with my platoon enjoying watching it and a strike that comes without any beholder if coordinates were already given away?

;)
Dmitriy

Dmitriy, the difference is that if your platoon can see the target they can co-ordinate the fire - i.e. the battery fires a "ranging" shot and the platoon commander can radio in something like "up 100yards and fire for effect" thus making the artillery much more accurate.

[Skryabin]

Dmitriy, the difference is that if your platoon can see the target they can co-ordinate the fire - i.e. the battery fires a "ranging" shot and the platoon commander can radio in something like "up 100yards and fire for effect" thus making the artillery much more accurate.

I was thinking about that but got confused by this note in manual: "Important: Indirect fire is 'pre-plotted' one turn in advance (simulating the time it takes for a forward observer to establish access to the battery, plot the fire mission, call in spotting rounds, etc.). Once plotted, an artillery mission cannot be recalled."

If he can co-ordinate it "on-line", I thought, why this strike does not arrive that same turn he calls for it? But probably I was not right.

Your explanation make sense.

Dmitriy

[Mike Abberton]

All games are going to have limitations on how real they can get. And an "I-go-U-go" style game has a ton of them. Obviously there are no "turns" in real life where only one side acts and the other is forced to only react. And the sides definitely don't alternate who gets to act and who gets to react.

So things like artillery fire happening in the next turn, not the present one, are a compromise necessary due to the basic nature of the game engine. In comparison to reality, neither case, the present turn or the next one, is an exact simulation of how artillery works, but in the developers interpretation indirect fire happening in the next turn is a closer interpretation of reality than in the present turn.

For a WWII game, I generally agree with them, although one could probably make the case that it would depend greatly on the time frame, the sides involved, and the situation being modeled. Modelling US artillery effectiveness in a set piece battle in 1945 the same as Russian artillery "effectiveness" in the early days of Barbarossa probably isn't very realistic, but different artillery models was out of the scope of the game.

My thoughts at least.
Mike

P.S. If you'd like to see a different model of artillery, I'd suggest trying out the Combat Mission games. CM's "we-go" simultaneous turn resolution and shorter scale (explicitly 1-minute turns with no ambiguity) allows a much different interpretation of artillery fire with varying command delays and accuracy by artillery level, type, nationality and troop quality, plus spotting rounds and the ability to correct fire as it drops.

[Von Earlmann]

unfortunately CM is not a platoon and company level game......I rather enjoy them more.......or division level..............guess it's like apples and oranges?