Jump to content
Ch53dVet

Why is it........?

Recommended Posts

In response to your, IMHO, dismissive, sarcastic, mockumentary of a rebuttal.

Let me begin by using your very own words.

"There is a chance, a small one, that I will regret doing this but I'll bite since some of what you have written is just so far off base that I would hate to have someone read it and think that there was any kind of agreement."

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 1:54 PM, IanL said:

  In my opinion your experience has more to do with being frustrated by not being able to be successful rather than the game. I am well aware that you will not like to hear this but: this game is hard, the AI and any human opponent is trying its best to kill your guys, this game is unforgiving, the fog of war causes confusion even with our god's eye view and things like relative spotting and realistic spotting can be very hard to understand (and sometimes take). Give your self a break it is hard. Having said that you have to learn to play better and get better at killing the other guys men.

Even though you are 100% entitled to you own opinion. It's of my opinion you are incorrect in your assumption.

Summary: Nope, not even close.

First off, I've never played the game frustrated, it's after playing the game that I get frustrated, then I stop playing it. We all know that it's impossible to play this game frustrated.

Summary: Sorry, way off the mark

Secondly, I never claimed I was totally unsuccessful playing these games. In fact I've have had many victories many scenario's and campaigns.

Summary: Wrong again

Thirdly, In all fairness to the game I expect it to be hard from a strategic and tactical standpoint, not by the un-realistic idiosyncrasies of impassible terrain, bullet resistant buildings, HE proof bocage, trees, wooden fences, mine fields, etc... If I wanted to play a hard un-realistic challenge game then I'd choose a higher player setting.

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 1:54 PM, IanL said:

That is absolutely *not* true. The AI is bound by the same 1 minute turns just like you are. You can see this if you play in scenario author mode you can actually watch the orders that the AI gives to its troops - just like you.

What you are seeing is the Tac AI which controls the men during each minute of WEGO (and during the execution of orders in RT). That Tac AI, which is the same AI that is controlling your men does react to what happens. Sometimes orders are even abandoned. So, in summary you give your orders, the AI gives its orders and then the Tac AI controls all the troops as they execute those orders during the nest minute. Your orders get the same treatment as the AI's. During the turn your men can react, interdict the enemy, fail to execute, abandon orders just as likely as the AI's troops. There is no AI advantage. None.

If you think you are seeing an advantage its because you are perceiving things incorrectly - frequently called observation bias. We tend to remember when bad stuff happens to our orders and fail to appreciate the times they went right or the times our guys got the better of the enemy with equal weight. Or the other possibility is our orders suck :) We have all made bad choices and given poorly thought out orders - and paid the price.

Summary: not even real.

 

  What I had originally stated, paraphrasing myself here, was "Why is it, that it "SEEMS TO ME" the A.I is playing in real time instead of turn based like me?

I was looking for an answer, not making an accusatory allegation, all you had to do was refer me to look it up in the game engine manual and that would have sufficed for me. Your scolding rebuttal made it look like I was on trial for slander.

Summary: your bed side manner needs improvement.

 

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 1:54 PM, IanL said:

Yeah, that can happen occasionally. I have to admit that I have see that happen but I play a lot (5-6 PBEM turns per day plus testing vs the AI) and this happens once a month or so. When it does I take responsibility to adjust things. I have a couple of additional thoughts:

On not being able to see what you thought you could: Yeah that is a game limitation. What is happening is the target tool shows what your unit can see from the selected way point based on the stance of your unit now and based on a summary of what can possibly be seen from the centre of the action square. For example, if you have a unit that is currently hiding in a tall grass field they are currently prone. If you then plot a way point across a field to a wall and then test what they can target from there you will find they can see nothing. Once they complete that move they will likely take up kneeling positions behind the wall and be able to see and target into the next field even though the target tool said you had no LOS. Or in more complex terrain once your men actually pick their locations in the action square they might not be able to see a target that they could have seen if they picked a different spot. This is the kind of thing that can result in what you are seeing. I now you think that is bad but really choices have made and that is the design. Over the years people have cooked up various proposals for controlling the source height of the LOS too and the target height of the LOS tool but the problem is it makes things to complex and creates a UI that is hard to manage. When you play you have to be aware of this kind of stuff and learn the times it is more or less likely and learn how to tweak orders to get what you want.

On not automatically adjusting position to achieve LOF to the enemy: LOL if our units automatically moved even 8m from where we told them to let along further there would the cries of the game is broken. OMG my men exposed themselves to enemy fire when I didn't want them to.

Summary: limitation. The micromanagement and UI manipulation requirements to make this "better" are way out of proportion to the benefit for such a rarely encountered problem. Also not going to change.

 When I move a units waypoint and affix a target command, to an enemy and when that the target command shows a clear line of fire then the unit, after it arrives, needs to fire.

After all, I'm placing a white cue ball representing a squad of variable size, with a guaranteed clear line of fire for the entire unit. If not, you would have given me 10 cue balls to place, one for each member of the team combined with 10 lines of a clear L.O.S. for each member to target and fire upon the enemy unit. Better yet, why isn't it the job of the Tac A.I to take over and make good on the guaranteed L.O.S. for the whole unit? IMHO, this should be part of the Tac A.I.'s job description.

In your summary evaluation, listed above, explain or show me the evidence, that I can fact check, to support this ridiculous claim that it's a rarely encountered problem?

Rarely encountered by you?

Hardly rare by me, it happens quite a bit in the games I play, also, it's not just infantry units but armored units as well.

Summary: The Tactical  A.I. needs to be the one to address this.

 

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 1:54 PM, IanL said:

Yeah so. This is our god's eye view making us think we should be able to things that just would not happen. Sure there probably were times when tanks and MGs fired into smoke but how effective would that have really been. This is just such small potatoes and again really does not happen game very often. Not to mention think about the real life orders the tank commanders would be giving. Their gunners cannot see anything, they never saw the retreating enemy even before the smoke arrived so the TC has to give them something to aim relative to. Not that easy really when there is smoke around. You are doing it wrong - don't stick around to see what KO's your tanks. Get them to take a better position while the smoke clears - they they will be the ones doing the killing once the smoke clears.

Summary: is this even a real problem - don't think so. Sorry :)

 What you have written here in trying to rebuke me is the most asinine thing you've written so far.

When the enemy is on the defensive and pops smoke to run into the crevasse between a rock and a hard place you fire everything you have, into the smoke filled crevasse, to prevent it from biting you in the ass, when the smoke finally clears.

Example: Band of Brothers, Holland, Operation Market Garden, Sgt. from easy company advises an approaching British tank commander that a German armored unit is waiting in ambush, behind the corner of a house, that their tank is about to pass by. The Sgt. advises the commander the only way to kill it w/o damage to his tank and crew is by shooting through the corner of the building. The tank commander informs the Sgt. that the current rules of engagement are to avoid damage to all civilian property, at all costs, Even though, the tank had a target arc pointing towards the corner of the house and the gunner was ready to fire as soon as the barrel cleared the corner. However, the left forward section of the tank was already in the sights of the German gunner and the British tank is immediately ripped apart the gun barrel never cleared the houses corner.

You drive me nuts, when you say, "This is small potatoes and again really doesn't happen in the game that often". It insults my intelligence when you wave your hand in dismissal and say it doesn't happen that much or often. How in the hell can you come to that conclusion and why am I supposed to believe that it's from gods lips to your ears to accept as the truth, the whole true and nothing but the truth, so help me god?

You know It happens and you know it happens all the time and in every game, regardless of the scenario or campaign.When I can't get a line of sight for area fire, on a house, because the 3ft stone wall in front of it is blocking the ground, you know it's the same reason I can't target the tank in the smoke filled alley. If I'm on a high elevation above a farm and can't get a line of sight to the farmhouse window because the barbed wire fence is blocking the line of sight to the ground in front of the farmhouse, again, you know it's the same damn reason as the tank in the alleyway, don't try to act or tell me it's a totally different thing.

 You say adjusting the line of sight issue to a proper and realistic level sends the UI into a frenzy, to me that's a major game breaker right there if you want to continue labeling this game as realistic, strategic, and tactical. With all the many years the CM genre has been produced and sent to the market I find it hard to believe that this one area of contention with the line of sight is beyond any measurable means of being addressed and squashed or adjusted to a more realistic level

Summary: you know it's a problem, that's why you try to dismiss it as a problem, but in order to get us to see it as a problem you first have to get us to believe that what you tell us is w/o reproach. So, a self-appointed pundit is born. Before he can fend off the flaw finders he works his magic, thus, knowingly or unknowingly creating a following of devotees to attack and smear any non-believers and skeptics to submit and accept. The ones that hold out and resist are then subjected to an environment so toxic they have to flee the forum forever or escape into the ether to observe from a safe distance.

You've seen and had a good chuckle commenting on the pictorial content they've posted here. So you are good and well aware of the nonsense and utterly complete badgering I took prior to getting a chance to sit down and respond to your dismissive and rebuking response. 

I was going to address some other things your but on the scale of what I have already addressed they are merely small potatoes, as you would say.

Before I left here I needed to speak my mind before exiting the stage and leaving this pitiful cesspool forever, good riddance and goodbye.

P.S.

No need for the many devoted mindless robots to come after me as some of the mindless devotees have already done. I tried to come here and be civil but, the crazies here felt a need to display their cowardice, through anonymity by, mocking, threating with disturbing media and character assassination.

I'm leaving these forums for good and in so doing it comforts me to know I'll be denying the zealot and mindless fanbot's the slings and arrows of their discontent, to hurl at me.

My apologies to all those who come here that are not part of the roiling and boiling puss buckets of human indecencies, that have read, what I felt was necessary to fend off the vengeful intolerants that tried to bully, shame and stifle me into their way of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Ch53dVet said:

Summary: you know it's a problem, that's why you try to dismiss it as a problem, but in order to get us to see it as a problem you first have to get us to believe that what you tell us is w/o reproach. So, a self-appointed pundit is born. Before he can fend off the flaw finders he works his magic, thus, knowingly or unknowingly creating a following of devotees to attack and smear any non-believers and skeptics to submit and accept. The ones that hold out and resist are then subjected to an environment so toxic they have to flee the forum forever or escape into the ether to observe from a safe distance

huh?:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ch53dVet said:

Before I left here I needed to speak my mind before exiting the stage and leaving this pitiful cesspool forever, good riddance and goodbye

Ok , Thankyou for your opinions, take care, you may want to try World of Tanks or Company of Heroes 2: Ardennes Assault , these games are very pretty and offer far greater tactical challenges,and with none of the issues that plague CM.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, weapon2010 said:

Ok , Thankyou for your opinions, take care, you may want to try World of Tanks or Company of Heroes 2: Ardennes Assault , these games are very pretty and offer far greater tactical challenges,and with none of the issues that plague CM.:D

somebody seems to be off his meds... maybe me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The phrase "good riddance and goodbye" does brings the words "spat" "dummy" and "pram" to mind. I think it is sad that anyone should leave this forum in ill humour. But it quite often seems to be the case that we get visitors who seem to think that everything they say is "constructive criticism", whilst any argument running counter to their own is somehow invalid.

I have often freely admitted to being rubbish at this game, and I have always found the advice given by IanL, sburke and others a great help. To take just one point raised above. Just making use of the replay and studying what goes on during a minute of WEGO action it is obvious, or should be, that the TAC AI is NOT cheating the Human Player. Our troops do sometimes react "in an instant". How else do you explain it when one of your tanks uses it's Bow MG against one target whilst the Main Gun engages a different one? Or when a full squad of infantry divide their fire between two or more targets without us giving them any orders? If people take the trouble to study what is going on in front of their own eyes then they would enjoy the game more. Although possibly not when they are causing friendly fire casualties like I did this morning.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only surmise that these "shooting star" visitors want the game to be more like an FPS(?).  I can't think of any other similar game that is as realistic, so what are they comparing CM to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 hours ago, Ch53dVet said:

You've seen and had a good chuckle commenting on the pictorial content they've posted here. So you are good and well aware of the nonsense and utterly complete badgering I took prior to getting a chance to sit down and respond to your dismissive and rebuking response. 

Wow, OK. Oddly enough I feel very relaxed about your post. I knew this kind of self important whining was the likely out come so I guess I was ready for it.

In a phrase you reap what you sew.

I kept my sarcasm to a minimum but your self righteous ranting, name calling and ignoring of basic facts probably deserved more. Which others delivered. I had been thinking perhaps that the fact that you didn't respond to my post might have meant you actually thought about a few things.

LOL I guess not.

10 hours ago, Ch53dVet said:

I was going to address some other things your but on the scale of what I have already addressed they are merely small potatoes, as you would say.

You really seem to have issues man. I hope you find some inner peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

The phrase "good riddance and goodbye" does brings the words "spat" "dummy" and "pram" to mind.

It occurred to me that you had misspelled 'sprat' and 'prat', but then it is entirely possible that I am simply not up to date on the latest Limeyland slang. In fact, I'm sure I am. So if you would care to relieve me of the burden of my ignorance, it would go a long way towards enriching this wretched thread with at least some relevance.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

It occurred to me that you had misspelled 'sprat' and 'prat', but then it is entirely possible that I am simply not up to date on the latest Limeyland slang. In fact, I'm sure I am. So if you would care to relieve me of the burden of my ignorance, it would go a long way towards enriching this wretched thread with at least some relevance.

:)

Michael

LOL :D A misbehaving baby having a tantrum is described as "spitting its dummy out of its pram": try "comforter" (?) for dummy, and "buggy" for pram ...???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha.... Brilliant reply ME.... In fact it comes from very old Limeyland slang. "Don't spit your dummy out of the pram". I'm not even sure that mothers actually push their sproggs around in prams any more.

Ah, I must learn to type quicker.... Well done PhilM

 

Edited by Warts 'n' all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ch53dVet said:

 The Sgt. advises the commander the only way to kill it w/o damage to his tank and crew is by shooting through the corner of the building. The tank commander informs the Sgt. that the current rules of engagement are to avoid damage to all civilian property, at all costs, 

 

 

I don't have a dog in this hunt but is there really rules of engagement to not damage civilian property  in the game ? If so I need to turn myself in to someone. Lots of time I have blasted a wall with a Panther tank or direct fired "area" fire at a building I knew had enemy troops in it to flush them out. It often works by the way. Then I think well maybe a British commander might be inclined to go "by the book".  But then I think of Hamburg and Dresden.  Hmmm maybe not.  

This thread has a lot of interesting points but I fear it will be locked soon because neither side is using any tact

Edited by J Bennett
left out a word that might cause misunderstanding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, PhilM said:

A misbehaving baby having a tantrum is described as "spitting its dummy out of its pram": try "comforter" (?) for dummy, and "buggy" for pram

'Dummy' (in this context) is a new one on me. 'Pram' (short for 'perambulator'? I've always wondered) is an old one. Instruction is always welcome, thank you.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

'Dummy' (in this context) is a new one on me. 'Pram' (short for 'perambulator'? I've always wondered) is an old one. Instruction is always welcome, thank you.

Michael

This is turning into a Social, rather than Military History thread. No need for your "?" M.E. you're spot on, us Limey oiks do call perambulators "prams". And my muvver didn't 'ave Mary Poppins to push us sproggs around, she 'ad to do it on 'er Jack Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J Bennett said:

 is there really rules of engagement to not damage civilian property  in the game ? 

No, and yes. There is no general roe that say don't damage property but the secenario designer can set an objective to be preserve. If they do that you loose points if you damage buildings on the objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×