Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) @Battlefront.com.....Is there any chance you guys could fix 'Headcount' so that when set to 50% strength, a two man unit ALWAYS becomes a single man? It's utterly bloody infuriating when a single man, especially one who is the subject for a scenario, mysteriously develops a twin. PS - For some reason several types of two man team are NEVER reduced at the 50% setting, including MGs & RPGs.....How is one expected to create Rambo adequately if one can't get a single man with a machinegun or a rocket-launcher? PPS - Most of my comments are based on CM:SF2, but I believe they generally apply more broadly too. Edited May 31, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 well just so you know, when you set the headcount to 50% the game cuts the overall force by that amount and not necessarily each individual unit. The end result is that the headcount will vary from unit to unit - it might even be varied each time the scenario is loaded, although I'm not absolutely certain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 31, 2019 Author Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) Yup, I know.....I've built a 'Dirty Dozen' type core, five of the members are single man teams already, no problem, but the other seven are two-man teams set to 50%: About one time in twenty (at an educated guess) when I load the core, one of these seven units has developed a mystery twin. And as I said right at the start 50% of two is always one, no exceptions, so there shouldn't ever be a variation.....If you want variation in your two man units just use the other 'Headcount' settings FFS (and leave this one for those of us who don't). Edited May 31, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 I have come across this oddety also... Its a pain in the... Like many other things in CM there seems to be some randomness to this...that complicates things... A fix would be nice indeed... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 It's not what you want, I can see that, but it isn't a bug. It's deliberately randomized to represent variable losses in units. So, while you can ask for a feature to be added, I think the devs will not see a "fix" to do here as it is working as intended and not a bug at all. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 31 minutes ago, Bud Backer said: It's not what you want, I can see that, but it isn't a bug. It's deliberately randomized to represent variable losses in units. So, while you can ask for a feature to be added, I think the devs will not see a "fix" to do here as it is working as intended and not a bug at all. I don't really understand this. sure... If you set the entire battalion (or some other formation) to 50 percent i can understand some randomness... But if you specify the headcount for a single unit...a sniperteam for example... There should be no randomness ! Why should it ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 Maybe the headcount for individual units could default as FORMATION... Meaning it will be a randomish number close to the one selected for its organic HQ (formation)... And if the individual units has a specific headcount selected... That would be the number choosen...all the time. No randomness ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 31, 2019 Author Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) 57 minutes ago, Bud Backer said: It's deliberately randomized to represent variable losses in units. Why do that? If the designer wants randomness in his two man units he can always choose 60%, 70%, 80% or 90% (the Headcount for the individual unit will override that set for any parent formation). But for the designer that doesn't want randomness, 50% should be the one setting that will guarantee a single man. Edited May 31, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 14 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: Why do that? If the designer wants randomness in his two man units he can always choose 60%, 70%, 80% or 90% (the Headcount for the individual unit will override that set for any parent formation). But for the designer that doesn't want randomness, 50% should be the one setting that will guarantee a single man. Because CM wasn't designed to play the Dirty Dozen. It was designed as a Company level tactical combat simulation. That you want to play the Dirty Dozen is nice, but from the devs point of view irrelevant. Don't get me wrong. There are things I'd like to make more specific too, like knowing all my pixeltruppen's names from the get go. That has been politely declined. Sometimes you just have to accept the game as designed and stop trying to make it what it wasn't designed to do.... and yeah I know that answer sucks sometimes. I'd still like to see MOUT formations in US units in CMBS.... I don't think I will. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 31, 2019 Author Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) Dude, it's simple mathematics 50% of 2 is always 1.....Not 1.2 (that wold be 60%), or 1.4 (70%) etc. etc. All the other slots give a random result if you are rounding fractions, so why mess up the maths for that one slot.....It's short-sighted & frankly, just plain dumb. Ignoring the 'Dirty Dozen', it is at present impossible to, with absolute certainty, model a unit with a single surviving officer. Edited May 31, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 11 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: Ignoring the 'Dirty Dozen', it is at present impossible to, with absolute certainty, model a unit with a single surviving officer. Correct. And sburke's comments are spot on. You are asking for a game that is not what CM is. It is not designed for the level of battle (and hand picking unit counts) that you are looking for. Like sburke says, I can't imagine Steve or Charles commiting a minute of design/programming time for something like that. The reduced unit's levels are in place to have reduced unit levels across a formation due to losses not to mico-design battle forces. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 31, 2019 Author Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) Seriously.....Given the points I raise above? As I said, that really does seem rather short sighted.....Why limit what can actually be created with the games? PS - To put it another way.....Please explain to me how CM, as a game, benefits from not being able to choose a single man unit? Edited May 31, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 49 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: It's short-sighted & frankly, just plain dumb. Yep that is gonna motivate them...… 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 17 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: PS - To put it another way.....Please explain to me how CM, as a game, benefits from not being able to choose a single man unit? The short answer is simple........... Please explain to me why a programmer, that has his hands very full, would dedicate a single second of his programming time and have tested and tweaked and tested and tweaked a feature that 1) is beyond the intended scope of his game 2)he has no interest in, and frankly, 3) would only be used by a small number people on very rare occasions? I can even put it in different terms.....Think of the number of people that you imagine play the Combat Mission games. Now, out of all of those people how many make scenarios themselves of any kind? Pretty small percentage I'd say based on the number of available user made scenarios floating around. There are plenty of them around for me to always find a new one when I go looking but it isn't an avalanche of scenarios for sure. So, thinking about the percentage of players who DO make scenarios......how many of them would use a feature like that often enough to make it worth going out of our way to do? My guess is that we're getting into the low single digit percentage of players at that point. It has been the same way since Day 1 when the original CMBO Public Beta Demo was released. Lots of people have lots of ideas about what they would like to see added to the games. Not everything can (or should) be added to the games. If a feature is a good enough idea and would benefit most players they have added them time and time again over the years. We are always open to new ideas and concepts. If something makes sense to do we've done it and continue to do it. Unfortunately, this ain't one of them. CMSF came out about 12 years ago. There have been lots of outcries for specific features. If this one carried more weight it would not be the first time that it has come up. So, keep the ideas coming but I wouldn't hold my breath for this one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 31, 2019 Author Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, BFCElvis said: My guess is that we're getting into the low single digit percentage of players at that point. Fair enough.....That's probably the best reason so far. It's really irritating though.....It took a while to find seven teams that can be reduced to a single man while retaining their primary role ie: the snipers keep their long rifles, the FO still has his laser designator, the JAC can still talk to the drone (& friendly air), the breach team can (usually) still blow stuff up etc. etc. 1 hour ago, sburke said: Yep that is gonna motivate them...… Dude, if you told your maths teacher that 50% of two was two.....How would that make you look? Edited May 31, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danfrodo Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 Getting one man team is easy. All I have do is say "glad that area is cleared" and send forward an entire squad. 60 seconds later I have a one man team. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 31, 2019 Author Share Posted May 31, 2019 Imagine how much more carefully you would play if each 'team' was one man to start with! There are a few of us who trying to push CM to the limits, just to see what's possible and what might be playable and fun.....Everything from Police Departments, Taxi Companies (in a war zone), on to Street Gangs and right through to very, very small CIA interventions are on the table: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: Dude, if you told your maths teacher that 50% of two was two.....How would that make you look? My math teacher would tell you that you didn’t understand the starting formula and would give you an F. No matter how many ways you say it no one else has said that the 50% is applied how you interpret it. In fact they said the opposite. Repeating yourself doesn’t make you right, it just makes you repetitive Have you ever heard the definition of insanity? Edited May 31, 2019 by sburke 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 31, 2019 Author Share Posted May 31, 2019 (edited) 30 minutes ago, sburke said: Have you ever heard the definition of insanity? There are several, do you mean Einstein's definition? TBH he was a lot better at physics than psychology. 30 minutes ago, sburke said: No matter how many ways you say it no one else has said that the 50% is applied how you interpret it. In fact they said the opposite. What.....Who says the opposite? I don't understand your comment. It's only applied one way (for two man teams set to 50%) and that way results in random mystery twins that are just not explicable by conventional mathematics. Edited May 31, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 Yes, they are: 50% x RNG x Unit Size. Whoever said it was a straight %? The fact that the numbers do vary clearly shows that’s not the case. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted May 31, 2019 Author Share Posted May 31, 2019 So is the (xRNG) modifier genuinely more valuable (when we are talking about two man units) than the ability to select a single man? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted May 31, 2019 Share Posted May 31, 2019 Yes. No one wants to go in the woods alone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: What.....Who says the opposite? I don't understand your comment. It's only applied one way (for two man teams set to 50%) and that way results in random mystery twins that are just not explicable by conventional mathematics. I was okay with your ability … or inability to apply the ratio correctly TO A FORMATION. I was not prepared to understand your challenges at reading the responses from others indicating you can't apply that 50% directly to individual teams. My bad. As to the definition of insanity I was referring to Vaas in Far Cry 3. Edited June 1, 2019 by sburke 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted June 1, 2019 Author Share Posted June 1, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Bud Backer said: Yes. No one wants to go in the woods alone. John Rambo does! 7 minutes ago, sburke said: I was referring to Vaas in Far Cry 3. Now there's a game that made absolutely no bloody sense whatsoever.....What is it with Far Cry plot lines? You can actually get into the temple-thingy where mad-bird lives from the water edge, by jump-climbing over the cliffs.....So you should be able to rescue your buddies and not have to kill mad-bird either. Did Far Cry's designers test their **** that far? Oh no! See it's not just CM I do this to.....You should see some of the map-hacks we found in Far Cry 3's co-op game! Edited June 1, 2019 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted June 1, 2019 Share Posted June 1, 2019 4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: But for the designer that doesn't want randomness, 50% should be the one setting that will guarantee a single man. 4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: All the other slots give a random result if you are rounding fractions, so why mess up the maths for that one slot.....It's short-sighted & frankly, just plain dumb. Why? By your reasoning for the 50% of a two man team, then 60% of a 10 man team should guarantee 6 guys evey time. Why mess up the maths for just one slot make them all a guarantee. Just because the internal calculations that are designed for larger formations have this side effect for two man teams doesn't make it a bug worth fixing. Even is the analysis of the numbers that @BFCElvis presented are way more in favour of this getting more use it will would be pretty low on the priority list. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.