Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BlackVoid

Axis armor points in CMBB

Recommended Posts

You guys just don't get it do you?

Speaking from experience...

DT, is your other hobby banging your head endlessly against a brick wall?

Mark, your three comments in the thread have been cryptic - except possibly the last one : ). If you have a point to make on the game please feel free to expand as I am not entirely sure what you are saying about the gun problem that JC raised. Have you a solution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark, your three comments in the thread have been cryptic - except possibly the last one : ). If you have a point to make on the game please feel free to expand as I am not entirely sure what you are saying about the gun problem that JC raised. Have you a solution?

I, like you, don't really worry about such issues. I really don't think I've run in to this in a game in my limited CM experience. Therefore I don't really think a "solution" is necessary. My point, which I didn't think was THAT cryptic given your experience here at BTS, is that arguing with JC once he has decided to dig is heels in is totally and utterly pointless. No rational exchange of ideas is going to take place. He has no desire to engage in any sort of meaningful dialog or discussion. And I think you fully understand this. i.e. I think now you're just playing with him and get a sort of perverse pleasure from it. Therefore, I will leave you to it. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...]once he has decided to dig is heels in is totally and utterly pointless.

It's the BFC forum, what did you expect? :)

You aren't one of those who run off the Normandy beaches screaming when they come with battleships either, are you? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys : )

Its amazing that warts and all this game still so addictive. I think like a Impressionist painting if you deconstruct a game too far you lose the overall effect. An impressionistic sunset or beach may not be terribly "realistic" but I know what I like : )

A game design has limitations and if the overall effect is great then why try to calculate all the formulas and wrinkles. Someone posted this quote at WeBoB:

Signore Gaspare replied: 'And what do you say about the game of chess?'

'That is certainly a refined and ingenious recreation,' said Federico,

'but it seems to me to possess one defect; namely, that it is possible

for it to demand too much knowledge, so that anyone who wishes to become

an outstanding player must, I think, give to it as much time and study

as he would to learning some noble science or performing well something

or other of importance; and yet for all his pains when all is said and

done all he knows is a game. Therefore as far as chess is concerned we

reach what is a very rare conclusion: that mediocrity is more to be

praised than excellence.'

- Baldesar Castiglione, "Etiquette for Renaissance Gentlemen," 1528 A.D.

Utterly brilliant and eloquent summary of the gaming contradiction inherent in playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an excellent quote. I missed it on weBoB because I didn't follow that thread to long. Definitely applies to more than chess. CM, poker, etc. Many other too I am sure. But I've seen many people personally take the fun right out of the two I mentioned, either in a drive for excellence in what is simply a computer game, or in an effort to take something that was fun and try to make a living from it. I hope to never reach that point in either case. I think I'm safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"how do you account for players moving guns and then finding that an enemy tank has appeared in a position which gives your gun an unfair advantage"

I account for it as (1) it doesn't happen (2) if it does happen they did it on purpose, i.e. they cheat just like you and (3) don't play them if they do.

Simple. You just don't like the answer, because you prefer to cheat. Your druthers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But there is no such thing as "invunerable" in this game.

Every unit or position has an opposing unit or tactic that can counter it.

Every one.

But there is also such as thing as a proper, realistic weapon to fight a certain enemy unit. Disabling direct fire HE as an effective countermeasure for towed guns is not exactly historical.

The game engine error is not fatal as it applies only under certain circumstances. But it can be made fatal (for realism) by deliberately and reliably exposing the engine problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The specific question being posed was guns being manoeuvered. Seemingly this never happens...which is patently false. Should your guns find themselves in a position of unfair advantage then you are at fault - a cheat even - despite the fact that the end result is not of your own making, it is mere coincidence.

As is often the case, playing on huge maps can nullify many of the game engine flaws - how can you reliably position your guns to gain this unfair advantage if you can't be certain of the line of advance, for example. But sure, there are undoubtedly scenarios where this game engine flaw comes in to play - knowingly or unknowingly.

Part of the answer is to be aware of it so that you don't waste time pursuing an unobtainable hit. And to be aware of it so that you don't repeatedly play people who systematically use this flaw in contrived scenarios that permit no other solution. But if I come across a gun that has been man-handled to the crest of a hill I'm not going to throw a hissy fit and start calling someone a cheat.

And I think it is offensive for JasonC to state that someone he has never played likes to cheat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The game engine error is not fatal as it applies only under certain circumstances. But it can be made fatal (for realism) by deliberately and reliably exposing the engine problem.

If such a tactic is a game killer for you then how do you deal with other coding "oddities"? Every time a smoke round is used realism goes out the window, and that is just one of many examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If such a tactic is a game killer for you then how do you deal with other coding "oddities"? Every time a smoke round is used realism goes out the window, and that is just one of many examples.

You still don't get the point. You can't use smoke in CMx1 without breaking realism. There is nothing to do for the player except not use it at all which isn't realistic either.

But when placing a gun you can pick between deliberately placing it in a realism-damaging position or you can choose not to exploit the bug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you do when the gun comes in as a reinforcement on a hilly map?

How likely it is to have the gun, with no towing vehicle, arrive where it faces your lane of approach in a way that exploits the bug? Doesn't make any sense since you don't get any foxholes either. And even if it does end up in such a position, it's different than having it places there deliberately to exploit a bug.

In a word: the solution is not to discuss hypothetical situations that are pulled out of thin air :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Redwolf:

It seems hard to believe you have never started a game with a gun on the edge of a set-up area where moving it a few tens of metres forward would make a big difference to its field of fire/level of protection/concealment. And until you arrive at that point how can you know whether it is in a position to nail a tank that may appear at a particular point on the other side of the map?

Experienced players recognise rocky terrain as being the best defensive place to move your gun into, and woods may be good for ambush so thats where guns go.

Moving guns is therefore hardly a hypothetical situation unless that is one plays on very small maps. Playing on huge and large maps means towed and pushed guns are common. Therefore this discussion - you are a cheat if your gun is in a position to nail tanks without taking direct return fire - is not without some interest. To call someone a cheat on the basis that the game engine is flawed and it has left you at a disavantage is pretty ridiculous - actually it is more than ridiculous it is stupid.

Until JC raised the "cheat" I had played my last 150 games believing the problem had been solved by BF. I do not wish to be reduced to worrying about how I move or position my guns on the off-chance I achieve this perfect siting and then be called a cheat.

The sensible options:

- not to play people who feel everyone is trying to do them down and cheat to do so

- if one insists on playing on a mini-map be aware that it can happen

- play with enough points that you can have true combined arms

- play people who understand the game is flawed and that **** happens

For me to cheat to win would be ridiculous as what value or personal satisfaction can come from winning a computer game by cheating an opponent, any opponent no matter how detestable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You people now reverted to arguing on a different level.

The question is - what do you do if your opponent deliberately places the gun right behind a ridge, with the intention of exploiting the engine limitation.

You in particular, dieseltaylor, might not understand what the issue actually is, guessing from your post.

Specifically, you almost never end up in a situation where a gun placed in wood exploits the ridge bug. Because a 20x20m title of wood requires that you place the gun pretty far forward to be able to look out. But the elevation control isn't fine graded enough for a ridge to form right in front of that space.

The engine limitation usually gets exploited with trenches in open ground.

I also highly doubt that doing the right thing and placing the gun on the top of the ridge as opposed to right behind it with LOS will change LOS and your ability to cover given approaches. In the real world there will be a small different in vulnerability behind the two positions (remember we talk about foxhole or trench here), in the game there's a night and day difference.

I think you just aren't gamey enough to have looked into the details ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Redwolf for the helpful clarification.

In practice, then, although this can occur in any battle-type, the probability is that it is the defender in an attack/defence scenario who might benefit from this flaw, either by design or ignorance. In either case the only real solution is to resort to mortar fire (which you would like to think an attacker has) or to flank the position.

I think it is a measure of this game's greatness that it satisfies both the players who turn over turns in < 2 minutes and have an eagle eye's view of the game, and those who spend scores of minutes carefully placing their units. I think a lot of the misunderstanding here stemmed from people coming from those different styles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Redwolf for the helpful clarification.

In practice, then, although this can occur in any battle-type, the probability is that it is the defender in an attack/defence scenario who might benefit from this flaw, either by design or ignorance. In either case the only real solution is to resort to mortar fire (which you would like to think an attacker has) or to flank the position.

I think it is a measure of this game's greatness that it satisfies both the players who turn over turns in < 2 minutes and have an eagle eye's view of the game, and those who spend scores of minutes carefully placing their units. I think a lot of the misunderstanding here stemmed from people coming from those different styles.

A player who does it by accident will typically end up with no more than one gun in a game placed that way. That is a different situation from somebody placing all three guns given to him in the appropriate exploit position, or deliberately "buying" five guns to place them that way.

There is a whole range of things that you can deal with these guns, direct fire HE is actually the only thing broken. Just saying "use main gun" -> "hell, no!" and using a tank's MGs is much better than blasting 20 HE rounds over the edge of the ridge into the void.

Again, this argument did not start out from bashing people who place a single gun once in a while in the exploit position, but the "there's no gamey play" crowd turned it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, this argument did not start out from bashing people who place a single gun once in a while in the exploit position, but the "there's no gamey play" crowd turned it that way.

Actually it started when someone that most people would never even worry about being a cheater was accused of being a cheater without any basis whatsoever. Who would have ever that such toolish behavior would result in him defending himself...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you protesteth too much Redwolf : )

You people now reverted to arguing on a different level. The question is - what do you do if your opponent deliberately places the gun right behind a ridge, with the intention of exploiting the engine limitation.

The question was that, however the logical extensions were:

a] what do you do for guns that move?

b] is it a sufficiently big problem to introduce a special rule

c] is it a big problem apart from small maps

And these follow on points are the ones being explored. It was JC who poopoohed the idea that it could occur by accident, and also who suggested that if you played someone whose gun was in such a position then they were not sporting players and should be avoided.

"how do you account for players moving guns and then finding that an enemy tank has appeared in a position which gives your gun an unfair advantage"

I account for it as (1) it doesn't happen (2) if it does happen they did it on purpose, i.e. they cheat just like you and (3) don't play them if they do.

Simple. You just don't like the answer, because you prefer to cheat. Your druthers.

You are modifying the argument somewhat , perhaps reasonably accepting that it could occur by accident. But you are also suggesting that I , and others, maintain there are no gamey players. It is obvious there are gamey players but to most of us they are a rare beast.

NOW It is quite feasible that inadvertently I have cheated as my preferred MO is to place guns on the backsides of ridges meaning they fire along my front line. Now I suspect that depending where enemy tanks appear I may, depending on our relative positions and heights, actually have an unsporting position [ providing I am within 15metres of a crest].

As a player who took out 7 ATG's with mortars in one game I am quite keen not to site my ATG's on the top of rises and think my dispositions are logical.

To extrapolate from a rogue deliberately abusing this "exploit" to suggest that all players must either avoid it happening or, if they fail to prevent it happening, they are de facto a cheat.

My fear is that if we allow this sort of Star Chamber approach to what is correct in CM to enter into the game then it becomes unmanageable as more and more flaws in the game engine are deemed critical.

I think it makes the game a very hard sell to new players if it comes with a list of do's and don'ts existing outside of the game engine to remedy defects. To play a fun but flawed game is what CMx1 is about and it is best that the engine is played pure as it keeps the essential simplicity and enjoyment factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather to waste my time, having written the above I generated a large hill map and pretty much anywhere I placed my guns I was able to generate a blue line with a kink in it - and plenty where the same gun had no LOS, and had plain sight. Much as I expected.

Rather amusingly two things happened of interest:

1. A green Panther spotted a Crocodile at around 900metres and in the second minute of firing nailed in on the side turret armour on the 31st second - where it broke up. At the same second with the Panther commander still out of the turret went into Shock! There was no apparent incoming fire.

2. A 17pdr with an apparent kinked view nailed a Panther with a turret penetration killing a crewman. Once the Panther had recovered under smoke I gave it a area fire order for the 17pdr position. It killed it first shot at 882 metres in rough terrain. Though subsequent rounds did fly into the ether it would seem that even the kink is not a reliable tool in this case as to what is possible and what is not. I have kept the saved files.*

Possibly the fact that the height difference was marginal is key to the result. this makes "rule making/cheat calling" more problematic. I am sure on a small map it is a far bigger problem but given the apparent special circumstances it seems unfair to make people neurotic about the "problem".

JC's argues[!] is that in RL the guns are positioned beneath the crest on the forward slope and this should be game practice to avoid kinked sight lines. My feeling is that in a game with so many flaws and ad hoc tactics this is simply not worth the candle in terms of lessened enjoyment, and even more reasons not to buy an ATG.

* Repeated twice more with the gun dying a slightly different way in the third. In the second replay I had not ordered the 17pdr to rotate away and the Panther skedaddled when faced with a directly firing target who was meaner than it was. It did survive afurther front hit whilst skedaddling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How likely it is to have the gun, with no towing vehicle, arrive where it faces your lane of approach in a way that exploits the bug?

Actually, I was referring to guns that arrived w/prime movers. The kind that get driven to, disembarked, and then pushed - yes Jason, pushed - into position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bear in mind that pushing guns one would use the "Contact" command. Your men may take the deployment decision in light of what they can see rather than the final point on your order.

Essentially then the kink is not an absolute marker of an advantageous position as my test revealed. Given that there are other methods of killing ATG's and the accidental positioning would be far more common than the gamey/ bastard/ playing/ scenario/ designer it would seem logical not to agonise over it until you come across someone who does seem extraordinarily fortunate in positioning. Normally this will be the person who has a shopping list of requirements, and wants a specific map or scenario! : )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...