BFCElvis

Normal Dude, I just sent it to you from my email in case his doen't go through.

OK....I have played this file about 8 times now. The first time I took out all enemy tanks and lost 2 friendly tanks. And I only lost that after having eliminated all but one Russian. Second time I lost all 5 of mine without taking out a single enemy. The other times had similar results. If I eliminated all enemy tanks I always had at least 2 friendly left and if I lost all mine I didn't kill more than 1 enemy. I did notice that in the ones where I got wiped out almost always the overrunning infantry helped. If anyone wants to play a fun little battle within a battle this is loads of fun. Edge of the seat stuff. Lots of blowing up clinkity clackity things.

Sir Real, I would like the saved game file too if you don't mind. jcostello860@comcast.net Thanks

Tontoman you make excellent points and I would love it if when you clicked on a unit the area os the map they could see was highlighted more than the area they couldn't or some other LOS tool. Here is the (very minor) problem with that. This game also models spotting abilities. Which makes designing a tool like that even more difficult because you are then factoring in not just what can a person conceivably spot from a position but what does this specific unit see. If you create a game where you a possible LOS area is visable to the player but the AI of the unit doesn't spot something because of a low ability to spot there it will be flawed again with players believing the systems is broken because their friendly unit didn't spot an enemy unit within what should have been an open LOS. With that in mind the current system avaoids that by showing all spotted units a unit has with a solid icon. Unfortunately that doesn't tell you if a units has gone unspotted because of LOS or poor spotting skills. And thank you for posting a thoughtful and nonagressive post to talk about LOS. It is SSSSOOOO welcome by me because I really have tried to explain things as I know them to have been concieved and not to cover for or protect anyone and sometimes it feels like that is how my comments are received.

Chazman, I don't think anyone from 1C or BFC has said all the things on your list are broken and need fixing. In the "Human fodder for the omnipotent AI." thread this morning I posted something that may help you understand what you are seeing on the screen better. I think a lot of people are seeing the trees and believing they are respresenting patches of woods or forest when what they are really respresenting are individual trees. So what is happening is because it isn't behaving like a patch of woods people are thinking it is broken when in fact it is behaving just as you would expect. I haven't experienced the lack of cover or concealment that you mention for infantry at all. If I put a guy behind a bush in the prone position and issue him a hold position and a hold fire order that will usually do the trick for me. Have you had a chance to try that? T34 thing may be a valid point. I will have to play with that more myself. That was talked about long before the release of the game. I consider it a flaw of the game but it hasn't stopped me from having fun. I would be shocked if that changed. The camera controls are very easy to use and alter to be whatever you what them to be. Having the rotate left and right be the left and right arrows was awkward for me so I changed them to the A and S keys. Takes seconds to do. So take a second and think about how YOU would like them to be different and then go into the camera control panel and change them. The camera controls in this have much more depth than CM. It has a tilt feature and not just a fixed number of viewing angles. You can literaly view the game from any angle you want something that CM doesn't offer. The users units will do what you tell them to do. If you don't tell them to do something they will take the initiative. If a tank is turning its facing it is most likely doing it for a reason you are not noticing. If a unit is getting upit may be because you didn't issue a prone order. There is a line with a real time game where have to balance how much the AI is responsible for with your units and how much the player is responsible. That balance will be different from player to player. Some people may want/need the AI to do more of the work and some people want to decide for themselves whattheir units should be doing. So designing you have to come up with a balance that you feel is most lekely to satisfy both types of players and everyone in between. Not everyone is going to be happy but it doesn't mean it's broken and in need of being fixed. It only means it isn't right for. ect,ect,ect,ect? By these I assume you mean some of the tech issues that people are having like frame rate and loading the game and such. Well, Moon says they are on the top of the list for fixing. Hope this was helpful. Elvis

6 more plays and similar results. Sometimes get wiped out right away and sometimes I take 3 or 4 with me before I go. I was only testing for bounced shots and getting killed not trying to win the battle. Those tanks are in very unfortunates positions. The Tiger giving away its side and the Panther immoible and crew not in 100% good condition. If I were going to try to finish the battle I would get the Tiger running away from the incoming Sherman 76s and try to get it in a more favorable position and hope the Panther can take out a few before dying.

Ok....Just played the saved game file 4 times. I am assuming you are talking about the immobile Panther and the Tiger at the treeline/road. First time both killed very quickly with maybe getting one shot off each that missed (didn't see because I didn't know where the Shermans were coming in). Next 2 times I gave a rotate order to the Tiger so he might not have his side exposed when the Shermans arrived. Same result as the first time but these times I was able to see the shots miss. 4th time I gave a move order to the Tiger to advance. This must have exposed the Tiger tomore Shermans than when it was in the treeline because they didn't seem to fire on the Panther as much. Tigers main gun was knocked out quickly and the Panther killed 4 out of 6 Shermans before going down itself. I have a screen shot of the dead Shermans. I am going back to try it a few more times.

I just came up with the perfect way to illustrate what I am trying to say about maniac_mats screen shot if the "look out your window" experiment isn't working for people........ Try this experiment (most people very familiar won't even need to do the experiment after reading this). Create a map of open ground in any CM game at least 1000m across in each direction. Then through the middle of the map put a line of scattered tree tiles. Put tanks on each side of the line of trees. Do they have an LOS to each other? Are there more than 1 tree between the two units in those seperating scatter tree tiles? Then if you are into testing it further increase the depth of the scattered tree tiles until they are looking through 2 tiles to see each other and then try 3 tiles and so on until the LOS is finally broken. I am pretty sure that 4 tiles is what fianlly blocks the LOS. So when they are looking through 3 tiles how many trees do you think are between the 2 vehicles? Certainly more than 1. If I'm not mistaken I think you can even see through 1 tile of pine trees in CM which aren't scattered at all. Again, your concern should be that heavier wooded areas aren't represented not that the current system is broken. It is no more broken than CM regarding scatter trees. Does that express what I have been trying to say better?

maniac_mat, didn't mean to offend. I am just trying to explain clearly what you are seeing in the picture. You may not be happy about the answer but you asked for somebody to explain. (intentionaly condesending to get a laugh out of you on)If you look at the graphic of the tree the leaves are on what we call the "top" part of the tree. Tanks, being very heavy are on what we call the "ground". The part of the tree connecting the ground to the "top" part is called a "trunk" Unless this battle was being fought among the redwoods the "trunks" are much much thinner than a tank. It is impossible to hide tank behind a tree "trunk" (or more accurately it is not an effective way). Spread 10 or 20 tree "trunks" across a 1000m and they have to be lined up just right to "completelY' block the LOS to a tank.(intentionaly condesending to get a laugh out of you off)

maniac_mat (I'm really really really sincerly not trying to bust your stones) I believe your complaints about LOS are a fundemental misunderstanding of what is being represented. Once you understand what the terrain is like you will better understand that it is not that aspect of the LOS system that is wrong. What you really want is (now I'm trying to get into your head) heavy woods to be represented. That is what you should be asking for. "regardless if its only one tree and one bush. the tree is big and is a couple feet away from the tank, and the tank is 1000m away" Is what you said. Picture an open field 1000m from end to end. One tree seperates you froma tank. That tree is parked anywhere between you and the tank. Would you be able to see the tank? Of course you could. How many trees and bushes would you have to add to completely block your LOS? Think about and look out your window or drive to the country for research. [ April 30, 2007, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Elvis ]

maniac_mat, here is where you may be mistaken. A tank at 1000m when viewed from eye level in the game would appear very small if represented properly. A tank at that distance appearing the same size as one that is 200m away would not be at all accurate. However, if a tank is 1000m away or 200m away 1 tree would not blocks its LOS. It may appear very small on the viewable screen because it is 1000m away but 1 tree would no more block its LOS at that distance than it would at 10m. And as I said 10 trees wouldn't block it. As a matter of fact if it is 1000m away that explains the screenshot btter. If you had the same shot and said it was 100m away I would question why the enemy tank did not appear larger on the screen. As I said in a previuos post...If you live anywhere besides a city look out your neareest window and look at the trees. If there were a tank on the other side of the first 5, 10, 5 ,20 of the trees in your field of vision would you be able to see it? The answer is yes. If you can look out your window and see trees count he number of trees you can see through before a tank would be completely blocked from your vision. All this is not even taking into account what you can spot from hearing. I guess what I am saying is to look at the world around you when deciding if what the game is displaying matches the real world not preconceived notions based on other games. Again, it is not modeling "woods" it is modeling individual trees.

maniac_mat, from that screen shot I can see no trees between the friendly unit and tank #1. I only see 2 bushes. Neither of which would hide a tanks. As for tank #2 I see several low bushes and 1 tree. Also not enough for a tank to hide behind. Tanks are fairly large objects and this game is modeling trees as individual trees and bushes as individual bushes. One tree (or 10 trees for that matter) and a couple/few bushes will not block the visual or sound LOS to a large machine going clickity clack. Dense forest, bocage, heavy and thick terrain are not what is modeled here. If you have a beef I believe it should be that those types of terrain aren't represented not that the system as designed if flawed. From previous posts you have made I understand that you are having a hard time with this. My post is not meant as sarcastic I am only trying to help you understand what you are seeing (mostly because your asked).

M Hofbauer, my memeber number is pretty awesome isn't it. It is also lower than Moon and Andreas. (Please check out the top left poster at this link to further as a way for me to further express myself http://echosphere.net/star_trek_insp/star_trek_insp.html )

Chazman, the term "going Gold" in software is not the same thing as a Gold record. When software "goes Gold" it means the final version has been completed and it is being sent out to be made into discs and any further changes will be through patches. It has nothing to do with sales volume.

Hoolaman, I understand what you are saying. Elmar and I knew when the game was going to be released and as you can imagine were hanging out to see the reaction to the game. I can only speak for myself when I say that during testing I grew to really dig this game. I became immersered in the battles and campaigns. When I saw posts from people that, from my experience, either hadn't given it the proper chance or were dead wrong in thier assumptions I posted to try to clear things up. Not for BFC or 1C so much as for the poster. And M Hofbauer, my old CM friend, my member number is lower than yours if that is any help. Hell, mine might be lower than Matts. Been around these boards a long long time. My registration date was changed during the night of a thousand monkeys (of which I was one). So I am one old CMhead. And my take is this....This game might not be for everyone but for the ones it works for it sure is fun.

seppDieter, I don't either BFC or 1C cared whether I liked CC or CM for that matter. CC and ToW are as similar and different as the Sim City series and Civilization series. Both are games that start with building a small town and growing your city/empire through various stategies. Both can be engaging games about how to build a society. But both have completely different methods of modeling these things. The ONLY thing in common between any of the games is that they are set in WW2. Ghost1, I do not have a top of the line system that you have and the game runs smoothly. I have also never had a MP game lose connection. Somthing is wrong. Either it is a hardware issue that you need to straighten out in the tech forum or it is user error that can also be helped in the tech forum. But if your framrate is that bad there is no way on earth you could or should ever enjoy this game. Also, if it is that bad there no way you are capable of passing judgement on how fun it is or isn't to play. With those framerates there is no chance of you being able to "get" the game because you would have to be too distracted but it's unplaybility.

Dear Ghost1, The difference is Andreas knows he needs help. The first step is understanding you have a problem. I am probably one of the beta testers you referred. I was never asked to post in defense of the game by anyone (including Andreas). I really enjoy the game. There was a time when I started testing that I questioned whether I liked it or not. Then I started to understand it better and found that using the same tactics I used in other games is what worked for me with this one. The reason I have posted in this forum is that I believe some people are misunderstanding what is being represented visually in the game and I have tried to offer explainations gather from my deeper experience with the game (there is no way you have played it close to as much as me and no human has played teh Avalanche battle more than me). SO that is why I post. I receive no money or even pat on the back for posting positive things about the game. I do enjoy it and understand it is not CM (love) or CC (hated it). Elvis

Just loaded up a battle and it worked exactly as I describe.

Not sure what you're seeing Jim but to select a squad you may double click any member not just the leader.

Destraex, it sounds like you have the beta only space lobster version. Please exchange at once. Just kidding. But to answer your question as best I can, if you are sitting anywhere beside an urban setting and have a window look out of it now. Tell you what I see. I live in a rural town in the mountains with plenty of trees. There is a good sized road that runs near my house about 400m or maybe a little more away. If I look directly tomy left through the trees and brush I can see clearly see every car that drives by. There are 16 trees I can count in the narrow field of vision I am using as an example. If I were a Firefly I would have no problem spotting a Tiger driving down that road. I would be able able to shoot at it but I would expect with reduced hitting ability. If you look at these maps you see invidual trees and bushes so the example is a good one. I think what you (and others) might be expecting are dense woods like the ones modeled in the CM series. If they should or shouldn't have modeled pathches of woods similar to CM is another issue althogether. The point is consider each tree as a single tree not as representation of many more trees. So when you ask at what level you can't see through atree the answer is no level. You cannot hide a tank behind a tree or even 10 trees unless they were to be aligned in an unrealistic way.

Also, if you feel the spotting and targeting on high is too high for enemy units then you are able to adjust it without a patch or rewrting code. Because that is exactly what the skill levels change.

My advise would be to play at the lower levels until get a real feel for the game. It really made the game easier to get an overall feel for because the first couple/few weeks there were times it felt overwhelming. Once it was more managable I had a better understanding for what was going on. For instance, your comments about St.Lo...I'm not saying this is what happened since I wasn't there while you were playing but...The battle the American tanks for the most part are tank destroyers and 79mm Shermans. It is possible your units had not spotted some of these and they were able to get the shots off. I have never ever never ever ever seen anything shoot through hills. The American tanks enter on a hill opposite the German guns and have a pretty good LOS to a gap between the 2 gun hills and the gun hill on the German left is a lower hill than the one the Americans are on. But it is possible for you to be spotted by the Americans before you spot them depending on the various levels of the troops manning you tanks. If you saw on tank destroyer you only saw 20% of the armor on that enemy hill. I guess I'm really addressing you post in this thread and in another. Two for one!! But try the lower levels for a while.

BillyBob, what skill level are you playing the game on?

Ah. Don't charge infantry....ever. Move them forward prone and when LOS contact is made target one enemy infantry unit at a time until they are all gone. I've never had the assault command do anything but kill people. I am probably using it incorrectly.

Do you mean rushes across open ground? Or were you joking?