Battlefront.com

Just because we like the Peng thread, we don't necessarily like it spreading all over the forum. Deputy Moderator

Poor Bates. Your topic got moved and this one got to stay? Tut, tut. Well, I hope this will make you happy again: This topic is ALSO being moved. So there. Better now? Deputy Moderator

Troll or no troll, this topic is closed, you gamey bastards. Deputy Moderator

If the next incarnation of CM was to cover the ATO (Aussie Theater of Operations), this topic would be OK here. As it is not, this topic is moved to the general forum. Oh, BTW, Hi Stuka. Deputy Moderator

Yosoce, this would be a very good topic for the general forum. In this forum we try to keep the discussions focused on CM. Deputy Moderator

Hey, at least I got my first ever sigline out of this nonsense I don't even want to imagine... Steve

Lewis wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And I am going to take Toms advice and just avoid getting a certain someone in such a tizzy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, that would be easy for any normal person out there. Just show the people you are talking with an ounce of respect and don't sink to personal attacks. And if you think you only have a problem doing that with me... do a Search on your own posts. You have a winning record here in terms of pissing people off. In fact, that is the one thing you freely admit you are really good at. Something for you to take pride in I suppose. Steve

Michael, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Okay. I think I got that part. Check me if I'm wrong; I am presuming that:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bingo Steve

Bluefish wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think to model true machine gun fire the current ability of the gun would diminish. Less firepower in more areas instead of more in one. Sounds good to me. BTS are you with it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is already being done to some extent. The problem is not the firepower itself. It is also not usually the means of its delivery. One problem we did identify was a last ditch "going for broke" MG behavior. We are also going to take a look and see if our abstracted Grazing Fire system might need to be beefed up a bit. But not before we take on what is likely to be the main cause of some shortcomings... The main problems have been identified earlier, and most have to do with too great of an abstracion of Run and Move. Although it works fairly well in most situations, we do see the need to have an order somewhere in between. That order will be called Assault Move. This order will be in Combat Mission 2 along with the other changes (including TacAI behavior). Thanks, Steve

Lewis wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Didnt answer my question about how you initially playtested the game but I thought as much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yup, we totally don't know what we are doing. We are a bunch of fools. Combat Mission is just a lucky accident, brought about by some freak combination of luck and ... uhm... luck. We are not worthy of you. This is the thing I don't get here Lewis. At the same time you obviously love CM (or perhaps are such a waste of humanity you hang out here talking about a game you hate) you have zero respect for me and our work in general. Is there anybody else besides me that sees some sort of oddity about this position? If we are such idiots, then how did we manage to come up with CM? You appear to think it was luck, since you obviously don't think we know what we are doing, not to mention our testers (veterans and all). As usual, when logic and rational thoughts fail you, you trot out your tired assortment of insults and abuse. This has been your pattern since you first came on this BBS last year. It is also the reason why you have been ALMOST banned more than anybody else in the two years this BBS has been active. It is only because I can tollerate your smug ego that you remain on this BBS. Lord knows there has been more than one popular cry to have you banned. I have even taken a bunch of personal heat for letting you stay here. But hey... every once and a while you don't talk out of your back side and actually make a contribution here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But my point is that in CMBO, the game makes it possible to be as bad a commander as you could have possibly have been in WWI. The game ALLOWS you to do exactly as the dumbass generals did from 1914-1917.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps, although the guy on the other side would have to be a "dumbass" to not set up an adequate defense. I don't know about you, but I don't leave sole MGs, with no covering units, guarding key advances. And neither did the armies in the trenches of WWI. And of course, the units in CM are, inherently and internally, using WWII tactical doctrine. I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times... a unit using Move or Run is not walking or running shoulder to shoulder like his counterpart of wars past. Obviously this point keeps escaping you. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think that BTS has to address some level of orders limitations and possible ramifications from just plain stupid behaviour.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We have to some extent done this in CM1. The player has far less control of his units than in other games. Did we restrict control enough? Perhaps not. Might we restrict unit behavior more in CM2? Wait and see. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Your discretionary choice of what is worth ignoring...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am not ignoring anything, in fact I have addressed the issues head on. I admit where there are problems and discuss how to fix them. If such discussions go over your head (which is probably why you start slinging mud instead of engaging in rational discourse) that is not my problem. I am not your therapist. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...and your need for constant adulation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I do not seek out, nor need, constant adulation. If it comes it comes. Perhaps you are jealous of the attention? Perhaps you wish you could have people honestly complementing you on a job well done? Your attempts to claim that you are CM's sole, or at least lead, savior does look like a cry for attention. It is the only reason I can see why you are still here seeing as you think I am a moron. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Do you?, perhaps, have a Napoleanic complex?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nah, I just don't like a disresepctfull nobody continually pissing all over me in a thread where I am taking the time to discuss the game I helped make and continue to help improve. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is it possible that people can like the same thing yet not exactly like each other.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure. But I still don't understand how you can so totally believe I am some sort of fool. Combat Mission is a reflection of me, in part, because I spent 3 years of my life helping to make it. If I am a moron, then how do you explain your obvious love for the game I in large part created? This is probably what eats you up the most. You want to always be superior, yet you have done nothing to earn such a position. On the other hand, I readily admit that I am not perfect and neither is Combat Mission. Somehow you continue to overlook this admission and accuse me of being something that I am not. Have a good look in the mirror Lewis, for over the past year or so you have been here I don't think I have ever seen you admit that you were wrong. I have also never seen you admit that anybody else might have a better grasp of something that you. However, I have continually seen you dodge all legitimate discussion when it turns against you and lash out with personal attacks and mud slinging. You remain on this BBS for two reasons: 1. Your attacks on me don't cause me any pain and suffering. I saw your type back on the playgrounds in elementary school and didn't pay your type much mind back then either. 2. Your attacks, issue ducking, consistant twisting of people's words (note the lack of response to my last post...), lack of humility, etc. keeps your standing with your peers very low. In other words, nobody takes you seriously when you go off on one of your tirades. And anybody that cares to do a search on your profile will see that you have thrown tantrums like this more times than one can count. This thread remains open for now. I think the value in it has already been exhausted. We acknowledge shortcomings in CM's model, and I have discussed some of the ways we are going to fix them. I have been consistant with my logic and my line of reasoning. I am not perfect, and have never said I am (although Lewis likes to think I have), but I do think I know a thing or two about warfare and how to simualte it. If I didn't, why are any of you here on this BBS? Otherwise... what a waste of time talking about a crappy game with its crappy, pigheaded, moron of a designer. Steve

Ah Lewis... reminding me why you are my favorite person to discuss issues with... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hes off track again. I am not making game wide conclusions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Man... can you confuse things around or what. Game wide conclusions were being made, and that is why I objected to the original test. If you weren't making those claims, then obviously what I said was not directed at you. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am making conclusions on aspects of the game that are fundamental. They should hold true in testing. As higher levels of the game are built on top of them (armor effects on infantry, etc), they will change. The proof is in the pudding? No, I say. The pudding shouldnt use sour milk. either you get it (from the get go) or you dont.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Works in theory, doens't always work that way in simulations. Someone else (I think JasonC) pointed out that any system can be stressed to have a breaking point. It doesn't matter how well the componant pieces work, or how well the over all results are. It is possible to use the correct milk and still get some sloppy soup that isn't pudding you know. I'm sure there were situations your bulldozer couldn't handle. And if you don't think there are, you are fooling yourself. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They were on the screen when I played the game last. I will have to reiterate this again for Steve.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is what you said Lewis: " If running in the open gives "cover" (75%) then Ill be damned." You have it the wrong way around. What you saw was "Exposure, 75%", meaning that the unit has only 25% "cover". At least that is what happens when I put infantry out in the open and target them. And yes, this is just a base, unmodified value. Things, like the movement order, experience, etc. detract from that number. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You just might review alot of what was said by alot of people. It was acknowled by BTS that a rev directly was the result of infantry firepower being too weakly modeled. It WAS brought up by myself and others. Glad our contribution stuck so firmly in your bumpy head. Want me to do a search for you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure, knock yourself out. I remember some firepower tweaks, like changing the FP for MP44s. I also know that we added behavior to make MGs target more frequently at closer ranges, and also that an abstracted form of Grazing Fire was added. I have noted those above in previous posts. But what you said was: "all infantry firepower was weakly undermodeled". This is totally overstated and unsupportable. And we certinly have never said that this was the case and we certainly have never made a complete change of the way firepower is handled. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First you were saying that the tests people were doing dont mean anything and now you say this and I have muddled thinking?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, but basically because you obviously don't really read what I say and are so Hell bent to embarrass and attack me that you don't appear to be able to actually think about any of this. I said at the time, and after, and now, that the test being conducted did not support the conclusions being drawn from it. In that context, the test was unfair and not good enough to draw those conclusions. I asked people to try other tests and was either ignored or the other tests showed different behaviors and therefore different conclusions. There was even a challenge about CM being able to simulate a WWI battle, to which someone replied that they did this successfully. All of this is totally ignored by you Lewis so that you might continue to grind your axe. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why not just break down and give some of us credit?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uhmm... reread my posts and see how much credit I am giving people. If I am not giving you credit, perhaps it is because you don't deserve it? But I guess you do since, by your very humble assessment, you were the one that thought up all the stuff that works in the game and we are planning on putting into CM2. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We dont know all the intracies of the games engine. We are feeding back info. So use it to "fix" it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What the Hell do you think I am doing here Lewis? Chatting with you because you are such a pleasent person to converse with? Cripes... talk about having blinders on. If I don't kiss your butt I guess I am not listening to anybody, eh? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I say "fix" it cause you arent fixxing CMBO but developing CM2. Another product. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So what is your problem with that, BTW? Should we not make CM2 and just keep tweaking CM1 for the next 20 years? When Ford comes out with a new minivan with a few more cup holders, which probably would have been a good idea the first time, do you expect them to come around and retro fit all the minivans they sold before? We have done this far more than any other software company I can ever think of. Suck it up and deal with reality. We were not put on this planet to serve you. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You take crap personally and have just got to be right no matter what.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, I don't just have to be right. I admit when I am wrong, or did you not see my do this to you personally? And yes... I do take your posts as personal attacks. How the heck should I take them? Constructive, well thought out, respectfull criticism? Give me a break. Most people here would be more than happy if I just banned you, even though you have mellowed out recently. You have no credibility in this respect. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Dont hide behind some so called scientifical methodology. you are making a game for Christs sake! People are doing alot to contribute to it. You are the muddled one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, I see... we shouldn't use sound methodology and instead we should wing it? Gee... I am sure that will make CM the best game out there instead of the crap we have now, which was based on scientific methodology. Thank you for pointing out the errors in my way. So let me change my position.... Folks, all the well thought out, well reasoned, soundly sceintificly arrived at decisions I laid out in this thread are now off the table. Lewis has pointed out that this is just a game and using science and sound logic is just a waste of time. So I have asked Charles to simply increase the firepower of every infantry unit by 2 and MGs by 5. Why these numbers? Well, why not? It is just a game for Chris sake and I don't want to muddle things up any more. Steve

Misc. responses: Michael: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Very intriguing, but I'm not sure I'm getting all this, especially the sentence, "Some units will NOT be capable of using the order in the first place..." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Assault Move is simulating a skilled and coordinated effort to "leapfrog" men, with some running to new cover and others providing covering fire. Conscripts have no military training, and therefore this is something they aren't capable of even attempting. They were more concerned about figuring out which end of the Boom Stick to point at the enemy JasonC wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, I for one do not notice the 1 more than the 100. I mean, I bought the game 4 months ago, and I have to do a detailed test to find this sort of behavior - LOL. It was relatively hard to find simply because I don't normally make a tactical point of moving 62 men at 4 MGs, frontally, at a walk, through open ground. The things I do more often, work great in game terms, of course. But if someone did that to me and it worked, I am sure it would be noticeable enough.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thank you. My point since the very beginning. MGs work as intended for the majority of realistic situations that are likely to happen within a game. But as I have been discussing, we do understand that there some shortcomings. Taking out of context tests and making conclusions that are aimed at reflecting upon the game as a whole is bad science. Some still don't understand this, but I can't help that. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My second take on it is to focus much more on the unit taking the fire, and on routines that seem to be used now. What about something like this? In alerted or cautious morale states, if taking fire in the open, then check (in pseudocode) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is pretty much how the system works right now. However, it generally sees Crawling as not as good of an option as it should. Lewis: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1. Running Tests were out of context in the last MG thread, but now even Steve is doing them. First he poo-poo's them and then we find out he's using them also.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Typical muddled thinking there Lewis (yours, not mine). All I am doing is comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. I said from the beginning that you can only carry forward conclusions as much as the test allows. There are problems with rushing lone MGs. I have said as much. I have also agreed that this needs to be fixed. So why on Earth would I do tests with combined arms to figure out the problems with just a MG vs. a platoon (or so)? It would be just as wrong as those who said that MGs are useless, on the whole, after only testing one isolated abstract case. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It was brought to BTS' attention (by myself and others) that all infantry firepower was weakly undermodeled. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, lots of people have said lots of things about practically everything. Infantry firewpower is not weak or undermodled on the whole. If it was CM would be a laughing stock of a game from a simulation standpoint. It is not. In fact, we don't plan on making any changes to firepower treatment in CM2. Where things are not working as well as they can be, it isn't because of firepower. So toot your own horn as much as you want... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Cover states are modeled wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, this is just your uninformed opinion. While cover stats might be contributing to the problems I have been discussing, it is a minor part of the whole. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If running in the open gives "cover" (75%) then Ill be damned. Motion attracts the human eye like nothing else. Its from our primitive hunter days. Some gangly volksgrenadier running a couple hundred meters cartainly draws attention to themself. Someone in a foxhole is 45% covered? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Folks... ignore these numbers. Lewis is pulling them out of his you know where. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I like some of the changes that BTS seems to be working on. It will be hard to imagine anyone playing much CMBO once CM2 comes out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Fully expected. When you buy a new PC, do you use your old one as much? As for updates, we have given the customer more than they should reasonably expect. Everybody has got their $45 worth out of the game dozens of times over. And that is all that matters. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So it CAN be the case where MGs cut down infantry like dominos (under the "right" conditions). If the game cant reproduce this effect, then its foundation is cracked. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which is exactly why I insisted that if someone wishes to use historical examples like yours, that they set up the SAME situation and see how it plays out. Taking one particular type of squad and rushing it against a particular type of MG, with particular types of Experience and terrain conditions, is a poor way to see what is what. Like the faulty examples of WWI that some dragged out. You can't look at a whole battlefield situation and then compare its results to an isolated and totally different test situation and expect it to yield relevant results. Sorry, science doesn't work that way. As Michael stated above, this is a really bad example. It is completely void of details needed to recreate a similar setup in CM. Hell, the example even states that artillery was being used against these rushing Soviets, so maybe it was the artillery that took them all out? Where in the tests you and folks like Pillar did was there any use of artillery? And were you using Conscript attacking forces like were probably in use in this example? Lewis, you sometimes seem to know what you are talking about, but then you muddy the waters with crap like this. If you are doing it on purpose, then my already very low level of respect for you dropped another notch. If you are doing it through ignorance, well... I'll cut you some slack because there is always hope you might learn something from your mistakes. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pillar made a good point in the shut down MG thread; if it IS in the game it will be abused. This simple observation is interpreted as "whining" by Steve.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Obviously this is your typical axe grinding look at things. I guess the dozen posts I made discussing what was observed by Pillar, in the correct context, was somehow missed by your keen powers of observation? What I have said since the get go is a small, isolated, limited in scope, tighly defined set of variable example can not serve as the sole basis for making game wide conclusions. So far nobody has even bothered to challenge this logic. It would be hard, obviously, since it is this basic concept is the foundation of scientific methodology. Or do you think that if you bump your head getting out of your car that, without any doubt, every person who owns the same car also bumps their heads? Steve [ 04-21-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

Wreck, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, I still think that a pinning effect that is exposure-based rather than morale based is a good idea. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, I agree. This is something we have had in mind for a while, but it is a fundamental change to the core engine. Everything would have to be changed to work with this seperation. So... not going to happen for CM2, but will certainly happen for the rewrite. As with some of the other abstractions in CM, the combined morale/FP effect system works very well almost all the time. However, depending on the unit Experience, terrain, incomming firepower, losses, actions of other units, etc. this combined system isn't as flexible as we would like it to be. In other words, some situations call for a certain outcome that is difficult to assure with the current system. Not impossible mind you, just not as likely. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Another thing I like about the idea is that it will tend to break up lines of advancing infantry. This is something neither the current run command nor the proposed assault will do, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In theory, I don't think this is correct. I think one of the big impacts of the Assault Move is that you will see much more staggered "go for broke" attacks like we have been discussing here. Some units will NOT be capable of using the order in the first place, so that will leave some units behind. Others will get into the groove and decide to stop along the way and err on the side of returning fire instead of advancing. Others will keep on trucking. In short, I expect to see very diversified behavior when doing this sort of all out rush tactic. Jason, Some more good work there. I agree with your take on what you saw. I also agree, very strongly, with this comment in particular: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The problem is, not every move situation is like such assaults.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This gets right to the heart of the matter. We are trying to simulate a hugely diverse environment where there can be any number of different situations with any number of possible "right" or "wrong" behavior patterns. I am being perfectly honest when I say that Charles and I never thought we would get Combat Mission to handle this diversity as well as it does. It is probably the single biggest (and gratifying) surprise when we look at Combat Mission as a whole. For every one thing it does "wrong", it does hundreds of things "right". But of course people tend to see the one thing more than the hundreds. That is just human nature As you pointed out, one of the problems is that sometimes the correct behavior (i.e. running for cover) is sometimes pointed in the wrong direction (i.e. towards the enemy). Some of this isn't so hard to imagine as being realistic, but it most likely does happen too much. It is a very hard problem to solve, so I am not sure how much we can improve upon this for CM2. I know Charles and I have kicked around a few suggestions in the recent past, but damned if there wasn't some sort of drawback to each. So we will just have to see. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Incidentally, it would also be less ruinous to go to "crawl" or stationary in the open, if the cover from that were better than moving, assaulting, running.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I forgot to mention that Charels plans on hooking in "Crawl" to TacAI decisions a lot more than right now. Previously he used "Run" a lot because, from a game system standpoint, it was the better order to be used. However, now that Run will be near suicide in the types of cases we have been discussing here, Crawl is going to make much more sense more often than before. Crawl will, however, not totally replace Run within the TacAI behavior patterns. Tommi, The winter jamming problem is something we need to take a seperate look at. I think you can guess we will be picking your brain for info on effects and such in the near future Steve P.S. In resposne to an earlier "comment' by Lewis. I am spending my time in this thread because I that it will help CM2. We never have, and never will, claim to have all the answers. Although I firmly believe we already have the basic structure we need to make positive changes for these issues, there is certainly room for improvement. Jason's previous post gave us a couple of great suggestions BTW, so my time here is being well spent. If it was just a bunch of whining about "my MGs should kill everybody" I would be doing something else with my time. Not that you have any business commenting on how I spend my time. [ 04-19-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

Lewis, I didn't know you were one of our original Beta Testers. I mean, if you were the driving force behind these suggestions then you must have been since the movement order discussion has been around since Alpha stage. We did not want to have 10 different move orders (there have been many more subtle move order suggestions, which I guess you came up with as well) and thought things would work fine with the layout in CM1. After months of playing and probably millions of games played, it became clear to us that we need to introduce a little bit more flexibility. So these new movement orders for CM2 will be part of a fresh look at all movement orders in general. Exepct a nice new menu for CM2 Jason, good point about the cover rating being an important factor. I also like the random chance of "failing" to open up full bore. I imagine this being something like not having enough belts linked up, the spare barrel not ready, a jittery loader, etc. If we do put in a random factor it should be based on Experience IMHO. The more experienced, the less likely the unit will fail to fire full bore. Steve

David, you are hereby dubbed "Keeper of the kipper" and charged with smacking anyone participating in a PC vs. Mac thread over the head with a reeking kipper. Deputy Moderator

Tom wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So I think that if grazing fire is modeled as a firepower combat result impacting infantry units nearby the targeted unit then grazing fire should ALSO be a firepower combat result impacting units in close (10-15 meters?) proximity to the MG that is firing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am not sure we are understanding each other. Currently, from I don't know what version (1.0?), a MG has a simulated Grazing Fire effect. This basically applies the firepower of the MG to units imediately around (front, side, rear) of the targeted unit. You can see this in the game now, and is in fact what allowed the two MMGs in the above example to pop at least 7 of the 8 rushing units. We also allow MGs to switch targets more easily than other units, which also sorta simulates Grazing Fire. Range is irrelevant to the area effect thing, but I am pretty sure it does increase target switching as range decreases. BloodyBucket, thanks Michael: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On the other hand, I feel the need to retain some kind of all-out go for broke dash order. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is what Run will turn into. It will become a "dash" order and little more than that. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Any chance this Assault Move might also have a Stop and Bring Under Fire Any Spotted Enemy Units component as has been frequently requested?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope. Even better, we are planning on introducing a "Move to Contact" order. It will work similar to the way Hunt does for vehicles, although the nitty gritty of the behavior will not be the same since Infantry has different needs than an AFV does. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Okay, but this sounds a tad tricky to implement and debug to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True. The tricky part is to somehow let the MG know that situation A it should open up and risk jams/ammo, but in situation B it should just keep on squirting bursts. I'm sure we can come up with something though. We have tackled far more complex issues plenty of times <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The trouble with a kludge vs. a true simulation is that sooner or later, someone will always find a way to break the kludge. That is, there will be discovered some situation where it exhibits egregiously unrealistic behavior.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Correct. And that is why we are discussing MGs right now in the first place The problem is that I do not think it is possible to simulate Grazing Fire the "right" or "complete" way because of the CPU demands. Therefore, any solution to the current soft spots in MG modeling need to be overcome without it. As I demonstrated above, I think the majority of the problems now have to do with the Run order itself, so the "kludge" for Grazing Fire will be less likely to become a significant way to undermine the system as a whole. One has to keep in mind that there is probably NOTHING in Combat Mission that, when really looked at, 100% simulates reality. The sum of all of its parts certainly doesn't do this 100% of the time in 100% of the situations that can pop up. Therefore, putting in an abstraction (or "kludge" if you like) is not even an issue. What is is HOW that abstraction is modled and HOW it interacts with the other abstractions. Steve

Wreck wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the abstract, what I proposed was that every time a burst is fired, first angles would be checked to each enemy unit, then those within a critical angle get LOS checks. If both checks are passed, then the unit is grazed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is a manditory part of any type of intersection calcuations. If you don't give boundaries then the system will just check every location on the map I think you are just woefully underestimating how difficult it is for a CPU to crunch these sorts of numbers. Because you are not a programmer (and neither am I, just an experienced developer) you are just going to have to trust me that there is absolutely no easy/slick way around the problem. We will see what we can do but I very much doubt we will be able to do anything more than an abstracted solution. Jason, I generally agree with your basic thinking, but let me emphasize that there are at least three inter related problems as I see it: 1. Run is too fast for what it is supposed to simulate. Time is one of the worst enemies of a unit in the open, so moving too fast is going to reduce the effectiveness of the firing unit. Slowing down the unit will increase the chance of getting pinned and/or taking casualties. 2. Run provides too much cover. Reduce cover, increase exposure to fire. This means greater chance of getting pinned and/or taking casualties. 3. Run overrides adverse behavior too much. Units that should be altering course or getting pinned down are probably being driven forward due to a sort of programmed "determination" for the unit to remain moving to the destination. If we lower this the unit will have a greater chance of faltering, which increases the chance of being pinned and/or taking casualties. Notice that all three of these possible problem areas might (in theory) yield the same end behavior changes. And they will be compounding too. And that is one of the problems with just getting in there and messing around with this stuff. Plus, tweaking the Run command will likely mean limiting reasonable offensive motion. Without claiming to have the final answer here, I think we find the solution by doing a couple of fairly major code changes. Tweaking isn't likely going to cut it. So I suggest that we might solve the problem this way... 1. Changing the character of the Run Move to be a very risky order when under fire. Minimum cover, weak return fire, and maximum speed. 2. Adding an Assault Move. This will offer decent cover, decent return fire, and a speed somewhere inbetween Run and Move. The order will only be available to units which are in good shape (like passing a morale check of sorts). Success of the Assault Move will depend heavily on Experience and Leadership bonuses. 3. Adding "go for broke" MG last ditch defensive fire. Once an enemy target gets too close the MG will increase the number of times it can fire in a given slice of time. We will have to code up some logic to prevent this from happening in any and all circumstances or MGs could quickly run out of ammo after just one mad rush by the attacker. Note that I have said nothing about grazing fire and fire lanes. We honestly are not sure what we can do with these things yet, although firelanes are probably not that hard to add. Remember folks... the only important thing is the outcome. It is totally irrelevant if we simulate true grazing fire if the overall behavior is realistic. As I have said, the weak spot in CM right now is lone MGs vs. Running squads. You guys can mess around with this to see roughly Run might do after we tweak stuff. I just did a single quick test using the following setup. Defender (Foxholes) 2xMMG .30cal M1919A4 Attacker 2xRegular Pattern 44 Infantry I took away all the ammo for the Attacker and positioned them 200m, bunched up, in front of the two US MGs which were about 20m apart (left to right). I had all the Attackers do Area fire where there was nothing to shoot at. Because of the range the Attacker gets to the MGs in one turn, so that is all I looked at. The results were as follows... 2x44 Platoons (Regular) - 30 Casualties (all units one casualty or more, except for one trailing HQ) - 1xBroken - 1xRouted - 3xShaken - 2xAlerted - 1xOK (the HQ towards the rear) I did two quick repeats and found similar results, although casualties were in the lower 20s both times. So it is very clear to me that MG firepower is not too weak and the lack of grazing fire, fire lanes, and even final defensive "go for broke" behavior is not the main problem to be looked at here. Notice... All German units suffered at least one casualty and some sort of Morale penalty. This in spite of the fact that the attacker had four times as many units as the defender did. So even though we don't have Grazing Fire simulated to the nines, our "area" effect does in fact spread out damage and penalties to units not being specifically targeted. And this is with the current system of cover and morale "calming" effect built into the Run order. So imagine this situation where the Attacker has a reduced cover rating and ability to keep on going inspite of enemy fire. Hopefully you can see that without ANY changes to MGs the proposed changes to Run will do a whole lot all by itself. Toss in "go for broke" MG fire and possibly an increase in our current simulation of Grazing Fire (spreading out fire to nearby units) and I think we might be all set, but it is too soon to say one way or the other. We shall see Steve

The discussion above shows that Grazing Fire is not a simple "I fire my MG, everything in front of it can be hit" sort of thing. It is complex and slapping something in (even if we could) would most likely make MGs too powerfull. As I said, we will do our best to deal with grazing fire for CM2. Adam wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm not a programmer so I have no idea how hard it is to code this stuff. How do FPS's and other games calculate fire like this? Perhaps the solution lies somewhere in there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you mean limiting the number of possible variables down to a dozen or so and reducing the size of the shooting area to about 50-100m... sure, there is a solution to be found in FPS games This all has to do with scale, just like with polygons. There are all sorts of things you can do with a small "world" that just aren't practical when you move to a larger one. Think of how many units are in the average, just AVERAGE, game. Then think of what the average engagement range is for each of those units. Then think of how many times each unit fires per turn multiplied by how many units in the game. Now think of what would happen if you played a large game. Now think about making grazing fire (or shell path for big stuff) fairly applied to all weapons systems. Etc... Ugh Steve

Adam, What you are saying is the same thing I discussed about being a problem. When you move the LOS tool around the map the CPU is almost 100% available to do the LOS calculation. So it might look like such a calculation is quick and easy, but it is just one instance during a time when nothing else is going on. Tom, you have been following this problem since the beginning. You have a good understanding of the problem. Wreck wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Am I incorrect in assuming that LOS checks are happening in great multitudes during resolution? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOS checks are being performed all the time, true enough. But only to see if a target can be shot at. LOS isn't checking for variable elements at all right now. Only terrain is taken into account, not units. The result of this is a huge savings of CPU usage. To do grazing fire correctly we would have to abandon this abstraction and therefore lose our #1 calculation shortcut. So we aren't sure if we can do that or not. IIRC, we did a test and found that 20% of a "busy" turn's resolution time was spent doing nothing but LOS checks. Charles gives me the impression that if we were to check for variable units in the LOS path there would be an exponential increase in CPU cycles spent on LOS. Since it is already taking up 20% of the total (nothing else comes close to hogging the CPU this much, BTW) the potential impact on turn resolution times could be unacceptable from a game player standpoint. Truth is, we don't know so we will take a look at it. However, StellarRat is right on the money when he said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Three dimensional vector calculations with an arc thrown in are not trival. They involve a lot of floating point trignometric calculations and these are CPU hogs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve

Michael, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not being a programmer, I cannot estimate how difficult it would be to accurately write grazing fire into the game engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Very difficult. There are all sorts of problems with trying to simulate grazing fire. Which is why it isn't in CM1 to the nines. The major problems are as follows: 1. Intersection - as most of you know, there is no exact tracing of a round's flight path from A to B, even for the big guns. This kind of calculation is a CPU killer. 2. Dead Zones - as flat and featureless as "Open Ground" looks in CM, it is not simulating a pool table or shooting range. Therefore, we somehow need to fairly account for dead zones. As you say, gunners try to position themselves so significant dead zones are either not present or are covered by other units. The problem is that this is highly variable and very dependent on the length of prepration the unit/s have for their defense. 3. Terrain Slope - a totally seperate factor is the slope of the terrain and the relation shooter and target have relative to each other. If two units are on the same plane (i.e. terrain height) that is fairly simple. But what if there is a one height dip inbetween the two, and the attacker goes into it? Totally different effects most likely. The first one is the real killer as it has nothing to do with coding time or skill, but rather hits to the CPU. So I don't know if it is even physically possible to do totally correct Grazing Fire for CM2. We are, however, looking into doing just that and therefore we will just have to see what comes up. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And as a number of players have noted, at the present time the defense in CM is a little anemic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, but again... not necessarily because of the lack of full Grazing Fire. I think the Run move cover factor and/or speed (one or the other needs to be reduced), the TacAI behavior assigned to the Run move, and the lack of "going for broke" behavior is far more at fault for producing less than reasonable MG results. As I said in the previous thread, this is where we are going to start when we look at changes for CM2. The non Grazing Fire changes are fairly easy stuff to change (code wise) and fairly easy to tweak (in theory at least). So basically, if we can get the behavioral changes we think are needed, without expanding Grazing Fire from its current area affect around the aimed target, then that lessens the need for full bore Grazing Fire treatment. And we hope that happens since we are not confident that the CPU can handle the demands of a real deal Grazing Fire system. Steve

There is, code wise, no difference between an air cooled and a water cooled MG. Obviously this should be some sort of factor when we plug in the "go for broke" firing behavior. Like you say, the one remaining advantage of a water cooled MG (in theory, anyway) is that it can fire sustained longer than an air cooled one. Normally this isn't an issue, which is why everybody uses air cooled MGs now, but in emergency fire it might be a factor. Probably just reduce the chance of a mechanical failure as ammo feeding is just as much a RoF limiting factor for either type of MG. Steve

Hey, whadda know! Lewis is actually correct. I owe you an apology there. Looks like Charles tossed it in there at the last minute, and also did the graphic. I kept seeing "M1917 HMG" and was thinking "M1917" .50cal, which was the original designation. Learn something new every day Steve [ 04-16-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

Lewis, When you asked the first time I double checked. Since I only helped make the game, I decided to tripple check because you are so very rarely wrong about anything. There are two, and only two, different MG teams available for the US. One is the MMG unit which has the .30cal M1919A4. The other is the HMG unit which has the .50cal M1917. I have no idea what Mods you have been using, but the graphic we shipped with CM is of the air cooled .50cal MG. I don't even need to tripple check this because I did the original graphics for all the weapons and don't even have a side shot of the water cooled M1917 in color. As for use in Korea, I do not doubt what you are saying. Lots of outdated weapons are used during war, but from what we can tell there were very few M1917s in Western Europe 1944-1945. Were there some? Most likely. But since the M1919A4 replaced the M1917 in the 1920s as the standard weapon, it is doubtfull that there were enough to justify their inclusion. So far nothing you have said has made me think we were in error to decide this. BTW, we left out craploads of small arms for the Germans using this same "we can only simulate so much" logic. Steve

The topic that would not die Misc. comments... The major problem with CM1 as is has to do with Run movement being too generous with cover. Knock that down and you would see a significant reduction in effectiveness from dashing over an isolated position by fresh forces. The other problem is that at very close ranges MGs aren't allowed to "go for broke". This means that in some situations the MGs aren't allowed a final defensive fire that may, or may not, break the enemy's attack. At the very least it would mess up the attacker more than it does right now. Grazing fire is also not simulated as well as it should be, but we don't think this is causing big problems on the whole. Certainly in some situations grazing fire is being under modeled, but we think people over estimate how easy it is to achieve effective grazing fire and under what circumstances. What is not a significant problem in CM right now is propper use of combined arms. Use MGs, infantry, and other support weapons as they were intended and things are pretty much on the ball. However, the two noted problems above do need to be addressed. Lewis, I clearly told you that the M1917 .30cal water cooled MMG is not in CM. Only the M1919A4 is simulated for the US forces. You must have missed that or not cared for my answer. I also "get it" about what MGs can actually do. What the propoants of "MG wall of death" don't get is that MGs do have their limitations. Or at the very least they don't think about what those limitations mean in terms of realistic battlefield results. The WWI thing that keeps getting dragged up here is silly. IIRC, on average there was a higher density of MGs in WWII than in WWI. Heck, practically every squad had some sort of crew served automatic weapon in WWII, but the same could not be said for WWI. The Germans even had a true MG with each squad. So if you subscribe to "1 MG can hold down a Platoon under any circumstance" line of reasoning, how is it that there was more tactical motion in a WWII battle than a WWI battle? If a single MG were that powerfull then WWII should have looked even worse than WWI by extension simple logic. Obviously this is not the case, so there is no doubt that SOMETHING curtailed the theorehtical ability for an MG to mow everything in front of it into the ground. And I very much question the "baseline" standard of WWI, at least as used in these discussions. The problem appears to be that folks think that WWI was just a bunch of MGs mowing down helpless infantry standing around in the open. So they conduct a simple, but highly abstracted, test in CM2 based on this flawed thinking. CM2, which is not a WWI simulation, can not replicate the imaginary results. No surprise to me. The results we all know about from WWI were due to combined arms tactics (although very different from WWI in many ways), not from just dumb infantry advancing against lone MGs barking away. In WWI you had artillery, MGs, and rifle fire being used at the same time. There were also wire and other obsticles to get through. All the while the infantry tactics of the time were to simply march/run shoulder to shoulder through the long established firezones to get to the next trench. And guess what... they did in fact manage to take trenches in WWI in spite of all the MG, rifle, and artillery fire. So if someone wants to use WWI as a baseline, then set up a realistic WWI type scenario in CM2 and see what happens. Someone already did and posted the results in the last thread on this topic. The attacker was devistated. Others are welcomed to try their hand at it. Isolated tests in CM, compared to combined results in WWI or WWII are just flawed science. Period. As I have said over and over again, conclusions can only be based on the validity of the conducted test. If you test for one situation then your conclusions can only extend, with certainty, to that one test situation. If you want to make broader conclusions then you need to broaden the tests. It is as simple as that. Hey... I don't make the rules for scientific testing folks, I just try to apply them. As for grazing fire, it is only an issue for up close and personal engagement ranges in defender ideal terrain. Even a high velocity MG like the MG42 has a significant arc to its shots. I just saw an image of a chart from a MG1 (postwar adopted MG42) manual showing the angle of shot over distance. To get rounds to hit targets at even medium distances (500m or so) there was a significant arc necessary. And this is with a perfectly flat target range as the basis. Getting maximum grazing fire effects in the real battlefield are a lot harder, and over some range impossible. So yes, this feature is very significant but I bet a lot less so than some think. Close range, optimal ground conditions are necessary for grazing fire to work effectively. Steve [ 04-16-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

OK, I think we have gotten all that we can out of this thread and it is probably just going to continue to be bashed about until it is locked down for that reason. Because of that, I am going to lock it down now. Some final thoughts... 1. Isolated Testing - it has some value for sure, but any conclusions from it can only be applied to those isolated circumstances. This is Science 101 here, not something we are making up. If you run a Regular SMG squad at a Regular MMG at 200m over open ground conclusions from such a test only apply to that given situation. Any conclusions that are stated which go beyond this situation are by scientific definition invalid. There is no room for arguing this point as it is the fundamental foundation for scientific testing and analysis. Such a limited test *might* have larger implications, but it is not by any stretch of the word "science" guaranteed. At the very least the "data" gained from such a test is woefully too small a sample of the range of variables to base code changes on (i.e. how does a Green SMG unit do in the same test). 2. MGs are not useless - anybody that thinks this should put their money where their mouth is and go into a battle, on the defensive, against someone who is at least as skilled as you are. Opt to not have any MGs. If you get some, put them in a harmless corner of the map and give them Hide orders. 3. Victory Ratings - I obviously didn't make this clear enough. The Victory Rating is a complicated and at the same time simplistic set of calculations. If wipe out all the enemy right off the board you are almost always going to get a "win" of some sort. The assumption is that wiping out the enemy is the ultimate test of victory. Only horribly unbalanced friendly casualties to enemy will cause you to so much as Draw. Simplistic logic, perhaps, but it works very well when a real scenario is played out with realistic troop mixes. It totally doesn't work when putting one platoon against a company. It was never designed to work for such an unlikely mix of units. 4. MG behavior will change in CM2 - As I have said earlier in this thread, and in others, we are working on making some changes for CM2 that will improve the general functioning of MGs, especially in "stress test" situations. In correct combined arms use we don't expect to see a radical change in performance from CM1. 5. Changes to CM1 - As we have said, we are not planning to do any more work on CM1. It is done, finished, completed. Not perfect, of course, but no game ever is. We have already delivered far more improvements and new features than any software company should be reasonably expected to produce, so no matter what state the game is in now we have gone far beyond the call of duty to the customer. It has also harmed our schedule for CM2, which must not be allowed to happen any more. 6. Feeback is welcomed - We have a strong record of listening and responding to customer requests. That does not mean that we automatically agree with either the feedback or how it is presented. Sometimes there is no one "right answer" and gamers need to accept that CM might not always do what they think should happen. Thanks, Steve