Kwazydog

Thats the beauty of having an edited I guess...make your own campaign and set the victory conditions to whatever you please Dan

Are you referring to trenches Jason? I see reference on that map to dug outs, which Im guessing to be more of a foxhole type situation, but I dont see any reference to trenches... Dan

The Tac AI already handles a lot of situations better than it did in CMAK in my opinion, and it will continue to be improved. Dan

Hi James James I think Steve answered all of your points as well as can be. The bottom line is that unlike computer graphics, which is a problem of processing power, AI is more of a problem of concepts and the time to implement them. The theory behind those concepts has change very little in the last decade or so. We have already seen a move away from AI in certain games...the Battlefield series for instance has a very basic single player AI that I find almost unplayable as do many RTS games. Personally I doubt we will ever lose it completely though as single player capability will always be an important part of the market. Dan

James I took several courses in ai development during my degree so I have a reasonable understanding of the subject when I suggest that you are likely expecting far too much from what an AI can handle whilst still providing they player with a realistic and enjoyable experience. As I mentioned, look back over cmx1 and cmx2 posts on the difficulty of having the tac ai react appropriately to just a single given situation as an example. If you then multiply those problems by 100 you'll just be starting to scrape the surface of the complexities and the amount of work involved in such a system. Dan

Random emails are one way to go, but why not also take the extra time to log a ticket at the help desk as suggested above? It is very simple to use and will be the most reliable method of getting help directly from the person whom can help, as was also suggested above. Dan

James, I think we already have an indicator as to the answer to this if we look back at all of the CMx1 and CMx2 rants where the Tac AI did the wrong think and get a unit killed The Tac AI is just controlling 1 unit, in one situations (usually only for a few seconds to respond to a threat). If we multiplay that complexity over an entire platoon or even company over minutes of time the problems would be multiplied exponentially. As I said its a cool idea in theory, personally Id love the option to be able to provide the game with general orders and watch the battle play out. The problem is that AI just cant handle the complexities of such a simulation. Dan

Whilst I personally would like to play such a game, I think you are greatly overestimating the capabilities AI in any game James. What you are basically asking for units to be self aware of their past, current and potential future situations and to take control of their actions based on that information. Should they continue their current orders or should they aid another unit in trouble? Should they defend their location or should they move to defend against a suspect flank attack? Is there likely to be mines in the area or an ambush waiting if they do? Should they withdraw or hold at any costs or move from their current location as it is a likely target of artillery fire? Current AI technology is all well and good when its the enemy is being controlled by it as the player usually doesn't gets to see the mistakes and when it does it gets to benefit from them. The problem is that those mistakes will make or break a game as you lose important assets to them. Whilst realistic in theory, it is only so if those decisions were made with a human level of intelligence. Dan

Actually that was a T-34

McIvan, most probably not, though as far as I am aware its not completely impossible that they did within the first games time frame. For instance Panzer Lehr starting the Normandy campaign with 6 Tiger tanks (3 operational on the day) and came into contact with US troops in July. The chances of the Tigers having made it that far though are very slim slim though, and its not a tank Id expect to see in any in the included campaigns for instance. As mentioned previously, the Tiger was added before we had defined the time line for the first game. Would could have easily kept it back for the second module for marketing purposes, but decided to include it in the first game as a bit of a bonus Dan

No one is asking you to do otherwise GSX. I hope everyone tries the demo before purchasing the game, thats what they are for and in general it makes the forum a happier place to be. The paranoia is coming into play when you take one screen shot and from it proclaim to all that the game is going to be an unhistorical mix of Tigers vs Firefly's in a Normandy with no bocage and then accuse us of selling out to the masses because of your assumption. Sorry, but when you are so far off the mark you are going to get called out on it just in case others reading the forum consider taking your views seriously. Dan

Some of you guys seem to be so keen to find flaws with us that you are willing to make some pretty big leaps from reality in order to do so. Do you really want to know the story beheind why the first screen shot has a Tiger in it, from the guy who took it? The screen shot itself is actually one I took to share with the guys in house so they could see a WW2 vehicle in action, and as I hadnt intended it for extenal use I didnt overthink it. I chose the Tiger because it is actually textured, which to my surprise made for a much nicer screen shot than one that is not! There is no bocage in the screen shot because the art work for it is not in game yet, which made it tricky to add. And yup, terrain might not look quite like that youd expect in the US sector of Normandy because it is actually a CMSF map with some different textures I was testing. As for the Tiger itself...I built and textured the Tiger first before we had completely confirmed the time frame of the first game, as it is a favourite of mine. If we had confirmed the time frame before I built it the Tiger would have likely been quite a way down the priority list, possibly not making it into the game depending on our progress and certainly not making it in yet. So there you you have it, your questions answered and the great conspiracy out there for the world to see. Please forgive us. Dan

In fact those trees are unchanged from CMSF All of the terrain you see if just a mock up/test guys, nothing more. Dan

Hi Guys. Yes we do hope to allow for multiple textures per vehicle for Normandy, but its too early to know if it will make it in just yet. Dan

Thats true, but only as far as Im concerned. Who knows what otherwise might turn up . Dan

GSX, yup, we will be revisiting a modern setting again in the future, likely in a temperate setting with a modern opposing firce. If you do a search I belevie Steve has mentioned it in the past. Btw as it stands the forces in CMSF as is can represent quite a wide variety of nations, even North Korea for instance. If I had the time I think that a short NK campaign with some supporting textures would be a lot of fun. For now though its Tigers and Shermans for me Dan

Err, the physical size of a military has nothing to do with the time it would take to get in gameand the time it would take to debug so sorry, your wrong there. They do have a odd variety of equipment for sure, but at the time we had to make the descision they didnt have the quantites of those vehicles that would make for a realistic and varied tactical experience. For instance you mentioned a long list of APCs there, but Iran only had a few hundred APCs compared to the thousands that the Syrians have. They also have around half of the the AFVs available, with only a few hundred of those being t-72 or better. As such a large portion of the Iranian infantry you meet would be foot troops with ATGMs and little AFV support. Still interesting in my opinion, but it would provide a smaller variety of tactical situations. Yup, this is true too. At the time is seemed like the best option all round... Dan

We looked at both, but Syria actually had a more varied range of equipment at the time with a larger range of AFVs available to them. More importantly they have access to some of the newer Russian ATGMs such as the AT-10 and AT-14 which Iran did not. Iran would likely be more of a threat strategically, but at the tactical level it would likely provide somewhat of a less interesting challenge. Dan

Hey Adam The problem is that all we have here at the moment are opinions . For instance the length of the video you provide is 20 seconds long. From 300m away Im thinking that it might be quite possible that youd be able to spot the guys firing the weapon within that time. As an example attached are a couple of youtube vids of US troops coming under fire from unexpected locations. To me is seems like they are able to identify the targets and return fire in a reasonably short amount of time. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=v7f1-cDSZWk http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=CNlnIXu0ww8&feature=related Now Im open to being wrong here, and its quite possible I am. As I mentioned, as I dont have actual combat experience so I can only default my opinion to those whom have. It is something I will look into further though and do some more testing. With regards to the other stuff most of it will be looked at one way or another before WW2, though what changes are made will depend on a variety of factors. Dan

To be honest Adam Im not sure if water is going to be a practical solution 24/7, even in a premade firing position. In general maybe that is someting that should be taken into consideration in the case of pre-prepared positions though. Are your concerns only with pre-made firing positions? Personally I think that the main tool in spotting enemy fire which you havnt mentioned would actually be the audio. From my experieance after 3-4 audio ques such as a bullet being fired you can pretty much look in the exact direction of the sound. Now if you have 4 guys doing this with bincos and telescopic sights, how long is it going to take for them to found the source 300m away? Again, Im not saying its definately right in game, but you havnt yet provided info which indicates if this isnt the case, either. Dan

Adam I just ran a test with an Syrian MG team opposite a 4 man US Stryker team. Both sides were 'un-hidden', they were about 300m apart and were each located within a wooded area on a grassy map. After 10 minutes neither side had managed to spot the other. At that time I ordered the Syrian MG team to open fire at a random point and the US guys spotted them as a ? after about 15-20 seconds, and identified them after another 5-10. This doesnt sound unreasonable to me, particularly after having seen the dust and smoke kicked up from MG fire in real life. We also need to keep in mind that the US team was equipped with binocs as well as each member having a weapon with a telescopic sight attached. Could they have been too easy to spot? It feels about right to be, but maybe I guess. If info can be provided that suggests this doesnt seem right its certainly something we can look into. I dont feel that CMx1 is a great reference though as its a different game with different troops with different equipment and there is nothing to say that we had it right there, either.

Considering the training and technology available today for both spotting and killing people compared to 60 years ago, shouldn’t this be the case? As always Adam, we are open to considering changes providing there is reason to do so. I have ran some controlled tests recently on both spotting and leathality and been happy with the results. To me it feels about right at the moment, but as I have no real world experience in this area for the most part I currently default my opinion to those in our beta team whom have (and have provided us with feedback for the last couple of years). If you have information to suggest tweaks need to be made though, please pass it on for discussion. Dan

Rik, the process is different from previous CM games and you wont actually do a set up until you and your oponent have entered passwords and exchanges an email two. The benifit of this extra swap though is that you will get to see a replay and do orders every email. The PBEM should ask you for a password and save game name, and then the first turn you need to send to your opponent should be in your outgoing email directory under that name... Dan

Taki I have seen you complaining a lot in various threads, but I havnt yet seen you take the time to run some specific tests and to do some research to back up your assumption that the engine is getting it wrong. We have already done this during the last few years of development and what you see is the current result of that research. We are open to further input though, as we always have been with the CM series. If you feel that something isnt working as it should, run some in game tests, dig up some real world data to show where the engine is getting it wrong and pass on the results. Dan

Hi Guys Default . In this case it is light from the W, which is behind the MG team. MG teams have an ammo count from their last reload, and I counted the rest, hehe. Actually I said that they were spotted and *fired upon* at this range, which is quite a difference from just being spotted . As I was testing the lethality of the M240 I wasnt too specific with spotting to be honest, but here is some more detailed info... The guys actually start movement at 576m (I have a small dip at the end of the 600m map to hide their HQ team). As such in the example I mentioned thats 25m of terrain covered before movement was spotted, the sniper team was spotted and aquired, the information was communicated within the MG team and the guy with the MG opened fire. After running the test a few times I found that the ? symbol appears at the snipers location within around 1-3 seconds, the squad is properly spotted with 5-7sec. On average the MG guy opens fire with 5-15 of the turn starting. And so does the engine if you run the test. It just takes a few more seconds to actually identify the target, the infomation to be passed around the team and for the MG guy to aquire and fire at the target. Overall 5-15 seconds doesnt sound like an unreasonable amount of time for this to happen? Dan