aka_tom_w

you don't need to know what ordnance they're carrying that's the job of the Air Force and we aren't playing Close Air Support Mission... (just joking)

Lots of folks had a hand in it Thanks to Mark for polishing off to make it presentable.... Hopefully when v1.05 comes out it will be even more fun to play. When I was fiddling with it my intention was to specifically test arty and air support because it was new to the beta test build I was testing at the time, but that is ancient history now. I hope it provides a REAL challenge to the US player in Real Time the first time you have a go at it. Note it was never really intended to be a challenge for the Red side. I have not played it since Mark has released it, but it should be a total cake walk for the Red side, unless it has been substantially edited. It should present a real Challenge for the US player in Real Time however. Thanks again to Mark Ezra for making it now publically available and posting it at cmmods.com.

Hammertime in V1.04 is one of the best scenario's out there! Play as the US and you will find it a REAL challenge the first time you sink your teeth into it. The is playing better now and they say they are working on v1.05

The scenario design possibilities, tactics and total AI control a skilled and veteran scenario designer has in the scenario editor are an order of magnitude superior to what was offered in CMBO! REALLY Anyone who has taken the time to try to design a scenario and plot and lay out AI moves and tactics in the AI editor knows this. At this point I would say that concept of "anyone" is only about %1 -%5 of ALL users and purchasers of the gamen (currently). The AI editor and scenario editor were not designed for the casual FPS gamer for sure, but instead they were intended for the disciple of tactics and student of the grand strategy (OK the strategy thing might be "reaching" a bit but you know what I mean). If you are bored with the game and think it SUCKS waiting for the v.05 patch, play in the editor and set up a scenario then play the scenario and see if the AI can beat you. Seriously! the AI editor and the map builder and scenario editor are not likely to change in any substanial way any time soon (in ANY patch) so why not build a new scenario and post it for free on cmmods.com??? What are you waiting for?!!! Get to it! [ October 29, 2007, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

WOW that's pretty harsh..

You are asking them to abandon RealTime as a playable option and that is not going to happen any time soon!

It could be a problem with the group select or band box command. I believe it is a known bug. (I think) -tom w

Its A LOT too soon for v1.05 They will determine the focus of what they want fixed, (and you never know there may be some debate or discussion as to the focus of the problems that the patch should fix, so they will have to try to limit the scope of the patch, this takes time maybe even a week?) then they will try to code for that (the focus of what needs to be fixed) then the beta testers will try to break it, to see if what they think they fixed was actually fixed. The more successful the beta testers are the longer it will take to release v1.05 right?

It is the BEST scenario I have played so far as well! THANKS!

yes, this is an issue in v1.04 I think

I have seen them fly off, I don't think its a problem. Sometimes there is operator error, or a malfunction and they just miss. Oh well. I would say it happens in less then 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 (they should be accurate (I think) %90 - %95 of the time)

The band box and group select featute in Elite FOW is also compromised by the chain of command structure. IMO

I think the issue here is that in the game LOS is NOT the same as LOF So watch does that mean, a unit thinks they see something (LOS to opposing unit) but they don't have a good shot or LOF. So spotting does not equal %100 chance of shooting as LOS is does not guarentee %100 chance of LOF. I think that is part of the issue with that whole blue target line to the "Reverse Slope"

It would be my opinion in the game that my experience is that if a Javelin makes a direct hit on a tank or vehicle (in V1.04) it knocks it out. BUT sometimes Javelins miss. They are not %100 accurate, (which is as it should in reality I think). In my experience in the game they are about %90-%95 acccurate and I have never seen a direct hit on a AFV in v1.04 that did not knock the AFV out and make it listed as "destroyed" or at least abandoned.

are you playing v1.04? Is the scenario available for others to test?

The issue could be you are playing in a QB with no set up zones. I am not sure about this but some QB's have good set up zones and some might (by accident or bug) have no set up zone, or them in the wrong place, perhaps. (But I am guessing about that, but it sounds like a situation your symptoms or experience is describing, e.g. QB with no set up zones.)

I would buy a Mac copy as well. (but unless things have changed I think the Mac users only represent about %10-15 of market so from a strictly business sense (return on investment ROI and all that jazz) its sort of hard to make a case for a Mac OS X port, I am guessing.) but they offered to sell me one I would pre-order it.

also known as "Home Field Advantage"....

for sure that could be an issue...

file received from cpl steiner [ October 08, 2007, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

you know when you call on the phone for tech support or customer support and you get a pre-recorded message that says "This call will me monitored for Quality Assurance".... well, that is sort of doubly true for posts on this forum, ALL beta testers signed a strict legal agreement (NDA) about NON disclosure, so EVERYTHING posted out here in public is open to BFC scrutiny, so some of the beta testers (who are smart and know better) don't post in this forum at all. Others who just can't seem to keep quiet after they read something that is in their opinion and experience not the same "interpretation" of the in game behaviour they have seen while beta testing post some things sometimes. My point is ALL posts by beta testers are subject to "overview" so hopefully the beta testers can post things that are informative and will continue to work (largely behind the scenes, preferably) on testing things are are suggested here to be not working, (like the issue with objectives in the editor) [ October 08, 2007, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hey they are really just trying to help if you have a scenario that you would like them to look and please send to to me, (e-mail is in the profile) once again I think my words were: " a few folks scratching their heads at BFC and in the beta test community" Everyone is open minded and the patches just "keep on coming" from BFC because they have a sincere desire to make it right. (I am just their humble servant (volunteer/guinea pig) trying to help out. really [ October 08, 2007, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

sure I would like to take a look at it copyright integrity assured thanks e-mail is in my profile

The original issue Cpl Steiner posted may have something to do with how victory points are determined and assigned and may not have so much to do with the scenario editor, but that is just one possible explanation of the result.

um... I think there are at least a few folks scratching their heads at BFC and in the beta test community over these "suggestions" :confused: Now granted the AI and the scenario editor can be a bit of a black art or nebulous enigma at times, as we have all sometimes wondered what is the difference between a bug, user error and just plain old "stuff" that's on the list and has not been fixed yet, or was that REALLY the way Steve and Charles INTENDED the game to behave?? BUT such bold statements like: "Occupy is broken. Use Touch instead. Been that way since day one. and Oh and Max assault and assault are still broken too! Use Advance instead." Sound somewhat unsubtantiated and would be more helphful if there were some testing methodology or scenario examples to verify these claims with. Mishga sounds extremely sure of these claims but I would like to suggest (as politely as publically possible) that such claims might be considered news to BFC and the beta tester team.