aka_tom_w

Correct me if I'm wrong but the ownership of the VL flag only counts at the end of the game. IT has no bearing on the global moral so if they are safely within your defensive perimeter and they are neutral this is not important until the last turn of the game. This has never been an issue for me as by that time I ALWAYS have at least as many crews (WITH pistols) running around in inside my defensive perimeter as I do have VLs to claim. If as you say your VLs are SAFELY behind your lines, SURELY you can find a few guys with pistols handy to go and sit on them at the end of the battle. I have found that ANYONE with a even pistol (bailed crews for example) can sit on a neutral VL and claim it. I don't think this is really all that big a deal. I say this because how can we expect the AI to know where your Lines or defensive perimeter is? this is A HUGE issue and is the reason some of us don't play operations because when the AI draws the battle lines we are unhappy with the result sometimes. It is not realistic to expect he AI to sense or know that "your" VL's are behind "your" lines, it needs something more clearly defined and objective, like the presence or absence of your units or enemy units to make the determination of ownership. And yes, Friendly fire is correct, if you don't detect the presense on the enemy, say sniper hiding in your back field undetected by any of your units up front on the line, back sitting on a VL, that VL will Appear netral to you but it will appear claimed to your opponent, so you must have one of your units sitting on it to claim it and make sure no enemy units are lurking undected trying to claim it. This state of affairs is not unreasonable. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-13-2001).]

WOW! Great Post Very accurate and very entertaining! This is the best line: (re: Jeep recon) "So set up some proper fire plan that will KO the little buggers before they find out too much, and stop bawling about it." Perfect! That post is sure to become an ALL time classic post as I believe it is dead-on accurate! Thanks -tom w

I know I might get blasted for this but... I can live with this TRP adjustment "bug" and believe it is considerably less important than the LOS through houses issue. (See the WYSINWYG LOS thread) I suspect neither issue or "bug" will be addressed in CMBO as I suspect they (BTS) are very confident that v1.12 is the FINAL final version of CMBO. So... are we lobbying for changes to this problem in CM2 or are you folks suggesting another patch for CMBO? I hope we aren't seriously lobbying ofr yet another patch to CMBO. Again, I think that the inconvience and perhaps historical inacuracy of the TRP adjustment "bug" as it is now, is quite manageable. I think TRP's are cheap (ony 10 -15 points) so is it that big a deal if they are only really handy for such a small radius? I know my opinion maybe unwelcome in this thread but I think this "fix" which is now considered by some here a "bug", was intended by Steve and Charles as the solution to a previous situation which was suggested to be also unrealistic prior to the implentation of this new TRP limitation. Just my humble opinion for whats its worth. Now... What about that LOS through buildings issue? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-13-2001).]

still curious about this one

I am compelled to quote from the manual My appologies, it's the rule's Lawyer side of me showing now...... from page 45 of the manual I received when I preordered when the game first shipped in July 2000..... "Lines of Sight can be tricky around buildings, although most answers are easy once you think about it.In order to be able to look outside of a building without restrictions, a unit needs to be within a few meters of the outside wal (i.e. to peer throughwindows or other openings). If it futher away than 5 meters, it will still be able to see a few meters outside of the house, but not far beyond that. When a building or a unit in a building is fired at, regardless if it is direct fire or indirect fire (from mortars for example), most of the fire will hit the outer walls of the building. Even then any units hiding within can still be hurt(by the blast, stones, glass sharpnel etc.). However, some rounds can also make it into the building and explode within, e.g. through hholes in the outer walls or roof, blasted doors or windows. Such shots can cause severe damage. There is even a very small chance that a round makes it into and THROUGH a building, exploding on the otherside-bad news for any troops lurking behind it! The interiors of a house are abstracted and included into the combat resolution calculations. Although you can trace an LOS within the house without restrictions (though with limited range) the chance of emeny units hiding within the house and remaining unspottted is relatively high (imagine them hiding in another room), but drops dramatically the more time your units spend in the house." Is there any other relevant section of the rule book I have over looked? I sincerely believe the LOS through light buildings is intentional and I try to exploit it in every way I can. I am not so sure it is a bug at all. I'm just hoping we can get some straight foreward clarification as to exactly how LOS through buildings was intended to work by Steve and Charles. Perhaps it is intended to work exactly the way it is modeled now? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-12-2001).]

This Quote is taken from the above thread: "Big Time Software Moderator posted 01-12-2001 12:57 AM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thomm wrote: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ And I think it would be a fairly good approximation not to let anything fire through buildings. Yes, I know that there are historical examples of tanks firing through buildings, but still, the CM world would be easier to understand if some basic rules are kept simple, like e.g. "Nothing can shoot through houses". ------------------------------------------------------------------------ There is a basic rule in CM -> "Nothing can shoot through houses". Put another way, in no way shape or form may any unit, regardless of what it is, shoot through a house. Never. Not even in the strangest circumstances. LOS will not be calculated through a house. You are pointing your finger at a cause of this problem which does not exist. The problem is that a building can be hit accidentally if the target's line of fire is too close to the edge of a buliding. CM is specifically coded to work this way because shells do not fly exactly as aimed, or shots are not aimed as exactly as the gunner thinks, so there are times where being off the mark in such situations makes the round detonate on the building instead off flying past it. Sometimes you can see a LOS line draw through a building (or hill, thick woods, or any terrain feature). This is part of your unit's "tracking" the target. It doesn't mean that it can fire at it right then and there. This is a necessary feature so that if an enemy unit goes out of LOS for just a second or two the friendly unit won't stop targeting it. But again, it can not shoot if it doesn't have a line of fire, which is different than the line of sight. The cause of this problem is that the TacAI is not "smart" enough to understand that the shot is too close to be safe at that distance. Hopefully this will be improved upon in CM2. The question if the HE shell would even be armed at that range is a good one. I forwarded this off to Charles a couple of days ago when someone emailed me about it. However, Charles is doubtfull that HE fuzes were that sophisticated back in WWII as they are now. If anybody has documentation on standard "impact" HE fuzes (i.e. not proximity fuzes or the like) please post it to this BBS for further discussion. And yes, so far as I know blasts from direct fire HE are elliptical and not circular. But a 105 HE round, striking masonry at a close range, is probably enough to knock something as thinly armored and open topped as a Wespe. Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-12-2001).] " And to this I reply with this picture: And this quote: "Vanir Member posted 12-06-2000 11:46 PM I'm quoting from page 45 of the manual: "There is even a very small chance that a round can make it into and THROUGH a building, exploding on the other side." So where does the truth lie on this issue? I routinely attempt to figure out where all the light buildings are and use this as an advantage knowing that a tank behind one of these light buildings may shoot through it so I hunt up to the edge of the house hoping that I will acquire LOS through it to my intended target that can't see me yet so I can get the first shot off. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-12-2001).]

Friendly fire is correct, if the shot is calculated at a time when the target is in LOS and then the target moves out of LOS the result of the hit is predetermined in the "crunch", the shot does not fire at where the target "was" the shot follows the target behind buildings and out of LOS if the shot was determined to be a hit in the "crunch", at the time when there was active LOS NOW if the shot was determined to be a miss it will impact the ground or whatever where the target used to be. I think that this situation is "acceptable" and that Friendly Fire is correct, we can either wait ALOT longer for a more accurate crunch with the ballistics and LOS model or we can all get VERY fast top of the line computers. I would of course prefer that we all get faster computers, but I would also wait longer for the crunch if it could be more accurate with regard to LOS. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-12-2001).]

try this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/013403.html "Vanir Member posted 12-06-2000 11:46 PM I'm quoting from page 45 of the manual: "There is even a very small chance that a round can make it into and THROUGH a building, exploding on the other side." This through the house shot happens when the shooter or target is too close to the house. see the screen shots here to locate your shooter behind a house so you can spot and shoot through it. This works well if you pull up to a house, shoot through it and then, reverse away, if you back away from the house far enough the los "should" not follow your tank and that tank should disappear out of LOS. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/013403.html In the example Hofbauer posted the Greyhound "might" not have been in LOS if it has been a few meters further away from the house on the back side there. This should only happen where light buildings are concerned. All other buildings block LOS. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-12-2001).]

well you are correct. I can't argue with your logic there.The earlier war British units are a problem. But I would like to add they there trying to make the conversion anyway with all the CMBO units, as unsatifactory as that might be. I was just suggesting that another attempt using CM2 might be more rewarding if there was a real "desert" tile, thats all. -tom w

I can't imagine I should have the last word on this thread. There must be plenty more idea's and comments about the magic in CM here as yet unposted... -tom w

that would be CM2 the Russian Front not CMII the major engine rewrite anyway see this thread for other ideas previously posted: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/017148.html -tom w

bump for those VERY new to CM that may not have seen this thread earlier. -tom w

bump, just 'cause I'm in a bumpidy mood

thanks again to all who replied to this post. now all I need is TIME to play all those suggested scenarios. tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-12-2001).]

ok ok I guess now shameless bumps makes this thread look like a one man crusade. oh well -tom w

Thanks for the clarification Gustav 109! Presumably the M8 crew in question here had at least one pistol, while empty mortars and spotter crews have nothing, like no side arms. But how about a bailed truck crew and non MG Jeep crews? don't they bail with side arms? so while a truck might not hold a VL a bailed truck crew with a pistol might? or am I wrong? This is a very good topic to discuss here. Thanks Gustav 109 -tom w

try this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008989.html

OK I agree that you are correct here even if you buy More cheap green Sherms as the allies you will NEVER buy enough of them to out flank an elite Panther or Tiger. So yes of course I think you "sould" play head to head agianst units in both force pools of similiar quality, I was just pointing out the consquence of "cheating" , first off, you would be discovered on first contact and your opponent would have more cheap troops than your fewer expensive troops. But I would never suggest that given even points you could ever buy enough cheap green sherms to have to dual with crack or Elite Panthers or Tigers. good point -tom w

Fair sense of play "should" be a good motivator. But yes you are correct you could do that. But then they would have, or end up "buying" more "cheaper" low quality units than your fewer high quality units. Assuming it is a ME and the points are the same, you will end up "buying" or recieveing fewer high priced units and your opponent will get relatively more cheaper low priced units. So it is really not as much of a big deal as you think. BUT if you try to cheat your opponent will realize after first contact that you have crack and elite units and he has reg and green units that you set him up so then what? Honesty is the best policy, if you both agree ahead of time to let one player buy high quality and the other player get a lower quality force pool the game is set up to accomondate that agreement. its not a big deal really I don't think. -tom w

Now that is a level of compulsive addictive CMBO behaviour that I have yet to experience. (Mostly because I don't have a PDA I guess ) But the CM CD LIVES in my laptop and my laptop goes everywhere I go! Other wise I'm equally addicted But this one takes the cake! Its still funny though! -tom w

YES! CM2 Should use some textures and images, (skies are best) from Bryce! IMHO Bryce is the absolute pinnacle of ALL eye candy. Thanks Clubfoot. Keep up the good work. I'm sorry I admit I'm too busy playing the damn game to open up my copy of Bryce and do somthing cool with it. But those skies look really nice! -tom w

Oh I like this !! Lets not forget the dark side.. The Gamey Bastard The Rules Lawyer The Cynic The Clown The Video Gamer The Min/Max Board Game convert! AND MAc and PC users without too much Tension as the game is identical for both users who can TCP/IP and PBEM! What a GREAT game! Party On Wayne! Party On Garth! -tom w

OK I suspect you are correct. I just played a scenario against the AI and attempted to kill quick and early and then retreat fast and make the game auto surrender. It did not work. It has once worked in my favour where (by accident that time) I fell below 15 on the GM scale and then auto-surrendered then it was either a draw or a minor victory. (TCP/IP game) I will happily admit to being (perhaps) a little almarist earlier when I thought that intentionally triggering the auto surrender by withdrawing could be gamey. Now I don't think it is really gamey at all. One thing is for sure, your GM drops when you exit units off the map and if your GM falls below 15 you will auto surrender, but that does not mean you will lose. That is the interesting part. I think you can in fact end the game artificially, by intentionally retreating off the map and then dropping your GM less than 15 and then intiating the auto-surrender and you "might" (if you kicked SERIOUS butt earlier) still get a draw or minor victory. It is certianly something to keep in mind. The lesson here? triggering the autosurrender does not mean you are certian to lose the game, a draw or minor victory may still be possible, if the VL's are contested and you destroyed more points than you lost. Anyone else have any first hand experience with this auto-surrender feature? Thanks for your prompt and informative reply Babra. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-10-2001).]

How sure are we that this new found tactic is not WIDE open to gamey exploitation by intiating the auto-surrender by bugging out after you have just ko'd 2-3 opfor AVF's without loosing any of yours. Then retreat and autosurrender and win a minor victory? no? comments? -tom w

I'm wondering if someone can let me know if I understand this correctly? Is the now infamous "Babrataktik" an attempt to prematurally end the game by initiating the "auto-terminate" fuse that ends games when one side's GM falls below 15? Perhaps I am mistaken about this, but is it not the intention of this tactic to withdraw your units until you fall to less than 15 on the GM scale and then since you inflicted more damage than you took end the game with at least a draw or minor victory, irrespective of the ownership of the VL's.?? If so, I must admit I pulled a Minor Victory or a draw out of the bag when the game stopped and auto-terminated a TCP/IP match before it was over when my GM fell below 15, this was unintentional but it cut short my opponents time and opporunity to advance and finish me off and take the VL's. This a very interesting discussion and I hope someone can explain to me exactly how the game auto-terminates and how, exactly, do you get them most out of the newly discovered "Babrataktik" ? (I know Mr. Lawyer hates me for this, Don't worry Lawyer I never play PBEM only TCP/IP so the consquence here will be instant and immediate ok? ) One BIG question, does the game auto terminate (end) when one's sides GM falls below 15? and are we exploiting this "feature" with the "Babrataktik"?? Thanks -tom w