aka_tom_w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss: Yes BH, by all means lets label people with name calling, as longs as it's not sarcastic against BTS it's perfectly acceptable. Certainly those with a concern should be ashamed for having one. You may trust the party poop will certainly try all this out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey Bruno I'm still a little concerned as well, about this issue. He may have refered to my posts as well in the "Chicken Little" comments, but its not that big a deal is it? Maybe I was alarmist? Maybe I made a mistake? Oh well I'm not sure why I feel compelled to suggest the phrase "Don't sweat the small stuff" but it somehow seems appropriate here. And here's a little hint: (its all small stuff ) I'm sure we can happy to have done our "alarmist" job and clearly focused attention on this issue. As game players and participants and beta testers of the Release version of v1.1, What MORE can we actually DO? I screamed blue Murder LONG and hard over superior german gunnnery optics, but thats a dead issue and the range finder is now sort of modeled and accuracy bonus is only in the game for dug in feild guns and anti-tank guns. So there was some noticable effect on that one. Lets tone down the rhetoric and see how this one develops. We can be SURE every one and their brother and SISTER are looking at this issue now. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-11-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: Okay, my turn to interject ... and give you a "gamey" players view. But when their weapon, be it a PF, a Psk, a Tiger's 88mm or Panther's 75mm, it doesn't matter. It'll rip through ANY facing. I'd rather shoot first, shot fast, and hope I hit before he shoots at me. I don't think that's far off. It puts the "realism" out of window, by weakening the smaller tanks, like the Sherman and Pz IV. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps I am mistaken but Fast turrets are FASTER now, because they TOO turn while the hull is turning.And then they still fire as quick as they can! someone please tell me if I'm wrong ALL tanks swivel the hull toward the threat now, faster turret tanks NOW beneifit MORE from this if they are turning the turret to fire. so the Sherms will still get the first shot off... (But all tank now swivel a little slower than before) I don't see the problem in that respect. Comments? Rebuttals? -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Urban Shocker: I am a little confused on why the AI cannot determine the most dangerous target. Knowing that computers can calculate out to millionth decimal point, how could it be possible that there seems to be a tie, i.e., two objects appearing equally dangerous and causing tanks to do the "hokey pokey." Is this built in "fuzzy math" (please excuse the expression) to simulate human judgement? Thanks in advance for any comments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well it could be "possible" for twoo exactly equal threats to appear instantly on BOTH flanks at the Same distance at the same time in the same terrain. Then the AI does the "hokey pokey". Think about it, maybe two equal anti tank teams appear? Maybe Two equal Tanks appear. (and the most feared deadly anti tank weapon in the game ) suppose two mortor teams pop up at the same time on bioth flanks, at equal distance? How could you program the AI to "Just pick one and Deal with it now Damn it!" -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gremlin: This issue has bugged me too (though not in my current PBEM with Jess ). Immediately knowing an enemy unit's experience level can of course lead to a change in tactics, particularly with valuable units like armor or teams. Isn't this knowledge an unfair advantage then? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'll bet its a little LATE now to change this one but I have to agree with: "Immediately knowing an enemy unit's experience level can of course lead to a change in tactics, particularly with valuable units like armor or teams. Isn't this knowledge an unfair advantage then?" Maybe this might be addressed in CM2 I doubt it will be addressed in v1.1?(next patch whatever) -tom w

Be Careful Jeff or some one is bound to blow you out of the water here. NOT all German tanks had neutral steer (rotate on the spot) and NOT all Allied tanks lacked neutral steer, but it is NOT at all modeled in the game. The Sherms did not have neutral Steer, the Tiger Did have it, but I'll bet the german TD mentioned about based on the Pnz IV chasis did not have neutral steer. There is a thread about neutral steer somewhere on this board that lists all the tanks that do and don't have this VERY handy feature, but in the game ALL tanks can turn on a dime. -tom w

This Too (in addition to my earlier post about AI predictability of the hull rototation, now guarenteed nearly every time) is part of the root of this issue: "If you expect CM's TacAI to allow you to make fumbles and correct them by a brighter micro management of your AFVs then you might as well have someone else play your game on your behalf entirely." VERY well put! What some folks here are talking about (perhaps without actually saying it) is lack of opportunity to micro manage your armour out of a BAD situation in the first place. I still don't like the fact that the new hull rotation is so seemingly automated and predictable. In theory and in historical practice I suspect it IS the right thing to do, BUT in the game when you and your opponent can COUNT on the hull rotation to a new threat you present to the flank aspect of a tank you REALLY want to turn away from somthing you want to shoot it in the flank with, then the degree of predictabilty is in my opinion a little unprecedented in the game. I would like to suggest also within the concept of implementation of the FULL fog of WAR, that the crew experience level enemy units should NEVER be revealed to your opponent. Then crew experience level could be a factor in the predictability of the possibility of hull rotation, some perhaps faster than others, some perhaps NOT at all. The idea and current implemenation of the concept works VERY well but it sort of seems unnaturally predictable and in my opinion more automatic or automated than some of the more "organic" behaviours we have all come to know and love in CM. This "Less than" predictable hull rotation suggestion here will likely infuriate the " I need to micro manage my OWN HULL rotation for VERY tank" crowd even more, so...... Oh well just a thought Thanks for the rant (I think is is NOT all that bad the way it is) Better than before in v1.05 IMHO -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-11-2001).]

I think the only real issue here is the AI predictability of the hull turn. BUT is this any worse than the v1.05 predictabilty of NO hull turn?? EVERY one knows you want to maximize flank shots to kill tanks. OK thats a given. Is this new hull rotation AI predictability in v1.1 really any worse than the NON hull rotation predictability in v1.05 with respect to gamey play to distract tanks to get flank shots? In the past I would also try to get flank shots by distracting a tank in its frontal aspect with somthing cheap (like a cheap truck or better yet an AT team) so I could sneak somthing more deadly around to its flank to get that sweet shot off. So now I will try to get something cheap and distracting around to its flank to get it to turn and then pop it with something more deadly that was directly in front of this soon to die target. What's the big deal? Just change your tactics slightly. So what really is the difference in the level of predicability here? Both systems are equally predictable. No? -tom w

See for your self is the relevant phrase here! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-11-2001).]

When I first reported the "twitching Panther Sybdrome" I did so because it was the very first game I played in v1.1 and I was a little alarmed to see that computer controled enemy Panther "twitch" between a non- threat HT on the road and possible threat infantry in the woods on its left flank. I since it was my first game on v1.1 I admit I was sort of a little alarmed. But that twitch behaviour is VERY difficult to replicate. I was just reporting an observed behaviour and I hope I was not percieved as overly critical. I think we should all PLAY more and freak out less and post less. Lets give it a week. See what happens as it is adopted and played by many more players this weekend. We all know that if it is REALLY a problem Steve and Charles will look at it again, after all they have been known to fix this game ONLY about 7 or 8 times including 2 public beta's since its release 7 months ago! Thats an admiral track record in this business! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-11-2001).]

Good night I'm off to bed.... I really hope this thread does NOT have a lock on it when I wake up. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog: Tanks will turn their turret to engage if they are using the move or move fast command. If they are using the hunt command, they will stop, turn and engage a threat they feel could be a threat to them. If they are stationary, they will turn to engage targets as they see fit, using hull MG's against infantry. I cant understand why you dont want your tank to turn and engage a threat ASAP to be honest. Youd rather wait while it turn its turret to engage a defiante threat and leave its hull in a direction where it was last facing, and there may or may not be a threat. Yes, there may be a threat from that other direction, but the *is* a threat now from the utin they are engaging. I guess your still using the word *apparently* there Bruno becuase you still havnt even tried it? Im sure it wouldnt make a difference now as you have convinced yourself it is wrong, but I just wish you would try it so you can see first hand what you are arguing about. Im not being unreasonable here, and I do understand where you guys are coming from, but I also want you guys to give it a bit of a run first [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 01-10-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that's fair. The v1.1 is less than 24 hours old and we are jumping all over it. I agree with the suggestion that "if" the hull rotation toward a crew (ok "any clown with a gun" I like that one) is preditable, then it likely will be exploited by those "gamey" enough to realize that flanking shots can be had by sacrficing crews and other near valueless units so real tank killing threads can get flank shots when the unsuspecting tank is for sure going to turn its hull and engage the valueless unit. Lets see how it really works now. I'm sure that BTS has tested this and the Beta testers have been playing with it for at least a few days prior to its release. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-10-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: I frequently fire at "sound contacts" with my units -- especially infantry units. Frequently this will cause the sound contact to resolve into whatever is really there. Typically this does not cause the unspotted units to fire back -- if they wanted to fire at me, I would think that they would already have done so. I've never tried blind recon by fire, though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You should try it, you may (as part of your tactical plan) WANT to give away the location of some of your forces, and fire into places you suspect the enemy, if you have a tank with lots of HE then a few rounds here and there dedicated to recon by fire into a building or the near-by tree line may just flush out an unseen unit or two -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss: Kwazydog, I appreciate what your saying but it seems to me your missing a couple of points or not seeing the context of what is being pointed out. First, it should mainly be "your" option using the rotate button to change facings, or in the case of the AI initiating action on its own, done so that it makes tactical sense in the manner you speak to, not where it makes no sense at all in the manner described by the gentleman with the Churchills. Meaning, the AI ain't up to it. Secondly, you seem to overlook the exploitation factor that inevitably will occur where gamers will learn to anticipate this predictable AI response, and use any less quality unit to confuse the AI and take advantage of the armor exposing it's weaker sides when it goes to target. (To solve the problem of slow turrets on monster tanks which allows for flanking by faster tanks, we've taken to rewrite history, and pretend they really didn't have this problem, and now we have the monsters turn about in a predictable fashion, thus eliminating the need to flank them, so that all one need do is just toss out a truck and watch em turn, then pop em off with a well placed AT gun or the tank that might have had to at least undertake a flanking movement before all this). Fact is, if its well known the AI is stupid enough to expose an armor units weaker side when firing, and that gamers can count on that, you better believe your comfort level at having your armor always turn to face a target is in for quite a drop. I also appreciate your wanting to give v1.1 a fair shake, and I don't disagree at all. However, my original point was it was released as a final, not a beta to be tested. I'm not a beta tester, if I were we probably wouldn't debating this, but regardless I'm not so why do I want to do the testing in rated PBEM games. Not a cleaver thing to do IMO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm sure it was the intention of Charles to make this v1.1 the final version. I don't think for a minute they intended to release this version to be tested by us as another "public beta" What I have just read in other postings in other threads was Charles suggesting that he would like to fix the slope modifiers for HVAP and include the latest specs and data for the Jumbo, that he overlooked, nothing more, there has been no mention anywhere of trying to address the "hull rotated toward threat or non-threat soft target AND exposed the juicy flank to the anti tank threat" issue. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kitty: =) Kitty <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> DO I take that to mean you play the Germans and like the slow heavy cat like tanks and are happy with this new hull turning development? there cat woman? -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: Recon by fire was used duirng WW II by offensive units to cause enemy to give away position by shooting or moving. You place a Tiger II 1000m away from a woods or building and fire HE, which might blow away the camou leaves on the M10's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have used Recon by fire in CM IT works and its modeled you can shoot at suspect places and see if something moves, breaks, panics or returns fire.. (sometimes you can guess right, especially with regard to HE from tanks taking down tactically significant houses and big buildings from great distance, EASY to target and hit and after a few minutes you may have rubble with enemy infantry crawling out of it) No problem -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-10-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun: Has anyone actually seen a tank swivel between infantry and an AT unit? I believe the post by aka_tom_w he said that the Panther was indecisive about targeting an Infantry squad or a Halftrack. Both are not what I would call a deathly serious threats. Has anyone actually seen the TacAi make a serious boo-boo in 1.1. Like a tank turining it's hull to the "clown with a pistol" and actually being plugged by AT? Until someone has, It's al heresay<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was just reporting what I saw... I was the Allies and the Panther was coming up the road and the HT was going down the road and the Panther was not threatened by any "real" anti tank/ tanking killing threat and the Panther lived to kill the HT and Blast the infantry and EVERYTHING else around it, but for about half the turn it flipped back and forth between the two equal non-threats. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-10-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss: Thank goodness, thank you Tom. For a minute there I was considering that Prozak bottle the ex left in the bathroom. Can I go to sleep now? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> sorry? What are you thanking me for? -tom w

its on now They are building off road vechicles out of dead VW bugs and motor bike engines. -tom w

Good posts ALL of them Well Charles has already admited the current v1.1 is not the Final v1.1 Apparently the Jumbo Armour and speed remains untweaked and the HVAP (tungsten) is not using the slope modifiers Charles thought it was. (source Charles comments in two other recent posts in different threads) So there is still a chance we might get to the bottom of "this hull rotating to blast soft targets and crews" issue. I believe there is still a problem here that should be adressed. I think the "solution" to the alledged problem of "slow turreted tanks" that we have now is perhaps questionable. BUT the rest of the game and all the NEW bugs fixes Work GREAT! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AbnAirCav: Hey, this sounds like a great location for a "Combat Mission Convention", kinda like what the flight simmers do ... but with a better convention site! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Roger THAT! When and where is it? -tom w

oh YEAH! Great Show VERY entertaining But they should Blow more stuff up I've seen drag races and boats that have to put out fires and stuff like that yeah ok its good BUT they shoudl make MORE destructive things like build Tanks that shoot each other or bombs that blow stuff up I saw them make a cannon once but it was not really all that destructive But it is FUN to watch anyway -tom w

I played Rune's a "River Runs through it" yesterday using V1.1 and I would like to report I saw a German Panther on a road, as I played against the computer ( the Panther was under the computer AI control) loss its head/mind/decisiveness and got very confused when a halftrack approached it from about 250 m on the road in front of it and an infantry squad approached it from its 10:00 o'clock (front left quadrant) both were not real threats but percieved as EQUAL threats and the Panther went into complete kinip****S! swinging its turret and hull violently back and forth for about 40 -50 seconds not firing at either while not knowing which to focus on. the hull swiveled as quick as possible to help the turret. the Halftrack was dead ahead at 12:00 o'clock, then I thought the Panther was going to blow up and self destrcut from all the twitiching before it finally got a shot off at the HT and KO'd it. I would say we should all watch for tank behaviour that looks like hopeless indescieveness between two equal threats. It was entertaining. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-10-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Martyr: Don't "hiding" tanks also hold their fire unless an enemy comes particularly close? I understand that hiding tanks make less noise, but I've been assuming that they also won't give away their position by firing. Martyr<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Don't "hiding" tanks also hold their fire unless an enemy comes particularly close?" Well "theoretically" it should do that, but other than the reference on page 159 in the manual I have not seen stated like that anywhere here on the board by BTS. So I'm curious too. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: Hetzers are real nice in a town where access to their side armor is blocked by buildings or rubble. On the attack, it is exactly as noted, wait until they expose a little side plate and then .......... Here's some questions about CM distances and tank unit movement. Are the distances and vehicle sizes to scale? A Sherman platoon had tanks spread all over the place trying to flank a Tiger I and it seemed like the Shermans were several hundred meters apart, maybe 500m or 600m as they moved around a village. Would a Sherman platoon commander let his tanks get out of sight and several hundred meters away? I read where the african-american tank units in WW II were noted for sending tanks this way and that and coming at the Germans from unexpected angles, all at once. It seems that some tankers went far distances on their own and kept a coordinated attack. Does CM put limitations on how far tanks can stray from the overall unit?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey Rexford, I really enjoy your posts, BUT now that V1.1 is out you should really actually SIT down and play the damn game!. Don't get me wrong I really enjoy all the armour penetration ballistics analysis we chat about here, but you should really get on the ball and play some of us head to head via TCP/IP. This is a Great Game, we can send out units ANYWHERE we want all over the map if we choose, plenty of freedom there for sure! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Have you heard the accents of those Canadian mortar crews? Talk about annoying! BTS had to reduce their price in a desperate attempt to get someone to buy them. Jeff Heidman [This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 01-10-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So let me get this straight? you have something against BOTH Macs and Canadians? (I guess that leaves me out in the COLD) Is that correct Jeff ? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-10-2001).]