aka_tom_w

the concept (in Theory) works well for the computer (AI) controlled opponent in CMBO the computer contolled tanks when playing one player against the computer, would NOT unbutton and they would not and could not have the advantage of spotting while unbuttoned to fix this BFC (it was "in theory" a good idea) coded the game so that ALL tanks could unbutton when they wanted to if conditions were "safe" (ok that concept on WWII battlefield is questionable at best, but lets continue). So now some tanks unbutton to get a better look and it is now no longer in the players control. Maybe the solution is to leave the code the way it is for the computer opponent but put the make sure that the GAME does not over ride human players control when the PLAYER says button up and STAY THAT way Damn it! just an idea -tom w

the concept (in Theory) works well for the computer (AI) controlled opponent in CMBO the computer contolled tanks when playing one player against the computer, would NOT unbutton and they would not and could not have the advantage of spotting while unbuttoned to fix this BFC (it was "in theory" a good idea) coded the game so that ALL tanks could unbutton when they wanted to if conditions were "safe" (ok that concept on WWII battlefield is questionable at best, but lets continue). So now some tanks unbutton to get a better look and it is now no longer in the players control. Maybe the solution is to leave the code the way it is for the computer opponent but put the make sure that the GAME does not over ride human players control when the PLAYER says button up and STAY THAT way Damn it! just an idea -tom w

Hi MikeyD Sounds like you are pretty sure that the cowar behaviour does not happen when an undermatched tank approaches from the flank or rear. If that is the way it actually works in the game I think we can all agree that is the way it should be. -tom w

" No matter how many units (including numerous MG's and HQ's all with binnoculars) could see the damn tanks in plain sight and sometimes under 100 metres distance they never ever identified them properly. Sounds like a small bug to me." Doesn't sound like a bug (in the tradition sense) to me. I would say Charles intends the spotting behavoiur to act the way it does. NOW I would agree that perhaps that is a problem, but I would not call it a bug. (maybe a design oversight?) aside from splitting hairs here (sorry) I think that yes the KTs are unrealistically hard to identify and if they are to be confused with any other tank, they should ONLY be mis-identified as Panthers as those to tanks share similiar looks. The KT should never be misidentified as a Tiger, I think that is IMHO incorrect and not too likely. But I would guess they could be mistaken for Panthers? BUT yes I would hope it would be fixed in the next patch GOOD point! -tom w

"d) Give troops a little "Rambo" juice so they don't all run away at the first sign of action. " Simple, Why not just use crack or Elite units to get some of that "Rambo" factor back? I have not played with Elite units (ever) in CMBB but I am guessing they are still fully stoked with Rambo Juice™ ( like CMBO) -tom w

yes but how we/you define or describe that "gee whiz" factor is it possible CMBO had that "gee whiz" factor primarily because it was a NEW in fact revolutionary strategy wargame concept (i.e. Full Blown 3D battlefield, with a we go system with great accuracy in armour penetration calculations) I am not sure how to revisit that "gee whiz" factor in an subquent CM games (CMBB CMAK) build on the original CMBO engine. :confused: I think there are alot of "gee whiz" factors in CMBB, I personally LOVE the cover arcs. And Perhaps the COOLEST "gee whiz" factor is the NEW and ground breaking Death Clock.! I am not sure what dalem is actually looking for? Hi dalem, if you could make some optional user controled setting or switch in CMBB what would it do? ? As has been suggested you could just play CMBB with more experienced units and only full FOW (not EFOW) and get the same/simliar experience as CMBO? On one point I totally agree, I cannot understand the spoken sound files of either side in CMBB, and for me that is one of the biggest negatives of the Russian front, as I feel no "comfort level" or kinship with either the Allies or Axis like I did in CMBO, but that is mostly "just" an emotional feel or attachment to one side. I play CMBB a great deal now and I really do like the new and enhanced level of realism, and now I prefer it (by a large margin) to CMBO. But to be honest I can't wait for CMAK so I can once again command all the english speaking forces and units and l look forward to ALL their new accents and phrases (E.g. Stick that in your Pipe and Smoke it Fritz! . -tom w [ May 14, 2003, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

" CMBO made me feel like a company or perhaps battalion commander. CMBB makes me feel like 25 team leaders. " ok BUT is that bad or is that good? :confused: I think they intended to design CMBO to make you feel like 25 team leaders in the first place, they just didn't exactly get it "right" the first time around I don't expect CMX2 to go below the squad level or the team level as you put it. -tom w [ May 14, 2003, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

NICE RANT! you write very well are you a writer by proffesion? that was VERY entertaining -tom w

that is a GOOD point not having enough fun in CMBB? Try fightling with ALL Crack or Elite units if that is your idea of fun. and YES your fun might actually increase (if fun means winning without working hard for it) if you play at only FULL FOW and not Extreme EFOW. those two factors right there are like turning on the CMBO fun switch I would guess. Great Suggestion Silvio, but please don't mess with the REALISM of CMBB because it should be more like CMBO, IT should NOT be more like CMBO at ALL! Read my sigature line below if there is any doubt as to where Steve G of BFC stands on the issue -tom w

that sounds like a problem to me I thought both players had to agree to a ceasefire request :confused: ? is there something new now where one player can make the ceasefire happen without the other's consent? just curious? -tom w

yes actually quite clever that! ≠

does this symbol <> mean "does not equal"? (not equal to?) sorry to have to ask <=>= != oh there it is NOT equal to ha! BAH! != option = does not show up here that should be an = with a / through it -tom w [ May 13, 2003, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

what is not fun about CMBB? I think those rockets that the aircraft shoot now are REAL fun ! don't you? -tom w

two man tank hunter teams make great scouts -tom w

OK Anyone else care to comment on just how sophisticated the engine is with regard to this "tank cowar behaviour" issue? some interesting comments here -tom w [ May 13, 2003, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I love playing the Russians BUT I have never played a game where T34's do battle with KT's I should Try it What scenario is that? Maybe the KT deserved what it got? what was that range? 90m! :eek: Hell that 88mm main weapons should stand off 1-1.5 KM (1000 -1500m) and pick off those poor defenseless T-34's oh well Did you win the battle or lose the battle? -tom w [ May 13, 2003, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

"One thing to keep in mind with this "cowering", if you can get an overmatched tank into position where the game "thinks" it has a chance then it won't retreat. In the case of T-34s versus Tigers that means directly perpendicular to the Tiger's side preferably, or the rear. Any sort of angle and the T-34s will retreat, so I guess there is some sort of "skill" in that. " is the game engine really that sophisticated? :confused: I don't have enough experience with the "cowar" behaviour in tanks that are under matched to know if it really does make a difference if the undermatched tank approaches from the rear or perpendicular to the flank :confused: Can anyone else confirm if the game engine is sophisticated enough to rationalize or figure out that approaching an over matched tank from the flank or rear aspect will in fact suspend the "cowar" behaviour in the undermatched tank? Jason C ? where do you stand on this issue? this is interesting and in fact amazing if the game engine and the TAC AI are sophisticated enough to determine that the approach from the flank or rear will mean the TAC AI and will behave differently and not cowar? How cool is that? BUT is it really TRUE? :eek: -tom w [ May 12, 2003, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

yes I agree Good point -tom w

bad luck lots of it ever rolled the dice to determine combat outcomes? well you rolled crap! and you did it three times in a row you will likely never see that result again there are NO sure things in CMBB mostly I would say it was just bad luck if you got penetration (with the 88mm KT) without damage or result three times. BUT it is possible :eek: -tom w

there is still no good news here this whole Damn situation is VERY sad -tom w

Hi Jason C interesting post BUT the real question we are curious about is are you using V1.03c to test out your theories? (the latest public beta) I have read your post and wonder if it is your expectation that your suggestions will be adopted for either the final 1.03 patch or the SOP game AI for CMAK? I can perhaps see where some or your proposals might make it into the upcoming CMX2 , but I don't think we will see any real improvement for then. -tom w [ May 11, 2003, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

no comments? :confused: -tom w

I have seen it in CMBB but it never really bothered me that much. It is possible to have enemy units (always vehicles) show up at the start of the game and after waste all kinds of time you find the NONE of your units can trace a LOS to them. I just say OH well maybe they are not really there anyway and move on. -tom w

in this case I would say the GAME is modeling the reality that the VIX tank crew knew they where dead meat! "Checking the targeting stats I see the VIX is 883m from the target with a hit percentage of 2% and a kill of none. The next movie starts. The VIX immediately targets the Tiger, raises its gun, but is blown up within 3 seconds. Surely any real life veteran tank crew would have tried to fire back in the first 40 seconds, even if there was very little chance of hitting. " the TAC AI knows this too! "stats I see the VIX is 883m from the target with a hit percentage of 2% and a kill of none" KILL = NONE means get out of there fast they got caught in the open with no chance of killing that other tank. I think it is fair to say they new that firing the shot in that 40 sec was both a waste of time and ammo. BUT yes trying to reverse BACK up the slope was equally foolish BUT it is possible they paniced, BUT then again now in CMBB the game tells you when the crew panics. -tom w [ May 11, 2003, 08:27 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I am using the latest v1.03c I agree COMPLETELY with Ron and his post and comments I have not seen the behaviour Jason C is complaining about. (I play the Russian ALL the time, but I have not tried to ambush Tiger's with T34's in CMBB yet) -tom w [ May 10, 2003, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]