Sgt Joch

stop playing forum games, the issue is more complex than that. I agree 100% with JonS on this, if the only choice is between the current buggy implementation or NO PENALTY WHATSOEVER, than I vote for the current system. However, you guys are getting worked up for nothing, Charles is on the case and will no doubt come up with something none of us have thought of.

I was trying to summarize since we are going in circle. No one and I dont think even JonS is arguing that the current system works well or should even be kept long term. I am much more interested on where do we go from here and for that we really need to focus on what should be done to the game. If we cant even agree on what would be the preferred outcome, which in my case is some sort of penalty for tanks moving or for a certain period after they stop, we surely wont agree on what are the best changes to make to the game.

I have Terry Copp's "Fields of Fire" at home which deals with Canadian forces in normandy. There is a good chunk on the battles of june 7-9th since 3rd. Can. Div. did most of the fighting against 12th SS. I can probably get you a list of the canadian units involved.

That is an argument to have a lower penalty, not to have no penalty. No one denies that you raise valid points and there probably is no valid reason why pausing before movement should result in an accuracy penalty. But you are using outliers to argue against a general rule. For example, if I argue that: "there is no logical reason why I should stop at a red light at 4 am in the middle of an open field when I can see there are no other cars on the road";, I cannot go from there to: "there is no logical reason why I should stop at a red light". (obviously an extreme example) The fact that a penalty does not make sense in a few specific situations does not mean it is not warranted in others, for example when a moving AFV pauses during movement or immediately after it stops.

It's hard to believe, that people cannot see the clear flaws in Vanir's arguments. I am feeling like we are talking to a brick wall.

Is there such a thing? i.e. tanks/ATGs which have not moved since setup get an accuracy bonus? I thought of that, but did not remember if that was in the game or not or ever was. Just like I seem to recall that tanks/ATGs which have not moved since setup are supposed to have a bonus against spotting to represent camouflage.

exactly, the reason why the Firefly was so deadly and accurate was due as much to the weapon as to the tactics employed. Panthers and Tigers are easy prey when you hit them in the flank AND you already know the exact range.

remember...there is no spoon...

yes, but "stopping" in WW2 was a matter of hours/days not seconds as in CM. You look at typical German Blitzkrieg tactics, the tanks would rush through a hole in the front moving until they arrive at their objective, at which point they would setup a static defensive position and wait for the infantry to catch up. Rommel was a master of the "offensive defence", i.e. running around the British line and setting up in a critical area where the British felt obliged to attack him. You also have to remember that a CM turn is 60 seconds. Many players seem to feel this is an eternity, but it is a blink of an eye in RL. Jentz's "Panzertruppen" has many accounts of real life tactical encounters. German tank commanders might spend hours maneuvering their tanks to get into position for the "just right" flank shots on an enemy tank. Fireflys were deadly, but in all encounters where they scored their best kills, the tanks had been positioned for a long time in the best spots to get flank shots on any attacking enemy. I believe we are past that.

Ah yes, I see your point. There have been discussions along those lines in the past, but nothing was done in CMSF. As I recall, all dumb bombs were removed at one point in CMSF since AFAIR they are no longer commonly used by U.S. forces in CAS. I am pretty sure all bombs on the Blue side are now PGMs. Not sure about Helos or the Red Air though.

from post #50 on page 5: In other words, a still tank may = a still tank, then again it may not.

friendly fire does happen, this will not be removed, if only to keep players from calling down air strikes right next to their troops. nice list, keep the suggestions coming.

very nice.

hey, these little debates are half the fun around here.

Agreed. so we all agree some form of penalty is more realistic than no penalty. p.s. - nice find btw.

so, even though I agreed to abide by the groupthink of the "community", you want to continue the discussion to prove that your position is more "realistic". ok, should be fun. first, I believe we can all agree that WW2 tanks were not designed to fire on the move with any kind of accuracy, hence the current penalty. Whether the current penalty is enough/too much is another topic. A stationary tank will fire more accurately than a moving tank. A stationary tank will also fire more accurately the longer it is stationary, up to a point. Once a tank is in a fixed position and settled in, the commander/gunner will become familiar with the location, where tanks are more likely to pop up and estimate the likely ranges. This is not really modeled in CM unless you use TRPs. On the other hand, a tank when it first stops in a location is at a disadvantage. It does not know the area or the ranges. This of course, affects spotting, but accuracy as well. How long this disadvantage lasts is up for debate. ok, so this is where you come up with totally hypothetical situations which would justify a move order+60 second pause. yes, I am sure these situations happen frequently. tank is bogged and is moving its tracks front and back to get out of the mud/soft ground. Do you really think it will fire as accurately as a fully stationary tank? Now, lets look at much more current situations which we do see in every scenario: -A stationary tank ("mr. stationary tank") has been in position for 20 minutes and knows every nook and cranny of the field it is covering; a)-two enemy tanks appear moving quickly across the field, one accidentally cuts off the second. The second tank pauses, sees mr. stationary tank and fires at the same time as mr. stationary tank; or -an enemy tank appears with a fast order to the middle of the field where it pauses for 10 seconds before it moves away. During the pause it spots mr. stationary tank and fires at the same time as mr. stationary tank; In both cases, mr. stationary tank pretty much knows the exact range to pausing tank while pausing tank is just shooting in its direction. Do you really think both tanks will fire with the same degree of accuracy? Agreed. Is that really a reason to have no penalty whatsoever? you order your tank to hurry up and get off that one last shot before it moves in 5 seconds. You don't think it will affect their accuracy? Agreed it is not perfect, but what makes more sense, no penalty to cover the few situations where it is not warranted or a penalty to cover the vast majority of cases where it does. ...and I would love a date with Charlize Theron. I presume we all know the constraints of game design, especially with a niche game. We have to deal with the game as it is, not as we would wish it to be in an utopian future.

What I meant is that BFC is planning to revamp the code dealing with tanks firing on the move. Steve has discussed this publicly in various threads. What we have now is a workaround until that revamp is done. BFC is not going to spend a lot of time fine tuning a workaround that will be scrapped in the near future.

it is, but BFC is not going to fine tune the entire code depending on how long or why you pause. Either there is a penalty or there is'nt.

Again you seem to have trouble understanding my point. No player will ever under any circumstance give a move order and a 60 second pause in a 60 second turn. You play the game in a way which no one would ever expect and you get an unexpected result, what else do you expect? But since I now understand that everyone on this forum is now perfectly happy with the present accuracy of tanks firing on the move and has no problem with tanks which pause for 5 seconds being as accurate as a fully stationary tank, then I will not argue the point further. At least, it is one less series of threads that we will ever have to deal with in the future.

try thinking before posting next time.

understood, but when would anyone use a move order + indefinite pause in a 60 second turn? Phil will send it along, but my understanding is tank fire on the move is more accurate than it should be. Steve has mentioned changes they would like to make, i.e. "short halts" to improve behavior of tank fire on the move, but that would require more important changes to the TacAI. We may possibly see this in v3. In the meantime, tanks on the move have an accuracy penalty as Vanir's tests show. Pauses are used in movement, not just voluntary pauses by a player, but involuntary pauses as vehicles pause to let other vehicles go by. Right now moving tanks have an accuracy penalty during the entire time they are moving, including pauses. If player's feel that tank accuracy on the move is too low, we can of course, press BFC to remove the accuracy penalty during pauses.

So, basically you are arguing that a tank which stops briefly while on the move should, during the few seconds while it is stopped, be as accurate as a fully stationary tank. That is based on what logic/facts?

A new GeorgeMC scenario is always an event. I would like to see a scenario with Syrian heavy mech forces as well. I presume there will be a H2H version?

Exactly. Why does every world problem become the responsibility of the US? "western intervention" actually means US intervention since UK and France do not have the resources to do it on their own. Let the Arab states handle this one, its their problem.

The western media was trying to portray this as an uprising of the oppressed against an evil dictatorship. That is partly true, but this is turning into a regional power struggle. The Assads and their Alawite clan are supported by Iran and Hizbollah and surprisingly by Iraq which is worried about its own Sunni minority. The rebels who are predominantly Sunni are backed, armed and funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and enjoy the support of Turkey and Jordan. Iran wants to keep its Syrian ally and Saudi Arabia wants to instal a Sunni regime to serve as a counterpoint for now Shiite Iraq. Either way the end result will most likely be a dictatorship, either Alawite or Sunni. More worrying is the fact that the war is now slipping into Lebanon and Iraq. Basically it is a replay of the Iraq civil war, Sunnis vs Shiites, except that the U.S. is not stuck in the middle this time. Its no wonder Obama wants to stay as far away as he can from this mess. Its a lose-lose proposition.