hoolaman

Nah wait till you get home, its worth it

Have you had a chance to look at this Brit?

Hi Brit, The high rated content listed on the main page is a good idea to show what the player will find there. I'd still like to see a way to get the content from the "New Game" menu. All the buttons in the game launch window would be better if they actually looked like buttons, and "random map" "load scenario" "load map" should be right there on the main screen rather than another drop down dialogue box.

If you load the standard ruleset in the editor and use the combat simulator you can see the statistical chances of various damage scenarios. I'm sure one unit attacking two stacked units does not attack both stacked units in full force, because the chance to do higher damage is significantly reduced in the combat simulator against multiple opponents. Otherwise what would be the point of stacking anything?

This could easily be encompassed in a generic close tank assault animation (throwing grenades kind of thing). Possibly not out of the question.

Yes the real solution to the conflict would be abandoning the fundamentally exclusive zionist ideals of Israel as a homeland and state for Jews. Rename the country back to Palestine, and allow the original inhabitants to return to the areas they left during times of conflict if they can provide fair claims. A power sharing government along the lines of Northern Ireland might make this possible, but public perception and opinion on both sides will make it impossible to even consider.

As I understand it, a single plane attacking a stack of say two units will attack both units but divide its attacks between the two. In return it will be counter-attacked by both units. They can only engage in combat once because they need to be rearmed at their landing site. I think combat happens in turn as different unit circles cross, but I don't know what happens when a plane that has fired its weapons is attacked.

Indeed it is working now.

I get an error: "Update Validation Test Failed. Please notify the[sic] atomicboysoftware"

The Israelis claim self defence but who was the aggressor in the first place? It seems that both parties preferred to meet in daylight and within the blockade zone and have their pantomime play out in front of the world's cameras. Whoever authorised storming the boat in the dark in international waters should be held accountable, but Israel doesn't seem to do well in holding its own citizens accountable for lethal unfortunate "accidents"

In real life a conventional recce force is supposed to be large enough to engage or disengage from any conventional enemy force it encounters, which means they are large and capable combat formations. In CMSF scenarios you are often given a couple of Jeeps for the first 20 minutes of the scenario and told to recce the area. In reality the best approach would be -and usually is- to wait for the rest of your force to arrive and do the recce work in enough force to deal with whatever you find. Another disadvantage is that some of the sensor packages in the game seem to be undermodelled. There is a US recon sensor turret on humvees and strykers in the game that IRL can park 5km away and gather intelligence with high-fi IR and visual optics and transmit info to the combat net. They should have the spotting skill exceeding a tank but they never seem to work that way. The other disadvantage is that these weaponless vehicles still don't get to trace target/LOS so you can't position them very well to keep them alive.

Actually there does seem to be a factor of two in there somewhere compared to what I was expecting. Maybe the taking turns thing is the reason.

Yes that is with randomness at 0.0. Your results seem to match mine but with a wider spread. Why does a 1% chance to do 1 HP damage in each of 100 tics of combat produce results so skewed toward doing 2 HP damage? My bell curve of results shows the highest probability is zero hits, then lower odds for 1, 2 hits etc. I'm actually not reporting a bug or a problem (at least I don't think I am), I'm just trying to get my head around how it works, and I can't work it out.

The last patch made scenarios with HOT conditions much more likely to result in exhaustion, however I'm not sure about how quickly that exhaustion wears off and there might be a problem there. I think there is another thread about hammertime where GeorgeMc posted that the scenario may have been broken by the changes to exhaustion because the conditions are hot or very hot or something.

That doesn't agree with anything I'm seeing in the game and is contrary to the equation that Brit posted in this very thread and which I quoted in the post above. 10 attack vs 5 defence should give a 2% chance of hitting each of 100 tics, which should be only a 27.3% chance of hitting exactly twice per turn. The combat simulator does show some kind of distribution of hit probablities, but doesn't agree with any of the probability calculators I'm using. For example, this Binomial Calulator plug in n=100 for the number of "rolls/tics" per turn, 0.02 as the odds of hitting, you can see the distribution of the chances of doing one, two three, four hits in that 100 tics by setting x to the number you want to show. But what I'm seeing in the game actually doesn't agree with Brit's equation either. If I set the chance to hit as 0.5 there should be a near certainty of doing at least 70 hits per turn, so every unit should be destroyed every time, but my 10HP battleship doesn't even die. Also it is possible for defence to be higher than attack in EoS but that doesn't make sense because it gives odds greater than 100%.

I'm really really confused now. Here are some scenarios I've been trying in the combat simulator: *1 - Identical Units with: 1 attack to hit doing 1 HP damage per hit & 1 defence & 1 HP. Result: 50% Chance of 1HP damage, 50% chance of zero HP damage. *2 - Identical Units with: 1 attack to hit doing 1 HP damage per hit & 1 defence & 10 HP. Result: 97% Chance of doing 2 HP damage I was imagining that it was some kind of binomial distribution but none of the results I'm seeing seem to exactly match that. It doesn't seem to be consistent with the equation above.

I have seen the AI load up transports but then park them just off the coast of my city and leave them there. I've also seen it disembark its troops and leave them just outside my city. In both cases my cities were quite lightly defended and when a city is in LOS the AI should know just as well as a human player when it has overwhelming odds in its favour, and make its move decisively.

Ok. I was trying to do a 50% hit per tic for every unit class with every unit class doing 1 hitpoint damage sequentially per tic. The relative strength and weakness of units was going to be through higher hitpoints for stronger units. I was trying to do a classic empire remake, and this is the system used in the Empire for windows game I found. But this means that my attempted 50/50 odds of a 1 hitpoint unit killing another 1 hitpoint unit is impossible then. I thought it was just rolling the dice until one unit scored one HP damage and therefore won the fight. Random combat still gives a 85% chance of them both being destroyed, non-random gives a 100% chance of both being destroyed. It also will make higher hitpoint units much less powerful because they will take damage in almost every engagement. I know it isn't a fault with your system because it doesn't do the unique thing I want, but I would point out that many simplified combat games like empire and civilization do sequential turns of combat. I've seen both units be destroyed fairly often in the official ruleset too. Having no winner in combat is boring!

Works for me.

Actually Sgt Joch and I are both saying CMSF is better. You are shadow boxing here I think Steve.

I think we are in violent agreement. Indeed, live and let live I say. That involves politely and calmly letting people wallow in negativity if that's what they want to do.

A real world unit that is capable of wiping out, mopping up and taking prisoner an enemy unit may be severely depleted but they must still be cohesive and must still exist as a fighting formation or the more likely result is a stalemate with both sides remaining intact. Nonetheless I am trying to create a 50% chance of a unit killing another unit in EoS and it seems what I get is a 100% chance of both units killing each other.

The problem and the reason the two "camps" can't find any common ground is that the difference is a philosophical one, not an objective one-better-than-the-other situation. The CMx2 knockers believe that infantry bunching up and lack of realistic infantry manouevres and formations means a graphical representation that is unrealistic, and therefore combat that is unrealistic. This is true in some situations unfortunately. I believe CMSF infantry modelling is much better, but I find it is much easier to be happy with the results if you see that there is much more of the CMx1 infantry model with all its neccesary abstractions in CMSF than the CMx1 devotees really understand. My view is that CMSF infantry is still not really explicitly simulated, instead of a single point, a squad spreads out into an area more or less representing where a real squad would go. The combat calculations are far more "design for effect" than anything, with some abstracted cover from terrain still in there, HE effects modelled for effect rather than realism. When a HE shell landed right between your three-man squad tile in CMBO and not all of them died, you understand that it is just a fudge. CMSF is the same. Of course individual bullets still kill individual men, and individual men fire individual weapons, and sometimes individuals end up in places that get them killed unreasonably. Some people have a big problem with this and believe there is some kind of fundamental scale mish-mosh of part 1:1 and part abstraction. I think it is all abstraction to an extent, I use my imagination just as much playing CMSF as I ever did in CMx1, and I think of CMSF infantry as being pretty much what the community asked for CMBB infantry to become: for every soldier to be represented, every weapon to be shown, individual morale states instead of whole squads routing off the map (this is a big one!), animations of guys mounting up on half-tracks etc. Really all this does is make for a much more interesting tactical environment. CM games are all just chess after all IMO. CMSF just has more squares and more pieces to play with. I don't think we will ever see BFC prduce that perfect 1:1 modelling that Thomm mentions above, but I don't think they really need to.

Is there any way to prevent both engaged units being destroyed during combat? I've got a simplified ruleset that I'm seeing the majority of engagements between two units leaving neither side with a victorious unit to limp home, which is pretty poor from a fun game perspective, and though I know this is not a sim, both units being wiped out is not very "realistic" either. If I set my units to do one HP damage per hit, and both units have one hitpoint, one of them has to die first right, and the other should be left with one hitpoint? edit: I think I mostly see this with air units, does that mean both sides are getting dealt the whole turn's worth damage even though one of them should die part-way through the turn?

I thought the hardware check was only made at the time of applying the license? So you should be able to mess with your hardware and as long as the install still exists on your hard drive it won't phone home. This would allow you to unlicense and relicense with the new hardware hash. Am I mistaken in this assumption? Like Redwolf I don't want to have my licenses killed by buying a new processor or something.