BDW

Steve - I don't remember reading or accepting a license agreement when I downloaded the Combat Mission demo. Certainly you will have one for the "gold" demo, right? Having said that, please excuse me while I get back to reverse engineering, decompiling, and disassembling your product...

A long time ago Steve said that there would be victory conditions like: "blow up this bridge" or (for the other guys) "make sure this bridge doesn't get blown up" is this still the case? will we even be ABLE to blow up bridges? (Actually, I guess I should call it a "victory factor") I also always enjoyed the Squad Leader scenarios where you lay the boards out the long way and you have to exit X number of units off the far edge of the map. Those were exciting. Is CM still going to have these various kinds of things?

re: bodies has anyone proposed simple, little red blood stains?

I have noticed three problems with plotting and the cursor. 1: the cursor jumps around a lot when I am trying to check los/target/plot waypoints, etc. This is especially true when I am in one of the 3D views like #3 or #4. When I go to the top-down view, every thing is a smooth as can be. 2: Sometimes the way-point lines are not drawn to my cursor. Like if I am plotting a move to some woods, and my cursor is right over the woods, the line itself sometimes is away from my cursor. I compensate for this by doing a two-step plotting process: I'll do a rough plot in the 3D view, then change to top down to tweak the waypoints and get them where I originally intended them. 3: Inability to adjust waypoints more than a short distance.

I'm not quite hip to the computer game development lingo. What does going "gold" mean? Does that mean you sell 100,000 copies - like with records? If so, why would I want to play the demo when I could just buy the full version? And Steve, if you aren't going to give us an updated demo for Christmas then what ARE you going to give us?

hey at least I try...!

Recently I've noticed that many of these threads go like this: CM player: "I am having X problem with the demo." BTS: "That is a problem in the beta demo - we've already fixed that." But there seems to be SO many things that have already been fixed, that most of the discussion here is redundant and unecessary. Wouldn't it be more helpful for everyone (including BTS) if we got an updated version of the demo? just my 2 cents

Which reminds me - I was going to bug BTS for some more drastic graphics for knocked out (but not burning) tanks. I am not asking for much... Even a big black mark on the dead tank would be sufficient. But Steve or Fionn will surely tell me why I am, in fact, asking for TOO much

Didn't the folders on this board turn red when there were new messages? I seem to remember that. Since there is so much activity here now, I am having a tough time keeping track. Is there a way I can fix this? I tried doing a new profile, but it won't accept two names for the same email address. thanks

Steve - what is this video you have? Is it old war footage? Depending on the circumstances, there is a good chance you can use the sound of the MG42 from the video. Things to consider: Was the SOUND of the MG42 that was used in the video already in the public domain? Assuming that the film's author fixed the sound of the MG42 in a recording that was put in the soundtrack, you should ask how your use of that recording in Combat Mission will effect the actual or potential market for or the value of the video. If the answer is "it won't" then your use of the MG42 sound in Combat Mission will probably be allowed under the fair use doctrine. As a practical matter, even if you used the MG42 sound in the game, it is highly unlikely that the producers of the video would recognize the sound as theirs and come after you. This is actually a pretty interesting situation - can you give me some more details? I'd like to research this a little but more...

It is funny - I remember in the early days of the old board, many people were opposed to and confused by BTS's 3D plans for CM. Some people were downright furious about it!Many were insisting on a top down view and covinced they would ONLY play the game from that perspective. I wonder if they still feel the same way... My buddy was playing CCIV the other day and I felt claustrophobic just *watching* it. I wanted him to go to the #4 view so bad! It was horrible being stuck in that top down world. You lose all sense of the broader picture of the battlefield and you constantly have to scroll all over to keep track of things. I guess what I am saying is: "BTS you were right." Now I can NEVER go back. I realized when I saw CCIV that I am already taking CM's 3D system for granted. However, I must say that the top down view in CM is very good for accurately positioning your troops in buildings or next to the walls, etc.

do it like this: http://combathq.thegamers.net/pix/snow/northsnowy.jpg

Fionn, when you are moving your men to the wall does the cursor have to actually say "wall" for them to move to the proper spot for maximum cover? Also, how do you get your men to move at the same speed as the tank? (assuming you wanted them to walk along behind/to the side of it?) thanks

Steve - does it have to be so black and white with the "run" command? It seems to me that in most cases you will want your guys to run and not stop for anything. But what about an immediate threat or target that they can easily elimate. Like Zot's guys running past the tank. Those guys could have stopped, taken out the tank, then kept running. It seems to me that there should be some VERY LIMITED circumstances for troops to "disobey" the RUN command and stop to take care of business. I am not talking about "pop shots" at mediocre targets, I am talking about close, immediate threats and high percentage shots at targets they are right on top of. It just seems strange that the orders were for those guys to run right past the tank, and they didn't stop to take it out. Can that type of move be justified from a realistic standpoint? Was there ever a need to have your guys run right past a tank like that and take no action? OK, I am ready for my lesson now.

BTS says the "free turn" for reinforcements was a bug and has been fixed. They've fixed it so reinforcements have a chance to be spotted right when they arrive.

Fionn, I eagerly await the new screenshots. Can we get them uncompressed, too? (I'm not sure if there others were or not, but it'd be cool to have the new ones uncompressed.) thanks

I am sorry, but I think the grass is still WAY to saturated in color and way too green. I like that the higher elevations are easier to distinguish, but it is still extremely difficult to see the dips and rises in the landscape. I was hoping that the changes would be more drastic. Maybe I am color blind in the green spectrum or something, but it just doesn't seem like there is enough variation in the gradient. Right now it seems like everything from 0 ft to 10 feet (for example) is the same color of over saturated green. I think the gradient needs to be in small increments and with more variation in the colors. So there would be one color for 0 to 5 ft and another, distinguishable color for 5-10ft and so on.

Steve - what is the final word on this "free-turn" issue? I just played a scenario where the "free turn" was decisive and very unfair. I think that the reinforcements should not get a free turn. They should either come in on the 60th second of the previous turn, or they should not be able to accept orders for the turn they come in on.

I think #1 was because of #4, actually. So nevermind on that one. With regard to #3: I'm glad you like the idea. You could also have some sounds that are related to the "detailed armor hit" messages. For example, if the message says that there was a tread hit, then you could have a "broken tread" sound. Or if it is a turret hit, then there could be a special sound for that (no idea what that would be). I guess my point is that after a while you would be able to tell what happened to a vehicle by listening instead of reading those messages.

I am sure this has been asked before, but at least I am not starting a new thread for it! BTS - why does CM not have graphics options for those of us who have more than a 4mb card? Most 3D game have all sorts of options you can play with depending on what kind of hardware you have. I have a 16meg graphics card and I would love to use that extra power to smooth out those gridlines. Will hardware dependent options be available in future versions of CM? Or will CM always be "one size fits all"?

BTS - what improvements will be made to the sound design for the final version? Or better yet, what is on your sound "wish list" for future versions? Here are some areas that I think could be improved: 1) voices: too repetitive, not enough variation, incongruous with action and status of troops and therefore not very informative or helpful. 2) burning sounds: disproportionately loud, sounds cut in and out very abruptly 3) tank hit sounds: it is always the same "CLUNK" when a tank gets taken out. Some variations on this would be more exciting. 4) sounds in relation to camera position: I think this could use some tweaking. Sometimes it works good, but it just seems a little off. The sounds seem disproportionate to each other. A man yelling "Let's go!" should not be heard from across the map, while the machine gun next to him should be.

ME vs AI is now 7-1. Thought you'd be happy to hear that, Fionn. It was a bizarre scenario: 1) I was the Germans defending the town, and my flak gun, the one way up on the hill on the "bottom" of the map, the one I was relying on to make quick work of the enemy tanks, was taken out by machine-gun fire from the other end of the map - the FAR end of the map! Steve, is that POSSIBLE? Or is it a bug of some sort? The ENTIRE gun crew got wiped out - no survivors! It was freaky. There was no explosion or anything, just incoming machine-gun fire from "infantry?" from 1000 yards away. It was especially weird when you consider the pounding the other flak gun took (see #3 below). Can someone explain to me what the heck happened to that gun crew? Did they have a group mind-snap and commit suicide? 2) I emptied all the ammo from one mortar onto the top of an enemy tank that was clearly in my LOS. I watched at least 5 rounds land directly on the tank. No damage whatsoever. 3) my second flak gun I left in the default position pointing down the road coming into town. It got off the first shot against a tank coming down the road, missed, then had a three-turn shoot out with the tank. My gun crew actually was taking cover for the second of those three turns. I thought they were gonners for sure. The tank shelled them for an entire turn! Then, lo and behold, on the third turn they remanned the gun and began returning fire! I cheered! It was a great, dramatic CM moment. Unfortunately, the last two rounds exchanged knocked out both the tank and my flak gun at the same time. No problem, I thought. I'll nail those tanks with my panzerfausts. Unfortunately, the AI was, um, smarter than I expected, and kept those two tanks way back up next to the trees. I tried sneaking my panzerfaust guys up the sides, but they got discovered and killed. Those tanks just sat there pummeling everything in site. When I retreated my troops for a final stand in the core of town, the tanks slowly moved in for better firing positions. Basically, the battle was lost in the first five turns for me - when both flak guns were history. I guess if I was playing a campaign game, the thing to do would have been to get the hell out of there at that point and save some lives. Ah, what a relief to finally lose to this AI. I gained new respect for it - even though it did get LUCKY... [This message has been edited by BDW (edited 11-16-99).]

Steve - sorry I came out of the gate "convinced" Tell the AI I am sorry if I hurt its feelings. And really, my complaining is akin to someone complaining about the handling characteristics of their Ferarri. Or the guy who is mad because he only got a 99% on his test... The balance issue is going to be a very interesting one, I can tell. I think I should withhold ANY judgment until I play a campaign game. Also, I totally agree with you on handicaping the AI - that IS cheating and there must be a better way. I think the answer must lie in the dynamics of the campaigns. We shall see.... In the meantime let's make a bet. Steve, you are open-minded, right? Well, how about you give us another balanced scenario to play. BUT this time give us ZERO information before the scenario. That way we will be presented with the same exact situation as the computer. It will be clear from the victory flags and our starting positions what we are supposed to do (attack, defend) but we will have no pre-scenario intel. Just a battlefield and our units. This is what the AI is confronted with every scenario, right? I want a sterile mano y mano game with the AI. No hindsight bias, no information. Just me and the AI for a showdown. And I'll bet you and Fionn that I can beat it the first time out from either side. What do you think? If I lose the scenario I'll PROMISE to shut up about the AI... You game? [This message has been edited by BDW (edited 11-14-99).]

Steve/Fionn - good points here - am beginning to understand. Steve - for the record, I have said before that I think this game is incredible. You are absolutely right - the AI blows away any other (that I have played). But I think it is insutling to comapre CM AI to any other. I have watched this game develop since the early days and I am holding it to a higher standard. Fionn what you said about the AI's moves being smart in the context of a campaign game shed new light on the situation for me, too. The posts by you and Fionn make a lot of sense and it has led me to think about the "why" more than the "what". This is what I have come up with: I think you guys are right about hindsight bias coming into play. However, the first time I played each scenario I also won - easliy. Why? You cannot write it off to pure luck. I think know that it was because I read the intro and I knew what to expect from this game. I get the feeling that the AI will always be at a disadvantage in any balanced scenario. What I mean to say is that, as a human playing this computer game, I know that BTS is going to provide me with a balanced scenario. That means that if I have tanks, then I KNOW the AI will have some, too. But the problem is that AI does not know it is playing a game. So that gives the human a huge advantage every time, doesn't it? For example, unlike Fionn, when I played the scenario for the first time, as the Germans, I did not expose my Tiger and my other armor so carelessly. Why? Because I "KNEW" that teh scenario designer made a balanced scenario and that there would be something out there to kill my tanks - it was just a matter of me finding it. But the AI lives only in the world of the game itself and cannot think that way. Do I dare say that the AI TOO realistic? Steve/Fionn - there has to be some way to compensate for this so that the AI is on equal footing with the human. Maybe there can be some tweak that only happens when you are playing human vs. AI - so as not to mess things up for human v. human. I do not like the idea of editing the scenario to give the AI extra units. There has to be a better way. What do you guys think?

Me vs. AI is 7-0 now. Played Last Defense again, as the US. I did a set up that I thought would reveal the the failings of the AI, because it foreces the AI to be pro-active. I can send anyone who doesn't believe me the early saves. If you play it smart I am sure you'll win every time. Basically, on turn 1, I pulled ALL of the US infantry back into the buildings in the "downtown" part of town, sprinting to good hiding positions, so that, with minor adjustments, they were able to cut any advancing German infantry down with wicked crossfire no matter where they attacked from. The key is to get the US squads positioned so that they can only be seen and engage the Germans when the Germans are closer to town, coming down "lanes" that I have covered from multiple angles. Then, I use all of the US mortar fire to pummel the German AI while it is trying to organize itself. (While still keeping all of my troops hidden in town). The mortar fire in the "backfield" will drive the Germans forward. Undoubtedly, the German AI will expose its tanks within a few turns. The AI will plod along, slowly and cuastiosly toward the town. In my game, on turn ten, when my Hellcats showed up, this was the state of the German AI advance: the Tiger had moved slowy out into the open field with it's SIDE to the town; the other two German tanks were totally exposed on the road with the halftracks bunched up in between, also exposed; two German infantry squads were crossing the open area to get to the cornfield; some German infantry was moving through the trees on the right hand side of the map (setting up machine gun positions to cover a later, totally ineffective push towards the houses on the right). When my Hellcats appeared, within 3 turns they had taken out all German armor. Since the Hellcats are the only units I have exposed to the German AI, I know that if it has any arty support it will target my tanks with it. But I also know there is a delay. So you don't move them for a couple turns, then run them down the hill quickly when the arty starts dropping, behind them up on the hill. German AI just wasted its arty support on my tanks that can move super FAST down that hill! What is funnier is that the halftracks opened up on my tanks from way down there, instead of getting to cover! Bad call AI! The halftracks had a whole turn when they were ignored (I was killing the tanks) and could have sought cover! Eventually, by turn 20 or so, my hidden guys in town were starting to open up fire on their own against easy, very close in German infantry sqauds that were trying to reach the town by crossing open ground that I had covered from all angles. It was pathetic. Does the AI have no clue how to adjust and rethink and get it's guys to cover and try something else? Squad after squad it sent into the open and I cut them all down. This set up reveals the failings of the AI. When it approached my totally quiet little town it should have been smart enough to think "Could this be an ambush?" It could have started dropping arty in town and flushing out my guys with HE rounds from it's tanks. I should have AT LEAST not totally exposed ALL of it's armor when it has not yet even SEEN any of my units, yet it knows I can see its units because direct mortar is landing on its positions! If had had been playing in it's position, I would have stayed behind the trees on the right or left and rushed the flanks of the town, keeping my armor as non-exposed as possible. But the AI chose to advance it's units across the open spaces and it got totally destroyed. Once again I felt sorry for it. Then it's use of infantry was totally inefective. It was suicidal! My results? Alied 11 causualties, 1 vehicle knocked out (got way too bold chasing down US infantry on turn 29!). German 63 casualties (13 KIA) 7 vehicles knocked out. (most of the german forces ended the scenario still in the woods where it started out). If anyone wants the save games from this to see what I mean, just email me. Fionn/Steve, if you want to try to justify what the AI did and why it did it, I'd love to hear it. I still have an open mind, believe it or not, and I still think this game is going to be a wonderful human vs. human game. But this AI just does not know how to WIN THE GAME. It may be acting "realistically" but guess what? It can't win this GAME. At least not in my experience... This all concerns me, because I want this game to be a serious challenge when the full version comes out. I don't WANT to win every time. If the AI cannot achieve this, then it is not ready yet and needs more work. [This message has been edited by BDW (edited 11-14-99).]