Fred

Risc, it is NOT a fire order you give, but a TARGET order. There is a difference. Read the documentation. It is explained there. Just hit the "H" key...what is so difficult about that??? Fred

Richard, I still do not see your problem You click on a unit to give your target order. So the unit is already selected. Just hit the "H" key and everything is fine. But there are situations (at least for me) where I want to assign a target to a unit but do not want to shoot at this target right now. Imagine a charging enemy unit, some 100 m away. I just target it (but do NOT unhide). My unit now waits until they are just 30 m away and THEN open fire. Thats exactly what I want and it gives me a little more control. Fred

Hi, this is the way how PBEM is implemented at the moment. It's not a bug, but a feature BTS is thinking about another PBEM turn cycle for the final version AFAIK. Fred

Richard, I don't agree with you about this one It is definately not a bug, but a feature. And a nice one it is, because it handles two different orders: 1. I yell "Open fire at this MMG immediately!" (giving my target order AND unhide the unit). 2. I yell "Open fire at this MMG, if you're sure to hit it! Do not show up to soon!(I just give my target order) This is a flexible feature, and it is a good one. That is my personal opinion. And where is the problem? If you know how it works (and it's in the documentation), you know how to achieve the result you want Fred

The answer is in the documentation file that comes with the demo: "Hide, enemy target selected - unit will stay hidden until a really good shot is available against some variable unit. " So, if you want to be sure, that your unit will fire instantly, you have to unhide it before hitting "GO". Fred

Please, no "eingedeutschte" version, i.e. no translation of in-game text or the manual! I ordered an US version of CM (for good reasons) and that is what I expect to receive! I order ALL my games in the UK or in the US because of the ridiculous "political correctness" here. There never was ANY problem with mail order games I received, believe me. So BF, for the book, I officially ordered the original US version and no whatsoever "changed" or adapted version! Thanks for listening Fred

Richard, this "second preview opinion" is located in the "Front Line" column of the strategy reviews page by Tim Chown. An interesting read Fred

Hello, here is something from the preview at Games Domain. As you see, these guys feel the same like me if it comes to player control and targeting -------------- [...] "This is actually the part that I have the most trouble with, because games are games and not videos." Don't worry, we're two-thirds of the way into Bruce's "short note" now... but here he hits the nail on the head with an observation about the level of player control in the game, i.e. about how the game feels when you can only watch and pray for 60 long seconds... "This game has some problems (I don't like the lack of targeting control where my units sort of decide when to start and stop firing because I sometimes feel like I don't have enough decisions to make"[...] ------------ And this will be my final posting on this topic Thanks to all who participated, even if we did not agree in all cases Now back to my PBEM, have to kill some tanks... Fred

Steve, ---- "...we have just tweaked the threshold values so that the TacAI will keep your orders a weebit more close to heart. This is more along the lines of argument put forward by Fred. It won't make them robots, but might make them a little less likely to switch." ----- once again impressed by your responsiveness! I really think that tweaking this will make the game even better in gameplay value and will rise the ratio of player input to game output(and I'am sure a lot of others have the same opinion). Thank you Fred

Los, thank you for your posting --- "But there are plenty of "non-soldier" gamers on the beta team and now with the demo and their opinion is arguably more important since this is a game after all not a west point training tool and their considerations have to be taken into effect." ----- You are exactly "on target" with your posting, seeing the pros and cons of both sides. Totally agree. Fred

Fionn, --------- "I was shooting zero guns in your direction. I was merely illustrating a point to Dave. Don't see targeting when it isn't occuring k? " --------- This was a reply to Moon, not to you But sometimes I feel this "realism" argument is kinda overused...just a feeling --- "Still, all I can say is that without any pictures or autosaves there's only so much I can do. I swear that if you send me some which show a CLEAR problem I'll be sure to address these issues as much as I can." --- Deal! And thank you once again for being this responsive. Is it possible to send you the replay of an execution phase? Is it the autosave.cmb you need? Fred

You are welcome Moon, definitely! I know you from your posts as a fair discussion partner, so I don't take it personally To business: Once again the "realism" gun was fired at my concerns. I thought I made it clear; I just want the AI tweaked that way, that it is more weighted towards my orders as the player (no, I'm not the company commander on the field). I do not want robots, I do not want mandatory targeting, but I do want a little more obedience from my units. And believe me, I checked and double checked the examples I gave you. No, the unit was in LOS the whole time, no the other unit does not fire at my VG squad. And this assaulting US squad was by far the greatest threat around (and it happened what I have tried to prevent with my TARGET order, the enemy squad enters the stone building and close combat started). The whole point comes down to this; I reason from a gaming standpoint, you reason with "realism" (or what you think is realism). I said it once, and I say it again; this is a game. The most important part, for me, is a balance between gameplay and realism and how I can influence things. Hey, if I want to give a stupid order, my fault. But I do not follow you by saying "this guy always gives "wrong" (who decides?) orders, so the AI has to help him out". ------------- " Tha AI has no clue about your greater plan. The TacAI doesn't care a bit about it." -------------- That is what I said. So it is not able to decide, what isa wrong target and what is a right target. And realism? If I radio to this 88 Gun "Anton" to fire at a tank on the right flank, Feldwebel Arglos should better listen to me, instead of saying "Forget it captain, juicy infantry out in the open..." I guess my point of view is not this exotic, cause here are others who think the same. Maybe an option "realistic" and "more sticky too players orders" could do the trick. Do not forget; people are different, gamers are different, and wargamers are really different... And to make it clear; this game is great and I would rate it best wargame ever (with my one or two reservations). Just one word about my person; wargamer since 20 years now (all kinds, all flavors, all topics, all complexities), was in the military (German Bundeswehr), now software support engineer. Fred

Fionn, you wrote to Dave ----- Still, thanks for the intervention and it was a good one because it does show the downside of the mandatory targeting some people want ----- I think we have a misunderstanding, please read my first post; I do not want a mandatory targeting; all I want is a (strong) tweak to the AI to give a players orders more weight! I agree with you, that a strict mandatory targeting routine is something nobody wants! But pls see my last posting; still four questions/statements I would like to see answered if you like to and if you find the time to do so... But Charles and Steve are also welcome to this thread Fred

Fionn, thanks for your reply, and even if we do not agree on this one it is always a pleasure to discuss with you Now to business: You name some examples but pls. take a (very close) look on mine and Krauts examples: 1. The VG squad in my first posting. The enemy was in LOS the whole time, it was an immediate threat and no other squad shoots at my VG squad. I presumed the AI would target it anyway, but just to get sure I ordered it to "Target". The very first thing in the execution phase was the VG squad switching to a far away US squad in woods. 2. I stated it before but you did not answer it; its me who plays the game, not the AI and I'm prepared to issue some stupid orders (and I'm prepared to pay for it), but after all, its gameplay what a game should deliver. No AI should dictate me, what I have to do. If I make a stupid move in a game of computer chess, I do not want that any AI "corrects" me; if I make an error I will learn it the hard way. This would end up that the AI plays the AI and me beingf a spectator. Realism, hmm maybe,...challenging gameplay...doubt it. 3. How should the AI knows about my "greater plan". Even if Feldwebel Hansel thinks that he knows better than me, he has no idea why I want (and ORDERED!) that this certain MG has to be obliterated. What is stupid in the eyes of the AI at this moment(!) could be a great thing for the whole battle. And I want to win the battle, not just killing the most "juicy target" the AI thinks it should fire on. 4. It all comes down to this; my job is it to move the units to the right position and then let the "superior" AI decide the fighting by happily targeting on their own. But if on the defense with all units deployed in good positions, what will be my role? Sitting and watching? Minor redeployments? That's definitely not enough for a game; enough for a simulation of a company commander, yes, but not enough play value for me. I want to see that my input in the games system makes a difference (for good of for bad). A game system should not dictate a human player how to play or what style to use. It is not able to read my mind, so it has no idea why I'm ordering this or that. It SHOULD switch targets in some circumstances (see my first posting) but not as easily as it does now. Maybe you could tell me your opinion about these four topics. Fred

John, yes, I was in the army so I was in "under fire situations". But you misss the whole point. This game(!) is not called: "Company Commander©; experience the sheer chaos of war in this simulation! Give commands nobody obeys! Just tell 'em to take that hill and watch how the AI NCOs fight it out. Be a company commander! Stay under cover and just watch!" I am the player of this game, not a role playing style "Commander character" on the field. If I want this I would rejoin the army or do play a role playing game (like "Behind Enemy Lines"). Fionn, sorry that I must disagree with you, because all your statements usually are well reasoned, but I do not believe what you said: --------------- I know it is difficult to accept guys but honestly the AI usually does a more effective targetting job than you ever will UNTIL you learn what sorts of targets you should be firing at. [...] Hell, a lot of the time I let the AI do the targeting for me completely (especially on the attack) since it will be MUCH more effective than any targeting order I give. --------------- We talk about a game that the player is supposed to play, aren't we? I'm not of the opinion that the AI does a more effective job than me. Remember, if I have a greater "overall plan" (call it strategy), how should the AI knows? Read my examples above... And you think the AI should dictate me, what I have to target??? Sorry, I thought the game was designed to LET me decide (even if I make errors; sometimes commanders fail...) what will happen, not the AI...but I guess I'm wrong. So why bothering with target orders, if the AI is always right? Just moving the troops to point A and then relax, sit back and watch? This is a game , a challenge of the mind. And if I invest time in giving orders (even stupid ones) I want them to be carried out (most of the time), else where is the game in the game? The word "realism" is not a good all-around weapon to counter all our concerns about gameplay, and gameplay it is what I talk about. ---------- "The military guys feel it is right... They know more than any of us non-military guys. perhaps we should listen to them?" ---------- No, because being in the military does not automatically qualify them to be right on gameplay issues (BTW, I was in the military). I hope Steve or Charles will say something about the topics in my first post in this thread, because others are concerned about this issues too. Sorry if this sounds hard, but I wanted to clearly state my point Fred

Kraut, you are right on both topics, and I adressed them in my first posting. Using the "ambush method" just to issue an "Hold Fire" order is nothing more than a workaround. Same goes for your examples of how the AI switches targets. I know all of them and if I (as the player or as the company commander, whatever) order the 88 gun to fire at a tank on one flank, it does not have to fire on an infantry squad, not even if it has a high kill percentage. And if I made a mistake with my target order (because there are better ones around), this is ok. Simply stated, to drop a players targeting or hold fire orders should be an rare exception, not the rule (conditions for switching are in my first post). This has to be adressed for the final release. Fred

First of all I must say that this is a great game (and I pre-ordered 2 or 3 month ago). But there is one thing that has to be tweaked in the final release. The TacAi and how it handles "Target" orders. Steve once said, that the AI is comitted to a players target order, as long as the target is valid, and there is not another "juicy" target (or a case of self defence). Well, this is not what I experienced in the beta; usually the first thing the TacAi does (after just 2-5 seconds) is to switch my target orders for the units. Her is in example from the Riesdorf scenario: A regular Volksgrenadier squad in good (rested) condition without any casualties (and in command) is hiding in a stone building. 40 meters away a US squad in direct LOS is on the move to enter the house. The US squad is in the open and no enemy squad is fring at my hidden VG squad. I order it to un-hide and target the 40 m away US squad. Then I hit GO. Guess what happened. After 3 or 4 seconds (without even firing at the US squad) my VG squad switches target to an US squad some 175 m away in light woods! The first US squad easily entered the house before my (now battered) VG squad retargetted it. Another example from the same scenario: 1 ordered my 88 gun to target a sherman on the left flank, because I want to weaken the enemy assault on this flank. I hit GO. Guess what happened. After 3-4 seconds without firing any shot, the 88 targets a sherman on the right flank (maybe because the to-hit % was 2 or 3 % higher. And no, the sherman was not firing at the 88). This happens all the time. Why do I even bother to give target orders if the AI happily discards them after some seconds?. In the Riesberg scenario as the defender there are mostly target orders to give, not this much movement orders (which the AI follows exactly). So there is this feeling of watching a war movie with very little influence of me, the player (and in this context the most important person in a game!). No, I do not want god like control, but yes, it's not enough for me as a player to order units from position A to position B and then let the AI decide the outcome while I'm just a spectator. After all, CM is a game and I want to see results from the time consuming input I do in planning phase. The same goes for a "Hold fire" order. I use the workaround of creating an ambush zone, let all units hide and target this ambush, not because I really want to ambush there, but to make sure that they don't fire their MP40 at 150 m enemies in woods and give away their positions. Soldiers usually obey orders (they were trained for this So, for the final release, two things should be considered: 1. The AI should not change targets the player ordered (after all its he who plays the game) IF not - target out of sight - "juicy target" presents itself - self defence (former unseen enemy unit comes around the corner in 20 m distance) - failed morale (sorta "panic fire" at all that moves) In all other cases the AI must shoot at the ordered target. It should really stick to the order. 2. Implement "Hold fire" order (which can be broken by circumstances). So there is no need for the above "workaround". Maybe some get the impression, that I don't like the game. Wrong. I played the demo every free hour since release and I think it is the greatest wargame ever. But the player must have some more influence on the game and the behaviour of the units. If some call it "gamey", ok, it is a game after all Fred

Same mouse lag here, and the los line is not always where the mouse cursor is. It works in the overhead views (5-8) but not in the 3D views, at least sometimes the los line jumps around or has another direction than the tip of the mouse cursor locates. 200MMX, Vodoo 2 12 mb, 64 mb ram. Fred

BTS, make the AI as hard and as challenging as possible. Do not implement "artificial" flaws in the AI routines And what you told us about your experience in the test battle sounds very promising. Now waiting for the demo (and put it on a lot of mirror servers Fred

Oscar, hmm, you really want to compare a hex based LOS system with a 3D-based LOS system? Guess you better stay with the 5 year old system then... Fred

As you said it, this is just a rumour, because CM is really not the game to "pay per hour" like all those RTS games around. Fred

Hamburg, northern Germany

Bill wrote it: "Second, prisoners can escape and rejoin their unit in CM, as has happened in the AAR, if they are not properly escorted. So they do have a purpose in CM in my opinion." In the city, after Moon cleared it, a captured us soldier changed his status from captured to active (even if only armed with a pistol). Fred

I agree with Bil. This is a tactical wargame, and its going to be the #1 top notch wargame. I played tactical wargames for nearly 20 yrs now (board, miniatures, computer) and I never missed dead bodies. And as Moon said, if only 1 vehicle is not in the game because of the coding time for "body pile sprites", he is not the only one getting angry As I mentioned in the other thread, Great Batttles of Ceasar has dead bodies, but after 2 or three turns of melee I usually turn them off. And please, no "little grave crosses"... Fred

Pixman, agreed, no dead bodies. I had them in "The great Battles" series. After a few rounds the ground was cluttered with them and I decided to let the system remove the bodies. Fionn (or moon?) wrote, that you are so involved in the battle, you remember the hot spots with ease. So no body piles for me. Fred