Fred

Vader, with all due respect, I was not talking to you... And if I need your advice, I will politely ask for it. Fred

Well, Charles once had a good reason to put them into CMBO, it was not an accident. So why, if not for 'realism' reasons, they are out now and not a toggle? Fred

That is how MGs are supposed to work; just read Paul Carells 'Operation Barbarossa'. Some well placed HMGs can stop a whole battaillon assault. (The Soviets reacted with sending wave after wave of troops, right into the beaten zone of overlapping fields of HMG fire). In a static defense situation, a HMG is the Queen of arms. Fred

If I need 2 or 3 replays, just to get a hint, where my 81 mm mortars fired, it is not 'realistic', it is a burden. You remember, it is a game...and I am the player...so give me some feedback. What do you have against a toggle??? I do not want to force my game style on you...so don't do it to me. Fred

Agreed on all you said; tracers should be scalable and shockwaves should be a toggle. I never was a fan of Frankos Iron Man rules; I prefer to be a wargamer, not a Company or Battaillon CO role playing gamer. Not every gamer has a 21" monitor... Fred P.S. Needless to say that I played the Demo since day 1 nearly without any sleep...BFC again set the standard for wargames...as if we ever doubted

Maybe you missed it, but there already is a hotkey linked to disable detailed armor hits. Just press the hotkey and all is fine (SHIFT-d). I, for example, prefer to play extreme FOW with ENABLED detailed hits; different strokes for different folks. Fred

* bump *

What happened to the 'ride with the Tank Commander' view (lock to tank, view 1)? Now your POV is way behind the tank, not near the turret like in CMBO? Any reason for changing one of my favourite views? Fred

I guess now everything is said and done. Steve made his point and the few of us, who want it, will get their US versions through some nice people from the community. So, everyone will be happy Fred

First of all, we are not 'whining', but we are stating our opinion, and as customers we are allowed to do so. Second, Steve, please no personal attacks. People here disuss in long threads about the historical unit designation of this or that unit, they discuss about the correcht color and hue of a certain SS camo uniform in 1944. BTS spent hundreds of hours doing research on historical authenticity, and now, they do surprised, that these same grogs would not accept some 'Hamstergrenadiere'. And before some fanboys start to flame, read all my other posts I made in these years and you will see how much I love this game (and FC2, and OtR, and AS!). BTS can make any business decision they like, its their company. And I can comment. The sad thing now is, that even people in the UK and other european countries must now abide to the german pc laws. And, one of the other posters stated, that the use of the term SS would reinstallate a Nazi government here in germany; that is rediculous. Now take a look at Neverwinter Nights. I bought the US version, alot of people the localized german version. I got a complete manual and a nice cloth map, they not. I am playing the latest 1.19 version of the game, those with the german version are still without the patch (and you should take a look in the Bioware forums, how much they need this patch in order to play online). The copy protection scheme used by the european distributor of NWN interferes with a lot of DVD drives so it came to a funny incident: NWN was cracked after about one day by pirates; paying customers, on the other hand, after weeks, are still not able to play the game b/c of the copy protection used. Europe is the second biggest market for entertainment software, but the customers here are treated like ... well. But some kind soul will certainly send me an US version, so everything will be fine with me. Fred

First of all, I will not buy any crippled, censored or code-changed version that is one iota different from what is delivered to customers in the US. It is my money, and I decide where and what to buy. Second, this german company had some issues with copy protection mechanisms used on their cd's (forgot the name, but there was trouble with some latest DVD drives). So I would like to ask, if here is any US customer that would order the game for me from BFC and then ship it to me in Germany. Of course, I will pay anything included (PayPal)? I remember a time, when Big Time Software claimed to be an independent internet publisher with direct sale and no obligations for the 'big' publishers... Now they are going the same way, so that long-time customers like me must use complicated methods for giving them my money...well. So, if anyone would be so nice and help me in this, email me at fred.hartig@freenet.de Fred

yes, SSG had some good AI routines, but I think that it is possible to enhance the ones in CM (look what they did from version 1.0 to 1.12!). It takes time, sure, but it would be worth the effort. Fred

Exactly. Some (realative) small changes, and suddenly the AI keeps unit cohesion and does not lead with tanks. A vast improvement without to much effort. And, btw, creating a challenging AI is very much fun; did this myself and I stopped once I was beaten by the AI 50+% of the time... (only a very small game, man-to-man...computer version of Strike Team Alpha...) But it is possible...if even I got some decent AI Fred

Well, the tactical AI in CMBO is very well done, and better than anything else I saw in other games. What REALLY needs an enhancement is the strategic and operational AI (and I have the impression that this AI was better in the first versions of CMBO). The argument, 'that it is not possible to make a good AI with today techniques' does not hit. Just take a look at the already implemented TAC AI! And if all programmers stop working on AI enhancements, because 'it will not be better', well, then, indeed, nothing will ever happen, like a self-fulfilling prophecy. To be honest, I would prefer a better AI anytime over eye candy in CM. What are the main problems of the AI? 1. The AI has never heard about platoon cohesion. Usually the platoon HQs move like independent units. Very bad, because that let all AI units move and react slow, and they do not get the HQ bonuses. All the AI has to do is keep the platoons together. With the new rule for tank platoons, this should be fixed. 2. Leading with tanks. There is almost no situation in which tanks should lead an attack.Period. 3. AI Tanks never ever button up, once buttoned. Even in multi-battle opearations, AI tanks stay buttoned from battle to battle. This should be fixed in CMBB. 4. No variation in movement logic. All AI tanks always want to go to exactly the same spot at the same time, because they use the same routines for their movement plot; traffic jams and tanks 'dancing around' are the result. Turkey shooting for any AT assets. This happens when the AI has quite some vehicles. A simple variation, while using the same routines (Tank A moves and turns here; Tank B moves and turns 5 meters left of Tank A, etc.) would help. 5. Not assigning troops to the battle. Often after a battle one could see, that up to one third of the AI forces never moved or only moved some meters from their start position; no shot fired, not in the vicinity of any flag, etc. So I am not asking for an AI revolution, but for an evolution. Most people are often playing the AI, I would even say that the majority plays the AI on a regular basis. And do not forget, even in a human vs. human game, after hitting GO, the AI takes over... Fred

As there are a lot of people who play the AI, every designer should state the setup options, like: "If playing as Axis vs. the AI; Allied AI should use the default setup. If playing as Allied vs. the AI; Axis AI should use 'free-setup'." It's frustrating if you attack the AI, only to see in mid-game, that the default setup of the AI was random. Fred

well, most scenario designers simply forget to put it in the setup instructions I usually load a new scenario with "fixed" setup. If I see that my forces are randomly distributed on the map, I just guess that the same is true for the enemy. In this case, I quit the scenario and load it again, this time with "free setup" for the enemy forces. Fred

To make the AI advance, make the VL location juicy by putting more flags than just 1 at one location. The AI usually only advances through cover; make sure that at least one (better more) covered approach routes are available. Try slightly different VL locations; in one scenario the AI (as attacker) did nothing. Then, I just moved the VL 10-20 m left or right, and suddenly the AI forces attacked (don't ask about why...). Prepare for a LOT of game test runs if you want a challenging AI behaviour:) Fred

And don't forget, the more sounds the engine has to play, the more impact on system performance; and I prefer a good gun fire sound over a reload 'clong'... Fred

If there must be reload sounds in the game (chrome) make them optional; in a huge battle, suddenly hearing 30 reload 'clicks, clongs, "loaded", etc.' in a row would really distract from the game. So as an option only (or I have to replace it with a 'sound of silence' wav). Fred

Small to medium and sometimes a huge one; but this IS real work to keep some 100 units under command But it has a nice strategic feeling to it, seeing how the far left flank crumbles, while the center and right hold the ground... Fred

well, the british needed some kind of a self-propelled AT-unit, as the germans had a lot of success with their turretless tank destroyers. So they mounted the impressive 17 pdr on a Mk III Valentine chassis. Problem was, this was top-heavy, and so they attached the gun rear-facing. After all it gave some mobility to the bulky 17 pdr gun. Use it only in ambush, fire 2 or three shots and then speed away to the next position; the vehicle already faces the excape route Fred

Mattias, I don't talk about 'significant' improvements. I've seen it before. Remember 'Panzer Strike' by SSI? In this game you ordered your units, and then hit GO for a simultaneous execution. In this game I saw flanking movements, units that stay In Command while moving and an AI that not leads with tanks. I still won this game, because of other shortfalls, but this is not the point. If we all say, 'play a human, the AI can not get better', then it will not get better. Fred

I hope that something on the 'strange' side of the AI will be enhanced in CM:BB I don't talk about the TAC AI(individual unit behaviour); it's fine as it is now. I talk about the STRAT and OP AI. 1. When the AI sets up or moves, please tell it to use platoon cohesion! In CM:BO, the AI obviously never heard of the advantages of leaders...this can not be this hard to achieve. 2. When on the attack, all infantry units seem to use a basic loop: >If best terrain GOTO BEST terrain. Result: ALL units use exactly the same route of advance, like Lemmings. Where is the fuzzy logic that allows for variation or, dare I say it, a flanking move? So, more 'fuzzy' logic for the OP AI, and teach the STRAT AI at least some basic tactics (like NOT leading with tanks). This, IMHO, is more important than Hundeminen or another exotic AFV that was only built 15 times. Fred [ 11-24-2001: Message edited by: Fred ]</p>

According to F.M. von Senger und Etterlin's book "Die deutschen Panzer 1926-1945", around 2300 PSW 234/x series armored cars were built(including Pumas). This is quite a lot. Fred

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gpig: P.S. Are you ever going to do some more of these fictional mini-campaigns? I was thinking it would be fun to do the life of an armored platoon. ('Course, you'd have to have some infantry thrown in . . . ) You know . . . a platoon starts out in Stugs. Graduates up to MkIV's. Then IV's. Then the big TIGERS. (Not sure if this was the way that it happened . . . but it'd be kind of fun.)<hr></blockquote> I will, but this next campaign will start on June 22. 1941, somewhere east of Warsaw... Fred