Pak40

Jeez, you mean you can't just do a SAVE AS .mac?

I agree that it won't kill the game yet it is a flaw. If the goal of ToW is to be a combat simulator then I'd have to think that it will be added in some point in the future either by a patch/upgrade or perhaps an expansion pack. It's too important for 1c to leave out and call it a realistic combat simulator. However, I don't want them to rush into developing the infantry AI that uses buildings as cover. Remember that debacle of a game called G.I. Combat and it's successor Eric Young's Squad Assault? Well neither of those games had an AI that effectively used buildings as cover. Trying to put a squad inside a building was like pouring water into a collander. A few soldiers would actually go into the house but the rest just hung outside ignoring the small arms and tank fire that they was receiving. Of coarse the result was that the soldiers outside would be cut down within a couple of minutes. So, to sum up, I think infantry in buildings is sorely needed but they should do it right, which I'm sure they will. In the mean time, I'm willing to settle for the first ToW not having this feature, especially if most battles are rural in nature.

Not at all. Advance and Assault operations in CM don't even use flags, so I don't think there's much need to recode. I agree, why fight the battle? But this has to be accounted for because both sides may be in the same map yet neither side may wish to attack. Like a Sigfried Line situation. I suppose they could code CMC to ask the player which maps he wants to defend. If the AI also wants to defend the same squares then the battles can be skipped. Or have the battles take place but both sides can call a truce anytime during the battle.

My guess is that you just don't use flags. Program the AI to conquer the map using the best methods possible, i.e. appoach under cover, use topography to your advantage, use artillery etc. If the AI force is attacking, it doesn't need flags to tell it to attack. Consider that the objective is to eliminate the enemy from the current map or maybe to probe enemy lines. It's also possible for both sides to start a battle in a defensive position both with orders to defend.

The 'acceptable loss' level should only be on for the computer controlled AI. The human player doesn't really need it since he/she can decide what is acceptable and what is not. I think there should be two levels to the 'acceptable loss' system when attacking. For instance, let's say the acceptable loss is set for 30% for a particular battle. When 30% casualties are reached then the AI will stop the attack and order units to find best cover available but basically not concede most of the ground gained. However if the AI continues to receive casualties past a certain threshold, then the AI will pull out all together. Maybe the 'retreat' threshold should be something like 15% more than the original setting, so in the example above the attacking computer AI will retreat from the map at a 45% casualty rate. The Campaing designer will set the 'acceptable loss' levels for each map and each battle group. Towns and cities will have higher acceptable loss levels because they are more imporatant than a flat and featureless land. Maps that have defensable positions or strategic importance such as a bridge or hill may be deemed higher acceptable loss. Battle groups will also have acceptable loss levels set by the designer since different units have different personality commanders as well as different rolls. For example, a Battalion HQ unit will most likely cut and run before accepting a lot of casualties. The Map 'acceptable loss' value will be averaged with the battle group 'acceptable loss' value. I.E, if the map is set to 50% and the AI battle group is set to 30% then actual value used can be 40%. I agree that they would be different but it's really already inherent in the game. SS Panzergrenadiers will usually get elite or crack status while volksgrenadiers will get green or regular status. Therefore the volksgrenadiers will more than likely cut and run before the SS troops would anyway. Anyway, it should all be determined by the Campaing Designer, and it should be totally behind the scenes & never known to the human player. [ February 14, 2006, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

It seems to me that the obvious solution would be to incorporate an "acceptable loss" factor to both sides. For example, the AI defender would be set to one of the following options: </font> Defend at all costs</font>80% casualties</font>50% casualties</font>30% casualties</font>10% casualties</font>Runaway!</font> Similarly, the attacker AI would have options such as: </font>Take Ojectives at all costs</font>80% casualties</font>50% casualties</font>30% casualties</font>10% (probe with minimal losses)</font> For instance, if the AI chooses 30% casualties for a particular battle, then once it's casualty rate reaches 30 percent of it's entire forces then it will call off the attack and either retreat or stop pressing the attack. Obviously this would require some re-coding of CMBB but could be provided in a patch.

I prefer my female partisans to look like a female.

Hopefully there will be a future patch or mod allowing the use of CMAK or CMBO. But this is a great start. My question is: Is this sort campaign feature going to be a native feature in CMSF? Or are they going to have to develop a separate campaign manager for it? Forgive me if this has been discussed to death already in another forum.

Yikes, I think MadMatt needs a fresh pint. I have no idea where he gets his name.

Great post! it probably deserves its own thread (but its more than at home right here) I agree completely there have been plenty of times when I wanted to area fire through smoke or as far as possible into the trees. I am wondering if there will be any change or solution to this issue or problem in CMx2. </font>

This thread is useless! Are you guys herring me?

You guys are beating a dead Drum. Why don't you change the subject just for the Halibut.

OK, you can't just keep teasing us with this title and not actually deliver. So, I guess the next question is: Is "Space Lobsters of Doom" going to be set in Normandy?

Thanks guys, it means a lot to us. The donations will make a huge difference to the people who are totally devastated by this storm. I am fortunate to have friends in Baton Rouge to take me in.

So, two weeks after some B&%tch named Katrina kicked me out of my house, I get back on the Battlefront Forums and see the new CMx2 area. SWEET! At least I have something else to look forward to besides being able to get back into my house. Even sweeter, I just got word that my house is dry and there's no sign of looting! Now all I need are some screenshots of CMx2 to make my day (and LSU to win)!

From the reviews that I've read CM FtT is hardly competitive as a FPS tactical game. I hardly think BFC needs to worry about any serious competition.

Yea, I agree. I can tell from the screen shots that this game is going to be a massive eye candy joke: Infantry assaulting in jeeps, men wearing full gear into combat including bed rolls, close in tank battles with infantry all over the place, every soldier looks as buff as Arnold S. - It makes me cringe to look at that crap.

No, the end result is not the same. It is an abstraction, i.e. estimate of what it would be like if it weren't abstracted. However, I have always suspected that it was 'abstracted' because, after all, many things in CM are abstracted. But the main purpose why I post to threads like this is that I would like to see improvements to the game. Do you not agree that improvements could be made regarding this aspect of the game?

Yes, yes, we all knew that. My point was that the gun itself cannot be hit by a round. The round can only hit the ground around the gun in order to knock it out. Now, it may be that it was common practice to aim for the ground directly in front of the gun. But in real life, if you aimed too high you at least had a chance to hit the gun itself; In CM the round will pass through the gun as if it were a ghost.

Really? I was very relieved that they went to the arc ambush system. So much better than the Target ambush method of CMBO. The target method was very limiting because if your intended ambush target changed course and didn't go near the ambush target then the ambush is never triggered. Very disapointing to set an ambush only to see it not triggered because the tank moved 15 meters away from the ambush point. The arc method improves ambushes although it's not perfect. It's hard to get multiple units to open up at the exact same time.

well said Jason.

But if you're in LOS of the gun the target command "snaps" the the unit when you get close to it. In order to target the ground you have to be several meters away from the gun, which then reduces the effectiveness of HE, especially with small HE. And lets say you get lucky with with your first shot targeting the ground next to the gun and it is knocked out. Then the rest of the turn your gun is wasting valuable HE on a dead target. But, hey you're showing the ground who's boss! This is just a minor flaw in the game, but hopefully we wont have the problem in CMx2.

Yes I know. But my point is that in reality, in this situation you could at least have chance to shoot the gun directly rather than try your luck landing a round on the ground near the gun. Do you at least agree with that? Your point that the guns could be dug in is understood. However, to use an analogy: Tank guns represent a very small portion overall sillouette of the tank yet there are gun hits in CM all the time. So why can't we directly hit AT guns or even well dug in AT guns?

Sure, this happens some of the time but that's not my point, or Jason's for that matter. Plus this is a fairly rare situation where the tank has to have a near perfect position where it can see the ground near the AT gun but not the AT gun itself. If the AT gun is visible then the tank will have to target the gun, yet he can't hit it directly. It's kind of ironic and it makes little sense to me.

sorry, double post.