Zackary

Steve: I am not rankled and I do appreciate all the dialog that has occurred. My key point was that after many, many explanatory posts, people were STILL not understanding that Talenn was talking about "T" intersection fire with the targets moving from left to right in front of a machine gun. By the time I posted, the only way someone STILL could not have understood that is if they merely skimmed Talenn's posts and assumed what he meant, rather than read what he wrote. I truly do appreciate the civil tone that has marked the dialogue, I was simply frustrated with the apparent lack of understanding. Talenn: Please send your scenario to BTS and Fionn. It is best that we compare apples to apples. Sending them your scenario is the ONLY way to ensure that you have not missed something and that the scenario fairly tests your hypothesis. Thanks again to everyone. ------------------ Zackary

I post merely to state that I think Talenn has done a commendable and admirable job of illustrating and explaining his point. Many (not all) of his naysayers have been cursory in their review of Talenn's posts, and have therefore offered unsatisfactory responses. To date, NOT A SINGLE NAYSAYER has offered to receive Talenn's test scenarios to observe the situation first-hand. Talenn, you have done a much better job than I would have of remaining civil, and sticking with your point. Whether or not you turn out to be correct, you have my respect. ------------------ Zackary

For my 2 cents worth, see my post in the thread titled Puppchen and Panzerschreck. ------------------ Zackary

The manual does in fact say that Tall Pine tiles have thick undergrowth. I don't have the manual with me at the moment, but I recall reading it. ------------------ Zackary

If Combat Mission offered a limited strategic-level component, meaning the player controlled regional force allocations, theater deployments, and other campaign elements, in addition to its current tactical side, but with no decision-making on economic factors and production controls, I would say that in-game unit-pricing should be primarily reflective of historical and regional availability, with little or no regard to either combat effectiveness or the cost of production. If Combat Mission had a complete strategic-level side, meaning the player also directed economic factors and production controls, I would say that in-game unit-pricing should be primarily reflective of the actual cost of production, modified to reflect regional availability, and no consideration to combat effectiveness. As an example, if no Puppchen or Elefants had been allocated to a player's division, the player could not buy those items for a tactical mission at any price. If only 5 Puppchen or 1 Elefants had been allocated to the division, the in-game unit-price would be skewed higher to reflect the difficulty of obtaining the scarce asset. Alternatively, divisional scarcity could be reflected by a random chance that a scarce unit will or will not be available to the particular company or battalian. Given that Combat Mission is a small unit, tactical combat game only, in my view, pricing should be reflective of combat effectiveness only. The purpose of establishing Axis/Allied point-levels and unit-pricing is to allow for the players to match up on equal footing. If unit-pricing truly reflects combat effectiveness, the ahistorical availability of Puppchen, Elefanten, and Me-262's would be irrelevant to game play. Stiving to model historical availability by skewing unit-pricing is like using a sledgehammer to drive a push-pin in a cork board. The real question about the Puppchen is whether Combat Mission correctly models its combat effectiveness, and if so, appropriately prices it. In the real-world, the Germans apparently ditched production of the Puppchen in favor of the P'schreck following a cost-benefit analysis. Either the Germans, or BTS, missed the boat. Of course, it could be that because Combat Mission games are usually balanced, when historically, the Germans tended to be at a disadvantage (recognizing that Germans frequently achieved local superiorities at CM's scale), skews the effectiveness of weapons. I.e., weapons may not have been as effective in the real world because of the mismatch in men and material, whereas they are much more effective in a theoretical world of equally matched opponents. If this is the case, however, then I recommend BTS adjust the unit-price of Puppchen and other such units to reflect their theoretical effectiveness. This would better reflect the purpose of unit-pricing and the goal of balance in player to player games. If unit-pricing is approximately accurate, concerns about ahistorical use evaporate. You won't stock up on an historically unavailable piece of highly effective equipment, because its high effectiveness is reflected in its price. Your thoughts and criticisms are welcome. ------------------ Zackary

MantaRay, Rookie, and Thomasj, thank you for taking the time to respond. I really appreciate it. ------------------ Zackary

Good point. I'd seen previous posts like this on this forum, so I didn't think about the alternative. I'll post it there, too, but please don't let this stop any of you who read this thread from offering good advice. I could use it. ------------------ Zackary

Ironic: I just sent a personal thank you note to Fionn on this very issue not 15 minutes before you posted this thread. I concur in your sentiment and extend my appreciation to Steve and Charles as well. ------------------ Zackary

I have my CM CD and it works on my machine, but the graphics are crummy. I'd like someone's advice on what video card might help me out. (I did search old video card threads, but didn't see one applicable to my machine.) I have a PII 300MHz machine with AGP 1.0 capability. My current video card has only 4 meg of ram, which is probably the biggest problem. My concern with a new video card is getting the most VRAM, but on a card compatible with 1xAGP. I am not technologically savvy, but presume a card requiring 2x AGP or higher will not work on my machine. Any input would be welcome! Thank you all for taking the time to help me out. ------------------ Zackary

Arrived in Atlanta on the 19th. I preordered late last Summer or early last Fall. ------------------ Zackary

I wholeheartedly agree with Joe Shaw. A nod to the quote from Bullethead, as well.

If the fact that some people are receiving the game out of turn galls you, this should eat at you, too. I received the game in Monday's mail, but have not opened it yet. Looks like it will be Thursday before I actually install and play it. * * * * * * * * Before you throw stones, the fact is, I was out of town until 11 p.m. last night, and therefore didn't know I had it. Additionally, I have prior commitments that will keep me busy until midnight or so tonight, then work from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. tomorrow. One other note: I pre-ordered last summer, so the arrival of my game on Monday was not out of turn. ------------------ Zackary

Bill/Hunt: Great work. I like what I've been reading in this thread. I too agree that the more stats the better. Since the Beta Demo release and the daily volume of posts on this sight shot out of sight, I have not followed the forum nearly as closely as of old. So please forgive the impertinence: Is there a reason we (i.e., the CM community) are not running our ladder through, for instance, LeadEaters? - Zackary

Steve & Charles, This post is premature because we don't yet know if the file in question is a copy of a beta build, and if so, whose copy was copied, and whether that person knew or should have known that the unauthorized copy was made and distributed. If, however, you find that an unathorized copy was made and you cannot persuade the appropriate prosecuting attorneys to investigate the matter, I am willing to volunteer some time and energy to the cause. While I have no particular expertise in computer crimes and copyright infringement, I am a commercial and business law litigator. Anyway, please email me if I can be of any help, BTS. I would be happy to assist with contacting appropriate authorities, identifying the relevant laws, and preparing and filing legal documents. I draw the line, however, at shelling out cash for air fare and lodging to fly half way across the country for court hearings!

What we are using now is the Beta demo, Thomas. When the game goes gold, BTS will be releasing a Gold demo, so to speak. Thus, there is a chance that you will be able to test out the tcp/ip functionality prior to purchase. Even Gold demos are rarely fully functional (they have to give you a reason to buy the game, after all), though, so the real question is whether BTS will include the tcp/ip feature in the Gold demo. ------------------ Zackary

ebaker: I'm not sure you got the answer you were looking for. I think you and Fionn were talking around each other. The "target" command is not the same as the "line of sight" command. The targeting line is a bright red. The line of sight line can be light blue, dull blue, or a dull-red/black split. (light blue=clear LOS, dull blue=degraded LOS, but still LOS, dull-red/black=LOS through the length of the red, but NO LOS from the color split throughout all of the black portion of the line. When you select "target" from the orders menu, you will get a red line extending to the cursor. You can target any enemy unit that the player (you) can see, regardless of whether that unit is within your targeting unit's LOS. Thus, oddly enough, you can have a unit target something it can't trace LOS to. Take the time to trace LOS first to make sure your unit can spot the enemy unit you want to fire at, then use the targeting command. I haven't played in a couple days, but I recall you getting visual feedback with the targeting command to, but only up to the point you click on the enemy you want to target, at which point the targeting line goes red and the target is fixed. Hope that helps. ------------------ Zackary

Thank you to Fionn for the email exchange (which was a little more helpful than the BB post) and thank you to Steve for the reply. Obviously, I am not getting all the answers I am looking for, but I appreciate your time and attention. I will get some more playing time under my belt (if I can get my wife to put the rolling pin down) and see what I can see. ------------------ Zackary

I will start this thread by re-posting the last substantive post on the re-targeting issue that appeared in the "Just a spectator" thread. (Ok, so it happens to be mine!) The thread was locked just after I posted it, so there was no opportunity for discussion of it. Here it is: First and most fundamentally, we need to have an understanding of the level of command being simulated. We are all agreed (I think!) that CM attempts to allow the player to simulate more than simply a company or battalian commander. Is the game designed to allow the player to simulate ALL levels of command from team leader to squad leader to platoon leader to company commander to battalian commander? If so, then the purpose of the TacAI is primarily limited to carrying the units through the 60 second period when the player cannot micromanage. On the other hand, is the game designed to simulate only platoon leader and higher level command? If so, then the purpose of the TacAI is to determine how squads and teams will carry out the platoon leaders' general orders. If the player fills the shoes of all levels of command (i.e., down to team leader), then the orders being overridden are the orders of the team leader. If the player is (at his lowest incarnation) a platoon leader, then the orders being overridden are external to the team/squad. In my mind, this is a HUGE difference. If I am the team or squad leader and I ORDER my team or squad (coincidentally, in perfect symbiosis with my platoon/company/battalian incarnation) to target a particular unit or area, it should be an incredibly rare circumstance that the order is ignored. In my view, the only circumstances justifying a change would be a direct threat to my team/squad or destruction or disappearance of the target. In other words, my order should NEVER otherwise be disregared for a "juicier" target. If I am (at my lowest level) only a platoon leader, then my squad should have more latitude to disregard the corporate plan, so to speak, dependent on a number of factors, including, among other things, the team/squad leader's traits, command and control, and unit quality. Because I have always thought of myself in CM as being all the team/squad/platoon/company leaders rolled up into one (unrealistic as it must be), I express my displeasure with re-targeting (except in the rare circumstances identified above). If BTS clearly states the lowest level of command being filled by the player is the platoon leader, we clear up much of this debate (and not only on this topic, but on several others as well). If BTS states that we also represent team/squad leaders, then I think Kraut and others, including myself, have a virtually irrefutable argument that re-targeting should be reduced (regardless of whether player targeting decisions evidence poor tactics, etc., etc., etc...). (Nothing about this would change the fact that if a player does not issue specific targeting commands, the TacAI will continue to target the highest and best default priorities.) Second, Fionn and others have made statements and declarations about when the TacAI will re-target based on their own observations, BUT, BTS has never really explained the circumstances under which the TacAI is allowed to disregard targeting orders, other than making general statements about self-preservation and juicier opportunity targets. If we had a better understanding of the guts of the TacAI's decision-making process (i.e., the mathematical formula), we would be better able to understand and then either accept or debate the re-targeting decisions. Please Note: I am NOT criticizing Fionn, BTS, or others. I appreciate the time and input they have provided in this and other threads. I am merely pointing out that for purposes of the debate, we really have nothing firm to go on. We are all just talking about our individual anecdotal observations (though some obviously have many more such observations under their belt (Fionn . The third thing I wanted to include in this post is really a question to BTS: Do the teams/squads have any memory of the player's targeting order? I suspect not, but would be pleased to hear otherwise. I mention it for this reason: If a unit can "remember" that you told it to target a particular squad, then when the target-squad disappears behind cover (perhaps because suppressed or perhaps because it is moving) but reappears from behind the cover in 2-30 seconds (or whatever), the player's team/squad may acquire a different target, but would return to the deliberately targeted unit when it reappears. If this type of "memory" can be readily programmed (though I doubt it would be quick and easy enough for CM 1.0), it might be a decent compromise of some of the issues raised. Thanks to all who have contributed to discussions of this issue. I have not intended to offend anyone (either here or in my other posts). My apologies if I have done so inadvertently. ------------------ Zackary

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the circumstances under which the TacAI DOES disregard a player's deliberate targeting commands, and when the TacAI SHOULD disregard deliberate targeting commands. This topic has been discussed to some extent in two other threads: (1) "Just a spectator," started by Fred, and locked (due to size) on 11/3/99 at 6:37 p.m. The URL to this discussion is http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001204.html (2) "Disappointed in CM Demo," started by Hagen, and locked (due to size) on 11/3/99 at 4:06 p.m. The URL to this discussion is: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001137.html Both of the discussions were locked just as I thought the discussion on this topic was beginning to get productive. This thread is intended as a continuation of the relevant portion of those two threads and not as a place to repeat everything that has already been written. If you are new to this topic, please read those threads before posting here. (That's why I provided the details that will enable you to quickly find them.) As a side note, when Steve locked the "Just a spectator" thread, he gave a link to a thread that he indicated continued the discussion on a few of the points in that thread. I followed the link and it does not appear to be a continuation of the re-targeting discussion. (I mention this to save you the trouble of following that link if you are going back to reread those threads.) ------------------ Zackary

I have posted several times on the re-targeting issue in another thread (one by Hagen, I believe). I won't repeat all I said there. I would, however, make three points: First and most fundamentally, we need to have an understanding of the level of command being simulated. We are all agreed (I think!) that CM attempts to allow the player to simulate more than simply a company or battalian commander. Is the game designed to allow the player to simulate ALL levels of command from team leader to squad leader to platoon leader to company commander to battalian commander? If so, then the purpose of the TacAI is primarily limited to carrying the units through the 60 second period when the player cannot micromanage. On the other hand, is the game designed to simulate only platoon leader and higher level command? If so, then the purpose of the TacAI is to determine how squads and teams will carry out the platoon leaders' general orders. If the player fills the shoes of all levels of command (i.e., down to team leader), then the orders being overridden are the orders of the team leader. If the player is (at his lowest incarnation) a platoon leader, then the orders being overridden are external to the team/squad. In my mind, this is a HUGE difference. If I am the team or squad leader and I ORDER my team or squad (in perfect symbiosis with my platoon/company/battalian incarnation) to target a particular unit or area, it should be an incredibly rare circumstance that the order is ignored. In my view, the only circumstances justifying a change would be a direct threat to my team/squad or destruction or disappearance of the target. In other words, my order should NEVER otherwise be disregared for a "juicier" target. If I am (at my lowest level) only a platoon leader, then my squad should have more latitude to disregard the corporate plan, so to speak, dependent on a number of factors, including the team/squad leader's traits, command and control, and unit quality. Because I have always thought of myself in CM as being all the team/squad/platoon/company leaders rolled up into one (unrealistic as it must be), I express my displeasure with re-targeting (except in the rare circumstances identified above). If BTS clearly states the lowest level of command being filled by the player is the platoon leader, we clear up much of this debate. If BTS states that we also represent team/squad leaders, then I think Kraut and others, including myself, have a virtually irrefutable argument that re-targeting should be reduced (regardless of whether player targeting decisions evidence poor tactics, etc., etc., etc...). (Nothing about this would change the fact that if a player does not issue specific targeting commands, the TacAI will continue to target the highest and best default priorities.) Second, Fionn and others have made statements and declarations about when the TacAI will re-target based on their own observations, BUT, BTS has never really explained the circumstances under which the TacAI is allowed to disregard targeting orders, other than making general statements about self-preservation and juicier opportunity targets. If we had a better understanding of the guts of the TacAI's decision-making process (i.e., the mathematical formula), we would be better able to understand and then either accept or debate the re-targeting decisions. Please Note: I am NOT criticizing Fionn, BTS, or others. I appreciate the time and input they have provided in this and other threads. I am merely pointing out that for purposes of the debate, we really have nothing firm to go on. We are all just talking about our individual anecdotal observations (though some obviously have many more such observations under their belt). The third thing I wanted to include in this post is really a question to BTS: Do the teams/squads have any memory of the player's targeting order? I suspect not, but would be pleased to hear otherwise. I mention it for this reason: If a unit can "remember" that you told it to target a particular squad, then when the target-squad disappears behind cover (perhaps because suppressed or perhaps because it is moving) but reappears from behind the cover in 2-30 seconds (or whatever), the player's team/squad may acquire a different target, but would return to the deliberately targeted unit when it reappears. If this type of "memory" can be readily programmed (though I doubt it would be quick and easy enough for ver. 1.0), it might be a decent compromise of some of the issues raised. Thanks to all who have contributed to this thoughtful thread. I have not intended to offend anyone. My apologies in advance if I have done so inadvertently. ------------------ Zackary

Thanks for the feedback. Hagen, First, I do not lump you into the same category as Oscar, so please do not think that. Nor did I think you were being defensive. I do however think that you dodged several questions that BTS, Fionn, etc..., threw at you. Second, thanks for coming back to post on this thread. I had thought you abandoned the thread because of the heat you were taking. Glad to see you here. Fionn, (1) Ok, you got me on the technical point of the appropriate level of command we are dealing with (NCO v. low level officer), but (2) that has absolutely nothing to do with my point which was that soldiers (grunts, NCOs, or commissioned officers, take your pick) do NOT lightly disregard the direct orders of their superiors. (3) You may be absolutely right that re-targeting generally occurs in self-preservation circumstances. (At this point, I should make a (belated) disclaimer that I have not yet personally had much difficulty with the retargeting command (but then again I have not yet played more than a full game (not because I don't enjoy this game, I do, but time constraints . . . Alas . . .))) This does not address the "Guard/Overwatch" issue that I see a need for. (4) Amen, to your point about so many posts, so little time. I have been reading every single post on this forum up until last Friday. The volume of posts have gone up exponentially, and I simply cannot keep up. I keep meaning to post about a couple of little issues that I actually personally have, but I feel as though I shouldn't until I am caught up on all the posts to make sure my concerns haven't been addressed. Dang! And I don't begin to try to respond to as many posts as you do, Fionn. I know I'm grateful for all your dedication and responsiveness. (5) I'm sure you've explained it in another recent post from this weekend, so I won't ask you to repeat your thinking on "Effective Fire" here. I hope to get caught up on this board . . . eventually! Los, No offense intended, I also have a lot of respect for you having read everyone of your posts the past several months (up until last Friday), but I think if you reread my second to last post in this thread, you will see that the geographically designated/limited overwatch is what I was talking about. This is the situation brought up by . . . Kraut? . . . where he wanted to have his MMG provide relief to a forward position that was under assault rather than to take opportunity fire at a passing unit. I think his point, which I fully endorse, is that the superior officer should be able to order the MMG team to disregard opportunity fire, even though it would be more "effective fire," in support of the priorities of the commander, ASSUMING the MMG team itself was not itself under attack by the other unit. More to the point, the MMG team will ordinarily obey those orders unless it is itself under attack from another direction. Thank you all again for your thoughts. ------------------ Zackary

Hello, again! Not sure who your remarks were directed at, Steve, but I didn't personally find anything pushy or "know-it-all-ish" in what Kraut wrote. I thought Kraut did a good job of expressing the issue from his perspective and without invective. (Yes, I did notice everyone's use of smiley faces, but smilies really don't do much to lighten the tone of a long-ish post.) On another note, I would have liked to see Kraut, BTS, and Fionn respond to my previous post in this thread. It could have shed some more light on the issue and allowed us to proceed more productively in this thread. I continue to adhere to my view that a unit (other than perhaps conspript and green units) should independently retarget only in the two circumstances I outlined above. Charles of BTS wrote: ====================================== They give a heavy weight to the unit the player has selected and only switch away when there is a significant reason for doing so (which can also be something as simple as the original target going out of LOS). ====================================== None of us (the players) know the formula used to represent a unit's re-targeting decision-making, we therefore have no way to discuss or evaluate the perceived "correctness" of the formula. All we can do is evaluate the actual decisions we see made on the battlefield. I addressed in my prior post the limitations that I think there should be on re-targeting, and the need for what I termed a "guard" or "overwatch" command. I won't repeat that discussion here. Fionn said that he thought that if our units were consistently retargeting, we should probably open our eyes and learn something (paraphrase), and that the retargeting feature was likely saving us from ourselves. Frankly, I don't want to be saved from myself. I want my units to act realistically (i.e., defy my commands in certain circumstances), but not to substitute their judgment for mine. That is totally against the U.S. military hierarchy. Lieutentants (and other junior officers) do not (as a rule) substitute their judgment for the judgments (read: direct orders) of their Majors (or any other superior officer), except in dire circumstances. If I am giving bad orders, then my men and I will pay for it. That is how the lessen should be learned. To recap, I see two flaws: The absence of a "guard/overwatch" command, and too prompt retargeting. That said, let me say that I enjoy the game, have always been a supporter of BTS, and have tremendous respect for Fionn. My pre-order has been on file for at least two months (don't remember the exact date). I don't know whether the commands/adjustments I advocate are feasible at this late hour. If not, that is a perfectly acceptable, should be clearly admitted (by BTS), and gracefully accepted (by us, the gamers). It is not, however, a reason to be overly defensive or non-responsive (e.g., Oscar & Hagen). If BTS disagrees with Kraut's observation that units ignore direct commands too readily, or my argument that a "guard/overwatch" command should exist, that too is perfectly acceptable, but should be so stated. At that point, the argument is over and we can all go about our business of programming or playing this enjoyable game. ------------------ Zackary

Kraut, it may not be a perfect solution, but try "target area." I know as the attacking Germans in Last Defense, the unit in the building that is closest to the German left, the U.S. infantry unit kept going in and out of my LOS, interfering with my unit targeting. I was using targeting commands with several different units in an attempt to suppress the unit to allow a squad of Panzergrenadiers close assault the house, only to find them retargeting a few moments into the action phase because the (suppressed?) U.S. infantry unit ducked out of site. I resolved this by telling my units to "target area" on the house. I *think* you can do this with other areas, as well. Note: This will probably work in Fionn's example of the city-fighting. Basically, it is not that you want your MG or squad to target a PARTICULAR unit, but ANY unit that approaches from that location/angle. Have the unit area fire in that direction (of course, this is an ammo heavy use, I guess, because then you are constant firing on a spot). Perhaps an ambush command would also work. This solution will probably NOT work in the example mentioned above where the player was trying to use his MMG to provide relief to a forward position that was under threat of being overrun. BTS: Can you implement a "guard" or "overwatch" command whereby a unit could be given a first priority targeting command? In other words, if enemy appears here "X," fire at it, if not, do whatever you think is best. This would be a GREAT feature. As to the debate about re-targeting, I LIKE retargeting as long as it is realistic. I question whether it is realistic for a unit to disregard a targeting command unless (a) the unit itself is under attack, or ( the unit observes a friendly position under heavy attack and in desperate need of support. I can't imagine a squad leader (conscript or green excepted) disregarding his officer's targeting instructions in other circumstances. It doesn't matter that the soldier *thinks* that it would be a better idea to attack the squad in plain view 125 meters away running across an open field. He was ordered to suppress the squad holed up in the stone house 100 meters away. ------------------ Zackary

Email: azstarbird@ibm.net ICQ: 16199077 Skill: None yet, but hoping to improve now that I've seen the weasel . . . .

"D" fuer Donnerstag??? ------------------ Zackary