crispy

Thanks to all for the relevant comments on this question. Los, thanks for the 'inside' scoop on why the answer from BTS was so sketchy. I understand now, I just asked my question too late. I agree it's not worth delaying the release. Let's see the full version!

I appreciate the return of focus to the discussion. I want to reply to the relevant points one by one. Here goes. Lokesa: "...we do get rather extensive details as to the statistics of enemy units dont we How else could this sort of information be given to the player?" Perhaps in a 'encyclopedia' file, accessible from the game, as in Steel Panthers, or a separate manual. My point is not that the player should not have access to 'game' stats or even 'historical' stats, my point is that individual units in a scenario should not be identified so extensively to the opponent. A Tiger is a Tiger to a Yank, and rare is the scholarly Company Commander who can tell you any more about it. "I assume that fighting units generally have some knowledge of enemy SOP, formations and vehicles. I assume that nco's could recognize what was a "safe distance" and was was a "dangerous distance" from the various hardware facing them." I would agree, in general, if the units are experienced, but how does this translate into detailed stats of the type we receive? " I going as far as to suggest that tankers would know the thickness of the armor on many enemy vehicles or at least a working knowledge of their guns effectiveness vs what they're facing." Possibly; again experience/training-dependent, and a supposition on your part that I would like to see documented. What kind of vehicle-identification training did US armor troops receive? A lot of the armor thickness data was probably gathered after the war from wrecks (how would YOU measure the front upper hull thickness of a Panther?). "I was very suprised when I lost my tiger repeatedly to the hellcats. It forced me to look at the information available and get an idea as to what I was facing, knowledge that although not avaliable in the same format to a tiger commander of the day would likely be understood by him nevertheless." No insult intended, but this is more a reflection of your inexperience than any lack of data. I KNEW Hellcats were deadly to Tigers; I just wonder how far away a Veteran Tiger Commander could positively ID a Hellcat vs. a Sherman. "I'm going to go off and assume a bunch here so bear with me I bet that a veteran soldier can pick out the various weapon sounds and get a pretty good bead on where the various shots are coming from. He could probably recognize basic unit types, status and capability. I also believe he will have an awareness of what the threat level is of his enemy counterparts. As casual gamers without this detailed knowledge we are hopelessly handicapped when compared to our battlefield counterparts" Again an assumption, although one that is probably reasonable. Again, it is not the availability of the DATA, it is the easy and specific identification of the UNIT that I do not agree with. Los posted 12-05-99 09:34 AM ET (US)> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Well in action you will definately be able to distinguish between the various weapons, first and foremost the presence of a machine gun (LMG)... However you would not know or care how many rifles, pistols of SMGs were in an enemy squad until after you killed them and went souvenier hunting. Same goes for kill rings on tanks. I guess if you wanted to make it totally realistic, when you clicked on a squad (this is at the highest intel level with fog of war on) the weapons readout would only say what types but not how many of each." This is exactly what I mean, thanks for stating it so clearly! Now that the question is clear, will someone at BTS please join in here and give us some rationale for the current system and/or why it will/will not be changed? Crispy

This discussion is very nice, but it has nothing to do with my question. I have no problem with better troops giving better intel data - and vice versa - Green troops may identify everything as a Tiger. Conversely, wouldn't better troops be harder to accurately identify/count, etc? My point is that no matter how good your troops are, I am very doubtful that anyone on the American side could identify the different models of Panzer (aside from the Mark number) with any consistency, and certainly not to tell the armor thickness changes, muzzle velocities, etc. Barrel rings are nice, but I doubt many people took the time to count them on an unfriendly advancing tank. I also doubt that even the best units could spy out a squad at 100m and count the different types of rifle/smg/mg combinations, or do much more than estimate their quality. I appreciate that misidentification is built-in, and ideally, we may not ever realize that a unit was mis-ID'd unless we kill it and inspect it later. What I disagree with is the level of detail of (mis)-information offered. I know also that I can choose to ignore it, and thus have my ideal game made more perfect. I simply want to discuss this seriously in this forum, and hear a good reasoned argument for why it is done the way it is. Crispy (late) Veteran Tired MG42 Ammo 33

I agree; in contrast to my earlier post, this is an area where we need more data, not less. There are instances where units may simply vanish, but for the most part they leave some trace of their fate, or at least a witness or two... I also think the presence of some sort of marker (cross/star of david? The old 'gun with a helmet on it?) to show casualties can be more than just eye candy. I don't want blood and gore - it is useful to SEE the effects of fire lanes and arty barrages as the battle rages. Crispy No marker needed - yet

New post from a long-time lurker... I downloaded the demo a few months ago and LOVE this game - this is the game I have been looking for; I have also been very impressed with the feedback and fixes gained by the PLAYERS through this forum. BTS, you are doing a great job, keep it up! Now for the issue at hand - I searched for 'intelligence' and 'recon', got a lot of hits, but was unable to find a thread that clearly addresses this - the problem of intel that is too good. What I mean is, I don't just know that that tank is a Tiger, but if it gets close enough, I know it is a Tiger VI E (Late), and if I hit return, I can see the detailed armor data! In 'Last Defense' - hotseat to test this - I saw the Tiger VI E (late) VETERAN (Does the commander stand in the hatch with a certain dash & flair?) whose passengers were a VETERAN Arty Spotter and VETERAN MG42...etc. My nearest unit with LOS was a couple of hundred meters away. Does anyone else think this is too much data to have available? I know that the armor thickness data is out there for gamers to collect, but how do my grunts know that it is a (late) model? Or that the crew is Veteran? What about the Shermans with extra armor? (Or other mods). Should we get detailed info on the number and type of weapons carried by that Waffen SS Rifle 45 squad, or should they just be Krauts? Years ago, I worked on a mod for ASL (Tabletop, yep, I'm a Grognard) that allowed true blind play, and one of the most fun aspects was not knowing which PzKw IV model you were facing, or what support weapons were in an enemy stack. With all of the excellent attention to Fog of War in this game, this seems to be a holdover from the tabletop game days, when all the data was available to both players. Has this topic been broached? Could someone point me to the thread, or is anyone willing to chew this bone with me? Crispy (late) Veteran Tired