ianc

See, the way you could have avoided this whole problem was just to leave my damn Tigers alone! ianc

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Arguing about it isn't going to make a difference<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But it's so much fun! Seriously, just a bit of harmless intellectual debate going on here, at least as far as I'm concerned. And Andreas, I hear you, but this accessibility issue seems to be the cornerstone of the anti-OOB stance, so I wanted to throw my hat into the ring on it. Take care, ianc

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for the impact on CM, I think our disagreement stems from that I think it would be legitimate to stow away information in a difficult-to-access place in order to simulate chaos and uncertainty<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'll pick this snippet out of the preceding ebb and flow to comment on because I think that it best illustrates the crux of the difference of opinion here. To me, the concept of making information more difficult to access through the UI for any reason is fundamentally and philosophically flawed from a design perspective. The whole purpose of any sort of UI is allow the user to manipulate available information in the quickest, easiest fashion. The facility with which they accomplish this is the standard by which they're judged. It is the philosophical argument behind this that bears closer examination. I understand Steve and Charles' original design goal to disallow the player from micromanaging units, and having a wealth of information about a particular unit may indeed encourage this. However, if this is your intent and the result of a conscious design decision, then you should logically make the information unavailable in any form in the game to prevent the player from accessing it. The idea of making information accessibility more difficult to implement this might be slightly more understandable (although still basically flawed)in a real-time game since then time constraints would prevent its access. In a turn-based game that just won't wash though. In essence, if you don't want us to have the info, don't give it to us. If it's OK for us to have it, then don't let's continually waste time trying to gather it. ianc

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, this seems about talked out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You may be right Jeff. All we can hope is that this tool is given a fighting chance in CM2. BTW, how awesome that we went a full 115 posts on this particular quagmire with the worst denigration thus far involving a goldfish! ianc

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You already know that there will be no OOB in CM. Maybe something in CM2<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep, we know that. We just want to make sure that it's given a closer look when the BTS types are kicking around the design docs for CM2! ianc

Hi All, There was some rabid discussion on this a (long) while ago, and the upshot of all the pissing and moaning was as Moon has related. BTS originally thought of the type of roster included in CC, and rejected it, simply because they thought it included too much information and was a bit gamey. I don't know whether I agree with this or not. To me, if you can glean the info anywhere in the game, there's no point in wasting people's time in making it harder to find. However, what most people (I think) really wanted was just an overview of what units they had and the ability to hop to them without going on a house-to-house search or wearing out their wrists and +\- keys. That's why I like to call MY requested feature a 'navigation screen' rather than a roster. I just want to see a listing of units and jump to one without searching. An additional benefit of this for me is that I find that looking at a table of units with everything grouped organizationally helps me to get a good overview of my command and apportion it at scenario's start as to which tasks I've identified for the successful completion of my objectives. Really helps to take the sting out of the hated setup phase of a new scenario, where you're trying to group everything. I find that I'm physically dragging stuff around on the map into little piles during setup so I can organize things. Very time-consuming. I envision the right pane of the buy screen that pops up transparently on screen. A click of a particular unit in the pane jumps you to the unit and disappears the screen. Steve said that a simple 'navigation screen' of this type would be strongly considered for CM2, but would probably not make it into CM1. I'm satisfied with that, and can respect that the effort and time to add this feature to an already-shipped product is not something to be taken lightly. I'd just like to present my take on why such a feature would be desirable prior to that decision being made for CM2. So I guess my vote for a CM2 'nav screen' would have to be a resounding YES! Maybe I will close in commenting on a couple of the prevalent anti-navigation screen arguments: 1) 'play more. I was confused at the start, but I don't need it any more. It's like a crutch, you'll be a better commander without it.' - I don't understand the logic of this: how could slower and more tedious access to information make me a better player? I've played this game plenty, from the beta demo on up, and it doesn't get easier to find your units in the heat of a battle no matter how much you've played. I don't enjoy large battles now for just that reason. 2) 'This simulates FOW and the lack of cohesion inherent in any real-life combat situation.' - Simulating reality by forcing yourself to painstakingly search house-to-house for an FO you know is out there (somewhere)? Added difficulty in manipulating a UI is not a valid way to simulate FOW. There are far better ways to do this, and pressing the +\- keys many times is not one of them. Have a good day all, ianc

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have played several scenarios using v 1.03 and tanks are still firing at crews, mortarmen crawling away from knocked out mortars, infantry 400m away etc. on a regular basis. I think fixing this problem is THE most critical issue at this time<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. Tank crews as modelled have absolutely NO ability to damage an enemy MBT in the game in any way, hence they should NOT be regarded as a threat. I also think that this is the last issue that seriously needs attention in an otherwise superb game. ianc

Hello all, After some play with 1.03, I have to say that I'm unconvinced that the crew problem has been solved to satisfaction. I'm playing the first battle of the Wittman op via PBEM and I have to say that I have really taken some slams because my crack Tiger crewmen felt it necessary to rotate their turrets way past 90 degrees when approaching critical road junctions in order to fire at single crew survivors. These Tiger crewmembers are well aware that they are engaged in a heavy tank battle with dangerous enemy forces right around the bend, yet they traverse their turret to the five o'clock position to shoot at crewmen while they advance into LOS... Since the Germans start this scenario with only 6 tanks, the loss of two of these two guns is just about crippling. It's about now that I just wish I had a little hotkey for 'Don't shoot at crews'. I wonder if this would be a feasible solution. Will the crew from a recently knocked out tank ever present any kind of danger at all to still-functioning one? I admit that just having AFV's not target crews at all except under player orders would be a hit to realism, but I have to advance the theory that it would provide a much more realistic outcome than I'm seeing now. Ack, Charles, please find a better solution, please! Thanks for listening. Yer pal, ianc

18 Oh all right you bastards: 38 ianc

I've tried to get them to hide again after selecting a target, but I can't do this with V1.03, so I guess that means no... ianc

One feature that was continually commented on in the interviews with the tankers was how the German tanks could pivot on their axis where the Allied tanks 'took half a field'. I don't believe CM simulates this right now, but I'm trying to imagine how it would affect gameplay. I should think it would have a pretty serious effect myself; the Shermans couldn't pivot in place to present their frontal armour, but would be forced to either reverse out of their position, or drive forward to do this. This could well be the end of the game for them. This could also mitigate, to a certain extent, the dreadful slowness of the German's turret traverse. Wonder why BTS didn't model this? ianc

I'm not convinced that an AI adjustment will cure the problem. I just finished playing the Mortain op and my 81 mm mortars were averaging 3 shots to get a top hit on the Ami halftracks. This happened at least 7X in the three battles I played. I've never fired a mortar, but I just can't believe you can hit a targe the size of a smallish vehicle with a mortar from 500 m on the third shot! Wish my 88's had that kind of hit percentage... ianc

"A direct hit against even a Sherman won't do much" Ha! Killed a Sherman with an 81 mm. top hit yesterday! ianc

Why do the French plant trees by the side of the road? So the Germans can march in the shade.

Hi Talenn, I subsequently found a post where Kwazydog recommended this as well. I haven't had an opportunity to test this yet, but I will give it a shot. Thanks for the post! ianc

I have to say that upon consideration I believe there's a certain grain of truth in this argument to me. Granted I play as the Germans most times. But I have had plenty of Mk IV's, and they've seemed dumb. The opfor AI just seems to be able to bring off a more complex and agile sequence of events than that which is controlling your units. Now obviously this claim may be specious based on how the AI is programmed. Probably Only Charles knows that. But it just seems to me that my guys don't get a fair shake sometimes. Perhaps this is balanced in the long run by the fact that I can instill greater tactical purpose in my units than the AI. Still, it seems that I die more often because of it... ianc

"Dont tell me that AI is smart enough to enter a move order immediately followed by a reverse order just to scout the area. " Ok, I won't tell ya. ianc

Wait, maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't get this: It seems this thread started out by someone saying that the DeSobry op finished for them after only one battle (as it did to me). Then there was some other talk about being pushed back to a start line further to the rear than where you ended up after the first battle. I'm wondering about the original question. I played the first battle and it was pretty much a slaughter for both sides, but after ending the battle I was still largely outside the town. I wasn't allowed to continue on to the next battle, and the end of battle results looked just like the end of a scenario, displaying statistics for both sides (I think a complete Axis victory). Did I forfeit the rest of the operation because I didn't get into the town on the first battle, or is there just a bug in this op? Thanks for any insight, ianc

Oh, and BTW, I forgot to thank Aszurom for an excellent mod! Thanks Aszurom for coming up with the idea and shootin' it out to us. Take care! ianc

Save your $8-10 and go to www.pcgamer.com. They post all their reviews. ianc

Yeah, but BTS never commented on this thread as to why the ammo count was so low or if they were considering tweaking it... ianc

I'll agree with Germanboy's original observation. HT's (and armored cars) don't react to incoming mortar rounds as a threat, and IMO this should be tweaked. Played a QB a few days back and lost a Puma and 4(!) HT's to 3 in. mortars, even though I kept them moving... Then again, I was playing Stolberg last nite and a Stuart knocked out my prize Panther from the front at 500 meters... ianc

iggi, did you use gradations of the same color to modify the existing modifications to the grid color and range them from darkest-lowest to brightest-highest? Give us some screens laddie! ianc

Grid is good. There have been alot of people here saying it's gamey. This goes back to the argument about the Unit Nav screen; the info is already there. This is just a tool to make it easier to gather. If the aesthetics of the grid don't appeal to you, that would be a big reason not to use it. I find myself not using it to judge range or distance (although this is helpful), but rather to get a better impression of the small undulations in the terrain that in real life would be obvious, but are not in the game due to resolution issues. ian

"Don't be shy, tell me what you think " I think a unit navigation screen would take care of this problem nicely. ianc