pcelt

Reference has ,I think rightly, been made to the influence of certain of Montgomerys less endearing personality characteristics in distorting judgments re his generalship. Let me just briefly recount one illustrative anecdote :- During one of the regular wartime briefings between Churchill and King George vi , Churchill remarked to the King "I suspect that Monty is after my job" , to which the King replied "Thats a relief---I though he was after mine..."

Love the promise which the site has . Imaginative presentation for scenarios/operations ----especially pleased to see the emphasis on real historically based situations . Also appreciate the collection of maps of direct relevance.to scenario development. Very Best Wishes on your venture.

What should you expect to get Epee ? --- Slaughtered-- [This message has been edited by pcelt (edited 06-05-2000).]

Yeah,Ive come across some pretty cunning defenses on this board but causing your E-Mail to crash must be one of the more desperate strategies.

Jimmy-------re your comment--I agree they're not exactly the same thing.But I cant see the point in developing an A.I. which is sophisticated enough to "read a map" and to "identify likely defense positions" but then cannot tell the tactical A.I. to take any proactive measures at all in relation to that identification. Dont get me wrong here, This is not intended to be any sort of carping criticism of the A.I. I am mightily impressed by the whole game and the A.I. involved---by far the best there is in my opinion and I cannot wait to receive my full version. My only aim is to try and clarify where the current A.I. boundaries or grey areas lie.

Steve----many thanks for your helpful and constructive reply . I am sure that coding the A.I is a mammouth and incredibly complex task. Just one clarification please----the article about the A.I. at CMHQ seemed to suggest that the A.I. was currently able to identify places where the enemy were likely to be. Your reply here seemed to imply that identifying WHERE to be proactive was still not within the capacity of the A.I. Was the article perhaps a shade optimistic re the A.I.'s ability here. Thanks again for all the clarification and help.

Thanks guys for all your helpful comments and observations. The conclusion, from these examples, would seem to be that ,good and variable though the A.I is----probably the best around,it does not behave proactively like a human opponent,judging a likely threat without actual visible evidence and setting out to neutralise it BEFORE it reveals itself.It reacts intelligently, sensibly variably and imaginatively to threats which SHOW themselves. The lack of evidence of genuinely proactive behaviour such as smoking or area- targeting a potential threat , however, puzzles me.It puzzles me because it would seem the A.I. should be capable of this." The A.I.Improvement" article at CMHQ states ,in the course of its discussion of the role of the "Operational A.I. and the "Strategic A.I. "The Operational A.I. informs the Strategic A.I. where it BELIEVES the enemy will defend...." If this does occur then presumably the Strategic A.I. could inform the Tactical A.I. to proactively fire smoke or area- target any of those locations. In other words it could behave in this respect just like a human player hitting possible threats BEFORE they reveal themselves. Does anyone have any solid examples or illustrations of such purely proactive measures by the A.I.before your troops reveal their presence with movement or fire etc.

Hi Gelamonster You will be pleased to note you are still referred to as a "Junior Member"-------you dont become a full member till your 100th birthday like all the other guys stumbling about here on this Forum. Welcome, you bring a bit of fresh blood (literally when you start PBEM )

Clearly human opponents are likely to lay down area fire or smoke where they assume the enemy are likely to have observers or units ----without necessarily "Spotting " any evidence. Does th A.I. possess this type of potential or does it only direct measures against "spotted" enemy activity or visible evidence of their presence. Thanks

A testing time

Black Sabot Yes you can---but this involves you in first locating all the HQs and clicking on them .If support units have fallen behind and are out of C+C they will not be apparent and you will need to search about to locate what you want.Also you will only be aware of the position of one support unit at a time . My additional view will enable you to see all the MMGs or all the 60mm mortars or all the Forward Observers etc + whatever platoon or platoons you are trying to reinforce.In my view it will make organizational decisions re the movement of units---which and to where, that much easier and speedier. TOM ---------------------------------- I very much appreciate your detailed and constructive post detailing ways of identifying all the units. I really do feel quite at home with the 3D map etc .But my personal feelings are that rather than take the steps you rightly identify as valuable -----keeping all the bases on permanently, removing all the trees at end of each turn, inflating all the units to giant size etc and then looking around,I would rather make use of an additional menu( such as I outlined )that would solve all these identification needs for me. My view is that it would be neater, quicker and easier---less fiddly. I fully respect your opinion and those of any others with different views. I simply wanted to air this possible enhancement as it seemed helpful to me . There doesnt seem any reason why there cannot be alternative means within the game for gaining info . We can then use whichever means suits our own preferences. Cheers [This message has been edited by pcelt (edited 05-24-2000).]

Laurak,thanks for your interest----- I think it is more likely to be difficult to keep an easy track of all your squads/teams in very cluttered terrain and also once a moving firefight has been underway for a time. I am not suggesting that it is impossible to track all the units with the systems in place.But my point is that this requires clicking on each unit or cycling through each unit----and can be very time consuming . The additional cues, I have suggested ,would allow you to see the integrated overall sitn more easily and quickly-----one example---a platoon becomes involved in a firefight and you want to reinforce with an MMG or 60mm mortar.Instead of having to hunt about with mouse clicks or cycle through-- one menu click will show the position of all your MMGs or Mortars and you can order the nearest or least engaged to move into your threatened platoon area to support. You might find yourself in dire need of a bazooka team when a similar procedure could be applied. I think it just usefully supplements the current systems and can speed up unit awarenes and orders.

Maastrictian -------------------------- I must say I find your argument rather ambiguous. On the one hand you are saying "turn on bases and turn off trees" and then click on each unit with a mouse-------all of which are totally artificial and game playing devices ----but it is unacceptable to use any further game aids to help locate and identify units. After all, the purpose of the game is not to make unit identification tricky and time consuming but to have to make a series of tactical decisions to achieve victory conditions with the units you have. I would also add that ,in the field, commanders would be receiving a range of information via unit radio and runner etc re positions and situations which we ,as gamers do not get.It is not possible to equate our position precisely with that of a live C.O. Finally , if you as a player feel you do not want to avail youself of any of the game mechanisms you can just not use it----as happens with "fog of war" I am not convinced that this argument is a valid one against this sort of enhancement [This message has been edited by pcelt (edited 05-24-2000).] [This message has been edited by pcelt (edited 05-24-2000).]

With the current system of unit identification and C+C by individual and time-consuming unit clicking or cycling via "+ -" keys,I find I spend a lot of time checking the location of platoon squads and support teams like mortars and MMGs etc.to ensure that particular teams/squads have not been left behind or mislocated. To supplement these and to facilitate and speed up this identification and reorganization of units ,I should like to suggest an elaboration of the current "Shift B" function which places bases under all of your units.I suggest a sub-menu on the screen which will permit you,in addition, to select (toggle "on--Off") at any time the bases specifically just for: Platoon A units Platoon B units Each other Platoon units MMG Teams Mortar Teams Each other Team Type Forward Observers Each Vehicle Type This would enable you to get, at any given moment, a clear and integrated overview of each platoon's squads' positions and all the teams'locations and allow you to easily reorganize where platoons have been disorganized or teams left behind or mislocated. I think this enhancement would complement the current methods and facilitate and speed up in-game identification of units and the necessary orders for their reorganization where desired. May I emphasise in conclusion that in my view the game is absolutely superb and this enhacement is certainly not essential----I just feel it would add an extra v.useful dimension to easier and speedier unit identification, battlefield awareness and reorganization orders.

No need to use the "blocky" smoke----switch to the other smoke option within the game---quite acceptable until you upgrade to DX7and new V3 drivers.

CapitalisticdoginChina, If your military prowess falls short of being able to capture a screenshot I dont think you can qualify as a hero of anything......sorry dont ring us ... [This message has been edited by pcelt (edited 05-22-2000).]

One other clarification re minefields------- is awareness of these affected in the same way as enemy unit info by the "fog of war" level selected. I presume yes?

Steve I did not intend to come back on this topic again-----an earlier post from you implied sympathy with the idea of more balanced increased forces and its inclusion for consideration in future patching. I would just like to briefly refer to the idea of it not being something very critical because it will hardly ever be used. This may well be true for many experienced gamers. But I can think of many situations where beginners or less skilful or less experienced players find many scenarios too difficult and in order to gain confidence and some success and to learn the tactics, use the increased forces option on their own side. The problem here is that unless these new situations provide credible and realistic force mixes to use and gain productive experience with ,they will provide little transferable training for the basic scenarios. And such players are more likely to become confused by the strange troop mixes and no better equipped to transfer to the basic scenarios with realistic forces. This is surely undesirable when attepting to attract new and inexperienced players to learn and enjoy the game. On the opposite side of the coin, I'm sure most experienced and skilful players who sometimes want a more challenging scenario, prefer the increased opposition (though presenting some surprises) to still represent a credible military force to attempt to defeat rather than an extreme fantasy situation . I appreciate the decision is totally one for BTS but I would respectfully urge consideration of the above points and especially the needs of new or poorer players who are likely to opt for increased units to gain relevant experience, skill and confidence which will apply to and help them tackle the basic scenarios .

Cheers Tom--agree entirely with your key sentiments----whatever occurs re improvements or in whatever order BTS decides we both ,and everybody else have a really great game to explore and enjoy. Best Wishes Dave

SuperTed, I have to presume then that your virginity has not been reborn quite yet.

Tom, yes certainly the force pool multiplier changes the play balance but this should reflect meeting essentially a larger force than expected( albeit with some elements of surprise) and this is quite credible in military terms and provides a test of military decision making and tactics------But this is quite different from meeting a force so unbalanced as to be ,in your own words totally "whacky" and "unrealistic". Such an encounter is of no genuine military interest or challenge but a fantasy game. I am not purchasing this excellent game in order to explore fantasy situations. Re your second point, may i respectfully suggest that it is not up to you to determine what are "minor" issues or what place on "the list" they should occupy . This is a decision for BTS as a result of their own informed judgment.

I can clearly see there may well be something intriguing and novel about facing a totally randomly augmented force but i believe above all else the protagonists need to maintain a certain level of credibility as real military forces.Otherwise immersiveness and the belief that you are fighting a possible engagement from WW2 goes out of the window. Controlling or facing a force which contains the same small number of rifle platoons but eight times as many MMG's or 15 panzershriek teams or six times as many engineer units as initially, results in a fantasy sitn rather than a credible military one. I am not suggesting that the increased force needs to reflect the exact proportions of the basic ititial force----but I suggest that the random factor introduced should be a smallish one----enough to introduce some surprise elements but still balanced enough to be a credible WW2 military force. Basically if I opt for one of these augmented sides I still want an immersive WW2 military scenario rather than a fantasy one.

With apologies, may I refocus on an issue which was raised a couple of days ago but received no specific response from BTS. Several members drew attention to incongruities which occurred when raising the troop ratio to +150%.Examples were cited of increases such as--Rifle Platoons +0% but MMG+ 800% and Engineers +600%. Another example revealed the provision of 11 Sherman105's and another of an increase to 15 panzershriek teams. For anyone wishing to change the game weightings in this way for whatever reason this poses an important problem. There still needs to be a credible balance within the new increased force both for immersiveness and playability. If this does not exist then this useful play option loses most of its value. Could I respectfully request a comment on this issue from BTS and if the problem is substantiated ,some commitment to tweaking this anomaly at least for an early patch. I apologise for raising this criticism when there are clearly so many brilliant aspects related to the game and I would like to place it clearly within that context. Thanks

I dont see there is a big problem here with either the "Hide"procedure or the "Move "one. Re the "Hide " question it is very easy to issue the order to all the squads except the one already hiding.This makes logical sense in a real world situation which is exactly how the order would be communicated. Re the "Move" question. I agree that you do not want your squads to bunch up for sound defensive reasons and so the current spaced movement is appropriate. Also when you get close to a threatening or uncertain situation you would no longer want to be issuing group orders anyway but more precise individual orders to your squads. i think the current system works quite well.

Re your third focus-------Yes double clicking a H.Q. does enable an order to all elements. Also you can remove a unit from the group order with a "shift click"