xerxes

The scale 'spoon proposes is very good. Unanchored (just numbers) rating scales are known to produce less reliable measurements. I'd also like to see an explicit "no comment/opinion" option. The "0" does that now but a new reviewer can easily miss that. I'd also like the reviewer to be able to post the score from the scenario that they played. [ December 02, 2003, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: xerxes ]

Having building destruction/preservation points for scenario design is a great idea. It could be used in all kinds of ways to improve scenario design.

. [ December 02, 2003, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: xerxes ]

The AI arty use is spotty, sometimes it's awful, sometimes surprisingly good. In one LOD battle the axis/ai arty managed to bombard a platoon of tanks and then unload on an infantry group in the woods. Rather excellent arty use. If you like playing against the ai you shouldn't try and figure out the ai arty usage rules. It's quite possible to sucker the ai into using it's arty incorrectly.

Not to mention that most clever defenders won't occupy all the "likely" buildings for your shooting pleasure. If you take the level everything tactic the defender will just occupy the rubble, which is now better defensive terrain and you can't HE infantry out of rubble nearly as effectively as you can HE infantry out of a standing building. But, if you really want to level effectively target multiple tanks at a single building, no use letting them escape out the back if the enemy is in there.

Very much agreed Treeburst. The TacAI has really been tweaked nicely creating more realistic behavior. I must say I noticed some better handling by the computer of heavy tanks. Really caught me by surprise to find a heavy standing off, nailing one of my tanks and then repositioning to wack another one of my tanks. Don't think I ever saw the AI handle a tank as well or even better than most humans. Of course, it's made some boneheaded moves too, but it was nice to see a really superb handling of a tank by the AI. Did see the expected ai defender ill-considered counterattack. Of course, would have to see some more battles to find out if that AI strategic incompetence was fixed. The EFOW seems to be a slight bit foggier too, an improvement in my opinon. It's all very subtle, but I'm really pleased with the tuning Charles has done.

I got my allied armor pasted in "Line of Defense." It may be annoying but it's quite realistic. In general, close air support was dangerous when the opposing forces were engaged.

From what I've seen it's not precise, more probabilistic. Covered arcs seem to get the unit to ignore stuff outside the arc but it's not 100%.

I've been playing line of defense against the AI and I've noticed quite significant improvements in the infantry TacAI. It used to be infantry were easy to slaughter in buildings. You just HE'd the building into "**" and they'd all run to the closest edge of the building. Often that would be into your supporting infantry fire lanes and the enemy would be slaughtered. Now, the TacAI has learned that running into the open under enemy fire is a really bad idea. They try very hard to avoid that. A really big improvement, well done Charles.

To fire the tanks' smoke shells, press "k", you'll get a white target line. For the arty, same thing. Press "k" and you'll get a white target line that will drop smoke. Not all arty is capable of using smoke but most types are capable.

One change I'd like to see is a "rate this review as helpful". Just like Amazon does. I think this would help things. Ideally you could search by reviewer but I know this is technically not possible without requiring registration for reviewers. I know that when I'm shopping for a new scenario I pay particular attention to reviewers that share the same biases that I do.

This same thing happens in CMBB. I'm not sure exactly what it's supposed to model but it was definitely there. As an aside, it's one way to tell for sure that a tanks gun has been damaged.

Ecology fight!!! My money is on Tobruk.

I disagree with your disagreeing. Actually I do agree that balance is a very important characteristic. My point is that in a single play of a scenario it is extremely difficult for the participants to accurately assess balance. From my experience the further away from a draw, the lower the balance rating. The problem is that each rating is based on a single point sample. To accurately extrapolate from 1 point to an entire distribution is simply not possible. Most people assume that if there is a lopsided result in a scenario it means the scenario is unbalanced. This is simply not true. I've seen cases in which the exact same scenario was declared unwinnable from both sides.

I've found that tightening up the covered arc tends to increase the odds of using the AT weapon rather than firing. But really, the solution is to use longer ranged fire to button up the tanks. The tank hunter needs assistance.

Player pick QBs are the most "gamey" way of playing CM. If you want to increase realism, you have to move to scenarios.

For my first view of a film, I love riding in the commander position of a tank that I think is going to engage. Taking a frontal armor hit is a serious shock to the system. I find it most exciting on my very first viewing of the film. Watching an infantry close assault on a tank from first person is also quite fun.

No, not gamey, just foolish. The attacker clustered his forces, obviously in a location that the defender could see. Forming up within detection range of the defender is a really bad idea. Defensive spoiling barrages are perfectly legit. There is no reason for the attacker to make the spoiling barrage so easy and effective. If I was the defender and saw this on the opening move I'd probably suggest we redo the setup. Not really a fun game if you've annhiliated the attacker in the first minute and there are 30 turns left in the game. In extreme cases, prebombardment does become gamey. ie. playing unrestricted and buying 10 concript FOs and dumping everything on the first turn. After that the defender leaves the map and wins on kill points. Naturally the defender loses a CM opponent too.

I think part of the unrealistic "battle to death" phenomenon is due to players being overly concerned with flags and not paying attention to knockout points. You can win a lot of scenarios by perserving your force and getting your VPs by eliminating enemy forces. Even if you don't hold the flags at the end you can win. I've seen many battles in which one side thinks they have to take a flag and is willing to expend a significant portion of their force to do so. You can easily lose more points in casualties then you would gain by capturing the flag. I've found avoiding casualties is often the most important element in success on the battlefield.

One thing that bugs me about the scenario depot rating system is the balance rating. As it is now people estimate balance by their one playing of a scenario. Quite frankly, it is not possible to estimate balance from a single playing between two players. As a point in case, my scenario "Recon! Point Counter Point" has received inaccurate low balance ratings. How do I know the ratings are inaccurate? Because the scenario was used in a tournament where it was played 16 times. In the tournament there were 8 battles in which the Romanian scored more points and 8 battles in which the Soviets scored more points. All of these battles were between "good-excellent" CMBB players. The exact results can be found here: Recon battle results I think that instead of having players rate balance they should just put in the score of the game. The average score should be reported as the "balance" for a scenario. I think that would be far more accurate then subjective judgements. Just my 2 cents. btw, I think the scenario depot is a fantastic resource and Keith has done a bangup job with it. [ November 13, 2003, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: xerxes ]

I don't think that's an oil lamp. I think it's a Storm Trooper. You know, like in Star Wars.

I suspect that the many discussions on the CM forums about game design/tactics/etc have already had a large influence on CMX2 design. I'd also expect some rather radical changes from how CMBB/CMBO play.

What an interesting tidbit. So if you're playing with full fog of war, you're having a hard time IDinng the bunker (at longish ranges I presume)?

ARVE's smashing bunkers is exactly what I'd want. Heck, that's why that special purpose bunker busting tank was developed! Wouldn't make much sense to develop an entirely new tank when any old 20mm gun would do the job at 1% of the price.

That would be great if Bunkers were fixed. A bunker on a hill would become something to be feared.