iggi

As for recon, how far is far. Where is the line drawn??? 100,200, 300 350 meters, where?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If a tactic couldn't have happened in real world WWII, and you are able to (knowingly) use this tactic due to a game loophole, the tactic is gamey.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The very obvious will be agreed to but there will be exceptions. That's what we're trying to get across. What's starts off with an obvious jeep example will lead to other things that some players will claim happenned in ww2 and other players refute. Nobody is defending gamey tactics.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Of course, the difference between these is obvious. I'm merely trying to point that there's no definitive line between gamey and ungamey. So I'd prefer the line not drawn at all, rather than having a list of 101 gamey things that are "forbidden" if you don't wan't to be labeled a gamey "video gamer".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly. That's what Henri, Tom and myself have beens trying to get across.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, at the same time you are digging in your heals and saying that we shouldn't restrict your ability to "maneuver"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I thought he was saying that other players shouldn't restrict his ability to manouver through house rules. He clearly said that BTS can restrict his ability to manouver through game programming.

In order to save 100's of searches and bog down the server...here's the thread: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/009321-2.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTS, anybody thought of that, can we get a LIVE web cast of our TCP/IP match?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually that's a good idea. Would be neat to see several games at once so that when one team is planning, the other's replay is showing. Over a steak and bear in a sports bar would be fun Hmmm I think it's time for a smooth one.

Thanks aka_tom_w. Gimme 5. M. Tanker: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The only agreements that we've been talking about have been terms to negate gamey tactics that take advantage of the game engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Easily said. I understand that. But its a rainbow of perception. Sure I won't send a jeep out but 3 fast recon vehics? Ok don't send them out all the way in the rear. Ok but how far? That's where the negotiations start. Sounds like being a wargame lawyer.

I don't think Henri meant anything of the sort. From my understanding, he understands that the game needs tweaking. What I think he and myself and others don't like is having to make agreements with another player about war terms. If I wanted to negotiate, I'd go into politics. Has nothing to do with not wanting programing rules in a game. But being wargamers, once you let us out of our cage, we want blood. Meow iggi

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>what happens if it is eliminated? What happens if one squad gets left behind because it is pinned down? What if that squad is the one designated to determine where the platoon "is" (i.e. the other two squads can't be moved away from the area). Or what happens if a squad breaks and runs, but then recovers?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps each platoon can have a platoon symbol like a flag. Around this flag is a zone that is circular. This is the area where units in the platoon can plot waypoints. Even the Hq has to stay in that zone. The zone represents the potential area of operations at that moment for a unit of such and such nationality with so and so experience. Units in that zone can be out of command. The zone is larger than the command radius of an Hq. The zone represents the maximum distance that a commander would consider separating his forces. The flag can move and it's speed is affected by all units in the platoon. So if there are many broken units, the speed of the flag is slowed drasticaly. So units have the freedom to orientate within the zone but the zone is affected by the units' state. If units panick and run out of the zone, the flag will retreat. the flag doesn't look for cover like woods. The flag retreats to a battalion flag or to the rear of the map. A retreating flag means that an Hq is losing control. Even if there is one good squad left, if the platoon is in shambles, the retreating flag prevents a player from taking his Hq and going solo with one surviving squad. In a way, the flag also represents the momentum of a platoon. Flags can be applied to vehics too. The less vehics in a group, the smaller the zone around the flag. This represents the caution that a sole vehic has to take having less pairs of eyes. If a vehic sees danger, the speed of the flag slows down. So a player is restricted to where he can place waypoints. The speed of the flag and the zone around the flag are affected by the unit situation. So a sole afv out in the rear of the enemy getting contact at night will be forced to slink away carefully. The player can still issue fast move orders but only in a shrinked and retreating flag zone. This idea is open to brainstorming.

I ask again and no one answered. Is it a realistic tactic to have one squad of the same platoon to plot movement to the west side of the map while another squad of that same platoon plots movement to the east side of the map? I say that when one squad plots a waypoint, then all units should use that waypoint as a reference and plot only a max distance from it. Or use the platoon's HQ position as a reference. Now units can react in a manner that makes them run away from thier platoon, no problem. However, in the orders phase, they still must move near the platoon. The rules then can be loosened for recon groups so that they can be more spread out. The recon group itself has to stay a certain distance from the battalion HQ. In this way, different nationality's charachteristics can be better modeled, ie Russian vs German initiative.

In response to LOS' question, perhaps the friendly fire was units shooting thier COs

Yes I do. Read what I wrote above about introducing rules that govern platoons. ie a squad has to plot waypoint in relation to it's HQ position. It's unrealistic to be able to send squads from the same platoons in different and far directions. This lack of group control then manifests itself in recon through jeeps. If you want to simulate what was done, more control has to be introduce beyond command radius'. I don't like subjective agreements between players. I'd prefer a stronger rule set in game. Agreements in war go beyond the Conquer in me Comment on my element idea. Criticise it if you want but don't just raise your hands up in the air and say throw your jeeps at me, I can take it. Read my element idea and comment on why or why not THAT will improve CM.

Or you can use your imagination and come up with some ideas instead of accepting things as they are.

What was Hitler's penis doing in a goats mouth?

Steve. Can using element rules as I described above reduce single units from going off unrealistically by themselves?

ya ya ya hitler had one ball or so said the russians. Anybody believe that? If that was true, imagine what would have happenned if he had two balls

Units don't operate in vacuums. At least squads have a command radius. There is no equivalent for vehics. See my element idea above for a solution.

And if someone should ask what happens if the HQ unit dies. The next highest ranking squad becomes HQ with a severe restriction to distances for waypoints that other squads can plot from it.

This way Russian military doctrain can be better represented. The element rules will be tougher on thier units. While German units will be able to plot further from thier HQs to represent thier encouragement of unit initiative.

Although command radius affects a unit's reaction time, there has to be other, tougher limits. There is a reason why squads make up parts of a platoon. It is because they operate as an element. To be able to give one squad in a platoon orders to go left 500 meters and to give orders to another squad in that same platoon orders to go 500 meters right seems unrealistic. My question is, shouldn't there be a limit to how far from your HQ a squad can plot waypoints. It's not that squads never got lost. But should they be planning unrealistic movements? Some control over where a unit can plot it's waypoint relative to an authority unit in it's element will reduce gamey moves. The game designer can then decide who belongs in what element and in thus doing will be limiting that unit's manouverability.

Oh oh oh I got a better idea! Why not break up your force into functional elements that were used in that day. Any unit that is part of that element can only plot a waypoint not further than a certain distance from any other unit in that element. So a recon element will have units that remain free but must stay near each other. Crew members once out of thier tanks are put part of the company rear element and must plot waypoints near the company hq only.

And if you buy scout vehics, you would have to buy them in teams.

If armored scouts did ever go out into known enemy territory, would they go out alone or in packs. I was thinking to obliging scout vehics to plot thier individual waypoints within a certain distance of each other. This way if you send out a scout, two or three would tag along. Therefore you're risking more resources for the same info. Kind of balances for any info gain.

Well deserved. Congrats to Madmatt and Kwazydog. Good guys don't finish last after all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>to all those "people" who are complaining<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Who are all those people? That's a broad statement. Include names. Especially if you flame about finding a day job. There's alot of constructive criticism going on. There are some people who are insulting to BTS like...USERNAME. He could give his imput without constantly implying that BTS is not working properly. So mensch, if you hear something you don't like. Say so right to the person's face.