Mikeydz

Highly doubt that a modder will be able to pull this off. Won't say impossible but... Someone would have to program from scratch (or hack out from the game itself) an external move viewer, then figure out the makeup of the "movie" text file and figure out how to string em together... I'll just wait for this to appear in CM2 (hopefully) or a patch way down the road.

If it was off a recent CD then it's almost surely the gold demo. I can't recall if anyone put the beta demo out on CD, but the "title graphic" screen that loads up on the beta demo had the words "Beta Demo" in red superimposed over a b&w photo of a tank.

Addme to the list, if possible.

Just to use an extreme example to prove the point... If I did the math right, an American Rifle Battalion, in CM has a total of 696 men. That includes all the HQ, Riflemen, and supporting grunts w/ MGs, mortars, ect. Even if there was no speed hit in showing all the bodies, it would begin to get crowded with so many corpses, you would start to have difficulty finding the active squads amongst the carnage. Right from the start, after you begin to take some casualties, how are you gonna keep track of which corpses came from which units, so you'll end up having to check the units manually anyway to verify how many casualties you have. This is a very old issue. And no pun intended, but it's been debated to death. Originally, the corpses that are in the game now, which mark where the squad was finally eliminated, were not going to be in the game. I personaly think that the addition of those limited corpses it fine, but showing bodies on a one for one basis would be to much clutter.

I've posted this on the Tech board, Dirk, so by now, I'm sure the bug has been noted...

I don't think that the "impulse" effect yu think you are seeing is anything programed in, but just coincidence. I once did a test back in the old beta demo examining what effect experiance levels had on rate of fire. It shortened the interval between shots, of course, but the rate of fire is not a static number (Vet M4 fires every 9 seconds, ect) but rather more like a range of time. time between the 1st and 2nd shot might be 10 seconds, but the time to get the 3rd shot off, for the exact same tank, might stretch to 13 seconds. When you factor in the different ROF for the different tank types, the effect of experiance, the difference in time where tanks gain spotting on thier enemy, and so on, it pretty much wipes out any pattern of "firing impulses" I've had countless tank engagements so far, but only a handful of simultanious kills.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have initiated a couple of PBEM games so far. Every time the computer doesn't give me the chance to setup my troops. They always start out in a long line across the end of my setup zone. I DONT GET IT!! Has anyone else had this problem, or am I an idiot that is missing something very simple. HELP!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008278.html Confirmed. I just tried it... If you set up a PBEM, where you select your units, but your opponent allows the cpu to choose his units, the game will accidentally forget your setup phase. Step-by-Step Player 1 (Axis) vs Player 2 (Allied) 1. Player 1 creates game.... In setup screen, choose Allow Human for Axis unit purchase, and Automatically for Allies. Other settings default (irrelevant apperantly). Click OK 2. Bypass the next map option screen (irrelevant) by clicking ok for default settings. Since Player 1 is Axis, choose Axis in the side selection screen. Then select Email game on the game type screen. 3. Now your in the Axis unit selection screen. select units as normal (unit type appears irrelevant, so choose anything). Click OK to continue. 4. Now you will get the promt verifing that an Email file will be created. follow the promts and create the file. Send to Player 2 5. Now Player 2 loads the file. After typing in his new password, it will go directly to the unit setup phase, with the Allied players CPU selected units alligned on the map edge as normal. Setup units and click OK. Everything up to now is fine as normal. 6. Create the new email file and send it back to Player 1. Now here is where the problem shows up. When Player 1 opens the file, it goes directly to the Axis order phase, skiping the setup phase entirely. All the Axis units are arrayed along the mp edge just as they would have appeared if it had gone to the setup phase. Looks like a bug to me...

Confirmed. I just tried it... If you set up a PBEM, where you select your units, but your opponent allows the cpu to choose his units, the game will accidentally forget your setup phase. Step-by-Step Player 1 (Axis) vs Player 2 (Allied) 1. Player 1 creates game.... In setup screen, choose Allow Human for Axis unit purchase, and Automatically for Allies. Other settings default (irrelevant apperantly). Click OK 2. Bypass the next map option screen (irrelevant) by clicking ok for default settings. Since Player 1 is Axis, choose Axis in the side selection screen. Then select Email game on the game type screen. 3. Now your in the Axis unit selection screen. select units as normal (unit type appears irrelevant, so choose anything). Click OK to continue. 4. Now you will get the promt verifing that an Email file will be created. follow the promts and create the file. Send to Player 2 5. Now Player 2 loads the file. After typing in his new password, it will go directly to the unit setup phase, with the Allied players CPU selected units alligned on the map edge as normal. Setup units and click OK. Everything up to now is fine as normal. 6. Create the new email file and send it back to Player 1. Now here is where the problem shows up. When Player 1 opens the file, it goes directly to the Axis order phase, skiping the setup phase entirely. All the Axis units are arrayed along the mp edge just as they would have appeared if it had gone to the setup phase. Looks like a bug to me...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't think this is gamey, as the game takes this into consideration and makes them "Tired" after their run wheras most of the time the rest of the platoon is in "Ready" status. So it does penalize you for doing this, but it gets them to move quicker. I sometimes use it when I need a mortar/mg in place fast. But you have to highlight a unit along with the mortar or MG that can run to get them to do the run function as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, this is not true. If you lasso/multi select units, you can issue a run order assuming there is a unit in your "group" that can run, but if you look at the color movement "paths" the mortar or mg unit will have the move command placed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fionn is, whether he likes it or not, a person that has offered his "services" to BTS for some compensation (free game?) and therefore speaks for the company in that limited capacity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unless you have some proof that Fionn in any way received any compensation, you just look like a fool when you make a statement like this. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He was involved in the design process and should own up to it. He should be an ambassador on this board but rather likes to be "constable old timer".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly what should he own up to again??? Let's see, ever since the beginning, he has been well known to be an alpha/beta tester. I've never seen him hide this fact. And if you have ever been involved in any type of testing program (can't recall if you've claimed to have been in the past), then that is obviously part of the design process. The fact that you think he needs to "own up to it" implies that you believe that there are major flaws in the design that you believe are Fionn's fault. This seems absurd to me since you have no way of knowing what things he suggested during the testing that are his ideas. Heck, for all you know, it's possible that your favorite feature of the game may have been inspired by Fionn. I know that must make you shudder... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, I do enjoy the game. I really enjoy the board in my own way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Strange but I guess some people do gain some sort of sick enjoyment from generating hostility and chaos such as you do. It saddens me, because I have seen you post some insightful thoughts on some topics in the past, but you can't seem to help but make yourself appear to be a total ass. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am not a yappy dog but an educated, opinionated customer. Perhaps the worst kind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From some of your posts, do occasionaly reinforce you argument that you are educated, and you definatly are opinionated, but that's not what makes you the "worst" kind of customer. You truly are the worst kind because you have no clue as how to express your opinions in a constuctive manner to BTS. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The greatest downfall of this board is not new people but BTS non-participation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Minor agreement here. While for the most part, I would rather have Charles/Steve continue to program and tweak CM closer to perfection, I do think the have failed to properly oversee this board, maining in failing to ban you once and for all. I am truly amazed at the patience they have shown in tolerating the trouble you have caused in the past. I can only hope it doesn't last much longer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No one wants to force it to be RT. But RT option would be nice. I don't have patience/time to play 500 pts game in 2 hours. RT would make it faster.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> On the small scall, it probably would be playable in RT but still would be frantic trying to make anything close to effective use of realistic tactics. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now to handle rapidly developing situation in RT we could slow the game down say 1/4 RT.(Every RT second is 4 seconds in the game)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, if the standard game is about 30 turns, which is 30 minutes of "action" then turning that into RT, but slowing it down to 1/4 peed would take you 2 hours to play, whic you said is to long. That, and I scream enough at the screen for my tanks and troops to move, move, move to bear to watch then crawl at 1/4 speed...

So if the enemy stripped naked, they were safe from your .50 cal?

Only way so far is direct order thru this website, so your stuck with the shipping, custom charges, whatever else your country can divise to make $$ off your purchase...

well, I was insipred to run a test on the effectiveness of the 20mm flak vs an infantry squad running across an open field at a range of 150m from the flak gun. I ran the test 140 times using conscript, regular, crack, and elite flak guns total fire time for each test was approx 30 seconds worth of fire. On average, the Conscripts/Regulars caused a 1.04 man casualty rate over the 30 seconds of fire. The Crack/Elite crews managed a 1.32 rate. On the surface, you this may seem to be a low amount. One thing that people are leaving out is the morale effects. Of the 140 sprints into the LOS of the flak gun, only 5 "squads" made it to the end of the turn (after being under fire for 30 seconds) with an ok morale. A large amount of the time, the squads panicked, with a handfull of squads breaking. This after only 30 seconds under fire. So while it does not appear that AA guns don't cause a huge amount of casualties, infantry in CM is terrified by them in the game. I don't know how CM's flak guns compare to real life encounters, but the morale effects sure look terrifying. Mikey

How did you move your spotters, did they crawl, sneak, move, or run? Since you had to have moved them to a spot where they have LOS to the Tigers, the inverse is the Tigers potentially have LOS to that spot also, so it's possible the tanks detected the movement of the spotters, especially if you used "move" or "fast". Worst case is that they were not only spotted, but the AI ID'd them as FO's, so they got a high priorty on the kill list. FOs are tough to use if you have to move them. Mikey

I know I've ready somewhere before that each unit has independent spotting. You can see the sherman because the KT has spotted it, but just because you see it, does not mean that the PzIV had spotted it, which is why it might have gone after the crew. Just because there is LOS does not mean that it's spotted. Of course it could also have been the targeting code at work. Remember, that the code was, IIRC, "tweaked" to try and minimize the occurance of crew fixation, but in theory, it would still be possible. Mikey

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think the TacAI is taking inititive in engaging the enemy.That is the overall objective of war of course. Since the TacAI tries to simulate "thought" its only natural for a tank commander to want to engage and destroy the enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As far as I know, the TacAI won't plot a movement order to engage a target, try a flanking move, ect. If the tank saw an enemy while on the move to the building, it might stop and fire, or pop smoke and reverse, ect. Without seeing the replay, hard to say why it reversed. perhaps as stated by Pillar, you clipped a corner of the building or other impassable terrain right before the end of the move path, so it reversed to try and bypass the obstacle. Or perhaps when the tank got to it's stop point, it spotted another enemy unit and the TacAI reversed to get out of LOS, but the reverse inadvertantly brought it into LOS of the enemy that did kill your tank. Like I said. Hard to know.

Well, since everyone knows how much I like running tests on some claims, I once again ran series of engagements. First, I created a map, 800x800. On this map, I created 8 alleys. Each alley floor was 60m wide by approx 500m long. Each end had small hills to provide a block to LOS. Level 19 cliffs, topped with woods, divided each alley from each other. Next, I pitted 16 tanks against each other in 8 one on one fights. M5A1 Stuart vs King Tiger (Pz VIB) M4 Sherman vs Tiger (Pz VIE Late) M4A3(75)W+ Sherman vs Tiger (Pz VIE) M4A3(76)W+ Sherman vs Panther (Pz VA) M4A3(76)W+ HVSS Sherman vs Panther (Pz VG Late) M4A3E2(76) Jumbo Sherman vs Panzer IVJ M26 Pershing vs Panzer IVG T26E4 Super Pershing vs Lynx (Pz IIL) I ran each of these fights 20 times. I gave each side orders to move to the centerpoint of each "alley" using a move command. I logged if the TacAI decided to continue moving forward and engage when it spotted the enemy, or if it made a defensive move (reverse back behind the starting hill, pop smoke, ect) In the 2 extreme cases, (Stuart, Lynx) the AI always (wisely) decided the best course of action was to retreat. In the battles with the basic M4 Sherman, and the Panzer IV G and J's, the AI acted defensively about 80% of the time. In the final 3 battles the AI decided about 80% of the time to duke it out. What does this prove? Well, as others have pointed out, this 100% prove this quote... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know there is a TacAI in the system, but how come my tank never back off from the threat? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> is incorrect. The TacAI will back off a human players tank if it feels there is danger, and especially if it decides the matchup is one-sided. Now to his second point. I don't think that what tank thinks he is percieving is 100% accurate. I have never seen the AI fire a shot, pop smoke and reverse to break LOS, then move back forward to fire another shot, all in the same turn. What I have seen happen is.... Turn 1... Opponent tanks spots my tank, fires a round and reverse while popping smoke. Turn 2... AI Tank, which now no longer has LOS to my tank, moves forward through his smoke, and regains LOS to my tank, TacAI kicks back in fires a shot, and decideds (again) that matchup is not good and retreats again. Continue this loop. What we are probably seeing here is not a cheat, but a quirk in the AI. Maybe what happens is that In between turn 1 and 2, the Strat and or Operational AI is forgeting "my " tank is on the otherside of the defensive smoke the TacAI fired, and is replotting the move back where it originally wanted to go. So what happens is a conflict between the TacAI and the other AI. Other AI says go this way, TacAI says screw you when it respots the danger. As far as you "Wittman" test, I don't know what your engagement range your talking about, but perhaps ole Wittman is getting smoked by the 5 tank onslaught you've created for him before the TacAI can respond and pull his bacon out of the frying pan. Remember, this "situation" is very extreme so you can't expect the TacAI to be able to handle the overload as well as something as simple as my Stuart vs King Tiger test. The more variables you throw at the AI, the more cracks your going to see.

Just a note that messages that include information like this are better located in the Scenario Talk board, so as not to possibly give any spoiler info. If your intent was to point out PIATs in general are overly effective, then leave out any scenario specific details.

Hey Fionn, care to update me on where I'm at in the queue?

Hmmm... well, here's my $.02... Assuming Mac's description of events is accurate, I don't thing it was gamey, but hard to say. Sounds more like a bad tactic. Either way, his carriers paid the price. I know I probably would not have done what he did, but without seeing what the lay of the land was, I can't say what I would have done instead. BTW I don't have to much of a problem with the gun tractor thing. They are unarmed and unarmored, so if they come under fire from anything, the troops on them are in danger. Considering the costs, I would have bought trucks instead, at least they are a bit faster. And in the game, since they Hummel is only usable in direct fire mode, I can't see how using it is gamey, unless you say that just buying the thing is a gamey move. Mikey

As far as the TCP/IP playing out same as the PBEM sequencing... IIRC, Orders will be entered simultanously, as well as viewing the movie. That's probably why it's gonna take longer that you would think. They not only have to write the code to transfer the files, but also have to modify the code that handles the sequencing. And don't forget, more than likely, they will give the TCP/IP patch to the beta testers to test out probably a good week or so even after coding is completed. So give em some time.

Evening all... Since I have tommorow (Sunday) off, I'd like to start at least one, and preferably a couple of PBEM games. 1. DYO game, 1000 points, with the computer generating the maps. 2. Human purchase of units. (Combined Arms) 3. Full FOW. 4. Meeting engagement, probe, or attack. No assault. I also would prefer to play someone the CMHQ Annex ladder. I'll play any side. ICQ or email are both ok for turn transfer. Mikey

Waiting patiently for TCP/IP play here...

With all this fuss about "banning" gamey tactics, let's consider this. For the most part, IMO, I belive that BTS's philosophy on how to combat "gamey" tactics is not to ban them, but to make them so costly, that you will stop using them. After all, BTS loved to say that you will have to unlearn what you had learned before in other wargames. You can't unlearn something that you aren't allowed to do. You are just hamstrung and forced into doing what some think is the right" thing to do. As for the specific case of infanty, if BTS were to do anything, perhaps the should not count those units for calculating the status of a Victory Location, and maybe code in a chance that if the only unit within the "guarding" radius of a captured unit is a crew unit, then the chance of the unit "escaping" increases.