Mikeydz

OH MY EYES!!! THE PAIN!!!

Silence means nothing. I'm sure it has been noted and is being looked into. Wether it will be addressed in another patch, that is unknown, considering the focus is now toward CM2, but guess it would depend on if any serious bugs cropped up from 1.12. At any rate, my limited testing was able to reproduce it, but generally only if the tank/vehicle was butted up right against the building. And even at that, it didn't always occur. My suggestion is to not park your Wespe that close, and you should be ok. If your so close that it looks like the edge of your tank is in the building, even at realistic scale, then back away a few meters. No guarantees, but that should in at the least minimize the chance of it happening. Mikey [This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 02-10-2001).]

I doubt it will ever me a true clone of CM. They will never be able to create a system where you can control each man individually, at the scale that CM simulates. Heck, in the view modes that they showed in most of the teaser movie, you would be hard pressed to manage at good sized CC battle. Hopefully they will succeed and create a good RTS game with realistic units, which doesn't degenerate into a clicking frenzy clone. But if they produce a bug ridden game, with realistic units on the far side of sudden strike, that will be the death blow for me ever buying another Talonsoft game.

If your concerned about compatability with 1.1 games your playing with ver1.12, then before applying the patch, rename the Combat Mission.exe file to something like CombatMission1-1.exe. You can then apply the patch to upgrade to 1.12. Just run 1-1 to play any games you have started already. I would recommend doing that instead of taking the chance there MIGHT be a upgrade bug.

Well, 1 may be occuring more often than you would expect because of a possible bug. But 2, 3 and 4? 2.Was the target in the top floor near a corner, or centered in the build in relation to where you were firing from? 3.How many times total have you witnessed this Sherman/Tiger dual? Or do you think it's patently impossible for a moving sherman to hit a stationary tiger, while the tiger misses? 4.How do you know the Pz IV spotted the Sexton in time to do anything about it? Or maybe it decided that moving toward cover was a better option than just stopping and trying to engage when it appeared to not have the upper hand?

Hey BTS. I don't know if you've recreated this Building LOS hole bug, but if not, I've created a test scenario which demonstrates it. Let me know where to send it if you need it.

Ahhh, the good ole days. I remember waking up every day, firing up the ole 56k, and logging in to see if the latest AAR had been put up by either Moon or Fionn. Memories.... Counting lurking time, I waited since mid 99, so if I could hold out on bread, water, and non-stop beta demo playing, then you new guys and hold off a small while so BTS can restock. Mikey

Scipio pretty much hit it on the head. Too much forced realisim, via constaints in the interface, takes away from the fun in the game. The question becomes this. Without a targeting command, how do you give orders to your units in a "realistic" manner. If you are only allowed to give orders to command units, with the AI controlling the individual squads and vehicles, then the game might not be as much fun, since you not involved in the middle of the action. Couple with the fact that you would spend the rest of your time cursing the screen because the AI didn't do what you hoped it would do. So to answer your original question literally, yes, the Target order can be gamey, but what other good choice do you have?

Americans, 2... 1)1 2)6 3)5 4)0 5)0 6)0

I'd say 5, so now it's 1) 4 2) 6 3) 40 4) 21 5) 18 [This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 02-07-2001).]

Ture, moving by itself doesn't kill. But because you can control movement to such a high degree, you can orchestrate some very effective attacks, esp with multiple units from multiple directions. And you can set up these attacks probably a lot easier that what could normally be accomplished.

I don't know how god the radios back then, but I would doubt that in the heat of battle, that they would be able to have as precise and coordinated attack as what you can do with CM, but you have to be able to give the player an effective interface to play the game with. You could make the same argument that we as players can give more detailed movement orders than what could normally have been done in real life. Eventually, if you try to make every minute detail as real as possible, you risk making the game interface cumbersome, and possible make the game less fun.

I haven't played a PBEM in a while, but unless they made a change in 1.1, the way your suggesting is how it works. There has been suggestions before to modify the turn structure, but this way seems to be a good balance of keeping mail swaps to a minimum, while not compromising security. Mikey

After the TCP/ip patch is finalized, Work will pretty much begin full time toward CM2, with is set on the Eastern Front. I don't think BTS has changed this.

Pretty much NZ is right on target. Once the troops are captured, all weapons are automatically stripped from them. If you do not guard them with at least 1 unit nearby, then they may revert back to thier own side. They will still be unarmed, so best bet is to withdraw them from combat.

I think saying some people are snobs and/or elitists it a tad bit harsh. More accurate to say a lot of people here jaded when it comes to mainstream releases. A large percentage of stuff comes down the pike full of potential, but ends up being a load of crap. And considering the recent reputation that Hasbro/MPS has created for itself, I'm going to be very cautious myself about B17 II. I do agree that since very few people here have seen the game, we should either (1) by the game at a store with a good return policy, or (2) wait it out a bit to let the reviews start coming to the newsgroups and review sites before making the plunge. [This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 11-15-2000).]

Just for personal info. As a rule, I would tend to fight only Meeting engagements for any game for a ladder or tournyment. Just a personal preference. And that way, no matter what the weather or time of day conditions are, they benefit/hinder both sides roughly equally

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Clark: The "counterattack next turn" argument just doesn't work in this situation! OK, you're opponent rushes the flags and actually makes it there (what kind of a defense did you have???) and scores some last minute points. HOW is this worse than some of my games where I KNOW I would have lost the flag as the defender within one or two more turns, but the game ended and saved me? It's not! What I don't think people are seeing here is that the flag is the objective! It represents a piece of property that your forces need to hold by game end. Perhaps, after that last minute flag rush on turn 20 where you somehow manage to capture the VL, the cavalry shows up and pulls your butt out of the fire and secures the location. so see, you can't really make up imaginary post battle stories that if you had 2 more turns you would win, because that ALSO can be turned against you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok, how about this scenario. You have a platoon of troops defending a VL. Your opponent attacks your with 3 battered squads, a HQ unit, and a couple of vehicle crews. In this scenario at best the attackers probably are attacking at a 1 to 1 ratio. More than likely they will be repulsed after a couple of turns of fighting, with light casualties to the defenders. But what will happen is that the VL will turn neutral while the battle takes place. If this happens on the last turn, the normal outcome (the attackers getting killed) can't happen because the game ended. So that attack would be in effect a net win for the attackers, contrary to what we both know will usually happen. In a close game, the lost points for "losing" control of the VL may make the difference between a minor victory that you should get, and a draw, or worse a loss for the battle. The attacker is basically rewarded for using an unsound tactic (attacking a defended position without generally superior forces). Should that really be rewarded in this game? [This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 11-06-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes: I did a search on 'variable game length' and found that this topic has been discussed before. However, I didn't see any 'official' pronouncements by BTS. It could be because my search criteria doesn't cover all possibilities. Does anyone recall a BTS response to this topic in the past? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000320.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001581.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/002378.html From looking at this group of threads, it seems that there originally was going to be some provision to have a semi-random end game extenstion controlled by the AI, but it was not included. While this would not directly fix the AI rush problem, it would almost invalidate the suicide rush for a human player as a valid tactic. If you had no firm idea when the game ends, it would really be suicide to employ the end game rush, as it should be. The only question then is how to determine how long past the end of the game should the time be extended? Pure random? AI controlled? Personally, I would try and keep it as simple as possible, for coding reasons as much as anything else. First, allow random game end to be a toggleable option at the start of the game setup. Then maybe use something like this. At the end of the last turn, the chance of game end is equal to 20% base chance plus the difference in the actual score of the game. For each additional turn, the base chance goes up 20%. So the maximum would be 5 turn extention. So in a 30 turn game, if at the end of turn 30, the internal score is 58-42, the chance the game would end is 36%. Next turn, assuming the score stays the same, it would have 56% chance of ending. I'm just throwing this out as an example of something that hopefully would be simple to code in, since it's using a simple formula, and not asking the AI to make a decision on what it thinks is going on in the game. Anything though that throws in any type of uncertainty into the works as far as when the game will end would be welcome. Thoughts? Alternative ideas? Objections?

Houston, Texas. Central Time here in the US. Generally can play almost any evenings, with the occasional all day weekends.

My guess is that the beta's ar still bound by the NDA, so the only comments you will see concerning the next patch will be thru official channels (IE Charles, Steve, MadMatt, or KD)

Tanks can fire in multiple directions using thier MGs. While I can't say I rememebr ever seeing three different targets attacked at the same time, I do know I have seen main gun/coax attack 1 target while mg fire goes toward another target.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/012358.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/012345.html Check out these two posts for the latest in gameyness debate in general, with specific VL location gameness discussion. Let's try and keep related discussions in as few threads as possible. After all, if we have 10 gameyness threads, then how will we ever compete with those silly Peng threads.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Clark: Victory Flags should not REALLY be considered "gamey", as they represent an objective. Taking Objectives is sometimes more important than number of enemy killed (winning by attrition). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As far as the the other thread is referring to. The gamey issue is not the VL itself, but the last turn grab/suicide run at them that is in question. While there are some that totally hate the VL concept. I don't have a problem with them. Let's say currently the game is on the last turn, with a score of 65-35. The player in the lead is in firm control of all three VLs in this imaginary scenario. The losing player decided to attack all three VLs on the last turn. He doesn't have the forces to succeed in capturing, much less hold the VLs if faced with a counter-attack. So what happens? He attacks all three VLs, loses half his attacking forces in the attacks, but changes all the VLs to neutral. If the game continued for even one more turn, his remaining "attackers" would get slaughtered, and the VLs revert back to the defending player, but since the end turn is hard coded and unchanging, time magically stops and the points are scored for that snapshot moment in time. He may not pull out a win, but he may manage to claw out a draw. THAT is what is gamey about it. In real life, he probably turned a minor defeat/retreat into a total loss of most of his forces, but in CM, he actually "improved" his score slightly. Now personally, I would still consider this a big win for me if I was the defending player, in a just for fun game. But if this is some sort of a ladder/tourney game, then I might be a little peeved. And even in a just for fun game, I'm going to feel a little bummed, because I hate to see things that wouldn't normally happen in real life. I know this is "just a game", but it's a game that attempts to generate historically plausible results. And when something happens that isn't realistic, especially if it's the result of a conscious decision of my opponent, then it chips away at my enjoyment of the game. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> So, in a quick battle of 20 turns with a single victory flag in the center... wouldn't the "combat mission" be to take the area (represented by the flag) in 20 minutes or less with the forces available? And if you succeeded in doing so, no matter HOW or WHEN you succeeded, are you not then the victor? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Technically, yes. Once the game ends, he with the most points wins. That is fine. But that is also the playing point of view of a gamer. To a person who looks to this as more of a historical simulation of combat, they don't see it that way. Especially if they are "defeated" with a tactic that would give them a total victory if the hard turn limit did not exist. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I'm only posting this opinion of mine because to me it seems that there is a "gamey" tactics WITCH HUNT on right now... where anything that allows you to win is being called "gamey." Soon it will be believed that the only way to "really" win is to rush blind, headlong into the enemy, never once allowing your forces to halt their movement, except jeeps, which cannot move at all because that would be considered "scouting".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think this is a major exaggeration. There is no witch hunt. What we do have is several schools of thought on how to enjoy CM. Unfortunately, they are not very compatible, which results in the friction we see over the gameyness issue. BTW, because of the debate with the "jeep scouting" issue, an error in code was uncovered. Would you rather not have this? I see this as a healthy debate, as long as people on both sides don't get emotional over this and let the fight get too heated and personal. After all, "it's only a game..."

Can I refer people back to the title of this thread? The question put forth was whether this was gamey or not. That answer is easy. It most certainly is gamey. Is it also absurdly easy to defeat, especially if there is an imbalance in the size of the opposing forces. Though not impossible, I doubt that I would normally put myself in a position to lose to this tactic. But that's not the point. It is gamey because it utilizes a totally artificial game design limitation. The most frustrating part of arguing with people about what is gamey or not is that most of the time, the "defenders" seem to have the idea that the "anti-gamey" faction is attacking them as cheaters. We aren't. We are just pointing out that sometimes, because of game design limitations, there are things that you can do in CM, that would not happen in RL. I don't think there are very many people that are saying that is you play using gamey tactics, that you suck, and are a lousy no good cheater, or anything like that. The "pro-gamey" faction needs to be a little less sensitive when it comes to these debates. [This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 11-06-2000).]