Seanachai

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Iconoclast: Dunnigan was the President of Simulations Publications, Inc., the dominant wargame company throughout the 1970s, and almost certainly has more game design credits than anyone else in the industry. IMO, his books read like extended sidebar articles from the old "Strategy and Tactics" magazine, shorn of most of the interesting historical examples that were there to explain the specific game at hand. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That Dunnigan? Man, I remember SPI, I still have about 30 SPI box games tucked away here and there in various closets. ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

Regarding Talenns 'test', just a question and a couple of quick thoughts (along a common sense line, no military experience nor grog knowledge): Talenn, in your test were the MGs firing from flank, as I think you've described before, or were they directly ahead of the oncoming units? In any case, I figure a couple of things. If I'm heading toward an objective, and I'm getting fire from the side and nothing coming at me from where I'm heading, then why turn around and run back, where some big Sargeant's gonna kick me in the butt and make me do it again? Just keep going, as the idea is to get out from under the fire. And if the MG fire is coming at me unsupported from ahead, which is my objective, than maybe a lot of troopers, especially where the MGs fire is being spread over us, would keep going figuring 'okay, we get through this and we hammer that SOB.' Sure, green troops might halt in place from panic and take a drubbing. Better quality troops have to have it in mind that taking cover will keep them under the same fire for a longer time. And while some are turned back, it seems unrealistic to assume that several squads worth of guys would all decide it's too dangerous and quit pushing toward the objective (although obviously in some cases they would, and that seems to have occured in some of your tests). As devastating as MG fire doubtless was, is it realistic that they were never taken out by assault? Or that troops who suddenly came under fire 'usually' gave it up and allowed themselves to be 'interdicted'? I don't see how much progress could have been made if that were routinely the case. Also, I've seen a number of threads here that point out that unit cohesion and morale are affected by 'isolation'. Several squads, charging together with their officers are far less likely, it seems to me, to break, hit the dirt, turn back, or do any of the 'interdiction' behaviours you're expecting, even if they're quality was only 'average'. 'Regular' quality troops in the game are regarded as properly trained, and have had some combat experience. They know what they 'should' do when they come under this kind of fire. Finally, your test seems flawed to me by some behaviours I've witnessed in games I've played. If I'm running troops towards an objective and they come under MG fire from the area they're heading towards, my experience is that they are much more likely to pack it in. Especially true when they're operating alone or unsupported. Also, if they're heading towards an objective, an MG opens up on them from the flank, or from ahead, and they encounter other units in the direction of their advance, they are even more likely to take cover, head back, or head off toward a 'new' objective that they've decided is less threatening. I've had two squads proceeding towards an MG who was firing on them run into a lowly FO in the trees along their way suddenly stop and take cover because of this new, suddenly perceived 'threat', and become pinned down for several turns. I think a more realistic test would be to place a squad or so of troops in the area of the objective and move troops toward it with either flanking MG fire, or MG support from the objective, and then see how well the interdiction goes. I think you're expectation that MGs acting alone and unsupported should consistently be able to turn back assaults by multiple units that are in C&C is unrealistic. And to model such behaviour into the game would allow a defender to place a few effective MGs to cover his positions and pool his other units for use in ways that would be even more unrealistic. If MGs alone were able to pin or rollback assaults unsupported, it would open the door for all sorts of odd behaviour. Tests like this are very interesting, and can often point up a few anomalies in coding that might need tweaking. But they're inherently unrealistic, and if considered in isolation, might lead one to change the game in ways that would completely unbalance it, as well as being ahistorical. I mean, I know that there's a residential road near my house where the lights are set for 35mph. Which should mean I could conceiveably also run the whole 2 mile length at 70 mph. However, if I tried it during 'rush hour' traffic I doubt I'd get two blocks before my experiment blew up (because I'd killed a pedestrian, biker, hit a turning car, ecountered a cop, etc). If I did it during off peak hours, I might do much better, and maybe even make it all the way. But it seems to me that tests such as you've set up would be the same as if I tried my little stunt at 3 AM on a Sunday night, with nothing between me and automotive glory except perhaps a lone racoon! If I made it, I doubt I'd go to the city and tell them they needed to rethink the speed limit on Lyndale Ave.! Although I might ask for more measures taken to safeguard our streets from stray racoons. (I know this is a gross exageration, and your test is more realistic, but I feel they tend towards the same point) ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

An international tribunal for CM is being set up in Christchurch, NZ, to investigate war crimes and the killing of PWs. Proven atrocities will result in confiscation of all CM resources, including CDs, manuals, posters, downloaded scenarios and in process PBEMs. Why Christchurch? Well, because members of the tribunal have heard there's great fishing in New Zealand, and want to be near filming locations of Xena, Warrior Princess. ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen: Pearl Harbor?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, that's not it, Berli. You know, that place where the Germans bombed in their secret raid to try and kill Patton...oh, yeah, Ottawa! I think Rob is having people on. I don't pay much attention to Canadian history, but I know about Dieppe... ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

I went and saw "the Patriot" with my sister, because even before seeing it, we figured her English husband probably wasn't going to want to go with her. (Not after their previous experience of seeing "Braveheart" and "Rob Roy" together in the same week) As entertainment, it was alright, as history, it was a farce, and in general it was so heavy handed that a boric acid enema would have seemed subtle, by comparison. The movie starts out with some real promise, seems like it might be thoughtful, but by the mid-point it is so strident that it starts to become embarassing, and by the end I don't think they could have loaded in one more 'patriotic' or emotionally manipulative device without having to carry them over into a sequel. As far as treatment of the British: if there was even a chance of war with them, this film could be used as a recruiting movie. The nicest portrayal of the Brits in the entire movie is when a juniour officer is depicted as an apologetic but useless lackey, resigned to carrying out murder and repression. For the English in this film, that's their high-point. To find villains more horrifying than their low-point, you'll have to wait for the Nuremburg Trials. Seriously, when this is released in England, we're going to see some serious unhappiness. To be fair, if the Brits had made a movie like this about some aspect of 'American' history, and then sent it over here, there'd probably be riots and summary execution of British tourists. What can I say about Hollywood? Blockbuster movies are based on formulas, and the biggest formula is 'conflict'. The second step for a sell-out is that conflict involve Good Guys and Bad Guys, and the final step is that the Bad Guys be REALLY, REALLY BAD. Therefore, you really want to see them carved up with tomahawks and such. Blockbuster movies, by which I mean big money makers, depend for their success on excess and emotional manipulation. You hate the bad guys, you love the good guys. Violence is used to fill you with excitement or fear, sex is used to fill you with lust, and conflict is used to jerk the audience back and forth from anger to joy, depending on whether 'your' side is winning or losing. And, right now, England's on the receiving end. Their turn to be the villains. The Russians have lost their appeal, and the Germans and Japanese have been done to death (although they can always be brought back on stage for one more rousing appearance). Maybe the Brits will luck out, and Hollywood will suddenly develop a burning need to chronicle Queen Anne's War, and we can all have a go at bashing the French for a while (Of course, in "The Last of The Mohicans" we still managed to treat the French more sympathetically than we did the Brits, even though we were at war with the French, and allied to the Brits). I guess we'll just have to wait for the tide to turn... So, my final word: "the Patriot" is visually well done, nicely shot with flashy visuals and historical details. Some good performances here and there, a fair amount of humour, and quite a lot of action, although it drags seriously about 2/3s of the way through so we can have a few idyllic moments. Of course, their only purpose is to set the stage to jack up the violence and evil to an even higher level. In the end, the film is emotionally manipulative, simple minded, and strident. It spends a lot of time trying to capitalize on and then trump the violence and villainy it uses as the only means of carrying the story forward. I would have vastly preferred something more even-handed and thoughtful. Still, many will enjoy as it doesn't step on their toes with its message. I'm sure many Brits will probably want to judge for themselves, but if I were English, I wouldn't bother with this one. There's plenty of things in history to slam or fault the British for, as there is for every single nation or people I can think of, but you won't find them here. The English in "The Patriot" are cartoon villains, not real people. For that matter, the good guys are comic book heroes, with little more depth than the bad guys. The very first casualty of this movie is any sense of the fact that you're watching a people break away from the nation that founded them, out of which could have come a lot of good and thoughtful drama. There's exactly one 'Loyalist' in this movie, a toadying Quisling of an officer who isn't even respected by the Brits. Nothing is made of the fact that, especially in the early stages of the war, it was for all intents and purposes a Civil conflict. There were 'Americans' fighting against Britain who had been born and raised in England, but had settled in America, just as there were those born and raised in the colony who supported and served with the English. But by the end, it might as well be a remake of "Independence Day", with the Brits standing in for the aliens(and from the same director, I might add), which is appropriate, for the motivations of the British in the movie are as unknown as if they'd come from another planet. You get the distinct impression that their whole purpose for being in America is because repression is some kind of English hobby, like golf, and America was just a very nice course. Sorry for this rather rambling post, it's late, and it's been much to 'holiday' a weekend! ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads. [This message has been edited by Seanachai (edited 07-04-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lou: ...at the end of a battle, even when you win? I thought on the first demo version that you got a different song if you won the battle. Or am I thinking about another game? (Mac version, if it matters)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And if you played as Brits, shouldn't you get "Flowers of the Forest", or something? ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke: Dead cows!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You know, I posted that I wanted cows completely as a joke like 6-8 weeks ago! And my post went completely ignored. Now I swear I've seen 'dead cow' posts like 6-7 times. Where were all the dead cow freaks when I first posted? Out examining their leg-hold traps? ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Durruti: Come on guys, this is a spoof isn't it? You've had your fun with us, now own up. Which one of you old timers is *really* doodo47???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Every time I enter one of his threads, it's like a little Twilight Zone. I'm waiting for dancing bears and jugglers to appear at any time... ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bullethead: Hopefully somebody has the graphic for the swastika flag handy and can post it for downloading for them as wants it. HINT to Madmatt--something for MDMP 2 ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lorak's website has the graphic for the 'original' victory flag. I'm not up to trying to post it as a URL, here's the location: www.geocities.com/lrmcgarvey/combat.html ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton: I don't think so. when there are actually 15 men in the squad (see pic). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err, maybe while split up they were out recruiting? Or maybe the Paras instituted their own form of the Press, and rounded up able bodied slackers and shoved rifles in their hands. Oh, and all that changing of facing was the result of a little quick close order drill, to break in the new guys. ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads. [This message has been edited by Seanachai (edited 07-03-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: Malm, when your spotter showed 14 seconds left, that meant 14 seconds until the spotting rounds would fall. When you moved his target marker, he had to completely re-call the artillery fire mission, meaning the time delay went back to 2 minutes. What you're doing with an artillery observer is getting one group of guns to fire on one target at a time; you cannot target an area, then target another, and have the guns fire on both targets. Only the target currently being targeted by the observer will be hit. DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Doug has the right of it, especially since you cancelled the original fire mission. If you had gone in and selected 'Target' again, being careful to make sure you're getting a pale green line for the mission, what you're essentially doing is 'adjusting fire', rather than a complete retargeting. If you couldn't get that 'green line' indicator, than you were, in effect, telling the original artillery crews to cancel the mission, and go through the process of rechecking coordinates, re-laying guns, etc. for a totally new mission, which of course vastly added to the time taken. Even 'adjusting fire' will extend the time factor a bit, but not like cancelling the mission and completely 'retargeting'. I learned that on this board, and only after countless fire missions gone for nothing. ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

Good posts in response to this, and please keep in mind that the game realistically treats the effects of weapons fire, and, unlike Cinema, a soldier didn't drop dead for every bullet fired. In true, REAL world combat, hundreds of rounds are fired for every soldier wounded, thousands for every soldier killed. A shell fired by an AFV isn't fielded like some kind of 'mortality football' by the troops it's fired at. The game takes into account all sorts of factors regarding exposure, cover,and real world physics, rather than the 'hey, I shot you, you're all dead' model of kids playing 'War' in the woods out back... ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley: Ben, how big a point discrepancy are we talking? Could the computer be buying high-quality troops (they cost significantly more than "regular")? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whoa! Do 'veteran' units cost more than 'regular'? I thought setting troop quality was a parameter uninvolved with point costs? I will have to take a look at this, but I don't believe troop quality impacts point costs. Hmm, must log off and check this...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Only after the Volksfestklospüle Sdkfz.123456 Ausf.99(h), and the Eierlegendewollmilchsau Sdkfz. 987654 27B-6 but before the Maus, if I have to say anything about that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Acckk! He's doing it again, he's on about the plumbing weapons...moan... ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by marcusm: I still think they should try and search for some compromise solution though. It would be nice to use tanks to cover for advancing infantry. Why not make them half obstacles like walls? Marcus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From what I've read posted elsewhere, it's because of what Andreas has said: too large a hit on the CPU. The game is already tracking all sorts of units, individuals within units, and the projectiles coming from those units, and all the accompanying lines of site. Now turn a mobile unit into something with terrain capabilities (blocking fire, blocking LOS), and it becomes a complete mess. It isn't a matter of what kind of blocking power to give them, it's that it can't be done within the limits of technology and coding. ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: I am inclined to believe (on admittedly very scanty evidence) that the computer tries to put together a resonably "sensible" force representative of its type. I don't think it always succeeds. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, my experiences with it so far are that the force usually is fairly well balanced and appropriate. Occassionaly, though, you see some odd things. The strangest I've encountered was a small map, 'town' battle, with a small point allotment (I can't remember what I gave it, 500 or under, as I remember). I attacked as Brits, and gave the Axis the right to use 'combined arms'. The force defending the town ended being a pillbox, some halftracks, a couple of armoured cars, and a gun (75, I think). It was like I caught a recon patrol on the edge of town, or something. My forces rolled right over it in a few turns. Course, that was one of the earlier situations I set up, I hadn't played with Quick Battle much yet. I love the fact that this feature allows blind play and seems to put together reasonable forces. Just wish I knew a little more about its 'internal criteria', like I've said. ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sniperscope: Thanks Madmatt. I want to put in the Combat theme from the 60's TV show. Great site.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gods, that show is still out there?! I used to love that show when I was a kid (and I haven't been one for an insufferably long time). I remember sitting on the floor by my Dad's feet, watching that program every week (I loved the show, but someone was required to sit at my Dad's feet, regardless, because back then there were no remote control devices. For channel changing, there were children. I remember being called up from my room in the basement of the house to change channels for my Dad...not because he was lazy, but because he had a very strange sense of humour, to say the least). I'll never forget the episode where the squad was pinned down by camouflaged snipers in the trees... ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

Man, I have nothing new to offer, but I have to chime in on this thread. In the Demos, where I first encountered mortars I hated them; they frustrated me, and I found them completely useless because I didn't understand how to use them. Since then, I've had a complete turn around on this fine combat arm (I'm not saying I'm good at using them yet, just that I now realize their potential!) In my limited experience (that being understood), they are a bear to use in urban combat, and extremely dicey in heavy woods. I spent one whole game in heavy woods, after the combat had centered itself around the flag, to circling with some mortar squads trying to bring them into play. If it had been a PBEM rather than a Quick Battle, I would have expected my opponent to email me asking 'are you using those mortar squads for recon, or just taking some kind of Grand Tour? I thought we agreed no gamey behaviour!' In Quick Battles now, I always try to have a supply of mortars on hand (60mm for the Amis, 2 in. mortars for the Commonwealth; okay, I don't play as the Germans that much right now, which surprises me. I was mad for playing Germans in my youth. I think I see more of a challenge, now, in playing Allies. That will for sure change on Ost Front. There it will be more of an equal balance). In my experience, mortars are great for: 1) Suppressing enemy MGs 2) Inflicting casualties/disrupting enemy staging areas (you know, when you can tell that enemy squads are gathering in cover to rush one of your positions, and you bring mortars down on them, and they start taking a few casualties, morale is disrupted, units have to keep taking cover, etc. This is especially true when the cover they are using is woods, tall pines, and such, because tree bursts are almost more effective then direct hits) 3) If the fire is direct, helping to turn back expected enemy rushes 4) Taking out Open Top Vehicles, immobilizing Light Armour, etc., as was raised above. I love this game, because there is so much to learn, and so much to learn well! ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jadayne: Jeeeeeeeeez, Flipping through these threads- I don't know if this is more like some freaky religious cult or wargamer support group. It's gonna get kind of boring around here once everyone actually has the game. Then we'll be reduced to talking about boring stuff like playing CM. Once I get it, is there a good forum around here to find PBEM opponents?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> MiGod, man, are you kidding?! Boring, never. After Everyone has the game, then the next round of 'Wait a Minute'/'I Want'/'I Thought That' round of posts begin. And, when people get past that first round of satiation regarding 'having' CM has passed, and the corresponding 'but what about' and 'this should be tweaked' posts have passed, then there will be the whole 'you know, in CM2 Ost Front, I think...' posts. Not to mention the smack, crack, and gibberish from all over the entire World to take into account that has nothing to do with the game, direct. And I can't imagine you'll ever regret ordering the game. But should you so, sirrah, then I and my loyal servitors and retainers shall ride our steeds to your castle, and I shall plant my gage at your feet, say whoever what shall! (The last to be said in a loud, theatrical, and booming voice...totally out of keeping, I might add, with my short stature...) The last part of my post is the direct influence of finishing Henryk Sienkiewicz's "Teutonic Knights". Sienkiewicz is kind of like a Polish cross between Sir Walter Scott and Alexandre Dumas, but better... ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kump: Yes, I got CM this bright Friday afternoon before the weekend. I won't be the last pre-order at this weeping wall, so no rescue will be required. But I did appreciated the thought! No time to hang around here, got to go play. But I had to drop by the visit the weeping wall. After being here so long, it starting feeling like home, and I'm already kind of missing it....NOT! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well thank God for that! Alright, everyone, stand down. No, not you, Rieben, you're tasked to go over and kick Capt. Manieri in the butt. What? Hell, I don't know why, something about an 'integrity' issue. And you, Horvach, we're sending you up to talk with the Canadians. You're from Minnesota, you should be on their wavelength. But I hear things are damn bad up there. I'll be notifying your wife and kids, just in case... ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads. [This message has been edited by Seanachai (edited 06-30-2000).] [This message has been edited by Seanachai (edited 07-01-2000).]

My God , man, get a grip on yourself. I haven't had to think of that tune since elementary school days. Now drink a beer or something and go have a bit of a lie down. (Get one of the Croakers over here and have him give Lorak 10cc's of morphine. Then I want to see his Captain...) ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads. [This message has been edited by Seanachai (edited 06-30-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stuka: Good point, opinions anyone?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You know, I thought about that just today because of someone's post (that I think was making a veiled reference to the "Great Escape"...or maybe "Chicken Run"), and they don't seem to be modeled. The main reason I can think of is that they might provide the basis for a lot of 'gamey' behaviour (putting a sharpshooter into a sidecar, and racing them to weird places, or using them for way unrealistic recon), but maybe it's just felt that, like horses and such, their impact within the context of CM weren't significant. Or maybe they presented special problems with modeling behaviour correctly. Probably been some sort of thread on this in the past, although I'm not aware of it. God knows, it seems like everything else in the multiverse has been discussed here, from the most minute details regarding weapons systems on up into infinity. I wouldn't be surprise on this site to do a search on: Wallabies (comma) Mating Habits (comma) Philosophical Implications, and come up with 2 or 3 threads. ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

Hey, did kump get his copy yet? Because I'm standing around here with this special squad of 6 guys, and as soon as we get the word that he's the last one with no copy of CM, we're sposed to go in and rescue him. Be nice to know if he needs it or not. Sheesh, all this bushwah to save one lousy gamer... ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RudeLover: That may be the case, that I'm seeing leftover foxholes from the first battle. As you say, foxholes should persist from battle to battle. However, some were way out of LOS of any of my units (directly behind buildings or through several groves of woods, for example), and it seemed like the bad guys came from the direction of these holes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Haven't played any operations yet, but I've had the experience in Quick Battles of being able to 'see' enemy foxholes, without being able to make any LOS to an enemy unit. But in a Quick Battle against the computer, there's no way there aren't enemy troops there, so if I can get LOF for artillery, I bring it down. I remember a thread some time back (before the game was available), about some people complaining that (specifically in PBEM) games, the presence of foxholes gave away troops and their positions. Some people wanted the right to tell troops not to dig in, as a result. Don't remember that the thread ever resolved itself in any way. ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Agreed. My reply was to Seanachai's post. Michael [This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 06-30-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, I also assumed your post was to Ben. I have, in fact, read the manual and I totally understand the point you referrenced. What I would like more info on is any 'unseen' mechanics of unit selection. As I said, does the engine use historical factors (other than x vehicle or unit became available at y time), or realism factors when choosing units? For example, would I ever be seeing divisional support type SPA in a meeting engagement? It's available for the computer to choose, but I would never expect to encounter a force like that historically. Another example: does the engine, when choosing for the computer player, look at the fact that a 'mechanized' or 'infantry' force on the defensive is facing armour, and therefore makes sure to give them a decent AT ability? I can see all the parameters the player can set, and I've read the documentation most of which regards how choices you make affects the forces available to you. What I would like some insight into is how the choices made affect the computers unit selection. As I said, it could, quite possibly, be completely random (within point limits, time period, and other parameters that are set), or are there other techniques of weighting, conditions, and historical or realism factors that the computer takes into account when generating a force? But I thank you for your post, of course. I guess I'm specifically looking for info that only BTS, or possibly some of the beta testers could provide (or perhaps it's been discussed in the past, I should have gone for a search, it's just that that's getting more daunting by the day, and I also kind of had the impression that the Quick Battle generator might have undergone a lot of change over time). ------------------ After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.