Juardis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: keeps the Axis player on his toes! -tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, last I checked the Axis had access to fighter bombers as well, so it can work both ways My problem would be if my PBEM opponent tried this. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

I was watching the History channel Sunday when a commercial came on about an upcoming show and they were showing b&w war footage. The topic was western front battles (the Bulge I think) and what I saw looked like a Ferdinand. Did the elephant make it into any Bulge battles or was I seeing things? ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Just did a quick test and it showed that at 800m an Elite Jagdpanther had about a 20% greater chance of hitting a Sherman than a Regular Jagdpanther. Sounds like Juardis just got really unlucky and the enemy got very lucky. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'll say. He's now up to 7 first shot kills whilst I'm having to fire 4-5 times before I get a hit. My 3 elite units and 2 crack units are long since dead. Does morale affect the probability to hit? I ask because I've lost most of my armor force now and my global morale is taking a beating. Wouldn't make a difference in the first 3 moves of the game though, but it might now. Also, is success/failure of an exchange a function of random number seed (if the coding actually employs random numbers that is)? If you don't know what a random number seed is, then I guess it doesn't use one I've noticed that if you start out the first few shots well (i.e., you hit and he misses), then you usually end up victorious in that battle and vice-a-versa. If you restart and the outcome reverses in the first few shots, then the outcome of the battle usually reverses. In other words, if you hit early in engagements, you'll hit early and often for the remainder of the scenario. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

OK, thanks Steve. Just a quick question. Is it a big change, or a little change?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest: Juardis have you passed this up to BTS. (I'd copyright it first ) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, I haven't passed it up to BTS. I don't intend to, but feel free to do so if you want. There are plenty of beta testers here who, if they think this is worth pursuing, will bring it to the attention of BTS. I doubt BTS wants me to tell them how to change their game. It's one thing to talk about it here on the boards, quite another to talk directly to them about a solution to a problem I'm not sure that they consider is a problem in need of a solution (if that makes sense ). But I appreciate you reading and responding. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

One of my opponents bought one. I was kicking his ass all over the map on his right flank then that beast shows up. He 2 turns he kills my Sherm 76, my Sherm 105, and my Stuart. Now we're even, except he still has that damned JT. I tried a little maneuver to get my Stuart a flank shot. My 105 had a bead on him so I left him there with orders to shoot to kill. The JT was obviously preoccupied with him. So whilst they were facing each other down, I was going to race my Stuart into his flank and kill the bastard. Didn't work. He knocked out my 105 with a first shot kill then my Stuart, valiant effort that it was, almost got to the flank (he was coming from the front of the JT), but the JT got in another first shot kill . LUCK HAVERMEYER, IT WAS PURE LUCK! Yes, they're worth it IMO ------------------ Jeff Abbott

One other benefit if this idea is implemented is that it would allow a search and rescue scenario to be designed with true fog of war.

Okay thanks for the clarifications. I have a question. Would you still be able to see your own troops? I mean if they go into the woods or something you should not be able to see them. This would cause havoc in trying to get back to C&C. We can't issue orders to these troops either can we if they are out of C&C? I am just trying to throw ideas out there. You're absolutely right. If you want extreme realism, once they're out of sight of any units in direct contact with you, the battlefield commander, then they should be out of sight from you, the battlefield commander, as well. Once out of your control, they will carry out whatever orders you have given them and the TAC AI (or whichever AI is more appropriate) will take it from there. If it's a tank crew, they have no orders and hence the AI should tell them to hide and/or sneak their way back to the friendly side. I don't propose we go that far though, but we could. I would say leave it the way it is, but I'm easy... Another question, what about the independent teams such as AT teams and MG teams? I leave them by themselves all the time. BTS seems to believe that they can operate out of C&C fine. Again, if you want to see what they see and control what they fire at, then they have to be in C&C with you, the battlefield commander. As far as not being able to see them, see above. Oh S**T what about arti FO's I do not always have them in C&C. NO control over Artillery? Damn. Oh well responses? They have radios. So if they can call the gun batteries, they can call me, the supreme battlefield commander. Just so they don't calls me Johnson

Juardis I think your idea also has merit but I think that while technically you are right on all counts it would be difficult to implement right. First off unluckly some people would be pissed because they could not see this or that. That's the point. You are the supreme battlefield commander dependent on the eyes and ears of your little cybermen. You are directing ALL your troops after all, not just this unit or that. If you were God, you'd know everything on the battlefield. But you're not, you depend on a guy with a radio being in contact with you. Barring that, you are both deaf and blind to what's taking place on the field of battle. Also while less "gamey" threads would be present about a billion "the AI sucks" threads would appear. I don't think so. It's your job to keep your units in C&C. Do that and you won't have to hear about the AI. Also you rely on the radio a little too much. I read somewhere that a lot of the C&C implemented in CM is that of being in earshot. Also if a squad is recieving commands by radio why do they need the platon leaders.....theyt have there own. The way it works now is the platoon leader is in contact with you, the battlefield commander, via the radio and his little cyber dudes via earshot, hand signals, predetermined orders, etc.. If the HQ unit dies, the little cyber dudes are out of C&C with you, the battlefield commander, since they have no radio. They get back into C&C with you, the battlefield commander, when a higher HQ unit is nearby. Only a unit with a radio can communicate with you, the battlefield commander. That's the way it works now and I do not suggest we change that. However, if they do not have radio (because the HQ unit died for example), how do they get in contact with you, the battlefield commander? If they cannot get into contact with you, how can you know what they are seeing? If you do not know what they are seeing, then how can you target what you cannot see? That's my point and that is why the only information you, as the battlefield commander, should have is that "something" is out there. You may even know what that something is if there was an exchange of fire before the unfortunate loss of C&C or radio contact. But you will not know after awhile where it is. That is why you must have the ability (under my proposal anyway) to recover that radio if it is still in working order. Whoever has the radio is in contact with you, the battlefield commander. Whoever is in the radius of the guy with the radio is in C&C via the normal means of being in C&C (ears, hand signals, etc). The idea about treating the out of C&C units spotting like sound contacts is fine but the location would be know to the unit seeing it. A PIAT team out of C&C would still be able to shoot a tank. Sharpshooters would now be completely useless. How would you, the battlefield commander, know what a sniper is seeing? You wouldn't unless he was in contact with a guy that has a radio that can talk to you, the battlefield commander. The TAC AI would know though, that is why you give the order to go to a position and let the AI decide who and what to fire at and when. If you want that control, then you must maintain that unit in C&C. Otherwise, as in real life, you issue the order and let them carry it out as best they can (i.e., the TAC AI does it). As far a split squads go well they already would have a radio in you idea because they would have to recieve messages. That's why we should abolish split squads and create a new squad type - the scout squad. It is functionally equivalent to a split squad except they maintain contact at all times with you, the battlefield commander. That way you can send them out on a recon mission and they can report back to you, the battlefield commander, what they find and you can change their orders. They can also act as a psuedo HQ unit since they'll have a direct line to you, the battlefield commander. Just make the radius for other squads to be in C&C with the scout squad fairly small (20m say?). Anyways still a great working basis though. Thanks, I think alot of the discussion in this thread has been good. I too like Dan's idea and tom's thoughts.

I posted this in the gamey tactics thread by Priest, but it's equally relevant here. Not to change the subject iggi, but the following proposal sort of refines your suggestion. --- So here is what I propose. If you're out of C&C (if ANYTHING is out of C&C, not JUST limited to crews), then you're fighting a generic icon. I foresee the generic icon being exactly like the sound contact we have now. It may be there, it may not. It might be a tank, it might not. That way, this gives your crews a target, albeit an unknown target. If you want to attack the generic icon, go ahead at your own risk. But the TACAI should know where it is and have that crew act accordingly. However, once your crews get back into C&C, then all info they have at that point should be communicated back to the army. The only way the opfor is known is if it's in the LOS of someone with a radio. That means if your piat team is 100m ahead of his platoon and out of C&C, and he's the only one that can see the tank up ahead, he cannot communicate that fact to the rest of the army. He can attack it as part of what the TACAI would do, but he cannot tell anyone what and where it is. If a platoon HQ (or some other unit with a radio) comes within LOS of that same tank or within C&C radius of a unit that does have LOS to that tank, THEN AND ONLY THEN does it become known what and where. Now, if you happen to lose a platoon HQ, there should be the ability to go retrieve his radio if you end your movement next to the HQ carcass. At the beginning of the next turn, whoever has that radio is now the defacto HQ (without the bonuses of course) such that he can now report the situation back to the rest of the army. His default C&C range should be much like a HQ unit now without the command radius bonus. That is physical, that happened in real life, and that should be an option. Now, splitting squads and moving them all over the map is a great recon tactic. However, since they don't have radios, this should be a useless tactic under my proposal. So we need a new unit. The scout (not an original idea on my part, I must confess ). All scout teams should have radios and all should be half the size of a full squad. Other than that, they should have the same fighting characteristics of the half squad. This has several advantages IMO. First, it makes keeping that radio alive very very important. Second, it allows you to give commands (note, this is non-physical but a reasonable compromise IMO) to units out of C&C at your own risk (which means a high risk of death). The best bet would be to let the TACAI take over and hopefully it can keep said unit alive until it comes within C&C again. Third, it would allow you to test theories within the limitations of the physical battlefield. And most importantly, it should eliminate anymore discussions of this kind

Well, I guess I'll throw in my 2 cents for anyone that cares. Good discussion so far. I prefer to do whatever it takes to win, but I usually consult with my opponent beforehand lest I be accused of being a commie or something. However, there is a difference between CM being a simulator and it being a game. A game allows you to do things that are not physically possible in real life. And I think that's the main problem here. Once a vehicle dies, the survivors should have no way of reporting back what they see. If a squad is out of C&C, then what they see should not be reported back to the rest of the army. Therein lies the difference between simulation and a game and hence the problem. Taking advantage of this non-physicalness renders this a game. I want to use crews to fight, but I also want to use those crews in a way that is physically possible so that I can test theories in a physical way. Otherwise, I'm just testing gamey tactics. So here is what I propose. If you're out of C&C (if ANYTHING is out of C&C, not JUST limited to crews), then you're fighting a generic icon. I foresee the generic icon being exactly like the sound contact we have now. It may be there, it may not. It might be a tank, it might not. That way, this gives your crews a target, albeit an unknown target. If you want to attack the generic icon, go ahead at your own risk. But the TACAI should know where it is and have that crew act accordingly. However, once your crews get back into C&C, then all info they have at that point should be communicated back to the army. The only way the opfor is known is if it's in the LOS of someone with a radio. That means if your piat team is 100m ahead of his platoon and out of C&C, and he's the only one that can see the tank up ahead, he cannot communicate that fact to the rest of the army. He can attack it as part of what the TACAI would do, but he cannot tell anyone what and where it is. If a platoon HQ (or some other unit with a radio) comes within LOS of that same tank or within C&C radius of a unit that does have LOS to that tank, THEN AND ONLY THEN does it become known what and where. Now, if you happen to lose a platoon HQ, there should be the ability to go retrieve his radio if you end your movement next to the HQ carcass. At the beginning of the next turn, whoever has that radio is now the defacto HQ (without the bonuses of course) such that he can now report the situation back to the rest of the army. His default C&C range should be much like a HQ unit now without the command radius bonus. That is physical, that happened in real life, and that should be an option. Now, splitting squads and moving them all over the map is a great recon tactic. However, since they don't have radios, this should be a useless tactic under my proposal. So we need a new unit. The scout (not an original idea on my part, I must confess ). All scout teams should have radios and all should be half the size of a full squad. Other than that, they should have the same fighting characteristics of the half squad. This has several advantages IMO. First, it makes keeping that radio alive very very important. Second, it allows you to give commands (note, this is non-physical but a reasonable compromise IMO) to units out of C&C at your own risk (which means a high risk of death). The best bet would be to let the TACAI take over and hopefully it can keep said unit alive until it comes within C&C again. Third, it would allow you to test theories within the limitations of the physical battlefield. And most importantly, it should eliminate anymore discussions of this kind Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion. I'm curious to know what you guys think. Which means, if no one responds to my proposal I shall make it a separate thread and keep bumping it to the top forever ------------------ Jeff Abbott [This message has been edited by Juardis (edited 10-20-2000).]

BTS, HIRE this guy right NOW! Those mods are truly awesome. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

yeah, I know about being quicker - quicker to move, quicker to reload. I need to know if they're more accurate. You'd think they would be. [This message has been edited by Juardis (edited 10-19-2000).]

Nobody? Beta testers? BTS?

Yeah, I saw that thread. Almost as funny and Mensch's (?) wife buying an assault boat, in the middle of nowhere, and him wasting a turn firing his MG jeep at it. BTW, if BTS would put hamster launchers on those jeeps, elite would mean something.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Knaust: What will be the next game you will buy after CM?...obviously apart from CM2,CM3,CM4,CMxx As for me: 1. Silent Hunter II 2. Harpoon IV<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> we think alike brother. My exact games. Although I might pass on SH2. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

I tend to purchase elite tanks, not only for the faster reaction time, but because I thought that they would be more accurate. Well, in my armor clash QB, my elite units suck. They've expended a total of 15 rounds between them and have yet to hit a single thing (other than the ground in front of, behind, and to either side of their targets). This is with the target stationary the entire time and my tank stationary. Yet my opponent has racked up 4 first shot kills already. So does elite mean nothing when it comes to accuracy?! I really want to know because if that's the case, then I'm wasting my purchase points. I've also noticed that elite snipers are no more accurate than regular snipers. Anyone else experience the same? ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Well, in my first 2 ladder games I'm off to a horrific start in both. In my 2000 PT combined arms meeting engagement I've lost most of my armor (3 tanks, 1 Puma, 2 HTs in the first 2 turns alone) while he still has at least 4 tanks and 2 Daimlers left. I'm not dead yet but the fat lady is warming her vocal chords. In the other, a 3000 pt armored clash QB, I've lost 4 tanks to first shots (FIRST SHOTS FROM 900m AWAY FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!) in the first 4 turns. He's the Germans so any tank I lose is bad. The situation is bleak to say the least. Since both are still going, I'll give an update after I surrender. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Used to be (i.e, pre 1.05) running meant get from point A to point B ASAP. Moving meant move to contact. That is, your infantry moves from point A to point B but if it comes in contact with the enemy, stop and return fire. Sneaking used to mean, move slowly and quietly until all your guys are dead . Seriously, you could sneak by the enemy a few meters away and rarely would your guys return fire even as they're dropping. Maintaining stealth seemed to be the overriding priority, regardless of whether you were being shot at or not. Hiding used to be an alternate form of setting an ambush. You keep your guys hidden and when the enemy comes close enough (or the threat is large enough?), your troops unmask and attack. Well, I've played a few QB lately where I'm not really sure why I'm seeing what I'm seeing. Running still seems the same. Moving appears to be more like what sneaking used to be. My opponent moved his squad (he told me it was a move command after the fact) directly over the top of my hidden squad. My hidden squad did not unmask until his squad was almost on top of mine. His moving squad did not stop to return fire but kept moving towards, over, and past me, even as he was firing. In another QB my opponent moved a Humber within range of my hiding flak unit. My hiding flak unit, instead of firing when presented with a great opportunity, decided to retreat (while still hiding). Next turn I had to manually unhide, give the specific fire order, and within 10 sec the humber was dead. A third example was a squad was hidden in a house, a Cromwell comes in LOS about 250m away, and my squad decides to unmask and fire at the Cromwell. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID! So clearly something's been done with the hide command and the move command seems to have changed. Not sure about the sneak command. Does it still work the same in 1.05 as it did in 1.03? It stands to reason that if the move command has been changed, then the sneak command has been changed as well. So, have the basics of these commands been changed in 1.05? I appreciate your feedback. ------------------ Jeff Abbott

Welcome aboard. You join any ladders yet? ------------------ Jeff Abbott

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bullethead: So if you were on a paved road, then you just had bad luck or were moving too fast. OTOH, if you were on a dirt road, there's no way to see the mines beforehand. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right. It was a dirt road. That is hard lesson number 3 that I recently learned. Hopefully this will help others.

full movie playback and wind modeling (not as it affects trajectories, but as it affects smoke dispersion, flame spreading, and general overall ambience). oh, and many different flavors of rubble/ruined buildings [This message has been edited by Juardis (edited 10-17-2000).]

11. You capture some screen shots of your latest moves, print them out, then take them to the crapper to study awhile before making your next move. Hey, it beats the alternatives

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phoenix: What killed him? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Anyone of 10 tanks that drew a bead on him. My point being, why can't you hide and spot at the same time?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: Also true but if you think your post is anything but a string of unlucky circumstances, your play will be flawed and overly cautious. Nasty luck, mate, but not regular combat occurences. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wait a sec there Elijah. I can see where the AT gun could be luck. Matter of fact, it probably is, but all guns I've encountered ARE fast and accurate. Even so... how can spotting a stationary FO at 1000m be lucky/unlucky? You either can or cannot. And two separate infantry squads walking over the same AT mine fields in a road. Were they unlucky or is it not possible for an infantry squad to spot AT mines? IIRC, Engineers can if they stop near one, but I did not know about infantry until the incident I relayed above. Don't get me wrong, I really want to know if it was luck or not. I tend to think otherwise. Anybody else? ------------------ Jeff Abbott [This message has been edited by Juardis (edited 10-16-2000).]