Juardis

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought all gun crews wet the ground around their guns to prevent such a dust cloud. Tanks are another story, but at least for guns, I don't have much of a problem with they way it is now (except they're spotted TOO easily IMO).

yep, I try to always have upgraded mortar and AT teams. They're worth the extra cost.

Ideally yes, but I think if you go that far, then you're modeling who has a radio and who doesn't. All I'm suggesting is a possible solution using the current coding. You the human see everything you see now. The game keeps track of what each platoon can see. When you click on a unit within that platoon, the game only shows you what that unit can see and what that unit can see is based entirely on what ANY unit in the PLATOON can see, whether they're in C&C or not. This will allow the human to have control over each unit but it restricts what the TAC AI considers a valid target and would seriously limit the Borg syndrome. I think to actually fix the "problem" would require that the selected unit be in C&C, but I think that's getting beyond the "compromise solution until the rewrite is completed". As for area firing, I certainly wouldn't use that option because area firing is too ineffective at both killing and breaking the area target when a more juicy target does come into LOS.

It seems my suggestion would be a good compromise to all that's been discussed. Click on a squad and whatever one unit in that plt sees, all units in that plt see. And you as the human player sees what that squad would see. So, for example, the current system allows the human to see ALL that ANY ONE of your pixellated units see. If none see it, the human sees a generic unit marker (or nothing at all). Keep that system but modify it as follows. Click on a unit and the game would render only those units that a platoon member can see and would render generic unit markers (or nothing) for those units no one in the plt can see. You as the human player may KNOW what is where because of your God-like ability, but all the squad knows is that 1) something IS there 2) something MIGHT be there or 3) nothing is there. To make it easy for the human to know what has been spotted by that plt and what hasn't the God-like view changes to a Platoon level view. I think taking this level of coding down to platoon level would entail a lot of work, but I also think it would be better than what we have now. For support units, vehicles, and tanks, then you could assume that whatever one tank/vehicle sees, all tanks/vehicles see. And support units can only see what they have LOS to or what the HQ unit they're in C&C can see.

At the risk of repeating something already said (yes, I admit, I do not have the patience to read every word of every post), what exactly is the role of the human player? If you assume he is the supreme commander in charge of the entire battlefield (i.e., a Regimental CO), then your view of the battlefield is dictated entirely by reports from the front lines and the only way you get those reports is by 1)radios or 2) runners. Relative spotting makes sense in this situation. IMHO, this is the role of the human player. If you assume the human player has as much control as necessary to blend realism and fun, then the current system is workable. Suggestion: When you click on a unit, have that unit see only what it can see. If it can't see it, it's either not there or a generic icon. This of course would change the outlook of the battlefield for each unit you click on and could be potentially a huge amount of info that must be stored. So limit it to platoons. Whatever one member of a plt can see, all members of that plt can see.

How are operations coming in CMBB? I'm planning on running a tournament over at the Band of Brothers using 4 man teams and 4 battle ops, but I need to know some things about CMBB ops. Can I specify setup zones for each reinforcement group that comes in? I'm not positive, but I think that reinforcments can be placed anywhere in the setup zone in CMBO. I want to simulate having to commit reserves in between battles so I would perhaps like a setup zone to appear in the middle of the map so to speak to simulate the area the reserves start. Maybe later in the operation I want to simulate forces that have to come from the map edge. The thinking is the better you do (more ground you capture), the farther your guys have to travel to get to the lines. Plus, it gives the losing team a shorter distance to travel to get their reinforcements to the front. Can I specify variable battle lengths? For example, a 30 minute first battle, a 20 minute second battle, etc. Will both sides be allowed to start in foxholes? TIA

Very similar to what I suggested about a year, yet more simple and therefore, more appealing. I like it.

Oh, a fellow MTG player I see. Glad to meet ya.

First off, I know of the spotting bug where enemy units are spotted even when no friendly unit has LOS to it. Mainly when travelling over open ground or roads. This could explain what I'm noticing, but... I have 2 battles in light fog that I'm thinking of. In one, I ran my guys across a bridge and into some trees. After the battle was over, I watched the movies from my opponents side (he gave me his password). I was surprised to find out that my running infantry was spotted when his closest unit was 700m away (LOS in light fog is 600m limit) and even then, it was behind a hill. 2nd example. In a current battle my opponent was pushing a gun over open ground. None of my units had LOS. They did have LOS to where it was going, but not to where it was. Anyway, armed with that bit of intel, I patiently waited for his gun to get to where it was going then killed it. I assume that he can see my running infantry over the open ground. So, is there something about light fog that would make it easier to spot units in the open ground/roads? Mind you, these aren't sound contacts, but definite IDs. Or is this an extenuation of the spotting bug?

too lazy to read past the first post in this thread. Sooooo....I like your suggestion in the first post. I brought up the very same point about a year ago, but did not offer any solutions. I like your solution. Basically, having the stars/crosses disappear when that same unit appears on the other side of the map makes it too hard to bluff your opponent. Keeping the stars/crosses around helps solve that problem.

The order would be (assuming your first battle is day) day - night - day - night - day If you skip any of the night battles, reduce the total number of battles you fight by that number.

Yaba, you can still play ops, just don't put a night time battle in it. If I understand things, it's only the morning after a night battle when all attacker foxholes are revealed. I guess if there is an option to not allow the attacker to have foxholes that would solve the problem as well. No need to quit operations forever.

Yeah, that is exactly my concern since the white out is caused by saturating the video memory. And since CMBB is supposed to be more vram intensive, my concern increases. That's why I'm researching GeForce 4's. But man I gotta have FSAA (been spoiled I have)

just a little bump in case I break down and buy one in the not too distant future. Kinda reluctant to lose my 4x FSAA on my V5 but anticipate having to upgrade for CMBB.

I know what the surprise in 10 days will be. They're going to unveil the "build your own factory" feature and how sweet it'll be. Bring it Matt!

Haven't kept up in a while have you? BTS has been doing this overseas almost since CMBO came out. The reason is out there if you care to search for it.

Nope. Btw, try 4x FSAA. Gorgeous I tell ya, just gorgeous. Be aware, however, that certain large scenarios with lots of smoke, rain, textures, units, etc may cause the screen to white out totally. This is caused by the vid mem being swamped. Wouldn't think that with 64 freakin MB, but it happens. Cure for that is to revert back to single chip processing, but you lose the gorgeous FSAA

Stukas

Shadows? Lighting effects now in the code or was the screen shot "touched up"?

looks good Tom. Thanks.

Gotcha Steve. Thanks for making that clear. Although I for one would love to play a few ops with the coding you discarded. Maybe I know not what I wish for

Steve, as long as a surrounded force gets no reinforcements/resupply, I think it would be realistic. You want to send a plt of guys out of ammo behind the enemy lines? Fine, go ahead, but if they're surrounded then they stay out of ammo for the next battle. The idea I had a while ago was to think of the battlefield as a bar chart. If there are no interceding enemy units between your unit and the "front" lines, then that 20m wide path is available for setup at the start of the next battle. Proceed to the adjacent tile and redo the calculation. If there are enemy units between the "front" and them, then they are surrounded. And surrounded guys don't get reinforced or resupplied. Just an idea.

Just one simple question. Why do you have to redraw the lines at all? Just leave the guys where they are at the end of a battle. If you can "connect the dots" to form a broken line, then by all means, connect the dots. But if you cannot, then you have a force that is surrounded. That's what I would like to see. Oh, and 20m no mans land too.

If I'm not mistaken, temperature will be modeled in CMBB.

bows low....we're not worthy Thanks Matt. Now the sooner you go back to work the sooner I can play the damned game!