ASL Veteran

Generally speaking, players tend to have 'selective memory' on most things game related.

Yes, the facing of the troops themselves will remain in the direction of setup until they move. However, I thought that you were commenting on which side of a wall the troops end up. They will always end up on the same side of any wall or hedge and the side that they end up on is dependent upon which map edge you set for 'enemy'. It isn't always obvious which side they will end up on, especially if you choose more than one edge - such as 'South' and 'West' for example.

The side of any hedge or wall that the AI deploys is determined by how the enemy edge is selected and it is consistent at all times during the scenario. It has nothing to do with the AI plan or how you created it. I don't remember exactly what the default is so I can't describe it because my notes aren't handy, but you can test it by setting different enemy map edges and then place AI set up zones along hedges and you will quickly see what the default behavior is with each enemy edge setting. I used to think that it was determined by friendly edge until someone else asked about this previously and then tested it after I informed him that it was determined by the map edge settings. Diagonals can be worked around by simply keeping the AI in the action spots that only have a single corner touching up against the diagonal wall. The AI will then place the troops along the wall on the side that the action spots are located - I think regardless of the edge settings, although I can't remember for certain. The fact that the positioning is consistent makes it so that you can't have a pincer attack with, say, one force coming from the north and one coming from the south and expect that both forces will use the correct side of the wall or hedge. It simply cannot be done, so you have to choose which direction you want to attack from and stick to it or the AI won't cooperate.

You should also keep in mind that the number of actual 'trained' snipers who were operating in a way that a modern sniper might recognize were fairly limited. I'm going to guess that more often than not, personal accounts and 'reports' of sniper activity were likely simply individual riflemen or perhaps buddy teams who went out and 'sniped' even though they were not fully trained 'snipers'. In some cases these reported snipers were simply teenage boys separated from their unit who happened to have a rifle handy and the will to use it. So I think you have two choices available to you. You could sprinkle a relatively large number of low quality 'sniper' teams with maybe regular skill and normal morale all over your map or you could sprinkle one or two high skill snipers with normal morale out on your map.

No, I don't know if there are any game limitations involved. However, I'm not the one lodging the complaint so I don't have a vested interest in the answer. The burden of proof is squarely on the individual who wants something to change. If you want something to change you have to prove something is wrong. I personally would like to see an increased rate of fire at closer ranges even though you probably don't think I do. I have actually lodged complaints in the past on older forums that I thought the Sherman's rate of fire was too low as compared to vehicles like the Tiger. In CMBO I think the rates of fire for both the Sherman and the Tiger were identical to each other. There is also the case of the ready rack. How many rounds of ammunition are held in the ready rack and how many rounds are held in the hull of the tank. Would your assessment of a higher rate of fire change if the loader was pulling rounds from the tank hull instead of the ready rack? I don't think the game differentiates between the two but surely there would be a difference in real life? If you want something to change then you have to make a case for it. That's just the way BFC operates so the more thorough you are the better chance you would have of getting something changed. It stands to reason that if you believe that the rate of fire is too slow at short ranges that perhaps there should be noticeable differences at other ranges. Are there? I don't know. Is it good information to know? Sure it is. If there are no changes then you may have identified a bigger problem than the one you are narrowly focusing on. If there are differences then how big are the differences? If we can identify what the differences are then we can probably get some idea as to where BFC stands on the subject by seeing how big the differences are. What would be the main cause of the differences at different ranges? Perhaps the amount of time it takes the gunner to aim? How much time does the gunner spend aiming at different ranges? Presumably the loading time would be the same at all ranges with the exception that there would probably be a difference between ammunition in the ready rack and ammunition in the tank hull.

Okay, good. So are you willing to comment on what the appropriate time between shots would be for an engagement at 1000 meters?

We all want to improve the game. Let's just try to do it in a rational and consistent way. I don't know why you are so offended. If you know what all the correct answers are then just state them and we can proceed.

Yes, really. I am not attacking you so I don't know why you are getting defensive. I am trying to establish some things and the information scattered in the thread is incomplete. There are two sets of data that we are discussing. We are discussing the shift8 set of data and we are discussing the 'game' data. Simply saying 'I said it before' doesn't mean anything within the context of what I'm trying to do here. Besides, it would have taken you less time to simply type it again than it did for you to complain about my question. Why do you think asking about what you think the time should be for 1000 meters is a stupid question or an attack upon you? If you think that the game data is incorrect then you must have some way of formulating what should be correct and if your method is better then you should be able to identify what the correct rate of fire should be at all ranges not just whatever range you feel like discussing at this particular point in time. By demonstrating that you can answer a simple question of 'what should the time between shots be at 1500 meters' then that demonstrates that you have at least some sort of an educated opinion of what the correct answer should be. Did you serve in an armored unit? Did your father? Do you know anyone who operated a tank? Do you have any Field Manuals that you are referencing? What is the basis of your data set? This is not an attack. This is establishing facts and the basis of your level of knowledge on the subject being discussed. If you can't tell us what the correct rate of fire should be at 1500 meters then someone reading this thread might be justified in assuming that you don't actually have a method that can be applied consistently in all situations and that you may possibly not have the appropriate knowledge base to comment on whether something is correct or not. Maybe you do though - I don't know. How can we determine if your objection is a good one if you can't fill in all of the blanks and compare that to what is in the game now? If you know that the rate of fire is too slow at 50 meters then you should also know if the rate of fire at 1000 meters is accurate or not. So I'm asking you - is the rate of fire for tanks at 1000 meters accurate in the game or not? If so, just say yes it is. If not then just say what you think it should be. I don't know why that would be so objectionable. Let's just establish a few baselines for comparison. Is there any change in the rate of fire for tanks at different ranges in the game? Don't you think that would be important to know? If the rate of fire is 8 seconds per shot at every range then perhaps there is a code limitation within the game such that your request for an increased rate of fire at close range may not be possible from a code standpoint. Aren't you at least curious to know whether or not it is even possible for your request to be implemented in the game at all? So I'm asking you - is the rate of fire in the game consistent at all ranges or is it different at different ranges?

Okay, so the game is about 8 seconds per shot. Is that what it is at all ranges or is it different at different ranges. What do you think it should be and what do you base that assessment upon? How close is 'point blank range'? 100 meters? 200 meters? How long do you think it should take a Sherman tank to acquire and shoot at a target a 1000 meters?

Okay so what, exactly, do you think the time between shots should be in the game and what are the times in the game now? Please be precise. I, shift 8, have tested a Sherman in game and the time between shots for each crew experience level is X at range Y. I, shift8, have studied the available evidence and data and I have concluded that these times should instead be X at each crew experience level at range Y (times listed). Can you do that for us so that your position is clear?

I'm not disparaging your ability to play the game. I'm merely pointing out that if you are willing to accept that the game has limitations you would increase your enjoyment factor substantially. For example, it is doubtful that the aim penalties for elevation limitations are going to be altered so if you are willing to accept the current situation as the best solution to the issue that the game can provide then you can get more enjoyment out of the game. If the objection to the way it works cannot be overcome then you will likely count this issue among those that are 'game breakers' for you and your game experiences will turn you into a sad panda. I'm not sure what is wrong with the reload times. What reload time to you expect to be accurate? Do you have any historical times for reload that you can reference? If so then toss them into the discussion. There are a lot of videos on YouTube for modern NATO gunnery exercises with what could be considered veteran or crack crews. The weaponry is bigger in most cases but modern tank layouts are such that the difference shouldn't be overly dramatic. From the few I've seen the in game times feel about right. Could it be tweaked a bit? Sure, but seat of the pants estimates about how long it takes for a tank to perform different tasks isn't going to move the ball forward any. It's just empty complaining if you don't have any real world data or statistics to back up your assertions.

Well the 'real' solution would be to code in hard restrictions where the gun cannot go beyond what is specified for each vehicle and in that case then your vehicles simply wouldn't fire at all if the gun couldn't align with the target. It seems to me that the 'real' solution is a lot more heavy handed than the 'phony' solution of applying an aim penalty. If you are worried about micro maneuvering your tanks to avoid the aim penalty now then imagine how hopping mad you would be if the tank didn't fire at all. Try to keep things in perspective and you will do a lot better in the game. In case anyone is worried, no, there is absolutely no chance that elevation limits will ever be hard coded into the game and the aim penalty is probably carved in the stone tablets located at BFC HQ.

Yes, tanks in the game can negotiate grades that the equivalent real life tank could not. Of course, if the grade is so steep in game that it creates prohibited terrain then nobody can pass, but most of the tanks represented in the game would have difficulty traversing grades that are less than that represented by prohibited terrain grade steepness.

I'm not going to judge whatever shot you are discussing in the video, but in the game tanks do take penalties when the gun depression is too high or too low. It is true that in real life the elevation or depression of the gun is either going to happen or not happen, but the game cannot code that for a variety of reasons. For one thing the AI would not be able to cope with the inability to fire due to elevation restrictions and so you may have tanks sitting around not firing at all because they get stuck in positions where the gun elevation makes them confused. The way it was when the game was first released there were no aiming penalties for gun elevation at all, but there were a lot of complaints about that particularly during city fights and so the gun elevation aim penalties were introduced. There are also other things that are limited in the game such as the fact that there is no terrain grade that is passible terrain that is too steep for a vehicle to traverse, nor is there any detectable movement penalty for steep grades either. The game has limitations and it is not a perfect reflection of reality and those limitations are present for good reasons.

There were actual Jewish German soldiers serving in the Wehrmacht. At least the the soldiers considered themselves Jewish. I seem to recall some personal accounts to that effect. edited because I'm not sure the Wehrmacht considered the soldiers to be Jewish, but the soldiers certainly considered themselves to be Jewish.

The post penetration model that the game uses could certainly use some improvement. You will get no argument from me. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any movement from BFC for any improvements to the way it is now so we are probably stuck with the way it is.

Crew reactions run the entire spectrum. I have taken the time to collect and categorize every single tank crew reaction described in every book I own and if I recall I have more than forty or fifty personal accounts collected. There are descriptions ranging from Soviet crews abandoning tanks that are still moving from non penetrating hits (bailing out while the tank is literally still moving), American tankers bailing out after being hit by rifle grenades, tanks withdrawing entirely from the battlefield after a penetrating hit that caused no casualties, to crews sitting in their immobilized tank all day long in an exposed position waiting for darkness to fall. I think some general tendencies can be deduced though, and the fact is that most crews aren't going to remain in a tank that is immobilized regardless of the circumstances because an immobilized tank is a sitting duck. As far as mobile tanks goes even a non penetrating hit will typically result in a tank repositioning while a tank that loses a crew member for any reason - including an unbuttoned commander from gunfire - will typically withdraw from the battlefield entirely. Tank behavior in wargames is generally much more generous in terms of crew bravery than was probably the norm. However, I don't think most players would like it if tank crews behaved in an entirely realistic way so some compromises are probably both appropriate and necessary for game play purposes.

You should probably open up a ticket with the help desk. Just so you know, I have an Nvidia Geforce GTX 960 with driver version 368.22 for Windows 10 64 bit and I don't experience any problems - not that it helps your situation any.

Did you just update your game using the patch? That particular scenario was updated because of the graphic issue with the victory location in the German briefing. I don't know if that has anything to do with it but I figured I would toss it out there. If it is patch update related then hopefully it would go away when you do your next turn. I know that in some cases with CMBN a player could get a weird jet noise that would drown out everything else for one turn and then everything would return back to normal when they would update in the middle of a game. If your opponent is okay with it you may want to try loading the scenario up vs the AI and just run through the scenario up to the point where the issue happened to see if it happens again at the same point in time. The scenario is also very large and it may also be difficult for some systems to run, but the point at which you have made it to is probably only about halfway into the full German OB. I have to admit that I think it would be unlikely to be computer power related that early in the scenario but it is a possibility since I know some have had issues with it from a size standpoint later on. I have to admit that I've never experienced the issue as described and I ran through the scenario more times than I like to admit.

Alright then. If you don't accept the scenario designer's definition of what constitutes victory then what is it exactly that you want? What is this discussion about? You load up a scenario and you play it. You ignore the designer's victory conditions and you just play to play. When winning and losing have no meaning then I'm not sure what the issue is. If you go into the editor you can change any parameter that you want to so therefore the issue is resolved. If we are having this discussion because you want 'scenario designers' to alter what they do to fit your needs then I guess you have made your case and if anyone wants to alter what they are doing then they will. As long as you understand why time limits are included within the context of scenario design then I have nothing more to add. This is an issue of personal preference and if you have any specific time related issues that you want to discuss about specific scenarios then I think we can have a reasonable discussion. If you want to insist that time limits are not a valid expression of designer intent then I'm not sure that discussion will go anywhere but around in circles. If your expectation is that future scenarios will not have any time limits included then I expect that you will be disappointed. By all means enjoy the game in the way that you see fit.

A scenario is a battle in a can. It is not reality. No matter how good of a simulation CM may be it is not the equivalent of reality. The means of dictating victory or defeat are entirely artificial. The scenario designer paints some victory locations on the map and assigns points for capturing them. The scenario designer may also allocate victory points for killing the enemy or keeping friendly casualties low. No matter how you slice it, the person who is designing the 'battle in a can' is the one who is dictating to the player what victory or defeat means. Let me ask you a question. When you play a scenario and there are victory conditions specified in terms of occupy or touch objectives and destruction of enemy soldiers and equipment do you view that as a valid means of determining victory or do you just decide on your own whether or not you have 'won'? I you just play something and decide on your own whether you won or not then discussing this topic with you is an entirely wasted effort because you are setting your own parameters for victory or defeat. If you accept the scenario designers definition of victory or defeat within the context of terrain and destroy objectives then why can't you accept the scenario designer's parameters for time and space? The one who tells the player whether he won or not is the scenario designer and the scenario designer tells you whether you won or not by virtue of setting victory objectives, map dimensions, and time requirements. If you don't capture the specified objectives within the time frame that the designer has dictated you lost the battle. There is no 'well if I had more time I would have captured X'. Part of the designer's parameters was 'capture X within time frame Y.' If you fail to do so then you lose. What you apparently find impossible to understand is the fact that failure in a scenario due to time constraints means that you failed to capture the objective within the parameters that the designer specified. If you had more time could you capture the objective? Maybe, but that's irrelevant because you didn't accomplish the task in the specified time. It doesn't matter if the real battle continues on for the next three weeks. All that matters is that you, the gamer, failed to win the scenario within the parameters specified by the scenario designer. Making an argument that 'well real battles last until the objective is captured' is entirely irrelevant because that's not even part of the equation. The only thing that matters is what you, the gamer, managed to accomplish within the parameters specified by the scenario designer. Real life battle commanders don't gain 25 victory points for capturing Francois Farm. Real life battle commanders don't have a map edge. Real life battle commanders don't gain 100 points if he keeps his casualties below 10%. Real life battle commanders don't gain 200 points for totally destroying enemy unit X. The entire framework within which a CM battle is 'fought' is artificial and the parameters of that battle are set by the designer. One of the parameters that the designer sets is time. If you fail to meet the threshold for victory within the time specified then you lose. I don't know how to explain it any more simply than that.

A scenario in CM is a battle with a set of parameters that are determined by the designer of the scenario or by two players in a QB. It must be this way because it is a game and a game has limits. Take the map you play on for example. The map has borders and the battle space has a finite size as defined by the scenario designer. Places that exist in reality on the earth do not suddenly end in oblivion at the map's edge. There are no map edges in reality. However, the game's limitations force the designer to create a defined battle space in order to make the scenario in the first place. A player can sit here and argue that map borders are unrealistic and that they should be able to drive around at will across the entire face of the earth, but of course that ignores both the limits imposed by the game itself and the reality that the map would be populated by other military units. Similarly players can complain that a time limit is unrealistic because in reality time continues - and that's true so far as it goes. However, that ignores the fact that the game has limits and that the battlefield is not static. Things would be happening in real life that are outside of the confines of the parameters the designer has set and while the battle itself may or may not continue beyond the specified time limit given in a scenario that doesn't mean that time itself comes to a complete stop with the ending of the scenario. It only means that the player didn't succeed in the mission he undertook within the context of the parameters that the designer specified. Do any wargames exist that have no time limit? I can't think of any off hand. Third Reich had a time limit. Operation Barbarossa had a time limit. ASL / SL scenarios all had time limits. Games are generally played in 'turns', or at least they were back in the day. Maybe things are different now with computer games, but every computer game I can think of typically has a time limit before the game ends. Time limits are not some sort of weird revolutionary new concept that is difficult to grasp or even unusual in the context of our hobby. Time limits are far and away the norm. Time limits also serve a function in games. They force players to 'do' something. A game with no time limits may become pretty boring if neither side feels the need to take an action. With no time limits there is no compelling need for a player to take an action. In the case of a game like Civilization the time pressure comes from other players competing with each other for a specified goal and so the time pressure is more like a race than a hard limit - although you can still play with hard time limits in Civ as well. No matter where a designer sets the limit at, either for the map or for time, there will always be somebody who wants more space or more time so trying to meet everyone's needs is a fool's errand. Granted, a designer may cut either time or map so short or small that a scenario becomes unplayable for most players - and that's a bad thing. Designers should always try to hit the right balance with time and map size, but a general argument that time limits should be eliminated is folly. If a player thinks that a scenario time is too short then just specify which scenario they think is too short and discuss why. Maybe a case can be made that the scenario length or map size should be extended and perhaps a designer may pay attention and make an adjustment.

His conclusions were ridiculous. "Well chaps, we couldn't take Caen in the time table, looks like the invasion was a failure. I say, back to England for tea and crumpets!" The problem with Captain Miller's argument is that he equates losing a scenario due to time limits as being representative of a catastrophic defeat in the entire theater of operations. That is a ridiculous proposition if he is attempting to equate scenario time limits with reality. It simply is. I don't know what bur got under your saddle but I am attacking the substance of his argument such as it is. His argument is that scenario time limits are unrealistic because failure to meet a time limit with a platoon sized action in game is equivalent to an entire invasion force being defeated in reality. Based upon that reasoning he apparently feels that he made a compelling case that scenario time limits are unrealistic. If his argument is ridiculous then it deserves to be treated as such. There was nothing personal involved. Failure to achieve an objective within the time constraints of a scenario does not mean anything other than the player was unable to achieve the objective within the time constraints given and there is plenty of historical evidence that time limits are imposed in platoon, company, and battalion sized actions. As I made clear in my post - I don't care how a player wants to play the game so your concerns about where I come down with regards to scenario time limits is misplaced. There may be two schools of thought as to whether or not someone wants a time limit in their scenario, but that's not the issue I was addressing because I don't care about that. However, Capt Miller's argument that time limits are unrealistic and that, in his view, commanders could lollygag around doing whatever they want for however long they want to is completely divorced from reality and ridiculous.

I think this entire discussion is a bit of a waste of time, but I just wanted to say that your view of time limits is a little ridiculous. Sure, the player 'loses' the scenario but that doesn't mean that, in reality, the entire battle or campaign has been lost or defeated. A time limit in a scenario means - take this set of objectives within this amount of time. So what does failure mean? Yeah, you lose the scenario, but the equivalent in real life would mean that you simply didn't capture the objective on time. That's really all there is to it. So, Captain Miller, I need you to capture the airfield at Caen by 1400 hours. Yes sir, and you go off and try to accomplish the mission. 1400 hours arrives and you haven't captured the airfield - so what does that mean exactly? You go back and tell Major Pain that you couldn't capture the objective within the time allowed - that's all it means. It doesn't mean that your troops were forced back to England, it doesn't mean the Allies lose the entire war, and it doesn't mean that atomic weapons begin exploding in the atmosphere. It just means that you were unable to capture the objective within the time the commander allocated to complete the mission. In game terms it means you lose, but in reality terms all it means is that the objective was not achieved. There are numerous examples to choose from, but generally speaking if a commander fails to operate in a manner that is expected you probably won't remain a commander for very long. The idea that, historically, commanders could sit around casually taking as much time as they wanted to in order to capture some objective somewhere is a little tenuous. How many examples could you come up with where a unit commander was given a huge kick in the pants from a higher HQs because the unit was considered to be moving too slowly, cautiously, or cowardly? I could fill the forum with examples like that. "L company, where the heck are you? You were supposed to be moving through town an hour ago! Get off your a$$ and get moving or I'll replace you!" So please, let's not venture into fantasy land thinking that all unit commanders could just lollygag around taking as much time as they feel like it to achieve an objective. That attitude is completely divorced from reality. From a game play standpoint though, if some player wants to sit around taking ten hours to make it through what is normally a thirty minute scenario then have at it - he's not hurting me any. Just don't ask me to accommodate him with a four hour long scenario on a 200x200 meter map. It's ridiculous. If that's what a player wants to do then he can make his own or run a QB. I'm not going to pretend to understand it but if that's what the guy wants then he can have at it.

U1 are not AI group designations. AI group designations are A1, A2, A3, etcetera. U1, U2, U3 is associated with Destroy VP objectives.