ASL Veteran

This seems to be a continuation of the Russian reaction to that Company of Heroes game that was released. Apparently Russians didn't like how the game portrayed their troops in the Great Patriotic War or something.

If you add any MG terrain or TO&E items to your scenario then only someone who owns the MG module will be able to open it.

Yeah, Bagration and Modern are probably two of the ones for next year. Even I don't know what the other four to six are that Steve's talking about for next year :eek:.

Market Garden + Gustav Line = 2

BFC wants you guys to have the game as much as you guys want to have the game.

They may possibly have a passenger capacity in the game - I'm not sure. However, they are primarily a FLAK vehicle not an APC. Also keep in mind that the only formation in MG that has them is the Panzer Brigade so any references to Panzer Divisions doesn't apply to this module. If the ones in game have a passenger capacity then I suppose you could theoretically purchase a 251/21 for a QB and then separately purchase an HMG team and maybe combine them, but they won't come in the same formation. I think an HMG team in game has a five man crew anyway so they probably wouldn't fit even then. You may possibly see the troop combinations you are hoping to see in a later game or module but I don't think you will see those combinations in this particular module. At least I haven't noticed it, but then it wasn't an issue I was really looking at anyway. Who knows, maybe its all in there already and I just didn't notice it?

There is a three module bundle for CM Shock Force that is currently available so I'm guessing that a CMBN, CW, and MG bundle would be a possibility. There might even be a CW, MG bundle available at some point. I'm just guessing though and even if they do that there is no telling when it would be available. It seems to typically take a while before bundles like that are available.

As far as the Panzer Brigades go, per TO&E the 251/21 populates distinct platoons that are only composed of other 251/21s. Six to a platoon. So there would be no reason to have any passenger capability for those vehicles since there are no passengers to carry per the TO&E. As far as other uses in other formations - I don't know, but from what I can tell they were typically used in distinct platoons of six in every formation they were in. I don't know anything about the 251/17 or how it was used.

Fair enough.

You seem to want exit zones added to every single scenario anyone makes just so that someone .... in the rare event that they have an unwanted unit ...... can drive said unwanted unit off map. In many cases it would be possible for the player to just leave the unwanted unit sheltering in place behind a building or some trees rather than continually moving it along like a baby duckling. In my book this request falls under the heading of "Ridiculous requests that solve non problems". That's just me though. I'm sure that for you its a pressing issue, but I would suggest that perhaps you shouldn't get your hopes up too high that scenario designers will all fall in line and rush to meet this request / demand, especially considering the limitations it imposes on the victory conditions available for a designer to use. However, thanks for the suggestion. If a victory condition revamp takes place and it becomes practical to implement something like that, perhaps in future scenarios this suggestion can be taken into consideration.

Unfortunately the addition of exit zones makes it ... problematic to use unit destroy casualty points since they are tied to exit zones.

That's great in theory, but you typically want reinforcements to be placed in a location that you are fairly certain will not be in the LOS of the enemy as soon as the reinforcements appear. If you have reinforcements appear in the middle of the enemy or within their LOS then a massacre can take place. Either way, neither player would be happy with it. It sounds to me like this is the 'weak sister to a scenario' approach to Quick Battles as mentioned by MikeyD in another thread . I can't imagine this feature being used in competitive QBs. In general, when someone is going into battle they are going to want all their assets right from the beginning because generally speaking the player wants to win the fight. In a scenario the amount of force the player has to command is specified by the scenario designer. The player who plays the scenario has no choice in the matter since they have no input on either the size, composition, or timing of the forces they command. In a scenario the force limitation for the player is being imposed by a third party - the designer. With a QB the player himself is in full control over the composition of the force they have to command. By definition the player would be consciously choosing to withhold forces they purchased until a later stage in the battle. This then means that the player is choosing to fight with a smaller initial force than would otherwise be possible and so is going into the battle with less force than they otherwise could. In other words, the player isn't fighting the battle to win but rather to play within the confines of a self designed narrative. Certainly, I'm sure that you would still want to win the battle - I'm not implying that - I guess what I'm saying is that you want to win the battle within the confines of the self created narrative as opposed to just fighting the battle for the sake of winning it. Regardless of whether the player chooses the force or if he lets the computer purchase the force the player is still selecting the number of points that they are going to spend and they will set some sort of parameters for what is purchased. So rather than simply fighting a QB this feature would let the player impose a self chosen narrative on the battle. It's an interesting way to enjoy the game. Regardless though, there would be technical issues as I pointed out above. The scenario designer places all forces on the map in the editor and then assigns the reinforcement groups and times of arrival. In the editor you can see all the forces on the map at once - reinforcements included. When you start the battle in order to play it, the game simply makes the reinforcements invisible so you can't see them until their time of arrival. You, as the QB player, would have to have a means by which you could designate reinforcement groups and place those forces on the map (including outside of your designated set up zones) and still have them vanish when the battle starts. This can't be done in the deployment phase of a battle. It currently has to be done in the editor. The player himself would also be placing the reinforcements onto the map just before the battle and probably setting their time of arrival as well. I doubt too many players would want them to arrive at some randomly determined time - you might not see your reinforcements until there was only five minutes left . So in other words there wouldn't be very much of a surprise factor for the player placing the reinforcements. It would be a case of 'I'm going to place these guys here and have them appear on map at such and such time' then during the battle 'wow, there they are - exactly where I placed them a few minutes ago'. There could be a surprise factor for your opponent, but generally speaking having friendly forces beaming into the middle of the enemy is going to be something frowned upon by your opponent. With a scenario, since the designer has placed the reinforcements you may or may not know reinforcements are arriving depending upon what is in the briefing. Even if you know you are getting reinforcements and where they will generally appear, you wouldn't know precisely how the reinforcements are arranged until they appear - unless you have gone into the editor and looked or maybe played the scenario before or something. There would be none of that uncertainty factor if the player placed the reinforcements himself just before the start of the Quick Battle.

I'm not sure what the utility of this feature would be for QBs since the player is using points to hand pick his own force to his desired specifications. In a scenario reinforcements make sense for a variety of reasons, for example if the scenario is historical then maybe that's what happened in the real battle. In a fictional battle perhaps the scenario designer is attempting to create some sort of outcome or specific set of circumstances by using reinforcements. For a QB I'm just not seeing the usefulness. You buy your own force to your preferred specifications and then you are going to want the computer to randomly withhold some of that hand picked force until some randomly determined later time? What would that accomplish other than to throw off the balance of the match? What if the computer chooses to withhold something important? If you are choosing what gets withheld yourself then there isn't much of a point to that either. If you want to keep those forces out of combat then you can just hide them behind a hill or something and not use them. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me for a QB because it just doesn't seem to fit what a QB is typically all about or why a QB is typically played. That's just my opinion though. I have to admit that this request confuses me. :confused: There would be technical limitations as well since reinforcements are placed on the map in the editor before the battle begins. In other words, you would have to have a way to deploy them on map in order for the reinforcements to disappear after the start of the battle. There would be no way to have some sort of randomly generated location where reinforcements appear. That's just not the way it works in CMx2.

In the perception of the player who brings the issue up, and in the context of what the player thinks is correct or what results that player wishes the game to reflect. Whether that player's perception or expected result is actually valid is another question entirely. In the case of placing waypoints by a bridge - that's purely a technical issue with respect to how the player interfaces with the game itself. It has very little to do with how things interact with each other within the game itself.

That's what happens 'in game' but don't even get me started on what happens 'in reality' when a tank crew member is killed or injured. No, I'm not going to discuss this out here, but suffice to say that there would be a lot of wailing, gnashing of teeth, and howls of protest if tank behavior was modelled to reflect what tank crews really did in WW2 under combat conditions. I'll just say that the WW2 reality diverges significantly from a player's (or even a modern tanker's) hopes or expectations.

Not really .... QBs and scenarios are totally different animals. The most important part of a QB is that the player chooses his own force. That is the fundamental essence of a QB. The player can't do that in a scenario. With a scenario you have to fight the battle with what you are given. Sure, many players cross over from one format to the other, but I think most have a preference and choose to play primarily one way or the other in my opinion. Then there are the fog of war concerns in that a player who thinks that is of the utmost importance may shy away from scenarios because he never knows if the opponent has peeked or not. That fear can be eliminated with a QB.

I believe Moon gave you your answer when he closed the old thread. He said that the media BFC uses hasn't been changed. I think the original poster indicated that a change was made to a DVD R format for Market Garden. Obviously no Market Garden discs have been delivered yet so .....? Incidentally, I'm not sure I understand why you would immediately give some guy who posts a random comment like that with no obvious means of knowing one way or another instant credibility. At the same time Moon posts a comment indicating that no change has been made and you think that the burden is on Moon to provide more clarity to his statement rather than some guy who posts a random comment about something where it is questionable whether he would know one way or another. It seems like the burden of proof is on the poster in the thread you linked to rather than on BFC. So Redwolf, why did you decide to rob that store at gunpoint last weekend? Is the burden of proof on you to deny the accusation that I just made out of whole cloth or is the burden on me to prove that my accusation has merit? It is a pretty common propaganda tactic in politics and with public figures. You toss something unfounded out for everyone to read and while some may dismiss it enough will start to wonder about its veracity that it leaves an impression. People then begin to associate negative things with the public figure and at some point, if done effectively enough, the lie becomes the truth. Isn't it fascinating how this individual decided to make this accusation about Market Garden DVDs when pre orders are being made for hardgoods? By starting this thread and by continually bumping it, you are participating in perpetuating this accusation and sowing the seeds of doubt for those who are interested in pre ordering. Although perhaps you are innocently just curious - the fact that Moon has already given you the answer should be sufficient, especially in light of the credibility gap that exists with the individual who made the original post. Unless of course you doubt Moon's credibility or you have an agenda of some sort ....?

How do you know that any other factors were altered independent of the rate of fire? Do you seriously think that an increase in the rate of fire in and of itself would have no effect on suppression? Besides - I'm not sure what your point is .... if your goal is to prove that your opinion is good enough to change an in game behavior then by all means keep on giving everyone your opinions. This forum is an excellent place for everyone to shoot the breeze.

I already have a platform to make my case and the case has already been made and so far rejected. I view the fact that, to my knowledge, nobody out here has made this observation as being indicative of the level of rigor that is being applied to the spotting testing that is being done.

Just out of curiosity, where did that 'other gentleman' get their information from? Is there something on the website here at Battlefront that indicates what type of DVD is being used?

The MG fire was quantifiable. There are Field Manuals that specify rates of fire for specific applications. For example, there is a specified rate of fire in terms of rounds per minute for Rapid Fire and for Sustained Fire and before the "MG Fix" it was clear that MG modelling in CM didn't match the specified rates of fire that was present in the field manuals. That's why the change was made, not because people on the forums were crying about it. As far as soft factors go, yes its true that some common sense has to be applied. However, because something like that is not quantifiable its not possible to compare such items to what is present in the 'Real World' so why should the developer alter what is in the game just because someone on the forums says 'hey, that isn't right!' The game developer's opinion is just as valid as your opinion so you aren't going to make any headway in a discussion about opinions. However, if you focus your testing of soft factors to what is present in the game environment then you might get somewhere. I'll make this really simple for you so that everyone can understand my point. I think that most people would agree that a tank is more easily spotted than an infantryman if both are sitting in an open field. Common sense tells you that. Is that set of circumstances true in the game? Test it and find out. Trying to say 'hey, its just common sense that a tank won't spot a Panzershrek team that has moved into position behind it' isn't going to get you anywhere. I can think of several reasons why that team might have been spotted. If you guys want to continue pursuing that path then you aren't ever going to get the changes that you desire. I will leave you with this though - there is one thing about tanks that seemingly nobody has noticed and it has a huge impact on spotting. It becomes most obvious when tanks are firing at unrealistic elevations - and no I'm not talking about gun elevation limits. Think about it.

Unfortunately that's not quantifiable. In order to quantify that you would have to have some sort of a statistical data base of actual instances under actual battlefield conditions where infantry were spotted by tank crewmen and when they weren't spotted. Obviously that data set doesn't exist and pursuing that angle would be a fools errand. Even if you could convince some current military personnel to conduct some sort of testing with their equipment to establish a baseline there are so many variables in play that establishing a meaningful baseline would be next to impossible. However, a comparison between different tanks within the game is quantifiable within the game environment. Differences between tank designs and crew awareness are somewhat more quantifiable because you can definitely compare what devices or crew arrangements different tanks had and then compare the ability of those tanks to spot different things within the game environment. Once you compare those results you should be able to draw some conclusions about how different tank vision devices compare to each other.

:confused: The maps are not randomly generated ..... your hilliness will be determined when you select the map to play on. I'm not really sure I understand what you would like to do with this hilliness request since there is no way you can say 'I want huge hills' or 'I want a hill over there and over there' and have the map spontaneously create them.

Oops, wrong thread!

I can understand your frustration, but at the same time it really makes no sense if you think about it rationally. By definition any map you use in the game will have an edge on it, no matter how big the map is. If the map is 2km by 2 km then it will have an edge, if the map is 1km by 1 km then that map will also have an edge. By setting rules for your opponent about 'edge hugging' the only practical thing you have done is alter where the edge is. In other words if you are on a 2km by 2km map and you indicate that anyone who is within 100 meters of an edge is a gamey edge hugger then all you have done is made your 2km by 2km map into a 1.9km by 1.9km map. So rather than say 'you are a gamey edge hugger' why don't you just cut the map to your specified size prior to the start of the game? Of course, you would then have a new ege, the only difference being that the map is smaller - do you cut the map size down again? You see how silly that would be? Eventually you would have no map to play on because you would always be cutting the map edges to make the playing area smaller and smaller.