IntelWeenie

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-: The T8 has only like 20 rds. The .50 cal teams have like over 100 rds. Jeep MG has only 25 rds. Thank GOD they are not as vicious as they were in 1.03.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I thought .50 cal teams had only 40 rds of ammo? What's the price differences? ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Note: any resemblance to the "crew targeting" issue is purely accidental. I have been playing a few games lately purchasing more AT guns than usual since I would like to learn to use them more effectively. In doing so, I have noticed an annoying tendency for them to 'spin' more than shoot. A small AAR to put forth my point: When engaging a PzKfw IV with several other PzKfw IVs nearby(within 100m radius of the original target), a Tank Destroyer? target appears much farther to one side (about 45^ from current line of fire). After dispatching the first PzKfw IV, instead of firing on the other nearby targets, the AT gun rotates to engage the Tank Destroyer?. In the course of rotating (which takes several seconds during which no fire is possible) the AT gun has several shots taken at it by the remaining PzKfw IVs, knocking it out. In the time it took to swing the gun around to engage a target that really posed no more threat than the others, the gun could have most likely gotten at least one more kill. Note: this is only one example, I have seen it happen *many* times. I searched the archives for an answer, but all I found was this re. Tank Threat Calculation: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:The TacAI looks at a whole bunch of factors. They can be grouped into two generalized concerns: Likely to do damange (based on the target type, its facing, range, etc) Likely to be caused damage (enemy unit can cause death, is actively targeting, etc.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001310.html Target 'stickiness' is not the issue, but rather that guns (and tanks with slower turrets, too, I suppose) can end up spending more time rotating the gun than engaging perfectly legitimate targets that they are already pointing near. Could this be fixed by a narrower targeting focus for guns/slow turrets? Better AT targeting assessment for non-armored units? Is it not an issue for others? I welcome all comments.... ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Why? I may not be understanding your point, but it seems to me that in real life you'd have a pretty good idea what your morale is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gamey from the point that it could give you an indication of whether or not the enemy has armor (if your morale is lower than usual: "Ah! He must have some tanks."). More important for PBEM/ladder play than historical battles, though. More and more, dynamic seems the most accurate/believeable way to go. I see FOW being the biggest stumbling block. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Minor niggle/question, Tiger. Aren't the road wheels on the G the 'late' style while the ones on the G (late) are the earlier kind? Or were they used interchangeably? ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Los: Actually I have to step in here and point out a fairly obvious thing to anyone who's actually been in the infantry. There is a difference between the actual crest of a hill, and the "military crest" which is where you would actually deploy your forces. No one in their right mind sets up on the actual crest of a hill and assumes this mythical "hull down position" for infantry that people are kicking around here as some great flaw in the programming. Any idiot foolish enough to actually set up on the crest of the hill is skylining himself and making himself easier to spot and hit, not harder. The military crest of a hill is actually the area below the crest, where, if you set up your forces or choose a route of movement, you will not be highlighting or skylining yourself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Points well taken, Los. But I would suggest that the crests in question do not necessarily need to be the topmost part of the hill. We could certainly consider the military crest when talking about this issue. (BTW, most of the hills I see in CM the geographic crest is the military crest, too.) Point of (differing?) semantics: I've always considered the military crest to be the spot which affords the best LOS to the approaches to the hill, minimizing dead spots (like behind the seawalls at Normandy. Sorry, most obvious example I could quickly think of ). Personally, I don't think it's a great flaw, but rather something that could hopefully be implemented to more accurately model the effects of surrounding terrain on incoming DF. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Hmmm. I gave this some more thought last night. (Pre-43 morale drop if no tanks vs. tanks) If one was observant, it would be easy to notice that your morale is lower than normal. Gamey? Maybe. Semi-incoherent ramble mode on: How would this fit into FOW? Would your forces not take a morale 'hit' until enemy armor is sighted/heard? How would reinforcements affect it? Presence of AT guns/mines? Could there be a similar morale benefit/detriment for air support? (Yes, I'm thinking of the Stuka) Would this morale benefit/detriment be dynamic (Yay! we killed those tanks!)? Semi-incoherent ramble mode off: Food for thought, but I sure like the concept! ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

I agree in principle, but I would make the cost reduction less. Say, no more than a 10% reduction is possible. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claymore: The GLOBAL MORALE in CM tracks this in some ways, if for example your tanks start getting knocked off your GLOBAL MORALE will drop. I am not sure if the MORALE is affect just by the presence or absence of armour. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I like this pretty much the way it is right now (considering it's '44-45). As your tanks get knocked off, they will cause the global morale to go down faster since they are worth more points. I agree with Michael. Pre-'43 loss of tanks sholud cause a loss of morale more out of proportion to their point value. I have no idea if it would be possible to code a global morale boost for friendly armor, though. It would need to take into account friendly vs. enemy armor points, relative capabilites, etc. (500 pts worth of HTs/ACs is not exactly equal to 500 pts of medium tanks) ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Banshee: I also enjoy when you have a sound contact and it ducks because of incoming arty fire. We can hear people ducking? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, It sounds like "quack, quack, QUACK!". Hey, somebody had to say it! ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

You can also use Target Reference Points (TRPs) to help targeting areas that you don't have LOS to. Granted, you have to buy them (and can't tell until after your purchase that you need them in a QB), but they are handy. Arty will come down faster and more accurately when shot at a TRP (whether in or out of LOS). ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: What I'd like to know is what are the attacker's points when given mine? What is the ratio? Also, shouldn't this be on the AAR at the end of the game?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IIRC, the ratios are: Meeting engagement: even Probe: Uhh, can't remember Attack: Attacker=Defenderx1.5 Assault: Attacker=Defenderx2 ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Instead of posters, how about handpainted slogans? See lots of those in late-war photos. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: But I wanna ask something... Why does it always seem like women don't EVER have a hobby that is so self-absorbing as much as men do, huh? Women always sit around and claim they are bored or this or that. Sometimes (I am not married...yet...) I feel like some freakin' entertainer. "Anything I can do to pass the time for you, honey? Juggle? Have you paint my toe nails? Look at fashion magazines with you? Loose my self deep inside while I hear you drone on about your silly girlfriends, who I don't like anways? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You missed "Try not to lose conciousness while watching the Lifetime (television for women ) network with her." My wife once asked me why I didn't like Lifetime. I told her "it's television for women, not men." Of course, she got mad. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

IIRC, Low quality is Conscript or Green. Medium quality is Regular or Veteran and High quality is Veteran, Crack or Elite. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: Cav, Give me a break. You actually are going to compare a person being hit with a baseball bat with a tank being hit by a shell? Get real... These are the kind of analogies that are really pointless and only server to misguide. HESH ammo??? Huh??? What are you talking about?? We are talking about WWII not modern tanks and ammunition. Bringing this up is utterly useless. I for one would like the source material that supports all these guns hits. Let me ask.. What makes you think that the current model is correct other than your feelings? You have none. Heck, lets look at from a mathematical standpoint. Take the entire surface area that the mantlet takes up on a Panther. I would estimate it occupies probably around 10% of the surface are from a straight on perspective. Now that means on avergae that 1 out of every 12 hits or so will strike it. Now lets just guess at how many of those hits will actually cause any damage? Well, it won't be ALL of them and it won't be NONE. So, obviously it is in the middle. Hmmm.... Lets just hit it in the middle with 50%. That seem fair? OKay... Want to geuss the number of gun hits that actually damaged the main gun now??? The answer is 4%. That's it. Now do you think that is close to what you have seen in the game. Nope. I don't think so. So, there.... I have made an argument that is NOT based off of "I feels" and "I believes". Now tell me why I should adjust my numbers and then we can crunch the formula again and come up with a new percentage. Until then I stand by my claim that Gun Damage hits happen WAY too often. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-12-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While agree with Jeff that Gun Damage 'seems' overdone, I would like to make a couple of points. OK, so the baseball bat is not an apt simile. How about getting shot with a .357 magnum while wearing a level II bulletproof vest? Sure, it might not penetrate, but it sure as heck can stop your heart if it hits in the middle of your chest. I think using simplified statistics like this are counter-productive, since they don't take into account some very important points like point of aim. Generally, this will be near center mass to ensure the best chance for a hit. The gun is usually mounted close to center mass, increasing the chance that it will be hit. Your example also assumes a farily even spread of projectiles, while in reality it would be more like (examples only) 50% of shots within 1m of center, 35% 1-2m, 15% more than 3m. Your example also seems to assume only contact with the mantlet would produce a gun damage result. BTS and others have stated hits to the turret ring, traverse motors, etc. can cause this as well. I would like to hear 'official' comment, too. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

A decent discussion on sniper/sharpshooters can be found here: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum7/HTML/000041.html Probably the best way to use them effectively is to give them a fairly wide, long field of fire and let them pick their targets. I rarely do anything with my snipers other than move them when enemy infantry gets too close (under 150m). Don't fear the search! Search is your friend... ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Teamski: R-Man: Those texures are shared, so all versions of the Panther use the same texture! So you have to pick which one you want to use. As far as I know, there is no way areound this. Maybe in CM2....... -Ski <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hate to deny you, but this is not correct. There are 3 different Panther texture sets; one for each model (A, G (late) and G). The texture #s are: G (late): 3230-3239 G: 4340-4349 A: 4350-4361 I don't think the textures are all entirely interchangeable, either. I know the G has the extra 'chin' on the bottom of the mantlet, which could look weird with an A texture on it. There are probably other 3D model differences, too. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right [This message has been edited by IntelWeenie (edited 09-12-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mostro: - I can see some white dots remaining on the terrain after testing LOS <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have seen blue and red, also. The dots disappear after moving/rotating the camera. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

"Pie-in-the-sky" or "lowest common denominator" has been a sticky choice to make for software designers since, well since software has been witten. Backwards compatability for software and hardware has (and I would suggest always be) a BIG ISSUE. The trick is getting the most out of the old stuff while taking advantage of the new stuff enough to avoid instant obsolescence. I think BTS did just that with the release of CM:BO. Will they be able to pull it off again with CM2:TEF? I hope so. Rational, reasoned discussion of features and programming possibilities is always a good thing. True, some things that have been asked for push the limits, but if the moon is never asked for, you'll never get there. I try to consider the limits of CM's game engine and the *likely* limits of CM2 when posting, but I don't have much problem with those that ask for things to be considered for future releases. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Brit Sten Mk IIS German GEW 43 ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

Tried a little test and the results were variable to the point that I can't draw any comclusions from them. Not only did I note the now-infamous "double-HD" effect, but it seems like HD status was totally unaffected by vehicle silhouette! I tried this with several vehicle of differing height (Daimler AC up to M4A3E8 vs. Hetzer up to King Tiger). I don't think terrain played any part as it was a billiard-table map, all vehicles on each side spaced 5m apart and the Allied tanks 6-7m (had to move some to get any HD status) from the front edge of a hilltop (level 10). The Jerries were ranged 175m away. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

I just tried a test, too! (Gee, I even came up with the same results. ) 75% exposure on open ground, no matter experience ratings or distance of infantry from the crest. I tried this placing infantry in 1m increments from the crest (enemy units about 150m away; same height to 2 levels lower) and the results are simply binary: either the infantry is in LOS and at 75% exposure or no LOS and no fire possible. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ted: Just something I’d like to clarify, it’s not so much to do with hill crests but more like a ridge crest, a sharp rise in elevation (e.g. a river bank). I know this isn’t Squad Leader but in that game Infantry that was fired on within the “covered arc” of the bank was afforded the same protection as a foxhole. What I conclude here is that Battlefront has not coded the game so as to detect the direction of fire on Infantry. Is that correct? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ummm, sort of. In ASL, it would be similar to the infantry crest status (like in sunken roads) or the old 'infantry height advantage'. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

FWIW, I agree that gun hits seem to happen quite a bit. I have no evidence pointing one way or the other, though. I just think that once a "gun damaged" result is received, that should be it for that gun. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Okay, I think I've got the hang of this now. Do we all agree that the 'fire wrapping over hills' issue is due to the larger-than-apparent area occupied by a squad? Is the tweak that everyone is asking for, to vary the effectiveness of incoming fire by angle, so that a squad shooting from (as opposed to hiding behind) a hill crest will afford better protection? I have to say that this would be an interesting feature. I've never mounted any defences from a hill crest, but if my men were shooting down from a hill, I'd be a bit miffed if they were regarded by the game engine as being in open ground, and therefore in very little cover. However, I know this would be a big change to the game's code, so I wouldn't be expecting it as a tweak to CM - but it would be good to have in CM2, if that were possible. David <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes on all counts! ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right