thewood

There are interns in Peng? I'll be right back. OK, just checked...bunch of smelly old guys, no interns.

I thought german AC's had central tire inflation. I am an auto analyst and I would say computer engine and transmission management and, as you say, better tires. I was wondering if I was missing something with all the talk about better mobility.

Never noticed that before...thanks

What the heck is your problem. I thought I explained myself pretty well. I would like to know why you charecterize this as a rant?

Is there any word on the problem with Syrian tanks throwin HE at US tanks?

I disagree, because the thing you guys think is the problem isn't. It's when it fumbles MOVE when it's a problem for me. Because IMO the vehicle getting off course isn't the problem. It's the vehicle fumbling attempts to get back on course that are the problem. However, MOVE gets off course at times where it probably shouldn't and then to add insult to injury drops the ball trying to correct. A doubly whammy of navigational madness. Thus MOVE is the real problem child, FAST and QUICK work reasonably well by comparison. </font>

While I can understand we want to help BFC. I think a bunch of us have run test after test, for our own benefit. At some point, I hope BFC takes our input that points at a problem and runs thier own test. Otherwise they might as well declare this officially a beta test.

Hi Mom (first)

Thanks, I was starting sound a little shrill.

I think Fast just magnifies the problem. I see the same thing with Move, just not as consistently.

I bought a game that sometimes seems to work, sometimes doesn't. I really don't want to wait two or three weeks to get one step closer to making it consistent only find out its starting all over again. I would like to get at least one phase of the game up and running so I can play a single solid game without saying CRAP and restarting because something absolutly ridiculous happened. Fix Tank v Tank, fix infantry in MOUT, etc., get one aspect working. Some people have a lot more tolerence for that. Right now I have spent weeks of my free time testing scenarios to find out what the heck is going on. I have stopped doing that. I know I'll end up doing it again when 1.03 comes out, just like I did with 1.02. I am a glutten for punishment. And before anyone says, well thats how it works in a real war...that is not what this was designed to do.

Try building a scenario without one and positionoing units in hull down or behind woods. Edit: Let me clarify...how can I set up any kind of ambush in the editor with some kind of LOS tool to see if my units can be seen. With only a timer variable, it is critical. Tell me how you do it and maybe I missed something. [ August 24, 2007, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: thewood ]

The problem is few people attack what Redwolf is saying rationally. I have to do the same thing Redwolf did...I have to use extreme examples to make my point because of the defenders refuse to see it unless you clobber them over the head. A reasoned reponse like yours at least acknowledges there is an issue. Sorry Redwolf, I didn't mean to speak for you, but I did.

Haven't you heard, Its BFC, not BTS. Some legal mumbo jumbo.

I actually disagree. I have enough game play issues, I would like to see at least a couple of things fixed. Whether its the T72 firing HE, infantry movement, self preservation, etc. Pick a couple and fix them so we can at least smooth out certin types of battles.

You obviously never played the Volga scenario...

Look at the Main UI discussion. Right there you can see that they had a LOS tool that Steve explicitly explained was to check LOS directly from the unit. Now before Steve jumps in and states that the caveats were all over the place in those threads about changes being made before release, I understand that almost 2 years have passed since that thread started. But at the same time, its interesting how there was a clear understanding it was needed at this time, now we hear how unimportant it is because we have the targeting command.

How would Stryker mobility compare to the German PSW 234 AC's from WW2. Has Wheeled mobility taken any great leaps forward in 60 years?

That's not the point. The point is that some people always find the next excuse, and then the next. You see when I discussed this at armchairgeneral it went roughly like this: </font> Redwolf: "Boah, that overshoot/waypoint-ignoring business really got worse in CM:SF"</font>Poster1: "That's just because you produce traffic jams"</font>Redwolf: "Nope, here's an example without other vehicles"</font>Poster2: "No, it didn't, it just driving around terrain obstacles"</font>Redwolf: "Nope, here's an example without other vehicles and no terrain".</font>Poster3: "Redwolf, did you test with 1.02. It is gone in 1.02".</font>Redwolf: "Uh? I used 1.01 but the 1.02 changelog doesn't mention anything about fixed movements. Are you sure I'm not wasting my time re-testing"</font>Poster3: "Trust me, it's gone in 1.02"</font>Redwolf: "Nope, now I wasted my time testing and there's no change in 1.02"</font>Poster4: "It's because you used fast movement"</font>Redwolf ... thinks really hard whether he fires up his Windoze box again because he knows that whatever he disproves, somebody will come up with some justification</font> All the whole time the world outside the tunnel vision whatever-happens-to-be-in CM fans thinks we are all nuts, or at least the drivers in our vehicles. </font>

I would hope that my comments are taken in the sprit of an active forum member encouraging constructive dialogue and discourse, but if you really want to look to me for permission as to what you should and should not do, I have to problem with that. Voluntary subservience works for me. </font>

So I wanna know...In CM1 it sometimes took longer than a minute for the blue bar and AI to calculate and move. What happens now if it takes longer than a minute? (This only happened in huge scenarios. It would seems like it would be a bigger problem with having to calc the graphics at the same time. Edit: In the early days of release, someone actually brought it up, but no one from BFC ever answered, or at least I missed it. [ August 24, 2007, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: thewood ]

Thank you for permission

I thought he said the vehicle was slow.

I am the author...its not a REVIEW, its an After-Action Report, why would you expect details with respect to technical difficulties or bugs? Those observations are for a review, not for an AAR...In any event, I played this scenario and wrote the AAR prior to v.1.02 being released, and I haven't experienced any of the problems you or John Kettler are referring to. The scenario ran smooth and I don't recall coming across any obvious or game stealing bugs. </font>

I think this thread serves a good purpose. There have been a few people saying they see no problems or issues like Redwolf showed here. I think its good to shine a light on them so people understand them and prove they do exist.