thewood

Is there a plan to patch this behavior. This is the type of babysitting that drives me crazy. I also find that, with my infantry, idle hands are the devils work tools. They tend to kind of meander around if left on thier own for to long, unless you go and give them a hold order. That means I have to keep on top of them and be there when they finish an order. This is OK with a couple of dozen troops, but gets very unwieldy in larger battles.

Thanks, I'll download it tonight and try it out. I find it kind of strange that TOW has been out three weeks and that so few custom scenarios are out. I haven't really looked at the editor in detail, but it looks to me like a lot of programming mind set is needed. Any time named variables and functions are involved, I black out.

To me publishing it is the same as making it as far as reputation goes. I have faith that TOW will work out because BF won't put their name on it and let it fail. Its like GM putting their name on an Isuzu or a Suzuki. They take responsibility for it and hammer on the OEM if it sucks.

What we need is either a lot more intelligent AI that takes care of minor tactical issues, like hull down, facing, target priority, etc., or better tools to make micro management of the troops viable. Right now as I play, I don't see either. CM is a pretty good balance of AI and tools. I can tell troops only fire at tanks that are within 100 meters directly in front of you. I can then go and check out what is going on somewhere else. I know that in general, my troops will do what I say, and also defend themselves if a squad of germans walks into them while I am watching my MG crew set up.

The other feature you need in this game is the move to contact order. CA and MtC are key "orders". This is just an micromanaged RTS until you have those types of orders, not a "combat/tactical simulation".

Actually the most useful part of the covered arc in CM was being able to set an engagement range against all enemy. It was most useful in ambushes, MG lanes, and anti tank weapons. Also, units under a covered arc command did not always adhere to it. Experience played a big role in whether a unit stuck to it.

Thanks...Out of curiosity, is this listed somewhere?

Can you guys host your own patch? I just had to reinstall after a long absence and all three of the hosting services are either a dead link, hanging and not downloading, or charging for access. I would like to think that you aren't trying to keep your customers from updating the game.

But there is a big difference in knowing your opponents approximate strength and actually seeing the enemy units moving across the board. I agree the overhead view in boardgames and PC games is also not too realistic with real-time information. I still play a lot of board wargames and the one mechanic I always tried to work around with my partner is not having each unit move its full allocation all at once. Beyond seeing all units, the gamiest thing in boardgames is that sequencing of movement. I have tried to work out a system where each unit moves a hex and then the next unit moves a hex, and so on. We try not to be rigid, so as to keep admin down, but it does change the entire feel of the game. This is a fault with all turn-based games. It is actually the one thing that turned me on to CM.

That right there is the biggest weakness of the ASL system. You have the ultimate god's view. There is no wondering about enemy units. With the exception of a few HIP units, you know what could be coming around the bend. btw, I am aware of VASL and have played around with it. How do you do defensive fire through VASL? I just curious on the mechanics.

But does it impair unit sighting. I get that smoke and dust will obscure the view of the camera, but are the units able to see thourgh it as if it wasn't there, like in IL2's clouds.

I still really haven't seen if dust from fired guns or smoke from wrecks actually obscures or hinders the ability of a unit to sight and fire its weapon. Is there a reduction in the ability of a unit to sight through dust or smoke?

To me, "blow away" is a relative term. Certainly ToW will do some things better than CM and can count on a "blow away" victory in a category or two. Depends on your priorities and preferences if the total package gets the win in the end. For me I think it will. </font>

Like that's a bad thing!? </font>

One claification... There were several people in the old ToW, WW2 RTS, etc. forums that complained about the skewed ranges and they were pretty much shouted down as CM fanbois. This was defiitely not the first time anyone questioned it. It is however the first time their publisher questioned it.

I thought PF fixed the cloud thing. I'm not as sucky as I thought at IL2.

Actually, IIRC, IL2 AI could see right through clouds until one of the later patches. This was for the very same reason as described above.

I went to a couple of conventions in the mid-90's and the average age of the gamers was probably around 30. Now look at the average age...it has to be mid 40's to 50. I don't believe ASL will ever die, but, as MMP can probably tell you, it is getting smaller and smaller. In about 20 years, when those same convention goers start hitting the average life expectency, it will start getting real small real fast. Also keep in mind that for the 25 years ASL has been around, PC games like CM didn't exist. Now ASL isn't just competing with Tobruk or Sniper, its competing with a whole host of PC and console games.

That is exactly my point. Instead of arguing over the merits of the best placement of a MG in a village, they are arguing over which phase that MG should fire in. The entire purpose of the game has been lost on a lot of the hardcore ASLer's. If arguing over those rules is your hobby, than so be it. But those same people will turn around and declare ASL as the most realistic game around. While I agree that games like CM have to be taken on faith, I believe most ASLer's take what comes down from on high (MMP or AH) as gospel and with the same faith as CMer's have in battlefront.

Here is a great thread on SZO that pretty much explains why computers should be used for wargameing. This thread will bring tears to the eyes to all but the strongest ASL rules lawyers. http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44620

I watched this same debate unfold one or two years ago on the WWII RTS forum and it was actually discussed here on one or two threads at that time. Was UbiSoft the publisher then?

But the 50 cals won't hurt anything. </font>

Well, of course that was one of the most successful abstraction choices in CM. There is no way that any kind of TacAI can control depletion of the last rounds in a realistic manner, if if you heavily rely on randomness (or fuzzyness). The CM abstraction solved this nicely and I don't think anybody did every complain about it (except in the case of vehicle crews maybe). </font>

I have said that I understand why they weren't done in the game, but it keeps coming up that buildings really aren't a factor outside urban combat. I have seen this said several times over several threads. All I am trying to point out is that they are a significant factor in most settings of tactical combat. Is it a game killer? I don't know. That is an objective opinion based on expecations, abstractions, and compromises in each game. Each time I have brought it up, it was in response to someone saying buildings aren't a factor in combat outside cities and villages. That is what I have disagreed with. I completely understand that you as a publisher and deveopler have to make compromises in implementing a combat system in a PC game. At one point you or someone from BFC stated that because of all the things you can hide behind you won't notice not being in the building. I conceded that may be true. If you want to banish me from posting on BFC for expressing my opinion in a civilized manner, I obviously can't stop you. I tried using examples in both real life and in CM and other games without bashing any of them. Please let me know what line I crossed. I will be pretty bummed getting kicked off the board, but I will continue to read the forums, play CM, and buy BFC products.

Even though I understand why buildings are unusable, I will try this one more time: In real life, as in CM, tactical and strategic positions are built around even individual buildings in a rural eviron. How many small unit actions do we read about in WW2 where the entire action was around capturing or defending a single building (in a non-city environment). Not because they just liked the architecture, but becuase it provided the best cover and protection. At Waterloo (a very rural battle), Wellington built his entire line around three buildings, one on each end and one in the center. Most of Waterloo was fought over a single buildings, including a single wooden barn, because buildings were the only cover and dominated the woods and fields in front of it. The wooden barn was hammered by artillery also. In the equivalent of AARs, witnesses describe entire Scottish and German companies occupying the barn and see-saw tactical battles going on for the barn the entire time of the battle. They weren't fighting for the stone wall in front. That was just a way to protect the physical approach to the barn. Yes, these are anecdotal, but to say that in real life infantry run from buildings at the sign of anything greater than small arms fire is entirely false. Even in the era of tanks, infantry still use buildings as cover whenever they are available. As a matter of fact, many infantry AARs talk about setting up antitank positions to protect the approaches to building and keeping armor away. Just look at scenarios in CM. A large number are set up to defend a few buildings as the victory conditions. Most wargames, especially CM, get buildings right. They reward players for defending them and for seizing them. This is done through either setting victory conditions or through giving infantry protection in the buildings. Even in scenarios where buildings aren't given victory conditions, the protection they afford drives intense battles for their occupation. As I said before, if technical reasons keep buildings unusable, so be it. But I can't really see someone saying that buildings really didn't matter in any type ground combat. Maybe by putting smaller objects around buildings you can create the feel of a building being defended and consider it an abstraction.