bbaker

Alternately, could captured units be simply rendered immune to "friendly fire"? Unrealistic perhaps, but it might be an easy kludge to fix the gameplay..? (spoken like I have the slightest idea how their engine works )

Steve, If you wouldn't mind looking at how indirect area fire (for instance a mortar out of LOS being directed by a CO) works around captured friendly units, I'd appreciate it. I think there is most likely a fairly serious bug. Currently, you can't issue such orders if a captured friendly unit is within 20M of the area you're targeting whether or not you know the captured friendly is there. To test this, I set up a test scenario. A group of Russian "bait" starts surrounded by Germans and the survivors quickly surrender. A distance away, a Russian HQ is watching all this from a group of trees. Several Russian mortars are behind the woods within the command radius of the Russian HQ, with no LOS to the Germans. The German platoon quickly captures the hapless Russian bait. A captured Russian can then be moved into a pine forest until he is out of sight of any Russian forces. The captured unit is then moved laterally through the woods until it is a hundred meters away from the last place its comrades last saw it. It can then be snuck (sneaked?) to within 20M of the edge of the forest, still unseen, where there sits a German infantry squad. So long as the german infantry has the captured friendly within 20M, it cannot be targeted by the Russian mortars, even though the Russians have no idea there is a captured friendly nearby. This bug allows captured units to be used as invisible "Star Wars" shields - you could capture, for instance, the lone survivor of an MG and advance it with your troops, providing an impervious shield from HE area targeting. Worse, the game allows an area fire order within 20M of the captured friendly to "stick" so it appears when you issue the order that it will be carried out. I understand why there was a limitation on area targeting of HE near captured friendlies was imposed (to prevent their "assassination", I suppose), but it can lead to a funky situations, especially since you can issue area fire orders with HE right on top of uncaptured friendlies. If, for instance, you order some mortars to suppress a foxhole you're advancing troops towards, they will continue firing even when the advancing troops are well within 20M, practically until they're in the foxhole itself. The potential for abuse by players intentionally using this exploit is certainly present, but I've also seen this crop up also with players who are simply moving a captured unit along with the forces who captured it because there isn't a rear position it can be sent to. FWIW I'm using ver 1.01 Thanks, I realize that there's a lot on your plate, but I'd appreciate it if you could spare a moment or two to check this out.

[EDIT] Removed my response and started a thread. I did some testing and this looks like a bug to me. [ March 12, 2003, 10:06 PM: Message edited by: bbaker ]

My first thought about a numbering system is that everybody has their own definition of what is gamey and what isn't. This would be further confused by assigning a numerical system to the argument... I mean, one person's definition of gamey is neccessarily another's, and trying to differentiate between a "3" and a "4", for instance, would be even more difficult.

Steve, If you wouldn't mind looking at how indirect area fire (for instance a mortar out of LOS being directed by a CO) works around captured friendly units, I'd appreciate it. Currently, you can't issue such orders if a captured friendly unit is within 20M of the area you're targeting. It allows captured units to be used as gamey shields - you can capture, for instance, the lone survivor of an MG and advance it with your troops, providing an impervious shield from HE area targeting. Worse, the game allows an area fire order within 20M of the captured friendly to "stick" so it appears when you issue the order that it will be carried out. 20M is a large area to be precluding fire from, especially since it applies to all HE area fire down to 50mM mortars, which could presumably shoot at something 20M away from the friendly with little chance of harming it. I understand why there was a limitation imposed (to prevent the "assassination" of captured friendlies, I suppose), but it can lead to a funky situations, especially since you can issue area fire orders with HE right on top of uncaptured friendlies. The potential for abuse by players intentionally using this exploit is certainly present, but I've also seen this crop up also with players who are simply moving a captured unit along with the forces who captured it because there isn't a rear position it can be sent to. [ March 10, 2003, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: bbaker ]

So who's going to be the first to put a suggestion post for 1.03 up?

The Canuck is right, the demo scenarios aren't really indicative of much of the rest of the game. I think there was even some concern about them back when the demo was first released and then discussion about why they chose those scenarios, exactly... I think the answer was to highlight changes made to the engine since CM:BO more than to provide a comprehensive experience of CM:BB. Played against a skilled opponent, it provides a superbly complex tactical challenge. The prior incarnation of CM kept me playing for two years and I never felt like I had learned it all or mastered the game. It's amazing.

Legend42 posted this in another thread. It appears to be the same problem, but much more obviously a bug.

Legend, I'm copying and pasting your post to the "unhittable gun" thread since it appears to be the same problem. [ March 03, 2003, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: bbaker ]

I'd be surprised if it's really a matter of projectile "drop". Although a shell from a gun may fall x centimeters when fired y-hundred meters, in this case it would only matter how far the shell falls after it passes the rise or ridge the gun is hiding behind. In these examples the distances seem to be usually on the order of 10-20 meters, and I'd imagine projectile drop over that range is negligible. Actually, if the ground is sloping down on the other side of the rise, anyway, I can't see how the varying drop of different projectiles could account for, for instance MG rounds suppressing but HE shells not; I'm fairly certain the down-slope of the ground is going to more than compensate for the drop of either of those types of projectiles. Battlefront is usually very, very good about responding to issues like this, so I'd imagine that either they are busy with something at the moment or are taking a well-earned vacation. It would be nice to hear from them, though, on this and some other issues (like why I can't indirect fire my 50mM mortars within 20M of a captured friendly ) Edited because I am stupid. [ March 03, 2003, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: bbaker ]

I think White Phosphorous made the point at the bottom of page 2 and he makes it again a couple posts up. If this is a feature and not a bug, the TacAI should be aware of it, giving you the equivalent of a "hull down." If it is, in fact, an example of just the muzzle sticking over the crest of the hill and a nigh-impossible shot for whatever direct fire is shooting at it, the game ideally should provide this feedback in a tangible way other than round after round plowing into the crest ahead of the gun. We are, for instance, given the "hull down" notation because since this is a *game* we can't actually sit in the cupola of a tank and look out across a non-idealized landscape. The "hull down" message gives us information that a reasonably well-trained TC could ascertain if were in that position in real life. If this is really a serious issue for a large percentage of players (grogs out there -- please realize you are likely in command of knowledge and expectations the average customer may not be, despite the strength of the CM community) it is something Battlefront might want to take a look at, if not for this game then for the next iteration of the series. Given that we're playing a game and that issues like this create a doubt in the mind of players (feature?/bug?) it would be nice if the game provided explicit feedback.

Thanks guys, I guess the Ever-Victorious Motherland will have to find another way to beat back the fascist aggressors. And to the gulag with the cowards who surrendered! And I can't accuse my opponent of being gamey, he hasn't advanced the captured soldiers with him, they just happened to surrender in a very strategic patch of forest. Where are my iron-fisted party commissars when I need them? Hopefully the wierdness with HE area fire will be sorted out with CM II!

As much as I hate bumping my own post... surely somebody's noticed this? Is there a workaround?

I ask because I am currently playing a game where I have a platoon of enemy infantry bunched up in a patch of woods around the captured survivor of an MG. I can't get mortars area-targeted on the woods to fire. They don't have a LOS, but an unmolested platoon HQ with command over them does. Alas, defeat looms for Peace-Loving Motherland. I created a test map and it appears that you cannot indirectly area target (e.g. with a mortar) within approximately 20 meters (!) of a captured friendly. Yet, when assaulting a position, say a foxhole, an area fire frequently continues until the assaulting soldiers are in the foxhole. Why are these two situations handled differently? I can understand this somewhat from a gameplay perspective... if captured troops are worth more points to the side that captured them, you don't want to enable the side that lost them to be able to easily kill them, depriving the capturing side of those aditional points. Also, realistically, I'm not going to shoot at my buddy who was captured. However, the 20M exclusion radius seems pretty severe. Even if the capturing player doesn't intentionally use the captured soldier as a gamey human shield by moving him along with his troops, he's still able to sit in the "island" created where he captures the soldier. So, uh, why can I area fire almost on top of my soldiers in one condition, but can't shoot anywhere near them in the other? Or am I daft? And yes, I ran a rudimentary search but didn't find this issue addressed. I recall a thread like this at some point, but I think it was a year or more ago in the CM:BO forum. Age is making my brain soft. [ March 01, 2003, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: bbaker ]

I'm having trouble seeing your point, Tom. I agree that it might be likely that a tank should not shoot while rotating it's turret, but that implies that, while you're moving past a target, the gunner must be stopping his turret rotation and waiting for the movement of the tank to line up his shot. Otherwise the turret would have to be in constant motion to adjust for the forward movement of its own hull. By the same token, why can't a gunner in a tank that is stationary other than a rotating hull use the rotation of hull to line up the shot? I think the issue is simply that the AI isn't allowing the tank to fire while the hull is rotating. The AI will not, apparently, override the rotate or reverse commands to allow for a shot. I'd be interested to hear whether this is a bug in the TacAI or a conscious decision on the part of Battlefront to make the rotate and reverse commands non-overridable. (I'm not criticizing any decision, just curious if it's a bug or not) I'm not sure what "bad tactical decisions exposing your flank or rear" has to do with anything. The tactical decisions that led up to the situation where your rotating/reversing tank is presented with a threat have nothing to do with how a tank would respond (in the real world) in the situation. In the game, this is probably a difficult AI problem: I'd imagine you'd have to consider at the very least the (mis)identification of the enemy vehicle by the crew involved, the experience of the crew, the armor plating, facings, and weapons involved. Yikes! If I were in the KT facing the T34 I'd likely put more effort into rotating the hull and holding my shots if I had to, but if I were in a Pz IV, you bet I'd be cancelling the rotate and shooting. [ February 27, 2003, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: bbaker ]

MikeyD, that is just about the best idea for a mod I've ever heard Maybe the Hampstertruppen guy (sorry, forget his handle) could be prevailed upon...?

Let me start by saying that I am *not* an active ladder player save for the odd tournament here and there, and I've dispensed of my usual lurking for purely academic enjoyment... just to set a tone. That said: These are all things that are perceived by many players as being under either their control or the control of their opponent. I shouldn't have run my tank through that minefield or he sure got me with that artillery barrage. And yes, I shouldn't be taking heavy tanks off-road. But bogging in dry ground is perceived as being a freakish extreme of luck. Some amount of luck is great in games and over the long term it all balances out, but the long term doesn't alleviate the frustration in the instance where it pops up. If it happens at a crucial juncture during a months-long PBEM game it's realistic, but probably not very much fun for the people involved. There are instances where it doesn't make for a good game although it may be realistic, and that's really my point. Things that happen extremely rarely, like this example, would in an ideal world be selectable by a toggle, and I would argue for this reason: Although BF deservedly has an enthusiastic fan base and participation on these boards is active, not everybody who plays the game reads them. Now then, the average shmoe, say my uncle who I turned on to the game (he loves it!), plays a bunch of games where he has heavy tanks and never sees one bog in dry ground. The game provides no feedback that this is a potentially risky thing to do. By the same token, he quickly learns that rocky terrain and scattered trees are best avoided. He plays along happily for many games until at some juncture, maybe a critical one, maybe not, suddenly he loses his tank in dry ground and it seems to him, from his experience, that it is completely without reason. Super-lucky shots are a pretty good analogy, but even there you get the sense that at least my opponent did that to me, and not the seemingly arbitrary black-box machinations of the game engine. People invest a lot of time in a PBEM game and to have one decided or influenced by one of these very, very low probability events can be frustrating. If an average user is acting in good faith and not doing something stupid, why randomly punish him? The opposing camp, the guys who want an accurate-as-possible simulation of The Real Thing have a valid point of view. I can't, nor do I feel inclined, to argue with it. But at it's heart, CM is a game and as such a large percentage of your customers expect it to behave like one. They don't know that heavy tank x has a 0.5% chance of bogging in dry ground, they don't follow the boards, haven't memorized the charts from books, and haven't been provided the sort of feedback games generally provide. So, to beat this horse just one more time (it's a tough horse, I think it can take it) a set of sliders in the next iteration of the engine would: 1. Alert users to the fact that these things happen by providing that information within the game interface itself. 2. Allow users who don't want to worry about freakish luck to play the game in the manner they want. I can think of several topics I've seen hammered on these boards over and over, things like the propensity of planes to hit friendly targets, bogging, lucky hits, things on the outer extreme of probability that you may only see once in a blue moon. I can't imagine that adding that to the new engine will be a huge deal, nor does it have to be complex. Something like setting a button to "vehicles less prone to bog" would have the engine make a second check when a vehicle bogs (like calling "best of three" in a coin toss). Anyway, I'm running out of italic ink and I think I've made my point as well as it needs to be made. It is, of course, up to the designers and since they've done such a generally superb job with the first two games, I'm inclined to trust their judgement. But I'm inclined to think it would take less time to implement than it will to rehash old arguments for all the new (hopefully mass-market) people who buy a copy of CM II.

Re: Losing a big-point unit to bogging doesn't make the game more enjoyable. Absolutely correct. But what if it wasn't his only unit of power? What if each side is playing with a fairly balanced small force and although, sure, he still has other units, he's now at a disadvatage. It can be overcome through skill, but it puts you in a position where the other player has to make a mistake or play poorly, or luck has to swing your way. Really, as noted by others, this problem usually only comes to the fore in smaller games or when people make very bad decisions about purchasing. In the former case it's a problem, in the latter, eh, too bad. Personally, I think battles over about 1,500 points aren't as much fun. I'd like to point out that at no point in his post did Deadmarsh say that it was his only tank, he was just bummed that it chose to bog on dry ground. For all we know he had a platoon of them and went on to win, but that isn't the larger point I'm trying to use his (admittedly severe) situation to make. Re: Why there isn't an option screen to control such variables: That's completely legitimate, especially with a small team working on their own dime. It's just the sort of thing that if I were the producer at your publisher I'd demand. Darn your web distribution! But, really, if this is a perennial issue on these boards, why not throw a bone to the barking dogs in the next iteration? And perhaps my use of "arcade" was ill-advised, it isn't like a set of sliders will make this Super Mario Barbarossa, it would just add a bit of tailorability to the product, letting those who are luck-averse play under the conditions they might desire. Maybe it's a real pain to put into the current engine, but I'd at least consider it for the next engine. I mean, really, what might it hurt? Say what you want about the platformer crowd, but it would be nice if PC titles sold half as many units as console games. Making the game more accessible to more people can't hurt, and with as long as you're doing an engine rewrite anyway, why not? But, uh, put it further down the list than full-movie playback

Speaking of winning, NP, I see you're doing quite well in the Rugged Defense Tournament And, well, we don't know what type of tank he was using, maybe he could have chosen a more reliable one. The point is still the same, though, if the chance that some misfortune like that will befall you is there, but smaller, the annoyance isn't gone, it's just not as frequent. Anyway, the point I'm ultimately trying to make is that this is a great example of a feature that should respond to a toggle, slider, or somesuch. If the engine could support it, it's something that would make a valuable addition to the game. If it doesn't, as designers BF had to make a decision, and that's the way it is, though it would be nice if they were a little ... ah, let's say "nicer" to those who choose to play the game "the wrong way."

With all due respect to Steve and the rest of the Battlefron staff, I think you're missing Deadmarsh's point. It isn't so much that he's inflexible, or only wants to fight a certain way, but that he's playing a *game* and as such wants it to respond in a way a game would. He probably looks at a game of CM:BB as a complicated form of chess. Further, in the situation he describes he lost his tank and the large number of points it represents not because of a poor decision on his part - it isn't like he ordered fast movement over soft ground - but purely because of bad luck on his part. The game has essentially decided, in this instance, to subtract a couple hundred points from one side's OOB. Maybe it's realistic. But does realism always make for an enjoyable game? I've always thought of CM:BO and CM:BB as games, or are they more akin to simulators? And, I hate to say this, because I'm going to draw flames and I have a great deal of respect for Battlefront and everything you guys have accomplished, but I find that description of Ladder Players (cherry-picking whiners) versus Historical Players (great guys!) to be fairly insulting. I fall pretty much in between the two camps. When I'm playing the computer, heck, the more realism the better, but if I'm playing a human opponent -- well, that represents a good deal of time, I'm going to plan things out, look carefully at the map, and think about what I'm doing. The payoff for that is either watching my plan work or watching it fall part (and hopefully learning form my mistake). When the game then does something to my OOB egregious like Deadmarsh's example is it realistic? Sure. But does it make for a good game? For either side? Part of the problem is that the battles fought in CM:BB are limited in scope, by which I mean that if both sides had a large number of units all of these things would even out, but if the battle is small how long a streak of bad luck does it take to put one player at a serious disadvantage? Deadmarsh has been on these boards a long time and if he were charging that tank through scattered trees or rocky ground I doubt he'd complain (despite being a ladder player) but if you can't trust tanks on dry ground, well, are you saying you just shouldn't choose any? I don't doubt that this has been addressed before, but is there a reason there isn't an options screen? look at any (decent) flight sim: you can adjust it from practically an arcade shooter to a sorta'/fairly realistic model of flight. Is this beyond the scope of the engine, and if so, could this be added to the engine rewrite? Wouldn't that put to rest these sort of arguments?

I think To the Volga is a clever homage to all the great all wargames that took a month to setup and six months to play.

There are, I think, a number of tac AI bugs that will get worked out over the next coupla' patches. Games are complex systems and a limited testing staff will never be able to catch all of the little things that an audience of thousands will glom onto (and then complain about over and over ) ... But as long as we're talking about tacAI bugs, I've noticed a couple that bother me. i) When you're using area fire to suppress an area while you advance troops towards it, sometimes the suppressing unit will cease fire when the friendly unit is within the area (which they should) and other times they don't. For instance, if I advance a squad out of a halftrack towards a light building and area target the building with the HT's mg, sometimes the mg will let up when my guys enter the house, sometimes it will keep firing and supress my squad. It may be that this is as designed and that there are complicating factors I'm not taking into consideration. Am I missing something? ii) Sometimes units don't fire, when really they should. For instance, I'm advancing a platoon across an open field with a heavy mg covering them. An enemy squad opens up and suppresses a bunch of my men, all the while the heavy mg blithely watches in full LOS of the enemy and doesn't target them until I manually tell them to in the next orders phase. I believe (anecdotally) this tends to happen more when the enemy is towards the extremes of the "effective" range of my machine gun (when the firepower rating is, say, 20-30 or so)... Still, I'd rather my heavy mg throw some of it's huge ammo load at the enemy chewing up my guys than just watch. And again, this is something that the AI handles fine in some situations and doesn't execute well in others. I doubt that I'm the first to bring up either quibble. Has the forum figured either out?

If I might humbly suggest a small mod for the engine rewrite... The ability to play a nationality against itself, e.g. German vs. German. Yeah, I'm a bastiche for suggesting this, but I'm a gamey bastiche and CM is, after all, a game.

In the first couple of QB's I played, I was dismayed to find that my infantry spent most of it's time deleting my masterfully laid "run" lines and "sneaking" for cover, the inglorious bastards. Things like mortar fire or long-range fire from light guns would drive whole platoons to the ground even when no casualties were caused. This was especially bad on large, open maps where infantry is exposed to fire from distant heavy weapons and has little cover to advance through. On maps like that I've found that it pays much more than in CMBO to advance a heavy tank or four or use an FO to knock out as many of the machine guns or artillery pieces as you can before moving up with infantry. On the whole, I find myself keeping my tanks abreast with my infantry much more than I did in CMBO. On heavily wooded maps it's much easier to advance so long as you keep a suffucuent base of fire to support movement across open spaces. So while I might advance a platoon in unison through a wooded patch, when I get to a clearing I have to cross, I'll keep most of my guys (and an mg or two if I have one) just inside the woods and send a small contingent across under the watchful eyes of a bunch of guns. I'm getting useed to it. And it's nifty -- for instance it now makes sense to me that they bothered to put machine guns on tanks On the whole it just requires more use of combined arms, a little more patience, and lots and lots of suppressive fire. Which is, I guess, exactly what everybody else has said thus far

Rugged Defense (do a Google search for the URL) has a robust ladder system and periodic (and well-organized) tournaments. You can also send me a setup -- being the current unemployed victim of the vagaries of the computer games industry I have a lot of time to process turns