Sitting Duck

David said (paraphrasing Andreas)- "...this kind of eye candy is irrelevant to the game." I'm not so sure it's irrelevant is it? Perhaps it's irrelevant to the 'strategy' part of the game. Then so too the exploding buildings, shaking camera option, flying debris, etc. Yes? For me, these things really set CM apart from other strategy games. I've played some other games in the same 'strategy' vein (TOP, PITS, TACOps) and really like the 3D and eye/ear candy that CM has to offer (in addition to the strategy part). What are MODS if not eye candy? Except maybe the GRID (whoops - won't go there). I am constantly amazed by the detail...and the amount of effort that so many people have put in to making it look...cool. Perhaps it's the fact that the request is for people or parts of people (entrails?) to fly around rather than inanimate stuff? What about the ear-candy in the same vein? You know, the complaints/screams about arms and injury... I dunno. I think the more realistic detail BTS put in, the better! [This message has been edited by Sitting Duck (edited 08-18-2000).]

L.Tankersley said - "..." Very. Very. Funny. Very.

Fionn said - "Sitting Duck ( great nick BTW)..." When I registered for the forum, I had just seen an AFLAC TV commercial on CNBC (it uses a duck). Talk about funny! I wish I could show you. Come to think of it...maybe I can! <a href=http://www.adcritic.com/search/?query=aflac>http://www.adcritic.com/search/?query=aflac</a> AFLAC's got another duck commercial coming out shortly...perhaps I'm just too easily amused? No. Don't answer that one. Fionn said - "Asking for a poll is asking for a 'vote' with the clear implication that some action should then occur based on the democratic will expressed by respondents. That's my take anyways. "Also, I'm just sick of seeing things like 'Poll on what BTS MUST fix in 1.04>'" Yeah, I guess that's the implication...I've been on this forum a much shorter time than you and only seen a couple of "polls." I used the Search function ( ) and found about 20 "polls." Looked about even split...many looked to be just introductions (Where did you first hear about CM? (Poll)) <a href=http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008787.html>http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008787.html</a> Fionn said, "...The very people who generally say 'I don't want to be flamed but..' are the same ones who will flame the instant anyone doesn't give them an Oxford Dictionary answer." Yah...I'll have to take your word for that one! As I said, I haven't been here long and THAT kind of search would take too long. quack!

Fionn said, "...Why ask for a poll when it can do no good?" Isn't asking for a "poll" like saying, "I'd like to discuss this?" Maybe it has something to do with the American election as someone pointed out. Maybe it's just another way to introduce a topic? It's not so much the 'vote' that's important as it is the discussion. They usually have the effect of generating good discussion and different viewpoints...Not that they have the force of law or anything. Now a poll about the conduct of the forum itself... My Vote : Don't change a thing! This forum is great. You can learn some very fine points about the game, history, physics and especially human nature...and still get a really good laugh most of the time (more often than not). Mormon Wives, Hamsters, Gerbils, Otter's, No Smilies for MrPENG, taunts that are really works of literary art...it's just hysterical. I do wonder why some posters to this forum seem to preface their comments/questions with "Don't bite my head off, but..."? [This message has been edited by Sitting Duck (edited 08-18-2000).]

David said - "...I'm more and more getting the impression that...Sitting Duck...regard(s) recon as peeking around the corner of buildings with scout cars. Move out, take a look around, move back." Thanks David, I'll give that last a try for recon! Say...split a squad and MOVE or SNEAK them on out there? Maybe in close proximity to cover? That's the ticket! Do you have any tips for executing the 'peek' maneuver (perhaps 'peek' is a better word than 'recce?') I described in my post? The timing part is just killing me! If I want to look 'round some obstacle, it needs to coincide with the end of the turn since I can't depend on the TacAI to play conservative with some of my MBT's. I need to make the decision about whether to back out with a REVERSE. The process I detailed above just seems too klunky... If I "peek" with a clearly inferior vehicle (Jeep) and it spots a superior vehicle (Tiger), then the TacAI will have the sense to REVERSE the inferior vehicle out or take some other evasive move (smoke - Yea!). But if I'm trying the same move with a superior vehicle in a situationally poor circumstance...I'm probably dead w/o the pre-planned REVERSE since the TacAI will leave me there (see my previous post above for link to tank_41's TacAI system discussion), or command delay leave me hanging out there. Oh well. It's no big deal. I can continue to plot the REVERSE. Or...no more 'peeking' with MBT's...they can just sit and wait for the grunts to catch up or tote them on the top. Thanks for all the explanations, they really do help! David said- "As Steve says (and Steve should know, he was only one of the guys who made the game)..." For real? What the...? How did you...?! Really though...I think it's just great when the developers participate in forums (or newsgroups) where their products are being discussed by users. I must say that this was the best $50 I've ever spent on ANY piece of software. Bar none and frankly a bargain at twice the price. I hope these guys make a fortune on this product, they sure deserve it - not to mention that the success will spur them onward to CM2+!

On this board it would probably be better to re-read the thread to check for more posts before posting your own reply.

David said- "If you want to sight the enemy but not fight them, you should be creeping forward using the commands which are currently available in the game." I confess I haven't been playing CM nearly as long as you, David. What commands would you use in the game to approximate a 'recce?' The only technique I have found is the following: 1. Plot a HUNT or MOVE command from a position out of LOS some distance forward to a position just in LOS. 2. Also plot the REVERSE back out of LOS. 3. Good distance and timing judgment is important (using PAUSE to ensure the end of the turn occurs when you expect to have LOS). 4. If you "pokes your nose out" and see nothing, you can cancel the REVERSE when you plot your next move, or 5. If your distance/timing judgment was off and your unit is not in LOS at the end of the turn, issue more PAUSE commands and extend the MOVE or HUNT command slightly (leave REVERSE alone)... I just find this exercize to be more...contrived than it needs to be. Issuing PAUSE commands so as to delay anticipated LOS until just before the end of the turn. Ugh. It also has a tendancy to use up precious game time. David Said- "Marching forward, letting the enemy see you and then withdrawing to cover would be an extremely bad idea, because - assuming you actually reach cover in one piece - the enemy knows where you are and can either shell you or hunt you down..." Unfortunately, even my somewhat tortured process for poking my nose around the corner (with pre-plotted REVERSE) can have the effect of getting me spotted and shelled/hunted/killed. Hmmm...I'm not sure that 'recce' (as I described) would necessarily mean the OPFOR would see your unit...? Of course, since the 'recce' unit is moving, it's more likely to be seen before it sees a stationary (hiding) OPFOR unit... I once plotted a series of HUNT / REVERSE commands (about 7 in a row), between the same 2 spots in and out of LOS. I was on the back side of a hill so my "in LOS position" was HULL DOWN to OPFOR. It was pretty effective! I would say that it was as effective as the infamous "sherman popping smoke until my Tiger is distracted by a crew or other meaningless unit" technique the TacAI uses so well! Jeff - What about Michael emrys' concern - how to program the "break off?" What if your 'recce' unit doesn't see OPFOR until it's been ambushed...from behind? There is already code in the game to handle the "you're a bigger threat to me than I am to you." (TacAI behavior in Sherman vs. Tiger thread) Maybe that could be adapted to terminate the 'recce' command on contact? <a href=http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/007977.html>http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/007977.html</a>

David said, "I think 'recce' is the kind of maneuvre that you should be planning yourself, not expecting the game to do for you..." Do you feel the same way about the vehicle hunt command? Why or why not? [This message has been edited by Sitting Duck (edited 08-17-2000).]

Hello - Downloaded and installed the new drivers for my GeForce 256 and no problems running 1600x1200...wonder if I got the right driver version? Checking the properties for GeForce and it shows v4.12.01.0618. Lee

May 31, 1963

I think that I like Lewis's suggestion #2 or possible variant: Quote: 2. Have a way of drawing a LOS from the "hunt" commanded-to point. You use the "hunt" command normally and get to examine the LOS or LOF from that 'hunt-to point'. I have 4 alternatives to suggest: Method1: Way-Point LOS Tool Create your movement way-points normally. At each way-point you can invoke a new LOS "tool" that uses the normal colors to indicate the quality of LOS between the selected way-point and the current position of the cursor. The color of the way-point or cursor would change depending on relative "Hull Down-ness" of way-point and cursor position. Could this be mis-used? For instance, a player could simply place movement way-points anywhere on the map in an attempt to locate Hull Down positions. Is there another method? Method2: Map LOS Tool Another option would be to just create a special LOS tool that would allow the player to select any 2 points on the map. Point 1 is the spotter (~way-point, in Method1 above) and a second point (or cursor) is the target. You could move the spotter point and cursor around the map at will. The line between the points would use the current color scheme for LOS quality, but each point (spotter and cursor) would indicate whether it was "Hull Down" relative to the other point. Too gamey? I personally find the current LOS tool to be, somewhat tedious. The LOS tool in CM now is necessary to give "god's eye" camera positions (i.e., positions >1), the ability to know what's visible by a unit (camera position 1). Method1 and Method2 merely make more-or-less minor changes to the current LOS tool. So, how about another way? Method3: Unit LOS Map Display There was one game that I played once (forget the name), where you could select a unit, then press a button, and the map would change to show the player every place on the map that the selected unit could see and lightly "grey out" map positions that the selected unit could not see. The point of view in that other game was satellite (camera position 7 or 8 in CM). You can obtain nearly the same information in CM from camera position 1 (Key sequence: select unit, tab, 1, rotate)...I just find it hard to interpret because of the somewhat abstracted nature of the graphics in CM (from any camera angle - no dig intended). In CM, the player could select a unit and then have the option to see exactly what that unit could see from ANY camera position. Basically, this takes the information in camera position 1 and allows you to see the same thing from other camera angles rather than the nearly "god's eye" view we currently have from anything above camera position 1. This option would clearly not allow you to "plan" a Hull Down Move in advance (but see below). It would help overcome some of the "awkwardness" of a LOS Tool or potential complexity of a Hull Down Move (see Charles' previous post). CM could use shades of grey to indicate relative visibility, maybe some other hue to show relative "Hull Down-ness" between the unit and the position on the map. Maybe some translucent colors overlaying the terrain to show the quality of visibility: not visible (dark grey), relative obstruction, Observer Hull Down to position, Target Hull Down to position, Observer & Target Both Hull Down. Method4: Position LOS Map Display If you really wanted a way to plan or look for Hull Down positions, you could toggle the option in Method3 after selecting any point on the map, not just after selecting a unit. This method would allow a player to select an ambush spot, toggle the map, find the places on the map that are Hull Down relative to the ambush target, where the target is NOT Hull Down to the ambush position, and then place/move units to the ambush position. Too gamey? I like Method3 and Method4 the best...but perhaps Method4 only for attack/defend scenarios and Method3 for meeting engagements. Maybe Method4 only for setup and Method3 for during the game? Lee

Hello Lewis- Great idea. Seems much more 'real world' than the HUNT command alone. What game mechanics would you propose for this move? By this I mean, how would you propose for a player to issue The Hull Down Move. From my understanding of the desired effect, it would need to consist of both a movement command (~HUNT) with waypoints and a target command (~AMBUSH). How would you accomplish this using the existing GUI? Lee

vote yes for roster.

Hi Scorpion <UL> Quote: I am not sure what VNC is, but I have heard of a PC Anywhere-like web-based free program. Have you tried it? Does it work? Yes on both questions. You can use the viewer application, but it's far more convenient to just use a web browser to connect to the remote computer. [This message has been edited by Sitting Duck (edited 07-26-2000).]

tank_41 - excellent analysis and testing! Do you (or anyone) have any ideas on how to improve this particular portion of the TacAI? It would seem that there are at least 2 questions that would have to be answered: 1. How do you determine when a theoretically superior tank needs to make an evasive move? Stated another way, what situational factors should be considered and how should they be weighed? 2. What evasive move does it make? It seems like question 2 is already answered satisfactorily, at least in the case of Ami tanks, or more generally, when the ambushed tank is theoretically inferior to the ambushing tank(s). I guess the simplest situation is the gun damage case (scenario 3). In such a case, the Tank with gun damage should probably behave 'as if' it were infantry or half-track when faced with enemy armour, yes? The more complicated situation would be Scenario 1 where the lone Tiger is ambushed on either side by 2 Sherm 75's. In this case, the Tank vs. Tank logic might dictate that the Tiger stand and fight (Tiger>2xSherm75), but the situational factors might suggest an evasive action. Perhaps another way to say this is that a non-"arrogant" tank commander would take an evasive action of some sort. [Not sure I buy the German "arrogance" modeling suggested by Priest - but I am constantly amazed by the detail of this game!] What logic would you (or anyone) suggest? Maybe this could even be a preference item like Fog of War? I want aggressive Tanks when on the offensive! I want conservative tanks when on defense? [This message has been edited by Sitting Duck (edited 07-26-2000).]

He chrisl - I'm not sure what Timbuktu is, but, with the appropriate honor system, you could play hotseat on TCP/IP, using a web browser with a freeware app called VNC. http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/ This app is pretty cool, you can using it to remotely control any windows and most unix machines from a web browser.

In terms of the game logic/programming, wouldn't a Defensive Arc have nearly the same effect as an ambush? So, one way to achieve the intended affect of a Defensive Arc is to allow vehicles to create a Defensive Target (rather than an ambush target). I'm really new to the game, so I'm not sure of all the restrictions placed on the use of an Ambush Target, but maybe some of those restrictions could be relaxed or changed for the Defensive Target. Things like range, target size, the effect of unit movement, becoming a target, or when the defensive target is released.

1600x1200 GEForce 256 (32MB) Dell 750r (128MB) 21" Trinitron 85Hz Smooth. Very.

I just got my CD in the mail and now I feel like an idiot. I've played the Fire & Maneuver (Training) scenario as Axis w/Full Fog of War about 5 times now and I just cannot win the damn game. The best I seem to be able to achieve is a freakin' draw against the American AT guns and tanks. One problem I have is that I just don't understand how to use the cover effectively in the game. One technique that worked pretty well was moving some of the Arty Spotters forward, smoking and dumping shells on the AT guns and then moving my tanks and APC's up. I seem to be able to reach the cover of the trees, but my APC and Tanks seem to have just enough visible to get shot up. Seems that no matter what I try the AT guns (and later the tanks) just <u>kill</u> me. If it's not cool to post scenario pointers here, maybe just email me an idea? Thanks!