Tanaka
-
Posts
504 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Tanaka
-
-
The dream of any crew !Originally posted by Moon:Less cleaning?
BTW, TRL, don't you own me a turn ?
-
Just because the average Italian soldier wasn’t stupid to the point of dying (with a 1st ww rifle on his hands) for his general’s big “villa” in Benghazi, it is my believe, we shouldn’t go rampart with pertinent but dubious jokes about a full nation “performance” at war.
This “so common” (not in this forum thankfully) ignorant perception of the Italian ww 2 effort, just goes to shows us how we shouldn’t relay only on Hollywood excellent entertainment for personal education
-
So, is snow & rain sharply limited visibility ?
-
Yes, especially when for instances the fire that is “upsetting” them is being aimed into the “void” 30m away and incoming in a 45º-degree angle. Its very disturbing to see the squad in question just deciding, from all 360º options, to sneak right into from where the fire is coming.Originally posted by Broken:Which infantry engine shortcomings gave you trouble? The annoying habit of pinned infantry to sneak towards the enemy?
In this scenario, I’ve had a MG42 “under” (read 30m away) area fire for over 6 turns… Every start of the turn, the MG would do a TacAI 5 sec sneak forward and then setup the MG (30sec+) , next turn all was repeated again…
It fired once and it lost 2 man for the “lost bullet syndrome”
I know this TacAI behavior is a compromise resulting from dealing with CM infantry engine limitations…
It happens in these extreme situations where there are no “good” cover terrains (TacAI point of “view”) and the TacAI can’t assert a path to a “good” terrain.
Besides of the “sneak” forward, also observed many times was the “dance of death”…
A panicked squad, without casualties would run into the march then after fire, back into the river, then again after fire back into the march and would repeat this process until complete exhaustion or annihilation.
When a player sees this “dance” can’t stop laughing/crying in desperation trying to imagine the situation in “real live”
Obviously this last situation is a result of poor cover (TacAI point of “view”) mixed with the TacAi inability to deal with the river “block”.
That is why, in my point of view, a scenario designer, although knowing the terrain/scenario in “real live” was very marshy, lots of short shallow brushes (brush terrain) and so on, should “supply” the player and above all the TacAI with more “good” terrains covers.
Yes, for sure it would diminish the “real” factor of the scenario, but would no doubt increase the playability and with it, considerably reduce the “TacAI luck factor”.
[ August 14, 2003, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: Tanaka ]
-
I find it hard no one mentions this, well... it does prove variety is the spice of live.
In my view, the scenario was “fair” but I strongly disliked it.
First of, it was a ME with its "flag fights" wish comes far from my usual attack/defense game type.
However, its biggest handicap was that it enhanced a number of well-known CMBB infantry engine short comes ; does sneak forward “into” the enemy fire rings any bell?
Don’t get me wrong, I know that probably the scenario designer spent his good time producing this “different” and “interesting” scenario, I just think that game engine limitations have to be taken well into account when doing it/them (Carefully choosing the terrain types to use and under what weather conditions the battle will be fought).
All in all, it was a “different” scenario, the last turns were a true “pain” to do and it really felt like saying/asking “please can some one shoot this sick horse?”
Btw one of the games went as far as turn 55 !!! Wish was around 20% more turns then the other… :eek:
-
Thanks for the link.
Interesting and "different" pictures
As for the ammo... strange things those, I'm sure a 2nd ww Soviet arms expert will show up here in a minute
-
Yes, keep them... they count has double points to the victory calculations.
Btw, you can order them to move, hide, but never to do some offensive action.
-
It was captured and "unarmed" by the enemy… after that, it escaped back to its forces...
-
Better AI... hmmm, but I don't use itOriginally posted by Ravinhood:While I find the graphic candy of course an improvement over the origional game, and the new advance to contact feature beneficial for the computer AI, once again I see the same AI basically as the origional...
First let me clear that I only play with human opponents, for me CM should be "all" "TacAI and a good game engine". Because of this, I see time invested in "improving" AI as completely useless.
CM series are by far the best games I had/have, principally if we go by the $/use ratio, 50$ every 2 or 3 years, not much "entertainment" come cheaper then that
AI
I'm sorry to inform you that in our game universe, all AIs are "dumb", also remember that normally for any AI to be "challenging", it has to "cheat". (CM AI doesn’t)
On all current best selling strategic games out there, AIs "work", is based in "cheating", "scripting" and plain old "dual logic".
You typed about SM Gettysburg AI; don't compare it with CM AI, they just aren't comparable, it’s like apples and oranges, they are both fruits, but…
The problems/options CM AI has to deal with in its 3d environment are for sure different and more complex.
Is it fair I go and compare any Panther AA AI with a BTS CM AI. ? No…
EU AI and CM AI? No...
I must say there was at least one "grand public" game I remember that used the highest form (in my view) of AI, the "learning" AI…
This tactical combat game, developed it self in a small confined 2D environment (to be more precise in a "fake" 3d environment and I’m not talking about the CC games), it collected statistical data to produce “optional matrices” in order to learn how to “defeat” the human player. On this 2d game, these matrices were already very big and the end result, although more challenging was many times “unreal” and “gamey”.
So, to do something similar for CM, might prove insanely time consuming/hard and the results would most likely be unsatisfactory.
Where my vote goes… :cool:
In the age of the global network, I personally think, “solo” players and AI are a thing of the past… So, I would say, invest a big “chunk” of the new game engine development in “borg spotting” and “Infantry fight model” and as for the “solo play”… It must be there, as it has been shown that exclusively “on-line” games can have an hard time to get them going, but from there to invest greatly in it, goes a big difference.
Just to finish this already long post, I want to ask you a favor…
If by any chance you are better informed then me, and know about the existence of any tactical game with a challenging & “non cheating” AI, please do tell me, I might consider in some occasions, changing my pbem mates by it
-
Just a small thing,
The picture is not reverse...Originally posted by Mark Gallear:For MikeyD-
Yet to find a decent picture of the IX and other versions with 6pdr to compare it with. Yep the picture could be reversed - but then it can not be an IX if I am looking at co-axial MG....
See side of the road in wish the trucks are moving, as well how the bike is overtaking the valentine.
-
-
Notice, that even if you are right, the exactly word doesn’t look well due to the inexact nature of the squad positionOriginally posted by Michael Dorosh:That's exactly correct; where's the joke?
"A squad in CM is sufficiently apart to be shoot at by out of LOS enemies, but at same time, it is sufficiently close to be completely decimated by a canister round."
sic "A day in the quantum live of a CM squad"
-
Nicely done, very good...Schrodinger's CatOriginally posted by Andrew Hedges:You can define a squad's position, or its velocity...but not both.
What we have here is a “quantic” CM :cool:
-
:eek:Originally posted by Brian Rock:Just a reminder that the visual representation of an infantry unit doesn't exactly correspond to its in-game location.
Think of the figures as representing the centre of the "real" unit's footprint, with the men in the unit spread over a larger area. So while on average your men are 100 meters away, some of them will be further and others closer.
...
LOL, This put me laughing for 1 full minute... CM is no longer a tactical game, it is an "approach" game
-
...Only major issue is if the host starts the game minimized they will not see most of the 2d graphics--like the go button.
Ok, after my brag, I couldn't stop noticing these posts above...For me it did black out all buttons and borders, and I lost the popup command list...Both of them seam related with graphics problems, may I suggest that you go by the "technical forum" on this same board and ask for drivers/DX stings. You will see that usually, nicer people then me, post there
Anyway, I think these "problems" are related with:
1) Out of recourses system/graphic card
2) Poor drivers/Dx settings
3) System hog/parasite application running in the background.
PS- Don't forget to give your system specs.
[ February 17, 2003, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: Tanaka ]
-
On my Win98 based OS machine, I regularly host TCPIP games and while my adversary plans his "long" turns, I alt-tab and do other games turns. Many times I've 2 CMBB running one with TCPIP, the other doing pbem turns of “quick” pbem mates.
CMBB is bullet prove, a few days ago I run 3 CMBB games on my machine, one TCPIP 1.02, another 1.02 pbem and the other 1.01 pbem, apart from the slight slowdown, no problem whatsoever. Of course, if you are playing it together with another graphic intensive program/game, in likes of CMBB + OFP, you will have a considerable slow down.
Conclusion, alt-tab without fear, if something happens... then almost for sure, it is related with your machine hardware or some weird unstable program running in the background.
[ February 17, 2003, 06:41 AM: Message edited by: Tanaka ]
-
In CM LOS is progressive (see the "brightness”), wish means that near the end (and this "end" varies with LOS conditions), you don't have absolute spotting ability. In the exact "end" of LOS, where the color goes black (for game proposes there is a need for the existence of one), you don't see nothing.
If you "see" behind the building (by the sides of it) you should be able to see the building wall. What you can't see is the inside of the building...
Just go into the top down view (press 5 or 6 key) and look for the polygon you can see (where you can order your area fire), if the conditions are exactly as you described, you should be able to see it.
Anyway, a picture worth 1000 words, so show us the picture...
Btw, indeed there is a game limitation regarding LOS/buildings and in & out units... but since the game is stupid *, as some of you have stated, for sure by now you have figured out.
*Notice this statement has its problems, how can a program be stupid? At most the programmers are stupid… or better, if you are passing your judgment on the program AI/TacAI, then I’m sorry to inform you, that there are very few “intelligent” AI in our game universe. If you find some intelligent AI (non stupid) please do tell me…
-
In this situation, I think the AFV is just behind the building and none of your troops has LOS to it, but… don't be surprised by a similar situation when dealing with short/poor LOS battle situations.
The sound contact can even start shooting at the infantry, remain a sound contact and your guys don't even have a chance of firing back. In the end, you will find out the AFV was well within your infantry LOS (hell, I've seen 5 m away situations),I know it is weird that an AFV can spot infantry in the woods first then the other way around, but it’s a game limitation that is strongly related with the inexistence of “relative spotting”, and we just have to leave with it.
[ February 14, 2003, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Tanaka ]
-
That is an old one, where have you been? :eek:
Anyway, welcome back
-
Just a small thing; with this system (wish btw has been mentioned on this forum several times), it is always the same machine/player doing the turn calculations. As far as I can remember, that has always been a "veto" condition in the development of CM pbem play system.Originally posted by Fuerte:...
With the suggested system:
a) plot #1
file contains game state #1, a#1
plot #1 (generates turn)file contains game state #2, movie #1
a) view #1 + plot #2
file contains game state #2, movie #1, a#2
view #1 + plot #2 (generates turn)file contains game state #3, movie #2
a) view #2 + plot #3
file contains game state #3, movie #2, a#3
...
As for myself, I like it as it is...
I also can't see much room for the implementation of a "safer way" (expect maybe for the removal of small “thing” during the turn calculation on a pbem game).
Don't get me wrong, I respect your "need" for a faster and less safe way of file exchange (although it is has been extensively explained why it wont make it into the game), it's just my practicality together with my lack of believing in a good and honest world that prevents it
-
Are you saying it will be abandoned after the CO is KO ? Most likely you are...Originally posted by Andreas:Buttoned or not?
Then anything will take out a T-70
-
A T-70 !? No way... yes you need some ATA
-
Well, this last post put me doing what I said I wouldn’t be doing... never say never !Originally posted by PeterX:...Result: The T34 could be induced only to fire canister at the squads in the 'windows', that is, at the troops in a position to fire on IT. These were shredded. Troops hunkered down in the bowels of the structure were untouched. You can't Area Fire with canister.
...
General conditions
T-34 with 76.2 L42 with only C ammo parked 30m from a tall heavy building
A German riffle 41 platoon all inside the tall heavy building HIDEN with no cover arc positioned in the falling way:
1 squad (10 men) 40 m from the T34 (10 m inside the building) right in the edge of the possible LOS.
All other squads and HQ are out of LOS from the T-34 but in LOS of each other.
EFOW used, the T-34 can’t see any enemy
1st experiment (10 runs)
T-34 is “area firing” to the edge of the LOS exactly on top of the German squad (a 40 m shot 10m into the building*)
*This type of building is a square with 20m by side
Simple average of number of men KO in the first shot: 7.6 (76%)
Most observed result: 8 (80%)
Notes: All men were killed at maximum on the 3rd shot 100% of the time.
The survivors of the 1st shot were always out of player control (panic and routed)
All squads out of T-34 LOS weren’t in anyway affected.
2nd experiment (10 runs)
T-34 is “area firing” to the edge of the building, exactly 10m away of the German squad (a 30m shot 0 m into the building)
Simple average of number of men KO in the first shot: 7.7 (77%)
Most observed result: 8 (80%)
Notes: The same has experiment 1
1st off, let me say, CM takes into account the C charge round firing distances (that is not in question here), if you do these same tests with greater firing distances, the % of KO soldiers will dramatically go down.
Observations to the result of these tests…
Not putting in question how a tank can fully “see” 100 m^2 in a heavy building…
Most likely, CM has it right regarding C ammo lethality in closed spaces when compared to real live…
…but there are a few questions/problems
Taking out the idiot idea that shots could be penetrating the wall; every single one, hit the “spot”… Every shot found its way into the building by a “window”, “door” or whatever.
Some of you will say, “the tank was 30 to 40 m of the target, a gunner would never miss the hole in the wall at that distance”, fine.
Now even accepting that every shots went by an opening in the wall, it couth above 70% of the man in that “specific” room (because building have compartments, haven’t they?).
Even more incredible, all the men were hidden! Taking every possible cover of the terrain… but never the less above 70% were KO.
At least to me, these are too many singularities in one situation…
In the 2nd test it was proven that it was indifferent where the squad was relatively to the shot “landing” spot… wish means, that virtually there are only 2 places to be in a building… In the 100 m^2 room inside the LOS of the tank, or the “dark side in wish you are completely safe”.
Many of you will say; “ this is due to the CM building abstraction…it will be better in CMx”.
I don’t contest that; but I play with what I have… and although I will buy CMx, I’m not egger for it.
In my view, what we have here is a correct (real) canister round effect, putted together with a not so “correct” game engine limitation. The adding of these 2 effects, originates an overall “weird”, “distorted” outcome.
This is a game, it has limitations, things can’t be all as reality, so compromises must be done. To me the current compromises favor too much tanks in city fights. So, most likely, the C round effect as to be “wrongly” tune down in order to produce an overall better effect.
I’m not a first language English speaker, to some, my words my sound confusing… but look into this perspective as into the artillery round effectiveness in CM. If artillery were to be as effective as some people want it to be (most likely as it was in real live), we would have weird outcomes in our virtual battlefields.
-
Yes :confused:Originally posted by Sgt.Morgue:... Even fired at bunkers the cannister pellets entering the firing slots cause high casualities...
I think no one contradicts what you are saying in this part... well, at least I don't.
I bet you belong to the lobby of: "Artillery is too weak in CM!"
plot #1 (generates turn)
Compass Directions
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Maybe it's my English, but if at
and in game it ,all is ok...You are attacking from S (into North).