Claymore

Question: In CMBB, when engaging in AFV combat and the target lock is broken (loss of red line), however momentarily, does the "to hit" probability reset back to "first shot" status? For example in Zitadell you can engage in some very long range (1600m) tank/gun/tank duels. It is very common that sometime during firing the target lock is broken, if only for 1-2 seconds. It appears that although the facing of the tank/gun is "sticky" to the target, the range data is lost immediately. This is of course wildly inaccurate. CMBO suffered from the gross error of resetting the hit probabilites back to first shot status in these cases. Has this been tweaked/fixed in CMBB? (insert a "praying Graemlin" here if anyone can locate one) Cheers MRD [ September 10, 2002, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: Claymore ]

I agree Tom. Micheal E posted a new thread regarding EFOW in a NEW thread. We need to keep this one on the front burner. Damn your eyes for getting on the Pre-order list before me! That will teach me to spend ANY time with the wife and kids. Cheers MRD

Spotting a bogged vehicle from 200m is not impossible in the scenario. In real life a bogged beasty does all sorts of things which are externally visible. Depending upon the training and morale of the crew some members might even get out and start a external examination. I'd say though with EFOW that the probabilities of observing the "bogged" state should be greatly reduced. Cheers MRD

80616! I'm a little bummed that I didn't check the Forum earlier to get a lower number. Damn those Saturday morning cartoons! That's all folks!

The real question is where can I order a wife who will order ME CMBB

Please don't feed the trolls

I think that most of you will find that the TacAI is no dramatic improvements in tactics over those in CMBO. The game is just too complex to allow for any but the most simplistic of TacAIs above the squad level. The coordination of a battalion of combined arms in warfare is extremely difficult for a software programmer. The best implementation of this I have seen so far has been in MajorH's TacOps where the computer opponent's tactics are scripted to a particular map. Its algorithms are entirely different to CM's approach of dropping the units on the map en masse and forcing the s/w to place and route them. Tactics within the platoon may have improved but it is difficult to say. Certainly there has been no invocation of a fire and maneuver type tactical AI from my play. The end result of any improvements my have more to do with the s/w having to use the greater variety of movement commands than in any overarching TacAI improvements. As a test let's use the CMBB Stare demo where we get the first real test of the CMBB Infantry and Armor TacAI. Pump up the Allies Quality +2 and its forces by 50%. We will also use the EFOW state. Now, the opening phase of any defensive battle is the quick identification of the enemy's location and likely target. This dominates the first few turns and quickly establishes who will have the initiative through the remaining turns. Retaining initiative is paramount in the defense (or in any other type of battle) The allocation of firepower resources, identification of the initial point of impact, identification of possible forces which may be shifted for reinforcement, and the establishment of a "defense in depth" all falls out of the initial turns. This initial phase reveals the first of the TacAI's problems, the inability to create deception. The TacAI has no ability to generate even the most rudimentary MASKIROVKA this allows the human opponent incredible tactical latitude. In all cases the human need only "count the stars" in their inital setup locations and know for a certainty what they are going to be faced with. It is evident that CMBO and CMBB have no diffence in this category. The next three problems of the TacAI are coupled, requiring a grouped treatment. These problems are a) its fixation on VLs, b)its path finding, c) reinforcement of failure and d) inadequate combined arms tactics. Recalling the Stare battle outlined above we find ourselves facing a number of "clumps" of generic stars on the field of battle. Due to the TacAI's qualities of a) and we are ensured that the Russian forces will plot movement orders directly towards the closest VL, with waypoints in locations of maximum cover. The game now is almost completely lost for the TacAI at this stage. Application of HMGs covering open ground along the opponent's movement path will either pin or panic the Russian troopers. I typically keyhole the HMG's covering arcs to minimize the chance of any enemy troops leaking though. If possible, overlapping these ARCs ensures maximum effect for every round expended. Once the troops have gone to ground a brief application of the available light artillery, only a few rounds, is sufficient to completely rout them. Leakage can either be handled by allowing the first defensive line to effect a gang-tackling ambush at ranges below 50m or by dropping some of the 50mm mortars. The fourth inadequacy, the reinforcement of failure, ensures that even when one group of Russian are destroyed the TacAI will feed its successive troops through the same meatgrinder. The only real wildcard which has effected the number of troops to reach a VL in any of my runnings of the Stare demo has been the relative success of the 37mm against the seven T-34s. In cases where the 37mms have not managed to whittle down their numbers to 3 or less, the tanks are able to advance close enough to gain LOS to the first defensive line. In these cases the Germans are forced to fall back to a successive defensive line. In all of my runnings of the Stare demo the Russians have not demonstrated any tactical useage of their artillery. The only combined arms I have seen is the T-34s hanging back until German positions are located by advancing infantry. The TacAI for the tanks themselves doesn't seem to be any observable improvement over the CMBO algorithms. They are just as likely to mill about in bumpercar fashion near some computer chosen piece of real estate. I find no real fault or surprise at this since to generate anything with greater intelligence would daunting, to say the least. I'm having great fun with the demo so far but contests against the computer require "dialing" up its advantage exactly like I had to in CMBO. To paraphrase somebody from the past "It is the Quantity of the Russian forces which will have a percieved Qualitative effect on the CM TacAI". Humans however are devious bastages and given the greatly improved set of tactical orders, will prove to be very frustrating. In my view those CMBO players who were wizards with infantry and artillery will dominate the CMBB ladders. Excellent product BFC and thanks for taking my advance order. Cheers MRD

Just my point (Wreck and Killmore), the same tactics that you used in CMBO were more than sufficient in CMBB. The TacAI isn't any more capable. A human opponent in the attack role will be very different however since the tactical order set has been improved far more than those for the defence IMO.

Aka_Tom, Wishlist for inclusion for Extreme FOW 1. as above the Detailed Armor hits and warning labels 2. Quality of troops should not be identifyable...come on...could you tell the difference between veteran and crack troopers in a firefight? 3. Casualties sustained by infantry squads should not be available. Sure you can do the math but under many conditions you will be able to assess a unit's strength before any shots are exchanged. 4. Command tanks should best be identified by the TC's uniform, flags, flares and/or presence of antennae. Since only the former is available in CMBB that should be the extent of your information. That's about it for now. Cheers MD

Unfortunatly whinny sacks of sh*t are a historical reality in any man's army. If not the weather, the food, or the lack of female comfort, it is a soldier's right to gripe about the shape of tracers zipping over his head.

With the following comment I will likely be branded a malcontent but what odds Did the opening graphic with Missorski's Night on a Bare Mountain seem completely at odds with the splash screen graphic which followed it? Kind of a let down? In the first we see a startling real and stunning graphic with stirring music, only to be followed with a cartoonish picture and menu. It's a very minor nit, but the realism and professionalism of CMBB is not represented well by the splash screen. Think of it this way...if you had one graphic, which would you choose to represent the game? After reading the length and breadth of the threads following the CMBB Demo release I am sure of one thing. The sheer number of nits and lice complained about by the CM-faithful are startling close to those who actually experienced the Ostfront. Cheers MRD

Busboy, It is possible for the tank or infantry to take hits when one or the other is targeted by small arms fire. However, the precence of both occupying the same piece of terrain does not modify the probability of either separately being hit.

I think that most of you'all will find that the TacAI is no better in infantry tactics than before. The dominant factor for me is the allocation of firepower resources. This in turn is dominated by TacAI path finding algorithms. Comparison between CMBO and CMBB reveals that the computer chooses much the same paths. The TacAI seems to alway reinforce defeat...it will stick with a chosen route and feed its troops into the meatgrinder until eventual defeat. While we have not seen the Heer in the attack, I expect the same behavior there. To paraphrase somebody from the past "It is the Quantity of the Russian forces which will have a percieved Qualitative effect on the CM TacAI". Humans however are devious bastages and given the greatly improved set of tactical orders, will prove to be very frustrating. In my view those CMBO players who were wizards with infantry and artillery will dominate the CMBB ladders.

My opinions always end up favoring the "realistic" side. In NO ORDER then: 1. Explosions - Semi-spherical blast waves may be fun and sexy but not realistic, especially from the low-order HE in the gold demo. 2. Love those little clods of dirt kicking up around small arms targets. 3. Extreme FOW should not allow "Detailed Armor Hits" to be selected. How anyone even with Bionic vision can distinguish non-penetrating and penetrating hits from a distance greater than 100m, on a battlefield is ridiculous. 4. Portraits - what I am going to do with my Hamster mods? 5. Tracers - they still aren't like the real thing. Very minor nit. Pity they weren't rectangular and MOD'able. 6. So far I must say...Excellent invokation of the infantry "Assault", "Movement to Contact", and "Wave". While the TacAI may not be able to use these against other HomoSaps this really catches the flavor of the Russian infantry squad tactics. Without a doubt after further playtesting by the CM-faithful BFC may tweak the parameters slightly. 7. Interface Bar. Dean has done a wonderful job and I'll say to him "you can't satfisfy everyone". My own preference would have been to exclude the weapon graphics and colored armor bars for the infantry and armor, respectively. In the case of infantry a text version giving similar data would have been preferable. But Dean's product is fine by me as it stands. 8. The mini-map. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I mean really. I hope nobody spent ANY time on that piece of sh*t...oops...I mean fluff. 9. Blending of the SNEAK and CRAWL commands. Very good...very nice. 10. Landscape Graphics. What can I say. w00t! The immersive characteristics of CM are incredible now. Take a few moments and get down inside a burning wheat field or marshy ground and you'll see just what I mean. 11. HMGs. Ok, we can't have beaten zones and I still have not seen their "rapid fire" mode when being assaulted, but in CMBB the HMGs move incrementally closer to their realistic values. The use of ARCs finally is just outstanding. Caveat: This may be difficult to fully judge until we are able to see their effects on troops of higher quality however. I await with baited breath just how LMGs will be tweaked. 12. ARCs! Woo Hoo! Can anything be closer to the reality of small unit tactics? So very important and obvious that it's worth an entire thread all by itself. So far all the other stuff I can think of that has been mentioned in this and other threads is just in the noise for me. More later. Cheers MRD

I agree Tom.

Voluntary selection of the Detailed Hits mode is possible in Extreme FOW. My contention is that game play would be enhanced considerably (and made more realistic) by making the Detailed Hits mode non-operable if Extreme FOW is selected.

A complete engine rewrite is necessary for troops to get cover from vehicles. Therefore your answer is no.

My nit regarding Extreme FOW is that Detailed Armor Hits should not be allowable. Being able to discern partial or even complete penetrations at ranges greater than 100m is completely unrealistic.

Just done d/l. w0000t! One more space open on the server...step right up gentlemen and ladies...

On second thought...all youze at BFC are a bunch of bastards! I'd just barely managed to get the CMBO monkey off my back during the last year and attain almost a pure Lurker status on the forum. Now it looks like CMBB is going to be like a gorilla with vice-grips. I may never talk to my wife and kids again. May you all rot in hell.

I find myself lusting after all these outstanding changes being ported to CMBO. So far gentlemen at BFC my congrats. Excellent sequel. Cheers MRD

Big no go on Kazza etc for me. My workplace has a sniffer on that kind of stuff and enacted a zero tolerance policy as of this week. Previously only the multi-GB offenders were tagged for a visit from the IT wankers. Until the call from the MPAA...yup...the MPAA threatened action against the Jet Propulsion Lab unless all the music and movie downloads were suspended. JPL decided (rightly so I might add) that the lab bandwidth isn't meant for any excessive downloads. So now anyone who hooks up to one of the Gnutella ilk get slammed. Not something you want in your file. I'll just wait out the slow download for now...77% and counting... And playing in German is a h00t! Cheers MRD

Hooked up at home on my 56K modem at 7pm PST...the indicated 16hour d/l time was far too long to wait. So. Off to work, where a huge pipe exists! W00T! Only to find a miserable 2KB/s and 5KB/s rate on the mirror and BFC sites, respectively. The German version d/l'd in approx 5 min. 3 hours till the English jobby finishes. Cheers MRD

How does CMBO model the %kill for a HEAT round as a function of %penetration. A posting to the TANKNET forums by Paul L. peaked my interest. He is the most credible source on penetration calculations on that forum (IMO). I quote (without permisssion)his comments on the Stryker protection against RPGs. "using modern BAD simulations [ used by top NATO armies], a warhead that can just bearly penetrate tanks armor is estiamted to have a kill % of ~ 10%, while the same warhead striking the same target with 1/2 as much armor as the warheads penetration..should result in a kill% of 1/2 to 2/3....in other words in order for a RPG to have a 'good chance' of a kill [50-67%] it would have to have twice as much penetration or 55-60cm.....going on the current BAD simulations" Cheers MRD

Let's see...I'm in Pasadena CA but... On one hand I have 17 days booked in Kawai starting on July 12th... On the other a July 20th preview of the program likely to be very shortly an obsession. It's quite easy actually. The tough bit is explaining change in travel plans to the "trouble and strife" Cheers MRD