willmontgomery

Sweet! If saving the game during playback was possible under CMx1, I never knew it. I'm 44.380821918 years old (approximately). When I was a child, we didn't have personal computers. When I was a little older, we had primarily text-based computer games. When I started my professional career, we were sharing a UNIX machine. Having to manually save each turn doesn't deter me at all, doesn't even rate on my personal tedium meter. I withdraw my suggestion that BFC enhance anything in this area. I am convinced that they should invest their effort in other, more important areas. Once again, sweet!

I apologize if I am being obtuse or annoying, but... Suppose we pretend that I didn't use the term "CoPlay". Suppose I had merely suggested that single-player mode be enhanced so that it would be possible to retain the movie from a turn, making it accessible/replayable during the subsequent orders phase, and also saveable during that phase. Obviously movies can already be saved in a game file, because that happens as a matter of course in a PBEM, so saving the movie itself cannot be a huge deal. I'd be surprised if retaining a (notional) live reference to a (notional) movie object while proceeding into and operating within orders-giving mode would be a huge deal. Like any modification, this "enhancement" would require programming effort, and for what purpose? Simply so that a friend and I could share a single-player game. Between ourselves, we would feel that we were playing co-operatively, but the software itself would never have to know. The game wouldn't even have to know that there were two of us giving orders, let alone which units supposedly belonged to me and which to my friend. CoPlay itself has been dreamed about for a long time, and apparently there are serious doubts about its viability. Got it. However, maybe "CoPlay-lite" (such as I have tried to describe here), which wouldn't require the software even to be aware that multiple people were playing, would be relatively easy to implement, and maybe it could do a surprisingly satisfactory job of fulfilling some of the CoPlay dream, at least for PBEMers, who are already used to saving and exchanging files.

In CMx1 single-player, there didn't seem to be any save game file that stored the movie. If I saved the game _before_ the movie played, then every time that file was opened, it would generate a different movie (because it would be calculating the turn again). If I saved the game _after_ the movie played, then I was in a post-movie orders phase, and the movie would not be saved. Is this somehow different in CMx2? Or do I have this wrong about CMx1?

If it's a huge thing to put in, then I imagine that it's not commercially viable, in the sense that lack of CoPlay probably would cost you very few -- if any -- sales. However, I imagine that you're talking about real-time CoPlay. I dream of a CoPlay-lite, where a friend and I could play cooperatively against the AI, much like playing turn-based, single-player but where the two of us would e-mail the game file back-and-forth to give our orders and stuff. The only major obstacle we face (with CMx1) is that it seems that only one of us can watch the "movie" each turn. If something could be done about this -- which I doubt is a "huge thing" in itself -- it would enhance our enjoyment of your product.

They came from America. It's where they are now that's unknown.

I should mention that I have no affiliation with Battlefront, but this made me think of a case from my work. We were working on simulating bombs falling through air, with air resistance accounted for. A tester entered a terminal speed for a bomb of 1 foot per second (~ 1.5 miles per hour), because that was the minimum value allowed by the software (since a value of 0 would obviously be invalid). Ignore for a moment would what really happen if a bomb released from a jet aircraft in flight actually experienced the deceleration that such a terminal speed would cause. In our simulation, the bomb, upon release from the aircraft (which was diving), decelerated very abruptly, so abruptly in fact that its downward velocity was more than completely negated, and it actually gained upward velocity! After a bit that velocity was sapped by gravity, and the bomb began to fall again. But then it began to rise again. The simulation never reached termination conditions, and by the time I went to examine the results, all of the bomb's initial downrange velocity had been lost to friction with the air, with the result that the bomb was just hanging there in midair, slowly oscillating up and down. I thought that was funny.

Now even Adolf Hitler is being "Swift-boated"? Is nothing sacred?

I offer the T-34 as an example of such a counterpart. Not perfect either, but a better starting place.

Perhaps I should mention that I grew up in SoCal and that I didn't move to this area until the fall of '85. Among the Eagles of the era you're thinking of, I paid more attention to Carmichael and his 127-game streak than to the exploits of my "namesake".

I'm in Pottstown. I am not at all sure that I can make it, but I am interested.

You must be a "consultant", i.e. you must have to pay for "overhead" things like self-employment taxes and full medical insurance premiums out of that hourly rate (so it's not all salary). 'Cause if it's all salary, then shouldn't you be working only half-time or else retiring early, so you should have plenty of time to write custom software for people you'll probably never meet except on this forum.

Sounds like Hearts of Iron _might_ be for you. Combat is fairly abstract, and the AI isn't too bright, but you get a _lot_ of control over the grand strategic stuff (including technological development, production, and where to strike next).

I think he means, when you "cash in" an attached unit for an upgrade, you can cash it in for the points it cost to buy, not for the (usually larger) number of points you rolled up at the time that you bought it. In other words, any points you lost when you originally bought that attached unit stay lost when you "cash in" that attached unit for an upgrade. Hence (interpreting what Biltong wrote), the new points you just received for attached units are added to the points you actually used for the attached unit you are cashing in rather than to the total number of points that you rolled up back when that unit (which you are now cashing in) was originally purchased.

Gentlemen (specifically excluding Lopaka ), Thanks for the replies. [ June 03, 2002, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: willmontgomery ]

I've known this guy for like 25 years (since fourth grade or whatever). I thought he wouldn't expect it. I thought it might be cool to surprise him with a battalion in his backfield. Plus it's the kind of thing he would do. If it ended up causing entertainment, I wanted credit for doing it first. Guess which post on this thread is from him? So it was conceived as a lark. If it's not a credible strategy, then that's all it will ever be. On the other hand, before abandoning it, I thought I would ask whether infiltration was a bad plan a priori, or if I just did a bad job of something that a good player might seriously do under the right circumstances. I know at least some combatants used infiltration in the actual event. [ June 01, 2002, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: willmontgomery ]

OK, it's official, I am a weak player. I have almost exclusively played only one opponent, and we both started out as newbies. I was successful at first, partly because I knew the WWII hardware a lot better and partly because I could beat my opponent by trying to do the unexpected rather than necessarily beating his troops with sound tactics. Then I had to take about a year off, and my opponent went out into the world and learned a thing or two about sound tactics. Furthermore, my grand plan in our current battle has blown up in my face, and it's clear that there isn't going to be a happy ending. So here's my cry for help: 1) A specific question: I am the attacker in a probe at night under overcast skies (i.e. _short_ LOS). I assigned all my stealthiest HQs to command large-scale (company-sized) infiltrations. Unfortunately MGs and vehicles cannot sneak, so they were left behind and when the groups stumbled over something, they didn't have the support they needed to trade blows with the enemy. Plus the troops seemed to be extra-jittery at night, so discipline collapsed immediately even when the threat was slight. My opponent has been able to mop up my disrupted forces with nearby troops who were not involved in the first contact (and thus not equally disrupted), or with armor (which is not subject to morale problems). Should I conclude that infiltration is a bad idea even under such apparently optimal conditions, or that the groups I tried to infiltrate were too large (either too hard to hide or else betting too many assets on the turn of one card)? 2) Are my morale problems because of night conditions, or is there an extra morale effect when taking fire from a previously undetected source which might happen under any surprise conditions (my guys _were_ in command)? 3) More generally: no plan survives contact with the enemy. Is it essential that pre-battle plans have contingency plans (like what to do if the infiltration fails abysmally), or is it enough simply to lay out a general plan and then improvise as necessary in the actual event? I know what I really need to do is to read about and practice sound tactics until I learn how to play better (playing against a wider variety of opponents would help too, not that I have time for that). This is such a large area that it would be silly to ask: "What should I do to play better?" I can find the articles and threads on my own, so I don't really have any other questions, but I'd love to hear any general advice anyone out there might be itching to give. [ June 01, 2002, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: willmontgomery ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson: For your specific dilemma I'd cancel the Ambush command and Hide the tank instead, until the enemy is in a favourable position to get hit... Cheers Olle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's what I did...we'll see how it works out.

Micro-management!

I've got a tank that would like to ambush an enemy tank. Some enemy infantry are going to cross the ambush point before the tank does, but I'm not particularly interested in ambushing the infantry. Just like the current Ambush command asks about using the main gun, I think it would be swell if the command asked about whether the ambush should trigger on infantry only, armor only, or both. Obviously there are more categories into which potential targets could be divided, but if BTS were to decide that this notion had merit, I would have every confidence in their decision about how many categories to use. To anyone inclined to chant the dreaded all-purpose mantra, "Micro-management": I agree, it would give the battlefield commander an unrealistic degree of control over the actions of individual combatants. But the whole game does that; every order does that. And since the game works that way, it requires micro-management to have realistic results. I am fine if the ambushing unit (depending on quality) doesn't always do what it's told. But I'd like a way to tell it, because at present the AI will not handle this matter for me. Note that I am not complaining about the game, just about those people who cannot keep from chiming in about micro-management every time someone asks for a finer degree of control. I frankly don't see how anyone with such a major thing about micro-management can stand to play a game where every single unit has to be told where to go -- has to be told exactly to the meter where to stand. When the game is able to support orders like, "Take your platoon up that hill, find a good position, and prepare an ambush" then we can talk about micro-management. Until then micro-management is forced upon us, so we might as well stop using it as an all-purpose mechanism to belittle the ideas of others and just make the best of it. In the same battle, I have an AT team waiting to ambush the same tank. The same enemy infantry have already crossed the ambush point for this unit, which actually triggered the AT team to stand up from their hiding pose, although they didn't shoot. The AI is smart enough not to shoot a LATW at infantry, so why stop hiding and risk getting spotted? I'm just throwing out ideas here. Maybe they're too hard to implement. Maybe they'll never make it far enough up the priority list ever to be implemented. Maybe they would even offer a degree of control which would cause a problem in terms of gameplay. But to anyone other than BTS who wants to claim this last: please show me the respect to make a case for your viewpoint, perhaps with an example. Don't just blow me off with a reply that says nothing more substantive than "Micro-management."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by easy-v: Not to mention the countless times were you get immobilized by a flank shot and wish to have the turret cover a likely/known avenue of approach (for example, the direction from where it was shot at), only to be denied the rotate command. Easy-v<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You can give an ambush order, and the turret will rotate in the direction of the ambush point. Unfortunately, the ambush will only trigger on a threat near the set ambush point -- not just in that direction -- but it may be of some help.

As the original author of the thread, I must disagree. Making it easier to get hull-down would merely be a nice side-effect of the command proposed at the beginning. What this thread is really about is proposing a command that makes it easier to order units to go where you want them to go. You point them in the right direction and they decide when to stop according to their ability to see a particular reference point. Both "problems" (1 & 2) you identify are (I think) addressed quite well by the originally proposed command. May I respectfully suggest that you review the first post on this thread and see if you do not agree (if not with the proposal itself, then at least that the command does not suffer from the two problems you mention)? ------------------ "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre."

That was my 30th post and yet I am still junior...what's up with that? I swear that came up junior on my screen before...well, whatever, I am finally a big boy too. ------------------ "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre." [This message has been edited by willmontgomery (edited 04-02-2001).]

I feel a promotion coming on... ------------------ "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre."

I agree that there is little practical difference if we limit discussion to the realm of what our goal is, but I also believe that there is a world of difference if we don't limit the discusion and instead look at all the consequences of what would be possible under your proposal. Case in point: I should not be able to know what my opponent can see just by plotting a movement order over there (one that I have no intention of actually carrying out) and then checking out LOS. As for whether my proposal would be harder to program... I am a programmer, and all that tells me is that I am not nearly well-enough informed about the gory details of CMBO's source code to have any idea which one would be harder. The slowing-down issue you raise strikes me as just another advantage of my proposal. If you want hull-down, give a slow order so you don't overshoot, while if you just want to see over that hill ASAP, give a fast order and accept the consequences of possibly overshooting when the driver has to stop suddenly. The slower approach would take more time, but that's Real Life . Nothing prevents you from giving a fast order part way and then switching to slow for the last few meters to avoid overshooting. Plus mine is easier in terms of gameplay. I don't have to plot a move, check out LOS from there, move the waypoint a little bit, check out LOS from there, etc. The order itself is more natural and therefore more immersive. Just my opinion. I don't hate your proposal; I just like mine better ------------------ "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre."

And to think I gave up on this thread last week when it was stuck at seven replies for a few days. Not that being the one who started this particular thread gives me any claim to greater wisdom, but I'll tell you what I was thinking when I made my original proposal: 1) We have the opportunity to extend much more micro-control over our forces than any real battlefield commander would. 2) Since this is the way the game works, we also are required to extend this degree of micro-control; our forces will not do sensible things unless we direct them to very specifically. 3) Some people are struck by point #1, and would prefer not to make things more unrealistic in this respect than they already are; this is a reasonable viewpoint. 4) Other people are struck by point #2, and (given that micro-control has been forced upon them) would prefer to at least have the means to accomplish realistic military maneuvers; this too is a reasonable viewpoint. So we have a conflict between reasonable viewpoints. I sympathize with those who would prefer not to increase the already unrealistic degree of control we have. But I also sympathize with the other group, and in fact I personally lean in that direction; I made a conscious choice to suspend disbelief about one intellect's being responsible for every little detail governing an entire battalion. Since CMBO is the best thing out there, everyone (whatever his/her precise viewpoint) wants to adopt it, and he/she naturally hopes and argues for its evolving toward his/her individual notion of the "right" level of control. Unfortunately the game cannot be all things to all people, and hard choices have to be made. The idea of being able to trace LOS from anywhere on the battlefield is not new. It certainly is not realistic, so I know it would offend proponents of point #1, which is a viewpoint I certainly respect even if I prioritize other concerns higher. So I began to contemplate why it was that I thought I wanted to be able to trace LOS from anywhere (back when I used to want this). I realized that I wanted to use that capability to identify points that I wanted to move units to. There is a notional point where the LOS to something will be unmasked, and in fact in Real Life you wouldn't specify the point in space, you would characterize it. "First Squad! Get up that hill and see what's in the valley on the other side of this hill." The squad understands this as "Advance in that direction until you can see into the valley." As Juardis says, troop quality might affect how precisely or sloppily they carry out this instruction, but it sure seems to me to be a reasonable instruction. So I offered my proposal as a compromise, as I intentionally charted a course between Cybeq and Homba on the one hand and WWB and Michael Dorosh on the other. It does not allow unrealistically tracing LOS from anywhere on the map. To those concerned about micro-control, the only unrealistic degree of control associated with my proposed command would be having a battalion CO issue commands directly to a squad leader, which is something any player of this game has to be able to abide. For those concerned about being able to accomplish realistic maneuvers, it would ease the burden of trying to determine the exact points for OPs or hull-down positions, which are 1) potentially very important, 2) reasonable to aspire to locate and occupy, and 3) difficult if not impossible to judge given the inevitable abstractions of the depiction of terrain. Homba: my proposed command would not give you everything you have asked for, but do you think it would suffice to avoid "catastrophic tank-driving"? WWB and Michael Dorosh: would you care to comment on my original proposal? ------------------ "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre." [This message has been edited by willmontgomery (edited 04-02-2001).]