WWB

Last time I checked spotting limit in light fog in daylight was closer to 700m. Personally, I think it should be highly variable. Fogs are not the same, even light ones. WWB

I know yahoo usually will not bounce oversized messages, they simply vanish into the ether. WWB

Uh, just how many scenario designers can write C++ AI code redwolf? Even if they could, how many could write it well? I suspect no more than a handful, if any. That said, I would really like to see a couple ways for a designer to 'manipulate' the strat AI without having to resort to unbalancing battles or ruining immersion. Unlikely, but it would be kinda cool to see some sort of 'hidden' flags so one could encourage the StratAI to take the long way around. I, for one, am against the 'planned' AI approach that one sees in TOAW, because it gets stale fast unless the designer is real, real slick at his plans. SOPs would be very, very cool however. WWB

Exactly. Some (realative) small changes, and suddenly the AI keeps unit cohesion and does not lead with tanks. A vast improvement without to much effort. And, btw, creating a challenging AI is very much fun; did this myself and I stopped once I was beaten by the AI 50+% of the time... (only a very small game, man-to-man...computer version of Strike Team Alpha...) But it is possible...if even I got some decent AI Fred</font>

There is a reason the TacAI does much better than the StratAI: it has alot less ground to cover. Input is generally limited, mainly being target and los information. On the other hand, the StratAI has to work with every conceivable setup, and is really being overburdened by the newer, more complex scenarios. It does a pretty decent job on a simpler map in the defensive, but really is not up to parsing a huge, complex map (such as all or nothing) and successfully making a convincing attack. That is a truly difficult proposition to handle without: a) Cheeting or Being given a specific plan That said, I think some things could be improved without putting in undue effort. Principally giving the StratAI an idea of what formations are as well as giving it a hint of which units should not be pushed with the front line troops. WWB

What brand and model number is the 'set top box?' Just because your cable operator does not give you instructions does not mean the manufacturer's website lacks a white paper. Zone alarm, at least the freeware version, does not open and close individual ports, that is the router's job. It merely gives or denies access to the internet for programs and processes. I suspect your next-generation set top box is the root of your problems, pass along some info about it and I might be able to look into it. WWB PS: answers to you post which was posting while I was posting the above: Combatmission.exe should be on the list of programs, presuming you have attempted to connect while ZA is running. Look for it, and check the "allow connect" and "allow server" options. [ April 04, 2002, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: wwb_99 ]

AMD is much better for gaming. Price-performance wise it blows the nuts off intel at the moment On the business side, PIII is still the way to go. Try maintianing 85 or so tempramental athalons. Note that the 66mhz FSB celerons were desireable at times, especially the later ones (533mhz, 566mhz, etc), run pretty goddamn good at 100mhz FSB. I know, I have been doing so for years. WWB

AMD is much better for gaming. Price-performance wise it blows the nuts off intel at the moment On the business side, PIII is still the way to go. Try maintianing 85 or so tempramental athalons. Note that the 66mhz FSB celerons were desireable at times, especially the later ones (533mhz, 566mhz, etc), run pretty goddamn good at 100mhz FSB. I know, I have been doing so for years. WWB

At the "Scenario Depot" website, every battle listing says, "Defender Digin?" I think this is what you are looking for. I doubt that it means tanks being dug-in; it prolly means infantry. They only have a 1000+ searchable scenarios for you to check out...</font>

I cannot speak for the other stuff, but the maps should be avaliable from the Library of Congress in Washington DC. Note that US Army generated maps require some special permissions to get at, but the German counterparts do not. WWB

Redwolf: Some good points, but you seem to have missed some of what I wrote. Yes, the size does count. More units=more knockout points. I suspect your point is mainly that in larger battles designers do not use nearly enough flags, such as 3 majors (3x300 points) on 5000 points of units. Obviously that is a bit too few, especially for those really into scoring. That does work, actually. Even KO points, neutral flags=draw. Makes sense in my book. It is a pretty good showing if a defender destroys a force roughly half his size and then withdraws without losses, he has won. Keep your forces alive to defend again is a laudable goal, and that probably deserves the draw. Basically you are saying that the two factors balance each other to some extent. Moreover, I think people should be penalized for using their crews as infantry and get bonuses for taking prisoners. Attackers who took 33% losses in each attack would soon not be attacking for very long. Sustaining those kinds of losses made continued attacks impossible. Unless you were the Russians attacking Berlin with an overall 4:1 superiority in manpower. Moreover, the short advance one sees in a CM scale battle is next to nothing. Ammo dumps, etc, would be located several KM behind the front at the very least, so a 1km advance would hardly even threaten them, presuming it did not create a total rout. The other presumption is that this attacking force, after taking horrendous losses, would be ready to attack the next day, with much of its losses replaced. Show me an example of such miraculous recovery. More likely, when companies were down to 80 men or so, they were rotated out of the line and completely refurbished. That would be what playtesting is for. I am not saying that most people do not understand the mechanics, but I will say that a small minority understands them almost too well. I know people know better than to risk a king tiger for a small flag, but I really cannot control if someone plays with a calculator in hand. You do hit on one key factor: flag location. I tend to put them way, way back, almost on the map edge, therefore forcing the attacker to really come at the defender. Moreover, it is a badly designed battle if the attacker can sit there and just pound the defender without being forced to move by some means. Another thing I have noticed in testing is that most players pretty much ignore the briefings anyway. Designers are notorious for telling outright lies and using more than a little deception to speed things along. I do still await the full writeup. WWB

IIRC the rifle fire will increase in lethality and will take less than an ammo point per "shot" (they should double the points and let SMG squads eat up two is). There are a number of items missed in the editor GUI, like the right mouse key could jump in bunches of 10, or a mousewheel could be used, or an interface to lower or raise the ammo for a group of units, maybe in map preview. I don't have a complete writeup anywhere. I mentioned several times in assorted threads that most scenario designers do not put enough flags on their maps. As a result, the player who understands scoring and simply ignores them will be rewarded. That is a bad thing if the scenario designer really intended to make the battle directed by the flags. The feedback to the numbers I gave was very negative, as in "this applies to gamey bastards only anyway", so I didn't go further to come up with a compact set of recommendations. Mind you I don't have a problem with a player who takes many losses losing the battle no matter how many flags he holds. But I found that scenario designers underestimate how much damage the typical CMBO battles causes, and as a result the outcome of their game depends more on knockout points than they intend it to. Here are some items: - designers fail to take into calculation that a battalion comes at a 10% discount at purchase time, but not at knockout time - they fail to calculate that crews will provide extra point which are not in the editor summary - they fail to see that artillery spotters work against that by being always cheap when killed - neutral flags have the nasty side-effect to raise the importance of knockout points As a datapoint, I had a 1500 points quickbattle last weekend, and I inflicted 1450 knockout points on the opponent, without him being forced into surrender, he had a mostly intact platoon left. The high points come mostly from a fire base run over (mortars, guns, company HQ, transport, partly taken prisoner) and him doing a flag rush with crews and empty spotters . No scenario designer I know would believe this is even possible. In an older thread I gave an example of two forces, which both cost the same at purchase time, but one had twice as many knockoutable points on the map than the other. The example was artificial and pushing the points, but still they were imaginable competive forces. Anyway, I'm drifting. What I observe, for example from the Nordic Wannabee tournament is that there is a fraction between players understanding the points system and doing their own thing, and players following the designer's briefing, and the number junky is of course at the advantage. That is not good, and can easily be avoided by careful flag placement and flag numbers. I would be more than happy to give some example and a more polished writeup if there's interest (and I see you are with WBW's group).</font>

Thanks for the intro McAulffie. That document is a treature trove of hints and tips for the designer. I am not inexperienced, but I still learned a few things when assisting McAulffie put it together. It is a great site and a great resource. WWB

I found the 3 I have at 2nd hand book stores, for $25 apiece. A very good deal. One thing: get a first edition if you can find it, as they have many more maps than the subsequent sets. WWB

A far better way to control this in scenarios is to not hand out masses of SMG toting infantry unless appropriate. And when you do give them, balance it out in experience and points. Not to mention the fact the SMG rush does not work too well with green SMG squads, which the bulk of the VGs were anyway. Also, SMG rushes work alot better on QB maps than realistic maps, due to the randomly strewn cover. A real defensive position is generally not nearly as easy to approach. JCs idea is pretty good, I think Steve has said that it will be tweaked for CMBB. As it stands right now, the biggest problem is that it is a pain to work, due to the fact that you will have to change alot of values. (Note to BTS: a spreadsheet style unit data editor would be really cool.) What is this "victory flag" theory you have? I don't recall seeing it anywhere. WWB

Q: What do you have when you put some TNT in a large, interlocked pile of felled trees (aka a typical WWII roadblock)? A: A large, non-interlocked pile of felled trees that you still need a bulldozer to remove. WWB

Thanks for the vote of confidence Marc. WWB

Well now you can. Two scenarios from the Night of Death tournament hosed by Stryker's Band of Brothers have been uploaded to The Scenario Depot for general consumption. The first of these is A Wild Night at WWB's, set in my neigborhood. This was quite a 2 player battle in the tourney, and I highly reccomend it for a good one-sitting TCP match. The second of these is a bit more artful, but not quite as well balanced unfortunately. It is definitely a Midwinter Nightmare and is quite a fight against the AI or with a weaker opponent. Enjoy and please do review the battles. WWB [ March 20, 2002, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: wwb_99 ]

Numerically, they might not be a deciding factor, especially if there are alot of losses. But psycholigically, flags have a major effect on the way people play. Players head for large flags like moths are drawn to flames. And players do think to defend flags in most cases. Not to mention the AI is lost without them. Also, FYI, saying fetch in a briefing does not work. Most players pretty much ignore them, especially parts about "move fast" and "take this key point." Unless you put a flag at that key point that is. This kind of flag distribution would also be more historically correct. One major goal of a meeting engagement was to not let the other guy get around you, to take territory while holding your own. A couple flags in the rear will encourage some defensive play in these battles. WWB

Tonight I put together a custom battle with a 3rd party map which happened to have no flags. I did have to add some, so I gave both sides a "Base Flag" in their setup zone, as well as several flags in the middle. Then it hit me: that is the way QB ME flags ought to be. Instead of a cluser in the middle, leading to flag rushes and all kinds of gameyness stemming from a lack of defensive responsibilities, why not give the players something to defend. Instead of having the map generator put all flags in the middle, how about setting it up a la Steel Panthers. In that game, there were 3 victory zones, similar to what I have described above. A change such as this will make the QB ME much more interesting. WWB

I generally use Green as the baseline for units infantry, with a varying proportion of regulars and possibly vets depending on situation. Historically, Green units (trained but not blooded) were probably the most common. And in CMBO, green units play much more realistically than regulars or vets. WWB

The trick to HTs is that you need to employ them en masse. While a platoon or so does not put out much supressive fire, a company strength detachment will pin just about anything in short order. Of coures, the corallory to this theory is that one will rarely find them in QBs, only in good sized scenarios. WWB

I suspect it is a 512mb vs 256mb RAM thing. I suspect the editor is rather ram intesive. WWB

Learn the hotkeys. The interface is actually elegantly simple. And the esc bosskey is quite handy actually. I do agree on the mousewheel though. WWB

I designed the above mentioned operation, and it is solely designed to be a manageable multiplayer operation. In fact, it is much more like a longish , split scenario than a true operation. But it is specifically designed for multiplayer, and has recieved generally rave reviews with a few exceptions. It is avaliable at the above mentioned site. WWB