Tris

I did. The middle allied platoon knocked out the German HT immediately with a grenade, and the topmost German platoon took out their tank with a faust. Nothing else died (except infantry due to collateral damage). This seems fairly conclusive, though it strikes me as strange since I could have sworn I just saw an Allied platoon take out a couple of German SPW 250/1's in a scenario I'm testing. Perhaps I'm confusing v1.1 with v1.12 re the latter.

Not sure what might constitute "close" but I've just gone back in there and increased the distance from 50m to 150m. First, the US platoon HQ opened up on the truck from 176m (HQ was positioned somewhat to the rear of its command elements). First US squad then fired on the Sd Kfz 7 from 146m, third US squad followdd suit on the truck over on the right flank from about 155m as this German transport backed up. Again of interest, the SPW 250/1 meanwhile targeted both first and second US squads in succession. While second US squad returned this fire first US squad ignored this threat and instead kept up its fire on the thus far non-threatening Sd Kfz 7, per its original targeting orders. Finally, third US squad let loose on the truck with a couple of bursts (ammo 38). At this juncture the German infantry squad aboard the truck dismounted and ran off to the left, meanwhile third US squad continued to fire on the truck, not this dismounted German squad. I know more about squad behavior with movement orders and targeting in mind now, but I'm not sure I see a whole lot of consistency to this behavior--neither is it particularly intuitive on the surface. As you say, Steve, and rightly so, one wouldn't be satisfied in the long run if this behavior was scripted instead of left to fuzzy logic (though I suspect there is a script of sorts in there, for priorities if nothing else, with fuzzy logic then taking over at some level), and to a point unpredictable behavior does lend an air of realism to the proceedings. It also lends it share of frustration.

Jagdcarcajou, thank you for your effort. I DL'ed your test scenario and as you say the outcome (based on three tries here) is predictable. I then set up something similar but with an Sd Kfz 7, SPW 250/1 HT and truck as the transports. I further loaded these vehicles with two squads and a platoon HQ. I find it interesting that the advancing (ordered to sneak) squads will fire on both the truck and Sd Kfz 7. What happens is that they identify the riding squads and apparently count these as threats even though they are still on their transports and thus cannot yet fire. Again, I appreciate you taking the time.

Re game play I assume that's the case (vis-a-vis changes made since v1.05). So be it. Re fuzzy logic: I understand your thrust, really I do. There simply are no easy answers as it's all pure theory, per se, until it's applied in game and "hit and miss" comprises the marching orders for the day. The programmer I reference doesn't write wargame software but sports. Still, its the work of a behavioral science of sorts and the principles do not vary much from that base. Anyway, as always I look forward to whatever improvements to the system that can be delivered to us out here. We do progress.

Fuzzy logic theory's not my suit so I'll let that pass in general. I doubt, however, that anyone 30 years old or so can have the same appreciation for this complicated field than a professional programmer who's dealt with it specifically for the past quarter of a century or more--and with pretty much the same application, at that. This isn't to offer up an argument to your position, just to point out the incongruity of the logcal direction your statement wished to go. Neither is it to suggest that the world's foremost authority in the field could come up with something better than what Charles has already, though the latter person might have beneficial insight to impart, at the least ought to serve as a useful foil for discussion. The infantry in my example was a standard GI squad. Its morale was okay, no action in its immediate vicinity--the nearest shots being fired were a mile south of it. As I said, when it reached its assigned objective it stopped, all the while maintaining its LOS/targeting red line to the German FO, then let loose with a volley that ended it all. Another funny occurance in v1.12 which I just got through witnessing a couple of minutes ago: I set my Greyhound to HIDE in scattered trees with orders to AMBUSH a marker 122m distant in clear terrain. This was to catch unawares what I supposed to be a "convoy" of German HT's headed laterally left to right across the M8's front. Sure enough, three more HT's soon appeared and the one the Greyhound had originally sighted (with LOS to it the whole while) rolled right over the ambush marker . . . only the Greyhound never fired (verteran crew, by the way, still no firing in this neighborhood, only a mile to the south). I am not trying to pick on you, Steve, or your game system. It's a splendid thing to play around with. Lord knows I invest appreciable spare time doing just that. Maybe it's coincidance I'm running across so many seeming anomolies with this latest version.

You are mistaken, I do listen, but I tend not to accept everything I happen to hear. For instance . . . I just had a similar instance of infantry not firing when given the move order. It was up and over a hill and as they travelled along they duly spotted an enemy unit (artillery spotter) and there was even a nice little red line to show that this squad was targeting . . . but it never fired, just kept moving toward its assigned objective. Only after it reached its objective did it bother to fire. So, as I said before there's a problem with the various movement commands related to targeting while on the move. There ought to be a way to give tareting orders and have those obeyed while units are, at the same time, on the move. At best it's a hit-and-miss process at present.

The layout's fine for me. Quite logical. It's harder to navigate elsewhere, I can tell you that for sure.

Peiper, Kump's old site has a link to the Magua Tommies mods.

I've read what I could re commands and firing and seeking cover and all that. It's all been perfectly circular and we've gotten pretty much nowhere in the process. Big surprise. To sum it up at the moment: these most recent observations are just that, ingame notes from a gamer as he runs across this stuff during play. Assuming there's a solution I hope it's found and that the company moves on it. I'm perfectly well aware there's no specific command to go hulldown. The smoke problem's still there and all too obvious. This is yet another AI issue. The game's full of that and always has been. Again, there might not be a ready solution given AI state of the art. However, I did offer, through an email conversation with Matt some weeks ago, to connect BTS with a friend of mine who develops recreational software and has studied fuzzy-logic theory for some 25 years. This person may have an idea or two which could benefit this project. So far I've received no word back on this overture. I suppose my offer fell on deaf ears. So be it. Anything else? [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 02-11-2001).]

I almost forgot. Is there anyone interested in writing a batch file for Magua's two sets of Tommies?

Way ahead of you there, Tiger. Matt only needs to see my tagline.

The bottom line is that the squad did exactly what you told them to do. You simply issued the wrong command for what you intended them to do. The sneak command was useless because the truck could already see your men - there was no point in sneaking past it. The German AFV could not already see my men. Neither could my men see it. Other units had it spotted so it was "visible" from a bird's perspective. I used sneak to mitigate against any unhappy surprises should the AFV turn out to have a squad of its own onboard, or should an enemy squad suddenly appear from inside of one of the surrounding buildings. To me, that makes better sense to have issued move or run orders. There was a thread some time ago where the move command was discussed. Accounts were given of infantry formations from both sides with LOS to each other "moving" past on to their ordered destinations without firing. At the time it was agreed that sneak might be a more appropriate command to have your men more prepared for combat and less geared toward movement, per se. Point is, this is not spelled out in the manual and seems consistent within play according to accounts I've read. On top of that what we actually have to work with is not intuitive in any real-world sense, pretty much runs counter to actual behavior in the event. Think of it this way: The purpose of the sneak command is so that you can move without being seen. But since you were so close to the truck, it obviously saw your squad, therefore there's no point to sneak past it. The MOVE command would been better: your men still take cover while moving but they would have attacked the truck. I think you're ascribing stuff to sneak that isn't necessarily there. Can't be seen? There's more to "sneak" than simply "can't be seen," surely. Or ought to be. And again, none of this is spelled out. Re: White set up zones may be a bug. I'll have to test it out. They're there allright. Re: 3 penetrations to knock out PzIV. Just because a shell punched through your armor doesn't mean that it hit something vital inside: engine, hydrolics, fuel, ammo, crew etc. I already said it's possible. Anything's possible. That's not the same thing as saying it's also likely. I mentioned this in passing since I had a short laundry list going. I might have also mentioned, while I was at it, that two of my opponent's vehicles (a StuG and Jagdpanzer, both regular quality, I believe) were (per my friend's feedback to me) ordered to go into hulldown positions in scattered trees to lay an ambush. Instead, both of them proceeded forward toward my oncoming infantry platoon, then turned right across this platoon's front and continued on, all the while managing to present my two Jumbo's with excellent flank shots. Jumbo 1 and Jumbo 2 did not fail to take immediate advantage of this situation. End result: two dead German AFV's. For all I know there is nothing noteworthy in any of this behavior. It makes sense, though, to toss it out there while I'm relating events from my first exposure to the new version of the .EXE. (The scenario in question, by the way, is Wild Bill's Benicourt.) Finally, it does not make sense for batteries to expend fifty rounds of smoke on a known enemy location. If you know the enemy's there you kill it when the opportunity presents itself. That's what war is about. Sure, there's a time for smoke, there are situations on the battlefield where it's the best tactical solution going. This was not, in my opinion, one of those situations. The AI still makes a fool of itself in this area of the simulation. If you're satisfied with that, fine. I am not. That's all.

Well, they're still dropping like flies to slit hits within a minute of the first shot being fired, but at least I saw a pillbox with 75mm get a kill on one of my Stuarts this morning in a PBEM with a friend. If not a world's record then certainly a modest step in the right direction. <g> For pillboxes to be worth a tinker's damn in the long run this area of the model will need to be completely rethought and then redesigned accordingly. Off the top of my head I'd guess the pillbox (bunker) needs to be reworked as its own special kind (type) of structure (it sure doesn't work modelled as a vehicle!), and then afforded a unique set of features and characteristics (for instance, units/crews may move in and out of them at will, opponents can assume possession of these small forts upon capture, etc.) Hopefully, this work is already underway (or has been penciled in) for CM2.

The excellence of Alec's work speaks for itself. Same as with the portfolio of any master, for someone who fails to appreciate its genius . . . well, then I'd guess that person is simply out of luck. Haven't seen hide nor tail of this splendid fellow since he ducked into the forum in a somewhat apologetic manner a couple of months ago to acknowledge universal kudos for his rendering of rural buildings (vis-a-vis the stir at that time which followed the release of some other artist's very capable work on the same subject). Anyway, as always Mr. Wade and his unparalleled artistic contribution to the game system are sorely missed in all quarters CMBO. Do we desire to have these artifacts? Do we wish to draw breath in the morning?

I gave my infantry squad targeting orders to shoot at the Sd kfz 7. Since when won't infantry shoot at something when sneaking? I've used that technique a lot without any problems that I've noticed. No, no other enemy was in the area. This occured inside of a small town square area, perfect LOS, etc. What would happen, say, if the AFV turned out to be carry a squad of infantry? That squad wouldn't shoot at mine so what, my squad just sneaks past, then gets burned when these bad guys all of a sudden jump off the German vehicle? I gave the sneak command because I wasn't sure what might be lurking around this German vehicle. Re the white setup zones: nothing appeared in them and they only measure a tile deep and I think three across, perhaps four. there were two of these set up zones. Again, the AI was shooting smoke off left and right instead of lethal ordnance at positions of mine containing armor assets which it could see into. What's with that? This issue was supposed to have been remedied with v1.1, yes? Finally, in a PBEM this morning I watch a Pz IV take two consecutive penetrations (one lower front hull, other upper front turret) before succumbing to a shell that put it out of its misery. So, make it three penetrations in all to kill this panzer, and when its crew jumped out there were still three alive out of the original complement of five. I'm not sure this sort of thing might not be possible in real life, just about anything is, I'd guess, but the odds against it must border on the fantastic.

The manual (Appendix says a unit order to sneak will "stop and take cover when engaged by enemy." Meanwhile, I still gave my unit orders to move right up to the Sd kfz 7 and fire on it, with no result. The move command has been known to allow units to simply walk right on past its enemy counterparts even when it itself is fired upon. What's going on here? [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 02-09-2001).]

Squad's will walk right by the enemy without a thought, run pretty much wherever you send them (often to their own destruction of their own accord), but sneak (I thought) was the one command you could "safely" give a unit and expect it to engage an enemy upon contact. In any event, the infantry was given (by me) the AFV as a specific target, there was a clear red line leading from the infantry to the Sd kfz 7, but the squad still didn't bother itself in any manner, shape or form. It ought to be intuitive that this behavior just isn't right. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 02-09-2001).]

Actually it was an Sd Kfz 7 w/o a gun. But my question is: why didn't the squad take out the AFV?

I didn't see this prior to the v1.1 patch as I pretty much stay away from Operations due to . . . the lines . . . but I went back in there last night to edit one I've been fooling with for some time and noticed the Allies have a couple of small white setup boxes in front of the expected red setup zone to begin the third battle. Is this the same problem that was fixed for v1.1? If so, it's back. If not, something seems to be broken. The AI still shoots off lots of smoke ordnance and very little of the boom-boom variety. I had a veteran infantry squad sneak right past a German halftrack, in town, perfect line of sight (must have passed about 1 meter from this vehicle) with the AFV targeted but the infantry never fired a shot.

Plant a PzKpfw IVH today. Do it for your children. (ormaybethatwassomeothercommercial)

Offer?" This guy took a lot of time to make something and he's made it available to anyone who wants it for no charge. Whatever resolution he chose to make it in and why is his business and it seems to me that we should be grateful to have any mods at all considering no one's getting paid to make them. Not trying to attack you but the tone of your message kind of struck me as odd. If I misinterpreted it, I apologize. There was no "tone," just the question, and a simple one at that. I'll go through it slowly with you. Someone made a mud mod for various landscape features. A second gentleman came along and said he'd make batch that would allow users of the game to access these files and switch them in and out without having to go in and rename a lot of files. That's fine. But then he came back and said that while he was writing this batch he also took the liberty of changing the original mod which wasn't his work but someone else's from hi-res to low-res. That's fine, too, I suppose, for anyone who prefers (or needs) to have low-res variations, though it occurs to me that this batch would be just as handy for its first stated purpose: to access the original mods. For all I know the batch will access both sets of files somehow, but until I receive an answer on that I'm in the dark. Any clearer?

Why did you render them low-res? I can understand that as an option, surely, but not as some this-or-nothing offer.

TTT (Anything to get Operations headed in a better direction.)

You might also want to experiment with the different skies available--that'll change the overall light balance. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 02-04-2001).]

Keep up the good work.