Tris

IPA: you hit the nail on the head in my case re the quality of this game system. It is the best I've seen of its kind and one of the best wargames I've ever played of any description. The plain truth is I don't even like games at this scale, being an "operational" kind of guy, yet still I pour hour after hour into the little beastie. Hell, I just stepped out and spent some $400 on a new video card so my damned trees wouldn't twinkle . . . . (somethingisntrighthere...hemumbled)

Keeping units where they end the previous battle is definitely not a good idea because they'll start in sight of whoever was firing on them in the last battle. What's bad about that? One side almost always needs to regroup between battles and re-setup a coherent defense/attack and doing the regrouping on the move during a game turn under fire just doesn't sound like a lot of fun and isn't realistic. At the scale CMBO wants to model a period for "regrouping" is wholly inappropriate. It is also not at all realistic. Soldiers in real life do not take mutually-agreed-to "regrouping breaks" every half hour but fight until they fight no more. It seems simple but I think we just have to recognize that front-line calculation is more complicated than we think it is. I can think of one problem right off the bat. 1. Battle ends and computer draws front lines but gives defender in a surrounded town option to keep guys there. 2. Defender decides he doesn't want the town after all and moves everyone back. 3. Now the attacker has to set up but there's a huge black hole where the town is where he can't set up but should be able to. It is only complicated for the reason you make it so. The computer doesn't need to "draw" anything. The problem as it stands is that the computer has been directed to "draw" front lines. What we need is for the programmers to leave this aspect of play to the gamers (and TacAI) to handle as best they might "on the fly" as it were . . . just as they do it in real life battles. Would that be doable? Of course. It would take no programming at all, except the ability to strip the code now in the engine that draws these lines to begin with. The thing is, a "front" is defined by where troops happen to be, to put if simply. There is no need for the computer to do anything between battles except affect resupply and bring on reinforcements. Drawing lines for gamers to sit behind and "arrange themsmelves" accordingly is as phoney as it gets. The more I think about this the more stupid it strikes me to be. By the way, in the course of your remarks you hit upon another shortcoming of the operations: there are no reinforcement locations but rather these assets are simply heaped en masse onto one of the map edges. More dumbness. Let me ask you this: how hard would it have been, really, to have figured this out during playtest and arrived at something better? Did the playtesters all suffer from lockjaw, did BTS simply ignore intelligent feedback? What's going on here? I'm sure there's tons of little nasty situations like this that Charles has discovered already. I'm sure there are any number of "problems" one could dream up . . . especially if BTS continues to approach the problem with the peculiar view that it's necessary for the computer to draw front lines for everyone. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-26-2000).]

It is obvious that there are things that could be better. If you have been here as long as you say you have been... Hold on right there. I never said I've 'been here" for very long at all. As a matter of fact I first visited this board some time ago, but I didn't own the game at that time and my interest was more of a casual nature. After I bought in I returned to this board and paid closer attention to the arguments as they developed. I've now owned the game a couple-three months, whatever it's been, and I feel quite qualified to make the points I do make. If someone with more "seniority" to me takes exception to that, so be it. I can live with that, too. ...you have witnessed many additions to CM:BO that were inspired by customer requests, ideas, and contributions. This is true, customers have asked for lots of reasonable improvements. It is also true that BTS has made some of these requested changes. But BTS has also refused any number of reasonable requests, this business of "magical lines" in operations being only the most recent example. Look, I don't make this stuff up. With that being said, where do you come off with the negative attitude. Sorry, but I do not view my attitude as being anything like negative. I do, however, refuse to accept the sort of response Steve directed my way re lines of demarcation in operations. I made good points, and he all but told me to go take a long walk off a short pier. It was, in fact, Steve who came across with an "negative attitude" during that short exchange, not I. He did so by claiming matter-of-factly the the issue had already been closely studied by BTS and the conclusion was that we were lucky to have any operations at all due to Charles being in some sort of snit about it, or something like that. Sorry again, but that doesn't make it by half. First of all, if Charles can't "take it" that's not my problem but Charles's. If Charles doesn't have the patience to field lots of suggestions for improvement that is also an issue for Charles to look into and not for me. Am I getting through? The lines don't work. Just don't. That should have been crystal clear to people clever enough to design this system to begin with. For some reason unknown to me they went with this concept anyway. The sad result is that operations are pretty much screwed up after the first battle because of this decision. If you want to know, this is first time I've ever seen such a foolish scheme dreamed up for a wargame. Ever. And I've been at it in this hobby since the late fifties. Perhaps something similar has been rendered useable in one system or the other along the way, but it sure doesn't work in CMBO and that is what is under examination here. My purpose is not to castigate Charles or Steve for this error. My purpose is to correct the error. Along that line I have offered concrete advice as to how to best go about this. Now how could anyone fault that? It isn't necessary, and if you think about it, it probably is counter-productive to your goals of getting things changed. Where I come from good advice is taken for what it's worth. Other issues are considered subsidiary to good change. I don't discount your right as a customer or a forum member to bring things up, it's the attitude which is obvious to anyone who read what you have written in this thread. There you go with "attitude" again. Which "attitude" is that? Is it the "attitude" which allows me to dare to speak my mind? Is it "attitude" that I refuse to be talked down to by Steve? Is it "attitude" that I broach my ideas directly, instead of beating around the bush as people normally do, afraid that something they suggest might be "taken the wrong way"? Is that what you consider "attitude"? If so, don't hold your breath waiting for me to change. Life is too short, my friend, and the sooner you learn that the sooner you might become a more productive member of whichever forums you choose to habituate. Perhaps I am just being a wuss, wanting everyone to play nice. I probably shouldn't be trying to teach you how to behave. Your parents should have. Well, this remark is uncalled for in any number of ways. I will let it pass after I make one comment: You seem to be offended by my remarks. Well, here's wisdom that you can take to the grave: offense is something you feel, not something you give. Have a nice day. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-26-2000).]

In that case you'll have to forget about Panzertruppen's stuff, Mr. Clark. His files for buildings normally run 196,662 deep. One of them, the front door for his red-brick structure, goes 263,222. Same goes for the work by Magua, all of it is extremely detailed.

Perhaps I should have enclosed "bright" in quotation marks. I didn't mean to refer to only the brightness, per se, of a sunny day--as in how much ambient light is actually reflected--but also to the art's appearance in too "bright" a fashion. Let me explain. Little in Europe, even today's modern and relatively affluent western Europe, is rendered in the same wild and free-blown pastel palette that we find in the usual American landscape. I dare say that the Europe this game wants to portray, the Europe of WW II vintage, sported even less of our American "brightness," especially after a few years of that dreadful, ongoing conflict. The Europe I experienced when I made my home there, call it ten years ago, was certainly "subdued" in almost all manner as regards color when compared to the city I live in today (San Francisco), and this effect just didn't seem to be properly emphasized with the original CMBO artwork. And we're just taking buildings here and, to a degree, foliage and such. The vehicles depicted in the original .BMP set have without a doubt been improved along the way--which isn't to chastise anyone for the original art, just to acknowledge that it has since been trumped and over-trumped by images a whole lot more realistic, not to mention more photogenically complementary to the subject at hand. The same might be said for unit uniforms. Of course as with all things art it's really about what pleases the individual, and if it does please you then go with it and you can't be too far wrong. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-25-2000).]

Your stuff is awful good, Panzertruppen. I've actually installed your church in place of Magua's (at least temporarily), and what that guy does is like something from the hand of God as far as I'm concerned. Keep up the good work. You mentioned another "view" of this art. How could we look at it and get the full effect?

I'm no authority on the physical layout of the vast majority of the churches in Europe but I've lived in Spain and I can't recall any churches laid out in the shape of a cross. Must have been some, no doubt, but I can't recall a single one. I've spent no little time in France as well (I lived in San Sebastian, almost on the border) and the same goes for my church experience there--though admittedly I've little interest in church architecture so it isn't as if I spent a lot of time studying these things. This is only my general impression. If I had to voice criticism of the original artwork it would be how "new" everything appeared. Also, how bright the landscape was, which is particularly apparent now that we can do A-B comparisons with the so-called subdued mods.

I've thought about objective flags in operations, too, but since they weren't included as an option I sort of put those on my mental back burner. I'm not sure I could articulate my thoughts on this as well you, now that I think on it, Talenn, except to submit the thought that even with objective flags provided the imposition of "lines" makes no sense and never will. What I like about the notion of objective flags for operations is that in this manner a scenario designer might be able to better "channel traffic" this way and that over the course of several battles--but again, with those ridiculous lines always coming into play between battles none of this could be possible since you'd always end up with a stupid absolute N-S or E-W orientation. The lines need to go before any progress is made, I'm afraid. As for being a "heretic": there is an element on this board (everywhere you go on the Net, everywhere you used to go on the services back in the day) which delegates itself to serve as a sort of company watchdog. These people are gladhanders, hangerson, gadflies--call them what you will--and it is rarely the case that they themselves ever offer suggestions of their own as to how to improve play but rather just raise their ugly collective head and try to shout down anyone else who does through the pathetic veil of "do what's what's right by" . . . The Company. Oh yeah, and then they trot out the decrepit "Trotter" logic (which predates that poor journalist by years, if you want to know--which ought to give you an idea of just how vacuous his mind is) all about how criticism of what we're "given" by way of game fare will just make these poor little publishers crawl back into the shells of their damaged egos, never to listen or to be heard from again. Well, I've endured this garbage for many years and I am not moved, not impressed, and not about to act on it any further than to respond to such idiocy just as harshly as I deem necessary in order to ensure that the relatively few people around who can (or care to) entertain original thought are provided sufficient elbow room to do so, and hopefully to then publicly voice same. If any of that brands me a heretic or an s.o.b. then I can live with it. Easily. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-25-2000).]

I don't know if anyone has ever told you this, but it IS possible for 2 reasonable people to disagree. Correct, it is quite possible to disagree, even probable. But none of that changes this simple fact: some things work, some things do not work. You seem to imply because BTS doesn't, can't or won't move forward with Operations the way you see fit, that they are simply being unreasonable, stupid, or resting on their laurels. I imply nothing of the kind. BTS implies this, though, with their response to date re the query on the imposition of these lines between battles in operations. It was a bad concept to begin with, and Steve's response to me was, at best, unintelligent. Much the same as if to say, "If you don't like it go play a Talonsoft game." Which, by the way, I find to be a remarkable stance given the company's hi-falutin' manifesto. Whatever your agenda is... And I will spell that out for you now, for the record and just so there is no mistake: I only and always want everything to be as good as it can be. ...it is really tiring to listen to this crap. Then scroll past it and keep these comments of yours to yourself. The choice is yours. It is people like you that cause companies like BTS who actually DO listen to stop listening. That observation is near moronic. I am eager to see YOUR wargame that will handle Operations correctly. Let me know when the demo is out. Let me know when you stumble upon some sense. Look. The issue here isn't whether I can make a better wargame or no. The issue is the wargame we have from BTS and how that title performs. My accomplishments or potential as a programmer have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Now, as a paying customer I have every right to voice my opinion in this forum re the product I have paid good money for. As a member of the hobby, of long standing, I might add, I have an obligation to point out flaws in the system, if I can find any, and furthermore I have a responsibility to offer reasonably well-considered advice as to how said system might be improved. For you see, in that manner all might benefit. If you don't like that, Captain Foobar, buzz off, that's too bad, tough toenails and like that. Sheeesh. Just where do you people come from--and in round numbers at that. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-25-2000).]

Well, I have a measly PIII 450 yet I've no problem at all running the game at 1280 x 1024 32 bit. In fact, that was with my old Diamond Viper (albeit with "twinkling" trees) installed. My new GeForce2 card would easily accommodate much higher resolutions, though I can't see a good use for this better definition since my monitor is only 19" and after a while it's kinda hard to pick out the units when they're rendered at a realistic scale. I guess my point is that for purposes of real-world play the critical component for this game is the capability of one's video card to push pixels. After that I'd look to the monitor, and finally cast an eye to the CPU with re to its compatibility with the video card. Everything works together in the end, of course, but assuming a reasonable CPU base up front this game's mostly about pushing pixels, and even more so after you glom onto a few of those luscious mods. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-25-2000).]

The problem with "really big battles" is resupply of ammunition. If it could be arranged for units to receive new ammo loads every half hour or so then yes, it would be far preferable to design only battles and not operations. but then we'd also need to have the ability to allow battles to last an infinite number of turns. I really don't think BTS is amenable to sensible change on this topic. It seems to be the case that they've simply decided to ignore the issue altogether, judging from the poor response I've had to date from Steve. I do hope I am mistaken. P.S. What do you mean by "walled" city? How did you depict the wall? Also, this model's weakest link, I believe, is house-to-house combat, and there's more than one reason for that. BUT I'm not complaining because (other than the gunnery optics issue ) I'm THRILLED, just totally Delighted, with EVERY other aspect of this GREAT game and the fact that I have no real interest in playing operations means I'm really not to concerned if there are still problems with the line and the no man's land. I'm glad you're happy. Speaking only for myself, since we've come this far with the 3D concept for wargames I'd hate like hell to "rest on our laurels" but would rather make it continually better, and if this progress must come at the expense of someone's brittle ego then so be it. As they say where I come from . . . such is life. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-25-2000).]

The problem is the line itself. That is the problem, that is the only problem. There is no possible justification for the installation of any sort of line in between battles. None whatsoever. It's simply bad logic at work--if any logic at all--and it imposes a load of gaminess on the model. All we need is for BTS to simply drop its silly "line" concept and let units stay where they are after a battle ends. It would then be up to the players or TacAI to straighten out lines to the best of their abilities and according to their perceived needs. There is a possible conflict even there, however, as an occasion could easily arise where, for example, a couple of German squads are completely cut off and surrounded several hundred meters off in one direction or another, and the ability to simply "teleport" those assets to a safer and tactically better site on the map in the wink of an eye is really no less gamey than the line concept. For this reason, I say just let troops sit where they are at the end of battles. Afterall, we're talking about a model here which runs in 60-second turn increments. Why do we need to "stand down" for half an hour or an hour between battles in the first place? What's that all about? Anyway, the line must go. Bad bad bad decision, that.

I don't think BTS can take advantage of more RAM--at least I've noticed no difference at all since I bought another 128 MB DIMM, and no one from BTS bothered to respond to my direct query on this issue. It might be that the game can access another 64 MB RAM up from an original 64MB, but that I don't know. What you need for sure and for certain is more video memory than 8 or 16MB, because you're asking your video board to push around a lot of pixels real time. Throw in a few hi-res mods along the way and pretty soon you've overloaded your video pipeline. A faster CPU/MB might help, but you never get as much bang for your buck with that sort of upgrade as you do from a change of video boards--as a rule. Another good rule of thumb (re CPU's) is to not upgrade until you can at least double (and I much prefer triple or even quadruple) your current clock speed.

Uedel: The following was written by Steve (p. 2, "Pillboxes - some CM modelling issues" thread) in response to my same query re the "Magical Line": First of all, we don't "need" to do anything. Perhaps we "should" do something, but that is up for debate. We originally had a crooked line system. I can not even begin to tell you how hard we tried to make it work. It was so difficult and filled with variable special case problems (which might only come up once in a lifetime) that Charles was thinking of scrapping Operations from the game. ENTIRELY. I and a few others convinced him that it would be better to do what it took to make it work better and keep them in the game. The solution was to make the line straight. However, I think you overestimate how "crooked" a frontline would be at this scale, after an hour or more of downtime inbetween battles. For the most part forces would consolodate their positions to form more sensible defensive/jump off lines. In other words, straightening them out. And nothing says you MUST have a straight line. You can stagger your forces if you like. You just can't have them staggered evenly with similar frontline on the other side. So is the system 100% realistic as is? No. But from a realism/simulation/game standpoint it works, overall, far better than the previous system that allowed the frontline to be more generalized. And it also works far better than not having Operations at all As you can tell, this is one of those game-play issues BTS has decided to dig its heels in on, so until they decide to listen to reason we're stuck with this bad design decision. That's all.

I now have a used Diamond Viper v770 TNT2 w/32MB that's an excellent performer. It's available because I just upgraded to a GeForce2 w/64MB. Make me an offer. It's a shame we lost Diamond. They made awful good stuff.

There's not a single thing wrong with a Duron purchase--it's a better buy than an Athlon if you're talking bang for the buck and way way ahead of anything called Pentium in that regard. Good choice, really. (saidthenotsohappyownerofapiii)

Pointless discussions are the most fun. And how long do you suppose it takes a Sherman to "accelerate" all the way up to "walking" speed? I'd estimate we're talking less than a second.

If that's what he meant, Andreas, his logic is flawed within the context of this test as it pertains to vehicles; it has no bearing whatsoever when it comes to foot travelers.

I think it would make for a stronger model if BTS could figure a way to have units seek some sort of "peak" vantage point before they move farther along an ordered route. In this manner infantry might stop, or at least slow down and sneak, while still inside the cover of woods, meanwhile their vision beyond the woods gradually increases; AFV, in turn, could be expected to inch up to ridge lines until they had acquired LOS beyond these sight impediments; all of this with an eye to units gaining positional advantage such as to allow them better to evaluate the nature of the ground "out there" for possible threats. For that matter, in the case of infantry it would not seem unreasonable to one day expect to see the TacAI split squads for the purpose of recon out to the edges of vision-impaired areas (i.e., at the least send a split squad to the edge of where present vision ends). It seems to me this might be achieved by programming the TacAI with situational imperatives directly linked to any given unit's state of vision with respect to surrounding terrain--the lower the quality of vision, the greater the imperative for that unit to seek better vision through the use of split-squad recon. To express this another way, less vision for a unit would imply a greater potential threat to it. We're told CMBO employs fuzzy logic routines. Well, these are the kinds of problems fuzzy logic best tackles--on a good day. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-24-2000).]

I agree that this is one great game, Andreas, and a superior tactical war simulator on top of that. I think it's for the latter reason that many people take the time to examine it so closely for flaws. Now there's irony at work there which BTS does not always seem willing to respond to in a completely gracious manner, but then one can't have everything.

I have not considered the practical ingame implications for the results of this data yet. I merely felt moved to pick up what Joeri started last night. There are a few surprises. Wilhammer, re acceleration: by definition this is a period when speed increases, but only to the desired attained cruising speed. I must have missed something with that question. Care to rephrase it?

I have not included waypoints to my test parameters but my observation ingame is that the only delay entailed would amount to the time required for the ordered unit to affect change of direction--call it less than a second for infantry, next to nothing for jeeps on roads, more and dependent on the number of degrees turned for tanks, etc.

And I think I can now accurately predict that the longer they move (at least over 1000 meters) the faster they will likely progressively travel. I ran another quick test, again over a course of dry grass for 1000 meters with four M4 Sherman tanks to see if anything different might show with them. The Sherman ordered to move Fast finished the course in 3:30, with a clocking of 1:49 at the 500m mark, which means it completed the second half of the course in 1:41, a savings of eight seconds. The Sherman ordered to Hunt finished in 6:19 with a halfway timing of 3:13 (savings of seven seconds), the Sherman ordered to Move came in with a total time of 10:40 and was 5:21 for the halfway mark, a second-half savings of two seconds. My fourth test vehicle was ordered to Reverse and finished the first half of the course with a time of 2:58 (this amounted to a considerable lead over the Hunt tank). It then bogged down at the 778m mark, became immobilized and did not finish the test. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-23-2000).]

Yes, Coralsaw, it would be possible to run such a test.

Do I understand correctly that you are saying that they move faster the second part of the course? That was the case in this test. If I make a quick calculation from your post, the HQ does the first part in 5.34 and the second part in 5.06. Those 28 sec difference are partly due to command delay. Say 8 sec for elite HQ's. Leaving 20 sec difference?? Just so. That's strange. How did you measure the distance? Did you use the terrain tiles with gridlines? Yes, I marked off the distance carefully, placing a flags at the 500m mark and finish line. All travelers were routed straight along the grid lines my grass terrain is modified with. Maybe it has something to do with the unit fatigue level. Of course then you would expect it the other way around. Quite. Maybe if the troops are rested they can't walk that fast because they have stiff legs. When they get warmed up (ready) they walk a little faster Interesting rationale, Joeri. Assuming Steve's off today you might think about standing in for him. Charles would be pleased.