Treeburst155

I don't think this is completely arbitrary. One or more specific locations have a higher probability of being hit. Those locations are YOUR troops. I'd almost bet on it. Treeburst155 out.

If the target is spotted cleanly, the rounds WILL hit the target. That is, unless smoke or dust interferes. If spotting rounds are fired, the strike will be good, no matter where they hit. Spotting rounds are your confirmation that the strike will be on target. In the case of rockets (and blind strikes), there are no spotting rounds. Observed rocket strikes CAN require adjustment. Rockets do not work like other artillery. Larsen's test described above will show the dust/smoke problem every time. Treeburst155 out.

I like the Lee/Grant. The AI does not hesitate to use the large gun. German AT assets of the period have trouble penetrating the front armor, especially the turret. It has decent speed too. Gotta watch the flanks though. Treeburst155 out.

Pertinent question: What is the minimum duration of a smoke or dust cloud, starting the instant LOS is obstructed? If the answer is sixty seconds or more, the orders phase check of LOS is all that is necessary. Still, if a cloud appears within the first few seconds of a movie, and the spotting rounds are due to go out shortly thereafter, the bad strike is unavoidable. Treeburst155 out.

Not only does LOS have to be verified every orders phase; but the entire LOS line needs to be watched carefully during the entire movie for each targetting spotter. IOW, every spotter will likely require a separate viewing of the movie. You must watch very carefully for any brief interruption of his LOS. You must watch the entire LOS line for these interruptions. If the spotter is 1,500 meters from the target point, that's a lot of LOS line to check for momentary obstructions. If you miss one, and it's gone by the next orders phase, you will have no way of knowing that strike is now a blind strike. Treeburst155 out.

This is what happened to me exactly. My own direct fire HE dust disrupted the strike. If this is intentional behaviour, arty is practically useless in the dry desert. Redwolf, Any invisible LOS blocks are detectable with the LOS tool in the orders phase. Spotter LOS can be checked each orders phase for these blocks. Now, if some invisible dust were to "appear" and disappear within the course of the movie, the player would have no way of knowing his strike has been messed up until rounds start falling. I really hope you are wrong on this one. Treeburst155 out. [ March 23, 2004, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

EDIT: Skip to page three of this thread for the truth on how smoke and dust affect your arty strikes. I was wrong in my testing, or something has changed with 1.01. Contrary to my previous assertions regarding this bug, Dust WILL cause an observed arty strike to go haywire. I just lost a full platoon to a dust cloud 90 seconds earlier. Either something has changed with 1.01 or it takes a fairly thick dust cloud to ruin a strike, and I just didn't have a thick enough cloud in my testing. With smoke, even a small amount will cause a strike to go haywire. After I lost my platoon to an "observed strike", I did some more testing with 1.01. Here is my new bug definition: If, at any time during the arty delay period, spotter LOS to the target point is obstructed by smoke or DUST, the strike will be treated by the computer as a blind strike. You WILL miss your target. This will happen with even very short interruptions of LOS. Density of dust (maybe smoke too) may play a part; but we have no way to determine whether the obstructing clouds are thick enough to disrupt the strike or not. Duration of the cloud had no effect. One second of LOS block is all it takes, I think. Treeburst155 out. [ March 27, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Interesting.....It does appear to be intermittent, or at least not super-consistent. Tonight I got the gray exteriors regardless of the "occupied buildings" setting. It's not all buildings either. The mosque doesn't do it, nor do the small buildings. I'm using a Ti 4200 with my favorite 40.72 drivers. It will take more than this little glitch to get me to upgrade. Treeburst155 out.

I just noticed that when I turn off the roofs of the buildings while "occupied buildings are transparent" is also off, many of the desert buildings go to gray exterior walls. What should be on the interior, is replacing the exteriors. Has anybody else seen this? I can't reproduce the glitch in CMBB. Treeburst155 out.

Very fun against a human!! Try it. You'll like it! Treeburst155 out.

It would be more like a PAT on the back if your Tank Hunters are equipped with the Mighty Molotovs.

Hmmm....you bring up an interesting question. Can the invisible, end of turn LOS blocks be smoke? I've only run into the invisible dust. If smoke can do this too, players won't know if they need to cancel a strike or not. Treeburst155 out.

Redwolf says: "He probably doesn't want to spend a major engineering effort on this and a rough estimate will probably do, because it is unlikely that some forum idiots come along and dissect this mechanism in detail to figure out how to get 7.5 meter average un-bogged movement out of their tanks." LOL! Charles is probably amazed that anyone would even bother to analyze bogging to this degree. I just can't help myself. Anything that involves luck, and luck alone, compels me to analyze my chances. It pays off too; but not enough to justify the large amount of time I spend on CM luck factors. Treeburst155 out.

Redwolf, Dust will not disrupt an arty strike. If the target point is in LOS when it is plotted, the strike will come down accurately as long as no SMOKE interrupts that LOS. Treeburst155 out.

Let's not confuse "checks" with "chances" here, Redwolf. As Charles has used the terms, each CHECK has a certain CHANCE of causing a bog, with a higher chance per check for fast movers. I think we can assume that Charles has indeed made the chances per check higher for fast movers; but, did he calculate this higher chance per check correctly, so that it overcomes the greater distance travelled by fast movers between checks? I think he might have made a little math error here, or there is a little bug unrelated to the math that happens. You may have a point with the accelleration factor; but I don't think it's that complicated. My testing was done at a steady speed. There was no accelleration involved other than Turn 1. Treeburst155 out.

Wygal, Redwolf and WWB hit the nail on the head. Redwolf, The problems you speak of concerning money tournaments can be overcome before the fact with proper planning and execution. Developing a good set of rules to cover all contingencies would be the most difficult, time consuming part of organizing a pay tournament IMO. RawRecruit, I like your idea. The only problem is getting people to "show up" for their league games. In other words, the slowest players would be half a "season" behind. Now if players had to pay a little bit.....and there was a good chunk of cash for the winner..... The rules would have to be brutal, and strictly adhered to, with no exceptions, in the case of a pay tournament. Treeburst155 out.

The arty bug: If, at any time during the arty delay period, spotter LOS to the target point is blocked by smoke (not dust), the strike is treated as a blind strike. This is true even for the briefest of smoke interruptions. Treeburst155 out.

Yeah, $20 for $900 sounds more attractive to me too. More people, less per person. Hmmmm..... What type of tourney would be best for this type of thing? How many games? QBs or scenarios? How long would the event last? How would it be scored? Who would hold the entrance fees? This is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to questions that would need to be answered. If there's enough interest in this thread, I may just start thinking seriously about how to pull something like this off. Treeburst155 out.

Here's a quote from Charles: Let's ponder this statement for a bit. The bog chances per check may go up with speed; but what triggers a check for bogging? Is it time, or distance? I'll bet the check is based on time, and the increased chances per check when moving fast don't completely make up for the increased distance covered between checks. If checks were based on distance, with chances per check increased for moving fast, we would not see the results we do. The fast movers would be checked more often, and with higher chances of bogging. Yep, I'm convinced the checks are based on time, and Charles has tried to balance this by increasing the chances per check for fast movers. Maybe an adjustment of the chances per check for fast movers is possible. Thanks, Moon. I'm always interested in the inner-workings of CM. Treeburst155 out.

Now this is interesting....what would the $100 be for? A cash prize to the winner(s)? Are you hinting at a Professional tournament? It would be interesting to see how many people would be willing to pay $100 to play in a tournament where the vast majority of the entrance fees go to the winners, with a small cut for "the house". As the originator of the ROW tournaments, I can tell you that a professional tourney with a $100 entrance fee would be a lot of work to put together. It would take a great deal of thought to do properly. There would be many problems to work out. I've always thought a Professional tournament with an entrance fee would be quite interesting. Players would definitely be motivated to finish their games on time. Making money playing CM (or running the events) would be...um....profitable. Treeburst155 out.

Mikey D, I tested variable endings in CMBB. In that game, you will get variability no matter what happens to the flags at any point in the game. CMAK may be a different story. I'm not curious enough to test it. When I see a high percentage of variable ending games ending with zero extra turns, I'll get more curious. Treeburst155 out.

Michael, I think the only thing designer's really need is a DETAILED explanation of the scoring system, which covers everything you mention above, except the Variable Ending. The Variable Ending is fairly easy to comprehend. It was just time consuming to do the testing to find out how it worked. All that really needs to be done is to update Redwolf's work to CMAK, and perhaps do a thorough study of Exit scenario scoring. I'm not sure how far Redwolf dug into Exit scenarios. Treeburst155 out.

WarHawk, You have just embarked on a very long, pleasant journey from which you will never return. Welcome to the world of Combat Mission!! Treeburst155 out.

Yep, you had less than a 10% chance of that happening. The variable ending works quite well IMO. It puts just enough uncertainty into the scenario. I'm actually glad the whole variable ending thing is NOT tied to late game flag status changes. EDIT: Actually, you may have had about a 17% chance of getting zero extra turns. With only 20 turns in the scenario, the "die roll" may only involve 0-5. It would make sense if it worked this way. Treeburst155 out. [ March 14, 2004, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

You're right, Rob, up to a maximum of 10 extra turns. A 70 turn game, for example, can't go past the 80th turn. Treeburst155 out.