Treeburst155

Tom, I understand what you are saying. I'm just trying to keep the "LOS line feedback" issue from being clouded with much more difficult to test things like spotting, EFOW, etc.. Speaking of EFOW, it's plenty extreme for me. Most of the time you don't know what you've spotted. I love it! Treeburst155 out.

This is VERY interesting. The non-spotting units have LOS to the area, but do not see the enemy. What range did all this occur with regards to the "brush lane"? You see, in CMBO the LOS line would let you know when you could reasonably expect to spot an enemy. It also let you know the range at which you definitely would not spot an enemy. In CMBB this is not the case, and I'm almost sure this is a bug because of what it says about the issue in the manual (page 201). The spotting test you ran is interesting, and I'm very happy with the results you obtained; but it doesn't address the issue of player info about LOS through the LOS line, other than to once again show that the player gets no info from the LOS line. Spotting may or may not be affected by the lack of LOS line feedback. The player's ability to play is definitely affected however. Treeburst155 out.

The UberStuG!!! We will see a lot of this unit unless one or more adjustments are made. Other uberunits will most likely be discovered too. There will always be a few "best bang for the buck" units. Hit 'em on the flanks, I say!! Hit 'em on the flanks! If that doesn't work, call your opponent a "gamey bastiche", and be sure to purchase many StuGs for your next battle. Treeburst155 out.

Air temp also affects MG jamming frequency. Are you playing in warm or hot weather? Treeburst155 out.

Panzer 76, It's just that this has been a gameplay quirk for as long as CM has been in existence. Not only that, I don't recall ever reading a thread about the issue. Yes, it would be nice to add the "feature" you suggest, but there are REAL bugs that need addressing (see "Light Terrain and LOS" thread). For this issue all you need do is assign an HQ to the mortars/support teams that has a command bonus, and keep other HQs away from the immediate area of the troops, especially those with command bonuses. Is it a hassle at times? Yes, just like convoy movement is a hassle; but there are more important issues I would like to see addressed first. Treeburst155 out. [ October 06, 2002, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Hi Tom, This has nothing to do with EFOW. It has to do with how far you can see through brush, summer wheat, and even open terrain. Spotting/FoW/Enemy ID stuff is probably affected, but it is not the problem. The problem is that LOS does not degrade with distance through non-tree terrain. The LOS line does not darken with distance, even though the manual says it should, EVEN OVER OPEN TERRAIN. With perfect LOS "quality" over any distance (through non-tree terrain), spotting/FOW could very well be affected. This is not an easy thing to test IMO. Let me state the LOS issue another way. Suppose I'm staring at a likely enemy route of advance that consists of 200 meters of brush on flat terrain. In CMBO, I could determine just about how far out I would begin to spot the enemy in the brush. I would know this from the LOS tool. Also, the LOS problem is evident in the editor where there is zero FoW at all times. Lack of LOS degradation is the problem, spotting/FOW may very well be affected by it. Remember, the manual contradicts what we see in the game with regard to the feedback from the LOS line, and the movement through trees issue. Treeburst155 out.

Your battle parameters were just bad luck. Panthers against most armor in open terrain means big trouble. The LOS issue we're talking about here would only have helped you if there was lots of brush and/or summer grain on the map. In CMBO such terrain might allow you to get close to the Panthers. In CMBB this does not appear to be the case. Brush is clear terrain for purposes of LOS, no matter how many 1,000s of meters of brush you're looking through (CMBO brush= 155 meters LOS). LOS does not degrade with distance. Treeburst155 out.

It is interesting that in CMBB a few of you are calling this a bug. The issue has been with us for over two years! I suppose the new ability to spot for mortar carriers has aggravated things a bit. HQ's are getting more spotting work now, so the issue pops up more often. I'd worry more about the LOS problems through brush and summer grain; and also the fact that movement through trees is just as fast, and NO MORE TIRING, than movement through open terrain. These are NEW issues with CMBB. Treeburst155 out.

This has always been a quirk in CM. One has to be very careful anytime one wants to keep a specific HQ in command of specific support weapons. Keep all other HQs well away from these units. It WOULD be nice if we could assign HQs; but I'm used to working around the quirk now, and rarely get bit by it. Treeburst155 out.

These drivers work for me (Win ME)just like the several drivers before them. I can use 4x FSAA or NO FSAA. Any other FSAA gives me a black screen. The anisotropic filtering is very nice however. I will stay with the 40.71s just for this, since the driver has no drawbacks that the 30.82 WHQL drivers don't have, at least as far as CM and CMBB are concerned. Treeburst155 out.

The testing required for these two issues is very straightforward and simple, thankfully. Either the LOS tool shows LOS degradation or it doesn't, and troop either do or do not run through various terrain at the same speed and fatigue rate. This is exactly the sort of thing I think could get by testers focussing their attention on much more difficult issues like Tac AI, the performance of various weapons, and countless other things. Even now, thousands of CM vets are playing the game who haven't even noticed this thread, or the issues themselves. Treeburst155 out.

Go ahead. Just TRY to bury this thread, even though it's the most important thread on the board. I'll NEVER let it happen. Muahahahaaaa!!! Treeburst155 out.

Vader's Jester, The_Capt is right. You finished the tourney. That makes you a winner IMO. Besides, your .16 score is above the median. You're in the top half! Treeburst155 out.

...and John is the best thread bumper we have for ongoing tourneys, even when FOW won't let him write what he wants to. I ALWAYS know the status of John's games. Treeburst155 out.

Yeah, I agree spotting is involved to the degree that units are more easily spotted with a higher "quality" LOS. Since LOS does not degrade (according to the LOS line), spotting would be affected. IOW, I think LOS is the problem and spotting is the symptom. Treeburst155 out.

I ran some regulars from the same platoon through scattered trees, woods, tall pines, and open terrain, one squad in each terrain type. All moved at the same speed and had their fatigue level degrade at the same pace. The most important fact here is that the squad in the woods kept pace with the squad in open terrain and tired at the same rate too. I did not conduct the same test under muddy conditions. Broken's test and mine do not contradict Aussie Jeff's test from yesterday. I just reread how and what he tested again. So, we have an LOS problem in light terrain that does appear to affect spotting, and a movement problem in trees. Broken's original post to this thread still stands as true. I shouldn't say we have a problem with the running through trees. We have a DIFFERENCE from CMBO here, and the problem may be in the manual which contradicts what we see in the game. The LOS thing is a problem (bug) I think, and again contradicts what the manual says. Treeburst155 out. [ October 05, 2002, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Regarding LOS and spotting, based on your observations, it appears there is indeed no degradation of LOS (or spotting distance/chance)with distance through a particular non-tree terrain type. This is exactly what the LOS tool is telling us. If true, there is no need for brush, grain etc other than perhaps bogging and movement/tiring; which BTW, I have not yet looked at tonight. I will do that now. Treeburst155 out.

Are you sure about the infantry running and TIRING at the same rate in different terrain? I will have to test this again. As for the LOS issue, we are getting zero feedback from the LOS line. What is the LOS distance through brush in CMBB? Nobody knows! The LOS line won't tell us. Conducting spotting tests with units involves several variables, probably a random factor too; and spotting is not the same thing as LOS anyway. We're not talking about spotting here IMO. We're talking about how far I can see through brush. IOW, how far is the last bush in the brush, that I can see, from my position. How far can I look through brush, and still have a slight probability of spotting the enemy IF he were there. Treeburst155 out. [ October 05, 2002, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Below is a list of all the players who sent in at least one AAR, along with the number of AARs I have on record for them. The number in parentheses is the bonus that was added to players' Nabla score. Each AAR is worth .438 Nabla points. This figure represents 4% of Kanonier Reichman's high score. To all those who wrote AARs, a big "Thank You!" I know it takes time. Some of you went way beyond the call of duty, but the effort is sincerely appreciated. Ali-2 (.877) Bertram-1 (.438) Charles-2 (.877) Combined Arms-5 (2.192) Cpl Carrot-5 (2.192) cuzn-2 (.877) Frunze-2 (.877) Heavy Drop-5 (2.192) Holien-5 (2.192) Jack Trap-5 (2.192) Jon L-3 (1.315) JonS-5 (2.192) Juha A-5 (2.192) Kanonier-4 (1.754) Kettler-5 (2.192) Kunstler-5 (2.192) Lopaka-5 (2.192) Mick-5 (2.192) Mike8g-3 (1.315) Rat-1 (.438) Redwolf-5 (2.192) Spanish Bombs-5 (2.192) TabPub-5 (2.192) Ted-2 (.877) The Capt-5 (2.192) Tom-2 (.877) Ugbash-5 (2.192) Vadr-5 (2.192) ....and now the FINAL results with the AAR bonuses included. Section 1-1 Ali 6.157 Ricochet 5.347 Jarmo 0.71 Fate -1.31 MrSpkr -3.84 THumpre -10.29 Section 1-2 Lopaka 7.702 mPisi 4.65 mike8g 4.065 Jack_Trap 2.462 J_Jelinek -5.34 Bimmer -10.86 Section 1-3 Holien 8.162 Cpl_Carrot 4.862 White4 3.06 Evan_Roberts .647 Tero -3.87 Redwolf -8.748 Section 1-4 The_Capt 4.922 Juha_A 3.672 JonS 3.422 Saport 0.66 von_Lucke -0.40 Diceman -6.76 ________________________________ Section 2-1 MickOZ 7.582 Visom 1.39 Strider -0.66 Wadepm -0.83 Uber_General -0.91 Big_Dog -5.29 Section 2-2 Combined_Arms 8.702 Scheer 2.35 J_Porta 0.16 a1steaks -0.16 Torbhen -1.89 Pixelmaster -12.52 Section 2-3 Kanonier_R 12.714 Tom_Norton 4.117 Tabpub 2.092 Warhammer -5.45 StuGIII -5.50 JeffWilders -5.95 Section 2-4 Spanish_Bombs 5.152 John_Kettler 3.402 Bertram 1.828 Soddball -1.05 Michael_Dorosh -1.50 Ugbash -2.658 ________________________________ Section 3-1 U8led 6.77 Jim_L 6.36 Kunstler 4.422 Ligur -2.89 Sgt_Gold -6.62 Gunnersman -8.96 Section 3-2 Jeb 6.09 cuzn 5.347 Charles 3.467 Heavy_Drop 2.502 EASY_V -3.33 Rat -14.062 Section 3-3 Jon_L 12.085 Vaders_Jester 0.16 Cpt_T -0.36 Boris -3.05 Mikeydz -4.68 RC -5.05 Section 3-4 Vadr 6.612 Hobo 3.59 Lord_Dragon 0.58 I_Man 0.37 Zipper -0.84 Ozzie_Osbourne -10.41 Congratulations to the twelve section winners!! You are one step closer to the prize. As for the rest of you, there is always the next tourney. Over the next three days I will be organizing the Finals. My job has cut me some unexpected slack. If I keep at it, I can have the three Finals scenarios in players' hands by next weekend. Please check this thread often if you are playing in the Finals. I will be posting a list of players very soon. If you are not on the list and wish to play in the finals, post here ASAP. Everyone who played in this tourney may play the finals scenarios if they wish. You can look at it as a mini-tourney between four people. Thanks!! Once again, a hearty congratulations to the section winners! Treeburst155 out. [ October 05, 2002, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

The time has come, gentlemen! The RoW II first round is over. Before I start posting the numbers, I want to thank the Boots & Tracks Scenario Design Team for their hard work. This includes the scenario testers and those who are working on the RoW II webpage at the Boots & Tracks site. The scenario designers once again, and all in one place, are: Jeff "Jwxspoon" Weatherspoon - Fire On The Mountain David "Stix" James- Ste Mere Eglise Kevin "Kinch" Kinscherf - Another Day Wyatt "wwb" Barnett - Polish Push Scott Boston - Head For The Hills Thanks, Boots & Tracks!! Thanks also to Jarmo Hurri (Nabla) for the excellent scoring system, and of course Charl Theron (WineCape), the provider of the nice prizes. Also deserving of a "thank you" are those who filled in as replacements, especially later in the tourney. Cpl Carrot and Charles Keagle (Big X) come to mind here. There were others who took over in the middle of ongoing battles. A big THANKS to you all. To kick off the numbers let's start with the scenario medians: Fire On The Mountain - Allies 42.25, Axis 57.75 Ste Mere Eglise - Allies 51.75, Axis 48.25 Another Day - Allies 47.5, Axis 52.5 Polish Push - Allies 45.5, Axis 54.5 Head For The Hills - Allies 52.5, Axis 47.5 Each scenario was played 36 times by 36 different pairs of players. It appears the only one that was way out of balance was "Fire On The Mountain" with "Polish Push" apparently bent toward the Axis a bit. Keep in mind these are median scores (not the average), and that they reflect the splitting of contested/unclaimed VLs. We might get a different picture of scenario balance by calculating the AVERAGE score from the raw CM scores. Here is how all 72 players stacked up, BEFORE AAR bonuses were added: Kanonier_R 10.96 Jon_L 10.77 U8led 6.77 Combined_Arms 6.51 Jim_L 6.36 Jeb 6.09 Holien 5.97 Lopaka 5.51 MickOZ 5.39 Ali 5.28 mPisi 4.65 cuzn 4.47 Ricochet 4.47 Vadr 4.42 Hobo 3.59 Tom_Norton 3.24 White4 3.06 Spanish_Bombs 2.96 mike8g 2.75 The_Capt 2.73 Cpl_Carrot 2.67 Charles 2.59 Scheer 2.35 Kunstler 2.23 Juha_A 1.48 Visom 1.39 Bertram 1.39 JonS 1.23 John_Kettler 1.21 Jarmo 0.71 Saport 0.66 Lord_Dragon 0.58 I_Man 0.37 Heavy_Drop 0.31 Jack_Trap 0.27 Vaders_Jester 0.16 J_Porta 0.16 Tabpub -0.10 a1steaks -0.16 Evan_Roberts -0.23 Cpt_T -0.36 von_Lucke -0.40 Strider -0.66 Wadepm -0.83 Zipper -0.84 Uber_General -0.91 Soddball -1.05 Fate -1.31 Michael_Dorosh -1.50 Torbhen -1.89 Ligur -2.89 Boris -3.05 EASY_V -3.33 MrSpkr -3.84 Tero -3.87 Mikeydz -4.68 Ugbash -4.85 RC -5.05 Big_Dog -5.29 J_Jelinek -5.34 Warhammer -5.45 StuGIII -5.50 JeffWilders -5.95 Sgt_Gold -6.62 Diceman -6.76 Gunnersman -8.96 THumpre -10.29 Ozzie_Osbourne -10.41 Bimmer -10.86 Redwolf -10.94 Pixelmaster -12.52 Rat -14.50 Congratulations, Kanonier Reichmann!! You achieved the highest score of 72 players! Now to separate the scores into the sections. We are still working with the Nabla scores BEFORE adding the AAR bonuses. Section 1-1 Ali 5.28 Ricochet 4.47 Jarmo 0.71 Fate -1.31 MrSpkr -3.84 THumpre -10.29 Section 1-2 Lopaka 5.51 mPisi 4.65 mike8g 2.75 Jack_Trap 0.27 J_Jelinek -5.34 Bimmer -10.86 Section 1-3 Holien 5.97 White4 3.06 Cpl_Carrot 2.67 Evan_Roberts -0.23 Tero -3.87 Redwolf -10.94 Section 1-4 The_Capt 2.73 Juha_A 1.48 JonS 1.23 Saport 0.66 von_Lucke -0.40 Diceman -6.76 ________________________________ Section 2-1 MickOZ 5.39 Visom 1.39 Strider -0.66 Wadepm -0.83 Uber_General -0.91 Big_Dog -5.29 Section 2-2 Combined_Arms 6.51 Scheer 2.35 J_Porta 0.16 a1steaks -0.16 Torbhen -1.89 Pixelmaster -12.52 Section 2-3 Kanonier_R 10.96 Tom_Norton 3.24 Tabpub -0.10 Warhammer -5.45 StuGIII -5.50 JeffWilders -5.95 Section 2-4 Spanish_Bombs 2.96 Bertram 1.39 John_Kettler 1.21 Soddball -1.05 Michael_Dorosh -1.50 Ugbash -4.85 ________________________________ Section 3-1 U8led 6.77 Jim_L 6.36 Kunstler 2.23 Ligur -2.89 Sgt_Gold -6.62 Gunnersman -8.96 Section 3-2 Jeb 6.09 cuzn 4.47 Charles 2.59 Heavy_Drop 0.31 EASY_V -3.33 Rat -14.50 Section 3-3 Jon_L 10.77 Vaders_Jester 0.16 Cpt_T -0.36 Boris -3.05 Mikeydz -4.68 RC -5.05 Section 3-4 Vadr 4.42 Hobo 3.59 Lord_Dragon 0.58 I_Man 0.37 Zipper -0.84 Ozzie_Osbourne -10.41 Do YOU wish you had written more AARs? Now I must take a break. Within the hour I will post final scores WITH the AAR bonuses. If you're at the top of your section in the next list, you are eligible for the South African wines (VCR war movies for Tourney III). Treeburst155 out.

I've yet to find a recent nVidia driver that allows 2x FSAA in CM. In fact, you have two choices. They are no FSAA, or 4x FSAA. Quincunx and 4xS do not work. Treeburst155 out.

My Tigers got annihilated. One was even taken out frontally by an M4 at 600+ meters. Treeburst155 out.

This bug is only significant on maps with a fair amount of brush, grain, steppe, or open terrain. IF brush is supposed to have the same LOS blocking characteristics as in CMBO, then brush can often be a significant terrain feature when there are fairly large patches of it (LOS in CMBO brush is 155). Maybe the LOS line is not working, but the actual calculations are. This would be even worse than the brush, grain, etc. being treated as open terrain by the program, because the LOS tool would be misleading us. Is the LOS line telling us the truth? If so, light terrain features are simply open terrain. There is no brush, grain, etc.. Yes, we have a significant bug here. BTW, foxholes in brush, summer grain, and open terrain appear at the same distance to infantry. It would seem to me that a foxhole in a summer wheatfield would be much more difficult to spot than a foxhole in open terrain. For this reason I believe the LOS tool is telling us the truth, and the program does not recognize the lighter terrain features as far as LOS is concerned. Treeburst155 out. [ October 04, 2002, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Hey you! You're good. Treeburst155 out.

Yeah, the running thing is a non-issue IMO. I've been experimenting with it. The LOS line is a different story. Apparently, it only darkens when tracing LOS through some type of trees. No other terrain degrades LOS, judging by the LOS line. From page 201 of the manual (italics are mine): "The brighter the blue line color, the better the LOS, i.e the less obstructed the view to that particular location. Notice that LOS deteriorates even across open terrain." This LOS deterioration does not happen except when tracking LOS through trees. This is a bug IMO. Treeburst155 out. Treeburst155 out.