dieseltaylor

Good answer - liked it a lot.

james May's gentle digging at modern society is quite fun. He is far the most likeable of the Top Gear presenters. Which thinking about it has successfully resisted being foisted with a token female for years - which is a good thing even if Clarkson is a tosser.

Nice one Stalin : )

Wilhammer linky ,,,,, yeah right

I don't think it is entirely pointless in that simply accepting JC as being correct without thinking through its ramifications would have been wrong and left many people - or at least those who bother to read the thread - believing they possibly had been innocently cheating. We have now established that: 1. a kink in the sighting line is not prima facie an unhittable position 2. that JC has an unfortunate knack of meeting "unsporting players" My suspicion is that given enough elevational difference then the effect probably can occur where the crest is sharp. That the answer that is both simple to remember and provides the least player workload is not to make players paranoid about placing guns but for the moving player not to move into such positions whereby his counter-fire is rendered ineffective. I am sure there have been many innocent instances where maps have provided such positions which have also had a viable field of fire, and also very rarely some gamily made maps and scenarios where the effect has been crafted. For playing smoothly and free of worry it seems to me that the exploit is simply ignored and tank drivers just bear in mind the possibility and the onus of avoiding such situations. If you choose to play on smallish maps where tanks cannot move easily and buy no alternative weapon systems then that is entirely up to you. BTW Redwolf you say in your experience the results feel right. I was just curious how many games you have played - not trying to make a point but genuinely curious as to how one who has been on the forum for years does gamewise. I suppose I must have clocked over three hundred with the majority being large QB's. At WeBoB this seems to be a very high figure.

As far as I concerned I think there is some mileage in that specific instance. I have not tested this out. However JC extended his point beyond simply trenches. On the basis that I dislike making rules outside of the game I wonder whether you had considered how weedy ATG bunkers are, perhaps JC's ATG/trench wrinkle actually provides a properly beefed up bunker but without overhead protection. Bunkers are flawed ..... It is only a thought.

Redwolf Have you considered the possibility that the game, warts and all, might have compensating bugs that make the game reasonably playable. I have always found that borg spotting means that ATG's die very quickly - I can only imagine that there life expectancy would drop to even lower levels folllowing your view as to where they should be positioned. I assume that my kill and the suppression by the MG's does not carry much weight with you in terms of being a reasonable out come of a tank vs ATG duel. Which leads me to wonder what with 88's being so large that the English failed so often to hose them down with MG fire or even put 2pdr shot through the gunshield. Is it possible than even 11ft ATG's are not necessarily the easy target. Do you think that the bulk of the gun was screened by the guns being placed on reverse slopes? This is an interesting little article: http://www.ghqmodels.com/newsletters/janfeb2001.pdf

JC JC your last post seemed a tangle of strands vindicating your position. One strand that is missing is that now two people have done tests which show that having a kink in the sighting line is not a reliable sign that the gun is in an unkillable position. I killed using indirect fire from my main gun. It would seem therefore that you are in error in your assumption of the kink being a indicator of "cheating" behaviour. Your recommendation to move until the gun has no kink is therefore bogus advice. It seems a shame that no one takes the time to challenge your ideas - normally. I am sure that there are positions where guns can seem unkillable and the effect you describe where there is a concave slope could happen however in the thousands of instances where there is a kink and has not stopped the gun being killed would suggest your "cure" is for a problem that is uncommon - apart from possibly a few players. Also re-reading the quote above there seems to be an assumption that there will not be a range of heights on the battlefields. I may have a direct line of fire to hills higher than me but there also may be lower areas where a kink is in effect. It seems to me that having artillery on the battlefield has the possibility to become an unmanageable nightmare if one tried to follow the your advice - particularly as the kink is not effective. Is it not simpler for people to buy decent combined arms and stop whinging? If it occurs then 99% of people are not cheats so it is probably you have attacked from the "wrong" position. Tough. Getting players paranoid just does not seem half as good a solution. And calling players who do not share your view cheats is rather sad. PS Oddities To my recent cost when 7 squads firing for 5 or 6 minutes at under 100metres from a variety of positions and heights were unable to make a 6lber gun crew quit its cliff position. But **** happens. The game is full of oddities such as dropping an entire module of 8" artillery on a single trench and failing to kill or panic an HMG crew. * I said previously the Panther crew was Shocked - it was Shaken. Apologies.

I thought this interesting and this is an excerpt from the wide ranging 87 page report here: http://www.cerealfacts.org/media/Cereal_FACTS_Report.pdf If I read it aright in Appendix B there is a cereal that is 41% sugar! The only caveat I have is the references to some products not being shown on UK TV - I think they may be wrong.

Black Void - After years of play I have had much time to mull the iniquities of the BF straitjacket. My solution is to loosen up the parameters to allow greater game flexibility and also to make the game more historically accurate. In the early days of CM to a huge degree the idea existed that everybody should fight with full squads which is of course a historical nonsense. Almost never would battles be fought between sides with 100% full units. Also the way that BF arranged the purchase points so that battalion purchases are very much cheaper than buying units by individual or company level. Very useful for the Germans but a crippling system for the Western Allies. I suspect it also is a German advantage in CMBB. Elsewhere here I have written on the benefits that the Germans can reap with a no casualty policy in force when there is a 2000 point game. Under that figure the Germans can buy battalions whereas the Western Allies cannot buy a single battalion. This might seem insignificant but it isn't. For a US squad the battalion pays 29 points per squad, the Company pays 35, and the platoon pays 41 points. Obviously this is not CMBB but I am using this as an example of how strict BF designed limit adherence harms the game. Flex the options on the opening screen to make it more fun and increase the fog of war : )

It is very disturbing to see how far Detroit has collapsed. Shows what corruption can really do if left unchecked for so long.

Bear in mind that pushing guns one would use the "Contact" command. Your men may take the deployment decision in light of what they can see rather than the final point on your order. Essentially then the kink is not an absolute marker of an advantageous position as my test revealed. Given that there are other methods of killing ATG's and the accidental positioning would be far more common than the gamey/ bastard/ playing/ scenario/ designer it would seem logical not to agonise over it until you come across someone who does seem extraordinarily fortunate in positioning. Normally this will be the person who has a shopping list of requirements, and wants a specific map or scenario! : )

Very short article. Very interesting 4 pictures. Warning contains poor spelling. http://www.businessinsider.com/amazing-before-and-after-pictures-of-detroit-2009-10

Sorry ASL, I did not see you latest addition before posting. The link you provide reads very well and seems to involve the best efforts of intelligent men and women. In the event that world weather could be situated permanently above the countries creating the problem then I am sure the desire for a global solution would be more muted. However as the climate is affected for all inhabitants on planet Earth then cooperation/polite coercion is required to face this very dangerous problem. I do fear that some people do not think it is a genuine problem and will seek to sabotage any attempts for joint world action on the grounds that it is a front for global government. I think some of these people are keen that the World does plunge into disaster to prove their Apocalyptic [?] world view correct. It seems to me that the correct analogy is that your country is threatened by invasion and you argue the toss that it is a scare only and therefore you will not be conscripted. The Govt is TRYING TO CONTROL YOU by telling you of threats. In the case of Iraq this was undoubtedly a 100% scare story but I am afraid that Climate Change is a genuine threat to all.

But I thought that was par for the course for the US, get the result but with substantial collateral damage : ) ASL - I cannot say I have spent time looking at the videos but the tenor of your argument is based on them. It struck me that you talk of like minded people and revolution. Which made me think of other world revolutions with similarities. The Industrial Revolution seems to fit the bill. Change throughout the world as the UK [and others] supercharged by coal and minerals changed the world. It would seem that solar and other sources of power may again change the world and create vast industries based on new technologies. Conspiracy, or an alignment of thought and trade created the Industrial Rev? Fairly obvious that if many are going to benefit then it will get a consensus - and incidental to increased activity there should be a rise in the standard of living.* * Slightly complicated because now we have a crowded planet and looming problems with climatic change. Good green smarts http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/313642/Flyby+system+spots+power+plant+sites.htm?nl=TE_NL&dep=webops&dte=211009

Rather to waste my time, having written the above I generated a large hill map and pretty much anywhere I placed my guns I was able to generate a blue line with a kink in it - and plenty where the same gun had no LOS, and had plain sight. Much as I expected. Rather amusingly two things happened of interest: 1. A green Panther spotted a Crocodile at around 900metres and in the second minute of firing nailed in on the side turret armour on the 31st second - where it broke up. At the same second with the Panther commander still out of the turret went into Shock! There was no apparent incoming fire. 2. A 17pdr with an apparent kinked view nailed a Panther with a turret penetration killing a crewman. Once the Panther had recovered under smoke I gave it a area fire order for the 17pdr position. It killed it first shot at 882 metres in rough terrain. Though subsequent rounds did fly into the ether it would seem that even the kink is not a reliable tool in this case as to what is possible and what is not. I have kept the saved files.* Possibly the fact that the height difference was marginal is key to the result. this makes "rule making/cheat calling" more problematic. I am sure on a small map it is a far bigger problem but given the apparent special circumstances it seems unfair to make people neurotic about the "problem". JC's argues[!] is that in RL the guns are positioned beneath the crest on the forward slope and this should be game practice to avoid kinked sight lines. My feeling is that in a game with so many flaws and ad hoc tactics this is simply not worth the candle in terms of lessened enjoyment, and even more reasons not to buy an ATG. * Repeated twice more with the gun dying a slightly different way in the third. In the second replay I had not ordered the 17pdr to rotate away and the Panther skedaddled when faced with a directly firing target who was meaner than it was. It did survive afurther front hit whilst skedaddling.

I think you protesteth too much Redwolf : ) The question was that, however the logical extensions were: a] what do you do for guns that move? b] is it a sufficiently big problem to introduce a special rule c] is it a big problem apart from small maps And these follow on points are the ones being explored. It was JC who poopoohed the idea that it could occur by accident, and also who suggested that if you played someone whose gun was in such a position then they were not sporting players and should be avoided. You are modifying the argument somewhat , perhaps reasonably accepting that it could occur by accident. But you are also suggesting that I , and others, maintain there are no gamey players. It is obvious there are gamey players but to most of us they are a rare beast. NOW It is quite feasible that inadvertently I have cheated as my preferred MO is to place guns on the backsides of ridges meaning they fire along my front line. Now I suspect that depending where enemy tanks appear I may, depending on our relative positions and heights, actually have an unsporting position [ providing I am within 15metres of a crest]. As a player who took out 7 ATG's with mortars in one game I am quite keen not to site my ATG's on the top of rises and think my dispositions are logical. To extrapolate from a rogue deliberately abusing this "exploit" to suggest that all players must either avoid it happening or, if they fail to prevent it happening, they are de facto a cheat. My fear is that if we allow this sort of Star Chamber approach to what is correct in CM to enter into the game then it becomes unmanageable as more and more flaws in the game engine are deemed critical. I think it makes the game a very hard sell to new players if it comes with a list of do's and don'ts existing outside of the game engine to remedy defects. To play a fun but flawed game is what CMx1 is about and it is best that the engine is played pure as it keeps the essential simplicity and enjoyment factor.

Redwolf: It seems hard to believe you have never started a game with a gun on the edge of a set-up area where moving it a few tens of metres forward would make a big difference to its field of fire/level of protection/concealment. And until you arrive at that point how can you know whether it is in a position to nail a tank that may appear at a particular point on the other side of the map? Experienced players recognise rocky terrain as being the best defensive place to move your gun into, and woods may be good for ambush so thats where guns go. Moving guns is therefore hardly a hypothetical situation unless that is one plays on very small maps. Playing on huge and large maps means towed and pushed guns are common. Therefore this discussion - you are a cheat if your gun is in a position to nail tanks without taking direct return fire - is not without some interest. To call someone a cheat on the basis that the game engine is flawed and it has left you at a disavantage is pretty ridiculous - actually it is more than ridiculous it is stupid. Until JC raised the "cheat" I had played my last 150 games believing the problem had been solved by BF. I do not wish to be reduced to worrying about how I move or position my guns on the off-chance I achieve this perfect siting and then be called a cheat. The sensible options: - not to play people who feel everyone is trying to do them down and cheat to do so - if one insists on playing on a mini-map be aware that it can happen - play with enough points that you can have true combined arms - play people who understand the game is flawed and that **** happens For me to cheat to win would be ridiculous as what value or personal satisfaction can come from winning a computer game by cheating an opponent, any opponent no matter how detestable.

Hi Monwar. Had not really looked at the thread originator! Playing much these days? I CM over at WeBoB as it is sedate, well-run, and also keeps track of my total games. Hamilton ..yes, Banks?

Good link, thanks

Very moving slide show. Good art. And just to juxtapose with the ridiculous:

Thanks guys : ) Its amazing that warts and all this game still so addictive. I think like a Impressionist painting if you deconstruct a game too far you lose the overall effect. An impressionistic sunset or beach may not be terribly "realistic" but I know what I like : ) A game design has limitations and if the overall effect is great then why try to calculate all the formulas and wrinkles. Someone posted this quote at WeBoB: Utterly brilliant and eloquent summary of the gaming contradiction inherent in playing.

Mark, your three comments in the thread have been cryptic - except possibly the last one : ). If you have a point to make on the game please feel free to expand as I am not entirely sure what you are saying about the gun problem that JC raised. Have you a solution?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7360416.stm God looks after his own.