dieseltaylor

Ok I am doing some of the citizens an injustice

At least you have PBS for the more intelligent ....the few ? e.g. http://video.pbs.org/video/2262743331 Rather like rape the body will shut down to prevent your mind being inseminated by crap adverts and ignorance.

http://www.virginiacops.org/articles/shooting/combat.htm SO accuracy under stress substantially worse than in game!

Steiner - surely a self-reporting group of pistol fans is very likely overstating the accuracy. They actually spend time on the sport and that they shoot static targets in a more relaxed environment. People being nasty to you and stressing you out with shots and movement I suggest means your figures may be accurate but not actually much use other than indicating a maximum upper limit in the best possible conditions. Which in itself is useful. : )

Does finding and reporting a flaw get any reward at all. Perhaps a freebie upgrade to CMBN2?

Gosh you man NBC will not be showing the ParaOlympics with all those who have lossed limbs in war and accidents!!? I think the real rub was showing the adverts during the Olympics which is reall crass.

The top jokes were: 1. Stewart Francis - "You know who really gives kids a bad name? Posh and Becks." [ David and Victoria Beckham have children called Brooklyn, Romeo, Cruz and Harper Seven] 2. Tim Vine - "Last night me and my girlfriend watched three DVDs back to back. Luckily I was the one facing the telly. " 3. Will Marsh - "I was raised as an only child, which really annoyed my sister." 4. Rob Beckett - "You know you're working class when your TV is bigger than your book case." 5. Chris Turner - "I'm good friends with 25 letters of the alphabet… I don't know Y." 6. Tim Vine - "I took part in the sun tanning Olympics - I just got Bronze." 7. George Ryegold - "Pornography is often frowned upon, but that's only because I'm concentrating." 8. Stewart Francis - "I saw a documentary on how ships are kept together. Riveting!" 9. Lou Sanders - "I waited an hour for my starter so I complained: 'It's not rocket salad." 10. Nish Kumar - "My mum's so pessimistic, that if there was an Olympics for pessimism… she wouldn't fancy her chances."

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2012/08/incredible-memory-skill-lets-you-relive-your-life.html?cmpid=NLC|NSNS|2012-2008-GLOBAL|memory&utm_medium=NLC&utm_source=NSNS&utm_content=memory I hope you can see this outside the UK. Give a guy a date and he will you what happened to him on that day. So lets have a day in 1986 .....

JonS BF did model Fireflies as being less important than vanilla Shermans in CMx1 if the Sherman was 10 metres closer! - this was not good IMHO. I would suggest that the target overload is of units that can badly hurt you first to be assimilated and that is of course a function of proximity and type of enemy. And yes if you were presented with two teams with anti-tank weapons with-in their range you would certainly give them a very high priority compared to a tank 1500 metres away. You can discard dismounted tank crews, armoured half-tracks etc form the highly dangerous and not count them high in the ten total. Apparently the natural number that people can naturally handle items is in fours I learned today. Not say for societies were numbering stops at one and at three. * Has anyone checked whether the vanilla Sherman /Firefly problem occurs in CMx2?

I was musing about what to do with multiple spottings in the event I were designing the game. Essentially I would say that a unit commander can only handle so much and whereas with a squad your men may take on immediate infantry threats with a tank it is very much a single brain has to calculate and deal with the situation and I think there is a maximum amount certainly 10 or less that a tanker can deal with. In my design the closest forward faced targets get priority as the crew report in but in any event definite identification and range stops at 10 everything after that cannot be fully registered. I am sure somewhere someone has researched this type of problem!

In a sense these excellent series of tests reveal a rather more human problem. The ability of humans to count/double count under stress. In this sense I doubt it being a Tiger is relevant as if it were a Sherman counting Shermans I would expet the same result [though it would interesting if possible.!] Seriously if you have a number of guys spotting in a car park and give them a minute would you be able to handle the information to give an accurate response? And more importantly placement of the identified enemy? In practical terms most crews could barely handle ten targets and locations in a minute would be my guess - and even that would require relative spotting to an identified point. Spotting too easy ........ I realise that whilst we flounder to understand what is going on with the spotting we are unearthing some unlikely events and behaviours in these unlikely events. One of the chief ones being the ability to apparently spot forwards and backwards with equal [mainly] accuracy. I am interested in the diagram which apparently shows that viewing to the starboard [right side] is not as good - is there a pattern there also?

Thats encouraging - not. I would have thought some enthusiast could have been enlisted to make a more user friendly manual - if not in the actual manual at least linked deliberately as a must read. Something like this: Priceless info and amusingly told. Something similar for terrain/cover and concealment without getting into boring statistics would be so so useful. : )

Sburke Is it just possible that BF might have provided some guidance on spotting limitations /advantages in the manual? Page 72 does not address the importance of the underlayer at all which means other than beta-testers every one is going from scratch. Why the secrecy if it is fundamental? More to the point the guide for map building is equally uncommunicative as to the importance of the underlying terrain. So much as it appears the players are to blame for being stupid in making assumptions it would appear that BF have colluded or compounded the frustration. I would be interested in a rational explanation why it is better to leave the map designers and the new players in a state of ignorance when releasing a new game.

And something else in the same area

sburke - how much CMx1 have you played?

12 seconds is very quick I would think. Regardless of that if the variance is 12 seconds to over 360 seconds is that not rather ball breaking? Incidentally it helps if you enter the commonest scores so: 12233444556612233555 =71/20 gives an average of 3.5 but the commonest time is 5 if we have the series to play with we can see if it is actually 1616161616 the average is 70/10 and the average time is 3.5 but that will never occur I was never taught stats but I know its great for messing things up

George Smiley! Whilst it is true what you say that they do post we also have the flipside where we are not aware what they [really] acknowledge is a problem and are seeking a solution. Would we be wasting time on making trials if we knew they were addressing this point? My mention of the Churchill and Vauxhall acknowledging faults was absolutely on the mark. The game as first shipped had an armour module that was so laughably wrong that only an idiot could have failed to notice that the tanks were not performing as WW2 tanks did but as modern tanks. If they had owned up to this one might have not felt so insulted. Anyway more tests should [!] should show if it is tank specific.

Well thats news. Do you have any WW2 source or later advising this was the purpose.? This is from the earlier link I gave: March 1945 The implication appears to be that fring on the move though if you are saying what it means is the tank stops and fires as per normal and gets a better chance of being on target - provided all the conditions listed are met - then that is a change from what most people think.

Iam both pleased and saddened. Pleased at the work that noob has done and the confirmation that my feelings about the armour module is right. Saddened that BF got it wrong. And saddened that BF are not more up-front with the community. Vauxhall making the first Churchills

There has to be a distinction made between RL and what happens in game so what you read from war histories is not necessarily going to happen in CMx2. The gyrostabiliser that every book will quote was actually cumbersome and required a lot of calibration and maintenance. Most or a lot of crews never used it in combat due to this and the fact that tanks would virtually never fire whilst on the move. Just as an example of whether to believe everything you read: https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/36137/OS_ENG_v28_i04_010.pdf?sequence=4 I would back the Shermans generally against MkIV's in game. The firing at 2000m by Noob is great but I would like to know what version of CMBN was being tested. In RL apparently Shermans were more easily spotted when firing because of the smoke on firing.

MikeyD. People had a lot of fun with CMX1 and for me it was not far off ideal when played at the right scale which was lots of units and huge maps where combined arms really worked and soft-skinned vehicles had a reason to want to live and be used. The two most glaring game design errors were vehicles reversing as fast backwards as forwards [repeated in CMBN V1.00] and the laser range finders that equipped all troops and then was teamed with a mode that meant you could see precisely out to x yards in various weather/night conditions. And snipers would not fire at 98metres to a target but would at 101metres. HOWEVER perhaps BF ought to consider that perhaps there is an opportunity to market the game with a dial down option on the spotting variance. This obviously after the current problems with moving spotting is tweaked to make it more difficult. The worst case I had was in a trial Sherman that was hit three times on the front glacis and the TC stayed up and still could not spot a MKIV at range firing. Both tanks in the open. AFAIR it never spotted it in a couple of minutes. I would never argue that this would be impossible but for it to occur in a test series of around 50 was a shock. And it was not the only example where some units would spot in small sconds and others would go to minutes and not at all. IF the variance was reduced to say 40 seconds , and huge bonuses/miuses against firing/moving units etc then it may be more playable as a game where people have a roughly similar experience. If it can be a dialable feature that would be excellent and I don't care if the choice is extreme realism, average realism, and baby play.

Interesting thread but with very little in the way of people saying how they played the game, for how long etc. Trying to evalaute the worth of the comments becomes difficult if I look at the two games from a WEGO point of view and only play against humans. I suppose I have been playing for 12 years, and very little in the last year. I reckon easily 500 games ogf CMBB and CMAK and getting on for 100 different opponents which seems to be quite a lot by what records I can see. I play humans because AI's suck. I also like to play tournaments because you can have fun discussing the battles before and after the event if it is team play. What I think I see in CMBN was a game brought to the market a year too early with a crappy armour module from CMSF stuck on. However until I get the finishing patch for Version1.10 to convert it to 2.00 I can only go by comments on the CMFI forum as to whether it will finally float my boat. Unfortunately I think I am seeing that the finer detail of CMX2 with huge spotting time differences means tournament play is probably dead for CMx2. I have carried out many tests with matched tanks in fire lanes and when in identical lanes there can be over a minutes spotting differnce you realise that battles really are going to go via the engines spotting routines and that if 20 players start the same battle the differences in scores may well come down to spotting. Looking at Big Dorks AAR where his moving Sherman in two incidents nails two waiting MkIV's certainly confirmed my doubts about trying to run a tournament. CMX1 was reasonably reliable and you could make reasonable guesses as to what should happen. By allowing for so many possibilities CMX2 may certainly appear more realistic but as a game it is not as good. I thought this apt from Wiki in trying to distinguish the puzzle side of playing. Single-player games Most games require multiple players. However, single-player games are unique in respect to the type of challenges a player faces. Unlike a game with multiple players competing with or against each other to reach the game's goal, a one-player game is a battle solely against an element of the environment (an artificial opponent), against one's own skills, against time, or against chance. Playing with a yo-yo or playing tennis against a wall is not generally recognized as playing a game due to the lack of any formidable opposition. It is not valid to describe a computer game as single-player where the computer provides opposition. If the computer is merely record-keeping, then the game may be validly single-player. Many games described as "single-player" may be termed actually puzzles or recreations.

That Valor Act reversal stinks but for this bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act In the UK you can sell your medals and I think that is only right. Wearing medals to which you are not entitled is bad. However wearing a Napoleonic medal would obviously be different from wearing a medal to deceive. I nust admit I am shocked to the core that deceit gets specific approval in the judgement - is this because they realise most of the politicos might be jailed! :; ) Apparently for some judges there are no grades of deceit and therefore all are protected. The treatment of the veteran who came across the MOH fraudster is positively distressing: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/6/exposer-in-stolen-valor-case-fired/

Arno, you may wish to make your details less detailed as not only bots need to be avoided but also there are really weird people here!