dieseltaylor

WEGO because I like larger maps and battles. Larger battles means better weapons mix and potentially more terrain and angles of approach. Larger battles also mean on bad result does not necessarily doom you. And perhaps best of all a human brain on the other side means you are not so prey to bad AI design. AND you get to chat about the scenario and good effects. The only time I play RTS is to test the system and the tactics.

Not a good set of results for realism in the game. The IV's having the drop should be getting the shot off first.

Not a good result in terms of game realism.

Thanks John, mystery solved. My father was a substantive Major then. Unfortunately/fortunately in Royal Signals. No action stories but then he did survive.

Phil Culliton. You left out the bit that I should have quoted solely: To which my reply made sense as tanks are too clever by half in towns given the design decision. Arguably BF does not have to point out that its design decisions have some unfortunate side effects and therefore need not put this into its manual. How refreshing though if it had. The latter half which you did quote did not make sense to my reply. Mea culpa. I should not have quoted it all. P.S. Thank you for your replies. Agreement seems unlikely! : )

All from here http://www.royaltankregiment.com/9_RTR/appendices/Appx%202.htm Capt. seems to be the proper abbreviation however I am perplexed by references to W, WS and T.

Normal Dude Funnily enough if I invest time in playing a battle in a realistic fashion and then find out all my cleverly placed infantry on higher floors in a narrow street are not safe from tank fire from below I think I am entitled to feel mislead as to the realism of the game. Now I have not read the rules manual since last year so my memory may play me false but I do not recall this being mentioned as feature of the game that would need finessing.

Interesting stuff.

Phil, I have a problem here in I am suggesting a very minimalist approach which somehow seems to grow into some monstrous time overhead. The point about elevation, which appears to be discussed in several places could be No.1 on its not happening and here is why - copying and pasting from any existing place it has been discussed. This is on a forum where only the three of you post - or a loyal helper : ). You need never post again - unless BF ever alters its stance. Ditto fire breathers. Firing through smoke? The second part which if you like could be optional is the trials area. I am well aware that BF comments get put on interesting bug threads. However all I am suggesting is an easy place for your customers to check what the result is after testing. For all the protestation on work load I think this is actually easier for punters rather than trying to recall what name the CW TC casualty rate was discussed. SO what would happen. Its agreed there is testing required it gets entered on the BF section for bugs as a testing item - and can be a pasted copy of the answer in the original thread. Two months down the line perhaps a result is entered. Extra labour - Features never happening - one topic entry Bug topic - One pasted comment saying testing required. Result pasted. For players a one stop shop for what is a design constraint, and what is currently being up for evaluation. Clients not being allowed to post should make it a simple forum to read and pass on. Just in case you wonder what my angle is - high level and detailed process engineering in the service industry is what we have great experience in. Good customer outcome is actually a high priority in our world be it for external or internal clients.

German crews are pussies though :

I am not sure that this comment relates to the specific example I gave. 1] A list of behaviours/modelling that will not be included in the CMBN series because of practical problems. A one off entry. 2] Where a valid point is raised - like TC mortality rate - then to say it is testing is a fair enough clue. It does not require up-dating other than testing ends and result. SO BF has a forum all to itself like Scenarios or Modding where only it posts and a subject per entry to make it very easy to scan/search Now I can understand that people on the inside might find this a strange concept but in my long experience in service industries keeping people in the dark tends to piss them off. I was very vociferous in BF's favour in CM*1 but it seems that BF really has a problem with seeing a clients view of itself. I posted previously that bit from Vauxhall Motors that accompanied the first Churchill tanks explaining they had done the best they could in the time available with what they had - and things would be improved. A nice touch when an imperfect model is being provided. Customer relations.

Perhaps shooting TC's isn't always easy.

Thanks ian. I mean that for CMBN if the workarounds etc are explained and easily available in a thread here on the forum with BF giving the reasons or possibility. This re-hashing of something that was discussed in CMSF 22 months ago does not really help the CMBN player. Not having this information up-front leaves players re-inventing the wheel by bringing it up and getting bothered by it. Let BF just say: elevation is out because ... firing on fixed lines through smoke is out because ..... picking full ammo up is out because ..... reverse speeds are unrealistic because ....... broken troops carry their panzerschrek when running away because .. Crocodile/FT's are not going to happen because ...... And for good measure they might say what is being looked at in a single BF thread or current staus on an apparent bug highlighted by a player on the forum such as TC attrition rate when unbuttoned. A simple comment like " In-testing" would do. I am quite happy that if BF are up-front it will reduce a lot of angst as to what is a broken bit of coding and what is never meant to be. As it is many people must be equally bemused - other than those who are beta-testers and/or CMSF players.

I applaud the sentiment. But what sticks in my gullet is the art establishment telling me what is art and I am the buffoon if I disagree. I like Jack Vettriano but I am not an expert so whats my opinion against these: For those curious: http://www.redraggallery.co.uk/print-jack-vettriano.asp If you view the establishment and art galleries as a self-serving industry with the morals of a snake-oil salesman I think we can understand that marketability and profit are hugely important. I am fond of some of the Impressionists but some were rubbish at doing figures on their landscapes, and every artist has their poorer paintings however the aura of "great" carries weight and are assumed to be masterpieces. Just bear in mind the Rembrandt effect on the average human brain and the loss of critical faculties.

Agree Rocketman.

Thank you for the reasoning behind the decision. I would think it is in BF's interest to actually be up-front with some of their design decisions so that even if we disagree at least we know whats what. The problem is that the armour behaviour in Version 1 stunk and it has been altered somewhat since then. We also have the altered reversing speed which again looks like a post V1 adjustment and to a generalisaed figure. And in terms of realism in movement there are still problems . You can understand why after a decade one begins to wonder what BF do with armour. As for the decision on elevation. I comprehend the reasoning but still feel that when talking of buildings they are very large immobile structures in relation to most things on the battlefield so one might think special rules about proximity and height could exclude the most blatant shooting. However perhaps simply doubling each vehicles elevation and depression would skirt most of the problem for the AI and players. I see the gripe on "Free to move" for a tank controlled by the AI is surely reverse backwards directly OR if forward gets you out of the known danger more quickly then that. These decisions must already exist in game as tanks already carry out movement in the face of new information.

Your disingenuousness is remarkable . You stated that: The decision to omit them is what I am asking you about. Either you are giving an opinion or you KNOW the decision to omit was based on entirely different reasons. SO let us know is it your opinion OR if it is a fact what were the reasons. In passing - what was discussed in CMSF and CMx1 is surely highly irrelevant as we expect BF to improve the gaming system as time passes.

JonS suggested reading - I am not quite clear if he is suggesting that BF are clueless or good but as we are not talking cryptography it is moot. We are talking about a commerciall game claiming WW2 realism as its aim. Certainly infantry seems to have been exhaustively treated but the armoured side seems to be neglected with Version 1 having uber tanks with CMSF speed , ability to fire broadside whilst moving and laser sights. Which suggests that BF did not spend much time on armour behaviour.

JonS Is this something you know as fact or just your opinion? Perhaps you can help with the decision reasons if you know. And if you are aware of the inner workings please can you advise what it is that lead BF to its decision on reversing speeds for tanks?

I am having a problem here in that we are running a bastardised system to suit the AI whilst making in unreal for h2h players and RTS players. Mmmm! However none of the responses mention the logic for the Ai that if it needs to fire at a higher elevation the routine checks how close it is and then retires until it can fire at the eneey on the x florr be it second or sixth. As for infantry lurking around the tracks surely that is similarly tank retreats out of there or tries to run over the unit with tracks. First option based on hostiles known to friendlies known and the latter when plenty of friendly infantry are about. ATG's being a tad different. I simply cannot see the AI problem being as deep as is being made out compared to the fix I have outlined. Tanks shooting vertically is unbelievable rubbish Though people refer to CM*1 having the same problem surely it is one of those things like reversing as fast as forward that should have been ironed out in CMSF. AND at least in CMx1 the time to play against results was a lot simpler. All this added complexity but with some stunning nisses when it comes to armour modelling. I was almost crying when I saw a Churchill reverse yesterday and then rocking on its tracks when it stopped. Forty f....... tons going at 2.5 mph [RL] and rocks : (

Pardon me but does this not seem a trifle bizarre. I would think that coding circles of distance to target against height of target in building would be something a computer could calculate relatively easily. Or has this idea not been examined? So is coding to deny tanks the ability to fire on the second storey when within 50 metres a feasible concept ?. " can be ameliorated by, for example, driving up on curb" I can only assume you are joshing as standard curbs/kerbs are a matter of 4 inches or less and I am pretty sure most tracked vehicles would swallow that within track tension/suspension. After all shooting on the move would be very difficult if a 4" bump is sufficent to change elevation significantly.

Finally one of the glitterrati/arty set speaks out [and confirms what mere mortals have suspected]:

For a claimed realistic game not coding depression /elevation in is quite shocking. The whole concept of town fighting is severely banjaxed if tanks can fire at second storey buildings whilst parked adjacent. I am honestly surprised that there has not been more comment on this aspect.

What is with the dead TD?! Erwin. : ) Tank Destroyer to me. What would be nice to know is if the tanks are traversing across the ATG then we may assume that only the commander can be spotting at right angles - unless the turret was also facing. Were the commanders buttoned? Where the tanks still moving when firing. What happened to the tank with the dead driver? The fact the gun is in "foxholes" would/should indicate a prepared position with all necessary action by the ATG crew in dampening soil moving debris, camouflage. Does BF make an allowance for emplaced guns? As for missing a tank at 500metres traversing across that seems very unlucky indeed. However what version is being played as unless it is 1.10 it seems futile talking of past events and old videos. An equivalent British gun range firing is on around 100% at that is without intervening trees/cornfields . We do know the tanks are not hulldown because of the nailed driver. I do believe the tanks have had too fast reaction times and this may still be true.

You would think the General Forum would be the place for this non-CMBN thread : )