CMplayer

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Oh look, someone else who thinks AT teams were suicide squads. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh look, someone else who thinks he knows what other people think.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CombinedArms: So, which one is it? We generally don't get a choice, but would you rather have the command "star," the fighting "thunderbolt," the morale "heart," or the stealth "?" for your HQ units? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would like some of each, so that I can task my platoons according to their abilities. --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: Yes this does happen but most of the time if I recall they do go back to killing whoever I wanted them to, but yeah you're right. Makes you mad doesn't it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You often have to use _area fire_ to target infantry in buildings/forest with HE, otherwise as soon as they go prone the tank won't see them and will stop putting shells into the cover. So in this case, no, they won't go back to killing who I want them to kill. Show him one flamethrower, for 5 seconds, and he will stop putting 105mm HE rounds into the key building which enemy infantry is holding. That means that my men nearby die. --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh: Lately, I've been asking myself why even bother buying Regulars anymore. They panic way too much and it just seems like buying Vets on the medium setting is the only way to keep your line intact.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well bazooka teams are definitely somewhere where paying extra for vets is worth it. For infantry, I generally like to get about 1/3 vets. Often I get a regular company and then one vet platoon (and some vet support) The idea is to _lead with the vets_. Use them to scout, or put them into a position where they are a thorn in the side of the enemy's movements. Basically, give them the hard jobs. Since zooks often have to sneak into unscouted positions, they have a hard job, hence, buy vet zooks. Regular inf is fine once you know what the playing field looks like. Then you can proceed methodically, which suits them. --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elvis: TCP/IP is a whole different game. It brings CM to the level that I believe it was designed for.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One of the cool things about it is that the time limit on plotting orders brings back that stressful feeling from CC. (remember the slogan "it takes guts to think under pressure"?) I thought I was about to have a stroke during my last game; I had to get up and walk around away from the computer to calm down. It was just soooo tense, at 800 pts with 5 minutes plotting time. --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: I have read that people have problems playing TCP/IP. If so why are people still playing that way? I am interested because I would like to play that way in the future and wanted to confirm if there is a problem finishing a game like I've heard there is. That would not be fun. Just when you are about to kill your enemy it crashes!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have played about 10 TCP/IP games with only one crash. After the crash, I just went in and loaded the autosaved game; a few seconds later my opponent reconnected and we hadn't lost any moves of the game. It was perfect. --Rett [ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

A good feature for the game would be the following: If you give a targetting order to a unit, and if overrides your order, then it should remember to continue your original order as soon as the other threat has subsided. In particular, when I have ordered a tank or gun to do *area fire* somewhere, if it switches to some other target, then it never returns to doing its area fire job until the next turn, when new orders can be given. This can lead to tanks sitting there doing nothing, for several turns. If other lives are dependant on their following orders, the results are silly, and make possible gamey tactics like presenting a zook or flamethrower for 5 seconds, to effectively cancel all the enemy's AFV's area-fire orders. --Rett (Sorry if this has been hashed to death in the past. I belong to the uncouth mob that doesn't believe in doing searches first.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: There has to be a compromise that will allow players a very limited but necessary amount of micromanagement without upsetting game play.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Also, if you look at the game, the player already micromanages very much. Take tank movement for example; you have to find hull down positions yourself. Do you think any battalion commander says, "drive forward 73.54 metres so that you are hull down"? There are tons of things like this in the game. Introducing good changes, such as a "!" which can be added to any command, and makes it less likely that the unit will override the order, can help compensate for weaknesses in the tac AI. The issue of 'micromanagement' is just a bogeyman here. As for the question of people using the "!" too much, well, if they can win that way, all it shows is that the tac AI is deficient. However I think that overusing "!" on targetting orders would lead to defeats, for the very reasons that BTS explained at the outset. Using it sparingly, though, with a good understanding of how the TacAI functions, could be very useful. --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cueball: Well, I was hoping for a serious answer. FM radios are less prone to LOS problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What do you mean by LOS problems with a radio? --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PawBroon: You might notice it's neither flat nor plain black. It looks better than the vanilla blue we have to date. Believe me, there are NO blue rivers in Europe... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well I went in and turned the brightness and contrast up to full on my screen, and some subtle nuances became slightly noticable. But for those of us who don't want to have to wear radiation protection goggles when we play, it looks like plain flat black. --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tanks a Lot: I just finished making a water and ford mod based on the water below. Please don't make me do it all over again in brown. Should I release it as it is? Any comments on my rough mod? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Water may look black, but it is also shiny. It glitters and if it is very flat, can reflect like a mirror. So a field of flat black like in that mod, doesn't work at all. --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Detroit Guy: Wouldnt it be simpler to somehow just blast the hell out of one flank and then move on?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Two things. 1) In Valley of Trouble you aren't actually facing 'flanks' because the idea of the scenario is that you are facing a defensive line which continues off the board in both directions. (quibble) 2) Different portions of a defensive line should be arranged to mutually support each other. So if you are assaulting the enemy at point B, his assets at points A and C can assist in fighting you off. If you engage him lightly at A and C, those enemy troops will have more pressing things to worry about, and your main thrust at B is then being indirectly supported. Now in Valley of trouble, according to the plan Jason gave us, you send a platoon through the woods to the right in order to find his heavy gun. Once it is spotted, they smoke it with 60mm mortars and you call in artillery. Thus, the platoon on the right has been tasked with a specific mission designed to support the overall assault, even if the main thrust comes on the left. When they are done, you can save what's left of the platoon as reserves, to throw into the final push later, if necessary. So I would conclude: sure, mass on one side and attack. But think about long range weapons which have a bearing on the side where you are attacking, even if they are physically located far away. regards, --rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cueball: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't German AFV's use FM radios and the Allies use AM on their vehicles? This could make considerable difference on LOS issues for command control with tank platoons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, the Germans were often distracted because they got such better music on their radios. --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: >would it be possible to implement an "abadon >weapon" command for heavy weapons like guns, >mortars and MGs? Good idea. But please include a confirmation routine so that there are no accidental abandonments due to sloppy mouse technique. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They should ideally take some time to destroy the gun first. It would be cool if you could get victory points for capturing intact weapons. (perhaps make that scenario optional) --Rett

Also, several people have said that the short time frame of CM would make this unrealistic. But CM already compresses time very intensely. That's why someone astutely pointed out that _given CM's compression of battle time_ the time needed to unhitch guns is too long. I think the same could be said in favor of reorganizing troops under new platoon HQ's. --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warren Peace: The upshot is a stealthy commander can make a huge difference!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the deciding factor in this case was the long range at which you engaged, rather than the stealthy commander. If the commander helped, it was rather with the morale bonus. regards, --Rett

New very surprising test results!!! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99: One other point: ATGs get exponentially harder to spot if placed deep within woods, just at point where they can barley see out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I just ran a test of this and the result does not confirm it. I did the same test as the 800 meters battle in my earlier post, but moved the two 88's back into the woods so that their unit bases were on the tile border to the next tile inwards into the forest. This cut their chances to score a hit on the tanks by about one third, according to the targetting lines, and did not result in their being spotted any less quickly. The final results were much worse than putting them at the edge of the woods: Kills per fight out of 10 shermans: 1,1,2,3,0 averaging 1.4 kills/fight or .7 kills/gun Compare this to 4,2,1,5,2 when they were set up on the edge of the forest giving 1.5 kills/gun. regards, --Rett [ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: there is no way to identify when a spotting chance starts and stops. Instead, it is a continous event that knows no beginning or end, and is unaffected by the number of chances or what those chances are trying to identify. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That sounds really interesting. You've got a cool job. Well, thanks anyway. I'll be buying the game in any case. --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claymore: Again...I'll say that the chances for sparking ignition inside these buildings is very much under represented in CMBO. Anyone who has seen a round detonate will attest as to its pyrotechnic potency. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Buildings in CM that do catch on fire are engulfed in flames instantly and everyone runs out. You could increase the odds of them catching fire, if you had the fires start out small and leave the squads inside a couple of turns to get out in good order before the TAC AI runs them out into the wrong street to be chewed up. Just an idea, otherwise, thx for an interesting post. --Rett

Steve, Thanks for replying. I mean a big thanks. In that case another way of trying to solve the problem would be that you _retain_ all the chaos and spotting uncertainty which you already have but that _on any given second_ of the game, if several units have a chance of spotting the same gun (or whatever) then the one that acc. to your system has the highest chance of spotting gets to do its resolution normally, but the others suffer an additional _reduction_ in their chance. The result would be that the curve of overall likelihood of being spotted would taper off as you add more spotting units. It would keep the guns from becoming too easy to see, when there are many eyes, without making them too hard to see when there are fewer eyes. What is the maximum number of times units can spot? Once per second, once every three or six seconds? Perhaps you could bunch all resolutions occuring within 3 seconds of each other, and apply this spotting 'hit' to units doing their spotting resolutions within a close time proximity of each other. Obviously I don't know how the game is designed, but some way of getting diminishing returns for the 'extra eyes' could be exactly the fix needed, until the day when relative spotting can come into play. regards, --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: There is no easy solution here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe there is, but you are overlooking it. See below. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> For example, if 10 targets each have a 10% chance of spotting something then it won't take more than a shot or two before the gun is spotted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The easy solution is to calculate spotting from the spotted's end, not the spotter's end. This makes sense and fits the absolute spotting system. What I mean is this, if 10 units have a ten percent chance of spotting a gun, each time you do a spotting check you put all the units which COULD spot it together, and do a single check based on that. BUT don't just add up the percentages linearly. Take the best one, and then for each additional spotter, in descending order of likelihood add say, 50% of its chance, and for the next on 25% of its chane, and for the next one 12.5% of its chance etc. Then do one single spotting resolution. In the example you gave, 10 shermans with a 10% chance to see the gun, are summed up approx like this 10 + 5 + 2.25 + 1 + .5 + .25 etc giving about a 21% chance of being spotted at that resolution. (say one resolution per turn) If that is still too much, then make the drop-off even steeper. This way additional eyes count, but they don't have the negative side effect you describe. Since you have 'borg' spotting, putting the spotting together like this seems like an elegant and appropriate fix to me. regards, --Rett [ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warren Peace: Any thoughts? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I just tested this some. I describe the test below, but the general conclusion is that for 88's to have the advantage over a large number of 'vanilla' shermans you want to engage at 1200+ meters. (Also, I have had 57mm AT guns take out 3-4 enemy vehicles without being spotted due to their getting first shot hits, and firing through keyholed slots so that not many pairs of eyes are looking in their direction.) Test results 2 regular pak88 at edge of woods in foxholes. 10 regular vanilla sherman tanks in open flat ground. one of the 88s in C&C of a +2? commander. five battles at each of 3 initial ranges, 800, 1100, 1400 meters engaging at 800 meters tanks killed/game 4,2,1,5,2 (both 88's KO) average 3 kills/game or 1.5 kills/gun 1100 meters 5,8,1,7,4 (both 88s KO) average 5 kills/game or 2.5 kills/gun 1400 meters 10!(one 88 KO),4,10!(one 88 KO),5,8 average 7.4 kills/game or 3.7 kills/gun and gun survival in two cases. Spotting: at 800 and 1100 meters the guns were spotted within 10 seconds of opening fire. At 1400 meters it could take up to a turn or two, with the tanks closing range to about 1300 meters before the guns were spotted. Also, the farther into the woods you put the guns, the lower the chance of their scoring a hit, (according to the LOS targetting line in setup) but this may positively affect their ability to stay concealed. --Rett [ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PipBoy: Not really, I don't think you can do that in the middle of a game. I'm talking about an easy to use planning tool.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You could take a screenshot of the map and print it out on paper. Then plan on that with real pens. I'm going to have to try it, sounds fun.

I would like to repeat the situation. What were the experience levels of the involved units? thx, --Rett

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99: Also, while your men might be in 'Light Trees' the compuer actually takes the area of the square unit base and compares it to the terrain underfoot then puts some parts of the squad in whaever it is standing in. WWB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> :confused: Could you run that by me one more time? --Rett