c3k

...and this is the heart of the matter.

Arrogant? Hardly. I'm sorry if my opinion seemed harsh. A lot of the tabular data presented doesn't make much sense. You wanted to know why you hadn't heard anything. I told you. You've gone off into a testing regime I deem worthless. As I alluded to, I've been wrong before. I may be wrong now. However, you've ignored my "advice". Shrug. You're free to do so. I'm free to ignore your results. I am doing so. Just for grins, I'll tell you of an early test I did on spotting. I ran 100 dismounted tank crews through a sniper gauntlet. Those which ONLY had a Driver and a TC left, were safely let through back to their tanks. THAT pre-condition took a LOT of work. That was to remove the effect of the gunner and his optics from the spotting routine. I drove the few tanks into a hull down position to blind the driver. I did this a year and a half ago, spending over 2 weeks on it. In the end, I found nothing. I do not lightly waste my time. Regards, Ken

Here is my response: your tests are worthless in my view. Is that harsh? Yes. But let me explain, and then see if your anger is righteous. You are testing HIT/KILL chances. That may be of interest to you, but not to me. Nor, in my opinion, does lethality matter for purposes of Hull Down spotting. I have no doubt that a larger target (tank in the open) is easier to hit than a smaller target (tank hull down). Let me present an analogy. It is easier to me to hit a 12 foot circle at 100 yards on the firing range with a scoped rifle than it is to hit a 3 foot circle at 100 yards. (The 12 foot diameter target is SIXTEEN times greater in area than the 3 foot circle.) Yet, I would be incompetent if I missed even 1 shot into the 3 foot circle with a scoped rifle from 100 yards. Target size, in this case, has NOTHING to do with chance of hit/chance of kill. Neither does your test. What is curious to me, as a beta tester, is the SPOTTING TIMES. Will a hull down target be spotted before an exposed target would be spotted at the same range, by the same observer? If so, at what range, if any, does it crossover. Testing hulldown AGAINST exposed does not test spotting time. There needs to be minimal variation on the tests. (Hulldown tank shooting at exposed tank is no test for exposure or spotting.) You've done a lot of work. It -hints- at an issue, but your test setup (from what I understand) simply doesn't test what needs to be looked at. Eventually, I will probably get around to testing this. My test will have tank X, hulldown, being spotted by tank A. The next test will have tank X, exposed, being spotted by tank A. Both tests will be at the same range. Then I will start to change the range. Then I will change the button up status. In all cases, tank A will have its hull facing AWAY from tank X, and the turret STARTING with a covered arc towards (but not including) tank X. Tank X will have a short covered arc. No one will shoot a single shot. It will have about 1,000 iterations. Or more. The test will be one to assess the TIME to spot. Will I post the results here? It depends. So, whereas I -appreciate- your effort, I do not see any -value- in it as far as determining any hull down spotting errors. But that's all my opinion. My record for these things is good, but not great. I make a lot of mistakes, false starts, dead ends and errors. Eventually, if there is a game error, it can be found. Consistency and elimination of variables is the only way it will be convincingly presented to BFC. Consider your thread, again, to've been noticed by a beta tester, and hence BFC's testing process. Regards, Ken

I am as far from PC as is possible. My views on the proper role of the US military versus their current role are non-germane to this discussion. However, if you think that I have been indoctrinated into obedience (implied by your response), you are very much mistaken. It is a common courtesy when on a public forum to refrain from racist, derogatory, or ethnically demeaning terms. Exceptions for obvious jokes, of course. You were not joking. You think the "object of the game is to maim and kill"? It is a game which showcases TACTICS and eschews visual gore and suffering. I would contend that if the purpose was to "maim and kill", then the game has failed horribly. In fact, I would argue that any product which has an object of maiming and killing could not be called a "game". Now, I'm not sure if you tried to label me with your "ignorance is temporary but stupidity is permanent" comment, but I assure you that you could not be more wrong if you were aiming it at me. However, if you don't lift yourself out of the mire of your ignorance after having it shown to you, then what does that mean? It's a game. It's a privately owned forum open to the public. Read the agreement you clicked on when you joined. Let us know after you've read it. Regards, Ken

Good enough: you don't like the game. There are some games I tried and didn't like. For myself, I recognize if it is a matter of taste, and simply leave them on the shelf. (Or I give them to someone who wants them.) Maybe I thought it would give me a different experience than what the designers made. That's on me for not reading the description or reviews. Then, there are some games that are -different- than what -I- want them to be. Well, I put that on me. If I want a game which lets me command divisions at a time, but I bought CMBN, well, that's not the game's fault, is it? Finally, there are some games which are broken. (The FIRST and LAST game I ever bought without reading a review was "Trespasser". It was a Jurassic Park type of game with "realistic physics" about 15 years ago. Biggest piece of crudware ever released. I learned.) If the game is broken on release, word gets out. (Early adopters take risks.) If the developer doesn't PROMPTLY fix them, or, worse, gets a reputation for crudware, they go out of business. It sounds like you want more of the CMBO experience. Cool. Seriously. It was (and is) a great game which gives a simplified approach compared to CMBN. (Squad Leader vs. ASL?) But that's your preference, not a "problem" with CMBN. Personally, unless a game is buggy, if I don't like it, I don't post on the game forum decrying my dislike. That just doesn't make any rational sense, does it? Maybe you're looking for positive reinforcement for your negative feelings? Shrug. That's on you. Now, I mentioned "unless a game is buggy". You'll jump on that. I don't think CMBN et alia, are buggy. Is there more polishing to be done? YES. Is there a bit more tweaking that can happen? Absolutely. Buggy? No. You may disagree with design decisons (which I do in some cases), but that doesn't make it buggy. (Oh, the "killing ragheads" comment? Uncool. And that's from someone with over 26 years in the US military (and still in). Say it in private if you'd like, but, really, "ragheads" in a public GAME forum? Perjoratives only demean your argument. Not that it was on solid logical ground to start. If you'd actually PLAYED CMSF (patched), you'd find the Syrian forces quite a handful at times. You display ignorance by your statement.) Find a game you like and post on their forum. Regards, Ken

Thank you for posting that. I'm a beta. I test things. I cannot test all things at all times. Nor can the other betas. This particular issue is something I've been meaning to test but just haven't gotten around to due to other pressing matters. Now, you've done some good work (as has VaB in a different thread). A bit of adjustment is normal in a test. Apples to apples is VERY important. Personally, testing the SAME tank against itself would be far more beneficial than testing, say, a Sherman vs. a Panzer IV. (Or test the same tank against the same "other" tank. A Sherman vs. a PzIV and a Sherman vs. a HULL DOWN Pz IV.) There is something there that -seems- off. It needs to be teased out so that the programmers know EXACTLY what is off. If you're burnt out from testing this, that's cool. If not, a bit more controlled testing would be a GREAT help. Thanks, Ken

The number of eyes is THE number one driver of spotting behavior. (As I alluded to, the ability to magnify the view is ANOTHER issue.) For THIS test, it is not about KILLS or ACCURACY: it is about spotting. So, turn the tanks, put a covered arc, and time the spotting. Thanks for taking time to work on this...

The biggest variable is eyeballs. Yes, eyeballs. You have an uneven number of men looking for targets. Let's posit that every member of the tank has a periscope or sight of some sort. Both the Sherman and PzIV have drivers and co-drivers/radio operators. That gives them 2 more spotters. The hull down tanks only have 3 spotters. 5 sets of eyeballs is far better than 3. Now we can argue about magnified optics vs. mark I eyeballs. Excellent. Done? Back to the test. You need to isolate out the extra eyes. I'd set the tanks BACKWARDS to one another with a covered arc to focus the turret at the enemy. That would create symmetry, with the only difference being the hull-down status. Let's try that before we plunge, lemming like, off the cliff of bad code. Ken

The camera controls were never something I had to think about. It has always puzzled me why some get hung up on the camera. But that's me. Now, drop an xbox control pad in my hands and watch how my thumbs really aren't wired into my central nervous system.

Actually, JK has a point. If the LOADER has to ACQUIRE the ammo and LOAD the gun, then he's performing double duty. If an assitant loader HANDS him the next round, then he can load more rapidly. I have never fired an antitank gun. But I have hammered nails. If I have an assistant hand me a nail, it is faster than reaching into my nail pouch, finding one, orienting it, and bringing it to the nailing surface. With an assistant, I merely open my palm, the next (correct) nail is oriented correctly, and I'm WHAM, onto the next one. I have also found that nailing in tight confines with debris about my feet is harder to accomplish than in an open area with no such debris. So, pedantry aside, what atg/tank experience do you have, JasonC? You mentioned it earlier and then ignored JK's request that you expound on your statement. If it sheds light on your viewpoint, which you implied it does, then please share. Prima facia, it seems ludicrous to state that there is no benefit to loading times for an atg vs. a tank. (A tank may be a more stable firing platform and that may lead to a higher rate of fire, but that is not the same as loading.) This is minor compared to the other shortcomings in atg modeling, but it is interesting to me. Thanks, Ken

Use google or bing and enter the abbreviations as search terms. All will be revealed. IMHO. Ken

Camera controls: other than what has already been mentioned, check your options/settings screen. If you're using an AMD/ATI video card, there is a setting box which used to be pre-selected for mouse compatibility. If you've updated your AMD video drivers within the last 2 years, having that setting selected will mess with the mouse. (Amd finally fixed their opengl drivers.) Otherwise, jump in. The water's fine.

Or imbue your men with a higher level of martial spirit. Their moral supremecy over the enemy will shield them. (Much like it did my paras attacking Bil's windmill. ) Sometime the right tool is the right tool.

There is a computer picker. If you don't like what it comes up with just hit it again. It may give you some ideas you hadn't thought of.

Sigh. Kettler is right.

Edited due to many posts above.

Who'll make the first 100m x 300km map? A road...a very long road. Partisans may lurk along it. Good luck as you drive your convoy along it. Or, 300km x 100m: You have to defend the entire width with one Italian battalion. The Soviets may enter anywhere. Good luck. I would think there will be some limits associated with how "out of square" the maps can be. Just guessing, mind you.

Points based on cumulative victories?

Not 30km "front". 30 square kilometers. So, maybe a bit more than 5km x 5km.

As implied, I too find the lack of cresting with rail embankments the biggest issue. I can either be totally behind cover, or exposed on the sleepers. There's no way to creep up to the crest and only have my men's heads exposed. Ken

What size screen? What resolution? That will drive a lot of hardware considerations. (FWIW, a 15.6" is still portable. 17" is better, but you won't have much battery life.) Will it be plugged in, a la desktop replacement, or will you be using it while on a jungle patrol while infiltrating a drug cartel?

VaB stated that the flak was firing OVER the tanks... (Perhaps at a tall building behind them?). I think he accounted for that. BTW, nice. I certainly wouldn't think a FIRING weapon should EVER be harder to spot than the same weapon not firing. Ken

Aye, it wasn't the sting of the paint so much as wondering about the bayonets they'd affixed to the barrels. That gave me pause... Perhaps it was a mistake to've told them how much life insurance I have? Retreating after spotting the AA gun: that's odd. I can rationalize it by thinking that the crew could've misidentified it as an antitank gun. I'd be curious to see if the tank's morale had taken incremental hits during its advance through the fire. Ken

I decided to simulate this. I tried to build my own tank, but I gave up on it before getting up out of my chair. Too hard, donchaknow. Instead, I grabbed a garbage can lid. I had one of my teenage sons grab one of our paintball guns. The other one fought to be included in the test. Strange. Usually they hate it when I force them to do chores. Be that as it may, I then had the stronger of the two grab the paintball gun, since the weaker was huddled in the fetal position, beaten and defeated. (After all, that is the only way to choose, is it not?) The son with the paintball gun then hid in the back yard. I had a choice of either side of the house around which to enter the back. Sure enough, as I came out on my chosen side, my impregnable garbage can lid was pelted with paintballs! I was safe, but, partly based on his shouts of martial vigor and also because of the yells of the weaker son shouting "pin the old man down, I'm getting my paintball gun", I quickly retreated. Performing a systems check, I realized that, aside from bruised shins, I was quite fine. I therefore went back into the yard, letting them know in no uncertain terms that the first one to fire upon me would be grounded. I was immediately fired upon from two directions at once. I retreated. I have called my wife. She will be home soon. In the meantime, a pair of vagabonds are wandering about my yard. Offboard support will crush them. All in all, I think the game simulates real life quite well. Ken

Great! Patch it. (v2.12 is the latest.) Then plunge in. (Yes. Sigh. The patch AND upgrade path can be complex. Read the instructions, then do it. You'll be happier.) If you haven't played since CMBB, take your time with the tiniest battles first. Replay 'em from each side. Are you done yet? Ken