c3k

To be blunt: I think spotting should be better. However, a lot of the tests presented, although interesting in themselves, have not really tested what they said they tested. It should be HARD to spot from inside a buttoned vehicle. It should be HARDER to spot from inside a moving buttoned vehicle. More on this much later... Ken

Woe is me... I'm in the midst of the German campaign in CMSF, with Leopards in overwatch over my too small German squads. I last played it a year ago. Back in the 'Stan, my Soviet Airborne company is putting the hurt on the Muj, but I just can't close and finish the deal. I last saw them in that valley around Christmas, last year. My assault on the bocage is going apace, but it's been a few months since I really lent my expertise to help lead my men against the Wehrmacht. I've been on loan to the Brits and Canadians as they fight the SS, but I've recently taken leave from that fight, as well. My attempt to break the slog in Sicily last saw me trying to use halftrack mounted guns against Luftwaffe troops dug in on a mountain. My casualties have been increasing faster than I'm comfortable with. My cup runneth over... with the spilled blood of my men and their opponents. I have NO idea how the next releases will fit into my gaming schedule. I fear my Bundswehr reputation is just the first to go downhill. (I imagine that there are dozens of pixeltruppen lounging around inside my computer cursing me in fluent gutteral German for their long delay in closing with the Syrians. Sorry guys.) If it the cost is too high, or the subject matter doesn't float your boat, just wait for the next one. Something is bound to pique your interest. Ken

Consider it a clean sheet of paper... White, smooth, featureless, and totally blank. Ken

I'm far from saying ANY of these games are perfect. I have tested many facets of the game. My tests refute some of your points. There are problems with spotting not working the way we'd expect. You made some statements which are demonstrably wrong: - Units in motion do spot worse than stationary units. - Size of (or number in) a unit does affect spotting. Yeah, spotting feels like it can be improved. However, feelings are not data. Facts will be more beneficial to narrowing down what should be tweaked. Ken

The hold up for snow? Programming the TacAI to track blood trails. And to walk in the tread tracks to avoid landmines. And programming landmines to jam based on frozen moisture in the fuze train. And the ballistic protection characteristics of packed snow with a layer of ice on the face, in front of positions. And the jam ratio of weapons based on lubrication qualities. And the change in muzzle velocities with cold cartridges. And the denser air's effect on drag. And snow blindness. Blood trails and Yeti; aye, that's the holdup...

Good use of smoke to shield the (ballsy) assault element. More!!! Ken

I base the value of CMxx by performing a simple calculation. Cost divided by the number of men I can command. Whereas CMx2 costs more (family, module, expansion) than CMx1, CMx2 shows FAR more men. For a platoon, CMx1 would show about 12 men. (3 men visible per squad.) CMx2 would show 45. In a serious vein, CMx2 is so far beyond CMx1 that they are not comparable. Using CMx1 prices to determine whether CMx2 is priced correctly has as much relevance as the current price of bananas. Apples and oranges. Or, err, bananas. If you enjoy it, buy it. If you cannot afford it, make a choice. Is it worth giving up your soy, double-shot, skim, thin foam, decaf, caramel, iced but not cold, latte? A week of skipping the fancy coffee gives you a few years of gameplay. Ken

I'd be leery of changing savegame names when engaged in a PBEM with an opponent. It leads to confusion, as you've no doubt just discovered. With a stable savegame title, the number of each turn increments upwards by one tick every turn. That makes it easy to organize. You could, for example, be receiving odd numbered turns and sending even numbered turns for the entire battle. Stable names are key. Don't change them around. I, for example, use a PBEM savegame name of "Ken will win" every time I play. Ken

LLF, That is a very elegant workaround. Nicely done. Thank you for sharing. Ken

FWIW, trees are ignored as LOS blocks if they are close to the firing unit. AIUI. Test it. So, that strawman can be pulled in half by the flying monkeys. That same tree WILL block incoming fire. This is an asymmetry. It has a bit of logic behind it. Play the "duck back behind the tree after I shoot" game to get a sense of it. This gives a benefit to the defender without having to go through the game-torture, described upstream, of wasting turn after turn trying to shoot from next to a tree.

Well, we'll still try to help him... but the march of progress moves towards the future. Or something. moet: I understand what you're saying, but your point of view has been brought up by many before you. In each case, cold logic determines that you are wrong. It is up to BF.C to price their product. It is up to each consumer to determine whether or not they will spend that amount of money on the product. If BF.C is right with their pricing strategy, they will profit and stay in business. If they are wrong, they will not profit and will risk going out of business. That is beauty of a free market (capitalist, for those who prefer that term) system. It is self-correcting. If you think these games should be made, and sold, for less, then you are FREE to create one of these games yourself, and price your labor and capital investment accordingly. Back to the more serious topic: generators? Sure, I stand ready, with my gas/diesel/propane backup supplies. But they are limited. I can only make so many forays into the zombie wilderness to obtain more fuel. Armored slabs on the surplus vehicles, going forth to grab fuel from tanker trucks on the highway, siponing from stranded cars, and sucking the dregs from gas station tanks, are all counterbalanced by the use of flamethrowers and molotov cocktails during the excursions. If I use 100 gallons to get 80, that won't help. My wind farm, solar cell, steam/hydro generation backup may not be able to keep up with the computer demands. Eventually, entropy being what it is, I expect failures of my components to bring me down to candles and ASL, all while spooning cold Spam into my gaping maw. My backup plan? I have 24 exercise bikes/treadmills in the basement. I plan on chaining zombies to them and placing bait in front of them. Their un-dead powered attempts at gaining the unreachable bait will turn the exercise bikes and treadmills. These are hooked up to generators. Zombie power. Yeah.

The true zombie apocalypse will leave us with no electricity. Sigh. I'll know it's a true emergency when I have to break out ASL rather than boot up any CM title. Damn zombies.

This thread needs to be stickied... Just sayin'. Ken

Leftover coding from CM:Zombie Alliance? You'll NEED to have contacts for the dead in that game... ******************* But you do bring up a valid point. I've been bothered by that, in that very battle, but didn't think to dig down into why it bothered me. Other than vehicles, can you think of other instances when the ONLY friendly that has ID'd a unit knows it's dead, but it gets a ? anyway? Ken

Are the trees turned off? I can't count how many times I've toggled them off and been frustrated by a blocked LOS I can't figure out. I mean, I can't count how many times I've HEARD of this happening...

First round of the burst SHOULD be close to where it is aimed. That's why benchrest shooting is more accurate than offhand: the weapon is stabilized. That's one of the purposes of the tripod. (Repeatability, firing zones, indirect fire, etc., are other purposes.) The optics help adjust for distance by having a clinometer (a level bubble) and sight gradations. The optics, if magnified, help FIND the target and, obviously, aim a bit more accurately. (At 300m a man-sized torso is obscured by the front post; not so with a magnified optic (or some reflex style laser/dot sights).) A steadier weapon, better aiming, better target discrimination. A tripod is lugged around because it helps. Otherwise troops would've ditched them long ago.

In addition to relative spotting, the time delay for the information to percolate through the chain of command also needs to be considered. "HQ, this is unit 7, we've got some movement over by the farm!" "Calling all units, calling all units, be advised, there may be enemy near the farm." "Hey, Sarge! HQ says there's enemy over by the farm! I'm glad they let us, unit 1, know about that!" Meanwhile, unit 7 sweeps the farm and no one's there. Until that information percolates, unit 1 will still think enemy may be near the farm.

White cupola: I don't know, but perhaps it was to keep the TC a bit cooler since this was used in the sunny Med and the TC had his head up inside that metal bowl? That's a total guess, but I've seen GHQ types come up with worse ideas foisted on the men in the field. Ken

Toss the file my way... c3kATroadrunner.com Thanks, Ken

BLUECOAT and EPSOM, as well. Crappy names, indeed. Something about upper-crust jollies. Races and whatnot, don't you know? Er, and Bob's yer uncle, for good measure. Ken

I'm not stating that the Tigers (I &II) were reliable mechanically. However, their manner of failure was, possibly, a lot more graceful than many may think. It's one thing to have a transmission seize up and immobilize a vehicle. It's another matter to have gears slowly wear away. If I am on a road march and the vehicle has to get to tonight's stop point, I will push it pretty hard. If I am in combat and I know the gears are slipping, then I will ensure I baby that thing... In a similar manner, a slipping clutch (as an automotive example) can be dealt with on a long drive. You'll get it fixed at the first maintenance stop you can. That would be an operational failure. However, you'll keep using that slipping clutch as you drive out of the riot. In a similar manner, a Tiger may be considered "broken" before battle with something that could be used during the battle. Slipping gears, piston rings, all the final drive issues, oil consumption, etc., are all weak spots of the tigers. How many of them would immobilize it on the battlefield?

My first impression is a negative one. The credits for the cover art state that the image of the artillery is; Cover photos include the A-10 Thunderbolt, AH-64 Apache, and the M102 105-mm howitzer. Quite clearly the artillery piece is an M198 155mm howitzer.

This has been brought up a lot. I understand the theory goes like this: if the tank would've broken down, it'll do it during the approach march. Plus, the "nerfing" of a force made up of a few big tanks due to random breakdowns would have a deleterious game effect. "Hey, 2 of my 4 KT's broke down in the first 2 minutes of the game. BF.C, please fix or somefink!!" To change this to a data-driven issue, how may KT's mechanically failed, not due to enemy fire, while in an active firefight? Are there a lot of anecdotes? Have the few surviving drivers written memoirs titled, "My KT broke down on me in battle. Again."? I'm not saying this shouldn't be looked at, I'm just saying it should not be opinion driven. Ken

I have not used the cd's for BN or CW in any of my computers in a looong time. Are you sure you need them to play on your laptop?

Imagine the bug reports centered around the correct "scaling" of the various fish? Aye, is that a cod or are you just reporting it for, wait for it, the "halibut"?