c3k

You mean you haven't heard? V1.01 is old news. Most of us are already using v1.48. The neural feedback option is a mindbender! Once that's installed you never need to browse the forums for announcements again. Sorry we didn't tell you. <-- for the humor impaired! If you look at the forum or check the BF.C website, I'm sure you'll see it when it gets released. Ken

That was odd: I was just doing a chore and suddenly felt an overwhelming compulsion to open a web-browser and go directly to this thread! Perhaps it was a FLARE-up of clairvoyance? Ken

This is a funny turn of the thread. Before we go further down this road, could we please post the turret rotatation rates - as they actually were - not as they were erroneously reported by early wartime intel. I think that would be interesting to some posters.

Thanks. And if you think of a better/different approach, obviously you should try it. I am unable to test it myself for over a week. Real life and all that. If you can make savegame files of your results, that would be beneficial. Thank you for sticking with it and not getting offended about all the questions. Ken

Your results are interesting, with all the implications of that word. However, it just means a more rigorous test should be done. Doing more iterations with various tweaks will not gain any "credibility". (Meaning, you've raised a point. Your test does not address the issue.) For example, if some poor sap wanted to test Tiger accuracy compared to Sherman accuracy, he might put 10 of each against each other. Every test will show about 10 Tigers looking at 10 smoking wrecks of Shermans. That would not test accuracy. Instead, each vehicle would have to fire, wait for it...at the same target. This eliminates silhouette differences. Also, each would have to have the same parameters while firing: pinned, nervous, etc. The only way to eliminate variables would then be to have them fire at EMPTY targets. (Use Shermans and have the crew BAIL OUT for both Tigers and Shermans.) Now, you've got a test for in-game accuracy of Tigers compared to Shermans. In a similar vein, it's obvious that walls create an asymmetry. By testing each unit against each other, rather than in isolation, you're testing a very specific case of survivability when going toe to toe against each other. Again, you've raised an issue which seems, prima facia, to have an counter-intuitive result. Is it "wrong"? More testing, of a more focused nature, is needed. Ken Edited to add: My personal outlook upon reading your results is to agree with you: a unit in the open fighting a unit behind a wall should be at a disadvantage. It's time to dig into it and find out what's producing that result. Is the wall modelled on hollow cinderblocks? Is the wall modelling stone fragments wounding soldiers? Is there some ricochet effect which is causing this? Etc.

Well, he did throw down that "multiplayer" comment coupled with trying to "satisfy his curiosity". Pictures, or it didn't happen.

Your pleas have been heard by he who is on high. He who lives in a jar has done something with a series of 1's and 0's. Ironwood forests should no longer be mobile.

Yes, grenades will be thrown with a Target order. The range is limited to 16 meters (I think. It's been a while since I ran tests). The issue with zooks/fausts area firing into an adjacent target is known and has been resolved. I have not seen a correlation between rifle grenades and thrown grenades. Most initial grenade volleys take 1/3 to 1/2 (usually 1/2) of the available grenades. This number, with Area Targets, is being worked on. Ken

Vanir, Thanks for running the test. I can't do it now, or I would, but I will ask you to do another test. The one you ran has a feedback problem. If 1 man is prone behind the wall, the men in the open have more men with LOS. I'd like to disassociate the two units from affecting each other and possibly skewing the results. Could you fire on the men behind the low wall with, say, a machinegun bunker? Then fire on the men in the open with the same machinegun bunker at the same range? If you'd like to keep the men behind the wall "up", set up several dozen immobilized trucks as targets for them. Ditto the men in the open. Such as this: Test units-------------Bunker---------Trucks That way the bunker will be shooting at both groups of men. This may not be perfect, but it will eliminate the effect one test group has on the other test group. If you cannot or don't want to do it, let me know. I'll run it in a week or two. Thanks, Ken

The Norman farmhouse SHOULD have about the same protection as the cathedral building type. (Oh, I can't wait for the historical architects to weigh in!). The city/town/village buildings were not - mostly - constructed as stoutly. To me, the already suggested workaround of using stone walls to reinforce a building would be a good approach to mapping farmhouses which should be stout. Low stone walls for the parts with windows, tall stone walls for the parts without. Internal stone walls for bit of more fun. These techniques were used successfully in CMSF et al. I am curious if small modular buildings which are attached to other modular buildings gain protection? Is it a function of size or is it a characteristic of the original building? Ken

The HUNT command with a short, circular, covered arc as you enter can work. The covered arc prevents far enemy units from stopping the assault. The only drawback is the HUNT unit may end up bottlenecking near the entrance if they see enemy inside the building. Personally, I use a variation on Blackcat's technique.

This is excellent advice. I'd add one slight adjustment. In Vanir's step 2, ensure the pauses are long enough for the unit to aim and fire. There's nothing worse than watching this unfold and then have your units run and hide BEFORE firing because you made their initial firing pause a hair too short for them to shoot their weapon. How long should it be? Well, you'll have to figure that out with experience.

Yes. Bomb their oil production facilities. I'd suggest ball bearings could be a weakness as well.

The "willing suspension of disbelief" (a term relating to the author-reader relationship with any fictional writing) means that the assumption is that the tank would make micro-adjustments to bring weapons to bear. These adjustments are beyond the ability of the TacAI (and possibly the terrain mesh) to replicate or model. The gun elevation limits are not modelled. In fact, in some cases the rounds will not leave the barrel as you'd expect (they leave the muzzle at an angle, rather than parallel). This is to account for all the adjustments a real tank could make which are beyond the player's/TacAI's/Terrain mesh's control or abilities. An example would be a tank trying to increase its elevation beyond the trunnion limits driving up onto a curb (kerb for the UK), a handy rock or log. For the picture shown, imagine that situation in real life. Could the Shermans "wiggle" in place to create a lower crest? Perhaps there's a subtle defile near that crest line. It is a game engine limitation (right now). Ken

I think that spotting is worse when hiding. I can guarantee that hiding units WILL open fire when a target enters their covered arc. (Caveat emptor, tempus fugit, et cetera, et alia, ibid, ad nauseum.)

1. This is exactly how to spring an ambush. They will stay hidden until a target enters their covered arc. They will then engage the target. (Standard caveat: the TacAI may have them engage targets outside the covered arc if that target is deemed enough of a threat, e.g., an enemy team attacking them from behind.) 2. Yes, they will spot beyond the range of the covered arc. The same caveat as above. Good luck. Ken

Exactly. Or, you can use that mortar in proximity to another unit, a sister unit, which can get ammo for it.

You do know that German recce was often conducted with Kubelwagens? Isn't that the purpose of sending them out? If the defenders have poor fire discipline (no covered arcs) then the attacker finds out where they are located and radio it back. Do we need to have a list of gamey behavior? C'mon. Man up.

Oh, I totally agree that a Cover Armor command would be fantastic. We don't have it. Would you think it gamey if I rushed a squad into the middle of the town which is my objective? a) They get gunned down, showing that it was a suicide run, but I learn were all the defenses around the town square are located. They make it. I am rewarded with my audacity by gaining a toehold on the objective. One man's "gamey" move is another man's innovative tactic. Once we start defining gamey then we'll fall into a system where a group of cognescenti look down with opprobrium upon anyone who doesn't "play by their rules". Now, that doesn't mean I want to battle someone who has 100 kubelwagens and a dozen FO's. But once the unit parameters are agreed upon, it's game on. Use what you've got in any manner the game allows you to.

I like your idea.

A covered arc coupled with a hide command should keep them hidden until they spot a unit inside the covered arc. Try that and let us know if it works. Ken

Sure. Now the tanks know where the ATG's are. Or do they? Were the tanks in oversight? If so, they should be vulnerable to the ATG's. If not, the spotting information won't help (much). Or are tanks supposed to go forward without recce? Why not give your ATG's tight cover arcs until the tanks are in the kill sack? Counter, counter-counter.

Ammo sharing between units is, I believe, limited to units in the same organization. Any old unit grabbing the ammo may not share it with the mortar team. A better way to get them the ammo is for the mortar team to load into the halftrack and acquire it themselves.

Gamey? I don't understand the term. There are tactics. There are good tactics, bad tactics, tactics that work, and tactics that don't. Kill a kubel. Tell him to send more. Why worry about your opponent's feelings? Crush him. Crush him with a bulldozer. Crush him with a crowbar. Crush him with squishy jello cubes. Just crush him.

Hi. If there are any women here who'd like to follow me on Twitter, please let me know. We can be friends. Thanks, Athony Weiner