c3k

What kind of tires are those? Very nice job, thanks. Ken

Alright, just tested. I placed a US Stryker squad and its HQ inside a tall wall compound. The compound was about 100mx80m. I placed a Republican Guard Tank Company on the other side of the wall; T-72M1V (2001)'s. 10 of them. Neither side knew about the other. Next, I drove one tank in donuts around the compound. Range to HQ team was 30 meters. FAST command. The US never knew about the tanks. So, there is NO sound spotting; but we were told that, right? This opens up a field of research; CMSF smoke and exhaust forensic research. The tank was unknown to the US player, but the dust and exhaust plumes were visible. The location, thickness, and color of both exhaust and dust and the location of the exhaust relative to the dust plume all give clues as to what vehicle produced them. Perhaps someone wants to run tests and create a downloadable pdf with graphics for each vehicle? That way every player can tell what they're facing based on the dust/exaust. (Cool game that allows this type of detail). The REAL question is whether this behavior should be tweaked for Normandy. If I cannot see an enemy, but I HEAR them, would I try to take a peek? Sure... In my compound test, perhaps a boost to look over the top might've been nice. (Of course, that would've led to an eliminated squad.) In bocage, a peek over the top, through the vegetation would be cool to have. In a city/town, running to the corner for quick glance would be cool to have. Regardless, _I_, the player, knew there was some sort of enemy vehicle around the compound, so I was free to order my units to investigate further. In this case the dust gave me the clue which was missing from the lack of sound. I would love to see sound clues included in the next game. Thanks, Ken

Very well!! :) SlapHappy, thanks for posting.... I missed your earlier post. (Perhaps if it were more adequate, I would've read it! ) I must've been thinking about mermaids; slippery, wet, mermaids who wrestle... Where was I? Ah, yes. Steve, thanks for, um, being Steve. I appreciate your openness, candor, and desire to improve what should be. And to leave well enough alone. I won't run any tests. But, if I DID run a test, using a tall wall with a Syrian tank on one side and a US squad on the other, would the US squad detect the Syrian tank? What if it moved? Thanks, Ken

Aye, Dietrich, I saw that; all I can say is that it proves a specific result at a specific angle and distance. Their test showed nothing about ricochet angle, velocity, cavitation effects (some really cool shots of double cavitation on that super slow motion TV series), etc. If my bullets hit short of a landing craft, how many will, due to ricochet effect (with self-correcting cavitation), hit perpendicular to the side of the landing craft? Penetration results, etc. Frogmen with limpet mines; that would be reason enough to model water ballistics. How deep do they swim to be safe? Modern rifles have much higher muzzle velocities than WWII. Fragmentation would be different. Oooh, so much to do.... Ken

Steve, As to a), that is probable. And would thereby be problematic. That's why you MAKE computer games and I PLAY them! I'll run some tests... Time is at a premium, but I'll get to it. (SlapHappy, how about some tests, as well?) The condition I'll be testing is unit awareness of enemy vehicles/infantry around them. The variables will be the enemy units, the terrain the friendly is in, the orders, if any, the friendly is under (specifically TARGET LIGHT and FACE vice no order), enemy movement level, LOS to enemy unit (tall walls, vegetation, etc.) Fair enough.... Meantime, I've got to extricate one of my Marine platoons from a nasty little ambush I let them wander into. (Ooops, sorry men. The sergeant was right; it DOES look like a bad place to go.) Thanks, Ken

Steve, A bit of a strawman, here: There has been NO mention of positioning men in a perfect circle with equal atention on all vectors at all times. If that is how you perceive this debate, you must not be reading it closely enough. The issue is how to improve in-game behavior so a group of 9-12 men are not totally ignorant of obvious actions occurring around them. Is it a problem now? Not really. Could it be better? Yep. So, this all comes down to quite a small tweak. Ignoring your strawman, who I attack with flying monkeys and burning brooms, here is what I actually wrote: The biggest single improvement would be to enable the last man to scan to the rear of the team. Oh, that's up there in that quote. In an earlier post I stated that this "roaming eyes" behavior would drop when there is a definite FACE command, TARGET command, or if the unit is recieving enemy fire. As you wrote, I agree: conceptually it is correct. I do think the weighting is off a bit, not a lot, just a bit. If I have 9 men, SOMEONE will be watching the rear and the flanks. Regarding the "picture perfect tactics" going out the window: you describe men who are tired. Isn't that a toggle in the scenario editor? Wouldn't it be useful to have vigilance decline as a unit gets worn out? Embedded in that paragraph is the assumption that all units act at the same degraded level. Maybe that's the difference: when I have what I think are fresh, fit troops, instead I have tired, hungry, fought out troops? Thanks, Ken

Grrrr, HOW is this thread focused on the Civil War??? Oh, it's "Steve" dragging it off topic. Enough of that. Let's talk about CM games. If this guy Steve can't do _that_ maybe we need a moderator... Um, where was I? Oh yes, spotting behavior. Thanks for reminding me that there is some ability to spot other than where the individual is facing. However, isn't it true that the odds of seeing something outside of the individual's facing is GREATLY reduced? What I am interpreting this thread to mean is that an improvement in spotting outside of the facing would be an, er, improvement to the game. "Head on a swivel." Have the men look around...more...and further over...and see stuff that's there. Is that possible? Thanks, Ken

Funny, I received a package from UPS the other day. It had BF.C on the return. Inside the box was disk. It was shiny, but not the normal silver. More of a gold. It seemed like an old copy of that Afrika Korps game, but the nimrods who switched over to the new CD media misspelled CMAK. They labelled it CMUK. Now, I'm not a schmuck, so I didn't fall for that gag. My kids used it to play frisbee with the neighbor's dog. Hmmm, was that it? Ken

Steve, I certainly didn't intend that Civil War anecdote to be construed into ANYTHING related to CM; it was just an interesting tidbit about sound and its importance in warfare. Back to CMSF: I think there is room for improvement in how a 9 man squad spots things around them. I'd have to run some tests (loaded statement, that!), but, it is my belief that right now all 9 men orient themselves towards the front. As they move, they all face forwards. Emphasis on "all" and "forwards". I know that there is some variability, but it is minor. Given a possible center of field of view being 1 of 360 degrees, the pie wedge graphic on the base for each man is centered very closely to that of all other men. Especially true when moving. Not so true when a move ends in a building with no facing order. In that case an all-around position is taken up. I do not know if the pie wedge graphic defines that individual's field of view. However, I NEVER see the last man sweeping behind the team. For the sake of argument, CMSF models all men slaved to a very similar field of view. "Roaming Eyes" would enhance the ability to spot enemy by having flankers and tail-end-charlies looking away from the primary axis of movement. With a FACE command, flankers should skew outwards, splitting the difference such that the the rightmost flank holder has the leftmost part of his field of view parallel to the FACE command. Vice versa for the left side flanker. Some numbers.... FACE aimed to the east, 090 degrees. Assume each man's field of view is 30 degrees. The left most man should center his view at an angle of 075 degrees. That way his scan encompasses 060 through 090. The far right guy should center on 105, scanning 090 to 120 degrees. Without a FACE command, given a squad moving to the east, 090 degrees, point should face 090, scanning 075 to 105. Overlay scans from there. Last man checks rear. These would not be fixed areas, but rather what they come back to after scanning around them. Letting their eyes roam...call it "roaming eyes". "Head on a swivel, men, head on swivel..." This ignores any kind of sound algorithm. What it does is builds on the strength of CMSF's spotting routine. It would allow small units a more accurate and timely view of their immediate battlespace. Perhaps some tests are in order... Thanks, Ken

Aaaaaaahhhh!!!! URC, why did you delete that last post??? Based on the time stamps, I must've read your whole post while you were in the midst of deleting it. It was actually informative... Now that it's gone, it'll never get the "Post of the Year" award. Seriously, you had some cogent arguments with good perspective in it. Regards, Ken

BlackMoria, Your timing seems correct. The second burst, at 1200 down to 1100 meters, only takes roughly 3 seconds. The issue would be the loss of velocity. If the muzzle velocity is 805m/s, what is the velocity at 1,000 meters? At 1400 meters, I would say that the rounds fired had an AVERAGE velocity of 1400/4.5 = 311m/s At, say, 1100 meters it is 1100/3=366m/s Extrapolate the loss of 55m/s per 300 meters, round a bit, assume the loss in velocity is linear with regards to distance (I know, I know, but this is merely a rough, first order kind of calculation), and you get about 60m/s per 300 meters, or 20 m/s per 100 meters. So, 11*20 ((1100 meters / 100 = 11) 20m/s per 100 meters range) is 220m/s increase as you reduce the range. 366+220=586m/s. Roughly on par with 805m/s. We're close. Using the longer range number of 1400meters at 311m/s yields; 14*20=280 m/s increase. 311+280= 591 m/s. Since we assumed a linear extrapolation from these two data points one would expect the two extrapolated values to correspond. They do. Now, if we change the loss of velocity from a 1st order, linear, effect into a second order, squared effect, we should see some differences. It should result in a greater velocity as we get closer to the muzzle. Our data supports that. I'll let someone else do the heavy lifting. Regards, Ken

Hmmm, 1300 ft. radar altitude (Height above ground), 80 knot airspeed, at beginning of engagement.

The round-counter shows that each of the two bursts is 20 rounds (303 at start, to 283, then ending at 263). Opening range seems to be 1450 meters; second burst starts at approximately 1200 meters. Check the range icon on the left of the camera. Regards, Ken

SlapHappy, excellent post. Yes, I think "roaming eyes" would be a useful addition to unit situational awareness. Of course, a tweak or two always gets debated. I'd think if the unit is not under immediate fire, that the last guy in the squad/team would be assigned to scan their six. However, once the bullets start flying at them, or they are given a target, that level of "roaming eyes" should be dropped. All eyes on the target. In a related vein, hearing on the battlefield was critically important to the generals of the US Civil War. Identifying the location, proximity, type of troops engaged, flow of the battle, and prognosis were done, frequently, by the general's ability to hear what was happening. There is a famous battle, near 7 Pines (?) (my memory is lapsing on the exact date and location, but near the base of the Williamsburg, VA peninsula), which was famous for Lee's paralysis. Many eyewitnesses commented on the strange acoustics which had the CSA HQ located in a dead zone. Moving away by several dozen yards in any direction produced a huge increase in the sound of the battle. The lack of sound was important in how the CSA conducted their ops, to their detriment. Regards, Ken

Ballistics: underwater ballistics. Yeah, now if THAT isn't modelled, I'll refuse to EVER purchase ANYTHING from BF.C again. Er, except for cool games. I want realistic ballistics. Angle of entry which determines ricochets (which are tracked, of course), or if the angle is steep enough, entry. Sometimes bullets/shells will enter, then due to cavitation effects, re-emerge. All these trajectories need to be modelled as well as their terminal effects. Will Aquaman be included? Can he fight mermaids? Wet, slippery mermaids... Ken

Mermaids. This game needs mermaids. And sirens. Real vixen-icious sirens. How else will the Peloponnesian Wars be modelled? Yeah, mermaids.

Splume, flume, spray, wave? What about far north ice floes? The Volga, ice cracking, as Stalingrad burns, reinforcements hoping they don't break through the thin ice hidden under snow? Hmmm, water. Will oil slicks spread on water? If I shoot a landing craft, will it capsize? If it does, will the propeller be modelled correctly? When a grenade goes off in a pond, will dead fish and frogs rise to the top? Will shallow water shell impacts throw up geysers of mud and water, whereas deep water geysers only throw up water? Water grogs await these answers. Wade in at your own peril! Ken

Ahh, the story of my life.... Ken

Hmmm, the subdirectory idea seems counter to a useful sort function. If I want a list of ALL scenarios with night action, I'd have to search each subdirectory. Perhaps I'm missing the utility of saving scenario files into different directories? A sortable tab called, say, "Best Played As" with values of "H2H", "Blue vs. AI", "Red vs. AI", would do that, wouldn't it? Then, I could search for "Night" and find all the night scenarios. If I then want to play Blue vs. AI, I could do a sub-search under "Night" to get all the Blue vs. AI at night scenarios. The idea of creating a separate directory for each permutation of scenario differentiation seems balky, at best. Would I need a separate directory for battles which contain tanks? Or, only infantry? Or the ones I've already played? Etc. To reiterate a point I made about this issue in a previous thread: when I start a Combat Mission game on my computer, I am giving myself, my time, my attention, my imagination to this experience. The experience does NOT start with the beginning of the battle. It starts when the CM program opens up on my computer screen. Delving into which battle I will engage in is PART of the experience. The scenario menu deserves the same level of polish as the actual battle. Sorting is a sorely lacking area of functionality. Heck, even SCROLLING would be a huge improvement. (Yes, a "delete" function within the scenario menu would be a boon, as well.) I, personally, would not mind waiting a bit extra for this to be accomplished. (Notice, though, that I do not put a value on how long "a bit extra" means? YMMV.) Thanks, Ken

De Savage, As FMB, above, mentioned, FRAPS is my screenshot utility of choice, as well. It is a free download. It gives you hotkeys to use to save a screenshot. Just pause CM where you want, hit your hotkey, then exit from CM and find the screenshot. A few hints. FRAPS has to be running BEFORE you start CM. You need to set up your screenshot directory. FRAPS will create a default C:\FRAPS directory (I think), and dump everything there. It's up to you to add sub-directories if you want. Once you have it all up and running, go find the screenie you made. Open it with Paint; mark it however you need to (arrows, narrative, whatever), then save it. If you plan on posting it, save it as a JPG type to save on bandwidth. Now, you need to open an account with a graphics upload provider. I use photobucket. It's free and easy. Upload your screenie to your newly created photobucket account. Finally, come here, type what you want, go into photobucket and copy your IMG link and paste it here. When you submit your message, the pasted IMG link will automatically show your screenshot in the forum. Straightforward? No, not really. It's not too difficult, it just takes a series of steps, each of which must be pre-planned. Good luck. Ken

Obviously any potential bogging toggle would need a name: boggle. I hereby copyright that term. Henceforward, and forthwith, all players would ask their opponents, "Boggle on or off?" Please return to your regularly scheduled debate. Ken

Steve, Thanks for reading and responding. If you have a need for any more ideas I'm sure I can expand on that list! I do note your use of the term "try". That's all I could ask for. Thanks, Ken

Yeah, the icons help you get a meta-sense of the type of scenario, but they do nothing for sorting, seeing if you've played it, etc.

Very nice. Thanks!

Indeed, hence my specifically mentioning keeping my copy of Vista patched with all officially released updates, with the exclusion of last week's IE8. Thanks, Ken