c3k

Lacroix, how do you think privately owned businesses work? Yes, you pay for their gas. Or did you think that the money sent to them in exchange for their games they make goes to someone else? That money is called "income". It pays "salaries". Salaries enable people to buy gas. And this is why I find your posts to utterly lack any credence. Regards, Ken

Aurelius, Please re-read my post. Am I defending BFC? Perhaps. I was trying to let Wiggum15 know why his posts don't carry any weight. Am I mad if someone calls me a fanboy? Not at all. Am I a fanboy? Maybe you think so. Shrug. As a counterpoint, look at Lacroix's post, just above. He quotes me and adds a "lol". Why? Because he does not have a rational counterargument. Lacroix is another one to whom I give no credence. His posting history has caused this. Criticism is acceptable, even desirable to improve the game. The negativity expressed by several, like Wiggum15 and Lacroix is counterproductive. Back to your point, Aurelius. I will not stand by silently when I see posts which are counterfactual. I try to reply to posts with the same level of respect and maturity as they are made. Look up my posting history. Find where I say this game cannot be improved. Find where I do not support ideas to improve the game. There is a world of difference between trying to improve something and just tearing it down. Yes, this forum can get defensive against inflammatory posts. However, this forum also allows those inflammatory posts...for the most part. Irrational, immature, insulting, and inflammatory posts should not be accepted. Defending BFC? No. I am defending a game system I enjoy. I will not passively watch a few malcontents poison a forum without pointing out their falsehoods and distortions. Regards, Ken Edited to add: As a beautiful counterpoint to everything Wiggum15, Lacroix, et al., have posted, look at this: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/119875-worrying-60mm-mortar-behavior/page-1 We have a criticism of behavior which is specific and it includes what behavior was expected. A member of BFC's team checks it, finds it has merit, and posts an internal report about it. And then provides feedback to the OP about it. This is just one of hundreds of threads which prove how distorted are the statements posted by Wiggum15 et alia.

Wiggum15, A small piece of advice. It's free, so it's worth exactly what you value it. You ask a lot of questions, but you cloak them in criticisms. Some criticism is constructive. Yours is not. A point: "Then why dont they hire new people with better skills ?" (That's from you, just a few posts up.) I don't care about the rationale behind the statement, just the statement per se. - You are on a forum paid for by BFC. They are a small company. The money to support this forum is money which is not going to get a muffler replaced. It is money which is not going to replace that old furniture they got when they got married. It is money which is not going to buy a better Christmas gift for their daughter. It is money, literally, out of their pocket. - Other companies support forums. Other companies have a far greater budget. Yes, $1,000 is valued differently. Ford (or Daimler) would think nothing of a $1,000 expenditure. How about you? - You are a guest. As am I. If I went on Intel's forums and demanded that they use AMD cpu's, I would (probably) be banned. Rightfully. As a guest in someone's home I act with deference and civility to my host. But maybe my concept of civility differs from yours. - Your statement, above, presupposes several insulting assumptions. -- BFC doesn't have sufficient skill. There are, what, six BFC employees? Just name them and state they are incapable of creating a game the way it should be done. Your passive aggressiveness would at least transcend to outright aggressiveness. It would be more honest that way. -- Other people do have the right skill. ("You can't do it, but someone else can." That's more insulting than just saying "you can't do it.") -- BFC (again, just name the decision makers; it's simpler) is too ignorant to recognize the need to hire other people. -- BFC is too cheap to hire other people with better skills. The assumption is that the budget is there, BFC is just hording the money. -- Other people with those skills exist (that is a foundation of your initial insult) -- Your idea of how a game should be created is better than BFC's idea -- Your idea of how to run a game company is better than BFC's idea Now, that's a pretty surface level dissection of your insult. I, for one, do not take anything you write seriously. I suggest, again for free, that you consider criticisms a bit more before you make them. It is easy to criticize that which you have no idea how to do. That demeans you, as your posts here have done. If you had created a company and successfully released several games, your criticisms, as insultingly as they are delivered, would have some validity. As it is, they have no validity and are merely insulting. Regards, Ken

I just re-read the initial few posts of this thread. The initial post has a point. The next good point came in post #4. (Post #2 was inflammatory, hyperbolic, and did not contribute anything.) I. One issue raised was spacing. Vinnart's idea (AIUI) is to have sub-elements to Action Spots so the player can fine-tune the placement of individuals. A few reminders: - The game has Action Spots. These are 8m x 8m squares. - TEAMS use individual AS for WAYPOINT placement. (Squads use multiple AS.) - Within the AS, the members of the team (1 to 7 men), position themselves based on facing and cover. - Within the AS, the game allows an infinite number of positions. (The in-AS "mesh" is millimetric or centimetric...or close enough not to matter.) If I move a 4-man team into an AS which has a small shellhole in it, one of the men will use that shellhole as cover. Likewise, a tree or other cover. The men shift and move to take advantage of cover within the AS which is between them and the enemy. This shifting is done without player control, other than placing a FACE command (or other Target-type order) to orient the algorithm to the player's desired facing. Once that is done (the target command), the algorithm will use the appropriate cover. The game engine is team based. If you, the player, use a platoon or squad approach, you will be giving up a lot of control to the game's algorithms. (Every team in a 3 team squad will stay adjacent: they will use 3 AS, each touching at least one other.) If I break a squad into teams, I can place each team 100's of meters away from any other team. And, again, each member of each team (even if 100's of meters away from other teams of their squad) will self-position within their action spot, with an infinite sub-mesh, to take advantage of the best cover. II. The other, and first, issue raised was a dual issue of spacing and columns. Both of these are up to the player. Column is easier to discuss, so I'll start there. II A. Columns form when the waypoints are too far apart for a tactical approach. That may be your desire, or not. If I have a 1km approach march for my platoon to cover before they come in contact with the enemy (reinforcements coming up to the line), sure, I'll give one or two group MOVE waypoints and monitor the platoon for the next 10-15 minutes until it gets near the combat zone. The most heavily laden soldiers will lag behind, further and further, until internal cohesion is disrupted. A stop is required to allow them to catch up. This is an example of poor command. No platoon commander would allow his HMG's or Mortars to string out 200m behind the rest of the platoon. Pauses work to allow everyone to stay with their squadmates. These pauses are called "waypoints". Columns can be eliminated by adding more waypoints. Additionally, they can be eliminated by breaking the squads into teams and giving teams movement orders. This is appropriate when the unit is within the combat zone. II B. Spacing for HE. This has been discussed a lot. A very lot. Some facts: - Teams stay within the same AS. (The exception being when a heavily laden member lags behind due to long waypoint spacing. That individual will continue to move until he regains the same AS that the rest of the team is in.) - Because teams stay within the same AS, HE has been tuned down. This is because IRL men would scatter to a degree that the player cannot command. Sub-AS movement, slight terrain benefits, or ducking back are behaviors that can be done IRL, but a WeGo player cannot command (or a RT player cannot for the above reasons as applicable to RT vs. WeGo). - The HE effect reduction is very slight and is in proportion to the intra-team spacing limitation of 1 AS. Given that, the only reason that a unit greater than a team is too close together is that the player has ordered it that way. Give better waypoints. Use PAUSE so that in-trail spacing is maintained. Break down into teams to gain better spacing. ****************************************************************************************** All of the above of factual descriptions of the game engine (as observed, with the usual caveat that I may be a bit loose on the edges), with techniques the player can use if they wish to affect the behavior of their units. As well, all the techniques described are for the HUMAN player. The TacAI (and Operational AI) is a totally different subject. An over-arching reminder needs to be stated: this is a game. If it were a pure simulator, battles would take far longer, units would quit the fight far sooner, men would be far more cautious, the battlefield would be far more disperse. Ken

Map sizes have increased. We can now have 16 square km maps. That is significant.

Nice screenshot to show what you're talking about. Okay... Give me Team B. I like orange squares. If I move Team B (with your proposal), I'll get 4 squares somewhere. Say, for argument's sake, next to a stone wall. Only 3 of the 4 squares are adjacent to the wall. Darn. One is too far back. Now I have to "grab" that one man and move him. That's micromanagement. Right now, 8x8 squares put the team pretty much up along the wall. I can use the face command to tweak it as needed. Will one man not be up on the wall? Maybe. (Usually not. The face command gets them all up. Etc., with different terrain. If I put a team in light woods, they self-position around cover.) There is no way to command a 4 man team using 1x1 (or 2x2) squares...unless you're just doing the same thing CM is doing now. The only thing 1x1 or 2x2 squares would give you is the ability and the NECESSITY of commanding individuals. If the little squares are autonomous, then why have them? If they are, then that means I need to command individual locations. With a battalion, that would be...onerous. There are no modern military forces, of which I'm aware, which countenance having individuals going anywhere. It's always the buddy system. As mentioned way upstream, there is some stringing out of the men into tight columns...when movement waypoints are too far away. If I keep the waypoints close, there is NO columnizing. If I use the FACE command, at the team level, I can get the facing I want. Are there some cases where the ability to move a single man would make a difference? Sure. Like ATG gunners and bocage. For the MOST part, these instances are rare and don't affect gameplay. The drawbacks seem quite large. Micromanagement at the individual level would greatly reduce the scope of the game. A company would induce headaches. (Sure, a magic algorithm could manage the little squares so you don't have to, but that's just how the game works now. But then, when would you step in? And how?) The processing would be so much higher... 2m squares would require 16^2 more LOS checks pre-game. 1m squares would require 64^2 more. Perhaps drawing up examples of when the proposed little squares would improve the game would help me see what you're thinking it would bring?

Hmm...right now, the "unit" is a team. That team is restricted to a single 8m x 8m action spot. The members of that "unit" can position, literally, anywhere within that action spot. Making action spots 2m x 2m means the largest "unit" would be a single man. (Reminds me of a nickname...). You'd have to tell the AI where to put that unit. (Insert joke as needed. ) The action spots do not limit individual soldier placement. They are a "window of possible" locations for any member of a team. If that makes sense...

...yet.

Thank you!

Wiggum: 1. Please don't derail this thread and cause the topic to be closed. 2. Just because something CAN be improved doesn't mean it NEEDS to be improved. 3. There is NO perfect game. Anywhere. Every single one can be improved. 4. Yes, I'd like a little better pathing/formation in CM...but it is so minor that it is only a tweak, not a "bug". 5. Things that I think are "tweaks" are not things I think "need(s) to be fixed." My post was to point out the technical limitations of home computers and the ramification of a 16-fold increase in action spots. Also, if I had to place each man, the game would not be playable. It is a very well done balance of detail vs. playablility right now.

I minimize this issue by watching how my teams will deploy at each waypoint. (You do know that the teams will go to different actions spots?) If that doesn't work, I erase the squad's movement order, split it as needed, then give individual commands to each team. My level of management increases as the range to the enemy decreases. Edited to add: 2m x 2m action spots. Right now it's 64m^2. If it were 4m^2, that'd be a 16x increase in action spots. That means a 16 x 16 increase in action spot checking... That pre-game load screen? If it takes 2 minutes now, it'd take 32 minutes (AERTS). Ditto turns. Etc. Not to say I wouldn't like some improved positioning, but right now, it's pretty darn good. The exceptions are notable only because they are exceptions. IMO.

The biggest issue is getting the tank behind the bocage to spot the target. You've got to experiment and find the location which gives a good TARGET line. I found, in the past, that "parallel parking" next to the bocage and giving a covered arc (turret pointed through the foliage) usually gave me better spotting. See what works for you.

Ve need to cee your pahpers! C'mon; who here DOESN'T have that much HE sitting around the house? Final comment: a 1940's vehicle, kept garaged, and they want papers? I can imagine going to my grandmother's house (bless her departed saintly heart) and asked for the papers for the old family car they've had since the '50's. It wouldn't have happened! Those papers (proving proof of purchase) probably disintegrated decades ago. Possession is 9/10's of the law. He's got 'em. Prove he didn't get them legally. Is there some guy (black pea coat, white captain's hat) wandering the docks looking for a missing torpedo? Anyone with the ability to get those things needs to be hired by a government. Get 'er done! A doer, not a talker. How many times do you think he played "shoot the tank" with that 88 and the Panther? Have any neighbors actually been torpedoed, or are they just getting all excited over "might have beens"? :) Ken

I've played a lot of computer wargames. If you don't like a CM map, ANYONE can open up the map in the SAME EDITOR used to create it...and modify it, and the forces on it, to their heart's content. THAT is powerful. It can create goodness, or ugliness. It just depends on the skill of the creator. The salient point is that ANYONE has the SAME TOOLS as the game designers. Try that, without downloading extra programs, in other games. (Some have better editor UI, but more limited maps. Some have prettier maps, but ridiculous forces. Etc.) I can (and have) painstakingly researched multi-battalion actions, created as close to the actual forces as is possible to create on a map which is based on true terrain. I've also performed the CM equivalent of reaching into the PanzerBlltz box and grabbing a couple handfuls of counters and tossing them on random maps. The -possible- content in each CM game is unlimited. If all you do is play the battles which come with the release, you've missing a lot. (And, yes, I get the whole QB map thing...) Want to re-enact Quatre-Bras with modern weapons? Do it. Etc. Now, there is a LOT of room for CM to improve. To throw out the code and start from scratch (the non-evolutionary approach) would mean throwing away many man-years of effort (and accomplishment and polish). Think of the teething issues CMSF had. Do you really want that to happen again??? The TO&E in this game is beyond belief. I've got bookshelves sagging under the weight of tomes devoted to parsing out tiny details of various force structures. All my books don't have all the information contained in any one game's editor. This game gives you that AS AN ADDED BONUS. The detail, down to the individual weapon, defies belief. And, yes, the O2 sensors fixed the issue; my 2" water line repair is holding (had to modify some parts); I hoisted a cold one for sburke; the BBQ was quite good; the rain washed out any fireworks.

Poor bastard. You know he paid for that thing. Just taking it is SO wrong. Even taking it and throwing a few bills down on the driveway is STILL wrong. Property rights used to mean something. And who calls an 88 a "3.5 inch" gun? Newb newspaper blurber. The man takes his home defense seriously. I like that... If the weapons worked, he'd have been able to defend against air, land, and water. Instead, they just drove up and took it all. Organized vandals. Sigh.

Thanks. I'm away from my gaming rig, but I'll come back for that save in a few day. (My post is a placeholder for me. ) Ken

A 134Mb turn?!? Why, I think I know EXACTLY what battle that is. I have yet to break the 150Mb barrier...but I'm close. (I use and SSD, as well. I don't see a savings in CM from it. Other things, yes.)

Yeah, there is a suspicious "blemish" just on the gunner's side of the white stripe on the roof. It looks stepped... Is that it? So, the tank was drivable? Were the weapons inop, or was the roof just damaged (and the commander's mg?)? Etc. Regardless, this is a data point. More would be nice. Like tests, etc., with specific rounds fired and damage.

Bydax, Thanks for the image...BUT...that's not helpful without corroborating evidence. Where did the 120mm hit? How do you know it was a 120mm round? What kind of 120mm round was it? Of the visible damage, how much was due to the (putative) 120mm round, how much due to post-impact fire? Was any caused by crew demolition; other weapons? Etc... Remember, I'm actually trying to show that the damage model could to be tweaked. A bit more evidence is needed. (Yeah, I know what that sounds like...) The image just shows a damaged tank turret. (So would say a naysayer.)

Oh, that BBQ is hard-coded for 4:30. Beer in hand not later than 4:31. Fireworks? I'm actually the neighborhood fireworks guy. My motto is "bigger is better" and, "if no one in the crowd screams and runs away, you're not doing it right". Despite that, the folks keep ignoring my "stay back" line (ooh, insert obama "red line" comment here! ), and it can get exciting. A few years back, a big cluster pack blew out a side panel and directed the rest of the "katyusha" (1" mortars) right at the crowd. THAT was fun! I've been gradually weaning back, but everyone likes a bit of adrenaline on the 4th. The water: you know, after the first 340 cubic feet, it's kind of hard to get the inside any wetter. 2" line and a 2 horsepower pump. (It's listed with the town's firefighters as an auxiliary firefighting pumping system for the neighborhood ). Tell your state's Hollywood A-listers to bottle some up and ship it to hoi polloi. I will, indeed, hoist one for your birthday. My congratulations to your mother for targeting today's date. As for the point of my post...it seems to've missed it's target. Shrug.

The standard needed (I hate to say) is to proof that the in-game results are wrong. I've looked at the Ft. Sill arty doc which showed 155mm arty near hits destroying tanks. (BTW, I agree that a bit more arty lethality vs. vehicles would be needed.) 152/155 arty has much more penetrative and fragmentive effect than 120mm mortars. We need to show real-world proof that a standard 120mm round will destroy a vehicle. (Point detonation, non-HEAT.) It's a tough thing to argue. The kinetic model in-game is probably the best one outside of the secret code used in national laboratories. The HE model may need a little more work, especially with vehicle effects. IMO. Ken

I'm at home today. Tomorrow, I leave on a 6 day trip. My pool pump blew a 2" line, putting about 350 cubic feet of water into my shed/pool house. My 20 year old is almost done with his 3rd complete automobile rebuild, but wants some help wiring some O2 sensors. My neighbor invited me to a cookout. One of my gaming rigs has some leftover antivirus files and the antivirus gurus would like me to run some diagnostics and post them. A tree fell on my roof last week and there are some finishing touches needed to repair/replace the shingles and the drip-edge. Today is a weight-lifting day. My chainsaw carb is acting up and needs a bit of a tune. An outdoor power line has an intermittent hot-to-ground fault; I need to pull a new line (rodent damage inside the conduit?). I still need to clean two of my firearms after a fun day shooting yesterday (I -did- clean all the others). I need to run a backup to an external drive on one of my computers; routine, but can't get lazy. My generator was put away after a power outage without running the carb dry (wife and younger boy were at home); I need to run it dry so it won't gum up. My kids' computer is fairly screaming for a new cpu/mobo; I've got it picked out (i5/z97), and I just need to buy it on sale today. I've already gone to the outdoor big-box store to buy replacement soccer-mom chairs and re-up on some ammo. I need to fill up two of my 5-gallon gasoline containers. My wife wants to have a bottle of wine and watch a movie with me tonight. The belt tensioner bearing on the '03 Honda Pilot is squealing and needs to be replaced. There's a pbem waiting for my attention. According to the Wiggum15 school of thought, I should just get it all done. If I say today's a pretty damn good day and nothing on that list is =really= needed, I'm a fanboy. Just sayin' that some things just can't be squeezed into a day. I think Wiggum would be surprised to know that BFC would probably LIKE to get everything on his list done, but they only have so many man-hours available. As for me, well, I got the 2" line fixed already. Next, I'm going to crawl under a car and wire up some O2 sensors. ....After I return my pbem turn. And I don't know what I'll do after that.

Sigh. I looked at the screenie. OBVIOUSLY, that arty round got sliced by the Bushmaster barrel. Kind of like slat armor...but better. By cutting the round as it came in, the fuzing was messed up and the round barely exploded. Next time, hit a Brad on the roof when the barrel is facing the other way. (Be careful! The spinning turret will slice things, as well!)

Off topic? Maybe. But I've just copied Wiggum's coding and, using my beta status, I sent it to Charles. I expect we'll be hearing the world-wide echo as Charles slaps his forehead and yells "D'OH!" I wonder how he'll feel knowing he's wasted all the time before now?

Again, I think Doug should (have) put his Panthers in the middle field. He'd dominate the battlespace. Now, he's blind to their left.