Vanir Ausf B

This is true, but ignores the fact that Russian tanks are based upon a much different design philosophy. Russian tanks are ~20 tons lighter than the M1 and have better strategic mobility. They have better anti-personel capabilities (although the M1 is getting a beehive round soon). They also cost about 1/3 as much (IIRC). Is a M1 better than a T-80U? Yes. Is it better than 3 T-80Us? Depends... [ April 25, 2002, 06:08 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

IIRC Russian T-80s also use a turbine.

I know the feeling all too well No problem. I'm sorry, if I had realized this thread was "special" I would have avoided it Seriously, I understand what you are saying. If by "the larger scale stuff" you are refering to the god's eye view issue, I will simply restate that I do not believe there is any solution to it outside of multi-multiplayer that would not be draconian and piss people off, as you so well put it earlier. However, don't let my negativism discourage you from talking about it. [ April 23, 2002, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

I have no idea why you think I am implying that since I have specifically stated otherwise in my third post on page 4: Tom, I wouldn't have a problem with this as long as you could view all spotted enemy units simultaneously as you now can, rather than only in small groups at a time. That would be a real chore.

It solves the problem of all units automatically spotting an enemy unit as soon as one friendly unit spots it. That is the definition of absolute spotting. Under relative spotting friendly units can be in LOS of enemy units and not see them even if other friendly units can. This introduces a significant uncertainty factor into planning as the player can no longer count on a unit to engage the enemy as soon as it moves into LOS. It may take a short while to spot, a long while, or not at all. I would also bet that units in C&C with each other will be able to help each other spot to a certain extent not allowed units not in C&C with each other, which would add yet another incentive for the player to keep his units in C&C. This is all more realistic than the current model even with the player still having control over all his units. This question of whether the player will be able to manually target unspotted units with area fire, and how to prevent that if it is disallowed, will be an issue that will have to be dealt with. I don't have a problem with any of these features except this: This just makes the game more difficult to play without increasing realism. The player still has the same information available to him as he did before, he just has to click all over the place to find it. PITA. Keep in mind that CMBB already has an extreme FOW setting that may very well do much of what you suggest and then some. We'll see. I expect to see SOPs expanded significantly in the rewrite.

I disagree. It is entirely possible to have relative spotting and still allow the player to control all the units at once. In fact, that is what BTS plans to do, according to those old posts.

I'm all for SOPs and extereme FOW and better TacAI(as is BTS, btw), but none of that is a substitute for the player feeling a connection between his decisions and the results in the game. Realism is not an end itself but a means to an end: enjoyment of the game (often refered to as "fun" ). I will probably get branded a heratic for saying that, but oh well. For me, and I suspect most CM players though I can't prove it, the more decision making you take out of the player's hands and give to the AI, the more distant and less involved the player feels with the game and hence less fun. The question is where do you strike the balance? I like the balance pretty much the way it is now.

Heh, I know what you mean, but ironically Kip and Andreas are 2 of the groggiest grogs around here but they seem to get it. [ April 22, 2002, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Tom, you are basically correct. Steve said it himself: "Relative Spotting is far more realistic than Absolute Spotting. But it isn't perfect since the Human is allowed to interact with all units using one shared "conciousness". Relative spotting is a significant improvement but it is not the Ultimate In Realism that some here seem to be expecting. As long as each side is controlled by a single player there is no way around the "shared conciousness/God's eye view" issue unless you are willing go give over significantly more control of your forces to the AI. BTS does not seem willing to do this and I for one am quite happy about that. It could be argued that doing so would be more realistic but who cares about realism if the game is a bore to play? [ April 22, 2002, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Because otherwise there is no penalty at all for being out of C&C and therefore no incentive for the player to concern himself with it. But this is inconsistent with the player being the leader of every unit, so... Basically they fudged it as a compromise. Think about the alternatives: no command delays and no leadership bonuses are too unrealistic. On the other hand the inability to give orders to any unit out of C&C makes it too much of a "watch the AI play itself" game which hurts the fun factor. So they compromised between realism and playability even though the result is a little contradictory in concept. That is why I prefer to say the role of the player in the game is undefined rather than "the leader of every unit" although either is correct in a way.

I think I started something... :eek: Tom, you don't need to post EVERY BTS comment on relative spotting ever made. People can click on the links and get the full story if they want. I only posted a distilled version of the most important points. Just thought I'd save you some work

The human player does not have a defined role in CM per se. He is simply the guy playing the game who tells all his units what to do. Judging from BTS comments this is not likely to change in the rewrite to any large degree. I certainly hope it doesn't. It will be interesting to see how the multi-multiplayer works out, however. [ April 22, 2002, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

A fair question. The problem is that people have been lumping 2 or 3 related but seperate issues together. This stuff has been brought up before. It may be helpfull to see what was said on it previously. Big Ass Thread Obviously BTS believes there is simply no solution to the "Godlike" POV issue and will therefore make no attempt beyond making it possible for there to be more than 2 players in a game (which has been confirmed as a planned feature of the rewrite). So, how will relative spotting be done? A few hints can be found here. Hopefully this has been of some help. [ April 22, 2002, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Although the search engine refuses to find it, I distinctly remember Steve saying that the CMBB manual will be much improved over CMBO, with a lot more technical information about how the game works. I very seriously doubt they would hire someone to write it for them. Nobody else knows the game as well as they do.

I guess I should have noted that when I buy British in CM I always buy airborne, which are only 1230 or so per battalion. When you are the attacker in a 3000 pt game you get 4500 pts to play with. But like I said, I have yet to see a 3000 pt game go long enough to where resupply would be feasible. I've yet to try a 5000 pt game. I have been lobbying for much the same thing with regard to tanks. I have asked that tanks that begin the game in trees be made much more difficult to spot until they move or fire. As it is they seem to be spotted almost automatically as soon as any enemy unit enters LOS, even if they are "hiding". It makes them be of questionable value on defense compared to AT guns as it is very difficult to ambush with them. At least AT guns can remain hidden until they fire. In reality German tanks with their smokeless powder were often able to remain unspotted even after opening fire from ambush. Still, most of these problems will be solved by relative spotting. Too bad we have to wait for CM3 for it. An interesting exception to the "if it shoots it is spotted" rule in CM is the 20mm AA gun (single) which can often shoot all day without getting more than a sound contact as long as it is at least 200-300m from the nearest enemy unit.

Indeed, I would argue that it would only be applicable to battles at the most extreme CM scale. I have PBEMed a number of 3000 pt attack/defend games where the attacker can purchase 2 entire British infantry battalions + armor and arty support and have yet to see one of these games not decided by turn 35 at the latest. You would probably need a 5000 pt QB or equivalent sized scenario for this to become a realistic option. Not saying your idea is bad one, merely that it's non-inclusion in CM outside of operations isn't a big deal IMO. Certainly true and not limited to AT guns. This goes back to the whole absolute vs. relative spotting issue. Not much can be done until the engine rewrite. It sometimes seems that the AI is able to know certain information that the player is not. I don't know if this is a bug or what.

Tanks do keep the turret facing that direction for a short while unless another target presents itself. This was added in one of the patches. Ultimately, there will always be some problem with it since the AI has no memory of past events (and probably wont in the foreseeable future). Not sure what you mean here. If you don't have LOS to the house you shouldn't be able to target it. Yeah, I've noticed that. A small annoyance.

Regular squads, yes, but British Airborne rock, especially on the attack IMO. As far as the regular squads go, they are weaker than the regular US squads mainly due to squad size. On a per man basis there is not much difference. [ March 29, 2002, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

Better have a good AI!! The only other thing I can say is: When is the East front version coming out? Operational level and East front go together like peanut butter and jelly.

Let's start a pool on how long this stays in the CM forum. I say 10 minutes.

He said 3D games "like Quake" made him puke. *shrugs* I guess it's possible.

I spent some time with the search engine to read some of his old posts. Interesting. I also ran across some guy named Thomas Davie who swore he would only play CM from the top-down 2D view. I wonder how long he stuck to that promise?

You win the boobie prize (if I had one to give you). Brings back memories, doesn't it Someone once called it "The Username Effect". [ March 01, 2002, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

1. Abrasive personality and tendency to question intelligence/reading ability of anyone who disagrees with him. 2. Frequent requests for BTS comment/attention. 3. Engineering background. 4. AOL email account. Sound familiar to anyone? I suspect "MajorBooBoo" is an old friend come back for a second tour of duty. Let's see who can guess the name I'm thinking of. Don't think too hard

Last I heard, BTS was planning a roster for CMBB. But it will intentionally be of limited functionality. It will list all units and will likely allow you to go to a unit by clicking on it in the roster, but it will probably not have any current status information. To the best of my understanding that was the basic plan, but I have no idea what the current status is or whether the whole thing has been scraped, changed ect., so take it all with a big grain of salt.