Steiner14

Your info is very appreciated, thanks.

Do you think the GTX-series is needed, or could a slower card be sufficient, too?

Thanks for the responses so far. @Hamilcar, "5870 in crossfire" - does that mean you have two cards in your laptop? :eek:

I'm considering getting a new laptop and i wanted to ask, who here has a laptop and is able to play with all details on and gets high frame rates?

L, have you ever plotted a not trivial path for a vehicle? Well, then you should have recognized, that hard turns should be avoided for a fast movement. This becomes very important under enemy threat and if the vehicle should pass a location as quickly as possible. If the player now finally has plotted a difficult path and checks it from another perspective, he has no ability to correct corners in the path or fine tune the path! If you are talking about single clicks then you have no clue, that plotting paths in CMx1 allowed to be of an interactive process: plot and check - adjust - check - adjust. And with the current system of action spots, it is more often necessary than it was in CMx1, to go back several waypoints and plot them in other action spots to get the curving right. :mad: The ignorance that has taken rule over the forum is becoming frustrating.

It's not the most plausible explanation, since a nervous state should not be equal to panicked state. And how many better chances do exist in the life of a crew, like two helpless ATGs presented on a silver tablet? Even a green crew only with a machine gun on their vehicle should be able to recognize this once in a lifetime chance and shoot. Every state better then panic must lead to an engagement in a 100% win situation. I find it strange how extremely unrealistical behaviour in a first reflex is defended. Yes, the girls were nervous, therefore they avoided to shoot their weapon.

Childress, IMO your example doesn't allow to make conclusions if facing is taken into account. It only shows, that a one on one engagement did happen. And wouldn't that even made perfect sense, if the ATG were facing torwards the Stummel? That an engagement against two helpless ATGs was repeatedly denied, is a hint for me, that the facing (of ATGs) is not taken into account but that the identified units maybe simply accumulate to the amount of the perceived threat-level.

Nidan1, there were only enemy infantry units as potential threats of the Stummel present. The retreatment path also was clearly out of sight of the ATGs.

Good question. They were regular, nervous and in command.

Are you sure, that's the only effect of the face-order? My impression is, that units are less susceptible to incoming fire if they have a face-order torward the incoming fire. IIRC correctly, the face order was the reason, why the CMX1 retreat command was abandoned, since you can issue a "fast" or "quick" to run away but combine it with a face order torwards the incoming fire.

Is this possible bug already known - or not of interest?

Why does an observation of very unrealistical behaviour from precious and important units on the battlefield not cause any attention? Is the AI already way too good, that it doesn't need improvements?

And the reason for that statement is?

In a recent battle i moved a "Stummel" (light armoured vehicle but with a 75mm HE) behind two enemy ATGs and although the guns were completely surprised and showing the rear and definately no threat for the light amoured car, it immediately retreated instead of engaging. I tried it to engage the guns several times, and every time the SdKfz preferred to retreat as fast as possible instead of knocking them out surely. Could it be, that the TacAI of vehicles does not take into account the aiming direction of potential threats?

I noticed that an empty mortar with an empty ammo supply unit, who aquired minutes later additional ammo from a fallen mortar supply unit, were showing up the ammo in the mortar unit's panel, but still were displayed as out of ammo for the forward observer and all other HQs. Saved files are available.

I think the average clicks for face-orders to make units face in the correct direction of the biggest expected danger, could quite drastically be reduced, if the face-order would not only be applied to one single waypoint. I have experienced that now it takes a LOT of unnecessary clicks and navigation, to apply face orders to paths: Now you set a waypoint and click O for the face command. If you want additional waypoints, you have to deselect the path, otherwise the movement order would be applied to the last segment instead of plotting a new one. Repeat with every waypoint. Then, when finally plotted, you want to make sure, that your unit does not turn around and simply go away, but keeps facing in it's current direction (usually the direction of danger or incoming fire): so you TAB back to the unit and issue it a face command. PHEW! IMO very frustrating. Even more, if you think this could be reduced dramatically: A more intelligent and practicable face-order on a waypoint automatically would apply face-commands to several prior points, EXCEPT the unit itself (because in 90% of all cases it usually faces in the correct direction anyway) and therefore the unit receives a face command of the direction it is facing already. If a face-command already exists prior in the path, then only until this last face command the new face commands are inserted. For example the player plots a new path: UNIT - new waypoints A + B + C On the last point C the player issues the enhanced face order: The system checks if waypoint B already has a face order. If not, it receives one, too. Also A is checked: if nothing present, then it receives a face command, too. Finally the unit itself is checked if it has a face command applied. If not, then it receives one, but NOT in the new direction, but in the direction is is facing already. The reason is, in most cases, units show torwards the enemy, or the biggest threat. Moving them means, that they should keep looking in that direction and not turning around and walking away. Turning the rear or the side torwards the enemy is in 90% of all cases not a good idea. Here is how a path of an infantry unit in cover (i.e. behind a bocage), that is about to move and leave cover, would work with an enhanced face-command: Instead of clicking and applying face commands like crazy to every waypoint, you begin to set the first waypoint where the unit is about to leave cover and then plot the rest. At the final waypoint you apply the enhanced face command, which results in face commands for all waypoints until a waypoint is reached that already contains a face command. If no face commands are present, all waypoint receive a face command, while the unit itself receives a face command of the direction it is looking already. Teh effect would be that the unit moves torwards the first waypoint facing in the old direction (usually where the danger comes from), and then it automatically turns torwards the new direction for the rest of the newly plotted path segments. And there's room for more improvement: With a modifier (i.e. SHIFT-O), the automatically inserted face-commands could be interpolated between the last facing position in the path and the new orientation. 1. If you are plotting mostly single point paths, effectively nothing changes with the new face command. 2. If you plot more complex paths, the facing becomes mostly automated and should fit for 90% of all cases. 3. And in the case, you want extremely complex paths, or where the enhanced face command wouldn work, then simply build the path of single segments, like it has to be done now with many clicks. Any problems with that system?

Ryujin, what a very interesting idea. Time right now is binary - reached or missed. Maybe a simple time-weighting-modifier, that defines the impact of time would be the most comfortable thing for scenario designers and very easy to implement? It could be implemented as a simple equation. In the case of a proportional influnce of time on final points it could look like FinalPoints==FinalPoints + FinalPoints*k*TimeDifference equation. Where k is a negative factor and reflects the impact of every minute in percentage on the overall achieved points. TimeDifference is the difference of time between the really needed time of the finished battle and the target time (i.e. if the battle ends at 32 instead of 30 minutes, then DeltaNeededTime would be 2). For example a k-modifier of -1% (-0,01) would mean, that every minute that takes longer than the target time, the final points of the attacker are reduced 1%. That would mean, if he needs 10 minutes longer, he loses 10% on the final score. As option the defender's score could stay uninfluenced from the time-modifier. Such a system could also be used to add points, if the target is reached earlier. If time limit should not be weighted on the result at all (current system), the scenario designer simply would choose 0% for the modifier. A slight impact of time would be modelled with modifier below 1%, while still maintaining some pressure for not playing eternal. Ofcourse this would be the most simple implementation. A more sophisticated implementation could allow the designers to choose different time-modifiers depending on the over- or undertime (i.e. +1-10 minutes -0,5% per minute, while 1-3 minutes faster would be honored with +1% per minute).

What would be very helpful for the acceptance of unbalanced battles, would be a briefing text after the battle, where the designer explains, why a certain threshold was vital and why missing it caused a worse result.

I think this can't be generalized. You mention a very extreme example,where the success of an operation is built on the sucess in a small window of opportunity and/or the following operation needs a certain problem to be solved first. Under such circumstances commanders know, that time is more precious than preserving power and saving blood (i.e. after the breakthrough of defensive positions, other units flow through the gap, while the units that broke the gap up, are not immeadiately needed for the following operation). But most battles are about achieving a goal with an acceptable amount of own losses (nation specific) since the war continues and therefore the units will be needed again. It was normal, that unit formations had to wait for others, if the neighbour was not capable to advance as fast as planned. Therefore it would be a step forward, if scenario designers would begin to reflect these things and decide which kind of battle they want to portray: Although it has gotten slightly better over the years, but normal battles of a war, should be reflecting with the allowed losses, that they are only single steps during a whole war - sadly they are still very rare (so far i haven't found one for CMBN yet). Instead of balanced battles we would need much more of highly unbalanced battles but with much stricter levels of acceptable losses for the stronger side, to achieve a victory. We still mostly have the kind of balanced massacres under time pressure. i.e. losing one out of three tanks (30%!), still is no problem on the way to an "absolute victory". Therefore i would be very happy, to see much more unbalanced scenarios, but therefore giving the attacker the time he realistically needs, but reduce the thresholds of acceptable losses of the stronger force for a success. Another positive side effect would be, that real world tactics would become necessary: You have arty? Then you will have to wait the five minutes, otherwise your losses will make you simply not reach your targets! You have HMGs? Then you will need to take the ten minutes, until they have taken the best position for supporting crossfire! Ofcourse such realistic scenarios also need excellent briefings, where the player gets unmistakebly informed, what kind of losses are acceptable and what not! Why ot offering scenarios in two different versions? One for fun and one for accuracy.

I think the best for BFC's business would be a tutorial system: the player being introduced and guided through the pre-setup phase with text and/or audio messages and/or pictures. If such an info-system could be made available for scenario designers, i.e. like a script that is worked from top to bottom, before the setup phase begins, this even could be also used for interactive scenario-briefings, if the scenario designer wants that). I'm thinking about a script, that can activate a text messagebox on the screen. With parts of the text being clickable. The Clicks can move the map to a predefined camera position (imagine how a gently, interpolated x-y-z-auto-move would impress completely new players), and the scripting module could offer to activate additional text on the map (maybe with a time delay - think of an auto-move of the camera and a second later a text on the map showing up). Maybe the scripting module could even activate the playback of included soundfiles or pictures. And ofcourse a simple "next" for the next step in the script and a jump to the end would be necessary. If BFC would offer such a scripting-tool to scenario designers, i guess they wouldn't even need to make the tutorials on their own. The community would make them in no time.

If i imagine, i wouldn't have known CMx1 and how much fun it is, and if i tried as newbie the CMBN demo, i probably would have asked myself: "WTF?! Are they crazy?!" I don't understand why someone doesn't see, that the interface is not good for attracting and keeping new players. I believe, brand new players would benefit a lot from a guiding hand. If it takes too much efforts to implement a teaching/learning system, the minimum should be tutorial videos for the most basic things and what the player can expect from the AI and what not (i.e. explain how movement orders for vehicles on streets must be given for certain results). For example: the current interface without (any guidance system) seems to be a big barrier and we don't know, how many players have given up because of the first impressions of the interface.

I don't fit into one of the categories. I tried to like CMBN, but was repelled from several things that it became unplayable for me. With v1.01 i gave it a new try and the represented action i saw, suddenly made perfect sense. I still think, the interface is not really good, but what this game now tactically delivers is incredible. I can even say, that the old CMx1 feeling is back for me.

Not my liking. "Untere Links Wanne" is definately & awfully wrong.

Hit-text (very disturbing): i.e. "untere Links Wanne" correct: "untere Wanne, links" or: "links, untere Wanne" After action summary: "tot" (dead) correct: "gefallen" (fallen) (civilians are hurt or die, soldiers are wounded or fall) Briefing: "Authoranmerkungen" correct: "Anmerkungen des Verfassers" or "Weitere Anmerkungen" or simply "Anmerkungen"

Thanks for the info. Will try.