Steiner14

But if someone says, that the results he saw in CMBN were extremely unrealistical to a degree, that makes it unplayable for him, he is rudely attacked... I have played only one single battle with a low wall and immediately recognized, that it either doesn't work, or in the case of intention, CMBN being unplayable for me. So if i, with my very low experience, could recognize that immediately, what are the testers looking for, if they haven't recognized that? We are not talking here about fine tuning of weapon effects in the low percentages. We are talking about inverse effects. Although CMx2 is not based on the outcome, but the outcome is the result of an engineered model, i think testers should not worry too much about the depth of the engine. That should stay part of the developers. I think testers should recognize, if the results, that are presented, are logical or not - and not search for explanations, why the results could nevertheless be plausible because of the depths of the model. If i construct a bridge and a bus driver mentions, that "it swings too much", i don't expect from him, that he understands why it does so. Much worse would be, if the bus-driver would ignore this thought, because he trusts in the engineer, who built the bridge. Therefore it is important, that testers stay away from the inner game mechanics. Their task is to look at the object from another persepective and judge the outcome but not find explanations for the outcome. It's enlightening to read this thread to see, how the CM-community has turned into a fanboys dominated one. I don't have the impression it was that way in CMx1 days. Now a storm of criticism, often enough subletely covered, unleashes against critics and they are not taken serious. Therefore my big thanks to all the wall-testers, that were able to prove, that something is wrong in CMBN right now. That makes hope, that they will find the problem and solve it. I'd be happy to finally start playing CMBN and see the potential of the engine unfold!

A full battle replay for WEGO should be achieveable, by a replay-player-frontend that sits on top of the CM-engine. Multicore CPUs could even allow to load a second instance of the CM-engine in the background and preload the next minute of gameplay, while the frontend-player replays one minute and at the end of the minute switches to the other process. But because WEGO players are not the only group of CM-players anymore, i guess they are not interested in a solution that would be very nice for WEGO-players while leaving realtime players behind.

If exposure plays a role for hit probability, then there seem to be two factors that produce unrealistical high exposure for units in trenches, foxholes or behind walls: 1. The rifle is held unnecessary far away from the height of the eyes, which brings the head up too much (~8- 10 cm too much) 2. The soldiers expose themselfes more above the wall as would be necessary to get the rifle shooting (>10 cm). I guess in foxholes and trenches numbers will not be better. That makes roughly an additional exposure of ~18 cm compared to the silhuette in RL. That's a HUGE difference and i would not be surprised, if that could be reduced, that the efficiency of low walls, foxholes and trenches would dramatically rise (if for the engine visual exposure plays any role for hit probability). For better comparison with the low silhuette in RL see attachment:

Doesn't matter, wasn't worth it anyway.

Could be related to the foxhole problem: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1288896&postcount=13

Have you ever planned and plotted moves for a armoured company on a street? And have you ever had units suddenly needing the same street to drive in the other direction? :eek:

People have been playing CMSF for years and haven't noticed that low walls are useless? Maybe here also lies one of the answers why foxholes do not provide enough protection: Is the aiming/shooting soldier way to much exposed? For example now he has an exposure for aiming and firing of roughly 50 cm, while in reality the silhuette is only 15-20 cm high and therefore much smaller (helmet VS helmet + throat + shoulders)?

I cannot comment on CMSF but i can hardly imagine players demanded no self preservation behaviour, only because cover arcs were ordered. But i take this as acknowledgement that something is not working as it should. How difficult it is to solve that and balance it, i don't know. But i know that hidden units with covered arcs should definately not stay hidden, if the enemy is standing a few meters behind them or at their side and is already killing them. I really miss the beauteousness from CMx1, where the experience of units was so perfectly balanced with the self preservation measures and when given orders were overriden.

As i had stated: If the foxholes are a known problem, why was the whole action in the video defended, if one key aspect of this scene, namely the foxholes, already have been identified as problematic?

If one customer raises a concern, what is the reaction? I cannot remember that a BT would have shared a (later corrected!) problem immediately. Instead every concern is automatically refuted. Come on, you know the difference between endless development and endless discussion. Look into the HMG-supression-effect-thread. This i call an endless discussion. The problem was clearly expressed in the beginning and what was the task of the BTs? They come up with hundreds of explanations, why the game's reaction was ok, although you can clearly see, that's not the case. It's not enough to hint at a problem, because they think they have discussed it enough and know it much better anyway. Shouldn't beta testers be helpful in discovering problems and hint the developer where to look? Here, mostly all raised problems first have to be fought against the resistance of BTs. Steve, although developer and this is his baby, for me shows more distance to his work and recognizes problems earlier than some of the BTs. Blinded experts are ignorants. They do not listen, because they believe they know it better. They only listen, if they can't ignore it anymore. Be it because of the quantity of voices or because of the loudness or if the authority says so. What do we have so far: Maybe foxholes could need to provide more cover. Also self preservation in combination with hide and/or cover arcs should be looked at, too. And what was the reaction of some of the BTs? They immediately tried to explain why things are ok anyway. But how can this be the case, if the protection of foxholes was too low, or if unhiding units do not fast and agressively enough open fire? Nobody wants that. No guts, no glory (Zu Tode gefürchtet ist auch gestorben). You mean to explain problems that way, that the defend-my-game-threshold is not triggered? The more intelligent ones focus on the discussed facts or the raised problem and the ignorants will defend the satus quo anyway. Therefore i prefer the direct and honest speech and if some of them therefore are running around like startled chicken, i'm very sad, but i will survive it.

Listen to the beta-testers: there is no problem!

So some of the beta testers have the opinion, it is realistic, that units stay hidden, although 10 meters away a squad is shooting at them. Ofcourse you need to be an elite soldier, to recognize, that you are going to be killed... In CMx1 the behaviour was much more realistical, because unexperienced units followed the NATURAL behaviour of returning fire and abandoning orders EARLIER. No with the praise of beta-testers, we need more experienced units to act like less experienced ones in real life. Great improvement! And that HMGs can be easily overrun in open terrain was also no problem for certain beta-testers. Endless discussions and a confirmation from the developers was necessary, to be accepted... Or what about the fact, that foxholes do not provide enough cover? Also nothing beta-testers were concerned about. They still blame it on unit experience, supression and much more. Gladly it was confirmed, that it could need adjustment...

Beta Testers, instead of getting personal, i suggest you concentrate more on things that should be improved instead of attacking others.

Über-soldiers walking against entrenched infantry squads in the open, heavy MGs, even MG42s, almost useless against infantry in the open, hidden units prefer to be slaughtered instead of unhiding and shooting back - how in the world can all this get the praise of beta-testers? For me the infantry behaviour at the current state broken and i can't stand to play it at all. Shock Force has been out long enough and SF-players didn't recognize that certain inf behaviour ruins any entitlement of realistic infantry fighting? And how this can get a 10 of 10 rating (= no improvement possible, perfect!). What a joke.

Why stay units hidden, although they are under fire from very close units?

Option for scenario designers to hide the battle-type. You know what i mean: -> <- | <- Sometimes gives too much info away. Option: N/A

Fantastic. I really hoped someone would do that. Thanks.

Can't download: "Fatal error - attempt to access unpublished file by non-admin user"

And because you have no answer to the problem, then the problem should persist?

Are you sure about the former?

Link doesn't work here.

Link doesn't work here.

In fact, this was a design decision for much more realism. Girlies, war means chaos and frustration. Who understands that target-lines had to go for that reason, will be pleased about the leap forward that is expected for the v1.01 patch: finally key assignments will vary randomly in a scientific manner (only for real men in Iron-mode).

I'm sure, it would be absolutely no problem for Charles, to call vertex shader and all the fancy graphic functions. But then gamers would probably need a 2kW power supply for the roll call of a company. Minimum specs for CMx3: $11,300 for hardware $4,750 USD/year electricity bill

Tactics even more realistic More difficult Relative spotting No armor cover arcs No target lines & C2-lines No unit data window & showing unit's firepower over distance No switchable terrain grid