Steiner14
-
Posts
1,410 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Steiner14
-
-
Thanks.
As for exploiting: the amount of work and uncertainty of the results combined with the expected yield - well, I'd rather spent the time thinking about tactics or checking the terrain.
A factor of 2 of better chances in engagements up to a factor of 10 (+1000%!) for exploiting IMO will not be ignored. The more precious vehicles in battles are, the higher the impact of this purely random-factor on the outcome of the whole battle and therefore the higher the impact, if it can be exploited from one side.
IMO it's only a question, how difficult it is, to find the restartime of the spotting-cycle or how interested a player is to win. Since it seems that it's a constant cycle anyway, it could be enough to write down the second in the game the last time the vehicle spotted an enemy.
E.g. before engaging a tank, spot infantry with this tank. Write down the battle's second and you know when it will occur in future seconds. Then time the engagement against the enemy tank accordingly.
-
Poesel,
could you check with area fire light from the tiger on a unspotted unit, if the spotting-cycle is restarted as soon as the weapon is fired?
-
Wow, excellent test.
Does area firing on a suspected unit (but not spotted) restart the spotting-timer?
My impression is, that in the case of area firing, the spotting-cycle-timer immediately becomes restarted and that way a new round of spotting can be forced by the player.
7 seconds can easily be two shots of deadly cannons.
An estimation of the worst case (spotting-timer of unit A sadly begins in the moment right before the enemy unit B comes into LOS and starts it's own cycle and spots A) shows shocking random results that can be almost purely influenced by the spotting-timer:
If we assume a 90% hit ratio for both units: means 10% of being not hit.
This radom factor can reduce the chance of the unit with the unlucky bad timed spotting-timer, which starts almost 7 seconds too late, to 1% (0,1*0,1)! :eek: Only because it's spotting cycle starts different. A factor of 10 worse for the one with the unlucky timer when things should be equal and only dependent who draws first!
At a 75% hit probability (25% not being hit) it's chances are still reduced to 6% instead of 25%! A factor of 4!
At a 50% hit probability this still reduces the chances of the 7 seconds later spotting unit to 25%!!! A factor of 2 when everything should be equal!
This is only under the assumption, that both units would have exactly the same conditions, but the unit with the lucky random timer get's the benefit, while the unit with tactical equal chances is reduced to almost dead.
Ofcourse this is only valid, if the spotting-cycle-timer is not restarted due to other factors we don't know yet.
Another example:
Unit A outmaneuvers B and has a hit probability of 90% (i.e. hull down).
Unit B has only a hit probability of 50% but has the lucky spotting-cycle-timer: Unit B spots A almost 7 seconds earlier.
This reduces for unit A, the one with the huge advantage, the survival rate to 25% (!) before it can spot unit B - only because of this random factor.
Without this factor the survival rate of outmaneuvered unit B after two shots would be 1% and of unit A, the one outmaneuvering B, it would be 75%.
Under the assumption that both units shoot at the same instant. In reality A would shoot first and gain an additional advantage which can totally vanish due to the spotting-cycle.
If the spotting cycle would be faster than the ROF of guns, this random factor quite dramatically could be reduced since not two rounds could be shot before the unit gets a chance to recognize what is happening.
BFC pls fix or do somefink!
-
I haven't been keeping any statistics about spotting, but damn, it's really hard to beat yourself. It's a lot of fun and unsurprisingly usually ends up in a draw with a lot of dead pixeltruppen. I highly recommend it if you want to improve your playing skills!
You definately should play against humans. This improves it the most. And is the most fun.
-
I want to add that I also had the situations, where spotting seemed to be too slow: e.g. a vehicle driving into hulldown position over a crest, open street in front and with an AFV on it, distance ~150 m. It wasn't spotted for several seconds (only the "?" was shown).
At the beginning of the next turn i ordered area-fire on the real spot (the vehicle was in LOS and ID'd by other units) and immediately after the shot it became spotted.
While this can all be discussed, one thing IMO still is way off ("elite"-level):
The detailed IDing of the unit's. Certain info IMO should only become available after the white in the eyes can be seen, and some info not at all (open to discussion after they surrendered).
I'm wondering what makes it so difficult that the IDing can't be reduced much more?
-
Just skimmed through the review. To be honest, 6 out of 8 is a pretty decent score for a niche game by a small company with a minimal number of permanent staff.
Writing reviews is about presenting things. Even more, if a reviewer states, that he writes it for newbies.
If I review a camera and talk about it's finish and design, (which everybody can see on pics anyway) and I wouldn't explain how the quality of the the lens is and the photos look like, who with only the slightest interest, would give anything about the score?
This reviewer deliberately avoids to talk about all important aspects why CM has been made and why it stands on his own with nothing coming even close. But his score was not that bad? It's an ugly Leica, it doesn't have any fancy gimmicks and it's "decades behind", but it's capable to make photos - so i give it a 6/8?
-
Where have the times gone, when civilized people posted SPOILER ALERTS before they were talking about scenarios or campaigns? :mad:
-
This is the last sentence of the introductionary paragraph:
"Is Combat Mission: Fortress Italy worth the investment for newcomers and veterans alike?"
And he starts with:
GRAPHICS AND SOUND
That's incredible!
He obviously has the focus right and he also sets the reader's focus correctly - especially of potential newcomers... :mad:
Incredible after all the discussions about the bashing video camouflaged as a review, for me it is clear now, it is intention to mislead potential buyers and keep wargamers distracted.
BTW: Did anyone notice the given impressive examples of tactical combat, the "reviewer" experienced during his "testing" to give newcomers, as a target-group of his readers, a glimpse, what CMFI is able to model?
-
Good analysis.
+1 for your conclusions.
-
My praise for the advancements of the engine, too.
Everything feels even more realistical and looks much better, although being faster, too. So far i haven't found a single aspect, i would rate worse than the previous version.
In one of the last games i wanted to make a fast shift of armored vehicles and they had to pass one location. A few vehicles were slower than expected and a jam would have resulted - thanks to moveable waypoints there was no need to plot 50 points again. Only a few comfortable click&drags and it was done. Really, really good.
-
Have you ever played PBEM? If you have not much time, PBEM is THE solution for this, too!
PBEM does not only make it possible, that people with not much time, or large blocks of sparetime, can play the FULL scale of all available battles, even huge ones. It also allows to play without the ticking clock in the head while playing against human opponents.
-
Players interested to participate in a co-op-multiplayer PBEM battle?
For those unfamiliar with co-op-play:
Instead of one player controlling all forces of one side in a CM-scenario (this is not meta-
campaigning!), the command of the forces of one side is split among several players and each
player commands only his units.
A guide with detailed explanations and the rules can be found here: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/96409796/CM%20COOP-Multiplayer-Guide.pdf
Since this the very first test, you should be aware, that things could not run as smoothly as the theory makes believe.
A game can be played if at mimimum 4 players (2 vs 2) are willing to participate. The system can handle up to 52 players...
One commander on each side. He decides the tactics and makes sure, that the players will be able to communicate. Instead of 2 pages, the commander must read 10 pages.
As file exchange system i want to use Dropbox instead of the e-mail-only-system.
The suggested CM difficulty level: Elite. But if anyone wants to play another level, it's ok.
Expected player experience: None. Just liking playing PBEM-games and be interested how how co-op works. Experience with PBEM could be useful - but i don't know.
My turn rate: Expect turns from me only on Saturday and Sunday evening CET. Expect no turns from Mo - Fr. (you see, the turn rate will be quite low; if this system works as expected, ofcourse players with high turn rates can make their own, faster paced games)
Preferred commanding system: both; NORMAL COMMANDER (a CM-player is the commander) and the DEDICATED COMMANDER (a player without own CM-units on the battlefield) are fine for me.
Available as: normal commander, dedicated commander
Preferred side: Axis.
Preferred game length: short.
Scenario preference: none.
-
The final version of the Co-Op-Multiplayer-Guide is available:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/96409796/CM%20COOP-Multiplayer-Guide.pdf
-
I don't think anyone's touting 93 kills per ammo load for a dug-in enemy in foxholes and trenches. Paper Tiger's shoot sounds like an open field encounter where the AI failed to deal with a threat.
I wasn't referring to this Chuck Norris-unit but only from my personal experience from the few scenarios in CMFI i have played so far as US. Every gun, even entrenched, seems to be toast within less than a minute. One grenade after the other directly into the trench. They seem to turn trenches from a protective tool into an explosion chamber.
-
Changes:
Solutions for a possible token-conflict added.
-
Yes.
I have explained why an out-of-order coop system is technically very difficult. I have not found anything in your reply that would solve that problem.
Not solve the problem but solve the token conflict.
I don't think coop is a substitute for meta-campaigning. How could it be?Because of the psychological aspect of collaboration that is served by both. I don't know for sure, but i can imagine that one can substitute the other. Like playing AI can substitue playing against human players, although the difference is huge.
-
There's also a technical problem with your token solution: it is very hard to make that foolproof.
A good point!
As far as i have recognized Dropbox is syncronizing immediately. So we are talking about a few seconds the status of the token is not valid for all players.
In the case of e-mail the latency may be a few minutes.
Compared to the turn rate, which equals to the access numbers to a file this is very few and in the case of Dropbox almost zero.
But nevertheless it's a good point and it can't be ruled out, that two players start plotting their moves, because both believe the token was free.
Since we are discussing what is necessary for a robust system this must be solved.
Gladly there are two ways that every player immediately will recognize, there was a problem with the token:
a)
The first player who uploads the file first releases the token.
So when the second player uploads his file he recognizes, that the token already has been released, the plotting was not blocked (Dropbox: the token has already disappeared and is in the subfolder; e-mail-only: While sending his file the player sees a token-message in his inbox, that the plotting is already unblocked, although he still holds the token).
But the error also becomes visible in the filenames, because instead of files that only contain a different number of letters in the appendix, there would suddenly be two files which contain the same amount of letters:
i.e.
CMFI_ScenarioXY_0014_A.bts was the file two players grabbed at the same time and where the token conflict occured.
Each player sends his updated file back:
Player C: CMFI_ScenarioXY_0014_AC.bts
Player B: CMFI_ScenarioXY_0014_AB.bts
Since every player adds his letter, and only one player is allowed, it is not possible that two files with the same amont of letters in the appendix may appear.
It must be
...014_A.bts -> ...014_AC.bts -> ...014_ABC.bts or
...014_A.bts -> ...014_AB.bts -> ...014_ABC.bts
I will update the guide with a check after uploading the file (sending the file), if the token was still grabbed, or if the token already was released at that point in time. If in the moment of upload the token already was released, although the player thought he has it, he knows that another player already had plotted his moves.
In the worst case, the player grabs the token again, downloads the newest file (in the case of e-mail-only he will receive it automatically anyway) and plots his moves again.
-
Poesel,
you claim my system was to complicated but you have no idea how it could be made easier?
I don't understand the logic behind it.
Do you really believe someone is willing to program such a complex piece of software, if there are no dedicated players really wanting it and there are absolutely no experiences to learn from?
If playing COOP-CM is not worth for a normal player to read one page and for commanders not worth to read ONCE how it can be set up, then forget it very fast, that this could ever become reality.
I see this as a test. Are even enough people interested in COOP-MP? Claiming CM needs it but then really wanting to play are two pair of shoes. If you and others say, that this suggested system is too much of a hassle, but you would be playing a software-supported system, then this sounds to me like people demanding a software for meta campaigning and claiming they would play it, but in reality nobody ever manually organized a meta campaign and has proven that there were people taking big efforts to play it.
We may not forget that CM will never be a primitive RTS-shooter where people can participate as long as they want and afterwards leave and this has no influence on the game.
CM is a complex game and there are not that many players out there who at least are playing against humans (10%?). Even less play PBEM.
Now if among this crowd who demands COOP, not enough people are, that can get a really very simple system up and running, then i'm quite sure much bigger efforts like programming a software are not worth it.
Additionally i want to mention, the tremendous work people do, to make meta-campaigning possible. And i wouldn't rule it out, if the way easier COOP-MP would be a good substitute. for meta-campaigning. I always liked to participate in MCs, but i can't say, if i still would want to play it, if COOP-MP is fun.
-
But again, as I said at the start, it doesn't affect our sales because (thankfully) people are more swayed by their own experiences than someone else's opinion. And the overwhelmingly positive reception of CMFI speaks louder than any one critic's voice.
Are you sure about that? I believe such stupid reviews, who do hide from the player the central aspects of software, must have an impact ESPECIALLY on the broad undecided mass:
Bah, a game where they don't even offer to shut off the music? Ten years behind! And playing per mail! How on earth could such a company offer the best tactical wargame on earth?
And they are not only not capable to offer a modern software, but even charge a full price for their yesterday-software? I'm not crazy to buy this.
If i wouldn't know CM, i probably would be kept away from a closer look because of this kind of strupid "reviews".
And now imagine, if wargame-reviewers are not capable to guide the focus on the important aspects for the tactical WARGAMER, how big is the damage, if RTS-junkies "review" your game for the broad mass?
I don't say, that CM will ever be attractive for the broad mass, but i know, that there are many youngsters out there, who would be interested to learn how real world tactics and the weapons really work and act together instead of a primitive shooter that is painted as tactical wargame.
I don't expect from the big magazines to judge the big successful titles and the companies that pay the advertisements, as childish and far from any reality. But that wargamers accept this broad disinformation, that Chuck Norris movies were simulating reality, IMO is huge burden for the wargaming community, because nobody who stands up against the collective dulling of people's minds in this regard.
-
IIRC, the Germans phased out the 50mm in favor of adding more 81mms to their TOEs because the German 50mm design specifically was rather complex and heavy.
The 50 mm version was abandoned because it was simply ineffective. A simple matter of the small amount of explosive material and not because of construction.
If a 60mm mortar in reality would have been that effective, not only the Germans, but also the US and also the Soviets would have not wasted huge resources on the bigger calibres, if the simple solution against every dug in enemy would have been a 60mm mortar.
IMO the mortar effeciency still is not correct.
Although i haven't made recent tests, but the dispersion pattern seems to be way to focused again in the longitudinal direction.
When it comes to statistical numbers the casualty numbers caused by artillery/mortars must also be seen in relation to the used amount of ammunition and weaponry of the category: To my knowledge the heavy artillery and it's barrages were the ones that counted for the number of casualties (and often enough the heaviest barrage was not sufficient to break defenses) but not the squeaky little calibres.
-
Contains the explanations for normal players now:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/96409796/CM%20COOP06.docx
If there are no corrections or objections, i plan to add a table of contents tomorrow and begin with a first acceptance test in the next days.
-
WriterJWA,
if there are no rules that have proven to be reliable and working, how could anybody program a robust tool?
This is nothing that you begin to program like a PBEM-helper. This is a complex problem that needs to be fully analyzed and understood, BEFORE any programming attempt can be made.
And understanding COOP-MP means PLAYING COOP-MP and learning from experience.
-
You can of course test if some people are willing to play a one hour scenario according to your process. How well does it work in practise.
Why one hour? Tiny three to five minutes testscens. should be enough.
But a reader doesn't know how much has changed. He needs to read it all to find out.
Since there is no ongoing participation anyway, i don't see much sense to wait. Anyone who is jumping in later, will grab the latest draft anyway and not older ones like you, to find differences without reading them anyway.
-
Now how do you know whether I have dived into this topic or not?
From the useless diagram you posted. And that you wrote, that you were too lazy to read a handful of pages.
Only the usecase for such a software would probably be larger than the draft in words.
I'm positive that writing 3 different versions of one document during one day and expecting other people to read them all is not realistic. Maybe I'll go through this 5th version later, but not now.
There was not a substantial change, only small corrections of typos and hopefully even better explanations.
Tiger spotting
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
And it get's even better:
Move infantry into LOS of the enemy tank and you could get the time, when it's cycle begins!
Once you have your tanks' restart-times and the one from the enemy tank, choose the tank with the restart-time closest after the enemy tank's restart time and voila, you grab the biggest time window, during it's time the enemy tank will see - nothing.
Ugly, very ugly.