KNac

I'm with Mike or at least it shouldn´t have letter, like the one that is in CMBO [ June 01, 2002, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: KNac ]

see this you can find some info there [ May 29, 2002, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: KNac ]

being fixed or already fixed in CMBB

BRAVO! Very cool, the original models and the models into the game, both very cool.

Well, I will give you, my friend (Nac4) some points, and the give you a RL example. First of all I would like to say, that you seem to live in a "perfect and nice world" but not, the world is not perfect and nic, why I say this? Easy: 1.-If you want a perfect simulation, play reallife. Never, I say NEVER, will be a perfect simulation of RL. If you want a perfect simulation of how a war runs, go army I don't know why some grogs and sim types always make me point this, it seems so easy to understand to me. 2.-Well, people have to live, did you know? and they need money for that. If you want a team of 3 guys to make the perfect game you want (ey! I would like it too, too bad it cannot happen) you must give theya lot of money, so they can develop a game in 20 years without earning a single euro for those 20 years, because I suppose they must eat and those things. The bad thing, is that when they finish that game 20 years later, it will be out-dated Now the example: www.wwiionline.com what a bunch of cool people making that game, all them very nice, very bad that when they released their game after 2 or more years of developement it was uncompleted, lacking 10/11 of it´s promessed features. Oh, I didn´t remember, the team was something like 20-30 guys (lol, BTS team it´s only 5) That game was (is) trying to go farther than you said, it is trying to go to the individual rifle men. But my friend, after 3 years of developement, they had a uncomplete game and very unrealistic game (those guys made Warbirds, so they were looking for a realistic as they could game, until it loose fun, and that's an other topic, make a too much realistic game and no one will buy it, because it will not be fun). They are now in red numbers, I hope they will improve their situations, but after spending some million $ I don´t know. I wouldn´t like to be in their skin. Now, ís you who should wake up, my friend and return to the real-life. cya

in the rules there is an option that says "free french forces"

If you could combine AIrbone Assault engine within CMBB it would really rock!

the questions are: -relative to what are those values? only to infantry or each type (tank, amored car/haltrack, other vehicles, guns, artillery, etc) has it scale and is relative to that type. if all the equipment in the game is relative to infantry the tanks will get crazy prices, but if a tank is relative to the tank class it will be fair. and different countries off course, is not the same the number of tanks that there were on the red army than in the heer. -there will be different scales for different battle types? i mean the prices shouldn´t be the same for a tank battle than for a combined arms battle or for a inf battle. finally, is not the definitive or perfect system, is not realistic in the meaning that because a unit being rare it doesn´t mean that a unit is more expensive, but however it accomplish the effect it´s looking for, reduce the present of rarer units in the battlefield. and as someone said, it is optional.

this would need a lot of computer power because the game should update the position of each vehicle in the battle in a fraction of a second. however is possible with actual computers, but programming time is needed

Well, however you can dream about the impossible, because as someone said in 10 years there will be 10 Ghz computers. no, sorry, 10 is very low, there is a prototype of 3 Ghz PIV now, and the silice technology can be more developed yet, but with the biomolecular computers project, what will be able in 10 years?

This speaks alone: Battle for Dubno, open of Operation Barbarossa, June 25-July 1, around 4381 Soviet tanks lost, 241000 men casualities and 5006 guns lost too, along them a great number of T-34 and KV series. Why? Kipornos who was in charge of the mechanized corps that entered into the battle was one of the best commanders the Soviet army had, but at tactical level the Soviet army was useless without good NCO and junior officers and lack of ideas. Technically they were superior, outnumbered the Germans and a number of their tanks were far superior to the Germans. But not using combined arms doctrine and without air support they were almost destroyed. The luftwaffe was the key to the early war in the east front, destroyed the enmy airforce, destroyed a great part of its infrastructure, and cooperated usually as CAS with the Heer. All about tacticas and doctrine.

Well, I would like to model scenario of the initial river crossing when Operation Barbarossa was launched on 21 June 1941, It would be cool, as I´ve played Lost Victories mega-campaing for SP:WaW the initial river crossing would be very cool with the CM engine.

I suggested to use an other computer game because is the better method I have to check optics and aiming systems, since I don´t have a Tiger I in my house or any museum with one near here and remember it only was for checking how should perform the optics and sight system, nothing more. If you have one copy of the system that used the Tiger I or photos and data about it, use it best, I was only suggesting. However this issue is falling in repeating over and over. The only way to check it out is doing an intensive testing and research, and writing which are the conditions of "human factor" then compare the results of testing with what we expected with the research, etc. The rest of words are just that, more word (me or anyone) without any good prove we cannot say "it´s wrong" or "it´s ok", nothing, just play the game Individual cases and quotes, as I said are not the worth. As Vanir Ausf said, **** happens in RL. So shooting shouldn´t be 100% accurate all the time, that is more unrealistic that not first/second shot kill 60% of the time. I repeat, but if that **** happens with too much frequency (which I don´t think so, IMO I think the game it´s ok) it´s a problem. [ May 01, 2002, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: KNac ]

Well. I was asking for good and reliable info for the test Redwolf, nos aislate cases, sorry if I cannot express myself better, but english is not my language. I think I posted somewhere "technical and historical data " and "not individual or personal info" or something like that. Also I´m not trying to atack BTS or something evil like that, I´ve better things to do and I do not win nothing doing that. I love the game and I´m waiting for CMBB so you (refering to anyone) don´t need to use "fanboi" face with me, LOL. Second I was suggesting the test for those who are conplaining, if you are not, you don´t need to do it. The test is not about gun accuracy, you must understand that it is for proving that the Tiger shooting at point blank ranges just doesn´t work (or it works). In the second part of my post I was talking about how to delimitate which sould be the percentage of first (or second as much) kill shots, and how much the rest, however I wasn´t giving any percentage, just examples. Finally, I would like to say that those kind of tests seem stupid but that way is how you test games, and other things in RL, so maybe thy aren´t that stupid. You think testing things is fun? However, returning to the topic: if it happens 2 times of 100, no problem; but if it happens 90 times of 100 it´s a problem (for that I was suggeting the test). So individual examples are not a worth... [ April 30, 2002, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: KNac ]

Well... First of all, we must see if that was an individual case or is the rule. To test this, design a map (for better conditions it should be plain, no cover of any type, and without other parameters, like unit experience, that could modificate the output) and put both tanks in specific positions in the range ou want to check out (ie 250m) then put the facing each other. And run the game X times when > is X better accuracy on the figures and stadistic (ie X = 100). To make easier the job you can do with a pair of guys. Each time you run the game you must keep the the units static, and write in a table the number of shots that takes each time the Tiger to take out the Sherman. With this we can see which are the probabilities. I can make some nice tables and functions fast for that and turn it out to a Gauss bell if needed. With all the data we can check if it´s enought accurate by historical data and/or simple logics. If the number of round that take the Tiger to destroy the Sherman is >2 the 90% of the times (with a regular crew) it should be strange (that 90% can change by 80% or 95 %depending on the historical data we have, in which case we should base it on technical data and specific reports and not in individual and personal quotes). However we must abstract the human factor with some logic. In this case we have both regular crews, one in charge of a Tiger I and other in a Sherman. In a logical way we should say that the Sherman crew should be scared and should have quite a few fear of death making them more nervous and though less accurate (but however it have been demostrated that adrenalina can help in combat situations sometimes) in the other side we have the Tiger crew, with the moving pillbox and aware of the situtaion, but not more scared than the Sherman crew, making not them more nervous. As we were saying, those tanks were at point blank range, or at least at short range (>250 m). Well if you have played a good WWII tank simulator you should see how is the aiming system on those tanks, and personally I think that for a trained crew it shouldn´t be very hard to aim a 250m away tanks, even a small tank, I will use WWIIOL as an example (I have quit the game because is almost incomplete in a lot of things, but in the tank sim and aiming systems is very accurate) with the optics of 1940 PzIII F you can aim easy to an A13 or a R-35 that are for sure smaller than a Sherman at 250 m without problems, and saying that the Tiger I optics should be more similar to the Flak36 optics than the PzIII F, I don´t think that it should be a problem (I´ve destroyed Somuas S-35 at 2000m with the Flak 36). Having said that the "scared" factor is not a modificator for the most of cases (say 90%-95%) with the consitions that we have written for the scenario, the graphic and data we could archive by testing sould say us if aiming at 250m for the Tiger I in the specified conditions (aka perfect conditions, that are neither 100& realistic in game or in real life, but can give us in some way a good conclussion) for more reliable info we should do the same with other more normal conditions, and then mix all the data we have gained to come with a conclussion. Off course you can do this with other tanks. Just my 0.2 euros

need to play the game NOW! `plz release the game or i will die

Tom sing me up or the URnEFOW (Ultra Realistic and Extreme Fog Of War) as long as its an option and not the single possibility in the game. I will introduce a new question, time tolink up FOW and CnC? Which is your opinion? Different AI/CnC/FOW for each level of realism or farce sizes, what do you think? Time to give the possibility of a better platoon AI (w/o deleting the possibility of micro-management in smaller units) for larges battles? Time for a new topic? If you

I agree 100% with Cpatain Wacky, and understand his point. I also prefer large battles because of strategy (there is where a player demostrate his skill), but micromanagement consumes too much time to play it. Those who have tried to push CMBO to its limits will understand me, with a full German regiment and lots of supports assets under my command in the larger map you can do in CM (in a operation) it can be a pain in the ass to move exactly each squad to its PERFECT position. So it would be cool if the squad can get the 2 extra meters to get a better position. in adittion you would be able to micromange the unit your-self. Finally I would like the platoon level "finest" micromanagement (for those kinds of large battles I said) giving more generic orders to platoon comanders with 18 or + squads in your command the skill would be demostrate in the use of your platoons and not in the squad level, so that is not a excuse. And however someone that micromanage its units will probably be better than letting the computer micromanage them, but that is not viable in a 3 Bn battle, it consume too much time...

I just can say that CnC and AI is the best of AA! Very nice nd realistic it all. As well somethings observed in AA could be introduced in the relative spotting issue etc. Ie the information displayed about enemy units, just an estimation (and in the retail game you will get less info! i read it on the AA forum) that has a lot to do within the relative spotting system (information about enemy units on the battlefield, etc.). The demo is a worth, and I only played a pair of hours, must play more , but in those 2 hours I saw the cool CnC sytem, and a very "smart" AI. As someone said, AA and CM teams should join, we would take an excelent game. Finnally I would like to add that when more options are given to the player, better, the problem is the manpower to program that (diffrent CnC systems, and relative spotting or absolute spotting optional, and about micromanagement, etc. if diffrent levels of those thing would be available in CMII it would be the perfect wargame). With that superb AI and CnC you could play in RT only giving orders to direct subordinate HQ (I know, I know, heretic! but in fact, is more realistic). Just remember: more options = wider market = more money. Remember that BTS

Give different options, for diffrent size forces (maybe based on points). Or just give the option to C&C level 1/2/3 for more simple(actual) to a complex(like AA, very nice AI!) system! When more options offer the game, wider market gained. For onli games both players should agree for a C&C level, or just by force sizes. my 0.2 euro

Good work guys, keep it coming. IMHO I think it´s all about giving the player different options. I mentioned Steel Panther World at War because of that. You don´t need to change absoluty the game but making two games (or 3) into one. Give different optional C&C levels for the player, and each one will come with its own spotting system. From a production view, it will take much more time and effective manpower, but if we consider that we have partialy one of the possible systems (in the current game engine) it can be reduced. From a marketing point of view, it will offer a wider market range into the wargaming market, to the less grog types to more hard-core players. It all depends if BTS has enought manpower to program at the same type two diffrent game systems and add them into the same game, giving the player the option to use them by clicking one button or an other, that simple (but that hard at the same time).

Rune, then we have the micro-management thing again which level want us/BTS to be modelled of micromanagement and what aspects of it (movement/shooting, etc.).

Cameroon in that case there is a button called "C&C on/off" or "C&C level 1/2/3" if you have played SPWaW you will know what I mean. However, I think is a good thing, but we should distinguish between diffrent types of units/forces, as you said the recon units/etc, or units assigned from different support units ie if you are commanding a battalion and you have received a inf gun section of the inf gun coy, whahow is the C&C reprensented in that section? maybe that should mean that you must "link" all forces (in the buy screen) to have all the C&C references. anyway i think that BTS will try their best, in CMBB the C&C aspect have been already reworked and they have paid a lot of attetion to C&C. ie we will have tanks in platoons and will be a distintion between the comunication method (radio or just by signal or direct LOS, or in the case of spotters I think that it have been already worked, wire or radio, etc). but we must wait to the engine re-work to see what will be changed, but i´m sure this is a top prioritie. h0owever i think is a good option to have diffrent levels of C&C (because what said Cameroon). an other thing why i´m waiting relative spotting is because the effectiviness of defense weaponry (AT guns or AT man-portable assets like bazookas or panzerscherecks) will be increased, just because one oftheir abilities was its size and their ability to hide

thanks for the anwers. so if i want info about the MC I should e-mail jgdpzr and ask him about the e-mail... anyway it would be cool if BTS can anwer about possible add-on campaings and if tehre is a possibility of doing that...

bump, want anwers!!