Tarquelne

It sounds like: a) There isn't a simple answer to your question, desertfox5768. No one can quite articulate the complex answer either. Unit availability/rarity already varies by date and region. (And I presume the TOE's probably do to, I could be wrong.) So it's pretty hard to get a handle on from casual play. I can tell you that, at least for some times/places you can remove the qualifiers from Silvio's post above. Tanks do have at least a different Rarity (if maybe not "lower" rarity in the case of every vehicle) in Mechanized divisions than in, say, Mountain divisions. And you do get more Armor points if you choose a Mechanized division. (But fewer Inf. points.) You can often observe a big differences in the Support weapons avialble. In general "Infantry" or "Mechanized" have the most, and "Mountain" the least. Most of the time (presumably, probably, AFAIK) non-Mechanized divisions share the same Armor rarities. In the special divsions (SS, Guards) the special tanks will be a bit less rare. Along with the different uniforms and the different weapons mixes within squads (2 LMGs or 1, for instance), the Battalions and even Companies often have different weapons attached. That can make a big difference when you buy by the Battalion. (Hmm... I don't suppose Puppchen come with any G. Divisions, do they...?) Finally, and I don't think anyone explicitly mentioned this here yet: In the Scenario Editor you can quickly switch between different Division types, which makes comparing them pretty easy. (Though you may still have to look carefully if the unit list is long.) [ December 06, 2002, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

It's true, but the field kitchen wasn't mistaken for a tank. Most Russian soldiers had a pathological fear of Finnish cooking. In the north the NKVD spent most of it's time squelching rumors of the "Try it, you'll like it!" commandos.

I've had some _great_ CMBB QBs in which we didn't allow the Axis player to take the full Armor points, or required the Axis player to use esp. Rare vehicles. Or a small horde of Russian armor (+ some inf.) vrs. German infantry is fun, too. More fun than I found similar CMBO battles to be, at least. And, of course, such battles illustrate the Russian and German strengths...

Yur. (That's a lazy "Yes", btw.) Ur? (That's a lazy "I think the point debatable, and, while I think your right about the benfits, you might be overlooking the costs and/or programming effort needed." "Ur" can say a lot.) I was going to meantion why, but since you've followed the threads on this I'm sure your familiar with the arguments. Agree with you there (and and that the present system isn't perfect either.) I'm hopeing BTW, that the next engine will recognize "terrain borders" as such and allow a unit to follow a path describing such a border with minimal/no delay from the various twists and turns the border may take. (A road could be marked as one long border, perhaps?)

If it must be simplistic how about making it more fun? Maybe some big fuzzy dice that come up "snake eyes" whenever a tank bogs? Really. Also: I thought that many of the Immobilizations in "woody" terrain were from branches, wolves, etc. getting caught up in the tracks and screwing things up. Is that true? [ December 05, 2002, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

This is mostly a *bump*, since I think that's an excellent question. Here's some not-very-satisfying answers, though. Yes, lots. In fact, you don't even need to print them out, since the best references tend to be books. If you search the forums (CMBB and CMBO) for specfic terms you'll often get the answers. http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=000088 is a thread listing a number of EF/armor websites. There are others, IIRC. Searchs should turn them up. Finally, BFC has made noises about releasing a Strategy Guide for the game. IIRC, it's definite, but I have no idea when. NB - adding a "?" to the thread title might help. [ December 05, 2002, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

Always, huh? Anyway, do you have the patch? From the Readme:

Actually, I was thinking "So I can zig-zag, or describe whatever non-pattern I want through the terrain with only minimal or no delay. So, minimal delay - I can see that. "No delay", though. I don't think so. OTOH, I'd rather see the delay distrubuted among the various waypoints, or at least a portion of the delay divided among all the waypoints. Note that with the current system if you "move across other terrain (witout using a way point)" you don't incure additional delay either. I guess I don't buy the basic concept - that it's when crossing terrain "borders" that delay should be added, and it should be minimized when not crossing such borders. Your system works for follwing a road, and it works for, say, circling a house, but only so long as long as the terrain around the house is homogenous. You're thinking that its when units move from one terrain type to another that they'll tend to change whatever they're doing, needing to reorganize, plan, etc? I think that's often true, but not often enough. I doubt, btw, that we'll see any basic changes to the system in a patch, but I'm guessing that we'll see BIG changes in the engine rewrite. So big that most thoughts toward tweaking the present system won't really apply in the new system. (Something much closer to the TacOps SOP type-of-thing has been mentioned a few times... by a BFCer, though? I don't remember.) [ December 05, 2002, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

When we use the Wayback Machine to make BFC include horses what shall we have them remove from the game? Or do we force them (how many commandos are being sent?) to delay the game?

Somewhere on the forum there's pictures, or links to pictures, I don't remember which. Or where. The curious can search the 414,448 CM posts to find 'em... Make that 414, 449. [ December 05, 2002, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

A lot of research goes into the CM games, doesn't it? Pretty easy to imagine "development" starting NOW, continuing during the engine rewrite, and ending with the completion of the new engine. Was the quote "development of the next Combat Mission title will start this year already. Then we'll finish the game. Beyond that, we're looking at a complete engine rewrite, ..."? I didn't think so....

I prefer to use them at looong range. Of course, they often don't work at that range, being the puny things they are. (Against a human, and on a BIG map it can be fun (and usefull) to fire several salvos from a "battery" and then use transport to move the guns elsewhere. Watch your opponent's arty and area fire rain down on an empty hilltop...) The more I have compared to things that might fire back the more prone I am to fire them at long range. When there are "spotters" close to the guns firing them at distant targets that can fire back (possibly along with the spotters) is a Bad Thing. If I can't fire them at long range then I like the range to be very short. Hit changes well above 50%, Good or better kill chances - they may not get many shots off. Ideally, if the map is quite large, I'll take some long shots, move the ATGs while the enemy is in "mid" range and then have a close range ATG ambush set up. But the battles where the map allows that are, in my expereince, bloody rare.

Where am I? "Monster Tanks"! Shi

Thanks, Maxx. Here's another interesting test: Make a map, about (IIRC) 1200 wide and 1k deep. Cover the map with the terrain of your choice. (Dry, flat and all Scattered Trees, for example.) Take 50 tanks of your choice. All the same tank. Line them up along the edge of the map, with a little space between the first 25 and the second 25. Plonk down a stationary enemy unit somplace. Make the "scenario" 40+ turns long and save it. Start a game using the map and units. Tell one group of 25 tanks to head straight acrosss the map using "Fast", another using "Move"... or whatever movement orders you want to check out. When you're done you'll what looks like a nice little graph, each Immobilized tank a point on this graph, showing how far it went before becoming Immobilized. It'll be easy to see how the move types compare. Use more tanks for more accuracy.

Hey! I agree 100% with this post. I'm so happy. Also - I'm spending far more time here than I'd really like. I've learned as much as a care to (and, I suspect, can) on this issue. And I've had my say, at appalling length, so I'm buggering off. (BTW - I hereby freely admit that what I said might be incorrect, and if you can demonstrate this, you have my thanks. OTOH, consider me to be making complicated and obscene gestures while shouting "Get a life" in the direction of anyone saying "That's not fair, you're not giving me a chance to argue with you.", "Can't stand the heat, huh?", or something similar.)

Not wanting to get left behind, I'll jump on the band wagon too. I take it that we should read "half-admitted" as "well, actually, didn't admit."?

I fine redwolf 10 Tarquelne points for using the word "obviously" again. I fine Steve 10 Tarqulne points for stateing that the "data in the previous thread etc." "clearly shows" that redwolf's "obvious" thing is incorrect. One of the reasons the thread went on for so long, guys, is that the ISU's optimal tactic in redwolf's test is neither obvious nor clear. (And I present my tests as evidence.) First - In both redowlf's posts and Steve's (or really, it's the combination of the two) it's not clear just what "incorectly behaving" refers to. Is it refering to the TacAI behaving unrealistically, or the TacAI not choosing the optimal strategy. I _think_ that redwolf believes it's not optimal, but that it is realistic. Looking back over other posts, there isn't a whole lot of disagreement on that. As for "proving it" (that retreating before firing isn't the optimal strategy) I point you to my 50 total trial test that DOES show that the firing then retreating is indeed the best strategy. AFAIK no one has presented any evidence to the contrary. And, I guess I should go over this again: We KNOW the ISU isn't always doing the right thing. Once it sees the PzIV in the test it can a) Immedietly retreat Fire then retreat c) Retreat and fire d) Hold and fire. Sometimes it does one thing, sometimes it does another. Even without knowing which of those choices is best we can be certain that the AI does indeed fail to always choose correctly, because, even given exactly the same situation sometimes it does one thing, sometimes another. Further more, and maybe this is the important part, IIRC no one - not even redwolf - thinks this is a bad thing. Real crews don't always choose the optimal tactic. CMBB crews don't always choose the optimal tactic. Looking at redwolf's reply again. He did, yet again, state that the TacAI isn't always doing the best thing. We know that's true, even if there's no agreement about what the "best" thing is. However, he did _not_ say "And this is a bad thing for the game." or "And this is a good thing for the game." You were probably fishing for an admission, Steve, and took redwolf's lack of one as evidence of further heresy. But - using the traditional "innocent untill proven guilty" viewpoint, you'll just have to ask for that admission directly. redwolf's, like weasels and haggis, don't always make the sound you want when you squeeze 'em hard. Crew screwups: I don't think redwolf's point came accross. He doesn't think the AI behavior is wrong, but that it's inconsistent, in that a class of vehicles are showing significantly more screwups than others. GUYS! redwolf is trying to move on, and both of you really should. The data for what the optimal strategy is not only inconclusive (look at the tests again, fellows!) but it DOESN'T MATTER. "Not a bug." That's an admission of error on the main issue, the "clear" and "obvious" one. redwolf has moved on to arguing that this behavior, while realistic, is inconsistent with the rest of the TacAI. Right! _That's_ where, IMO, you can still (de?)constructively argue. Which is...? Steve, you - possibly even more so than redwolf, keep writing as if the previous thread clearly and obviously _proved_ something about what the best tactic for the ISU is. Prove it! 'cause I just don't see any such proof. Yes. I believe, though, that at this point you two aren't capable of discussing some of these issues without Bogging. redwolf has admitted, either tacitly or explictly, that he's been wrong on a number of points. However, from my POV there's some difficutly currently in seperating those issues from the current concerns. In the interests of preventing Immobilization, I suggest wwe focus on the Now. I can't see the "inconsistent screw ups" thing lasting very long, and maybe after it we can have a clam bake and redwolf-penance party. [ December 03, 2002, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

I take issue with describing it as "obvious". AFAICanTell, while taking the shot is worthwhile, the degree to which it improves the ISU's odds of survival are not at all dramatic. You found the crew "screws up", what, 20% of the time? That doesn't seem unrealistic to me. As for screw ups not occuring with other situations, vehicles: That is an inconsistancy, if true, but I'd rather all crews occasionally screwed up. Ie - the ISU is where they got it right, and the PzIV always knowing it's not worth it's while to attempt retreating is the problematical. (I don't know, though, what sort of training tankers received for this, how good they were at calculating such things.) Also: Do we know that the ISU's virtual crew is really making any sort of decision? Is the digital gunner in communication with the driver/commander? It wouldn't suprise me if the ISU is always trying to fire ASAP in the tests, it's just that sometimes the driver happens to back up the ISU before the shot is taken, somtimes after. No "decision", just chance. I'll just note here that the above is contrary to both my experience and my calculations. But I'd really welcome more tests or different calculations. Just follow the the directions Steve gave, but also note when the ISU fires before retreating, and the results.

You city-slickers might not know this, but you can get a demonstration of the basic principle if you go into a large grain storage facility and start striking sparks. IIRC, soybeans work best for some reason.

Where are you right now? Be specific.

Hmm... I had a reply, but the Internet Monsters seem to have eaten it. In short, it was: What command is being overriden, and when? AFAIK, there are no commands being overriden with either S-a-S or SkHldn in the tests, and I've never noticed a S-a-S command overidden in a game. I, at least, am still confused about just what your question is. It's the term "override." Err... actually, maybe it's just the fact that I keep trying to fit your question into the framework of the ISU retreat issue and tests. If you're just asking about the chance that a unit will override the various sorts of movement orders due to self perservation, then I certainly don't know. I've never noticed a S-a-S order overriden, but I've never given a unit a long forward "scoot" order either. I havn't noticed much of a difference between various move orders and a unit's chance to bug out, but I've watched for it, and it's fairly rare in my experience. Besides, when a PzIII starts frantically reversing because it's seen a T-34 come around the corner, I'm generally too busy cursing to remember what move order I'd given the panzer. Babble babble... anyway, assuming I'm right about what your question is, maybe Steve was confused in the same manner, and can now focus on it.

I think it's more likely that LOS is too complete, by which I mean the terrain is often so detailed that it's very easy to be decieved about the LOS. Unlike almost all other games, the terrain in CMBB is often full of little irregularities. Not as many as real life, but FAR more than you'll find almost anywhere without a 3D engine. OTOH, maybe you mean that the LOS is "absolute" not "relative" - the usual terms used to describe the fact that in CM if _any_ enemy unit has spotted your unit that _all_ enemy units know it's there (though they can sometimes take awhile to actually "lock" on the unit - a tank with poor visibility trying to find an infantry unit is a common example of this.). This absolute or "Borg" spotting is a known, much discussed, flaw in the game - one difficult to find an acceptable programming fix for. IIRC, BFC is going to try to move to relative spotting in the next game.

Ah, OK. That's why you should go do your own tests. [ December 03, 2002, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

I think the difference is that shoot-and-scoot more or less gaurantees a "retreat" - that's what you've told the unit to do, while Seek Hulldown leaves further movement to the TacAI. Once it's found it's hulldown position you're orders are over. Furthermore, and possibly more importantly for your purposes, from a few trials this moring Shoot-and-Scoot always results in the ISU firing before retreating. I didn't run lots of tests, so it might still do it sometimes, but I'm confident it retreats-before-firing less often. So it looks like there's a way to sorta force a unit to advance to a hull down position, fire, and then retreat - Use Shoot-and-Scoot. You lose.. sorry "loose" the convenience of having the vehicle seek hulldown for you, but (in my experience) you do take the shoot/scoot decisions out of the TacAI's hands.

Do remember that, as another poster wrote, the trees are an abstraction - the trees you seen on your screen are just markers for "tree terrain." There may or may not be an actual tree there. In fact - you can assume there isn't. The way the game handles the abstraction is by steadily degrading LOS through trees, rather than tracking actual tree/leaf positions and checking for a LOS block. But that degredation is steady and constant. You can use the LOS tool to discover how far into the trees LOS will extend, and it will always extend that far and no further. (Note that light and atmospheric conditions do effectively alter this distance.) So, at the beginning of a game, use the LOS tool and see how far LOS will extend into trees of a given type and make your plans accordingly.