Schoerner

Gordon, thank you for all the great work you did for all us us. I think i have all of the "GEM" mods for CMBO's CMMOS. Hopefully you'll stay in the community and maybe you'll find more time to play now (i heard the pension-shock is not that hard, if you have a hobby ) Best regards, Helmut [ November 20, 2002, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

Couldn't have said it better. Me, too. After i finished my learning phase, i'll feel free to contact you to find out

:eek: You're always good for surprises. The company-commander is looking like a germanic prototype. Great work!

Not staring at it, but as i know it was necessary for further recon and the rank-signs and medals of fallen soldiers also were very important indicators. [ November 19, 2002, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

Steve, thanks for the explanations. Wouldn't it be meaningful to make the target-location choosen by the TacAI more static with explicit exceptions? i.e.: if the target location of a panicked unit is "under control" (means very close) of a hostile unit with a certain amount of firepower (say 70% of the panicked unit) and LOS, then the TacAI gets permission to change the direction of the unit like usual (i guess deciding with a algorithm between nearest and best cover and LOS calculations). For the next choosen location the same is guilty. If we take the example with the picture above, the Tac AI would have looked for nearest cover, best cover, made it's decision - surely for the wood with the friendly unit on the left - and no matter about hostile fire on the battlefield, it keeps sneaking/going/running torwards the life-saving wood. Any examples where this wouldn't work?

You are loving campaigns? Have you already discovered Biltong's Campaign Ruleset?

Wrong. The post was AGAINST PEOPLE complaining about certain aspects of CMBB. You had a dialogue with Doodlebug and i added my experiences, 'cause i saw you were not understanding or willing to understand what i.e. Doodlebug meant - and what showed into the same direction why i had stopped playing CMBB. BTW: you have in the new thread one picture showing very well the sometimes strange and completely unrealistical sneak-directions. And you also can find in this thread the problem of units not shooting back. Go there and explain them, this only happens due to their faulty tactics with the same attitude you did in the closed thread. It's a matter of tactics, if you win or lose, and IF units get under certain circumstances, but it's NOT a matter of tactics, HOW units are treated by the AI WHEN they already are under certain circumstances. Or do you call sneaking 30m torwards HMG-foxholes over open terrain, when (commands torwards cover exists and the unit is NOT panicked, too) cover is only a few meters away, realistically? Your answer was like from a parrot always: faulty tactics. [ November 19, 2002, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

Everyone can read the thread itself and get an impression how i patiently tried to explain the disadvantages until a certain point. You ignored the reason of complaining and kept talking about tactics. Steve replied and also did in no way answer the discussed disadvantages. Instead he compared the complaining about strange sneak-routes or not-firing-troops with complaints like "Sherman killed my Tiger. This game sucks." I explained in detail what i discovered. Still the same tactics-BS from you. I suggest you, as a "gentleman" stand to your opinion and tell in the new thread that the "whiners" should shut up, 'cause they have no clue about tactics.

You got the answers you deserved. You started a thread for flaming and provoking people. You kept several times stating that the "whiners" have bad tactics. Then you hide behind Steve but kept the tendency. I just said, what i think about such a behaviour. And, yes - i prefer clear words, over being a false "gentlemen", or what your imagination about being a "gentlemen" is. BTW: in the meanwhile i checked your Blitzladder stats. If i were you, i wouldn't accuse others of having bad tactics. But maybe you'll do better in CMBB [ November 19, 2002, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

Same here and i already had mentioned it in the closed thread explicitly. Nothing new for Steve. [ November 19, 2002, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

Steve, first let me say that i appreciate to give "whiners" like me the possibility to explain their point of view. Yes, i WAS one of those who stopped playing CMBB. But as you said in the closed thread, and as it seems you are still believing, not because CMBB is unplayable. Or while the infantry model sucks. I stopped playing (in the meanwhile i'm playing again, due to the promised tweaks in the upcoming patch, and have finished ~15 scenarios) only because i can't stand a CERTAIN aspect (and this does NOT imply, that i think the game in general is unrealistically): the directions of auto-sneak Although you said this was answered many times, i can't find a post, where following behaviour is explained: A unit in open terrain, or almost open terrain gets under fire. The AI switches into auto-sneak and it can happen (quite often), that the target location of the auto-sneak is at a hostile unit's position 40m away, the route is over open terrain, while cover is only 10m away. 1. this doesn't only happen to panicked units 2. this doesn't mean this happens all the time to me (but i found it that annoying, to see units making suicide without being panicked, that i even stopped playing CMBB; usually i'm a player who's mostly taking care of the units - much more than gaining time-advantage; then it's even more frustrating if you care that much about your units, always knowing timing aspect will become critical and then losing whole squads only because of AI-misbehaviour) I also noticed in scenario Cremetary Hill, that a unit in bushes was auto-sneaking over open terrain torwards wood. While on the open terrain and being NOT under fire it kept sneaking instead of jumping up and running as fast as possible. Do you call this realistically? And BTW: it was always my opinion, that CMBB is a wonderful game, but therefore such missbehaviour is even more important. And this was the reason why i had stopped playing - not more, not less. Schoerner [ November 19, 2002, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

Tschernow, don't impute that i want another infantry model! Where did i say that? Are you really not capable to understand what we were talking about? If your style of discussion is to start a thread for flaming people and then wriggling like an eel and using imputations, without touching the sense of the complaints, then it gives a good insight on your character in general. BTW: Steve did also in no way respond to the complaints about the AI's auto-sneak - he also used the tactical-topic and a strange comparison with the Sherman shoots Tiger complaints, to get around it - obviously BTS doesn't want to touch this topic, while the Sherman vs. tiger complaints can be easily explained. But ofcourse no one can explain sneaking over open terrain torwards HMG-positions when cover is close and therefore i guess BTS is avoiding the discussion about it and useful idiots like you are welcome to distract from the complaints.

First you should write my name correct or otherwise, with your comments i have to assume, you cannot read. LOL This is sounding like from a child crying: THIS IS MY THREAD! I want to flame people complaining about CMBB! I LOVE THIS GAME AND EVERYONE COMPLAINING HAS NO CLUE ABOUT TACTICS! Say, how old are you? Is there something wrong with the sneak-behaviour? If everything's fine, why will the trigger-levels be adjusted in the patch? AGAIN: if YOU haven't witnessed it, this doesn't mean that other people also haven't witnessed it, ok? And if other people have witnessed it, this doesn't automatically mean, their tactics have been wrong, ok? SNEAKING over open ground torwards enemy's positions, overriding user commands when cover is close is what it is: UNREALISTICALLY. And it's not a question if you've seen it before, ok? And what if i tell you, that you have no clue about tactics and movements under fire, and therefore you don't recognize it? And this changes the AI's tendency to sneak i.e. torwards hostile HMG positions? Because either you're a child closing it's eyes or a liar. If you want to tell us, that you haven't discovered completely strange and unrealistically sneak-directions, 'cause your tactics are that good, then PLEASE, subscribe to the Blitzladder and show us, that PAK Paule is a beginner. You were flaming PEOPLE complaining about certain aspects of CMBB. You can't understand this and can't understand that and it's all because they have bad tactics. We were talking about the PROGRAM. Difference recognized? No? Doesn't matter. [ November 19, 2002, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

Did you read my post, where i described that i even used a whole company for supressive fire? They were not moving when the enemy appeared. The other company was moving forwards. The second one was just standing and waiting for the enemy to appear to give suppression fire. Half of the company for supression started to sneak, while only a quarter shot back. The other quarter just stood there waiting and doing nothing. The whole advancing-company got down into sneak mode, while ~1/4 choosed directions directly torwards the enemy's positions. Giving explicit fire-orders lasted for a few seconds - in the next minute, only 3-5 units kept firing, while the others preferred to start sneaking again. And at this moment if i remember correctly i had 2 (TWO!) panicked/routed units. ~50% were in normal or alarmed condition. Under these circumstances, the infantry attack in this scenario is a die-game and i can't remember that i ever had this feeling about random in CMBO. [ November 19, 2002, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

Your last post comes back to the topic of this thread. I don't understand why it is that difficult for most people to focus on the problem. If i didn't miss a reply of BTS (and i'm reading them very carefully, 'cause i'm one of those customers who had stopped playing CMBB, due to the sneak-directions), this will NOT be solved in the patch. The thresholds or trigger-levels will be adjusted. Also Steve's replys in this thread are showing this. But not the problem of completely unrealistically auto-sneak DIRECTIONS. Maybe the problem will become reduced a lot, due to the higher thresholds and the higher concealment of brushes - we will see. But i'm quite surprised about BTS statements, comparing "My Tiger was killed by a Sherman" with complaints about the auto-sneak-directions where Infantry overrides user commands torwards next cover, without being panicked and instead sneaking over open ground directly torwards hostile positions. And how often does 'collapse forward' appear, compared to suicide-sneak? How often does it happen that units leave sneak-mode and jump up agian and rush forward, especially when the life-saving cover is close? If suicide-sneak would happen from time to time, it would be OK. One squad going crazy. But if this is the usual behaviour, and running torwards the very close cover never happens, then i call it what it is: UNREALISTICALLY. No one of you defending bad behaviour of AI is helping BTS in any way. In the long terms this even is bad for the further development of the game. [ November 19, 2002, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

Do YOU decide, how much someone is repelled by unrealistically behaviour of units? And does this solve the things which got worse? It's not a question if you can understand people's frustration. It's a matter of FACTS, that units are under certain conditions behaving really unrealistically. The conclusions people take, is their problem, not your's. At least you've found the topic we were talking about. Congratulation! Exactly this fan-attitude can lead to wrong-decisions of a company's management. MY beloved game isn't allowed to become criticized! Nothing is perfect, but look at hte beautiful graphics! Bull****. CM is about WWII battlefield-simulation. If infantry units are sneaking over open terrain torwards MG positions, while overriding commands torwards nearest cover or other erratic things, this is not a tiny, this is a MAJOR problem for a tactical battlefield simulation. And have you ever thought about it, that some people are complaining more than others about this topic, because they want to see realism as main target again over CMBB's unnecessary goodies (compared to CMBO)? [ November 19, 2002, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

double post [ November 19, 2002, 07:57 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

Is this state of units shown in CMBB? Yes. Have my troops been in this condition? No. I already described what happened. And how much courage is necessary to sneak torwards a HMG position over open ground while cover is so close? And how much courage is necessary to sneak 100m back while cover is very close? Reading the posts helps, before answering.

In real life? Oh, then please explain to me, why you lose badly, if you don't check every turn and correct the AI when in AUTO-SUICIDE-SNEAK-MODE, but when changing it, things usually go better? It's new to me, that in real life units are making sneak-suicide, when under fire. And in this scenario you see, that it is necessary all the time to correct the AI and there's no realistic behaviour of units under fire in bushes or open ground. Bankrupt tactics? Did you play The Bridgeheads? Just for clarification: in the first game i lost with a minor defeat. The second was a draw. The third a minor vic. Why the improvement? Did i change my tactics? No. Always the same: some advancing, while others usually with MGs giving suppression fire (if they at all started shoting - ok - manually adjusted) and just stupidly checking EVERY TURN for auto-sneak-modes and changing them. Is anyone praising/defending CMBB's inf-unit-behaviour here, capable of reading FIRST? What are the complaints about? What are the answers about? In CMBO it was very rare that you needed to adjust AI's auto-movements. In CMBB, i have at least to check for it all the time - once you forget to check a unit, next turn under heavy fire, it could happen it will sneak out of cover and make auto-suicide. Great realistical improvement. [ November 19, 2002, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

@Andreas: Maybe you should have read the older posts, then you would have known, that it's NOT a matter of balance, it's a matter of the AIs behaviour. Or should the game be sold with the hint: "Do only play well balanced battles! Do not move infantry over open terrain, especially when MGs are close, else the game will behave erratically. This isn't a bug, this is a learning feature for better tactics"? :mad:

YOU are saying this? I suggest you read your posts again, if you can't remember anymore. Or did you answer the problems i described? All you said was, this didn't happen to you before. Oh, you're the master of tacticts. But you didn't say, if this should EVER happen. You come up with tactics, while we were talking about the AI. You missed the topic completely and you think you have the right to attack us personally, due to our opinion. I didn't receive not ONE single answer dealing with the infantry behaviour in the Brückenkopf (Bridgehead) scenario. In this scenario infantry HAS to move over almost open terrain against two MG-positions. So keep your childish tactics-suggestions, that everyone knows and LOOK what AI does. And then call it realistically and start playing CC. @Steve: I can't understand, why you are ignoring the topic, too. It's not a matter, if infantry should never come under heavy MG-fire in open terrain. It's the question, WHAT will happen, WHEN it occurs. At least i want to take the argument, suggesting that we whiners are playing a really bad tactics (and i'm not that childish to call the AI realistically, when i win; what sucks, sucks, no matter what the result of a battle is) and better tactics would prevent my men from being pinned down: if MY tactics is already that bad, then please explain to me, what you call sneaking torwards MG-positions on open ground or sneaking 100m all the way back, when cover is only a few meters away! Steve, i have the impression you are conciously ignoring the complaints and are hiding behind all the content customers. IMO this isn't a good sign for the future. [ November 19, 2002, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

I don't know if this was already discussed, but wouldn't it be logical, that eliminated units are identified, when own troops pass by? I guess even the highest level of identification should be possible.

Have you already played the Brückenkopf (Bridgehead?) scenario? There you can see it very clearly. Infantry has to advance over (almost) open terrain. When the enemy fire starts, ~80% of the units go down and start sneaking (no matter if they were advancing, moving, assaulting or just waiting). Do some stay where they are? Depends on your luck. If 20% stay where they are when they come under fire, then you are quite lucky. Do some RUN torwards cover? No. You can only hope that a few units stay where they are and shoot back, while the others start sneaking all the time torwards cover (or back again). Not a single unit will take the opportunity of a fire-pause to start auto-running (not to mention auto-advancing, auto-assaulting) - and they were only in an alarmed status - far away of panicking. OK, after 2 minutes of sneaking this is another topic. Let's take the mass-attack: i would expect it breaks down, when the troops are starting to panicking due to heavy losses but not when the first shots arrive. And i played this scenario for testing three times and NEVER saw a unit jumpping up from sneaking and running torwards cover. But i saw it often enough, that the sneaking-direction was directly torwards a HMG in a foxhole. I also tried a mass-attack even with the whole company, while the second one just sits back for suppression fire. Guess what happens: the mass-attack lasts for a few seconds and then it turns into a sneak-attack although the units are still not panicked. And even worse: many of the units for giving suppression fire don't even start to shoot, when the enemy is becoming visible (yes they had clear LOS and after the turn i had to target with most units manually). And i don't guess this is because CM calculates and therefore avoids friendly fire on own units. Don't get me wrong: i would have absolutely no problems with heavy losses due to MG-fire against Inf. on almost open ground and i would like it, when units are melting like snow in the sun when running torwards cover, but to see them melting away while ALWAYS auto-sneaking, i really hate in the meanwhile. I want the intelligent good old CMBO move command back: the units were intelligent enough, to start running on their own while moving. NOW, they start sneaking. Great improvement.

Cpt Kernow, i think you're missing the point. You're talking about tactics and everything is right, but it doesn't affect the AI-decisions on the sneak-directions. No one would never ever sneak 100m back where he came from, when life-saving cover is only a few meters away. And no one would sneak torwards a HMG >30m away over open ground when cover is only a few meters away. And what i also miss badly is, when the units start to sneak, they keep sneaking all the time instead of jumping up sometimes and running for their life torwards cover. Have you ever seen units in CMBB under fire in bushes sneaking over 10m open ground torwards wood? You call this realistically?