Bruce70

There is also DARPAs "Big Dog" project - basically a big robotic semi-autonomous dog with saddle bags. It's not going to be available any time soon though.

I think that you are probably right about that Mikey, but I hope not. One of the maxims of game design (and one that is very widely violated) is: If there is something that effects gameplay it should have a representation in the interface. Conversely, don't have an interface representation that implies an aspect of the gameplay that doesn't exist. So, for example, when you see a building becoming damaged in CMx1 you know that it is damaged. But imagine if that damage that you saw had absolutely no effect on the game, ie it didn't mean that the building was about to collapse. So if the actual positions of individual squad members are irrelevant, one would hope that they would stick to an abstract representation of the squad. Having said that, I think they will probably go with some kind of compromise. For example, if a squad members position is displayed as "wall", he will get the wall bonus regardless of which side of the wall the graphical display suggests he is on. IMO, that is the *minimum* that would be required to justify the 1-to-1 representation. It would be nice if LOS was also calculated on a 1-to-1 basis, but that may not be feasible (I can't remember if there was anything in the LOS thread about this?).

I think that in all of the situations you mention, setting a covered arc will give the tacAI the additional information it needs to behave in a reasonable manner. Having said that I would hope that even without a covered arc the squad would at least behave consistently. It would be quite odd to see have the sqaud taking cover on one side of the wall and the other half on the other side.

My comments were mostly directed at the scenario editor. Whether the presence of civilians or hostiles dressed as civilians are relevant to the campaign is more or less irrelevant. At some point someone is going to want to create scenarios where civilians are important. Civilians will not be included in the game for very good reasons, I am talking about how their presence can be simulated/abstracted. akd: LtCol West mentioned in another thread that some ROEs state that just because a civilian is carrying a weapon, it does not mean that he is fair game. So you are right, the clothing is not important, but as you say certain Syrian combatants should have additional abilities to infiltrate. Allowing them to setup behind the US player's forces or be reinforced behind the US player's forces would be one way to simulated this. Steve: Glad to hear that you have some plans for this. What do you think of the idea of having certain Syrian units that are always AI controlled, to simulate the problems that regulars would have cooperating with militias and so forth?

OK I know there will be no civilians, but that doesn't mean that there can't be "civilians". By that I mean Syrian "units" in plain clothes that may be either regulars in civilian clothes, or insurgent types. But if there are no true civilians, how do you simulate the advantages of these units. One way this could be simulated is by having the US setup zone in the middle of the map, and allow "civilian" units to deploy (almost) anywhere. Sure, once they are spotted they are automatically IDed, but at least you don't know where they will be. Another way would be for the Syrian player to get "civilian" reinforcements. These reinforcement could appear anywhere on the map, although for obvious reasons it would be nice if the game could make sure that they appear somewhere out of LOS. Neither of these methods require the simulation of real civilians, but still give some of the advantages to the Syrian player. It might also be a good idea for the Syrian player to have no control over insurgent type units (whether or not either of the two methods above are used). The challenge for the Syrian player is then how to work with and take advantage of situations caused by the AI controlled insurgents. Even if Battlefront does not think that this is a good idea, it should still be possible for scenario designers to implement some of these. It would be even easier if the scenario editor could allow random setup/reinforcement zones. Comments?

I don't think that the problem is that it would be difficult or costly or even time consuming. I'm guessing that there are two reasons why it wont be patched again. First, not everyone agrees what the weapons values (etc) should be. Second, and much more importantly, they are now working on something else, CM:BB is (almost) forgotten, and I for one don't blame them. The value of the game is far greater than what I paid for it already. Not that I wouldn't be greatful for a couple of small fixes

[double post] [ January 04, 2006, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

A few questions that hopefully someone can answer or at least make a guess at: a) Where was the CO? We know that the recon platoon and the CO were both 1000m away from the crash site, and B company was a further 500m away. But exactly where was the CO, and who else was there? How did the CO get to the crash site so easily, and why was it apparently considered safe to drive there in a single vehicle? c) What happened to the wounded ING soldiers that were B companies original mission? Were they being evacuated in Strykers? How many Stryker med evac vehicles would have been available? d) When and how did the Stryker med evac vehicle get to the crash site? Was it also escorted? e) Was this a cooridnated attack? Everyone else except B company was able to drive without incident to the crash site. Yet B company was more or less ambushed, and the detached platoon was again attacked before reaching the site. Or was it all just a coincidence. f) Did the police insurgent really think the mosque was under attack or was it just a ploy to get non-insurgent Iraqis to respond? Was this also pre-planned? Perhaps the rumour had already been spread that the Americans were going to attack a mosque?

[Edit: I'm too old and slow, Steve has already said most of this and more, but anyway...] It seems quite likely that the majority of the insurgents involved believed that their mission was to defend the mosque. If we assume that the Americans did not march into the mosque after the battle, then I would guess that the majority of the insurgents did indeed believe that the battle was a success. Of course from the American POV the battle was probably also a success (I say probably because the effect of civilian casualties, and damage to property is a variable that would be hard to pin down even with all the details). However, I believe the battle can be divided into two parts. The part where the insurgents have firepower superiority and know their goal (I assume that the initial attack was a spontaneous attempt to capture the helicopter) and the second part where the Americans had superior firepower and the insurgent's goal was not clear. In the first part it seems clear that this was an American success. The insurgents had a clear window of opporunity when success was achievable. A decisive and committed attack at that time, would quite possibly have been successful. The Americans achieved their objective of holding the position until reinforcements arrived. Clear American success. In the second part it is less clear (because the two sides had different objectives, and for other reasons already stated), but it is also less important. Probably a draw - or more accurately a success for both sides. I also believe that it is a success story for the Stryker. A less mobile force might not have been able to reach the site quickly enough to secure it initially or to provide reinforcements in a timely manner. The stryker force achieved these goals while suffering only minor vehicle damage, and arguably fewer casualties than a dismounted force. I would like to know where the Strykers actually were and who stayed with the vehicles. It seems that they were not far away, possibly parked 'behind' some buildings? But we know that at least a TOW vehicle was deployed, I would like to know whether the firepower of any of the other vehicles was utilised. [ January 04, 2006, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

I like mods, but I just don't have the time to fiddle with them. I end up downloading a set of mods only to find that my old brush looks silly with the new steppe, etc. Basically I want one set of mods that look good and that I never need to change again. Nothing fancy, just some basic hires mods that look better than the originals (which look a bit dated now). So can anyone tell me where to find a complete set of terrain mods, or a collection of sets that work well together? ... and same for vehicle mods? ... sound mods? ... interface mods? Or perhaps I should have said: "poll: what mods are you using now?" Thanks for helping a fellow, *lazy* , CMer.

[Deleted, 'cos I didn't read all posts before replying] [ December 29, 2005, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

The difference between supplying bayonets for that one time in a hundred when they will be useful, and maintaining a cavalry regiment for that one time in a hundred when they will be useful is, I think, obvious. Also, if the world's defense forces had any sense they would design a bayonet that could be used as an entrenching tool, not the other way around. Like most people, I think, I enjoyed bayonet training. Never expected to actually use it, but then I was in the reserves - never expected to do much of anything. The training itself appeared to improve moral, more so than actually carrying one into battle would at a guess. As you say, there are many reasons to train with and issue bayonets, and you are probably right that none of them have much to do with killing someone. But the other benefits outway the small cost IMO. Now, why should BFC go to the trouble of modelling them? Without playing the game I don't know if it's worthwhile, but on the face of it, it would seem that if your troops do close to within HtH combat range, then the one-to-one representation will look pretty silly if they do nothing different. I am guessing that BFC is keeping quiet about this because they too, don't know how important it will be yet. On a similar note, I am interested to know about individual soldier targeting. Will a soldier aim at a particular enemey, or just shoot at the CoM of a squad? At long ranges it won't matter, but at ranges of 10-20m or so, it could look a bit funny. All-in-all, I think the move to one-to-one representation will be the biggest and most demanding change that BFC will make to the new engine. If I were in their shoes, I don't think I would have gone that way, but if they pull it off, it will be pretty spectacular

Pretty sure it's spring loaded, so I imagine there is quite a loud thwack IRL.

I would love to reply, but I have it on good authority that this is a non-political forum... What is it you people say? "Hi Mom"?

Perhaps both players should be asked if they wish to initiate a battle or just let the opposing force slip by (this would only happen if both sides agreed of course). I imagine both players would learn to chose this option when appropriate to avoid pointless, boring battles.

Actually that was an even number somewhere around 150 digits long in decimal. In fact it also contains the digits 762 and 556.

Good question, and _one_ of the reasons why I generally prefer hex-based systems.

Actually, what it shows is that they had two in the same place. Couple more and you have a platoon.

If your talking about RTS players, I really doubt that they would say that. (btw 35yo - will start working on my 10yo son soon )

Silly is probably too strong a word. It only demonstrates the KE of the round, which is probably worthwhile in itself, but it has nothing to do with stopping power. It does not demonstrate how much KE is transferred to a human target if the bullet passes straight through (which it probably will), and it does not demonstrate the damage it does on the way. I remember another Mythbusters episode where they shot at a pig with varios rounds... it hardly moved. At least that demo showed how much KE is transferred to the target.

Well it would appear to my untrained eye that the first and third are not the same vehicle, not without some modifications at least.

Nerd King: Just out of curiosity. You mention that you have not seen one instance of an enemy wearing body armour. Do you have any direct knowledge of a non-instantly-fatal 5.56 wound resulting in the loss of life to the firer or his comrades? (I apologise if this is a sensitive question)

That is a fair point, and it strengthens you argument significantly *if* you can specify what that number is. P.S. I edited my post (just after you responded) with the 7.62 example.

Ah yes, but you say it only takes one, and I bet you haven't looked at them all. Just trying to point out that the "it only takes one" argument is a bit silly. You can't use a weapon that is more efficient 1% of the time and less efficient 99% of the time. There may be an argument for a different round (I really have no idea), but the fact that it isn't effective on every single occasion is not it. For example, suppose you are using a 7.62 round. Is that going to be effective the one time you really needed a 30rnd mag? Incidentally, we were given a demonstration of the 5.56 round (from an austeyr) to convince us that it did in fact have stopping power. The demonstration consisted of firing a round at an 80L drum of water and watching it go flying in the air. Pretty silly demo when you think about it... [ December 06, 2005, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

Thanks guys.