UberFunBunny

I'm finding this bug in every game I play. I'm even starting to use it to my advantage on defense.... This needs a patch quick!

This is my experience too. In fact, when suppressing infantry I often don't use my main gun as I know this may result in wasted ammo.

I have had this problem occur with 1.02. In one instance I wiped out a couple squads of my own men trying to hit an HMG further away. My tanks just kept hitting the ground (where my men happened to be) not seeming to notice after a dozen or so shots each that they were missing the target. Another time my tanks repeatedly missed a target by hitting just in front of it. In all cases my tanks had LOS to the intended target.

I have also encountered this "feature"....

Most likely. As I know I have stated before in other threads, and I think yours, there are probably dozens of "logical" orders that could be added to the game. The problem is that quantity is a killer even if each order is in its own rights perfect. In some ways yes. The player will be able to better control the BEHAVIOR of their units. No in regards to how much exact control they can exercise over their unit's decisions. In other words, it might be possible to instruct a unit to "Sneak through this terrain until you can get a shot at that APC. If you get a shot, stop and take it". The difference is that in the new engine the unit will NOT be able to do this unless it has its own personal, first hand knowledge of where that APC is. This is the benefit of Relative Spotting vs. Absolute Spotting. In short... control of the unit's behavior will be in many ways more exact, but control over the interaction of it with the environment will be far less exact than in CMBO/CMBB. The end result is more realistic control over unit behavior to stimuli, but less control over the conditions in which that stimuli is encountered. This will make the overall interaction of units and situations more realistic. Steve </font>

Steve, Does this mean that the "Move to Contact" and "Seek Hull Down" orders are history for the new engine? My idea for a "Seek LOS" order is really just the logical equivalent of these new types of orders introduced in CMBB. And aren't SOPs (potentially in the CM new engine) much more precise than the current orders system? [ February 07, 2003, 05:56 AM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]

Steve, I'm pretty sure my idea was original! I think the standard of stomping is subjective, and could be suffering from "grade inflation"....

Steve, Your explanation made sense to me when I read it the first time (a few posts back now). I would be annoyed too if I had to keep repeating it. So I'm with you there. And I’m with the posters in this thread who have defended you guys: it’s plainly obvious that you are the ones with the code and therefore the best people to comment on any coding issues. But I think what CeeBod might be saying is that the heavy artillery can come out a bit - how do I put it - prematurely from some of the less tolerant posters. A little like "You want what?! How dare you make any suggestion which goes against WHAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN...." An example would be my suggestion for a "Seek LOS" command. Instead of some reasoned - and as you put it, intellectual – debate, there was basically a torrent of abuse from certain quarters. How dare someone make a suggestion for another order! And my response was basically that if I had suggested a "Seek Hull Down" order before it existed there would have been a similar response from THOSE WHO KNOW ALL.... Of course CeeBod might be saying something entirely different; but my reasoning still stands.

BFC: Thank you!!

CeeBod: Nice post.

Steve, This is true. Well put and I agree. Wait a sec.... Multi-multi player?? Is that co-operative play?! Man I can't wait 2 years for THAT! Please put it in the 1.02 patch.

Steve, I understand about hard coding and the difficulty involved in changing things. The next engine is a couple years away. How about a hint whether "2 emails per turn" will be implemented? Regarding a player's "willingness to devote time", some people can only plot one turn per day, and different time zones just makes this worse. It's not really about willingness; I would be willing to play this goddam game all day - but I can't....

Then there is NO excuse not to implement this! It would cut PBEM emails by 33%. Those of us that can only play "one email per day" would wrap up games a LOT quicker....

Fuerte: This is a very good idea. I'm wondering if it would double the file sizes. I would be in favor even if it made the files bigger.

Moon: This may have happened to me again (though under different circumstances). I have sent you a saved game file.

This thread was started by MrSpkr bemoaning the fact that the number of scenario reviews is miniscule compared to the number of downloads. I came up with a suggestion that may actually increase the likelihood of reviews being posted to the Depot. You have not written one word in this thread that adds anything relevant to any specific way of increasing the number of reviews. If anyone has hijacked this thread it is you.

If a zip file is the intended multiple download format, then yes of course the shortcuts would go into the zip file (as you oppose multiple downloads entirely I can see why you are heading into hissy fit territory again). I fail to see where you come up with these little side-tracks (pre-written reviews (!), unzipping to separate locations etc). The zip file (including scenarios and review shortcuts) would be unzipped into the scenarios folder. The idea is very straightforward. If reviews are so important (something you have stated over and over), then making access to reviews in any way easier surely is a good idea. And like I said, those with a pathological hate for the shortcuts in the scenarios folder can delete them. Wouldn't it be easier to: a) click on the Scenarios folder shortcut in Favorites or Start menu open the desired review shortcut I like the way you have to "hunt through the files" in your first example, yet just "click on the name" in your second. Not very honest really is it? [Edited to make a) and clearer.] [ January 30, 2003, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]

So you are against multiple downloads from the Scenario Depot. This would mean that you went from being against them, to being for them, and now to being against them again. Well done! What in God's name are you talking about?? My idea is quite straightforward (well at least I thought it was). I'll give an example for the simple-minded: A person (neither slack nor lazy) chooses five PBEM scenarios from the Depot in a pack. Included with each scenario is a shortcut file pointing to its review page at the Depot. If the person chooses to make a review all he needs do is open the shortcut file and he'll be magically taken to that page. These shortcut files can be kept in the scenarios folder if desired. Those that have a pathological hate for them can put them in the trash.

Dorosh: I thought you of all people would like to see suggestions that might facilitate better ways of encouraging people to write reviews. Remember your rather large hissy fit over this very subject? According to you, the download of scenarios one at a time from the Depot is in fact the ENTIRE point of that venerable site, and the reason for this - apparently - is to make people send in reviews. Obviously this isn't working so well. Now instead of you being so negative whenever someone makes a suggestion, why don't you follow the advice of mothers everywhere: If you don't have something constructive to say, don't say anything at all. (I'm thinking that if you did follow this advice you wouldn't write anything ever again, but that's another story.) A shortcut to each scenario's review page would be very convenient for those who wish to send in a review. It would certainly be easier than the status quo. And no more "dear boy" please - it's freakin' me out.

When downloading a scenario, a shortcut to that scenario's review page should be automatically downloaded with it. This way a review is only a double click away. Or am I making too much sense?

Krazy Canuck: That is nothing but a personal attack. And you ask others to "lighten up"? [ January 18, 2003, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]

I wrote this as a side note in another thread: Admiral Keth: If you implement multiple downloads, you should look into this idea. It may help get those review stats up!

This is what I wrote originally: So in other words, you wrote that the Scenario Depot exists solely for the download of SINGLE scenarios, but now you support the download of MULTIPLE scenarios in a pack. Does this mean that the "ENTIRE POINT (duh)" of the Depot has changed? Or are you arguing that black is white and white is black? And, as I have already mentioned in this thread, "download stats" were not deemed relevant by you until now. You are trying (very badly) to cover your tracks. [ January 18, 2003, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]

GreenGriffon: I think that when someone takes an aggressive stance in these forums and then cannot back it up with rational logic it is up to others to point this out -- otherwise these forums are of no use whatsoever. Look at the title of this thread; I hope the way El Cid has been treated does not remain the norm. [ January 18, 2003, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]

In your mind maybe, but you still haven't explained how you can be AGAINST users downloading multiple scenario packs and at the same time saying that downloading these packs is an EXCELLENT idea. Is it a case that you have changed your position 180 degrees, but are, for reasons unknown to us mere mortals, unable to admit this?