GreenAsJade

Heh - interesting question. Right now, as you know, it doesn't deal with that. In fact, it's quite heartening to know that it copes with you using two computers for the same person at all without making a bug fuss We'll have a think about 'one person, more than one computer'.... GaJ

+1 for the modelling of the sound delay. That's great!

It would be good to have some tests of inf rather than snipers, and "interesting" spotting conditions, like oppo moving behind bocage or through trees. In the game I'm playing, I have a guy with an arc not spotting these (no contact icons even showing for him) wheras a guy with out an arc sees the oppo from time to time and shows contact icons the rest of the time. It was interesting that you had one unit who consitently failed to spot. I wonder if my guy is like that. What would this be? Just a long series of 6's? GaJ

Great to have some tests already! I might do some more of this. It's good to hear that it might not be a problem. If it is a problem, extending the arcs is not the solution, is it? Since you don't want the things that you want to spot inside the arc. But anyhow, tests are the answer GaJ

Thanks for this update, but it doesn't answer the question. The question is not actually about how to use CA to improve spotting. I appreciate your description of how to properly improve spotting in a target area. The question is: does putting a CA reduce spotting outside the CA? It sounds like it does. The reason it sounds like it does is because you described that the improvement from spotting in a CA comes from spending more time spotting in there. Clearly, if spotting inside a CA reduces spotting outside, then we have a problem about how to stop units firing while observing in the distance. I'm not proposing any particular solution (two kinds of arcs sounds clumsy and micromanage, I agree). I'm trying to understand if there actually is a problem. Because it _feels_ like there is. My units with arcs are not spotting well in the distance, and I don't understand why not. GaJ

Right: so supposing this is the case (and we're still guessing) then how do you say to your troops "keep your eyes open on the distance, that's where the enemy is coming from, but under no circumstances fire on anything out there"? We seem to be suffering from "what you shoot at" is mixed up with "what you look at". I don't want my troops opening fire, any of them, but I don't want to be missing things in the distance... GaJ

I'm still hunting for it, but I am reasonably sure that you said that there was a commensurate reduction in spotting ability outside the arc. IE if you are concentrating in the arc, you will spot less outside. Is this wrong? I hope so. However, I _seem_ to be experiencing this, and it seems to make sense. If you are concentrating spotting in the CA, then it seems that you will spot less outside? I have units with no arc spotting enemy in the distance that units with close arcs are not spotting, right nearby. I know that there are many variables, I might just be imposing an interpretation on what I'm seeing. Hence it would be great to know: is it the case that the bonus for spotting inside a CA is offset by a reduction outside a CA (either expliticly, or due to concentrating spotting in the CA) ? Thanks! GaJ

I'm not convinced having the barrel through the wall is the cause for the gun not moving, per se. Guys run through walls all the time: it's not like there's some wall physics modelled in the way that would let you "jam" something through then it gets "stuck" is in the real world, otherwise these guys would get stuck as well. GaJ

Out of curiosity, have you tried giving it a "face" order instead of packing it up? Unfortunately it might be too late: once guns start packing up I've never been able to get them to do something else till they're done packing. GaJ

There is an argument that says that the unit is _obeying its orders_ when this happens. They didn't forget, they just did what they are told. There's also another argument that says whatever the case (of what people expect), that the current implementation is workable, and the best it can be. I think it'd be better to focus on concrete questions like "should this current implementation be tweaked so that AFVs return fire when they're under dire threat?" than exploring why someone might say something stupid like "brain dead". The current concrete questions are: How do you spot into the distance without risking opening fire? Is the CA spotting bonus only within the CA, or does the CA angle determine the direction? Should AFVs return fire when they are under dire threat (because it seems that they don't) GaJ

Crack abseiling team in action!

"Dang! Cover me, while I do up these darn shoelaces!"

I love how arty rounds fizzle when the hit mud... GaJ

A light globe has just gone on for me about this. I haven't been able to understand why some of my infantry are so bad at spotting guys in the distance. Now I can see why: these inf have close covered arcs on! At first glance, this seems like a real problem. I am not saying to these guys "concentrate your gaze at the field immediately in front of you", I am saying "don't open fire on things until they get close". This are two very different things. It seems to me that the coupling of covered arc with spotting focus has put me in the position where I can't spot things well in the distance unless I'm willing to fire on those things! I just discovered this because I have a whole field of inf looking out over an oppos approach. The only units without covered arcs are mortars - and only because I'm not in the habit of giving these guys covered arcs (they're not deployed, and seem to pose no thread of opening fire wrongly). I couldn't for the life of me work out why none of my inf were seeing the oppo moving in the middle distance, yet the mortars could see them. Now I understand: and it feels "wrong". Surely we need to be able to say to inf "don't open fire" without loosing the spotting ability? This "focussed spotting" effect is really quire pronouced: the guys with covered arcs really are not spotting the oppo when the oppo forces seem to be quite obvious. To ask it a different way: how do you spot into the distance without risking opening fire? GaJ

I wonder if this needs a tweak, then for AFVs? GaJ

Lol ......

A corollory of this is that if you post here, it is immediate evidence that your opinion is largely irrelevant, because you are part of the hard core minority of BFC's customers. In fact, posting an opinion here may even be an indication that BFC should do the opposite, because to follow the opinion of a poster here is to likely alienate the wider non-posting soft core majority of customers! QED. GaJ .

Vanir: how do you know that they don't? I mean, how sure are you? Steve: if AFV's never return fire for self preservation, is that "behaving as they should?" It strikes me that AFV's do need to retaliate? GaJ

As Steve said, the time the turn takes to calculate, and the turn file size, still might tell someone something. If someone thinks they can benefit from this, more power to them. I seriously doubt that they can. My bet would be for every case where it makes them choose something different to their advantage, there will be a case where they choose something different to their disadvantage. I would rather have a progress bar than a spinning Windows7 wheel. At least with the progress bar I know the app is still alive... GaJ

If an AFV taking canon fire feels "immediately threatened", then it sounds to me like CAs are currently exactly what I'd want I can certainly live with "doesn't continue to shoot at after it leaves the arc". GaJ

To me this has been the most useful post so far. We've all come and said "hey, this isn't perhaps as good as it could be". At last someone who seems to be in a position to know something has acknowledged. The only thing missing now is Steve (or anyone) discussing what _is_ being considered, instead of explaining what won't be implemented. These threads would be so much more productive if that happened. Otherwise we have this cycle of "someone suggests a good fix in their opinion, Steve comes and explains why that won't happen, the someone gets shirty because they think its a good idea, and so does their friend..." and here we are. What kinds of solutions are being dreamed up? GaJ

woot, thanks! I guess it would depend on what you were changing. If you're thinking of doing away with saving the files at all, and instead having a web-based server, then the sooner the better because that would render H2HH pointless, and would colour how much effort we put in in the mean time. OTOH, if you just might change the folder that you put files in, or some other superficial change but basically the operations stay the same (read a file for the turn, save it after the turn) then the ideal case is to have the same notice the beta testers have so maybe the beta testers beta test a new H2HH at the same time. Nope, we don't look in them OK - it's good to know what you guys think about it. From the "PBEM/H2H user perspective" this remains as the one last inconvenience of playing H2H, and the most requested feature ... so it would be great if you can do something some time Thanks again! GaJ

Interesting point. Maybe this is the answer - to the OP. "Dude, if you wanted someone to be shooting at the M8 when it was located in that position, you needed to set someone up for that. The guy you gave a CA: he's not gunna disobey". What if the CA unit has already opened fire? Should it stop when the unit exits the CA? That would feel wierd to me. If it hasn't started firing, this is one thing... stopping firing: that would be wierd. Whoa, that's from left field. It may be that in real life units get "CA"s for this reason, but that's not a consideration in game. Is it? GaJ

I agree with this. It's frustrating when units get too autonomous. We've had that before: it's like the zooks that open fire too soon. This is why it's worth identifying different scenarios and seeing if BFC can have a solution that enables them all. There are two different scenarios, already identified, that need to be catered for: 1) AFVs should return fire if they are under mortal threat from outside an arc 2) Inf should not return fire if they are set up for an ambush. Then there's another question of "what should the order mean" .. in respect of a unit that enters then leaves the arc. It may have been simply assumed that in means in and out means out, but when you look at it this doesn't make sense. It's not a matter of more autonomy, it's a matter of what did the order mean. I think it is best if it means "when someone comes into this arc, do what it takes to eliminate them" rather than "only fire when someone is in this arc". GaJ