Andrew Kulin

I understand that the CM games have no means to provide accurate interim scoring (such as final game scoring type scores) to the Matrix server.  so as a workaround they award scores of 3-1 when there are casualties in a turn, with the person whose side gets "more" casualties against their opponent getting a 3, and the opponent gets a 1.  If no casualties at all in a turn then it is 0-0.  No idea what happens if a tie (e.g., 1 soldier per side is a casualty).  If it scores 1-1 or 0-0 or if infantry units also can score higher than one another (e.g., Regular BTN CO is KIA, vs green private KIA so BTN HQ is worth more points internally, therefore the other side wins that round 3-1).  If you look at the tournament scoring you will see all the low scoring game scores between opponents can be calculated by various combos of 3-1 and 1-3.  So for example in my CMCW match with gkersh I am currently down 10-14 in one game and up 22-10 in the other.  Meaning in first game I won two turns and lost four with all others being ties.  So scoring is 2 x (3-1) = (6-2) + 4 x (1-3) = (4-12) with overall total = (10-14).  In the other game I won seven turns and lost one.
This "3-1" scoring system does not factor into the final score (which is the BFC final scores you see on end game screen).  It is just for fun during the tournament as BFC Elvis told me.
You are therefore better to ceasefire as you will get whatever type of BFC score would show up on their final game screen when you ceasefire in game considering total points in most these matches are on order of 2,000 or so per scenario.  So maybe you get 334 points.  That would be better than 78 points that might be showing on screen with the 3-1 system.  And if you (both) don't ceasefire then the game never ends, and Matrix's server has no way of knowing what the "real" score is, so you are stuck with whatever just for fun (3-1 system) points that Matrix has on their system.
But if you cannot communicate with your oppo, and he is not returning turns or is not aware of this then I am afraid you are pooched.

I do wish that in the set-up phase there was an option to turn the set-up zone shading on and off (like objectives shading in-game).  I find it makes it much harder to assess terrain for setting forces up. 
I have not noticed a performance hit though I may check on that next time I set up a game.
And I do hope that with Engine 5 that BFC spends the majority of effort in optimizing game for newer hardware (e.g., make use of multiple CPU threads).  I hate the draw distance limitations on trees for example on the larger maps as an example.  Have an option to specify draw distances for users to accommodate all types of computer capabilities.

I understand that the CM games have no means to provide accurate interim scoring (such as final game scoring type scores) to the Matrix server.  so as a workaround they award scores of 3-1 when there are casualties in a turn, with the person whose side gets "more" casualties against their opponent getting a 3, and the opponent gets a 1.  If no casualties at all in a turn then it is 0-0.  No idea what happens if a tie (e.g., 1 soldier per side is a casualty).  If it scores 1-1 or 0-0 or if infantry units also can score higher than one another (e.g., Regular BTN CO is KIA, vs green private KIA so BTN HQ is worth more points internally, therefore the other side wins that round 3-1).  If you look at the tournament scoring you will see all the low scoring game scores between opponents can be calculated by various combos of 3-1 and 1-3.  So for example in my CMCW match with gkersh I am currently down 10-14 in one game and up 22-10 in the other.  Meaning in first game I won two turns and lost four with all others being ties.  So scoring is 2 x (3-1) = (6-2) + 4 x (1-3) = (4-12) with overall total = (10-14).  In the other game I won seven turns and lost one.
This "3-1" scoring system does not factor into the final score (which is the BFC final scores you see on end game screen).  It is just for fun during the tournament as BFC Elvis told me.
You are therefore better to ceasefire as you will get whatever type of BFC score would show up on their final game screen when you ceasefire in game considering total points in most these matches are on order of 2,000 or so per scenario.  So maybe you get 334 points.  That would be better than 78 points that might be showing on screen with the 3-1 system.  And if you (both) don't ceasefire then the game never ends, and Matrix's server has no way of knowing what the "real" score is, so you are stuck with whatever just for fun (3-1 system) points that Matrix has on their system.
But if you cannot communicate with your oppo, and he is not returning turns or is not aware of this then I am afraid you are pooched.

I do wish that in the set-up phase there was an option to turn the set-up zone shading on and off (like objectives shading in-game).  I find it makes it much harder to assess terrain for setting forces up. 
I have not noticed a performance hit though I may check on that next time I set up a game.
And I do hope that with Engine 5 that BFC spends the majority of effort in optimizing game for newer hardware (e.g., make use of multiple CPU threads).  I hate the draw distance limitations on trees for example on the larger maps as an example.  Have an option to specify draw distances for users to accommodate all types of computer capabilities.

I totally agree.  Just paint a wide swath of real estate for the defender to set up as they see fit within.  Certainly not give hard-wired set up zones with trenches arranged like a trench set up.  Hard to surprise your opponent that way in a mirror match.

The German player has very little option on his set up , no option on the barbed wire at all, and my personal opinion in mirror games you should give the defender maximum flexibility and the largest setup zones so the American is totally is completely in the fog about the defender's position , much more fun to allow the German to choose his defense and not have it provided for him. The same exact reason "Dawn Patrol" was modified.

If you have more kills in a turn you get 3 points and your opponent gets 1 point. If nothing happens it is 0-0. Presume it is same 0-0 for a tie in kills which might be rare if they score kills based on values of units (e.g., tank vs. X soldiers).
I always thought it an odd way to score and figure it would be more logical to do it the soccer way.  3-0 for a win, 1-1 for a tie, and for CM 0-0 if no casualties in a turn.

If you have more kills in a turn you get 3 points and your opponent gets 1 point. If nothing happens it is 0-0. Presume it is same 0-0 for a tie in kills which might be rare if they score kills based on values of units (e.g., tank vs. X soldiers).
I always thought it an odd way to score and figure it would be more logical to do it the soccer way.  3-0 for a win, 1-1 for a tie, and for CM 0-0 if no casualties in a turn.

If you have more kills in a turn you get 3 points and your opponent gets 1 point. If nothing happens it is 0-0. Presume it is same 0-0 for a tie in kills which might be rare if they score kills based on values of units (e.g., tank vs. X soldiers).
I always thought it an odd way to score and figure it would be more logical to do it the soccer way.  3-0 for a win, 1-1 for a tie, and for CM 0-0 if no casualties in a turn.

Thanks. I found it.  And sent you a message to see if I could.  I don't think I have made any posts on the Matrix Forum.

Elvis:
Is there any way that for these tournaments that players are given their opponent's contact e-mail?  At the very least can BFC compile an e-mail contact list for all tournament participants so in the circumstance where an opponent is totally silent and MIA, that we can at least contact you guys to either get their e-mail, or for you to give them a nudge or something?
Because in previous tournaments it just seems to me that there are way too many participants who never bother to show up which then screws with actual players tournament scoring and their enjoyment.

Finished off the two games with Alwaysfish this morning.  Big shout out to him for some good fights and for cranking out the turns from across the pond with me over the past 2.5 days as we were at about 30 minutes left on the game clocks on Monday afternoon.  I'm retired so I have the time but he might be fired because I think he has a job!

Finished off the two games with Alwaysfish this morning.  Big shout out to him for some good fights and for cranking out the turns from across the pond with me over the past 2.5 days as we were at about 30 minutes left on the game clocks on Monday afternoon.  I'm retired so I have the time but he might be fired because I think he has a job!

I was on vacation until this past Monday, able to post initial turns (basically set password) beforehand and started returning turns on Monday.  As Syrian side, I was able to eliminate my opponent's US small force in about 4 minutes of game time by Wednesday.  As Americans, my side is holding up pretty good after 4 minutes.  But I have not received turns back since Wednesday and because there is no way to contact my opponent (as no e-mails provided) i have no way of knowing if they have bailed out, or if they are experiencing a real life situation (e.g., work, vacation, ...). I certainly could not let my opponent know that I was away at the start of this.
I feel the communication aspect of the Tournament system is a weak point and should be addressed.  Even if it has to be done in a manner that anyone wishing to join the tournament has to provide BFC with an e-mail so that there is a way for opponents to communicate.

I think if there was a way to get your opponent's e-mail that would be a good first step.  I had a ghost player in the first beta tournament (CMCW) and it was frustrating.  Could not contact them in any way to find out what was going on.  Even tried looking up their names on the Battlefront, Matrix, Slitherine forums but no luck.  Mainly, if I recall correctly, there were no ways to look up a forum member by name on any of the forums in order to check out their profiles and DM or email them.
 

Please explain then how an unbuttoned T72 Tank commander can't see anything in front of him in broad daylight.  While buttoned up T34's can.
Sorry folks, but if I can see farm equipment moving about in fields while I am driving on the highway (you guys can do that too, no?), then surely a tank commander, laying in wait, in an unbuttoned tank, should be able to spot large moving vehicles in open fields on a sunny day?  That is part of the issue I originally raised, and perhaps the most frustrating part.

Please explain then how an unbuttoned T72 Tank commander can't see anything in front of him in broad daylight.  While buttoned up T34's can.
Sorry folks, but if I can see farm equipment moving about in fields while I am driving on the highway (you guys can do that too, no?), then surely a tank commander, laying in wait, in an unbuttoned tank, should be able to spot large moving vehicles in open fields on a sunny day?  That is part of the issue I originally raised, and perhaps the most frustrating part.

Not sure what you mean by this, I presume adding 20 year newer spotting tech to a 1940s era tank improved its ability to spot.  Which would come back to something I brought up in an earlier reply of mine.  1944 buttoned T34 tanks spotting King Tigers out in the open daylight in a couple of minutes at 1500 m ranges.  1982 buttoned/unbuttoned T72s unable to spot similar sized tanks out in the open at ranges <= 1500 m.  That seems broken to me. 
Both examples from CM2 series games, with same game engine.

Can we get a vehicle pack with T34s so that the Russian player can at least take shots at, and presumably kill, NATO IFVs?

The fact is that depsite how good this game is, and that its spotting system does many things better than other games, it is the weakest link in these games and quite frankly needs a serious look over. 
I posted a while back about some issues I had in the NTC Missions where M60s without thermals could not see several plattoons of soviet tanks in a open featurless desert. I replayed the mission dozens of times trying to find out some workaround. Unbuttoning, target arcs etc. No matter what, those M60s could not see anything. One thing I discovered from that discussion is that CMCW units cannot remember what they have spotted, so once the find something, they can lose it again and then have to start the entire spotting process all over. That is a HUGE problem. 
The other big issue is the way thermals have been modeled. Make no mistake, thermal optics are a huge advantage in the real world. But the way they work in CMCW I think needs quite a bit of adjustment. I could be wrong, but I suspect that thermals have some kind of blanket spotting buff because it seems to boost aquisition even when it shouldnt. Tanks with thermals seem to alway get the first shot even at close range, etc. One extermely frustrating example is having a bunch of soviet tanks that are lying in wait with faceing or arc commands and the thermal armed tanks get the first shots off almost every time even in that situation when ranges are less than 1500. Often even at much closer ranges. 
And stuff like this is not an uncommon thing. Units routinely fail to see things that are right in front of their face. 
One last thing. This issue has been the subject of complaint pretty much since CMX2 came into existence. What I find rather depressing is that many in this community just assume the people complaining are bad at the game or go on lengthy explanations of how sophisticated this games spotting system is compared to other games. In the latter example, it simply doesnt matter. The fact that this game is trying to do things that other games dont do doesnt mean its problems should be a free pass. This aspect of this game needs a serious adjustment. 
The problem is sufficiently frustrating that if the only thing CM 3.0 or patch 5.0 did was fix this, I would be totally happy with it. 

Not sure what you mean by this, I presume adding 20 year newer spotting tech to a 1940s era tank improved its ability to spot.  Which would come back to something I brought up in an earlier reply of mine.  1944 buttoned T34 tanks spotting King Tigers out in the open daylight in a couple of minutes at 1500 m ranges.  1982 buttoned/unbuttoned T72s unable to spot similar sized tanks out in the open at ranges <= 1500 m.  That seems broken to me. 
Both examples from CM2 series games, with same game engine.

I think if there was a way to get your opponent's e-mail that would be a good first step.  I had a ghost player in the first beta tournament (CMCW) and it was frustrating.  Could not contact them in any way to find out what was going on.  Even tried looking up their names on the Battlefront, Matrix, Slitherine forums but no luck.  Mainly, if I recall correctly, there were no ways to look up a forum member by name on any of the forums in order to check out their profiles and DM or email them.
 

Not sure what you mean by this, I presume adding 20 year newer spotting tech to a 1940s era tank improved its ability to spot.  Which would come back to something I brought up in an earlier reply of mine.  1944 buttoned T34 tanks spotting King Tigers out in the open daylight in a couple of minutes at 1500 m ranges.  1982 buttoned/unbuttoned T72s unable to spot similar sized tanks out in the open at ranges <= 1500 m.  That seems broken to me. 
Both examples from CM2 series games, with same game engine.

Can we get a vehicle pack with T34s so that the Russian player can at least take shots at, and presumably kill, NATO IFVs?

I want to start off by sharing text from a couple of recent e-mails I sent to a regular opponent while playing CMCW with PBEM++, with me as the Russian player in both of these separate scenarios.  I think it will be clear from the text what I am driving at, and I wonder if this is something others are experiencing, and if this is something the development team needs to address.
Scenario:  Unhoook the Leash
BTW, in our current CM match, it is frustrating playing Ivan. Hidden in trees with LOS to open ground, but cannot spot large moving vehicles in the open. I can spot a deer 500 m off to my side at tree line in dusk conditions with peripheral vision while driving on highway at 80-100 kmh but my guys sitting still looking right at tanks cannot see them. And they are equipped additionally with sensors??? And your guys, while on the move, can see my non-moving stuff and take them out with one shot.   Case in point, your second M1 to be immobilized. By HE. Why, you might ask? Because my T72 was firing at the infantry "behind" the tank. The tank, which, could not at all be seen by my tank. But the infantry "behind" the tank? Totally visible. Scenario:  A Beautiful Morning (from Scenario Depot)
Meanwhile in our other game, you are not going to believe this.  I took out a tank with an ATGM.   Which one might naturally assume is the unbelievable aspect based on my experience with Russian sensor systems.  And in a way, those systems did not disappoint.   But here is what happened.   I was checking LOS last turn and my IFV could see your four beautifully lined up tanks.  By see, I mean the light blue line was present all in that area as I was using the target command to check LOS.  But actually see the four tanks.  No.  Of course not.   In doing this I must have accidentally issued a target command, at a point beyond all your tanks.  Think of an area fire command.   So the bugger launches an ATGM as area fire.  Has not spotted a single tank.  The ATGM just happens to hit and blow up your tank, because it happened to be in the way.  My IFV still cannot see the flaming, smoking, mass of twisted steel by the way.  Which of course, is par for the course.   I think I may have discovered a way to actually get Russian BMPs to fire ATGMs at high value targets.  Can't be any worse than what happens normally.   It seems to me that the game (CMCW at least) has a flaw in how Russian IFVs and Tanks locate (see) enemy IFVs and Tanks.  In both these games, what is not mentioned in my e-mails to my opponent, is that while my armored vehicles cannot see enemy vehicles, infantry units can spot the enemy vehicles pretty reasonably.  And in some cases my infantry are sitting next to one of my tanks or BMPs, and the infantry squad or HQ, can see tanks rolling across open fields, but the tank or BMP positioned next to the infantry cannot, even though using targeting command for both units (infantry,  BMP/tank) shows a blue line over a large swath of area all around the enemy vehicles.  And consider that my infantry, depending on stance, are much lower to the ground (say 1 to 6 feet above ground for eyeballs/binocs) compared to the sensor equipped vehicle, which must be sitting say 8-12 feet or more above ground.  I now try to open up all my fighting vehicles in the hope that the commander/gunner sitting at the top of the vehicle.   I fully appreciate that US sensor systems might be better quality than Soviet sensors (though I am not sure if that is how it was during CMCW's time frame), which to me would provide advantages such as being able to pick out targets further distances than Soviet forces at night or under darker conditions, or being able to see through smoke better than Soviet forces etc.  But is seems the way CMCW is currently being modeled, the Soviet vehicles are essentially blind to US vehicles much of the time.  It is like the sensors/optics on these vehicles are painted over/closed and hinder rather than enhance siting of enemy vehicles, but not of infantry.  And even unbuttoning vehicles does not appear to improve chances of siting enemy armor, on the move, in the open no less.  So a commander in a cupola, presumably with binocs cannot see the enemy armor, but infantry/HQs on the ground with or without binocs can.   So wondering if anyone else is noticing this and if this is something the development team should look into.