Cirrus

Basic CMBN engine v1 $35 http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage_bfc&product_id=279&category_id=36&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26 Engine v2 update $10 http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage_bfc&product_id=339&category_id=36&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26

Thank you both for doing this. Excellent read. This inspired me to read several other aar'as as well.

This is excellent AAR and real fun to read. I had to plow trough this thread as whole last night. Thank you Bil and other contributors.

This is good news. It was even fun to educate oneself trough this info.

I really fail to see analysis of you competitors of any relevance here. Maybe your competitors are even more stupid. Or maybe you have killer idea, but flawed execution so that you could be still better. And like you later agree, you could be better. I have no such delusion and I do. Every single of my requests would make the game better for me. But like you also say that you cannot be everything for everyone. But if something is requested enough then it's different story and I did base my argument on that. Talking about this specific feature you said that it requested rarely, so I definitely won't expect it in game. This is bit funny. I am co-owner of company. I have three other partners. Not a software business though. And this really conforms to reality in many many types of business. You never ever treat customers as stupid. In this specific case of a feature we were talking about simplifying the game for some. Sure there is limits. You also could be simpler or anything else that enough of your customers want. And this is basically the part I find your philosophy flawed. You seem to think your own opinions are the right ones always, not customers. Regarding to your original answer you did not include the fact that it's rarely requested. On the contrary writing that it has been requested since 1999 made think that it could be much asked feature and gave me incentive to write an answer. First thing that came your mind (or actually in your post) is that it does not suit you, not the fact that it's not actually wanted. I would definitely answer other way around. First that customers do not want it so it's not viable use of resources then I could add that I don't want it either. I do not treat customers stupid. Also I do not agree with the identity. Losing identity would mean something that you start remove something that bunch of your current fans like. Adding things that do not remove or prevent anything old is not such things. P.S. I feel that there might not be anything more to gain here by arguing this matter. Feel free to reply, but I think I cannot add any more substance to the matter.

This is a reason for this specific feature that I think is very acceptable. No need to do it. This has actually nothing to do with anything. Your game could always be even better and get even more customers. I feel that this is treating people as really stupid. If you add something, but do not in reality take something away for other customers. More people would get what they want. These are again hard facts. Time is limited and you have to prioritize. However your philosophy might be costing you customers. And your game could have several of philosophies. If some change does not take anything away and original philosophy can be followed like always, then customers are always right. Not one customer of course, but bunch I am not speaking specifically of this feature. It was your reply style that made me write an answer. If the reply would have technical difficulty or feature not requested enough or lines like that, I would not have paid any attention. I feel that you are wrong. There is game companies that do not swear for one philosophy. They let players decide what kind of philosophy to follow inside the game. One example would be in game "cheats" like unlimited ammo and in game feature toggles. You yourself have difficulty levels that modify the game.

I don't know, but it seems that you missed my point a mile. But let's clarify. 1. I was not speaking specifically this feature. So your number 5 reply does not apply. 2. Even if I would have spoken this specific feature, I do not know you, so I don't consider you as any kind of coding expert of this game. So I would have just ignored it.

Can't say that how much this feature is asked, but in general if some feature is asked much I find your attitude quite stupid. Decision like this has caused for example me to stop playing single player games with CM. If I know game interface and mechanics allow me to do something and I want to do it, but game by accident or like in CM's case on purpose makes it too difficult, I will get bored. I can't see the harm of giving tools for different playstyles if game mechanics inherently can't prevent it anyways. If someone doesn't want to be HC simulationist why should she? Every person can decide if she uses "aids" or not.

This I understand perfectly. However I don't see any reason to "mess with ui" there. No I do not agree. I turned the logic upside down in your analogy and that why it is not relevant in situation like this. I try to give mathematical explanation: The premises: in game: Feature exists no matter what you goverment example: Feature exists with condition Yes, definitely. This standard is created by the game mechanics, the ruleset which game runs. Not by the user interface. I was not talking about this. I was refering to the people who are trying to twist the facts. IE comparing UI to game mechanics. But yes, I am insisting too. I am challenging your logic, because I can't find it. Of course. And like you already mentioned earlier, it's the ruleset in play that binds all players. The way you have chosen to do it. There is no logic whatsoever to deny and argue things that exists already. You can not brush it under carpet. Aknowledge it and turn it to your advantage. What side effects are you talking about? All side effects are already in the game. The rule set is defined. I am not asking you to change any rules. I definetely refuse to see any side effects since zero game mechanics changes are needed and zero new side effects is generated. Seeing those things follows no logic. This is not matter of opinion. This can be verified any time. It seems to me that you are hung up to your idea of right and wrong too much to see clearly. This discussion seems to turned from logical analysis of how things work to their fullest to some idealogical discussion. I have no interest in such discussions. Everybody is right in such matters. It suprises me however that you fail to see that you have nothing to loose here. Any "cheating" or "gameying" can be done now already and that's what I do. No game play style would be lost, but only one would be made easier. And still people could choose to play as they did before the change. And that's a fact.

Your analogy fails badly. I do not want anything like that. I don't need to. The thing is already in the game. Analogy would hit the target if I was the one requesting game mechanics change like that. All I wan't that they don't hide it. And why, because there is nothing to loose. Only to gain. Easier you would help me, but would not prevent your playstyle either. Developers have no reason (except personal preference) not to make it like that if we exclude time constraints thinking from this equation. Time and money can of course play role in any case, but that's totally different discussion then.

This is quite strange way of thinking. You allow it, but don't allow it and want to call it cheating? I understand the realism issues. I have no concerns about realism in any games. I would not play anything otherwise. I obey the rules of game mechanics. Your approach is bit like government promising to pay unemployment benefits to all unemployed people if they apply for it, but then they would try to hide all the application forms because is bit like "cheating" not to get job for yourself. Please treat us like adults and let me or any other person to decide ourselves what is cheating and what is not. Concentrate improving or modifying game mechanics to your likings and make the UI best and easiest possible to do anything game mechanics allows. This way you support the widest audience. UI should not reflect anyones personal taste in such case that it can do things equally good for everyone. And once again because people are insisting it. UI behaviour change has nothing to do with spotting changes or game mechanics changes. No matter how hard you keep insisting simple mouse click behaviour change has nothing to do with those things. I just quoted a little piece, but answering more broadly. Why do you want to decide for the gamer what is wrong way around to do things? If you game mechanic allows a set of things, would it be nicer for all that those who want to think "wrong way" and those who think "right way" can do same things? Why does the UI have to place restrictions? I find this kind of thinking bit offensive even. You treat us quite like child. The freedom of selecting own play style that is actually left in game mechanics (either intentionally or because restrictions are impossible to make or any reason) is then hidden under clumsy UI. I can see very little intelligent logic behind this.

I am pretty sure I did now use that mode any of my test games. BUT I used the lowest normal difficulty level yes if that has something to do with anything.

Something along lines of that. In my situation (or when I came across this, too bad I did not save scenario) I did not even care who actually was spotting the at-gun or the ground where it was sitting. But what I believe the situation was that the mortar unit ITSELF could see the area, but could not spot the at-gun. About the behavior of ui: If I remember correctly when I selected the mortar unit the AT-gun was still visible (but dark grey). BUT if i move mouse towards it, the indicator icon vanishes. My actions and results: I could set the mortar target to the ground at-gun and shoot the ground too by zooming the map and placing the target carefully to the spot where at-gun is sitting. (We call shooting mortars with arc always indirect fire in our language, but in game terms this is area fire?) I can not understand why I can't do this faster when I am really zoomed out by clicking the unit icon. End result would be same as in the above. I shoot (area fire?) to the ground spot under at unit. This has absolutely nothing to do with game mechanics, borg spotting or anything. It just UI change. It would enable me to do what I already could do in that situation, just faster. And I must repeat again those who are insisting somehing else. Pure UI behavior change has nothing to do with game mechanics, borg spotting or anything. You are correct. I mixed up the terminology.

You are not correct. My mortar CAN fire the position definitely. I just zoom my map to the tree where the gun is. Press target and click mouse next to the tree. And voila, I have indirect target under the tree. I just want easier way to set the same target. It has everything to do with the user interface. Answer like that does not actually answer anything. Is there a actually reason not make interfaces as easy use as they could be for every purpose? It is now and it would would be after the change up to the user to use it or not. I find it bit odd that "we want to discourage the use" reason affects the UI smartness. But what was discovered in this thread is that definitely it was known decision to make it like this.

Explained already in previous post a bit. Now more carefully. I do not care if the mortar sees the target or not. I just want to use the real target as quick guide to shoot ground under it. Game mechanics stays exactly same. It is not for the UI to discourage things. You need to make game mechanics such that it can't be done. Using UI to mask things actually very possible by game mechanics, is in my opinion quite stupid. Problems need to be solved at game mechanics level and UI must be easiest possible to do ALL things that game mechanics allow.

Wrong again. My mortars can shoot there. Both of them. I can't just easily set the indirect target for them. I am not suggesting any change to spotting or anything else like that. I just want to set the target easy way and not hard way like now. It's user interface issue, not game mechanics one.

No. In this situation I can not directly target the at-gun. Game engine "knows" it. Hence it vanishes as target when I try to click it. Instead vanishing it could snap indirect target on the ground under the at-gun unit. This is the way the old games worked.

I haven't had time to test game that much yet, but still I managed to run across incredibly annoying "feature": I am viewing my map high up. Enemy at-gun is shooting my tanks. I have mortars at position and at-gun is within their range. Now I want to assign mortars to shoot indirectly at the position where at-gun is. I select mortar, press 'target' and try to move my mouse over the at-gun. And what happens is that the AT-gun icon vanishes, because my mortar does not directly see the unit. Aargh. I have to zoom the map very close to the ground and place the indirect firing spot next to the gun (which is actually drawn, but the crew is not visible). And again for the next mortar. Why can't the at-gun icon stay dark grey and I could click it and the indirect mortar fire would focus ground under the unit? That way the operation would take 15 seconds and now it takes 5 minutes.

My play style consist about 50% from upper view and 50% from level 1 view. I scout the situation from bird view and use tools to identify terrain I am planning to use. Then when I give any move orders I switch to level 1 view to possibly identify good positions to move and to get a idea what route I should possibly take. LOS tool was very important tool for me to identify the terrain components, and possible trenches, holes etc in them. Target command serves as poor mans LOS-tool. It doesn't explain anything about the terrain nor the height. I do not like to switch to google or to manual to gain some kind of basic idea of units capabilites. (Task switching with this game is pain in the ass btw) I think it even strengthens my point if the information is readily available. Then it shouldn't even be a major task to include some of that information inside the game itself. In the days of internet I still can appreciate good collection of information in one single place relevant to situation you are facing (Game encyclopedia)

Now I've managed to start playing new CM. It's interesting game, but it didn't feel like home. I only play turn based, so my comments are only from it. 1) Where is LOS-tool? My default tool has gone away. With low end graphics cards with poor details it's hard to see terrain types etc. I really need this back. 2) What happened to firing lines? Why in earth there are no more firing lines. You can get information who shot who out from videos if you work enough, but why in the earth it is not showing anymore on map screen? 3) Encylopedia. These types of games most definetely need a decent encylopedia accessible within the game. It is part of the fun to discover and learn about equipement while playing. Information given out of equipement is too poor. 4. Terrain. This is hard to explain, but for me it's lot more difficult to get grip of the terrain and the height differences. Absence of LOS-tool makes this even harder. These are the few first toughts about the game. Well any case I will be playing it...

Mainly this conserns russian ot-series tanks, but I have always wondered that does the game consider flame tanks more vulnerable to explode or easier to destroy because they are carrying flame equipement? As far as I have observed things, ot-34 seems to be as hard to destroy as normal t-34. If this is the case I don't have to use them more carefully than normal t-34 tanks.

About the profiling of CM gamers in that other thread linked above. Has there been some kind of gallup where those playtypes has been profiled (solo/internet/pbem)? I can say that since I've purchased these games I have played zero solo plays. I would have betted that solo playing in CM is not very popular... And the fact that Battlefront is considering internet play more important that pbem play is fact that I can't understand. I have played few sessions that way, but they usually take 2-4 hours atleast. I tend to think my moves long time since I am not that good gamer... And it's rare occasion where I have to to sit down for that long session of CM.

Same problems here also. My opponent was asked my password. I guess only thing to do is rollback to 1.01. And if it makes any diffrence our games are CDV versions.

If CDV wants their logos back maybe they will release own patch, since BF version patch removes all CDV splash screens and refenrences to CDV

CDV's Combat Mission: Antholgy triple pack don't require CD's in drive. This is very good since for example I run around with my laptop playing TCP/IP games. I really dislike carrying my game cds with me. But this changed with patch 1.02 to CM:AK. Why now there is CD check altough we have come this far without needing any checks?