slysniper

Oh, I forgot to mention. Yes, I did verify that the bug had nothing to do with the preplanned mortar aspect. But is a problem with the mortar crew able to fire past tall walls like they are not blocking the view. Needless to say, picking tall walls as my test map line of sight block, turned out to be a good or bad decision, however you want to look at it. So a bug was found, but at least it is not a major one as to impacting the game much until it is fixed.

Well I am with you in understanding when it comes to the fact that people can say all sorts of lies, and they will find plenty of people willing to believe those lies, and the internet is a great place to see that day in and day out. But getting on this site and getting hot about the fact that she likely is not totally truthful in her claims is not going to correct that issue. especially since you have no evidence to justify your statements either, just the logic that it sounds like a unlikely event from what we should expect in what she has spoken of. Now, since we cannot prevent people like her from speaking out, weather lying or not. then the only thing we can do is speak up for truths that we do know and for what we can witness to as to what the hobby is and as to what we see. So, I am not against you in the fact that what she is saying could be false slander towards a group of people that might be unjustified. But really, do you think you are pointing out anything that will enlighten us as to if it is or isn't. Are we the ones that will have a unhealthy view of the hobby because of what we read in that article. So, back to the point why the post was made, is there or is there not a issue with certain types of games having a following of people that might draw to it a more than average number of unbalanced people that could be committing the types of acts mentioned. In certain RPG's I suspect there is.

Look, stop making yourself look foolish by trying to point out if what she has brought forth is truth or lies. It does not matter, I have been around gamers for 40 years and I have met enough and seen enough that I do not need her opinions to draw my own conclusions of if there is issues out there. What matters is, these type of events can happen and when they do, what are you going to do about it. For me I can honestly say, in my presence I have never seen such behavior, Of course, if it happened in my presence I would likely respond in a way that might make for a very bad day for some jerk. So maybe people know me well enough to not do such acts in my presence. But on the other hand, there as been enough contact with some, lets just say very interesting people over the years. Personally I have no problem with them, or do they pose a threat to me. But I can honestly say, I would not ever introduce them to my family or to any of the woman in my life, because in truth, they are not what I would call as people I would trust with anything of value in my life. And rest assured woman can enjoy gaming, even games that generally are on subjects men like. No, not a majority of them, but more than you see in the hobby. I have a daughter in-law that likely could kick almost anyone's ass on any game they choose, including war games. She is a master of developing strategies in any type of game and her dad was a colonial in the army and she is army through and through.

I read the article also and am in the camp that its just sick as to how some people are and that they have no respect for others and what they will do to them. (woman being on the top of the list apparently as to the target of such actions) As to it being a problem within the gaming communities, no real surprise to me actually. There is plenty of unbalanced people that turn to games to find a way to deal with their pitiful lives. So, yes a place where you can find some really disturbed humans. So no wonder , we hardly see any woman in the hobby if this is a reflection of what they experience

I would say no, You are actually allowed to do what is called pre-arty assignments and have arty fall on the map on turn 1, on-board and off board. targeting anywhere on the map. This was built into the game to represent pre-planned arty bombardments. But in h2h play, most players hate it and make it a rule you cannot use it. Thus the reason I was seeing if there was a way to delay it until after turn one. off-board arty has a setting for about 5 minutes for a delay start. On board has no way to do that, until now. With what I have shown you. you can do it, timing will be determined with how far you move them and the time it takes for them to set up. But effectively, that meets the requirements most tournament rules ask for.

Well, that is good news, so a bug, but not a bug that is all that likely to affect much at the moment. I see you also sent me the modified test files, I will confirm what you have found out. Thanks, buddy.

Ok, my opponent did not actually do this, my bad. His rounds were just way off target. But it still led me to find this error, which was me just trying to figure out if there is a way to delay pre-planned arty for just a few turns. Needless to say, found something a little more powerful than that.

What, no comments, no are you sure about it questions, no one else looking at it yet. Sometimes this Forum amazes me

Man, I just figured out how some players have been cheating with mortars. I had seen it before but could not figure out what my opponent was doing . I have found the issue. What a massive bug. Really this is somewhat of a game breaker too. So by giving a mortar a move command and then a fire order at the end of the move on the setup phase. I found I could fire for the rest of the game anywhere I want on the map, even after moving. No line of site or command unit needed. Basically, no matter what I did with the mortars in the game after turn one, they acted just like they would if I was assigning them a command in the set up phase Easy to test and verify, please get this in BF' s need to fix pile quickly. For the moment, I will start calling them my drone warfare units.

one shot, one time and you manage to start a thread like there is a issue. Show me that 50mm doing that many times, then take the time to discuss it. One very unlucky squad, live with it.

So easy to program, right, you have no clue as to how hard it is. If they could do it with ease, it would have been done. Just look how long version 4 has invested their time. Anyway, I hope for the best for them, but agree, time is not a friend and they lose support because they are not able to produce fast enough for the casual gamer. What they have is die hard grogs, no clue as to how many. but so far enough to keep them in a job. I know I will continue to support them with anything they provide.

I do not see a new 3rd engine coming soon or maybe never. Not from BF anyway. I think they will ride out this version 2 engine as long as they can. so we are on update number 4 for the engine and likely will see 4.x numbers for awhile working out minor issues. 5.0 maybe never, what would it add at this point. If they do get energetic and do a 3rd engine from scratch, I hope they continue on with different periods of time for the game setting instead of going over the same ones they did in CM2, at least for awhile anyway. But the truth is, I do not see any drastic changes coming to their game, I figure the only way that might happen is, they get tired of it themselves and decide to make some additional money by selling the engine programming off to some other firm. (We could hope some other group with different views and programming skills pick it up and does a massive change as to how it is programmed and create a new engine on the design concepts). No one ever calls me optimistic

Ok, ran some additional tests today. First, I wanted to see if buildings were acting unrealistically to off board arty. The answer to that is No from what I can tell. The infantry was not running away from good building cover . Now before you get to upset, catch the word good. Some of the smaller buildings do not provide good cover in the mind of the infantry anymore. So normally within a minute, they would flee and run to a better building and take cover. The only building I saw that I did not like them doing that from was the small church. They run from there quickly in general and in my mind, that building should be pretty good cover. I wanted to test different types of off-board arty as to the issue. They all activated the problem. I also noticed the infantry fled from the foxholes and would run and lay down in open ground next to the holes. In other words, they preferred the open ground hex and they could manage to say there and out last the bombing at times. So at this point, I still see the only issue as fox holes and trenches to off-board arty. Ian I have sent you my latest test file with some adjustments to reflect how I was running the test.

Again, I think this is just showing the issue with off-board arty. But it does bring up some aspects of its issue. First are you saying the men did not flee from sand bags or the bunker. That would be important to know. What about the group in open ground, did they flee. Buildings is the other big test. I get the feeling many are saying they see them flee un-naturally. (the problem is, it might require testing all types of different building to find that error.) Foxholes and trenches are issues for sure from some testing I have done. ( I have not seen the building issue, but have not done any hard testing on them either.) What I do know is I am playing a campaign with large cal off board arty and it is not dislodging men in bldgs. at times. So I know there is something still missing as to what the issue is and is not. Could it be the cover, could it be which arty is used, and so on. But let the guy programming the game figure that out, we just need to show issues that are clearly there. What I have noticed is infantry is more prone to leave a building getting hit by direct fire HE, But I see that as being OK, or at least what they wanted them to do as far as I think that was a intended change.

Can someone confirm that a BF tester has verified there is some type of off-board arty issue and that BF is now aware of a correction needed. I am playing a campaign in FB right now and some Big off-board arty is being used and I am not seeing the issue, so I figure I want to test that in a controlled setting and see what happens. That would be just another challenge if this is only some types fo off-board arty that is not working correctly.

The map edge comment has been around forever, many a player has pointed out the issue as to the unrealistic effects within the game as to map edges. There will never be a answer that really works for that problem. But if it was my game and I could design it and get it to work, I would have a optional feature you could turn on. With it on, it would reword the defending side additional reinforcements for attacking side units within a certain distance from the edge. (lets say 100 meters.) So if the attacker puts 50% of his units within that 100 meters of the edge. the defender gets a 50 percent amount of his forces in additional troops which he could select and then dictate when and where they enter to some degree. It would stop most edge hugging by a attacker with out not allowing its use. maybe its worth putting 10% of your force at the edge to gain a advantage which is worth the 10 % increase in defender forces. Only the player can decide It would also be a running feature, meaning maybe the attacker on turn 5 has 20% of his forces on the edge, the defender on turn 10 decides to bring on 15% of the reinforcements he qualifies for. Then on turn 30 the attacker now has 30% of his forces at the edge. The defender would qualify for a addition 10% plus still have 5% he never used. So he would have the option to bring up to another 15% unto the board at any point. Anyway, just one crazy thought of mine as to preventing the abuse of a short fall of map edges that has no true solution

I already mentioned it. My selected unit was regulars with no leadership mod. Yes changing to green or conscript does impact how they react. I actually did run some test with onboard arty to see what variances were happening. Nothing unusual. But off board arty is so busted it is not needed. Basically a whole good order platoon , with no previous issues is routing in less than a minute from off-board arty. This does not need review for tweeks between troop types. there is a major issue. I am sure if they fix it to match their on-board arty settings, they will get it where they were intending it to be. If that was off-board arty that hit, then the rest of these things happening do not matter, that offboard arty would cause them to rout. So without seeing a unusual route with no arty fire, then we have nothing to check.

well, sburke was the one that had the situation where the error was happening, I had tested on board arty and everything looked fine. So its pretty easy to take out all the variable factors and test the two things basically doing the same bombardment.. The difference is so drastic, I am sure something has been missed in a coding change somewhere for the off-board arty. But there is similar complaints about infantry fire being able to do this also. But now I know to look for troops breaking cover before they are even suppressed and pinned. That should help anyone in finding when something funny is happening. After that, it is just reviewing the file and selecting one unit at a time that was involved and see if the issue can be produced in a controlled test.

They have volunteers as play tester, finding such things in a game like this can be challenging. Look I have been playing the game steady since 4.0 has ben released and I cannot think of any situation where I had arty and troops dug in to even have a chance of noticing it. So if you are so sure there is other areas with issues, get involved and set up some controlled situations where you can show the unrealistic behavior. I agree there is likely other areas that could be affected. But like this, I cannot explain why on board arty is fine and off-board arty is broken. I am hoping, when they look into it, it might help find any other issue also with troops routing. Who knows, maybe its only under a certain type of small arms troops react unrealistically. But any example where you see troops routing and they have not even been suppressed yet should be easy to find and to take those files and submit them for review.

Sburke sent me a file, after seeing what he was seeing. I have done some more testing in cmfb and cmbn to see if there is a issue in 4.0. It is very clear that there is some type of programming issue. I set a platoon of reg, infantry in fox holes and hit them with 81's for one minute. I have good morale and no leadership modifiers for all my units. I set them to hide to allow them to get full protection. If I do this with on board arty, the result seem very realistic. Maybe on the average 3 kia's in a minute, no one routs. If I do this with off board arty. Within 10-20 seconds of rounds falling, men are routing and leaving their foxholes. One clear sign something is wrong is when I view their suppression bar, its not even fully lit yet on some of them, their morale shows to be ok. in that sense. Its so bad, in one test I had only 7 men in their foxholes after only one minute. Both games show similar issues I think we have the silver bullet to kill this issue as to if there is a problem. Now to get BF to pay some attention and address the issue.

I agree with you completely. thus the reason I call the troops wimps in general now. I feel like you do exactly, but until we have some type of hard case to present as to how 4.0 is flawed. we are just wasting our efforts. I think the problem with the AI is (you are seeing situations where the AI is pushing troops which are already fragile from earlier situations and then they break quickly and do stupid things. (really the game AI is not thinking, many times it just does what it has been commanded to do, whether smart or not.) And for sure expecting fragile troops to do much anymore is off the table.

WELL, if you are managing to get them to break and run easy, then there is something to investigate, that is for sure. But it would be a bug not in general settings but something showing up with the exact settings you have, so then it would need to be weeded out as to what setting or unit is creating the results.

Ok, just to show a point. Test ran. I set up in CMBN a platoon of American infantry, Req, low morale and leadership of 0 Plenty of fox holes and split the squads up so that everyone was in a fox hole. I had two german 81 mortars hit them for a minute with rounds from a distance of 350 m Did this twice, at no point did I see one man leave their fox hole for any reason. (BF wins that debate - customer is making false claims) We need to do better than that, if there is a issue guys. Really need some evidence What I did prove was. First test I did not have my men hiding, second test I had the hide command on. Results. first group 3 KIA's, 5 seriously wounded Second group 1 KIA I have known this for a long time, but to get the benefits of the foxhole or trench, your men must be laying down, (thus the reason for the hide command) If you do not do that, they are like ground hogs, they keep popping up so you can kill them. In game play situations where I am expecting arty. I keep all my men hidden with one or two groups of spotter not hidden to watch for enemy approaching when using such terrain, actually I do that for more than just foxholes and trenches. Its a good way to stay hidden. from enemy spotting. As for Sburke event, I am not saying it did not happen to you as you have said. but without that game file and the ability to see all the factors and duplicate the event, we have nothing. But within 10 minutes I have proved to myself I see no issue wit6h the game results.

Well, this example would be a perfect one if you can show consistently that the game is doing such actions. Its pretty clear it does not should like normal behavior. But to even try and match you, we would need more information. What troops were in them foxholes and what game were you playing. As I have said before , we really need detailed info if we are going to make a case that there is issues with the latest adjustments.

3.0 to 4.0 changed, that is not a question. The problem is, the people playing the game are not changing how they play, that is a big part of the problem. It is clear, infantry is not going to hold any position if they are in a poor moral state or getting hit by arty. Your tactics need to adjust to that fact. That can solve many a problem, if you cannot handle it, version 3.0 can be reinstalled on your machine. I still am waiting for some of these post that show clearly for us all to understand how infantry is breaking in unrealistic situations. A few of you have describe event that sound unrealistic, but you need to provide hard evidence that we all can examine. Believe me, I am not a fan of 4.0. but I have now played enough under the new system to see troops still hold their ground under hard situations.(high moral, good troop) I have learned to use pause as a way to keep shaken troops in place. But more importantly. I have stopped trying to put unrealistic expectation on units to stay and fight if they are shot up or if they are taken ordinance fire. I have changed my tactics and now I don't see all that running and getting shot in the back stuff in the open so much. Is it more realistic now, I don't know, its a fine line to where is it a game of cowards or a game of super hero's. I have seen both ends with the BF tweaks over the years. Personally, I would prefer hero's over cowards in the game play. For some reason, BF has listened to those that prefer to play with cowards and believe that it is more enjoyable to play with the game in that state. thus we all need to learn to command these wimps of men (but all for the sake of realism) or so they say anyway. Or until some of you post hard evidence of good units running from unrealistic situations that we can beat BF on that the latest adjustments are trash