slysniper

There is points and objectives assigned for the play test. But in general. I pretty much disregard the initial points and start down a approach in some manor like I have mentioned.

My pet peeve is we have some real good designers when it comes to making maps and finding historical events and story lines. But a lot of them are terrible on setting up the scoring for competitive h2h play. I find the trick to making a good scoring game is do not create the scores until after your play testing. Come to some decision as to what you think the end battle should look like from the test plays. Then learn to set the scores up from what your imagined end result is. So in other words, if I had 5 test runs, I select the one I felt both sides played well and score that so it is about neutral if the end were to look like that battle. Then I adjust it so better results from either side swings the scoring slightly to their favor, I do not set up a point structure where there is a massive percentage swing of points for one objective. I only would do that if the objective was a very difficult and very unlikely area to gain. I also always like each trooper to be worth some points for kills. Just hate it when it is not a factor - I personally think it should always be some factor. So a example might be. I expect the attacker to lose 60% of his units. So if I give a 1000 points for them, 600 points would be earned. Now the defender is likely to lose 80% of his units, so I want that to earn 600 points also. So I would assign them a total of 750 points. That is my first attempt at what I am accepting as neutral. Then I do the same for objectives. so that if the expected is captured from each side they neutralize each other. But what should they be scored as. I go back to my troop cost, then I think something along these lines. if the attacker pushes hard and gets the next objective, he likely will lose another 10% his troops. So the defender will gain `100 points , lets make the value 150 for that objective. So the objective is a benefit unless he losses hit 15%. ( I then would normally set all my objectives with scores equal or under that value) Well it really gets more complex than that because of all the variables you have. But it still comes to that type of basic thinking as to how to construct the scoring from a expected end result. Hope that helps - I can only say it managed to help get me some very high score at the scenario depot years ago for some of my designs. You can make some very uneven battles but as long as you score it on this type of concepts. The battle will be competitive for h2h play.

John, Really Do you think you are going to win some kind of victory where you are going to get your 3 tormentors from bashing you. Getting them banded or something along those lines. Do you think you are going to get a group of people to support you in that cause. Again the only one I see not dropping the subject is you in the last few post, when are you going to realize that you are your own worst enemy. Keep in mind this whole thing started by the fact that I commented on a post where I disagreed with your post in that it was way over the top for the simple fact that the tanks had bondo making up some of the tank components and you acted like it was a insult to run the machine down the street. But whatever. You replied and put your opinions in a more proper and clear explanation. But in that time frame also managed to get the old feud going once again. Now I agree that your tormentors just come out of the woodwork to take shots at you whenever they can. Can you figure out why? why just you, John? why no one else? What is it that they just cannot leave you alone - there is a simple answer for that but I just do not think you know why or will accept that fact as to why? Now believe me, I do not justify their actions either, they can be real jerks, and their actions are poor. But most of us can be Jerks at times, and I know I personally just enjoy being a jerk at times. So if not them it would be someone else. You will never solve your problem by removing them from the forum , that is not how to get it resolved. Only you changing will liking affect your future. Now I do wish BF would just get hard on all parties involved and put a band on all of you from posting intentional comments to discredit each others character. Its not like you all have not been warned before. But in the end, if they did that. I am sure you all would lose access to the site. Is that what you want

North Korea has some good reporting going on there. Maybe we should get their opinion about the parade and the Russian new equipment. At least it will have a slight bit of truth in its report.

And this thread is just a fine example of how wars are started. Because its amazing how different views can turn into a pissing match in no time. Do you really think the world can ever avoid conflicts as long as men will continue to act like men.

Oh my, John has now activated the button which forces him to try and show his intelligence, even though he has to admit his present mental state is nothing as compared to when he was healthy. I am a simple man, John. So let me put it this way to you. This thread was about the Parade, It was you spouting off about the T-14 being Junk and acting all knowledgeable about it that forced me to call your statement into question. Until someone can show some real data as to it not performing to its design intent, you have nothing to say. I have a hard time believing this tank will not meet two of its most basic design concepts. First, being able to punch through a M1 from the front. (Really, would any effort by any country not be to achieve that as a new minimum for their next line of tank.) So when you prove that it cannot do that, then I will agree it is junk. Second , it provides added protection for the crew. Tank design is always a factor of trade offs. So it appears that maybe removing the crew from the turret has allowed them to decide placing heavy armor there is not needed. If the enemy round beats the other anti systems the turret gets hit (so what) if the crew survives maybe they have achieved their goal. Because really, tell me any modern tank that is going to be worth much once the turret is hit and penetrated. So it appears to me, with all that armor cut out of the turret design. It has allowed for armor to be placed overhead and under the crew compartment. Now the question I have, is it enough to protect them from overhead attacking ordinance. If it is, then I say it is a great design concept, if it does nothing to help. Then junk it is. But again til someone can show what this machine really does I just don't want to hear it. But if it meets a few of its basic design concepts I don't think I would be mocking it. Meeting just those two concepts would put it much higher on the list of the next generation weapon. Plus, really, the next conflict is not going to be decided by steel thickness and penetration of rounds. Its all about technology and speed. The next era of world troubles and conflict might come when someone gets their hand on the quantum computer chip. There is a race on now for who can design and get the programming for it first. It all will come down to who gets it first. Ultimate power leads to what???? Likely not a good thing. So go web search for that and put your mental powers there. Because it is coming and its not to far off in the future.

Yes John, China does have maybe one of the best tanks in the world. Hard to say without actually being able to test them side to side with the Abram, and some of the other tanks. But from what is know it is surely a threat. But ripping on a tank that is still in the design phase in a sense shows no class. We really know very little about the thing. So yes, there is missing parts and fake covering on the unit. But I am impressed that they even showed it as is. (What, would you prefer they left the canvas covers on and let you guess what was underneath it.) And your Threat Analyst skills might have managed to get you a paying job but you have posted enough garbage here in the years that I question your basic logic. (So your Logic matches most of what we see coming from our Government lately) No basic sound decision making at all and no policies being past that give direction for the future, just lies and efforts to win the vote for the next election and spending money on companies that hire people like you. And you were thinking that statement carry some weight behind it, no, not for me. Just put me in the mood to write you this nasty gram.

Well, because of all those who post here that are from Russia and keep us informed. For the first time in my life I watched this parade. Never thought of doing that before. So to actually see it and how they do it was very interesting. I was actually impressed with the WWII armor they ran. To have that many running tanks from that era was surprising to me.

Well, all I can say is Lockandload has provided some great photo's. I am impressed with the amount of views and what we have seen from these posting. I am also impressed with what Russia is trying to do here as to their next generation of armor. I could care less with all the comments and speculations of how it will play out in the future and what will happen, The one thing I have learned is men are terrible at predicting future events and normally History proves that unexpected things happen plenty, not because it was not possible, but because nations or people were unwilling to predict it as a real possibility because they just did not want to see it that way. (In other words, the Human race loves to fool themselves into their own wanted beliefs.) I can also tell, Steve is not showing any interest in adding these machines into the present game because it does not make logical sense. OK, what we need to be requesting is a new game with a new conflict breaking out around 2020 with these machines. Steve needs to stop being so logical and remember we all just want a game with new toys to play with. I will even be nice, no need to start that game until we manage to get some hard data on what these new machines can really do and what they are really made of.

Good news about having one more mod for CMFI, it deserves at least that. I am still surprised they ever even did it.

Very good, I can still go tank hunting with my Bradleys, nice to know

Oh dear Are you telling me it has all been a fairy tale and BF did not get it right. My world has crumpled. I might get myself killed the next time that real T90 cruses down my street and I jump it from my garage with my Bradley

This is really good to know. Sure did not get that out of the manual

I also would like to see the tows fire more often. But one thing about the present situation is I have learned to kill tanks with that 25MM. So in some sense. I am glad they have it as is. Because I really had no clue that gun could take out heavy armor, but it sure can if you get a jump on it from the side or rear at close ranges.

The stugs presently have a issue, along with the fact that most players do not know about it. Combined to create the problem. The only way to use them is force them to stay Buttoned up, which if I recall correctly, even the AI will override that if it has a infantry target at times. The only MG gun on the Stug is the exterior mount. So if the tank thinks it needs to use the MG, the crew man pops out. Not a good default move. Thus the reason for the Stugs issues. But for most other tanks , the programmed AI response is fine since using MG's does not require the crew to expose themselves. That is just a programmed decision that does not take the Stug in concideration

Here is one of my favorite if I have multiple TRP's and have areas I cannot see that I want to arty strike. (Like a city streets back in a town) I will set a TRP on each end of the street or obstruction, if possible maybe a couple on each side so I have some options on drawing a line barrage from trp to trp at different points in the obstruction. Nothing like being able to plot a arty strike down a major street that the enemy does not expect to be a problem because you don't have line of site. Anyway, more than once has this worked well in getting accurate arty on the enemy in a place he felt pretty safe at. Plus you might be thinking that is a long line of wasted arty. (but keep in mind your end point to end point you select does not have to be on the trp. It allows you to select 50 M if I remember right from the target point. allowing me to trim 100 meters off from trp to trp if I want.) Anyway, by creating preplanned line arty strikes with multi trps instead of point or area target strikes with a single trp. I can generate a barrage that will get many more rounds on target and still cover an area I expect to strike the enemy. Like the street example I gave or along a tree line, hedge line, wall line of any location where you might expect a line of defense or a route of travel by enemy units.

I like it, this is one I have not really seen. But It sounds like a winner in the right situation. Watch out those I play. Sounds like I have a new devilish trick to try. For AT guns, I normally just look for a placement that the game engine cannot handle, (yes gamey is the word). Like four hexes back in a wheat field where I can see out but any incoming fire cannot area fire on the hex because it cannot see the base of the hex and it will not allow the player to select area fire.

Yes, this is a good tip, I use it a lot. (actually almost always) I hate wasting arty. But it can be used for deeper target threats also. why not max out your time and place it on locations deeper in the defense that you think you can make in the time frame. All that can happen is you get a jump on a accurate arty strike, and if things don't work out, You can cancel and proceed as normal. I always pre-plan all my arty this way and likely only use a quarter of it on juicy targets if my pre guesses come true. The only problem with the concept is don't lose the team calling in the strike

Your absolutely right, So smart to have picked that up. My claim is no better than his. But I have on the other hand made test and have run stats in the past when I have felt something might be off in the game that I wanted changed. So I am going to stay with the attitude of get busy and show some real numbers as to what you are wanting to prove needs tweeking. Til then, you have done nothing.

Are you sure these are not the new tanks we will see in May

I think the basic reason we will not see such a feature is for the fact of the file size. I could hear the cries now even if they did provide it. Way too much time to load up the replay movie or issues with machines not handling the file size well. (You might even be thinking, well this other game does it) But this is not that other game, and the plain and simple fact is, this game works on some principles that no other game does and because of that it has a huge amount of data that it is creating compared to most games. So in short, it would be nice, but it is not a practical request

Wish all you want, but considering the campaigns and scenarios are donated by users to the company to begin with. There really is no way to expect updated tweaks to the scenarios. The good news is, you can go in and modify any original scenario all you want and fix them to your heart's content. The campaigns, now that is a problem, it can be done, but it is not a task done without tons of effort and time. Thus the reason it is not going to likely happen. But your best bet is to find out who designed the campaign originally and beg them to put a updated version out. But most doing that stuff have moved on and are focused on new stuff, so they generally do not have the time to go back on the old ones. But a few have been updated at some point. Look in the download area

THESE TYPE OF QUATES MEAN JACK. How many enemy soldiers were shooting at him, how many rounds used before a hit When you do some testing and show some actual numbers as to how quickly one of these guys get killed to how much fire is used, then maybe there is something to talk about. ( with enough runs of the test to show some realistic averages) Because I can promise you, your statement does not reflect what the game is actually doing. Not on the average anyway.

Well, I can confirm Doug is a Good player. And maybe he claims he does not like scenarios. But I recall him doing extremely well in a Tournament I hosted where it was based on scenarios. (like he won it) So a little too modest with that reply. I will donate some of my service time to him. (but it requires he post a AAR of your battle with Bil)

Where I lived 10 years ago, there was a unit close by that had these. We would see them in almost every parade. I thought they were interesting but really have no clue as to how effective they are. I really lost interest with modern stuff once I was out of the marine corp. It has only been since this game has come out that I have invested any time to get back into understanding what all equipment is out there and what it is capable of.