slysniper

Boy, if this is not a true statement. I find I like playing the AI in only one system and that is the Total war series, maybe that is because of my level of play, but I enjoy what the game does manage to toss at me in challenges at times. Nothing like intelligent play from another person that has a understanding about tactics, CMx1 is the only format at the large tactical level that I enjoy at that.

They appear to move 3 times faster than the normal infantry, in reg. snow. I ran units on flat ground and units down a steep hill to compare. The units coming down the hill did gain a little more ground but not much, about 10 meters in 200. They tired at about the same time. The interesting thing was watching them come down the hill, they would vary speed, but not always faster when steeper but at least sometimes. The level of how tired they are will impact the speed the most, slow no matter what direction when tired. It appears maybe going down the hill might save a little energy but not much, so I am guessing maybe they will tire faster going up hill. Learn to run some test in maps you create, that is the best way to get data that helps you know how units will react.

I have to agree about QB's, but plenty seem to like doing just that, they feel its the farest method to test talent, I guess. Nothing bad about RT either, but I see the older I get the more I like thinking games that test me mentally in concept over how fast can I think, process and respond in non stopping action. Play every game ten times, not a problem for me. PBEM speed, it will take years to play all the scenario's out there, and then nothing stopping me from making my own either. So get that CMx2 to the same level and on I move but for now this seems to be my source of enjoyment for the near future

I must agree, I really enjoy being able to play people from different parts of the word, also the PBEM makes it easy to fit it in on free time. I will be downloading the 1.4 demo to see how the system is coming but I wonder if it can replace the old also. Was my favorite for about 4 years, but these are so much more flexable and easy to work with, I cannot go back to close combat and enjoy it much. Never left it, play all three. Have one PBEM going right now with CMBO. Great comments, hopefully others will input also.

Just wondering who thinks they will be using the CMx1 games for years to come, say yeh and give a reason why. Or do you think you will find a replacement in the near future, CMx2 or maybe something else.

You need to take into account on a battle plan the value of the objectives. You had flags worth 900 points. The question is not weather you win this battle, with what appears to be about 3 to 1 odds, most anyone will win fighting with the Allied side. The question is how cleanly. Leading troops into a blood bath when they should have won without taking so many losses would affect you the same way in real life as the game system did in its score. The first goal of any battle is, to kill more of them than you, having the numbers and using good tactics, this goal is not hard to obtain. Outnumbered defender will use terrian to try and equalize the battlefield to give them a chance to win agaist unfavorable odds. Many Classic examples where the attacker is going to loose many more men than the defender because of the terrian the defender has chosen. when planing attacks in the game look at it this way, the map shows two large flags on that major hill (value 600 points). Can I take them flags without loosing that much equipment and personnel more than the enemy. If its going to cost me 4 tanks and 100 men and all he looses is 3 AT guns and a few mg's then I need to plan my attack on how to kill the enemy without them type of causulties and if I adcheive that. The flag's will likely still be captured. paying 1000 points in losses compared to 200 points in enemy losses to capture 600 points of terrian is not good math. Learn to value what the game objectives are worth compared to game losses. [ September 20, 2007, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: slysniper ]

Thanks Steve, for pulling up your old comments on where your direction with this game was going. Even then it appears you knew how the players and this forum would accept or reject this new work of yours. I do find your approach to your work and with dealing with the forum or consumers interesting. I will give you credit in how you handle yourself at most times and can understand when at times you lash back, which normally you do very skillfully. Really has made me smile a few times. I am patient and hopefully at some point you will make a product that once again will be a must have in my collection. When I go car shopping, I have a choice, maybe a sports car, economy gas saver or maybe a luxury car. I could look at full size trucks or light duty trucks, a van or mini van is also a option. But the designers over the years have learned to provide chooses in concept to fit the needs of the consumer. They could not build one car that will meet all needs or wants. So each type is designed with one focus in mind, not that they do not take concepts from the others. But a certain direction in design is held. Maybe for you, the direction you wanted to focus on is held, then things are good as far as you see them. I just brought this topic up in wondering "Could not breaking it down into certain styles of consumer standards not make for possible more products, less issues to get one system that can do so much and make for finished products that can be brought to a high quality level." You will make your choices on what you feel is right. I on the other hand have the easy part, I wait to see if you offer the sports car that is a must have. I have more hope in you work than any other out there, at least the concepts of what your car one day will be have me planning to own one someday. For now I keep the cars I have running, knowing at some point, something new will take their place. [ September 07, 2007, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: slysniper ]

I figured I get this type of replies. I hope he can tie it all together also and make the qame function well in whichever option you select to play. I just think he needs reminded about what makes a good design, it applies to all aspects of life, not just games. He said long ago he wanted to make a modern combat game. I wanted to see modern combat done also, so I am glad he has tried this area. Steve has always done it his way. A quility that is needed to be able to see a project like this through. I just think his statement reads in it his own thoughts. He tried to do so much with this new game, to push it to a new level, to add so much of what was missing. It shows and its not that it cannot happen, it just did not need to all happen within one game. Defend the game, hope for the best. I just want to see him continue to enjoy making games so I can enjoy his work. Trying to suggest to him how to improve his craft is not a crime from what I understand. You know someday he might just say "forget you all" could you blame him after reading some of the forum.

There is the quote. I am so sick of reading about the issues of CMX2, thinking, was not most of this stuff, sugestions from the users of CMX1. So Steve finially said it, he tried to please you all and in the end he seems to have tried to serve to many masters. Steve take the system to where you think it needs to go. Whatever game you put out next with this new engine, stop trying to make one game that fits all wants. Look at what is being said, many of the problems are fixable.but the majority of the rest of the issues is the game in its present state seems to be too many type of game concepts all rolled into one. Realtime or WeGo, 1 to 1 detail but wanting large scale battles. game controls like cmx1, no like other real time games, or no I will not learn a new one for cmx2, make it so we can program our own controls. The point, one game cannot do it all, no matter how good you are, which you are very good at what you do. The new engine seems to be what you want, focus it to one style of game, then make another to the other style of game. Go crazy, make it for 4 types of play, one for wego, one for real time, one for small level units. one for large scale. Was not that the goal of this new engine. Focus the game to one style and more success will happen. CMx1 was a great success because you had built the base of what the game focus was on, all the add ons and changes was just minor wants, nothing major changed. This game appears to be everyones wants with no focus on how to make a really good game.

Finially, the first thread that makes me want to get a new computer and get going on this newest game from Battlefront

Careful, in one of these threads, Steve from Battlefront has mentioned that on a few new machines they are having problems with the old games running with Vista, I cannot be of anymore help but I remember its out there.

My feelings exactly. the only hope would be for someone to pay to get the rights to the CMx1 programming, then pay to have it updated and completed into a one in all package, knowing that the return in dollars would not happen. In the computer world not enough sells would happen with such a outdated system. But all the grogs here would receive a gift that appears to not likely be found in the near future or maybe future at all.

LOL, back to old post, you should see how many post complain how poor snipers are in the game, these numbers seem high only compared to that. For a man that is a crafted skilled shooter like elite should represent, these numbers do not seem out of line. actually a little low for the close ranges with a non moving target.

No big trick to it, I set up a map with 10 fire lanes, thick woods between them so that only the unit can fire on the unit within that area, but I can run 10 test at a time. if you do not want a unit to run or retreat to help get results, put water around it so movement is stoped. On this test I placed the sharpshooter in woods at the front edge and the tank at the given distance in the open. So each tank received only on shot from one sniper, normally taking 10-15 seconds in the first turn. all shots are at the same distance no varience. When running the game I use hot seat mode, when doing this I also make sure to alternate which side is selected to start the game, I do not want any setting to be a possible impact. I normally run the test enough times until I have decided I see a consistant data result from grouping to grouping of 10 matches, This could be as many as someone feels is needed. The more test, the better the acuracy of the numbers. I normally run a minimum of 4 or 5 games giving my 50 results per situation I am looking at, some others I have seen do much more, but I find their results do not differ much. In this test I was amazed at how consistant the numbers were, each round only varied one hit except at the 400 yard range where I started to see numbers vary more from round to round. What was interesting was the kill percentage climbed to the percentage of hits, not something you expect to see if the game as been programmed to calculate the figure within a certain percentage. [ August 15, 2007, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: slysniper ]

Since it appears that I am getting no takers, I might as well post the numbers and see what can be said about them. At 100 yards 85% chance of a hit, 65% wound, 20% kill, 15% miss At 200 yards 80% chance of a hit, 60% wound, 20% kill, 20% miss At 400 Yards 40% chance of a hit, 25% wound, 15% kill, 60% miss.

Not disagreeing, I know many of my games have the same feel in stats. But I can tell you that my kill ratio in this test varied much more than a few percentage points, thus not a result that can hold this theory to be true.

Hey Bert, you are right, I forgot to mention a elite American sniper, the numbers at that site there are somewhat close but still not the same, his testing methods was a little weak in taking out some variences. But no question as to 500 meters being a waste of time. What I do see from his stats is it appears that the snipers perform differnty from nationality also, whether that is taking into account the weapon they are using or skill level difference is hard to say but it appears to be different. Funny you should reply, Many of your tank commanders have fallen prey to my snipers

I knew someone would say something, I prefer to think of them as snipers even though they are sharpshooters. Now do you have a guess, that is the question

I agree with this in that normally not all crew members are dead, no matter what type of explosion, so are you stating in operations that death is accounted for more correctly or are you stating that how the game derives causualties is always by this method. Can you state if this aspect is true in other causalty rates or is it programing that only affects tank crews. So even though you have pointed out this aspect it still does not factor into every other aspect of the game I do not claim to know anything about the game mechanics, I do know that my question has to do wth the game itself, so of course it is influenced by game coding, thus the point of the question. I also know that the results show that this concept you describe which I agree with in the application you have used. It does not appear to be involved at all in the same way with the number results that I have generated here in this application. Not to say the programming still does not have similar approuches- who knows execpt steve Last, this was for those interested in a simple test of guessing what they think the game performs, not for someone that is looking to flame just because they see what they concider a incorrection on how the game just is not a perfect model of life. Those that would enjoy this type of question might be long gone from the forum, many that are left, make me wonder what type of people they are.

Operations to scenarios I cannot answer, but your second statement is not correct in the least. Even if my numbers add a varience for propability, they will show that you do not know the mechanics of the game, and likely no one does except Steve, even after all these years. So there is a clue for you all, the kill wound ratio is not the same at the three ranges.

Wanted to have a little fun. Without cheating, I want you all to take a guess on game sniper abilities. I remember some discussions on how under-performing they are in the game, lets see what you know? Give the answer in percentage points. For a American Elite Sniper shooting at exposed tank commander at 100 yards, 200 yards, and 400 yards. miss %, wound % and kill %. The three numbers should equal 100% Example: 400 yard, 5% kill, 15% wound, 80% miss. I doubt anyone is close without running test, and running test is cheating. No reward other than to see how close you get, so don't cheat, what would the point be, other than you had more time to waste than me. Let us see who love their snipers in this game and knows the facts. [ August 14, 2007, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: slysniper ]

I know, but it not a clean just open up the game and play the game and the machine does all the work like the modern computer games. The players still need to know all the rules that governs the original game to be good at it, even with all the added helps, its still just that old board game being used on the internet. Of course they will continue making money the way that makes sence, they will sell until someone else comes out with all that and more in a new package, one as I described, one that gives it to you for that $35 to $50 dollars and uses what is available today so that it will be so above VASL that there will be no comparision. At least It be a wishful hope.

BACK TO LT BULLS COMMENTS, I think that the concepts you have thought of are very open minded, Most here would love to see a modern ASL with the latest graphics, all the options of war, A forum with thousand of players waiting to play and a system that does a good job of preventing cheating and manages all the rules and calc's so that you can enjoy the game. Could not a game like this be made quicker, cheaper and more realistic if the AI was forgotten. Yes, the answer is not hard to see, it is staring us in the face. So your comments to say why not try is valid. Would money be made, again ASL proves that a market is there, could this not tap into it and quickly if again the designer would forget about having AI. Of course What is more interesting, as you have mentioned, could this not open the door to more creative designs, other games that no programmer presently dares to dream of because he cannot handle how to get the AI to do all the things he desires to Sim. Put the power back into the hands of the user, Make the games for the most incredible thing on earth, the human mind and see what type of games could be made. I like your points and what you are saying, sorry if i helped side track this for you to much. but its the first interesting thing i have read for many months from this Forum. I hope others will comment also with valid issues of why this could work or the challenges involved with the concept. [ July 18, 2007, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: slysniper ]

But then came close combat to the market, I could find someone on line almost anytime, the games were quick, normally around 30 minutes, there was no rule issues, cheating was minimal, and most everyone seems more interesting when you do not have to deal with them in your own home. The world changed, no longer would AI be more than a poor way to test the game, real players from all parts of the world, different styles, different backrounds, what a breath of fresh air to the interest in my life. Combat mission added to it, placed me into that 3d envirement that the player has always wanted, could still play small quick games, but with the PBEM function, now larger more complex games could be tackled and still not worry about coordinating your time with someone else. The simple aspect of making it open enough so now the adverage user could design new maps and games, that is what made this game the thing that changed the hobby. not because it was playable vs the AI, even though I know the majority of players have played it that way only. I cannot see the future, but I try to understand what I see, my kids long for interactive play against others, the AI is there to learn the game but they allways want to play others. From what I see in them, A great game has nothing to do with AI, it has to do with how much they can control the game, the effects and realism it gives them and how many things it can do so as to not be boring or predictable, that is what determines the shelve life and investment for them. It is this type of person that games will be sold too for the next 20-30 years, might at least try and figure out what is needed to make the next great leap forward, because what the hobby is doing presently will not get it there. [ July 17, 2007, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: slysniper ]

This could be part of the point, to drop the AI, to help push the level of the games in other areas to higher levels and in some way help the developer cut cost and design issues. But it still goes back to how to get them buyers to change their concept of wanting to play others instead of themselves, it is the fact that the designer will not change the approach unless present trends of all these hidden buyers would start to change, where they learn to find the enjoyment of what can now be offered over the internet. I personnally was one of these closet players since back in the late 70's. thousand's of hours of solitare play, not that I did not want to play others. But as many stories already point out. The few players I found were either unemployed, nuts or kids with too much time on their hands. The pool of players were very limited even though I lived in a major city, game companies sponcered events were normally a thousand miles away. When you did find someone that you could get along with, it was still hard, since the games tolk so much time, there was interpreting the rules and points of view, the game enjoyment was lost many times because of this, it was not like playing risk or monopoly with someone, it just beyond a social game type of activity, not saying it cannot be social. So solitare was a way to simple enjoy the game, so I do see clearly why the hobby is like it is.