sburke

Mmmm no that's what I call a report of an oddity. A well documented bug report takes a bit more than that, but it is a start. I took that map (assuming that since it did happen there that might be the best place to reproduce the effect) and I grabbed a German recon formation deleting all but about 2 dozen vehicles. I then sent each approx down the line you did Baneman. At first I got nothing. They were all running true. Then I finally had one veer...left. Go figure. So kept going with vehicles futher back in the line and then finally got another to do it BEFORE it even came close to the trees. I think mjkerner may be closer to the mark and that it may be the road that is doing this. Trying to figure out a new map and what I want to test on it, but out of those 2 dozen vehicles, I got at least three doing something unexpected. That tells me whatever it is happens often enough I should be able to create something to reproduce the effect often enough to give BF something to look at. The other thing I want to check is weather conditions and pace some tracked vehicles just to see if it is particular to wheeled vehicles.

Fixed that for ya

I don't really know one way or the other, but I expect it is more a case of the troops making tea whenever they had a moment not that they actually stopped to do that. Sort of like watching a GI light up a smoke when standing around. They didn't stop to smoke, they just lit up as there wasn't much else to do.

Yeah I seem to recall that statement as well. In this particular case the vehicle has actually passed the trees (There are 3 individual trees, it passed the first, traveled between the next two and then just past them decided to do the right hook) before starting it's little side journey. When I first looked at the start point I noticed the building a bit angled towards it's path. I know in building maps with angled streets that the path gets narrowed compared to a straight path and I thought that might be the case but again it seems to have passed that point with no difficulty. There is no terrain showing in the editor to cause the effect. The next few tiles were plain ground. I am going to play around a little tonight and see if I can't recreate this w/o all the extraneous action and if I can I will upload that for BF to look at. It could be there is something we simply can not see that is affecting it, but I don't think it is the trees. It would have started it's maneuvers earlier.

For a minute there that was what I was thinking you'd said.

Lemme take a look. Just trees might not necessarily do it. I want to check the base tiles in the area just out of curiosity. Baneman I pm'd you my email.

Actually what I'd really like is the senario file and the save. The save so I know exactly where to look and the scenario so I can take a peek in the editor. My suspicion is there is something about that tile directly ahead. For some reason it seems it was either impassable or just not something preferential so it decided to drive around it.

I think the hot Italian sun is getting to us all, we are a little more short tempered than usual. It is BF's fault for releasing an Italian front game.

You can't "order" them to do so, just move them to the location and if they are not under fire they will attempt to render buddy aid on their own.

+1 on that, for a guy who hasn't used armor much you certainly made what is typically a very difficult vehicle to use a major thorn in BD's side. Kudos!

whew, man you just gotta love this game watching this kind of action.. I am beginning to think you guys are sitting behind the scenes figuring out how to deliberately get the action to see-saw. ND and Bil's reality TV combat show, don't worry, it's scripted!! Kidding, there is no way you could plan this.

Back to the actual subject. I don't want to provide any spoilers, but so far Pandur I am getting a fairly bloody nose. It is still early, but those damned Amis are making me pay dearly for not reconning better and taking more time to plan my assaults. Very nice. Not having any issues running it yet and the defense is giving me some headaches.

rotflmao excellent, most excellent sir but umm you're on your own, Rosie ain't waitin for me this time

They are gonna look silly running around in their underwear. Oh you meant change the color. Dunno, what were they wearing then? (says the total non grog).

Yeah and then you gotta watch for stuff possibly floating. I am working on some urban configurations to depict fighting for places like Caen or Aachen where there is plenty of destroyed buildings etc. Found if you place flavor objects of junk in a rubbled building you can sometimes end up with rubble junk in mid air. It also doesn't not follow the deformity of craters, but insteat floats at ground level.

There are a ton of things I'd like the AI to do as I am sure BF would as well. They are after all the ones who keep saying most of their audience plays only against the AI. Not being a programmer I have no idea of how much effort it takes to get right (and that "right" portion is the really hard part), but I assume from them not doing it that it is damned hard. I can accept that, the game is a work in progress and I am sure the AI actions will improve over time. As to all the discussion of LOS. We keep saying a team in RL that is told go to that hilltop and gain LOS on objective x would just go do it as if in RL it is just that simple. Go to a spot that is really obvious, gives you good cover AND gives you good observatron. Frankly I am not convinced even in real life it is that simple. Observation maybe, good cover maybe, good LOF maybe, all three....hmmmm that may be harder to manage. As to LOS tools. I think no matter how many BF gives us, the reality is they will actually tell us nowhere near as much as we might hope. Case in point. I have a PBEM right now where a Churchill rolls past a hedge that I have a team behind engaged in a firefight with some Infantry in a nearby building. The team and the tank are in clear LOS of one another...and dang close - how close I will make clear in a minute. The team definitely spots the Churchill no question. They have a PF and they are withing range...and I start counting the seconds of their life expectancy waiting for them to fire the PF or die... and I keep counting. The Churchill meanwhile has engaged another team and doesn't seem to realize the danger. Time runs out and the Churchill opens up taking out 2 of the 4 men who have kept firing non stop at the infantry in the building. Of course one of them is the guy with the PF. I guess the round exploding next to them finally woke them up to the threat as the what remains of the team turns and immobilizes the Churchill with grenades, which proceeds to mow them down in indignant rage. The point of all that is, a LOS tool would have told me the Churchill's AS could be seen from the AS my team was in, but not necessarily every location in the AS. My guess is the PF guy was mashed right up against the hedgerow and actually couldn't see it. It isn't the first time I have had a team that LOS would tell me they can see a tank, but the guy with the AT weapon has his direct LOF blocked. So what is a LOS tool really going to tell me - that it is possible for me to see X location, but it won't necessarily tell me I will definitely be able to nor will it tell me I can actually fire on that location. The suggestion that the guy should move to get a clear LOF has been mentioned, but honestly I don't know how well that would really work - how much overhead would it take for the TAC AI to figure that out and decide, and whether it is smart. Maybe I don't want my guys moving, movement gets spotted and spotted gets dead. Maybe I had better leave them in place able to take the shot if they get it. It is one of those issues where I can see both sides as possible and I have seen the second work often enough.

Holy crap, that is impressive. Whoever they are, my hats off for a truly generous act of kindness.

Dismount the crew and charge

Shame on you, there is no mature audiences label on this site.

may want to try that blue on blue or red on red to get more explicit results.

Yeah including the monastery is one big project and map. The only reason I selected that town was it had been utterly destroyed. I wanted to try out some things I learned from one of Pete's maps and to do it to the extent I was thinking took something that had been pummeled. Cassino seemed ideal simply cause it fit the bill for the state of destruction, and it was fought over extensively. Aachen was another option, but not quite the same scale of destruction and it takes place using CMFI which has better map making tools. ;-)

Dang I'll come out there and fix your PC! LOL I keep looking at that longingly in my saved games.

You can always release the full map separately. If you feel it isn't needed, it would help frame rates to get rid of it. Similar to the discussion on Pandur's scenario. Figure out the functional role and is it really needed. If it is fine, if it isn't it can help the overall experience to remove.

Wait a minute, there's a way to turn it ON???? Wtf?!!

Thanks Erwin, group hug! LOL Seriously I have been a regular contributor to this forum now for about 2 years (despite my join date) and have only been a PBEM player since my first game with Broadsword56 just over a year ago. This space means a lot to me and how does the saying go "don't s**t where you live"? As to the scenario, yeah it is still early but so far it looks pretty good. I expect I will be cursing Pandur soon if my present practice of stumbling into defensive positions continues. Makin and Tunisia are both on my hit list as well. I loaded a new instance of CMBN for Makin just to not have to worry about the mods on my other gaming. Then I also want to try my hand at a Monte Cassino map (the town, not the monastery) based on some map ideas Pete Wenman displayed in his ruins in Shadow of the Hill. Damn there is never enough time.