sburke

NP, you got my two cents (worth probably considerably less) that getting hit at 200 meters is a heck of a lot different than siffo998's test at 1000 meters and it isn't making you rethink it. Anybody else want to throw in a hopefully more valuable two cents?

I'll leave it to BFC to respond about "hit points". That is a technical discussion about the game engine. However are you saying this couldn't possibly have happened or are you just pissed cause it happened to you? I know I'd be pissed but I'd also accept that this is war and sometimes s**t happens. 200 meters is damn close and I wouldn't drive anything right up against any tank expecting I was invulnerable. There is a reason the tiger has a long range gun.

I have not run into any issues with a vehicle moving through a breach, but one thing does come to mind from the map discussion. If someone puts a hedgerow on a heavy forest tile, the breach will have no impact on allowing a tank to move through it. The forest tile will continue to prohibit that movement IIRC.

I will only accept that statement because we do not have the second Normandy module (how's that for dodging the name connotations debate). If it weren't for that I would call you blasphemer.

LOL you will get roasted on the forum. Looking forward to that one though. I recall a monster CMx1 campaign for CMAK that featured the drive from the beach inland to Capriquet.

If I ever get this Huertgen map done and a campaign built off it, I expect folks are really gonna be put off by a campaign where you win by not getting slaughtered.

Easily? I am betting that isn't a word the programmers would use.

Hey GaJ, just downlaoded and set up. Have passed along info to one opponent. The other is taking a short break, but I will pass along when they return. I have a question for you though. My game with Broadsword had hit a point where we were unable to continue. I had already run HTHH and it knew we were up to file 075. We have started anew with a cut down version of the map and I have started a new PBEM with the name slightly different (it is ver 2). HTHH however doesn't seem to recognize it, possibly because it thinks it is sequentially out of order. How do I restart the entry or rename the file for the game. The game name in HTHH is not a field I can edit, nor can I delete it to restart. Do I need to deinstall and re run?

More reading - just got an update that my copy of Lions of Carentan is shipping! http://www.amazon.com/LIONS-CARENTAN-Fallschirmjager-Regiment-1943-1945/dp/1612000061 So when is that next module coming out?

My advice- don't let it kill the game for you. Either don't play those scenarios or if they are not in a campaign, edit them. Some designers specifically want to create a particular situation and make you figure it out. Other times it is simply that they are looking at some other aspect and aren't looking at it the same way as you. There are definitely some shortcomings in what you can do. Some times it is premised around the actual combat the game is intended to simulate and the actions you desire simply were not actual practrice on a scale that they feel needs to be addressed. Other times it is simply that the engine doesn't yet have the capability to reflect the desired behavior. Either way, it just isn't there right now and what is left is for you to figure out how to eliminate this as an issue for your enjoyment of the product. You bought it, it's yours to do with as you will. If you think a scenario is designed in a way you don't like- edit it. There is nothing wrong with doing so. As an example the short hedgerow issue - don't get caught up in whether or not they should be able to get over a short hedgerow. The game just doesn't allow it - period. So go edit the map and replace a few of those short hedgerows with regular hedges. There has been a lot of discussion about map creation and trying to develop maps that are closer to real world. The debate about hedgerow conditions is an onging one in this forum as is map design. There is no final answer, Normandy is real life- conditions varied greatly all over the place. Sometimes hedgerows were heavy duty obstacles. Other times maybe not so much due to a lot of possible considerations. Either way, decide for yourself what you think it should be, fix it and go back to enjoying the game. The only caveat being, if you do edit it and go to play PBEM, make sure you discuss with your opponent what you changed.

LOL yeah I know. I wasn't looking to get an "official" response. I honestly think there isn't a set answer as the range of systems out there makes any attempt to do so pointless. I am more curious to see if in the limited time we have had to actually learn and experience where the boundaries might be if folks have some idea. I have no problems putting in the effort to make a large map, just wondering when it comes to slicing and dicing it for individual scenarios what scale we need to be thinking about.

There is an alternative, you could simply lower the troop quality of the AI mortar units if you really want them to be less effective. Basically not much different than what in other games would be lowering the difficulty level. However if you are gonna play human opponents, unless you both agree you want to dumb down your mortar guys it is better to figure out tactically how you are gonna beat them. And actually they do listen. However they are not going to tweak it to make it less difficult at the expense of realism. You can do that yourself by weighting the experience levels of your troops. Issues that really aren't realistic and they will and are adjusting as they figure out ways to do so. Don't assume because they don't immediately adjust something to mean it isn't being reviewed. They need to know any change they make achieves the desired affect, doesn't cause another problem and doesn't completely wipe out the AI. Patience is a good thing, the end result will usually reflect on the time spent in making sure the product is made better.

Assuming Yankee Dog has it correct, which I believe he does (or if not he's pretty darn close) how about adding that to the CMBN FAQ? It is a well put together description of the complexity of LOS as well as the difference between LOS and LOF.

yeah one good argument for splitting up your squads. Would be nice if there was some type of formation order, line, column etc that would then allow skirmish lines etc. Not sure if it is possible, but would be cool.

Or Steve could make him create a similar video for CMBN as the price of staying

Am reading Normandiefront right now. Am still on the portion on D Day itself. Apparently at one point some ost front troops at Omaha revolted against the germans in their bunker and refused to have the position fire. A team leader tried to call the bunker after hearing about it and they wouldn't answer so he went and fragged the bunker himself, then was killed while returning to his position. And to think I joked about fragging a bunker that was exhibiting bug issues recently...hmmmm

LOL I think we have all been on the receiving end of this nasty little units. As far as I understand it historically, yes they are being modelled accurately and yeah that can really suck. As with anything however there is always some kind of way to reply. One option I tried recently with a fair amount of success is displacing frequently. If I had a unit that I was going to release from a covered arc to fire I will give them a pause for maybe 30 seconds and then have them displace, move to another position and either be able to fire from there or just try and set up unnoticed. If a unit had fired on the previous turn I immediately have them displace. Basically the idea is to play whack-a-mole. Don't give the mortars a stationary target. If done well you can even drain your opponents ammo supply while minimizing the impact. You could also set up an ambush. Create a situation where you know they will line that mortar up where you have some ability to retaliate- your own mortar, an assault gun etc. Remember in Wego they have the same disadvantage in issuing orders, If you can manage to get inside the 1 minute Wego limit in developing your tactics you can create some opportunities for yourself.

I realize this subject has come up a few times about what is managable for the game, but have recently had a game suddenly hit some sort of threshold that is not allowing us to continue after 30+ turns. Am hoping to get some clarification of what numbers really drive the computer processing in order to get a better feel for what is a reasonable size map and scenario. Broadsword and I are testing out a map and got to about turn 30 and at this point the game locks up within the next few turns no matter what we do. The game has mostly been a low scale conflict up until now, but at this particular moment a couple platoons are engaged on either side along with a few tanks and AT guns and a lot of smoke. Not a large battle itself by any stretch. I have tried cutting down the map size by a bit to see the impact on file size then compared it to the existing file along with files from another large scenario (Die Ammis Kommen) and a huge scenario (Fire Brigade). I think as was pointed out somewhere on the forum, there is a geometric increase of file size related to map size and that does seem to be true. What I still don't understand is why it ran for 30+ turns and then exhibited issues. What expectation is the processor load when say 2 companies of Infantry are firing upon one another? My PBEM of Die Ammis Kommen has roughly a comparable number of units engaged right now (Comparable to the "Nicole" battle - the actual fighting forces are measured in platoons rather than companies). For a map reference I took the map size divided each side by 8 to get the number of action squares then multiplied to get the total number of action squares per map (hoping I have my math right there). La Nicole is significantly larger in number of action points, but the file size is only double. If there is any conclusion to draw from this it could be that the increase in map size isn't necessarily reflected in the file size increase so much as the number of calculations required based on a larger percentage increase in action sq. Die Ammis Kommen - Map 1040x1520 24,700 action sq file size 11,349k La Nicole - Map 1888x2420 71,390 action sq file size 22,655k La Nicole lite - Map 1808x2256 63,743 action sq file size 18,468k Fire Brigade - Map 3232x3360 169,680 action sq file size 46,992k Though the number of units involved in Die Ammis Kommen is larger than La Nicole and more are due to arrive, the map is significantly smaller and the number of action squares is 1/3. Am currently in a PBEM at about turn 15 or so and it isn't exhibiting any issues. I am assuming that there are a lot of issues involved and it isn't a simple calculation of X number of units x Y number of action squares x Z number of projectile calculations to perform. The game is also calculating LOS to determine who can even fire, concealment factors from smoke and terrain etc. What I guess I am looking for is some proportional expectation. If you have a large number of units, you can only expect to get to maybe a 1x1 map, but you can go to a 4x4 map if you have one M8 vs 1 PSW. Any thoughts from the playtesters? I realize you also have to throw in what rig you are running on, but looking for a best case scenario here and can work down from there.

LOL I'd put my money there. I use them for sure as if I am gonna tell a Jpz to move towards a crest I'd really like to know how far up that hill I should go. For the next 60 seconds I will be stuck with the result.

I am not sure I agree, I actually think this is a very interesting. I doubt there is a way to have variable location arrivals in a scenario, but it would be interesting if you had to take into account issues like that in formualting a plan. One of the reasons I made sure not to follow the thread is I was afraid it might give that information away. Granted I will only have this the first time I play it, but if I only get one shot at it I intend to make the most of it. Thanks, have started trying to catch up doing a narrative of the attack so I can follow my own impressions at various points. So far I think we are both really enjoying it, though I just got my heavy artillery into play so Von Kleist may not feel the same way now LOL.

I'd be wondering if I was starting to suffer from flashbacks looking at that. Throw on a Grateful Dead show, sit back and look at all the "pretty colors"..oooohhh...aaaahhhh.

Excellent, thanks. In the meantime I will keep recommending that my opponents use bunkers...a lot.

+1 ya got that right.

be interesting if the three of you have anything in common on your machines. My opponents and I have exchanged literally hundreds of files and only once have we had an issue with one turn being corrupted.

Well PBEM certainly seems to have some unknown interaction with bunkers. The following scenario if run HTH presents no issues, but if run as a PBEM game it breaks down. Half the bunkers start occupied, half unoccupied. On the first turn I sent teams into the unoccupied bunkers. The occupied bunkers do not have a dismount option, but they do have a move command. Ran the first turn and the teams occupy the bunkers as ordered, the teams already in bunkers do nothing. Turn 2 the teams already in the bunkers have no change, the teams that have just occupied bunkers have a dismount option and are ordered to do so. Turn 3 nobody does anything, no one has a dismount option, the original bunker occupants still have a move option. The others have the usual target, target arc, hide acquire and pause available. In short in PBEM if you intend to have someone in a bunker, don't expect to see them leave. Apparently Hitler's no retreat orders preclude using an exit. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/30964082/bunker%20test.btt