sburke

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

rotflmao! Really sad thing is I can totally relate. In one of my current PBEMs I have been pushing through some punishing artillery fire and have finally gotten a clear view past my opponents initial defense line. A couple of his guys are relocating to a better position (or are just running away) and my GIs were able to hit one on his way out. That one casualty gave me so much gratification and my opponent probably didn't even flinch over it.

Von Kleist and I have launched into this monster with me on the American side for the first time. I am not reading any of the rest of the thread to avoid the spoilers, but I have to say. Nice Map! Looks like it is gonna be a b**ch to assault. I will try to compile an AAR for review, but some initial comments. My starting units are mostly locked into place, that isn't bad I don't mind a planned jump off point and Von Kleist and I can always edit the initial placement if we want to explore alternatives. What is a bit more difficult, but also appreciated is despite the briefing I am not exactly sure where the follow in forces will enter the map. What this creates for me on this initial play through is the feeling of a company commander who didn't get enough time for a full briefing. So I am pushing a probe forward but not sure if I will be fighting with my own company or as the lead in a full battalion assault. I have to say, I actually like it. FOW on my own side, how cool is that?! The map is big enough that this could have severe implications. I could push forward and be hanging out on a limb when I find the next company to join the assault is too far away on my left to give support. My opponent also has to keep that in mind as he can't commit too much force to counterattack and leave himself exposed on the other side. Last item - All other scenarios I have played have been about 60-70 turns. Resupply hasn't been much of an issue. With 3 hours and a big map, I think my opponent and I are going to find keeping ammo resupply up is going to be a bit more important. Thanks for all the effort, 15 minutes in and we are both really absorbed. Hard to believe one scenario is going to generate more play time than a lot of games I have passed through.

I am actually finding the recon phase to be getting more and more interesting the more I play. Both my opponents are very patient and spend quite a bit of time trying to collect information prior to attacking. I am both learning how to conduct recon from their game play as well as how to try and counter it. Not sure what tactics various people are doing, but you don't have to concede your opponent the advantage in spotting simply because they are on the defense. Concealed approaches through cover and use of smoke can allow you to get closer before they have spotting opportunities on you. Judicious use of mortars and MGs can force some movement to enhance your spotting opportunites and at a minimum may force them to cower reducing their spotting capabilities. The game has a LOT of tools, your success is largely in learning how to integrate and use them. The tension of seeing who can win the recon battle has become for me a much more intense cat and mouse game than the battle once it is joined. I would certainly not characterize it as easy, but I seem to learn something new every game I play and can't wait for an opportunity to employ it. The other thing that can make a huge difference is the map itself and the environmental conditions. Just keep in mind trying to sneak up in and of itself isn't gonna cut it. You need to also disrupt your opponents plans and focus.

Lest I forget - Bois de Baugin!!! Excellent map. good balance, differing objectives. A good time was had by all.

You got it. ;P

Almost makes you feel like a Norse god eh?

It's a reference back to this thread - http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=100383&page=3

That is where we intend to have our soiree to observe the panzers on maneuvers. Oh my, did you not get your invitation? I must really have a word with the help.

He's just kicking himself for not having gone with Combat Mission Farmville.

Nope, will try that this evening. Thanks

The guy yelling son of a b**ch in mord's voice mod. Caught me by surprise my first game playing the americans under artillery fire. I had to replay the turn I was laughing too hard.