Lurker765

I, too, have problems with protection in foxholes and trenches. If I place a trench near bocage my men will crawl out of the trench and over to the bocage. Does this mean that bocage is better than a trench for cover? The trench (or foxhole) is placed as close as I can get it to the bocage, but it appears to be in an adjacent action spot. I also have many of my men will lay in between the empty foxholes rather than climb in one. I tried using the 'face' command in every direction and some men will then get in the foxhole while others will climb out and lay behind a foxhole. Does that provide them any cover since the foxhole is raised out of the mesh? I have men with normal morale and a leader in the trench with them that leave the trench during an artillery strike to huddle under a tree. Do trees actually provide more cover from arty fire than a trench in the open? That doesn't seem right. I have had four men in a trench together all die from a single arty shell that hit 25-30m away. Is this normal?

Did you watch the video?

Pathfinding issues have been around this forum for a long, long time. The "accept the game limitations" advice is a good one. BFC is doing what they can to fix things, but they are a small shop with limited resources and lots of priorities. Either you can accept the game and learn to play it or you don't and find something else fun to do with your time IMHO. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=73223

I think this is my final post on this since I honestly don't particularly care and the derailing that this thread took was painful. But, if the argument was about Killroy naming one software product that was still receiving patches 6-8 years after it's release and if Killroy could indeed name one that was a computer game then Steve would print out this thread and eat it....then, yes, I believe Steve lost the argument. He pointed out that StarCraft just received a patch more than ten years past its release. He also mentioned Steel Panthers which prompted Moon to agree that he had 'won'. He also mentioned HPS issuing patches to remove the CD checks for their games, etc Plus idsoftware releases all the source code for their games after five years which is even better than a patch. And when Steve mentioned any software company releasing free patches for a 6-8 year old product I would imagine that Microsoft XP would also qualify since it was released back in 2001. Same for Internet explorer 7 which is still receiving free patches. So, yes, I do believe that Steve was incorrect in his statement and that Killroy was right. When Steve tried changing the subject to say that this is unusual he was correct, but that was not the argument that Killroy was running into the ground.

Steve, I did double check his posts and didn't really see much outside of his going ballistic in this particular thread (at least nothing that stands out from the norm for an internet forum IMHO). I mean, how much damage can Killroy have done if he has 19 total posts with six of them in this thread and the others mostly complaining about Vista since his account started in April of 2008? Maybe I looked at the wrong KellysHeroes (there are three of them with slightly different spellings), but the one I looked at didn't seem combative and the other two haven't posted in years. The only Kellysheroes that has posted lately has only one post since March and that is in the TOW2 forum. Not that my opinion matters -- it is your forum and you can do what you want. It just strikes me that you got mad about losing this debate and banned him in a fit. Not a good impression. BTW, I have two accounts. My original one is 'gravburg' with my last post from 2007 (two that year and before that one from 2003). I forgot the password and just set up a new one when I started posting again a couple years ago. I have no idea how to remove that old account, but if you care you can delete it. Anyway, thanks for upgrading CMx1. It is appreciated.

Steve, Thanks to BFC and Phillip Culliton for getting a patch out to make the CMx1 games compatible with the latest Microsoft OSs. I have one friend who I introduced to CMx1 who will be a very happy camper since he can now play on his laptop rather than in the basement on an old machine. I don't mind the $5 fee for the work as long as the new sales of CMx1 go out with the patch for free (which it sounds like you are doing). People bought the game before that knowing what they were getting and if they are still playing it have obviously gotten their money's worth from it and a small maintenance fee doesn't seem onerous IMHO. I'm not so happy about the banning you just did. It is your forum of course, but from what I see of killroy/ kellysheroes posts going back years he didn't seem too abusive until perhaps just lately. And this particular scrimmage seems like you started it with the statement: He got obnoxious, but he did point out several cases and you threw down the 'name one' gauntlet first and wouldn't admit the fact that he met your challenge. Your counterpoints seem a bit hollow since you are still making money on CMx1, tried to change the argument to naming more games than he can, etc. Plus large game companies like idSoftware do things like release their games as open source five years after release which is even better than a patch since the community can then improve them even more. Quake even got a ten year special release of stuff from Romero. Anyway, thanks to Phillip (and you) for making it possible for people to enjoy these classic games on systems sold to most people nowadays.

I honestly have no idea if the reviewer was pining for WWII or just missed the quick battles, multiple nationalities available, random map generator, etc. I also have no idea if the reviewer wanted a WWII setting or China, Russian or Iranian opposing forces. This is why I didn't like the review very much -- it wasn't very detailed. It was better than his "review" of CMSF (the original release). If he did want Iranian hardware I don't think you can just mod the Syrian stuff. Iran fields tons of different equipment including old school stuff like the Chieftan as well as new in house tanks like the Zulfiqar.

What makes you think he wants it to be WWII? I didn't see in the incredibly short review where he mentioned WWII at all? Perhaps he would have preferred a Fulda gap or US vs China or Iran or etc setting that isn't quite as lopsided and asymmetrical? Did it say WWII on the review somewhere and I missed it? I didn't like the review due to how short it was and it didn't really seem to cover many aspects of the game due to the brevity, much less facts that were wrong (12 months since release of CMSF is incorrect, right click orders menu, etc).

Oh, and on the comment of people not complaining about command delays being gone. I think there have been many, many items much higher on my complaint list throughout the history of CMSF. That I was whining about those rather than command delays just means that CMSF is in much better shape now than it was in July of 2007. When ATGM missiles were going through the ground and then hitting my tank and destroying it I wasn't complaining about command delays. Now that those issues are in the past, command delays have bubbled to the surface of my brain. That is a good thing for BFC and shows the dedication you have to fixing the problems in the game.

Even when I play RT I micro manage. I find it hard to believe that when an enemy ATGM fires upon your M1 and you had no clue where it was until that shot people don't hit pause and scout around for it and then bring everything to bear upon it. It seems foreign to me after playing so many games of CMx1 that you wouldn't drop whatever you were doing and order everyone to knock that thing out (unless they were already preoccuppied with something even more important) before it takes out your tank. That means hitting pause and seeing who can either target the enemy directly or area fire. Maybe I'm just a natural micromanager no matter what? It is just bizarre to me that someone would not hit the pause button in these type of situations and then cycle through their units trying to find someone to bring pain to that ATGM crew before it knocks out your tank. And on your quote: I don't understand this statement. There is no 'natural command delay'. There is me choosing not to go over to that unit and give it new orders. I can if I wish, but if it isn't relevant then I don't do that. If I do choose to give that unit new orders at that very second it will then carry out those orders immediately. These are two completely different topics so I don't understand this comment. I also didn't say that RT players micromanage more than WEGOers. I would imagine that people used to Age of Empires will not be as detail oriented as someone used to TacOps. If you take a micromanager (me for instance) from WeGo to RT then it just means I have the opportunity to micromanage even more. If you take a RT player and plop him into WEGO then he will probably give orders to his units like a normal WEGOer and give lots of orders since they have to last for the next 60 seconds. WEGO players don't want their units sitting around for half a turn without orders. RT players never have that problem since they can bop over there and issue new orders willy-nilly. By definition RT has more possibilities for abuse of cramming a bazillion orders -- that is a fact. Whether people choose to do so depends on the individual and what is at stake. I would imagine that the competitive ladder players are pausing as often as they can in RT if they had the option. Less competitive situations mean less pauses. Playing against the AI rather than a player is (for me) less competitive and things slide more in the game and require less detailed ordering. I guess this all boils down to style of play. Way back in the old days when I played against the CMBO AI I got through a turn twice as fast as I do when I play a human nowadays. I have to be more careful and think things through since a human's traps and ambushes are much harder to extricate out of and survive.

Actually...no one in that thread with military experience said that. The only people who chimed into the discussion with military experience said that they do indeed train for going through windows, over walls, etc. You mentioned that you had discussions elsewhere with guys in Iraq, but all the people who posted in that thread with first hand experiences said they do train to do these things. You then countered their posts by saying that training would not be used in real life actions. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84640 That thread is very interesting. Lots of talk about FOW trenches, windows, hiding muzzle flashes that are out of LOS, burning buildings, syrian units unable to split, etc. Anyway, if I get foxholes that are subject to FOW and can actually protect their inhabitants better than shell scrapes I will be happy. I would be happier with FOW trenches, but that particular item is not a make/break feature for me in a tactical wargame like FOW foxholes are.

I don't think this actually proves anything. It proves that WEGOers stacked a lot of commands to execute at the same second since they have no choice in the matter. When playing WEGO you have no choice about what second you can issue orders since they all occur at the same second at the beginning of the turn. In real time mode you can give a slew of commands to some units on second 1, unpause, zoom over to a bunch of units, pause and give commands, etc. All in all, you get the same number of commands issued over a 60 second period but they aren't all slamming the CPU at the exact same second and the load is more spread out rather than uneven lumps. The expensive point of calculating things is spread out and less noticeable impact occurs due to the player pausing the game every few seconds. Having a consistent load leads to better frame rates as opposed to having uneven distributions since the low CPU times don't get you as much benefit as the high CPU times does harm to the playing experience. I don't think that I micromanage differently whether I am playing WEGO or RT. I micromanage in different aspects of time which greatly impacts the stacking of orders and computations necessary.

Doesn't this go counter to the experience of CMSF? CMSF started off with no pauses in real time in elite mode and enough people complained that this restriction was entirely removed from the game (not even just put into a new mode, but completely removed). From what I can tell the vast majority of people playing real time pause the game and issue orders during at least some of the turns and often pause the game quite often when the action picks up. If it is counter to why they are playing real time to begin with then why was the only mode that didn't allow pauses completely removed from the game? I can somewhat understand your argument against command delays in real time if you can't pause. If you can pause then it seems your argument is much, much weaker than command delays in WEGO since this 'abuse' occurs even more often. Anyway, this is not a big deal to me since I can choose not to play in RT if it bugs me and if I feel that command delays are an important component of reducing the overall 'god' powers of being the commander of every single unit.

Since most windows in Normandy do NOT have bars does this mean that you will be looking at changing this behavior? Some houses/businesses in my neighborhood have bars on their windows. Every single one of them that does also has a security door for each doorway. The windows are far, far easier to remove than breaking in the security door. I have not tried breaking into houses in Iraq, but I would imagine that if you bar the windows there you also have a door that you can't just easily kick in (security doors cannot be kicked in since they are specifically designed to only be opened outwards) since the whole point of it is to make it difficult to break into the building. I actually think this argument sort of proves RSColonel's point, but then again I was on his side in this particular debate long ago so I am biased. Also, the argument about FOW trenches seems to prove his point as well IMHO. The scenario designer can always point out where trenches are located via the briefing or (in CMx1 at least) put labels over the spots. Thus, they can be shown to the attacker in this manner. On the other hand if you cannot hide them, then there is no way to overcome this problem.

I'm not sure the honor system is a solution. Many times the ATG will break contact due to dust kicking up in front of the gun or the soldiers crouching down in their position. If you do not keep hammering that position they will just stick their heads up and shoot at you when the shelling stops and your vehicles look at a different target. It is "honorable" to use area fire and blast a position with HE until you are sure that no one there has any interest in sending a package your way.

How is there more variability with realtime? I notice an ATG fire and pause the game immediately. I then issue every unit to area fire the ATG location. Is this much different than in WEGO the ATG fires and I cannot do anything about it until the end of the WEGO turn. If the tacAI notices it then it fires at the ATG. At the end of the turn I then issue every unit to area fire the ATG location. It seems to me that the real time option makes this spotting even more of a problem over WEGO. Am I missing something?

I'm not so sure about the real time having natural forces at work to replace Command Delays. Can't you just pause every two seconds and issue new commands to everyone which makes it even worse than WEGO where you must wait longer to issue new orders? It seems like the commander in real time has even more micromanagement and reaction than a WEGO commander does.

You forget the real time aspect. Upon spotting an ATG the player pauses the game, has everyone area target the ATG gun location until it is destroyed. In CMx1 most players would area target the foxhole where the ATG was to prevent the contact from disappearing when the ATG was suppressed and heads down. Same thing will apply here. Steve -- any idea if the foxholes in CMN will provide better protection than the current shell scrapes?

thanks Steve. Will the new foxholes provide more protection than the current shell scrapes?

I could live with trenches having no FOW. But many of my defensive plans and fun in the game comes from placing good ambushes, which involves hidden foxholes. I would really like foxholes to be true defensive positions rather than a shell scrape. The defender is usually outnumbered and without some true cover from return fire the ambush will be broken by sheer volume of fire from the ambushees.

But then they provide little protection if they are so shallow. Many bullet or artillery trajectories will kill the soldier in the shell scrape. A soldier in a real foxhole gets decent protection and changes the entire dynamic of kicking someone out of a prepared position. You can't just throw more bullets at someone with their head down in a foxhole and kill them. More bullets just impact the dirt -- but in a shell scrape more bullets will eventually hit and kill the occupant since they are so shallow.

thanks for the detailed reply

Thanks for the quick reply. I'm not sure if I understand correctly. Are soldiers in CMSF treated as being under the ground when in the foxhole/shell scrape? Does the ballistic path of the bullet get modified somehow to give them further protection or is what I see exactly the protection level they get from the dirt around where they are laying? They appear to be on top of the ground in a shallow depression, not dug into a deep hole that covers the entire lower body. If I can't tell if they are in without a different color it doesn't seem like it is a deep enough hole. Will these type of foxholes/shell scrapes be the same kind as we see in the Normandy release? Thanks

Steve, While you are in this thread. I think my questions might have been trampled under the other ones.. Are soldiers in shell scrapes treated as being underneath the ground? Will fallback foxholes be supported in Normandy? And can they be placed by the defender during setup? When you say 'foxholes' in your replies that they are already in the game, do you mean these shell scrapes? I haven't seen any foxholes where the occupants body is protected from fire on all sides -- am I missing something or is the term foxhole vs shell scrape my problem? My idea of a foxhole is akin to the image posted earlier in this thread -- a lot different than the shell scrapes I see in the game.

From what I know the only real abstraction in the ballistic tracking system is that friendly small arms fire will not harm your own soldiers. But, once again, I am curious what the true answer is. I sometimes get confused on what is true 1-1 representation and what is abstracted in CMSF and it would be nice to know. My experience with shell scrapes seemed to indicate they were more along the 'ranger graves' than foxholes, but I could have just been getting unlucky. Steve? Are soldiers in shell scrapes treated as being underneath the ground?